Gov. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) and Lt. Gov. Jon Husted (R-Ohio)


SEE: https://pjmedia.com/election/paula-bolyard/2020/09/22/trump-introduced-pro-masking-gop-gov-mike-dewine-at-his-ohio-rally-and-it-did-not-go-well-at-all-n951921;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

President Trump, as is customary at these events, introduced Republican Gov. Mike DeWine at his rally in Dayton, Ohio, on Monday—only to have the audience loudly boo the governor. DeWine had imposed a statewide masking order in July that has been wildly unpopular with the president’s base.

“We’re joined today by a real good friend of mine, somebody that’s been with me from the beginning and I’ve been with him from the beginning, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine,” the president began. “Where’s Mike?” he asked, to a spattering of applause. Trump looked around, seemingly unable to spot DeWine in the crowd—and then the boos began. “What’s that all about?” he quipped, looking a bit confused. “He’s opening up,” Trump said, trying to defend the governor. “He’s a good man.”

At the end of June, DeWine’s approval rating was sky-high, with 77% saying they approved of the governor’s response to the coronavirus pandemic (his support was higher among Democrats than Republicans, it should be noted). But that was before his statewide mask order and before he only reluctantly allowed schools to open—after ordering children as young as age four to wear masks at school. Both moves enraged an awful lot of people, including large swaths of Trump supporters, who believe the crisis has been overblown.

Lt. Gov. Jon Husted fared even worse when he tried to push Trump-themed masks on the crowd at the Dayton rally.

“You go into a grocery store and you have to wear one,” Husted began, before being interrupted by a chorus of boos. “Hang on, hang on, just listen up,” he ordered, to even louder boos. “Alright, alright, I get it,” he conceded. “But if someone tells you to take it off you can at least say that you’re trying to save the country by wearing one of President Trump’s masks, alright?” Husted persisted. (Who is telling people to take their masks off at stores?)

Rallygoers shouted “tyrant” and “not gonna work” as the lieutenant governor explained that masking could be “fun”—yes, that’s the word he used.

While the number of COVID-19 tests and positive cases has increased in the state, the death count had been flat in Ohio before the mask mandate was instituted and has remained so since then, causing many to question why they’re being forced to mask up every time they leave the house—and why DeWine continues to chicken-little the pandemic.

JustTheNews reported last week that “a growing body of research suggests that a significant number of confirmed COVID-19 infections in the U.S. — perhaps as many as 9 out of every 10 — may not be infectious at all, with much of the country’s testing equipment possibly picking up mere fragments of the disease rather than full-blown infections.”

That hasn’t stopped DeWine’s fretting and hand-wringing. “We just can’t seem to get the number of new cases down,” he complained on Thursday. “Really, what you’re seeing is the spread of the virus over the state.”

The strange thing about this whole episode is how everyone seems to have been caught off-guard. Trump seemed unaware of how unpopular DeWine is with his base, and Husted, somehow, thought making light of the forced masking would be well received. Are they relying on that June poll declaring DeWine’s popularity in the state—a poll that only surveyed 1,139 self-identified registered voters and was conducted before DeWine’s draconian masking order went into effect?

If that’s the case, they’re missing the seething rage Trump supporters in Ohio have been directing at DeWine for months on end—rage that boiled over on Monday. It’s rare to see Trump being tone-deaf when it comes to his base, but it appears that’s exactly what happened at the Dayton rally. It’ll be interesting to see if Trump remains aligned with DeWine—and DeWine with Trump—in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.


See the source image


SEE: https://christiannews.net/2020/09/21/pro-life-catholics-on-ginsburg-pray-for-the-repose-of-her-soul-that-god-welcome-her-to-eternal-life/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Pro-life groups expressed their condolences over the weekend following the passing of U.S. Supreme 
Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. One well-known Catholic pro-life leader urged prayers for the 
“repose of her soul”— an unbiblical concept referencing Vatican teaching that those with “venial sins” 
are released to Heaven after undergoing a purging in purgatory, and a Catholic group that is active 
outside abortion facilities advised that they pray for God to “welcome Justice Ginsburg to eternal life.”

“We join Christians across the country in praying that the Lord of Life welcome Justice Ginsburg to eternal life,” wrote 40 Days for Life in a blog post on Friday evening. “And we pray for the comfort and consolation of her family, friends, and all those who grieve her loss.”

“Rest in peace, Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Let’s pray for the repose of her soul and for her family. Let’s continue to pray for our nation,” Lila Rose of Live Action posted to social media.

According to the site Catholic Culture and priest William Saunders, “The offering of masses for the repose of the soul of the faithful departed is linked with our belief in purgatory. We believe that if a person has died fundamentally believing in God but with venial sins and the hurt caused by sin, then God in His divine love and mercy will first purify the soul.”

“After this purification has been completed, the soul will have the holiness and purity needed to share in the beatific vision in Heaven.”

While some expressed appreciation for how the groups handled Ginsburg’s passing with kindness, others sought to note that their remarks simultaneously were not scriptural.

“Jesus is the only way to God, so if she didn’t know Jesus in this life, there will be consequences in eternity. Just speaking biblical truth,” one commenter wrote to Rose. “Resting in peace depends on one’s relationship with Jesus. Prayers for a dead person are useless. Pray for her family to find peace.”

“Here come the Catholics asking for prayers to get RBG out of purgatory so she doesn’t end up in Hell. This is completely unbiblical,” another opined. “Her soul cannot change destination by us praying her out or paying her way out of somewhere imaginary. No second chances. Repent and believe today!”

“Are you serious: Welcome into eternal life???” one commenter asked 40 Days for Life. “Ginsburg’s ruling killed millions of babies. What does your organization stand for? Being Christian is NOT a secret thing and Ginsburg definitely was not. You will know them by their fruit. You were better served not saying anything at all than saying this as far as I am concerned.”

Another simply articulated, “I hope that she made a deathbed confession.”

Is It Biblical?

Photo Credit: James Coleman/Unsplash

Hebrews 9:27 explains that “it is appointed unto men once to die but after this the judgment.”

In John 3:16-18, Jesus taught, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned, but He that believeth not is condemned already, because He hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

GotQuestions.org further outlines in regard to the belief in the “repose of the soul,” “A true Christian — someone who trusts in Christ alone for salvation — already has repose of the soul; he is at peace with God before he gets to Heaven, before the death of the body. Jesus said, ‘Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. … Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid’ (John 14:27). In Romans 5:1 we are promised that, ‘since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.'”

“The Catholic teaching of purgatory and prayer for the dead is not biblical,” it states. “Repose of the soul, the product of saving faith in Christ, is something to be sought on this side of death. Once a person is dead, there is no more that can be done for that soul. Either that deceased person is in eternal judgment or experiencing eternal life with the Lord. Our prayers or actions will not change the situation of a person once he or she dies.”



“We have waged a fierce battle against the invisible enemy — the China virus”


SEE: https://www.infowars.com/video-trump-slams-china-for-having-unleashed-this-plague-onto-the-world/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

In a damning speech to the United Nations Tuesday, President Trump blasted China for covering up the coronavirus outbreak and failing to prevent a global pandemic, adding that the World Health Organisation was complicit.

“As we pursue this bright future, we must hold accountable the nation which unleashed this plague onto the world: China,” Trump said.

“The Chinese government and the World Health Organization, which is virtually controlled by China, falsely declared that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission,” the President added.

“Later they falsely said people without symptoms would not spread the disease,” Trump continued, adding that “The United Nations must hold China accountable for their actions.”


“We have waged a fierce battle against the invisible enemy — the China virus,” Trump asserted.

The President further attacked China more broadly, stating that “Those who attack America’s exceptional environmental record while ignoring China’s rampant pollution are not interested in the environment. They only want to punish America. And I will not stand for it.”

Turning to solutions, Trump promised to distribute a vaccine noting, “We will defeat the virus, and we will end the pandemic and enter a new era of prosperity, cooperation and peace.”

The President also criticised the UN, saying that it needs to concentrate on “the real problems of the world” including “terrorism, the oppression of women, forced labor, drug trafficking, human and sex trafficking, religious persecution, and the ethnic cleansing of religious minorities”.

China’s UN ambassador Zhang Jun later hit back at Trump, declaring “The world is at a crossroads. At this moment, the world needs more solidarity and cooperation, but not confrontation.”

President Xi Jinping, the Chinese leader, claimed that the country has “no intention to fight either a cold war or a hot one with any country”, adding that “Any attempt of politicizing the issue or stigmatization must be rejected.”

