Get a fresh taste!

Politics

Robert Mueller submitted his report to Attorney General Barr three days ago. AG Barr released his summary statement yesterday.

It’s time.

– It’s time to have a full investigation into the false pretense for Mueller’s appointment.
– It’s time for the failed coup conspirators (all of them, including senior leadership in the DOJ, FBI, National Security, CIA, State Department, and those working directly for and in the previous administration) to be tried and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law — for treason.
– It’s time to put measures in place to ensure that this can never happen to another president.
– It’s time for Congress to drop the circus of endless investigations into things that simply didn’t happen.
– It’s time for biased, agenda-driven media executives and reporters to be held accountable for knowingly reporting lies for over two years and colluding with a political party. They have lost *all* semblance of credibility. They have proven themselves unworthy of the public’s trust and respect.
– It’s time for everyone to realize that Mr. Trump won an honest election and that Mrs. Clinton lost. The voters spoke and the results reflect the voice of the nation.
– It’s time for Congress to stop obstructing everything the President wants to accomplish (including securing the border — as a bipartisan Congress has repeatedly approved prior to Mr. Trump’s inauguration, yet has been spineless to fund the effort), simply because he is Donald Trump. In other words, it’s time for the Trump-haters to stop hating.

It’s time to move on from “collusion” and “obstruction” talk. Seriously.


Many of my family members are United Methodists. Many of my friends are United Methodists. Some of my “Facebook Friends” (whom I have never really met) are United Methodists. I was saved during revival services at a small country United Methodist Church. My number one reason for leaving the Denomination and not pursuing vocational ministry in the UMC – aside for obvious theological differences – was I knew that I could not with a good conscience hold to my theological differences with the UMC while drawing a paycheck from the Denomination. Those theological differences are unrelated to this post.

Last week, the United Methodists from around the world met in St. Louis, Missouri to try to make sense of its differences and chart a way forward. At the forefront was the issue of ordination of openly gay clergy and gay marriage. There were several paths they could have chosen, including a “One Church” Plan that would have allowed churches and their clergy, regardless of their position on these issues, to affirm or forbid gay clergy and/or gay marriage.

However, the “Traditional” Plan prevailed. The “Traditional” Plan, backed by a large number of delegates from Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe, affirms The Book of the Discipline, UMC’s statement of doctrine and practice. The Book of the Discipline states that homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity. Therefore, by default, gay ordination and gay marriage would also be incompatible.

In several Facebook posts, several of my United Methodist Pastor friends have expressed their deep concerns for the future of the second largest denomination in the United States. They are concerned about those on both sides of the issue being hurt by the vote. This morning, one posted a link to an article posted yesterday by another Methodist pastor. In the article, Jason Micheli’s parishioner (the article’s actual content writer) says, “The United Methodist Church’s unfixable rot has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with polity.” The writer lays out his argument that the root of the problem in the UMC is its polity, and as such, the denomination was destined to reach the impasse they currently find themselves in.

While all of these things may be true, I think the article writer – and perhaps most United Methodists – miss is an even deeper issue, which I encountered a few days ago with a “Facebook Friend”. This person shared someone else’s post. Here’s the thread:

Original Post:
“Please don’t say the struggle for LGBTQ rights is dividing the church. No one is being divisive by simply claiming their rights as a human being. What is tearing the church apart is the hypocrisy of those who claim grace for themselves but inflict judgment on everyone else.”

My response:
“No one’s being divisive by pointing out a denomination’s written statement of doctrine and practice and calling those paid by that denomination to adhere to it. No one’s being divisive to say the Bible is still authoritative. John Wesley held a high view of the Bible and based his own ethics and behavior on all of it.”

My Facebook friend’s response:
“Scripture does not condemn Homosexuality.
Policies are not scripture or the Church.”

My responses:
“Which Bible are you reading? I know which one you aren’t reading.
It shouldn’t be too much to expect organizational employees to faithfully represent the organization, regardless of the organization – McDonald’s, Starbucks, UMC, IBM, etc. – if they wish to keep a paycheck. The Book of the Discipline is what the UMC has codified. Those drawing a paycheck should faithfully represent the UMC, or find another organization they can faithfully represent.
This is reason #1 I did not pursue ministry in the UMC.”

– End of Thread –

The problem with the UMC which has brought division is not the “hypocrisy of those who claim grace for themselves but inflict judgment on everyone else.” The problem with the UMC is that they can’t agree on the place of the Bible in the Denomination’s theology and practice. Therefore, they can’t define sin in an objective way, because they don’t have an objective source. From the reaction I have seen in the press and on social media, it would appear that “sin” would be to act in an “unchristlike” way: judgmental, intolerant, and unaffirming of others.

And therein lies the problem.

Those on both sides of the gay ordination/gay marriage issue claim the other side is being “unchristlike“. But how can someone actually define “unchristlike” apart from a Biblical standpoint? After all, everything we know about Jesus Christ and what He was like is in the Bible. Jesus had some very divisive things to say to a lot of people as He called out their sin. And those He reached out to in mercy and grace, He told to repent of their behaviorand sin no longer.

