Judges Gone Wild: The Most Powerful Man in America Strikes Again

And no, dear friends, it is not Barack Husein Obama.

It is Anthony Kennedy, the "swing vote" on the U.S. Supremist Court.

Today, in yet another 5-4 vote, the Great One ordered the sovereign state of California to release 46,000 convicted criminals.

Anthony Kennedy believes there is "overcrowding" in California's jails, and he isn't about to be slowed down by abstract notions like "the United States Constitution" or "judicial restraint."

No, no! Anthony Kennedy is now the Ultimate Lawmaker in the United States -- appointed for life and accountable to no man.

We are no longer a nation of laws, we are a nation of men. Men like Anthony Kennedy.

Anthony Kennedy has no restraints. He is a power unto himself. He does that which is right in his own eyes.

"We the people" lose more and more of the power we are supposed to possess under the Constitution every day at the hands of judges like Anthony Kennedy.

Judges gone wild.

God help us all.

Without Saving Faith, All Moral Virtues Are But SPLENDID SINS

Without saving faith, all moral virtues are but splendid sins!

Unbelief nullifies everything!
It is the dead fly in the ointment!
It is the poison in the pot!

All the moral virtues,
all the benevolence of philanthropy,
all the kindness of unselfish sympathy,
all the talents of genius,
all the bravery of patriotism
--give no title to Divine acceptance, for
"without faith it is impossible to please God." (Heb. 11:6)

C.H. Spurgeon

What Lies Ahead: "Christianity Loves a Crumbling Empire"

This article by the Internet Monk is worth reading completely. I think it is mostly on-target. The evan-jelly-fish church in America is quite possibly in for a serious and rude awakening.

What is the answer? A return to solid, Biblical theology. In a word, think Biblically and act accordingly:

We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.

Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the "Protestant" 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.

This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.

Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I'm convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close.

Why is this going to happen?

1. Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake. Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.

The evangelical investment in moral, social, and political issues has depleted our resources and exposed our weaknesses. Being against gay marriage and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can't articulate the Gospel with any coherence. We fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith.

2. We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. Ironically, the billions of dollars we've spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it. Our young people have deep beliefs about the culture war, but do not know why they should obey scripture, the essentials of theology, or the experience of spiritual discipline and community. Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures.

3. There are three kinds of evangelical churches today: consumer-driven megachurches, dying churches, and new churches whose future is fragile. Denominations will shrink, even vanish, while fewer and fewer evangelical churches will survive and thrive.

4. Despite some very successful developments in the past 25 years, Christian education has not produced a product that can withstand the rising tide of secularism. Evangelicalism has used its educational system primarily to staff its own needs and talk to itself.

5. The confrontation between cultural secularism and the faith at the core of evangelical efforts to "do good" is rapidly approaching. We will soon see that the good Evangelicals want to do will be viewed as bad by so many, and much of that work will not be done. Look for ministries to take on a less and less distinctively Christian face in order to survive.

6. Even in areas where Evangelicals imagine themselves strong (like the Bible Belt), we will find a great inability to pass on to our children a vital evangelical confidence in the Bible and the importance of the faith.

7. The money will dry up.

What will be left?

•Expect evangelicalism to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success. Emphasis will shift from doctrine to relevance, motivation, and personal success – resulting in churches further compromised and weakened in their ability to pass on the faith.

•Two of the beneficiaries will be the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions. Evangelicals have been entering these churches in recent decades and that trend will continue, with more efforts aimed at the "conversion" of Evangelicals to the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

•A small band will work hard to rescue the movement from its demise through theological renewal. This is an attractive, innovative, and tireless community with outstanding media, publishing, and leadership development. Nonetheless, I believe the coming evangelical collapse will not result in a second reformation, though it may result in benefits for many churches and the beginnings of new churches.

•The emerging church will largely vanish from the evangelical landscape, becoming part of the small segment of progressive mainline Protestants that remain true to the liberal vision.

•Aggressively evangelistic fundamentalist churches will begin to disappear.

•Charismatic-Pentecostal Christianity will become the majority report in evangelicalism. Can this community withstand heresy, relativism, and confusion? To do so, it must make a priority of biblical authority, responsible leadership, and a reemergence of orthodoxy.

