“We, as the American people, should be concerned when any president of the United States launches an illegal and unconstitutional military strike against a foreign government. This is something congress has not authorized, and it’s an escalation of a counterproductive regime-change war in Syria that our country has been waging for years. First for many years through the CIA covertly, and now overtly through President Trump’s reckless military strike last night.” –Tulsi Gabbard, Democrat (HI)
While I am still not so sure that striking Syria at this time was such a good idea, I am sure that the democrat response, and specifically the response of Tulsi Gabbard who seems to represent the views of most democrats on this issue, is one of outright hypocrisy. Despite her relatively attractive external appearance, she is just as dark and intellectually bankrupt on the inside as the rest of the democrat party.
Perhaps you remember one Barack Hussein Obama committing US forces to combat in Libya to support rebels seeking to overthrow the government of Libya. There was no legitimate US interest in overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi, who had kept to himself since nearly being killed by Ronald Reagan in Operation El Dorado Canyon, and in fact had actually been cooperating with us by providing intelligence on terrorist organizations and activities. Yet Barack Obama sided with the rebels seeking to overthrow Gaddafi, violating the War Powers Act by not receiving approval from congress within the required time, or at all. In doing so, Obama fanned the flames of what came to be known as the “Arab Spring,” which ultimately destabilized the ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST, and created what became ISIS.
In Gabbard’s revised history, did she or the democrats say the American people should have been concerned when Barack Obama launched an illegal and unconstitutional military strike against a foreign government? No. No, they did not. In fact, she completely left out Obama’s and the democrats involvement in destabilizing the middle east, and waging a war to overthrow Bashar Assad, who was of no threat to America.
There are a number of reasons why striking Syria right now may not have been the best idea. There is the possibility Russia may have been responsible for the chemical weapon strike instead of Syria. If the Syrians performed the strike, why did they have chemical weapons at all, since Obama supposedly arranged for Russia to take all of Syria’s chemical weapons in a brokered deal following Obama’s multiple “red lines” which he never enforced. Shouldn’t Russia have to answer these questions? Then there is the possibility that we could have accidentally hit the Russians in Syria, leading to war between us and Russia, which we are not prepared for.
So many reasons NOT to strike Syria. But we did strike them, and in doing so have ONCE AGAIN exposed the intellectual dishonesty of the democrat party, and the liberal left in America.
Rep. Gabbard: Syria missile strike ‘illegal and unconstitutional’
Published April 07, 2017
Filed under: International Affairs, National Security, Politics | Tagged: arab spring, Barack Obama, Chemical weapons, democrats, Donald Trump, ISIS, Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, Russia, Syria, Tulsi Gabbard, war powers act | Leave a comment »
Just because you are a Christian doesn’t mean you need to roll over and let someone kill you. You have a right, and a responsibility to defend yourself, your family, and your neighbors.
“To die a victim in the name of martyrdom, when the perpetrator will likely go on to kill more innocent people, is not martyrdom – it is cowardice. A man that does not care for his own family, in particular, is worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5:8) – and calling the police while your family is being assaulted falls short of the biblical responsibilities of manhood.”
Why Some People Need a Good Killing…A Biblical Defense for Self Defense
Just because we’re good people doesn’t mean we won’t kill you – Rick Grimes
Right. So, maybe a Biblical defense for self-defense shouldn’t begin with quotation from the protagonist in a televised Zombie apocalypse set in the dystopian near-future. But, when I heard Rick say that, it was real. There’s no room for pretense when zombies are kicking down the doors to your rickety old barn.
We may not have zombies kicking down our barn doors, but like Rick Grimes, we live in a world where pretense will get you killed. Normalcy bias will get your killed. Pacifism will get you killed. Your pretty little philosophies and pontifications will get you killed. We live in a world of bad guys, albeit they’re not the walking dead. But, they are dangerous. And frankly, it’s time Christian leaders recognize that danger and stop being such metrosexual nancies without a modicum of moral clarity when dogmatizing our followers on the WWJD of martyrdom. In short, Christians leaders need to look less like Reverend Lovejoy and more like the Machine Gun Preacher. What you may not realize while locked away in your pastor’s study is that our world looks more like Rick Grimes’ than Homer Simpson’s. Sometimes, people need a good killing.