There can be no objective definition of “Christlike“/”unchristlike“, “sin“, “repentance“, and “reaching the world with the gospel” apart from the Bible.

And until the United Methodist Church decides the place and authority of the Bible, there can be no definition of “unity” or any of these crucial and highly relevant words.

Until good people are more concerned with fidelity to the Bible and historic, Christian teachings on homosexuality – consistent for nearly two centuries – than with their concern for “friends on both sides of the issue who are hurt by the vote”, the future of the United Methodist Church is bleak.

Methodist friends, you have passed a historic vote to stand firm on your position stated clearly in The Book of the Discipline. The only two choices you have is to remain true to Biblical truth (as you voted last week) or bend to the modern morays of the Sexual Revolution. I’m not saying that homosexuals and those ordaining them and/or performing homosexual marriages are evil. But the Bible unequivocally denounces homosexual behavior.

On January 30, I asked the question, How low can we go? The context of this question had to do with how Virginia and New York seemed to be besting each other to be more liberal than the other.

And then I read about yesterday’s Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (S. 130) that failed to pass in the Senate. If passed, the Bill would protect babies who survived an abortion, granting them full, protected human rights and would require medical professionals to report such situations.

Unfortunately, the bill which received somewhat bipartisan support failed to reach cloture (2/3 majority vote). Three Democrats voted in favor and no Republicans voted against, and three Republicans did not vote, Lisa Murkowski (AK), Kevin Cramer (ND), and Tim Scott (SC).

The bill couldn’t get a 2/3 majority vote! Who can’t vote to protect a living, post-birth baby?! This shouldn’t be considered a “Right vs. Left” issue. This is a “Right vs. Wrong” issue. Can we not agree on this basic definition?!

President Woodrow Wilson was right when he said of the US Senate,

“the only legislative body in the world which cannot act when its majority is ready for action. A little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own, have rendered the great government of the United States helpless and contemptible.”

I commented on Facebook this morning, “The fact that this legislation didn’t sail through with 100% support is a terrible indictment on our nation. I honestly cannot see how any decent human being could vote against infanticide. God have mercy on us!”

“Decent human being”. Evidently, the bar for my definition is set too high.

It is past time for God’s people to fall on our knees and cry out to God to have mercy to us and to grant us the grace of a deep repentance. We need a Spiritual Awakening greater than the First and Second Great Awakenings to right this ship.


I must admit, I’m a little confused as people (of all political persuasions) call for Virginia Governor Northam to resign over a yearbook picture.

My confusion has more to do with why people have called for his resignation over this picture and not over his comments earlier this week calling for infanticide:


“If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother.”

Now, I am not in any way excusing the picture. But we are seriously messed up as a nation when a picture upsets us more than killing of a newborn baby. At least Virginia lawmakers voted to table the new abortion bill. Unfortunately, the vote was along Party lines.

#Godhavemercy #Godforgiveus #spiritualawakeningnow

I have had more discussions with Facebook (and real) friends over the past few days. In one, I asked my liberal friends to please explain how they can justify (and celebrate) the new New York abortion law.

I had only two people to attempt to answer the question, but they actually dodged it. After several back-and-forths on the issue of adoption and the need for more pro-life supporters to step up and walk their talk by supporting women who were choosing life for their baby, I tried to reign things back in for my original question. Here’s how I finally wrapped it up.


My original point was to ask the most basic of questions. If we can’t agree on the answer to the most basic of questions, we’ll never be able to agree on the follow-up answers. Too often, instead of answering the question, people ask more questions.

Unfortunately, it appears that “we” can’t agree on the answer to the most basic of questions. Even those who call themselves “Christians” (which we don’t always agree on that definition either!) can’t agree on the answer to the most basic of questions.

Take away all the arguments of “reproductive rights”. Take away even the arguments for/against abortion. Take away the arguments of what a woman chooses to do with her body. Take away all of these things that distract from THE most basic of questions.

“What is life?”

Can we not all agree that a baby that has entered the birth canal is in fact a baby whose life should be protected by law? Evidently not.

That was the question answered by delegates in Virginia on Tuesday when the committee voted to table the bill proposed by Kathy Tran. The vote to table the bill came down to 5-3 decision along party lines. Ms Tran acknowledged that her bill would not prevent an abortion on a fully-developed fetus when the mother was dilating.

And in his attempted explanation, the Virginia Governor Ralph Northam explained what would happen to a baby that survived such an abortion. “If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother.” (Note that Northam used the term “infant” three times. He acknowledged that this was a human baby and then said that discussions would determine its fate.

WHAT?????

When party lines are more important to us than protecting a baby in the birth canal, something is seriously wrong with us as a nation.

We must pray!

Enter your email address to have my devotionals delivered to your Inbox.

You will receive my devotionals only, and no other content.