•Evangelicalism needs a "rescue mission" from the world Christian community. It is time for missionaries to come to America from Asia and Africa. Will they come? Will they be able to bring to our culture a more vital form of Christianity?

•Expect a fragmented response to the culture war. Some Evangelicals will work to create their own countercultures, rather than try to change the culture at large. Some will continue to see conservatism and Christianity through one lens and will engage the culture war much as before – a status quo the media will be all too happy to perpetuate. A significant number, however, may give up political engagement for a discipleship of deeper impact.

Is all of this a bad thing?

Evangelicalism doesn't need a bailout. Much of it needs a funeral. But what about what remains?

Is it a good thing that denominations are going to become largely irrelevant? Only if the networks that replace them are able to marshal resources, training, and vision to the mission field and into the planting and equipping of churches.

Is it a good thing that many marginal believers will depart? Possibly, if churches begin and continue the work of renewing serious church membership. We must change the conversation from the maintenance of traditional churches to developing new and culturally appropriate ones.

The ascendency of Charismatic-Pentecostal-influenced worship around the world can be a major positive for the evangelical movement if reformation can reach those churches and if it is joined with the calling, training, and mentoring of leaders. If American churches come under more of the influence of the movement of the Holy Spirit in Africa and Asia, this will be a good thing.

Will the evangelicalizing of Catholic and Orthodox communions be a good development? One can hope for greater unity and appreciation, but the history of these developments seems to be much more about a renewed vigor to "evangelize" Protestantism in the name of unity.

Will the coming collapse get Evangelicals past the pragmatism and shallowness that has brought about the loss of substance and power? Probably not. The purveyors of the evangelical circus will be in fine form, selling their wares as the promised solution to every church's problems. I expect the landscape of megachurch vacuity to be around for a very long time.

Will it shake lose the prosperity Gospel from its parasitical place on the evangelical body of Christ? Evidence from similar periods is not encouraging. American Christians seldom seem to be able to separate their theology from an overall idea of personal affluence and success.

The loss of their political clout may impel many Evangelicals to reconsider the wisdom of trying to create a "godly society." That doesn't mean they'll focus solely on saving souls, but the increasing concern will be how to keep secularism out of church, not stop it altogether. The integrity of the church as a countercultural movement with a message of "empire subversion" will increasingly replace a message of cultural and political entitlement.

Despite all of these challenges, it is impossible not to be hopeful. As one commenter has already said, "Christianity loves a crumbling empire."

We can rejoice that in the ruins, new forms of Christian vitality and ministry will be born. I expect to see a vital and growing house church movement. This cannot help but be good for an evangelicalism that has made buildings, numbers, and paid staff its drugs for half a century.

We need new evangelicalism that learns from the past and listens more carefully to what God says about being His people in the midst of a powerful, idolatrous culture.

I'm not a prophet. My view of evangelicalism is not authoritative or infallible. I am certainly wrong in some of these predictions. But is there anyone who is observing evangelicalism in these times who does not sense that the future of our movement holds many dangers and much potential?

The False Religion of Postmodernism is Literally Killing Us

Our new President, B. Hussein Obama is Exhibit A, as correctly pointed out by Chuck Colson:

The only way to explain it [the president's statement, "There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being"] is to understand the intellectual environment, called postmodernism, in which President Obama and his peers have been raised. Generations of Americans have now been taught that truth is subjective. You have your truth, I have mine. And, even worse, I can’t “inflict” my version of truth on you. The law of non-contradiction has been suspended.

So politicians . . . can take two completely opposing positions at the same time: like believing that no God condones the taking of innocent life and at the same time, condoning—even promoting—the taking of an innocent life.

The problem isn’t simply President Obama and his views on life; the problem is a postmodern culture which believes that truth is merely a matter of opinion, and that therefore the sanctity of innocent human life is simply an expression of one viewpoint among many.

I have argued for the last 20 years that postmodernism would lead to the unraveling of our society. The fact that so few noticed the contradiction in what the President said and the policies he pursues tells me that we’re far along in the unraveling process.