Xi advocated a global solution to the pandemic, via the WHO, proclaiming that “We will continue to narrow differences and resolve disputes with others through dialogue and negotiation. We will not seek to develop only ourselves or engage in zero sum game. Unilateralism is dead.”

Xi called for an embracing of globalism, declaring that “COVID-19 reminds us that we are living in an interconnected global village with a common stake.”

“Burying one’s head in the sand like an ostrich in the face of economic globalization, or trying to fight it with Don Quixote’s lance, goes against the trend of history. Let this be clear: the world will never return to isolation,” Xi urged in a blatant advocation of globalism.

The Chinese leader’s words are extremely rich, given that China deliberately seized global supply lines for medical supplies and disgustingly profited by not informing the rest of the globe of the extent of the spread of coronavirus back in January.

A US Foreign Affairs Committee report released this week concluded as much, noting that China covered up the coronavirus pandemic, and failed to follow international health guidelines which would have almost certainly prevented the global pandemic.



Foreign Affairs Committee says China covered it up to seize medical supply chains and profit from its duplicity; WHO was complicit


SEE: https://www.infowars.com/congressional-report-concludes-china-could-easily-have-prevented-pandemic/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A new report from GOP members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee has concluded that China covered up the coronavirus pandemic, and failed to follow international health guidelines which would have likely prevented the global pandemic.

The report, which was released Monday, concludes that “It is highly likely the ongoing pandemic could have been prevented” had China been transparent after the outbreak began in Wuhan.

“It is beyond doubt that the [Chinese Communist Party] actively engaged in a cover-up designed to obfuscate data, hide relevant public health information, and suppress doctors and journalists who attempted to warn the world,” the report notes.

“Research shows the CCP could have reduced the number of cases in China by up to 95 percent had it fulfilled its obligations under international law and responded to the outbreak in a manner consistent with best practices.” it adds.

The 95% figure stems from Research out of the University of Southampton in the UK, which discovered “that if interventions in [China] could have been conducted one week, two weeks, or three weeks earlier, cases could have been reduced by 66 percent, 86 percent and 95 percent respectively – significantly limiting the geographical spread of the disease.”

Infowars reported on these findings back in March as the pandemic took hold.


Gerald Celente breaks down how to stay healthy and strong in the fight against the psychological operation that is the war on coronavirus.

The new Congressional report also highlights that “as early as mid-December [2019], and no later than December 27th, the CCP had enough information to assess it was legally obligated to inform the WHO that the outbreak in Wuhan was an event ‘that may constitute a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.’”

The report also concludes that the World Health Organization (WHO) was also complicit given that it “parroted” Chinese propaganda.

“The WHO has been complicit in the spread and normalization of CCP propaganda and disinformation,” the report states, adding “By repeating as truth statements that were misleading, if not lies, the WHO negatively impacted the global response.”

“From the early stages of the outbreak, the WHO, under Director-General Tedros [Adhanom Ghebreyesus]’ leadership, parroted and upheld as inviolable truth, statements from the CCP,” the report notes, adding “An examination of their public statements, including the praise heaped on the CCP’s handling of the pandemic, reveal a disturbing willingness to ignore science and alternative credible sources.”

As we have repeatedly highlighted, on January 14th, the WHO amplified Chinese government propaganda that there had been no “human to human transmission” of COVID-19, despite this having actually occurred back in November.

Indeed, not only did the WHO help China cover-up the severity of the outbreak, they also silenced medical experts who tried to tell countries to impose border controls back in January but were blocked from doing so.

In April, we reported that multiple sources indicated that coronavirus was leaked from a lab in Wuhan and that the World Health Organization was “complicit” in helping China to cover up the truth behind the outbreak.

The latest GOP report also concludes that when it became clear that the virus was spreading rapidly, China nationalized the production of relevant medical equipment, securing control over global supplies.

“According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), [the] nationalized control of the medical supply chain included ‘commandeer[ing] medical manufacturing and logistics down to the factory level,’” the report states.

“It is highly likely that China’s nationalization of the manufacturing capacity of foreign companies, including 3M and General Motors, directly impacted the ability of the United States and other countries to procure [personal protective equipment] on the global market,” the report adds.

We thoroughly documented and exposed China’s supply hoarding and disgusting profiteering from the virus spread back in April and Early May.







SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/print-magazine/item/36964-kamala-harris-is-not-qualified-to-be-vice-president;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Though Kamala Harris was born in the United States, because neither of her parents were American citizens, she is not qualified to be president under the Constitution.

With Joe Biden’s apparent substantial setbacks in his cognitive capacity and his advanced age, Kamala Harris is in a more-likely-than-usual position to assume the office of president. Yet Kamala Harris is constitutionally ineligible to be president of the United States because she is not a natural born citizen, as required by Article II (and, by reference, the 12th Amendment) of the U.S. Constitution.

While born in the United States — Oakland, California — at the time of her birth, Kamala Harris’ father was a citizen of Jamaica and her mother was a citizen of India. This makes Kamala Harris a native-born American — thus eligible to serve as a U.S. senator — but she is not a natural born citizen, the higher standard set for those occupying the office of president.

The Founders’ standard is important to follow because preventing constitutionally unqualified candidates from usurping power is of critical concern to every American and every man and woman whose life and liberty could be taken by the person with his — or her — finger on the button.

The Constitution does not define natural born citizenship, neither has the Supreme Court or Congress. The term “natural born citizen” comes from the English concept of “natural born subject,” which came from Calvin’s Case, a 1608 decision.

Natural born subjects were those who owed allegiance to the king at birth under the “law of nature.” The court concluded that under natural law, certain people owed duties to the king, and were entitled to his protection, even in the absence of a law passed by Parliament.

Let’s explore the possible sources and appropriate interpretations of the “natural born citizen” qualification.

At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, a person born subject to the British Crown could hold “double allegiance,” a concept similar to “dual citizenship” as understood today.

Our own Founding Fathers, nearly every one of whom was born in some outpost of the British Empire, feared the damage that could come from such divided loyalty. They instituted the “natural born citizen” qualification in order to avoid what Gouverneur Morris described during the Constitutional Convention as “the danger of admitting strangers into our public councils.”

As famed jurist of the early Republic St. George Tucker, a contemporary of Morris, explained:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom.

The very source of the “natural born citizen” standard is known to us today. The Swiss jurist Emer de Vattel defined that term in his seminal book The Law of Nations, published in 1758 and which, according to Benjamin Franklin, “had been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress.” 

Book I, Chapter 19, Section 212 of The Law of Nations reads:

Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. [Emphasis added.]

De Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” and the benefits derived from distinguishing between “natural born citizens” and “citizens” were well known to our Founding Fathers and, in fact, the very name of that high standard was copied verbatim by them into Article II of the U.S. Constitution wherein the qualifications for president of the United States are set out.

To see that such a qualification was universally agreed to by the delegates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, one need only look to the record of that convention and note that the requirement that the president be a “natural born citizen” was mentioned only twice and was agreed to “nem. con.,” a contraction of a Latin legal phrase meaning “without opposition.”

As indicated in early records of the naturalization process, men applying for American citizenship were required to make two renunciations of all fealty to foreign powers before swearing allegiance to the Republic of the United States.

As a matter of fact, the possibility of any legal acceptance of divided allegiance was explicitly rejected in a report issued by the House of Representatives in 1874: “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”

The practical effect of that proclamation is that in order to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States, one would have to be free from a competing claim for allegiance from another nation.

That such a schizophrenic situation was not only anticipated but accepted by His Majesty’s government during the time of the American founding can be inferred from the impressment of American sailors into the service of the Crown. During the War for Independence, British ships would block American ships from sailing, and then the seamen on the British vessels would board the American ships and force the Americans to serve the side of the Empire.

The insistence on the part of the British that anyone born within the realm was a British subject regardless of any voluntary severance thereof and one’s subsequent vow of allegiance to another was a significant factor in the hostilities known as the War of 1812. 

Finally, in this regard, the British required no process of naturalization as such. Simply being born within the dominions of the monarchy of Great Britain was sufficient to endow one with the rights and privileges granted to any British subject. Nothing such a person did later in life (including becoming a citizen of another country) would ever alter his status as a subject.

Obviously, in the United States that concept is not the law now, nor was it the law at the time of the founding. Quite the opposite, in fact.

One of the scholars frequently cited in articles on the subject of the definition of “natural born citizen” is Temple University law professor Peter Spiro.