What I need you to do, if you’re to stomach the rest of this article, is take any notion you have of a Big Lebowski-looking Christ who rides the clouds on Falcor the Luck Dragon, handing out puppies and skittles out of Santa’s bottomless gift bag and put that image into the dustbin of your mind. Stop tasting the rainbow, put down the Rachel Held Evans book, and gird up your loins like a man. Instead, focus on the actual Christ, the one whose feet were caked with mud and muck and suggested his disciples go out and buy a sword on the night of his crucifixion, knowing they would soon be outlaws and in need of protection (Luke 22:36). Yes, focus on Christ, who is the second person of the Trinity and who transcends in ancient divinity the temporality of his earthly walk, and let us develop a Bible-long systematic theology of martyrology and self-defense.
As much as Jesus Seminar liberals would like to limit the teachings of Christ to his three-year ministry chronicled in the Gospel accounts, the reality for orthodox Christians is that every word of the Bible should be colored in Red. Being Trinitarians, we believe in a Triune God consisting of three Persons making up the Godhead (Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:9, KJV). The Persons of the Trinity, consisting of and being in themselves God, are at perfect unity and harmony together (Isaiah 61:1-2). Each one performs and acts according to the same will (John 6:38). In short, the words of God the Father, who inspired the Sacred Texts through God the Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16), is indeed the will and word of God the Son (John 1:1,14).
What this means is that to understand the teachings of God the Son, without juxtaposing his teaching with the teachings of God the Father, requires a systematic teaching on the subject of martyrology and self-defense throughout the entire canon of Scripture.
While it is true that Jesus told Peter to put away His sword because he must be crucified for the sins of the world (Matthew 26:52), he told them that very night to buy a sword in advance of their coming persecution (Luke 22:36). While Jesus’ exhortation that we turn the cheek from insult (Matthew 5:39) has been taken by pacifists (defined by JD’d dictionary as “those who let others die for their lives and liberties”) to be the locus classicus text for passive non-resistance, a robust theology of persecution reveals that that the thrice-holy God has indeed called his people to self-defense, protection of the innocent through violent means, and promotion of the general welfare through war. There is no logical reason to believe that God’s call to arms throughout Scripture has been abrogated in this current dispensation, for God does not change (Malachi 3:6) and his Word is immutable (Hebrews 6:17). Furthermore, the call to martyrdom that we see repeated throughout the New Testament does not imply that our death for the sake of the cross be a peaceful surrendering of ourselves over to injustice or voluntary death.
A thorough analysis of God’s divine hand guiding the body-politic of ancient Israel reveals an understood right of self-defense. We are to deliver the innocent from those that seek them harm (Proverbs 82:4). While murder is clearly prohibited (Leviticus 24:16-17), the taking of a murderer’s life is not prohibited and neither is it murder (Genesis 9:6). The qualifying distinctions between killing and murder are found in places like Exodus 21, Numbers 35, and Deuteronomy 19. In the commonwealth laws of Israel, delivered by God, one had the right to take the life of one breaking into their home in the night (Exodus 22:2). The general equity of this Old Testament law (to use words from the London Baptist and Westminister Confession) – that is, what is moral, universal and perpetual in nature – is that it is morally acceptable to take the life of one who will harm the innocent.
Even though our enemies are not flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:12), the same is true for the Israelites as they were rebuilding Jerusalem’s walls, when they were instructed to arm themselves for potential conflict (Nehemiah 4:17). The realization of spiritual enemies did not negate the reality that there might be some people in need of a good killing, and God’s people were to be prepared to fight back. When Haman’s plans went awry because of Esther’s obedience, God’s people were instructed to kill those who sought their lives (Esther 9:2-5). When Abraham’s family was in jeopardy, he raised an army and killed their captors (Genesis 14:14-18) and was later blessed by God for that action.
To die a victim in the name of martyrdom, when the perpetrator will likely go on to kill more innocent people, is not martyrdom – it is cowardice. A man that does not care for his own family, in particular, is worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5:8) – and calling the police while your family is being assaulted falls short of the biblical responsibilities of manhood.