Indeed, postmodernism is not just unraveling our society, it is killing us. Literally.

Who Is Barack Hussein Obama? Joe Farrah Reports

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

– Bob Dylan, "Subterranean Homesick Blues"

That was the line that inspired Bernardine Dohrn, Bill Ayers and Mark Rudd to drop out of society, go underground and launch a bombing and terror campaign against the United States of America.

In 1970, they signed the Weather Underground's "Declaration of a State of War" on the U.S. government and clearly articulated their call for a worldwide communist revolution. The group committed at least 40 bombings between 1969 and 1975. The targets included the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol, the State Department, military bases, police stations and businesses.

Before going underground and just following the mass murders of actress Sharon Tate and others by disciples of Charles Manson, Dohrn had this to say: "Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into a victim's stomach! Wild!" Dohrn went on to suggest her fellow radical, homicidal maniacs adopt a "fork" salute to greet one another.

Dohrn also publicly celebrated the group's maiming of Chicago prosecutor Richard Elrod in the Chicago riots. In 1970, Ayers explained what the Weather Underground was all about: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at."

On March 6, 1970, three members of the Weather Underground were killed when a bomb they were building exploded in a Greenwich Village townhouse. The device was made with dynamite wrapped in roofing nails to maximize casualties. The intended target of that bomb was a dance for non-commissioned officers at the Fort Dix Army base.

Dohrn is believed to be responsible for the bombing of a San Francisco police station in 1970 that killed one officer and injured two others.

After Ayers and Dohrn turned themselves in to authorities in 1980, they were never prosecuted for those crimes. Instead, they pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated battery and bail jumping, receiving probation.

Yet, there is no question they were bombers. In 2001, Ayers told the New York Times, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

I lived through all of this history and remember it well. In fact, in 1979, shortly before Dohrn and Ayers turned themselves in, I actually met them in New York. At the time, they were not using their real names. They were living under the pseudonyms Christine Louise Douglas and Anthony J. Lee.

In 1980, after they turned themselves in, I fully expected to be questioned by the FBI about my association with these dangerous revolutionaries who had broken every imaginable law – from assault to sedition to murder and mayhem. Shockingly, the FBI showed no interest.

I suspect that was because the fix was in. Ayers and Dohrn had powerful support from wealthy people, including Ayers' father, Thomas, the head of Commonwealth Edison. He served on many influential boards including G.D. Searle, Chicago Pacific Corp., Zenith Corp., Northwest Industries, First National Bank of Chicago and the Tribune Company, owner of the Chicago Tribune.

In 1984, Dohrn was hired by the prestigious law firm Sidley Austin by Howard Trienens, a friend of Thomas Ayers. In 1991, Dohrn was hired by Northwestern University in Chicago as an adjunct professor of law. Trienens served on the board of trustees and Thomas Ayers was its chairman. Ayers today serves as a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Why is all this history important?

Because Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn played a critical role in shaping the political career of Barack Hussein Obama.

When Obama first ran for Congress in 2000 – just eight years ago – he was questioned on a local TV news interview about what qualifications he had for the job.

"One of the criticisms that arises in connection with your candidacy is that you haven't been in the (Illinois) Senate very long, the state Senate," the interviewer said. "You have a limited track record in terms of time. What is your argument, based on the one term that you served in the Senate so far, that makes you prepared for the Congress?"

Obama replied: "I would argue, though, that my experience previous to elected office equips me for the job. You know, I have a background as an attorney. I've represented affordable housing organizations to build affordable housing, something that is a major issue in the district. I've chaired major philanthropic efforts in the city, like the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that gave $50 million to prop up school reform efforts throughout the city."

And how did Obama become chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge?

Presumably, he was recruited by Bill Ayers who helped found it and served as co-chairman of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, one of the two operational arms of the CAC.

So who provided Obama with the only executive experience he has ever had in his young life? Bill Ayers, unrepentant domestic terrorist, communist revolutionary, husband of Bernardine Dohrn, untouchable, spoiled rich kid.

Obama has never been forced to explain his association – and his debt – to Ayers and Dohrn. He claims he doesn't know them well. He says they're just some people he knows in his neighborhood.