Spiro often cites the 14th Amendment to the Constitution as further evidence that, although born outside the United States to a foreign father, recent presidential candidates — including Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio — fit the 14th Amendment’s definition of a natural born citizen. 

The relevant clause of the 14th Amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside.”

However, the principal architect of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was Michigan Senator Jacob Merritt Howard, a Republican from Detroit. 

Senator Howard crafted much of the language that was eventually ratified as part of the 14th Amendment.

During the debates that embroiled the Senate in the years following the Civil War, Senator Howard insisted that the qualifying phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be inserted into Section 1 of the 14th Amendment being considered by his colleagues. In the speech with which he proposed the alteration, Howard declared:

This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

How could a person “born in the United States” be simultaneously a citizen and a “foreigner” or “alien” if the mere fact of nativity settled the question of citizenship?

Another legislator commenting at the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Representative John Bingham, provided the following clarification of the meaning behind the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause: “Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Emphasis added.)

While similar questions have been raised regarding the Article II eligibility of Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) who ran for president in 2000 and in 2008, and Mitt Romney, who ran in 2008 and 2012, the case of those two men is distinct from that of Kamala Harris.

Both McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone to an American father serving overseas in the military, and Romney, whose father was born in Mexico to American parents, pass constitutional muster.

However, in the case of Senator Kamala Harris, the principles of constitutional law and interpretation set forth above call into question her eligibility for president. 

There is no reasonable or legal doubt that at the time of her birth (regardless of the location), Harris’ father was not an American citizen — and thus, should she assume the office of the president, the president would be the child of a person with legal allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. She would not conform to the accepted legal, constitutional, and historical definition of “natural born citizen,” and thus Kamala Harris could not serve as vice president.



Alisa Childers, the author of “Another Gospel,” warns that Progressive Christianity is so far removed from biblical Christianity that its followers may not be saved. Alisa explains the similarities between the new age and Progressive Christianity. You can preorder her book and receive bonus gifts, including admission into a private Facebook group by signing up at https://www.alisachilders.com/another... Please watch the American Gospel films. You can learn more about them at http://www.americangospelfilm.com


SEE: https://reformationcharlotte.org/2020/09/21/pope-says-god-loves-gay-children-as-they-are-says-they-are-children-of-god/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Pope Francis is the most progressive face the Roman Catholic Church has ever seen, but the progressive movement isn’t unique to them. In fact, most Protestant denominations, including the Southern Baptist Convention, have taken major strides toward the left in recent years.

Francis, however, has taken the Roman Catholic Church in a near 180-degree turn on homosexuality — probably closer to 175 degrees — and has turned the organization into a pro-gay support group.

According to America Magazine, a prominent Jesuit publication, Francis told a group of parents of sexually-confused homosexual children that God “loves them as they are,” as does the Roman Catholic Church, because “they are children of God.”

According to the report, Francis was speaking to about 40 members of “Tenda di Glonata” (“Jonathan’s Tent”), an Italian group of Christian parents with children who identify as LGBT.

Of course, besides the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has historically held to a corrupt gospel for centuries — hence the reason for the Protestant Reformation — Francis’ move to the left on social issues in recent years is unprecedented, but not surprising.

Earlier this year, the pope sent a donation to a group of transgender prostitutes living in the small town of Torvaianica, Italy, who are out of work amid the coronavirus outbreak. The pope has been increasingly supportive of the sexually aberrant for a number of years, even holding a Mass for gay Catholics and held a mass with a lesbian Anglican activist.



See the source image

SEE: https://reformationcharlotte.org/2020/09/22/veggie-tales-creator-suggests-people-who-want-their-kids-to-go-to-good-schools-are-wicked/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Veggie Tales creator and popular songwriter and speaker, Phil Vischer, has, like most American Evangelicals, been given over to the gospel of woke. The gospel of woke is essentially a remake of the old social gospel heresy — known as Rauschenbuschism — into the modern context of racialism and is exegeted through the lens of Critical Race Theory.

One of the tenets of this false gospel is the Marxist idea of “systemic injustice” and its application in “tearing down” “systems” and “hierarchies” in order that the “disadvantaged” can be put on level playing ground with the “advantaged.” (I apologize for all of the scare quotes, but since all of these notions are rejected in Scripture, they must be added.)

In a recently surfaced video, Vischer is interviewed and discussing this idea with the host. It is abundantly clear that those given to this movement have an extremely flawed and unbiblical idea of what biblical justice is as they have turned it into something completely foreign to the Scriptures. Their idea of justice and righteousness is a form of communal social and economic equity whereas biblical justice is clearly individualistic; an eye for an eye.

This is when Vischer then suggests that by wanting his kids to go to a good school where they can be “advantaged,” then that makes him “wicked” and “unrighteous” for “disadvantaging” the community and not looking out for the “common good.”

“I love my kids, so I want them to be advantaged. Is that different than saying I love myself, so I want myself to be advantaged? Am I disadvantaging my community for the advantage of my own family. Does that put me in the Biblical definition of righteous or wicked?”



Veggie Tales Creator Tries and Fails to Make the Case for Voting for Pro-Abortion Democrats



"Veggie Tales creator, Phil Vischer, has recently unmasked himself as a pro-socialist, anti-conservative defender of Democrats who wants to try to create a moral equivalency between the slaughter of millions of innocent children and alleviating Polio. Vischer, who also recently suggested that white people who want to send their children to good schools are “wicked,” now wants to try to make the case that voting for pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Democrats is an acceptable alternative in the Christian life to voting conservative."



SEE: https://reformationcharlotte.org/2020/09/21/pro-abortion-female-bible-teacher-at-jd-greears-church-praises-ruth-bader-ginsburg/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

You would think that the top leader of the Southern Baptist Convention — the largest Protestant denomination in America that calls itself “conservative” — would hold his own church accountable to the Scriptures on issues that shouldn’t even be debatable — like women teaching in churches and holding to theological positions that are opposed to the revealed will of God.

No. Instead, JD Greear props up a Jezebel named Rebecca Shrader who continues to defy God while representing his church.

Rebecca Shrader refers to herself as a “pro-life feminist, pro-choice Christian” who authored a “statement of lament” for white people to sign denouncing their skin color. Shrader is a small group Bible teacher at Greear’s Summit Church in North Carolina, and proudly boasts it.

Shrader is a very confused person who believes that she is “pro-life” because she chose not to kill her own children. However, Shrader is continually and adamantly clear that she believes every woman should have the “choice” whether or not to end their own children’s lives. She defends Planned Parenthood and does not believe that life begins at conception.

She has also stated that she would join hands with the pro-choice escorts at abortion clinics to protect them from hearing the gospel from pro-life groups.

And she, a “bible teacher,” is apparently clueless as to why Christians believe murder is wrong and should be illegal.

So it should come as no surprise that Shrader, a teacher and member in good standing at the Southern Baptist Convention president’s church, praises one of the most anti-Christ, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy Supreme Court Justices ever to walk the face of this earth, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

People, if you want to know what’s wrong with the Evangelical Church today, look no further than Rebecca Shrader, and particularly, her pastor, JD Greear. That a woman like this is allowed to remain in good standing in a Southern Baptist Church while her pastor says nothing of her wicked behavior while propping her up and supporting her Black Lives Matter statements, speaks volumes of the problems in the Church. No wonder God is angry. Will anyone say anything? No, but you can rest assured that all the Evangelical leaders will complain about social media etiquette.

TRENDING:  Joe Biden Denied Communion at Catholic Church for Pro-Abortion Stance



SEE: https://reformationcharlotte.org/2020/09/18/tim-keller-says-the-bible-says-if-you-have-white-skin-youre-involved-in-injustice/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Tim Keller has become completely useless to the Church and does not represent the Scriptures or minsiter the gospel in any meaningful way. Keller, who is completely given over to the social justice gospel — which the Apostle Paul describes as “another gospel” which is “no gospel at all” — now makes an outrageous claim that the Scriptures say that if you have white skin, you’re involved in injustice, “even if you didn’t do it.”

“If you have white skin, it’s worth $1m over a lifetime,” he says, “you have to say, I don’t deserve this…I am the product of and standing on the shoulders of other people who got that through injustice…the Bible says you are involved in injustice, and even if you didn’t actually do it.”

Let’s just be clear that the Bible does not say this, nor anything even remotely to suggest that this could be derived theologically from the Scriptures. In fact, it is antithetical to the gospel. It is heresy.