David’s hands were taught to operate a lethal weapon by God (Psalm 18:24). The limp-wristed effiminazi Intelligentsia calling for the disarmament of Christians today are a far cry from the man who was after God’s own heart (Acts 13:22). And while we do not trust in our weapons, but in God (Psalm 44:7), this presupposes the ownership of weapons. On any given day, I may carry a number of different lethal weapons, but my trust is in God that they will fire properly, hit their target, or in God’s kind providence, I’ll find their use unnecessary.
Furthermore, we must understand that Christ’s martyrdom is wholly unlike our own. Christ’s death was a sacrifice, and offering it up bought the souls of men. Our life cannot be given in the same manner of Christ (for we neither lay it down nor pick it up of our own accord), and neither does it propitiate for any sins. Although we are, indeed, sheep sent out to wolves, the Good Shepherd never intended and neither does he ask us to provide a pacifistic buffet of mutton for any wolf that would seek to devour us.
That a martyr may resist, does not make him less of a martyr. That a man doesn’t resist when his family is in peril, does make him less of a man.
In light of the shooting at UCC, I call on all Christian leaders to stop the liberal pontificating on how guns caused this problem and call them to consider on why a lack of guns (along with a murderous, depraved heart as the root issue) caused this problem. Christ has called us to love our neighbor (Mark 12:31), and if you are unprepared to defend your neighbor due to dainty sensibilities or the irrational fear of using a firearm, I’d suggest you do not love your neighbors as much as you ought.
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, Christianity, Self Defense | Tagged: Christ, David, Gospel, Israel, manhood, martyr, martyrdom, Old Testament, pacifist, Police, protection, Rick Grimes, self-defense, Trinity, weapons, zombies | Leave a comment »
If you don’t want to own a gun, don’t own a gun. No one should force you to own one. But if you are a law abiding citizen who wants to own a gun, no one should be able to prevent you from doing so. This applies to Christians and non-Christians alike.
The author of this article does a good job of debunking poor theology, and explaining why it is perfectly acceptable for Christians to arm and DEFEND themselves. The gun in the hands of the righteous is NOT a tool of vengeance, but rather a tool of defense.
A Response to John Piper: Why Gun Ownership is Biblical and Good
I named my daughter Piper, after John Piper. I regretted that terribly the moment John Piper invited Rick Warren to speak at the 2011 Desiring God conference, lending him his credibility and, I believe, metaphorically kissing his ring. That was too much for me. Since then, Piper has repeatedly partnered with the Mystichicks, Ann Voskamp, Beth Moore, Christine Caine, and others. With Piper, enough has to be enough. Perhaps it’s the “charismatic” in him, but for all his commendably deep theology, Piper seems to lack virtually any and all discernment.
It seems that the growingly obvious lack of discernment in Piper’s life and ministry is evident in his latest article at Desiring God, Should Christians Be Encourged to Arm Themselves. With that title, you can bet that there would be plenty of Evangelical Intelligentsia nuance within the article. Pulpit & Pen will cut through that for you.
Piper begins his article, Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves, by providing a stark contrast to Liberty University’s Jerry Falwell, Jr, who recently encouraged his students to carry a weapon in case any terrorists came there.
My main concern in the [Liberty University] article is which appeal to students that stirs them up to have a mindset to “Let’s all get guns and teach them a lesson of they come here. The concern is the forging of the disposition in Christians to use lethal force, no as policemen or soldiers, but as ordinary Christians in relation to harmful adversaries.
Piper’s concern is the disposition that ordinary Christian citizens use lethal force against harmful adversaries and not just as policemen or soldiers. This is an odd argument for Piper to make. First, he seems too reluctant to acknowledge himself a pacifist, per se, appealing to civil authority to use necessary force. Certainly, Piper would affirm Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 as the texts giving the civil magistrate the right of the sword for punitive punishment of the wicked. And in 1 Peter 2, Christians are to submit ourselves to “every human ordinance.” Among those human ordinances we are bound to obey in our Christian duty are the concealed carry and firearm laws in our states or local municipalities. If the civil magistrate has given its citizens the
right duty to use firearms for the purpose of self-reliance, then certainly carrying a firearm wouldn’t be sinful. One could more easily argue not having a firearm, in this case, would be sinful. Piper continues,
The issue is not primarily about when and if the Christian may ever use the use of force in self-defense, or the defense of one’s family or friends. There are serious situational ambiguities to answer that question. The issue is about the whole tenor and focus and demeanor and heart-attitude of the Christian life. Does it accord with the New Testament to encourage that attitude that says, “I have the power to kill you in my pocket so don’t mess with me?” My answer is, No.