Yet, he admits the best qualification he had to run for Congress (and lose) in 2000 was his job giving away money for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge – a job he got because he was plugged in to the connections of the two spoiled-brat communist revolutionaries.

By the way, thanks to the revelation by WND Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein that Mark Rudd now serves on "Progressive for Obama" along with other anarchists, communists and assorted socialists, we now know there are at least three leaders of the domestic terrorist group tied to the man who could be the next president.

I no longer expect my colleagues in the press to question Obama about any of this. They've shown they believe it is irrelevant to the question of who will become the next president of the United States. But now you know the truth. Help me spread it far and wide.

Nothing New Under the Sun: Tossing Truth Overboard

“Everything forsooth is true, and nothing is false! Everybody is right, and nobody is wrong! Everybody is likely to be saved, and nobody is to be lost!” The atonement and substitution of Christ, the personality of the Devil, the miraculous element in Scripture, the reality and eternity of future punishment, all these mighty foundation-stones are coolly tossed overboard, like lumber, in order to lighten the ship of Christianity . . . . Stand up for these great verities, and you are called narrow, illiberal, old-fashioned, and a theological fossil! Quote a text, and you are told that all truth is not confined to the pages of an ancient Jewish book . . . . We must charge home into the consciences of these men of broad views, and demand a plain answer to some plain questions. We must ask them to lay their hands on their hearts, and tell us whether their favorite opinions comfort them in the days of sickness, in the hour of death, by the bedside of dying parent, by the grave of beloved wife or child.

--J.C. Ryle

(HT: Defcon)

If You Don't Believe Jesus is the Only Way, You Are Not a Christian

1. Moral relativism is the greatest evil of our day. It leads to massive confusion, despair, suicide, and countless power struggles. It is like a colorless, odorless gas which has escaped into the atmosphere of our culture, which we have breathed in without knowing it. To pick just one example, our legal system has become overrun with power struggles over such things as whether evolution or creation, or both, can be taught in public schools. The ultimate legal “issue behind the issue” in these fierce debates, as every lawyer knows, is who gets to decide. The same can be said for abortion, euthanasia, etc.

2. No one can believe such things as “my ideas [about ultimate issues of faith] are just as good as your ideas,” “no one can tell me what to believe,” “all religious are just different paths to the same god,” and the like, and believe at the same time in the Christ who said: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6) No one can believe in moral relativism and believe that “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12) Many other scriptures could be piled upon these.

3. The organized Christian church should speak out with one voice against this evil, and even call it what it is, a heresy. From time to time through history, the Church has been called upon to draw the lines that distinguish the true Gospel from various false teachings that assail it. This is one such false teaching, yet it has been adopted, albeit perhaps unconsciously, by many who claim to name the name of Christ in our society.

The Church needs to speak clearly and with one voice, and proclaim to all such people: If this is what you truly believe, then whatever else you may be, you are not a Christian.

[The above are some thoughts on Moral Relativism, arising out of reading the chapter in John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion on the doctrine of the Church, and the necessity for the people of God to hear the preaching of the Word as a congregation in order to avoid “lone ranger” Christians who by failing to attend such preaching fall into all kinds of error.]

Has This Guy Been to My Church?

What follows is a quote from an article written by J. Gresham Machen in the Princeton Theological Review:

"It may well be doubted, however, whether the assertion, "I believe that Jesus is God," or the like, on the lips of liberal preachers, is strictly truthful. The liberal preacher attaches indeed a real meaning to the words, and that meaning is very dear to his heart. He really does believe that "Jesus is God." But the trouble is that he attaches to the words a different meaning from that which is attached to them by the simple-minded person to whom he is speaking. He offends, therefore, against the fundamental principle of truthfulness in language...if the audience is composed of old-fashioned Christians, who have never attached anything but the old meaning to the word God (the meaning which appears in the first verse of Genesis), then the language is untruthful. And in the latter case, not all the pious motives in the world will make the utterance right. Christian ethics do not abrogate common honesty; no possible desire of edifying the Church and of avoiding offence can excuse a lie."

This could have been written by Dr. Machen after a visit to my church.

He wrote these words in 1922.