Tim Keller: If You Have White Skin, It's Worth $1 Million Over A Lifetime

AND: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/09/trump-blasts-marxist-doctrine-known-critical-race-frontpagemagcom/



NEW BOOKLET: S is for Social Justice The Language of Today’s Cultural “Revolution” by Mary Danielsen is our newest Lighthouse Trails Booklet.* The Booklet is 18 pages long and sells for $1.95 for single copies. Quantity discounts are available. Our Booklets are designed to give away to others or for your own personal use. Below is the content of the booklet. To order copies of S is for Social Justice The Language of Today’s Cultural “Revolution,” click here.

S is for Social Justice The Language of Today’s Cultural “Revolution”

By Mary Danielsen

In Revelation 3:14-22, we are introduced to the last days church of Laodicea, a lukewarm self-serving congregation that seems to have the most to lose by ignoring God’s instruction. But it’s what that name reveals that is so profound—a deep level of apostasy and a coming marriage of religion and politics that will blend in seamlessly with the agenda of Antichrist. “Laodicea” means “justice of the people.” As the “social-justice gospel” threatens to overtake the professing church today, the church of “wokeness” is more and more asleep in the light and ignoring the Lord’s admonitions to stay awake lest she be overtaken with the world in a flood of lawlessness and judgment.

Biblical definitions are an important part of rightly dividing and understanding the Word, but there is also a great benefit in pulling the curtain back on the things the world lusts after; and in this day of addictive social media, keeping up with the jargon of mass movements can help equip our discernment. That, in turn, will help us to explain the origins and goals of such movements to friends and family who may be caught up in round-the-clock politics. We are not to be ignorant of the wiles of the devil (2 Corinthians 2:11).

I’m not sure when the suffix “-babble” came into common usage, but the origins of the word are quite interesting. In the 16th century, it meant “idle talk,” but then by the 17th century, the common definition meant “inarticulate speech”—“bibble babble.” Baby talk, basically. In this age of media, “babble” became popular as a suffix to alert the listener that something unintelligible was being foisted upon him, and it carried with it the idea that very few will understand what is about to be said; but if you do understand it, you are a step ahead of some imagined curve. For instance, “techno-babble” terms are used in sci-fi scripts to sound futuristic and (theoretically) technologically advanced. “Psycho-babble,” a newer term to the lexicon, uses the jargon or buzzwords of the self-help industry to give the impression that whatever is being defined is scientifically plausible and diagnostically helpful. Those using these terms with confidence like to give the impression of having a deeper knowledge via special code that puts them on the cutting edge of cultural happenings.

“Social”-babble (my term) is a body of jargon that reflects an advancing tidal wave of change that will no doubt affect the lives of everyone in its path. As we careen toward a global everything and an accompanying Marxist-style tyranny, it is important to expose the cunning lies and deep deception that will ensnare billions of souls through psychological warfare, economic disaster, and subservience to The State, which will occur through the planned destruction of our culture and the forced religion of political correctness. Through this transformation, Earth-dwellers will ultimately come face to face with a brutal dictatorship that will, according to prophecy, be the last of its kind before Christ returns to judge and rule.

In the same vein, the word “jargon” is worth defining as well. Jargon, according to The Oxford Dictionary, refers to special words or expressions used by a particular profession or group that are difficult for others to understand. It is a verbal shorthand, so to speak, traditionally used within areas of expertise to communicate with those on the same level, professionally speaking. But in a world of eight billion people, it would seem that the goal of jargon, by today’s definition, is to confuse, lecture, and often to alienate and correct. The reasons people use cultural jargon might be to sound important, to hide or spin a situation, manipulate an outcome, or simply to signal agreement with a political movement.

The truth is, the real meaning of a jargon-related term is often lost because of a lack of adequate translation. New terms spring up regularly, and the meanings must be defined or redefined by the one who coined the term. Forget what you think a word means traditionally—now the urban-dictionary wading pool is the authority. And just try to keep up!

That said, it’s not impossible to grasp a basic understanding of this social-justice, progressive cultural revolution of which we find ourselves in the midst. And in so gaining this knowledge, we will also gain a clearer understanding about these times. Then with knowledge and understanding comes wisdom, which according to the Scriptures is simply knowing what to do and how to do it. Such wisdom comes from His holy Word, through His Spirit, and seeking Him with all our hearts who “giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not” (James 1:5).

While reading the terms in this glossary, bear in mind that in many cases, I am using definitions that line up with what the social-justice movement adheres to and not necessarily a traditional definition.

The Language of Today’s Cultural “Revolution”

Activist/Activism: Social justice, in its many forms, is primarily accomplished when people become activists—engaged in activism. The goal is to bring about societal change and can be as simple as writing a letter to a government official, or as dramatic as civil disobedience, or protesting in a violent or non-violent manner. With no lack of victimhood in our culture, activists can target any one of a long list of causes to take on. Racial issues, political change, gay/transgender causes, economic disparities, and women’s rights are just a few of the subjective causes with which to identify oneself; and the levels of involvement in any one cause vary from individual to individual. One can be merely a demonstrator, or a reformer, or an extremist, depending upon many factors.

Antifa: Literally, “anti-fascist.” Originating in the 1930s in Germany, it was the violent arm of the left—the Communist Party. Fascism is defined as a nationalist far-right authoritarian style of government, so Antifa then labels any people or group they consider far right as Nazis, fascists, and white supremacists. The goal of Antifa is to remake America into a Marxist state.

Biphobia: Patterned after the term “homophobia,” biphobia is a term of contempt defined as a fear of bisexuals and bisexuality. Those who oppose these alternative lifestyles are said to be afraid of them (phobic). “Social-justice warriors” would say that those who believe the Bible teaches that any kind of sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman is sin are suffering from some type of phobia.

Black Lives Matter (BLM): The Black Lives Matter (BLM) Global Network Foundation is a largely decentralized international organization—listing regional chapters instead of particular leaders. It was founded by three women, two of whom identify as “queer”: Patrisse Khan-Cullors, Opal Tometi, and Alicia Garza. On its “What We Believe” page, BLM describes itself as a movement “to fight for freedom, liberation, and justice,” but its definition of those terms includes radical reform to basic societal norms including the disruption of the nuclear family. In a 2015 video, Khan-Cullors admitted that BLM is led by “trained Marxists.”1

A closer look at BLM reveals that while there are many who see it as a noble force for racial equality, the intelligentsia behind it is using black people and those involved with BLM as pawns to create civil unrest with the goal being to overthrow existing forms of government with Marxism.

Cancel Culture: “Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.”2 An example of cancel culture would be a social media blitz against a company that has publicly spoken up against “gay” marriage or transgender bathrooms.

Capitalism: “A form of economic order characterized by private ownership of the means of production and the freedom of private owners to use, buy, and sell their property or services on the market at voluntarily agreed prices and terms, with only minimal interference with such transactions by the state or other authoritative third parties.”3

“Christian” Palestinianism: In direct opposition to Christian Zionism, this dangerous movement claims that Palestinian Arabs were the original possessors of the land of Israel. In this reboot of Replacement Theology,4 dominion theology, amillennialism, and the teaching that the Jews are occupiers and oppressors, “Christian” Palestinianism seeks to remove all Jewish elements from the Bible and eliminate the Old Testament, thus opening the door for the Islamization of the church. It is the antithesis of what evangelicals have traditionally believed about God’s promises to Israel, Bible prophecy, and the very nature of Jesus Himself.

Cisgender: A term to label one who identifies with the gender he or she is born with. It is not related to sexual orientation, however, merely gender. It is the opposite of “transgender”; from a biblical point of view, it would be those who do not denounce or try to change the gender with which they are born.

Classism: The determination of one’s value to society based on economic, educational, or lineage background. In the social-justice paradigm, classism is a form of victimhood in which the middle to upper class discriminates against the working class/poor/minimally educated segments of society. Karl Marx viewed society relative to its classes and believed that class is determined by property ownership. He divided society into two classes: the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat; Marxists believe the former controls the capital and production for a society, the latter provides the labor.

Collusion: The traditional meaning of the word is “secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others,” but in social-justice minds, the word means to show support and cooperation with groups they consider dominant in “power, privilege, and oppression.”5

Communism: “The specifically Marxist-Leninist variant of socialism which emphasizes that a truly communist society can be achieved only through the violent overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ that is to prepare the way for the future idealized society of communism under the authoritarian guidance of a hierarchical and disciplined Communist Party.”6

Consumerism: A way of life that revolves around acquiring “stuff” and the attitude that a person’s happiness is dependent upon having material possessions. In the global village, it is looked down upon as the main reason for the destruction of the environment as the cost of production leads to more pollution and the destruction of farmland, thus accelerating the destruction of the environment. As cities grow, demand for goods and services grow, and the economic shift of a nation from agricultural, to manufacturing, to consumerism has been instrumental in bringing about a massive but fragile global economy. The term is being used by those fighting for a socialist society to downplay and denounce capitalism.