I’m not sure where these “serious situational ambiguities” lie in relation to defending the lives of our family and friends. In Why Some People Need a Good Killing, I laid out the case from Christian ethics as to why a violent response to unprovoked violence is godly and necessary. It’s really not that complicated. If someone breaks into a home, God’s law states that killing the intruder is justified and necessary, and the defender would be free from legal retribution (Exodus 22:2). Where are these “serious situational ambiguities” regarding the legal use of deadly weapons in the defense of the lives of family and friends? Piper seems to be (A) unwilling to answer the question as to whether we can kill to protect innocent loved ones and (B) deflecting to subjective, feeling-based, tone and “tenor” poppycock rather than providing clear, non-ambiguous answers from the Scriptures.
Next, Piper questions whether the New Testament encourages a particular “attitude” of self-defense. This demonstrates a theological failure in understanding the abiding nature of the general equity within the Old Testament civil code. The foundation for Christian ethics rests in the Old Testament civil code. We apply the “general equity” (what is eternal and moral) of those laws to our own circumstances today. There’s absolutely no indication that the right (and duty) of Biblical self-defense has been abrogated or that somehow men are no longer required to protect their wives and children because you can call 911 and hope for the best.
Piper then presents nine considerations as to why he believes Christians should not have a self-defense mindset:
The Apostle Paul called Christians not to avenge ourselves, but to leave it to the wrath of God, and to instead return good for evil. And, he said to return the sword (the gun) into the hand of governmental rulers to express that wrath in the pursuit of justice in this world.
One wonders what Piper’s malfunction is that he doesn’t understand the difference between self-defense (or keeping your child from being sodomized and your wife kidnapped) and vengeance. Vengeance is expo facto while self-defense is in the moment. No one in their right mind would accuse someone who was stopping a rapist in the act, dead in his tracks, of enacting vengeance. No, he was stopping a crime in progress. That is more than just the job of the magistrate. That’s what anyone who truly loves their neighbor would do. If one would not stop a rape-in-progress using deadly force (if necessary), they do not love their neighbor as their own self.
Piper also overlooks the reality that our emperor (which in our case is the Constitution) has specifically entrusted his citizens with the privilege and duty of the ownership and use of firearms. But of this, Piper writes…
For example, any claim that in a democracy the citizens are the government, and therefore may assume the role of the sword-bearing ruler in Romans 13, is elevating political extrapolation over biblical revelation. When Paul says, “The ruler does not bear the sword in vain” (Romans 13:4), he does not mean that Christians citizens should all carry swords so the enemy doesn’t get any bright ideas.
First, Piper needs to understand that stopping a crime in progress is not bearing the sword in a Romans 13 fashion. Romans 13 deals with trial and penology. The man stopping his wife from being kidnapped and raped by a Muslim man in a gas station restroom (like what happened in North Dakota a few weeks ago) is not “bearing the sword” Romans 13 style. He’s not enacting vengeance. He’s stopping a crime in progress. Throughout this article, Piper repeatedly cites verses that speak against vengeance, misapplying them to his position on self-defense. Any serious Bible student or teacher should know better than this simple but subtle difference-turned-distraction.
2. The Apostle Peter teaches us that as Christians we will often find ourselves in societies where we should expect and accept unjust mistreatment without retaliation.
Piper then cites 1 Peter 2:19, 2:20, 3:19, 4:13, 4:16, 4:19 and so on, all stating in one way or another that we are blessed if we are persecuted, that we should rejoice if we suffer with Christ, and if we suffer according to God’s will we are doing well.
A plethora of verses aside, none – and I’ll write it again for the affect, none – of Piper’s proof-texts disavow the right to self-preservation nor do they abrogate the Bible’s clear teaching on self-defense. What they do, however, is point out that we’re blessed if we’re persecuted. Amen and amen. And I point out in Why Some People Need a Good Killing that being killed for Christ, even if you’re defending yourself, still earns you the honorary title of martyr. At no point does “martyrdom” equate to “surrendered victim.”
If Christian refugees in Syria pick up rocks to fight back at their attackers in a desperate attempt to save their children and are captured and subsequently beheaded, they are still martyrs, thank you very much. And if, for whatever reason, in whatever dystopic future you contrive that allows Christians in this country to be rounded up like Jews in 1939 Germany and the 3% fought back, we would still be Christian martyrs.
3. Jesus taught that violent hostility would come; and the whole tenor of his council was how to handle it with suffering and testimony, not armed defense.
Piper then cites Luke 21:12-19, Matthew 10:28, and Matthew 10:16-20. All of these passages deal with Jesus’ End Time prophecy (unless you’re of a different eschatological persuasion and they’ve already been fulfilled) concerning the state of the world prior to the return of Christ. In short, it’s going to be brutal. Being brought before governors, taken before kings, delivered up by mothers and brothers–rough stuff. So then, Piper’s logic deduces that if we are to “die for Jesus” then we need not carry a weapon or practice self-defense.
Here’s where Piper’s theology fails, and why I implore him to get outside of his academic bubble once in a while. George Zimmerman wasn’t almost killed by thug, Trayvon Martin, because of Jesus. Zimmerman almost died because Martin was using the pavement as a deadly weapon against Zimmerman’s head. It had nothing to do with Jesus. It was senseless violence. When the pastor’s wife, Amanda Blackburn, was raped and died along with her unborn child, it had nothing to do with Jesus. She didn’t give her life for Jesus (perhaps I should say she didn’t give her death for Jesus). Although Piper references Jim Elliot getting stabbed with a spear, George Zimmerman and Amanda Blackburn and 99.99999% of the murder victims in this country aren’t dying for Jesus. They’re dying for the clothes they’re wearing, the money in their pocket, or their flesh to be abused. This render’s Piper’s point completely null and void.
4. Jesus sat the stage for a life of sojourning in this world where we bear witness that this world is not our home, and is not our kingdom, by renouncing the establishment or the advancement of our Christian Cause with the sword.
This is the most absurd and disappointing of any of Piper’s points. Who on earth – WHO, I ASK YOU – is suggesting we advance our Christian cause with the sword? This is a straw man if I’ve ever seen one. I’ve literally never met a Christian, not even a theonomist, who would make the argument that we should be advancing Christianity at gun point. Does Piper not know this? Is he just trying to score cheap points with the HuffPo crowd? Or is Piper so insulated in his little glass bubble in the inner city, and knows so few firearm owners, that he’s somehow under the impression that there are Christians trying to advance the kingdom by force. Seeing this section of Piper’s diatribe is surreal, just on account of how out-of-place it is in reality.
[Editor’s Note: This is Part A in addressing Piper’s errors. Part B will come shortly after Christmas. This post was contributed by JD Hall]
*Update: JD was intending to write Part B to address Piper’s errors. Because of his holiday schedule, he will instead be on the Bible Thumping Wingnut Program to discuss the rest of his concerns, this Christmas evening. You can listen here.
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, Christianity, Self Defense | Tagged: 2nd Amendment, Amanda Blackburn, charismatic, Christian, Christianity, George Zimmerman, Guns, Jerry Falwell Jr, John Piper, self-defense, theology, Trayvon Martin | 1 Comment »
Well, it has been confirmed by an extensive investigation by law enforcement personnel, not simply by someone wearing a tinfoil hat. The “birth certificate,” which is the 3rd or 4th one presented to the public, that Obama says is THE one, is a fake. A phony. A forgery. So, now what?
Will a Trump administration investigate this further? Doubt it. Will congress demand answers? Doubt it. If they ran this to ground and found that Obama was indeed an ineligible and illegitimate president, they would be forced to nullify everything Obama has done, and in the process weaken their own power and privilege. My prediction is that this gets swept under the rug, and gets forever labeled a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. I would like to feel strongly that we would find the TRUTH, but America is no longer a nation of rule of law CONSISTENTLY applied to ALL citizens.
A FREE RIDE.
To all the liberals who promised to leave if Trump was elected, who are the same liberals who threatened to leave if George W. Bush was elected, it’s time that you actually kept your word. Make America Great Again by LEAVING.