Critical Race Theory (CRT): The idea that the law is inherently racist and designed by Caucasians to maintain or further their standing in politics and economics over minorities. It has branched out to include liberal feminists, LGBTQ, and other minorities. Proponents believe that even the Civil Rights laws, which they claim did nothing to benefit people of color, mainly benefited the whites only. Richard Delgado, professor of civil rights and CRT at the University of Alabama School of Law, was the first (along with wife Jean Stefancic) in the 1980s to introduce this theory at the academic level, where it continues to have the most traction. The term is derived from Critical Theory based on dialectic philosophy that teaches “truth” (synthesis) is achieved by a critical approach to ideas, beliefs, and practices. As with Marxism, the idea is that, in order to have improvements and reform, conflict (revolution) is necessary to bring about resolution.

Critical Theory (CT): A sociological approach to examining the structures of society by asking, “do these long-held structures and practices benefit all people or only the privileged?” The underlying (Marxist) goal is to rethink and restructure every institution of society so that no one is at a disadvantage. Coming out of the Frankfurt School in Germany, the Nazis shut it down in 1923, but it found a home at Columbia University then returned to Germany in the 1950s as “The Institute for Social Research.”

Cultural Appropriation: A term coined in the 1980s academia, cultural appropriation happens when one culture (or person) adopts practices or beliefs from another culture without really understanding the significance of that culture. In social-justice circles, cultural appropriation (or sometimes called cultural mis-appropriation) is frowned upon especially when a “dominant” culture (such as whites or the wealthy) is embracing the characteristics of less dominant cultures without understanding.

Cultural Hegemony: A term developed by Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci to suggest that the upper class exploits and manipulates the lower class into accepting and maintaining the current status quo.

Cultural Marxism: Refers to the encroachment of Marxism in all areas of culture (i.e., political correctness, LGBTQ rights, multiculturalism, feminism, the attack on the family, and Judeo-Christian ethics). Also called “Neo-Marxism,” the left considers this a derogatory term used to denounce what they believe is right-wing cultural hysteria from those who fear communism. The leftist media would categorize the term cultural Marxism as a mere “right-wing conspiracy theory” with its roots in the McCarthy era.

Cultural Sensitivity Training: A workplace program that is supposedly designed to ensure that all employees understand and abide by the ground rules for how to treat people depending on their gender, race, age, or sexual orientation. In today’s “progressive” socialist environment, employees in some companies are being coerced and even threatened with job loss if they do not embrace radical sensitivity-training issues (such as transgenderism and “gay” marriage) that go against their moral values.
De-centering: To cause to move away from a traditional view (e.g., decentering conservative biblical sexuality and marriage views would involve embracing views outside of that scope such as “gay” marriage, transgenderism, living together without marriage).

Dialectical Materialism: “A Marxist tenet describing the process by which the class struggle between bourgeois capitalist society and the exploited workers produces the dictatorship of the proletariat and evolves into socialism and, finally, communism, dictatorship of the proletariat.”7

Dialogue: An intentional conversation between two parties who may differ significantly in their cultural worldview or goals with the intended outcome of meeting in the middle or coming to some sort of understanding. The exchange of ideas, presumably on a civil level. In the realm of social justice, “Intergroup Dialogue” is intended to improve understanding among differing social standings, to promote social justice; but in reality, the goal is to highlight social in-justice and promote fundamental change. See Hegelian Dialectic.

Diversity: In socialism, this would be tied in with the view that every organization, religious group, government agency, charity, or business needs to be “diversified” in that each one must have a wide variety of people groups within it, especially “oppressed” people groups. “An unhappy corollary of the championing of “victim” categories is the denunciation of “oppressor” categories, thus generating increasing popular anti-white, anti-male, anti-heterosexual, anti-Christian and anti-Jewish campaigns.”8

Environmental Stewardship: Coined by Aldo Leopold in the mid-20th century, it refers to all the ways that mankind is obligated to protect the natural world from degradation and provide all means of conservation for future generations. When it intersects with the politics of global warming or climate change, it then becomes mandated in the form of tax increases, decreasing “carbon footprints” with associated guilt for our high-tech age and lifestyles. The spiritual aspect that is increasingly a part of environmentalism involves preaching love for Mother Earth from a religious perspective that is underpinned by Darwinism.9

Ethnocentrism: The belief that one’s own culture is superior to others. Having partiality toward our own set of beliefs or way of life is not inherently bad in that it doesn’t necessarily mean that one views other cultures as inferior. From a cultural perspective, it can simply reflect the experiences and constants that one is most familiar with. The cultural revolution practices a “reverse ethnocentrism” by rejecting one’s own culture, or country, or ethnicity especially if that culture or country is considered to be an oppressor or dominant.

Feminism: The position that when society is male-dominated, women are oppressed in the areas of marriage, finances, pay, maternity leave, etc. Beginning with the suffrage movement, women have increasingly become more political in their methods to include abortion rights and gender-neutral inclusive language. There are several forms of feminism, including multicultural and intersectional. Social-justice feminism includes Marxist feminism, which analyzes the ways women are oppressed through the lens of a communist philosophical system regarding property ownership and compensation for labor. Feminism in the church today expresses itself with gender-neutral Bibles and taking over pastoral roles. A biblical view of women gives women equal value, worth, contribution, and essentialness with men but also describes each of their unique roles.

Gender Binary: “The idea that there are only two genders—male and female. This is viewed as problematic by social justice warriors, despite being a biological truth.”10

Genderfluid: Meaning gender is not something that has to remain the same but can always be changing. (e.g., You may be born a man, but you can become a woman.)

Gender Identity: The sense of self that comes from being male or female and can vary from birth on in our gender-fluid culture. Gender-justice activists tie any and all gender oppression or discrimination to every other injustice that exists, such as racial, economic, immigration, violence, feminism, education, and financial, making all human injustice rise and fall largely based on the human set of chromosomes supplied at birth. Currently, activists are claiming upward of 100 genders among humans, but biologically, there are still only two.

Hegelian Dialectic: George Wilhelm Frederich Hegel was a 19th century German philosopher. He developed a method of using the art of argument to determine “truth”—with a prearranged outcome to define and direct the process. There are three parts to utilizing this dialectic: “Thesis” is an idea or philosophy. “Antithesis” refers to the position of refuting the original idea from an opposite perspective. “Synthesis” is meeting in the middle, to form a new idea that both parties can agree on. It works best on a group that is easily controlled or manipulated and lacking critical thinking skills or the ability to reason through a debate.

In the church, one example might be this: The thesis is that biblical Christianity presents the only way to God is through Jesus Christ, and the Bible is the truth. The antithesis might be that Islam is one of the three great religions in the world, and the Koran is the truth. The synthesis would be “Chrislam,” in which Christianity and Islam co-exist through compromise, that Jesus is also represented within Islam and is therefore the same Jesus as the biblical one. There are many such examples in the church that we call “compromise” but represent the Hegelian Dialectic philosophically.

Politics is a prime example of a constant flow of dialectical thinking. The far left and right are endlessly pitted against each other with the end goal of a synthesis between the two after a protracted media war of spin, psychological warfare, and change on every level. Antifa, BLM, and other groups demanding societal change on a fundamental level will not stop just because they are opposed; they will only stop when the synthesis matches their pre-ordained agenda. (If Christians better understood this manipulation, there would be far less compromise in the church.)

Heterosexism: Social-justice warriors would say that to have a heterosexism viewpoint is oppressive and negative because “individual, societal, cultural, and institutional beliefs and practices favor heterosexuality and assume that heterosexuality is the only ‘natural,’ ‘normal,’ or acceptable sexual orientation.”11

Identity Politics: Where the focus is on who you are regarding race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender rather than what your political views and moral persuasions are.

Intersectionality: A term coined in 1989 by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a civil-rights activist. The theory behind it is that there are multiple sources of discrimination in people’s lives simultaneously. For example, one can be oppressed as a woman, and as a LGBTQ woman, and as a black LGBTQ woman. These categories of oppression intersect with each other, increasing the victimhood exponentially regarding entitlements and subjective justice.

LGBTTQQIA: “The umbrella community of people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, two-spirited, queer, questioning, intersex, and/or asexual.”12

Manarchism: “The belief that social anarchism will result in gender equality.”13

Microaggression: A social-justice warrior would say that a microaggression is an act committed by an “oppressor” person against an “oppressed” person. The act would be subtle and done possibly unintentionally, indirectly, and even unbeknownst to the “aggressor.” A few examples listed in an article supporting the term are: 1) “An able-bodied person using a bathroom stall reserved for someone who is disabled.” 2) “Telling a woman she should smile.” 3) “Referring to something you don’t like as ‘gay.’” 4) “Someone clutching his or her purse when a person of color walks by.”14

Narrative: Less about fact, doctrine, objectivism, absolutes; more about story, change, subjectivism, relativism.

Non-Binary: Those who identify as neither male nor female are said to be “non-binary.”

Oppressed vs. Oppressor: In Critical Race Theory, you are either an oppressor or an oppressed. Oppressed groups would include women, the low-income, people of color, LGBT, etc.); oppressor groups would include men, the wealthy, white, conservatives, etc.). Members of oppressor groups must refrain from voicing their views as it may intimidate those in oppressed groups. In actuality, Critical Race Theory has adopted a prejudicial and even racist mindset. It also causes dissension, distrust, suspicion, and hate toward people because of their supposed oppressor traits.

Patriarchy: Prior to the social-justice movement, this meant a social system wherein the father or the oldest male was head of the family, and descent was traced through the male line. Today, the term is as a catch-all term used in a derogatory manner suggesting that such a system is oppressive, abusive, and portrays male dominance. However, it is not the system of patriarchy that has failed but rather is the sinful nature in mankind (men and women) that causes abuse, cruel domination, and oppression. A biblical view of fatherhood portrays strength, kindness, leadership, protection, and godly wisdom. Sadly, fatherhood has been demonized by the radical socialist movement.

Political Correctness (PC): Coined in the 1980s, “PC” describes a set of culturally acceptable rules to avoid verbally offending any sex, gender, race, or “religion.” Those who are the alleged victims of verbal discrimination or offense are always seen as in the right, and those who perpetrate the victimhood are always wrong; there are also groups that can be spoken of slanderously, such as white men, and Bible-believing Christians, without recrimination. “Hate speech” is the legal reproach to getting justice from those who defame another person or group as defined by PC rules. Political correctness is the religion of cultural Marxism, which teaches a class struggle over which groups have power over other groups, determined, of course, by those with the power to control thought, speech, and behavior. The goal of PC doctrine, which has now permeated all of society, is to eliminate freedom of speech and the press in this attempt to force equality on every person in society, making it the conscience of secular humanism and the coming global religion as opposed to the conscience God has given every human.

Prejudice Plus Power: “The social-justice warrior standard for bigotry. This leads them to deny possibilities such as anti-white racism, misandry [prejudice against men], heterophobia, cisphobia, and other bigotry—against groups said to be privileged.”15

Progressive Christianity: Often used interchangeably with “social-justice Christianity,” or “emergent” Christianity, which is another way of describing a theology that is liberal, interspiritual, and politically minded. Progressivism in politics is simply Marxism. In the church, it seeks justice for every people group, engages in environmental causes, views the Bible merely as a social-justice manual, and does not ascribe to the doctrine of inerrancy. “Red Letter Christianity” springs from the progressive playbook, and dominion theology/amillennialism is their eschatology. Many leaders in the movement such as Jim Wallis, Shane Claiborne, Tony Campolo and Brian McLaren themselves subscribe to a Marxist/socialist worldview.

Queer: “An umbrella term within the LGBTQQIA community that refers to anyone who doesn’t prescribe to traditional societal views of gender and sexuality; implies elasticity and a resistance to the notion of a predetermined gender and sexual identity based on biology.”16

Racism: “Any criticism or negative sentiment that affects minority racial groups, regardless of validity. Note: Most social-justice warriors deny the possibility of racism against white people, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.”17

Reconciliation: The general definition simply means to restore broken relationships. In progressive “Christianity” (i.e., social-gospel “Christianity”), it brings opposing views to a compromised consensus so that all views are given equal standing (whether they are biblically sound or not). In social-justice circles, it identifies what are considered great divides among humans due to marginalization, discrimination or victimhood (real or perceived injustices) and then forces reconciliation to secure that every human being experiences the same rights and equality of position and property. The biblical definition of reconciliation is found in 2 Corinthians 5:18 where we are told that through Christ’s atonement, we are reconciled to God, having been alienated from Him through sin.

Red Letter Christians: An ecumenical religious/political progressive group that emphasizes some teachings of Jesus found in red letters in some published New Testaments. The verses are primarily construed to build a framework of social-justice values deemed most important in a public expression of “faith plus politics.” Red Letter Christians have attempted to distance themselves from the “conservative right” popular during the Bush years.

Reparations: Making amends for a wrong done due to injustice, criminal acts, or after a war is waged to compensate the offended party. After WW II, Jewish families from Germany who survived the Holocaust were given reparations for property taken from them by Hitler’s regime. Today’s debate centers around the white man’s need to compensate the descendants of slavery which includes financial output to level the playing field of every person whose ancestors suffered injustices. This would include apologies by current generations and the promise that it would never be repeated. Besides the obvious problem that it would be impossible to determine who would be an actual descendant, there is the issue of determining which injustices in all of history deserve such rewards regardless of the injustice or when it occurred in history.

Social Gospel: An ecumenical socialist creed that emphasizes the need for social reform in an attempt to promote political change and bring a form of justice to every race, class, and oppressed group. It de-emphasizes individual conversion to Christ while extolling community, unity, and the common good. In contrast, Jesus did not promote political change but redeemed the hearts of sinners.18

Social Justice: A temporal kind of justice that addresses the privileges and rights that every human must be allowed to have in society. There is economic justice, racial justice, gender justice, civil rights etc., but primarily revolves around economic justice which, of course, is the outcome of socialism (distribution of wealth). A “social-justice warrior” is someone who actively promotes these issues and see himself as a corrector of society’s greatest wrongs.

Socialism: A political theory that advocates government ownership and administration of a society’s production of goods and services vs. private ownership (capitalism). There are various types of socialist governments in the world, and each one might incorporate this ideology differently.

Systemic (institutional) Racism: The belief that racism is not just an individual problem but is integrated into the entire infrastructure and system of a society and that basically all white people are racist whether they know it or not, think it or not, or act like it or not. Since the killing of George Floyd, social-justice warriors have particularly focused on the police, insisting that police forces throughout the U.S. are saturated with racism; and defunding the police is the only solution. This is largely based on statements that police are killing unarmed black people in astronomical numbers each year, which according to various studies, is not true. One article, written by Larry Elder, a black attorney, radio program host, and documentary film maker, states:

Recent studies not only find no “systemic” abuse of black suspects by the cops, but if anything, cops are more hesitant, more reluctant, to use deadly force against a black suspect than against a white suspect. The Manhattan Institute’s Heather MacDonald writes: “Regarding threats to blacks from the police: A police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.”. . .

In Baltimore, where in 2015, a black man named Freddie Gray died in police custody, how could one, with a straight face, argue that resident blacks suffer from “institutional” racism? The mayor was a black female; the top two officials in the police department were black; the city council was majority black; the state attorney who brought the charges against six officers was black; three of the six charged officers were black; the judge before whom two officers tried their cases was black; the U.S. attorney general was black, as was the president of the United States.19

Tolerance: The most ironic and hypocritical of all the social-justice terms. To tolerate by definition is merely to accept or agree with an opinion, belief, or lifestyle that one would not normally give assent to based on their upbringing, environment, or beliefs. However, as the demand for tolerance of every lifestyle, identity, and view grows, those who publicly demand that society give assent to pre-determined values and language framed in political correctness are those most likely to be intolerant of any view or ideology that does not match their own (i.e., Christianity and biblical values). In other words, social-justice warriors can demand that others are “tolerant” of them in every area, while they are under no obligation to agree with anything to which they don’t adhere.

Virtue Signaling: Expressing opinions that are designed to align with a certain politically correct or socially acceptable cause. It claims some sort of agreed-upon moral high ground with the attending feeling of moral superiority (i.e., good works for a social-justice climate). The church of the social gospel is also not immune from virtue signaling in its efforts to mimic the world’s causes and bring the culture into the church to appear to be more appealing to the lost and please men instead of God.

White Fragility: Describes a type of response from a “privileged” race to those who want to have a discussion about how they should feel about their privilege or lack of required guilt. For example, if a white person is approached by a black person to discuss racial issues, the white person may become uncomfortable and defensive, especially if he is told he is racist, just because he is white. If he doesn’t engage, he is said to have “white fragility” and is out of touch with reality.

White Guilt: Also known as “colonial guilt,” it is a reflective state in which those who feel responsible for racial injustice (“woke”) in any form, beginning with slavery, need to take responsibility and pro-actively alleviate racial injustice. The concept of reparations is designed to play off this guilt and level the playing field for all races.

White Privilege: Ascribed privileges assigned to the white (Caucasian) race, the assumption being that a person has what they have simply by virtue of their genetics and that everything in society from employment to advertising systemically caters to a privileged race.

Woke/Wokeness: A supposed state of social and political awareness to the injustices of society for any one people group seen to be oppressed. The result is supposed to be a desire to challenge certain norms that society has taken for granted and modify one’s behavior to reflect the need to become an activist for change. However, the term, used frequently now in social media, has become more of a way to discriminate (are you “woke” or not) against those who may see the injustices of society but do not necessarily become vocal activists but live their lives treating all humans justly and lovingly. “Woke” activists, however, reject that and say “Silence is Violence.”

Woke Christianity: The “woke church” is one that is said to be conscious of certain injustices of society. The liberal churches then will use what they consider to be this essential worldview and proceed from the premise that their priority is to work for worldly justice for oppressed people groups, which includes acceptance of lifestyles that the Bible calls sinful. Interestingly, “woke” churches usually do not see the killing of babies through abortion as a social injustice. The church that is truly biblically “awake,” however, will prioritize the household with faith over ethnicity (Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”), call out sinful behaviors and lifestyles, and prioritize the spreading of the Gospel to all people.


Having read these terms, it is my hope you can see the contrast between the social-justice “narrative” and what is written in God’s Word. In God’s economy, the terms “justice” and “gospel” are clearly defined in biblical texts as you will see by the verses at the end of this booklet. To add the humanistic adjective “social” to these critical terms is to render them nonsensical and gives a temporal meaning where an eternal one that affects every person who ever lived is already established. With “social justice,” there is no room for personal salvation, forgiveness, repentance, and reconciliation. Rather, it creates an environment of hostility, unrighteousness, anger, distrust, pride, and resentment. God’s Word, on the other hand, couples true justice with righteousness, compassion, mercy, kindness, graciousness, and humility. These are the attributes of God and what He has offered to every human being and what He will put in our hearts toward others if we believe in Him and trust Him as our Savior. Social justice can try to guilt people and force them into treating others right, but it can never change hearts. It is a powerless substitute for the real thing. I leave you with the following verses from God’s Word, which beautifully show the meaning of true justice and perfect truth.

Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. (Psalm 82:3)

Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face. (Psalm 89:14)

Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy. (Proverbs 31:9)

And therefore will the LORD wait, that he may be gracious unto you, and therefore will he be exalted, that he may have mercy upon you: for the LORD is a God of judgment: blessed are all they that wait for him. (Isaiah 30:18)

But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream. (Amos 5:24)

Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Execute true judgment, and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother. (Zechariah 7:9)

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: (Luke 6:37)

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? (Micah 6:8)

But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels [of compassion] from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. (1 John 3:17-18)

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. (1 Peter 3:18)

To order copies of S is for Social Justice The Language of Today’s Cultural “Revolution,” click here.


  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=58&v=HgEUbSzOTZ8&feature=emb_logo.
  2. Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/cancel-culture.
  3. Paul M. Johnson, A Glossary of Political Economy Terms (Auburn University, 1994-2005, http://webhome.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/capitalism.phtml.
  4. Read Mike Oppenheimer’s booklet Israel: Replacing What God Has Not (https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=11341).
  5. Lexico Dictionaryhttps://www.lexico.com/en/definition/collusion https://www.dal.ca/dept/hres/education-campaigns/definitions.html.
  6. Paul M. Johnson, A Glossary of Political Economy Terms, op. cit. (http://webhome.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/communism.phtml).
  7. Federation of American Scientists, “Glossary, Soviet Union,” https://fas.org/irp/world/russia/su_glos.html.
  8. Philip Carl Salzman, “How ‘Social Justice’ Undermines True Diversity” (https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2019/03/25/howsocial-justice-undermines-true-diversity).
  9. Read Roger Oakland’s booklet A Christian Perspective on the Environment: How the Catholic Pope and Other Leaders Are Uniting the World’s Religions Through Environmentalism (https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=21237).
  10. “A Glossary of Social Justice Warrior Terminology” (The Zeroth Position, https://www.zerothposition.com/2016/03/30/a-glossary-of-social-justice-warrior-terminology).
  11. Dalhousie University, “Social Justice Terms” (https://www.dal.ca/dept/hres/education-campaigns/definitions.html).
  12. Lewis & Clark College, “ABC’s of Social Justice” (https://www.lclark.edu/live/files/18474-abcs-of-social-justice).
  13. “A Glossary of Social Justice Warrior Terminology,” op. cit.
  14. “What is Microaggression and How to Avoid it? ( TherapyNYC, https://mytherapynyc.com/what-is-microaggression).
  15. “A Glossary of Social Justice Warrior Terminology,” op. cit.
  16. Lewis & Clark College, “ABC’s of Social Justice,” op. cit.
  17. “A Glossary of Social Justice Warrior Terminology,” op. cit.
  18. Read my booklet, The Dangerous Truth About the Social-Justice Gospel (https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=15318).
  19. Larry Elder, “The George Floyd Riots: Where’s Black Lives Matter When You Need Them?” (Front Page Magazine, June 11, 2020, https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/06/george-floyd-riots-about-racism-and-police-larry-elder/); to read more about systemic racism and Critical Race Theory, read Critical Race Theory, Southern Baptist Convention, and a Marxist “Solution” That Will Not Work at https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=32684

To order copies of S is for Social Justice The Language of Today’s Cultural “Revolution,” click here.


Brenda Nickel Basic Reformed Theology

SEE: https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/newsletters/2020/newsletter20200922.htm;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
LTRP Note: Brenda Nickel is featured in Caryl Matrisciana’s film Wide is the Gate, Vol. 2. Her book on Calvinism 
was on Caryl’s website for a number of years until Caryl’s passing in 2016 after which the website was dismantled. 
Today, Brenda has a website called Calvinism No More.
My Introduction to Calvin

My introduction to John Calvin came one spring night while driving down a desolate Wyoming highway. It was early evening. The road conditions were mildly challenging, which was often the case in that part of the country. I was listening intently to reformed theologian R. C. Sproul lecture about Romans 8:28-30 “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” I remember the moment well. The full moon lit up the prairie between the low buttes. The blowing snow was swirling across the road. The scenery was soothing, yet my mind was racing. Could it be that God elects some to eternal salvation? Did He deliberately choose some to be saved, but not all? While I thought I was about to learn more about Jesus Christ and His truth, in reality, I was about to learn more about the teachings of a man named John Calvin.

A few short years prior to that spring evening, I had become a born-again believer in Jesus Christ by placing full faith in the gospel. My life became brand new. I was hungry to know truth and absorb as much as I could about Jesus and the Bible. I wanted to help others to be saved. As a new believer, I loved the church, I loved believers, and I craved truth. I also trusted my pastor to lead me to solid, biblical teachings but instead, my pastor led me to the teachings of men. Little did I know that the teaching my pastor recommended would redirect my walk of faith in ways that would be difficult for me to escape. That spring night, my thinking had been instantly taken captive by a new approach to interpreting the Bible. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8). That night, I learned that God not only loved me enough to sacrifice His Son for my sins, but I erroneously learned He had supposedly chosen me before the foundations of the world. In that lecture, I was taught that I was in the mind of God before Jesus was even ordained for the cross. And that He had predestined me to salvation before I was even conceived. Tears of joy were streaming down my face as I thanked God for His unspeakable love. However, what began in tears of joy, ended in tears of despair fourteen years later. The question I asked myself, years later, was, “How did this despair set in, and who was this man John Calvin?”

Fascination with Calvinism

Being introduced to the Calvinist idea that “God predetermines whomever He wills for salvation” left me with many unanswered questions. Walking back into my pastor’s office to return the borrowed cassette tapes, I sat down to ask questions about these teachings and discuss the impact they had on me. I explained how my thinking had completely shifted toward a different view of God and salvation. I told how I couldn’t think of anything other than this new characteristic of God. When faced with this probing inquiry, my pastor merely chuckled and said, “I knew that would happen.” I detected a slight reluctance to explain this hidden secret that I was now privy to. I felt left on my own to figure out whether this teaching of “selective salvation” was really true and biblical. Since no objections to my concerns were made, I took my pastor’s acknowledgment as an endorsement of God’s sovereign predestination of the “elect” to salvation.

Returning home, I began searching my Bible to see if this elective prerogative of God was indeed true. Finding several verses that “seemed” to back up the type of election I had heard in the Sproul lectures, I became increasingly convinced that sovereign election was taught in the Scriptures. After telling my friends of my “conversion” on the highway that night, they, too, found verses for me that pointed to “sovereign” election and predestination. Everywhere I turned this so-called deeper understanding of God’s Word was reinforced. It began to be established in my thinking. It was molding and taking shape in my mind. It was increasingly confirmed by others. I felt privileged to have discovered this new insight into the mysterious purposes of God. Unbeknownst to me at the time, my thinking had been totally taken captive by a scholar’s mere suggestion, coupled with supposed scriptural support, which caused me to understand the Bible and its verses in a completely new light. I trusted this scholar’s supposed intellectual prowess. I dropped my guard and adopted this new interpretive framework. I could “see” this new viewpoint and follow its logic. Now, years later, I fully comprehend the importance of heeding the warnings in the Bible about false teachings, but back then, I was completely trusting and unsuspecting. I was a sitting duck and ripe for deception. “For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,” (2 Timothy 3:6). “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:” (1 Peter 5:8). The intense fascination I had with this subject of predestination demonstrated how completely I had been taken captive by this different way of understanding the Bible. I yearned to learn all I could about this theology and the implications it had for my Christian walk. And because the seed of sovereign election had been planted in my mind, I began pursuing the teachings of Calvinism to see how it all worked. “Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?” (Galatians 5:7).

Laying Down the Foundation

Bible study took on a whole new dimension after my “conversion” to sovereign election. Week after week, I braved the blowing snow and howling winds of Wyoming to gather with my Christian friends to study God’s Word. This little church had become home to me. I loved learning the Bible, especially when predestination was hinted at. The mere mention of the topic always piqued my interest because I craved the validation of my new-found knowledge. I soaked up passages about election like a sponge, relishing all the “proof” I could find for this doctrine. Memorizing these verses was an easy and delightful task. Tracking these verses was sport for me. I started a card file, marking the index cards that had predestination passages on them with a big “P” and memorized them. Unwittingly, I was laying a foundation for the reformed view of “election” by plucking verses from their context and setting them side by side like bricks. Every time I ran across a verse that mentioned predestination, election, calling, choosing, or foreknowledge, it meant one thing to me: “God chose me.” I misunderstood the Scriptures that said believers are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ and understood them to mean, instead, that I was predestined to salvation. I always understood verses in the light of Calvinism rather than within their context. Romans 8:29, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” During this early and formative stage, the term Calvinism wasn’t a part of my vocabulary. It was a foreign term to me, but that would soon change. Within the year, my family and I moved to Salt Lake City. We found it to be a clean and convenient city with world class skiing only a few miles from our front door. Life seemed crisp, pleasant, and brand new. We had finally left the ever-blowing Wyoming wind behind, although leaving my church friends wasn’t easy. Even the fierce summer heat of Utah was a welcomed change. Life in the beehive state was better than I would have imagined.

My first order of business in Salt Lake was finding a church home and getting plugged into a Bible study. My family and I found a great church and many of its members participated in BSF (Bible Study Fellowship), a Bible study that offered seven rotating, one-year courses. My first year in Salt Lake introduced me to a whole range of new people and new opportunities for learning and serving. Still somewhat shy about the teaching of predestination, I was surprised to find hints of election sprinkled throughout the teaching notes of this Bible study. References to the “sovereignty of God,” “God choosing His own,” “the call of God,” “God hardening hearts,” “God giving grace to the elect,” and similar catch phrases all conveyed their inclination toward the sovereign election of God. My ears were keenly attuned to any shred of this teaching. I remember thinking, “Perhaps this teaching is more accepted than I realized.” My shyness gave way to cautiously approaching the subject with others. I carefully engaged others in discussions about “predestination.” Wherever possible, I gently broached the topic in the halls between church services, in the parking lot, on the phone with friends, and with those in my Bible study discussion group. I guardedly pressed with innocent questions to filter out who was safe to discuss election with and who was not. To my surprise, many Christians agreed with the type of election I had come to believe in. I was gaining assurance from people and the popularity of these teachings, rather than from the Scriptures.

About this time, I was introduced to the teachings of the well-known Calvinist pastor, John MacArthur. After asking my church elders about him and being assured he was a solid and safe Bible teacher, I signed up with his lending library to receive sermon tapes—six at a time—which I quickly turned around for another six tapes. I even considered taking out two memberships so I could listen to one set as the other set was being fulfilled. My heart was thrilled to be redeeming the long hours of household chores by listening to “good” teaching. All I needed was my fanny pack and Walkman, which became fixtures about my hips. I found John Macarthur to be a gifted and convincing expositor, of course, for his point of view. The lending library catalog allowed me to choose from hundreds of sermons for nearly any subject I could imagine. First and foremost on my list were selections covering sovereign election. As questions surfaced about some aspect of election, I merely looked up the passage in the library catalog and requested the sermon I wanted. Listening to these tapes created an insatiable appetite for still more audio teaching which prompted the ordering of more tapes from other teachers, all of whom were sympathetic to sovereign election. The hundreds and hundreds of lectures and sermons that were pumped into my mind were supplying me with a steady diet of one or more points of Calvinism. My shy caution about publicly discussing election with others was now giving way to empowerment. The questions I had once asked of my Wyoming pastor were now being answered in full detail. I was being fortified with the pat responses any trained Calvinist gives out verbatim. It wasn’t long before I, too, talked and thought like a skilled, four-point Calvinist (which I’ll explain later).  . . . To continue reading Brenda Nickel’s testimony, My Journey into Calvinismclick here.

Note: Brenda was involved with Calvinism for 14 years and came out of it in 2004.

Related Information:

For Lighthouse Trails resources on Calvinism and Reformed Theology, click here.



SEE: https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/newsletters/2020/newsletter20200922.htm;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

LTRJ Note: For 18 years, Lighthouse Trails has been warning about the contemplative prayer movement and its role in creating an “emergent” “progressive” church. Part of our investigative research scope has included Christian universities and seminaries, a majority of which now promote contemplative spirituality. Liberty University, one of the largest Christian universities in the U.S., has been on the contemplative/emergent path for many years. We take this matter extremely serious because the “fruit” of contemplative prayer in a person’s life is the formation of a “new” spiritual outlook that resembles more of a New Age thought (interspirituality and panentheism) than a biblical one. As for contemplative pioneer, Richard Foster, please read our article/booklet “A Serious Look at Richard Foster’s “School” of Contemplative Praye.” and make sure your children and grandchildren are not being influenced by a deceived school.

Dear Lighthouse Trails:

I have a grandchild at Liberty University, so I occasionally view their convocation meetings. 

As I was viewing LU’s Wednesday eve’s (9/2/2020) gathering of thousands of LU students, the pastor who was addressing those students announced that they will be embarking upon a five-week spiritual journey based on Richard Foster’s book, Celebration of Discipline.

I’m an angry and sad Grandpa . . . thousands of young people will be duped by theologians who should know better.

Here is the vid. The pastor lays out the need for God’s people to “go deeper” with God. He then introduces Foster’s book and LU’s five-week journey. Also, he tells his audience they will be experiencing prayer labyrinths and prayer stations.

Begin listening at 1:06:00, and end at 1:17 58.



Related Articles:

(2017) Is Your Child or Grandchild Heading to Christian College This Fall? – 9 Things You Should Do Before He Goes

(2016) Erwin McManus, Moody, Liberty, Cedarville, and Biola Help Pave the Emergent/Social Justice/Progressive Future with Barefoot Tribe

(2015) Liberty University Welcomes Socialist Bernie Sanders to Address Student Body: ‘We Have Same Goals’

(2014) Liberty University Hires Open Homosexual Advocate to Choreograph ‘Mary Poppins’ Production

(2014) Letter to the Editor: Liberty University Offering Yoga Classes . . . AGAIN!

(2010) Letter from the Editor: Friend’s Husband Angry at Lighthouse Trails – Says LT Lies About Liberty University’s Contemplative Propensities