The word “discrimination” has come to take on negative connotations in our modern culture. In reality, the word is “neutral”—simply referring to the process by which one recognizes and understands the difference between various options. We must, for example, be able to “discriminate” between good choices and bad choices; between right and wrong. Sometimes the word can be used to refer to a refined taste in foods or arts—the ability to distinguish between good and better.
In our culture, however, the primary association of the word is “unjust” treatment of different peoples based solely on race, or class, or gender, etc.
In the New Testament, the letter of James addresses unjust discriminations in chapter 2. He commands, “Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons” (2:1–KJV, ASV). “Respect of persons” is partiality.
The partiality James criticizes in the text is partiality based upon wealth and social status in the worship assembly. In the Roman world in which Jewish Christians lived, there were various strata of society, just as today. The Christians addressed had shown partiality to visitors based upon their social status and wealth alone (see James 2:2-3). James asks; Do you not make ‘distinctions’ [discriminations] among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? (v. 4).
Verse 6 indicates that the wealthy had even used legal means to oppress the poor. Oppression comes from a Greek word that means “to exploit.” That exploitation included Christians being “dragged before the judgment seat” by some of the wealthy. Contextually, the idea is clear that legal means had been utilized to oppress believers. The background for James’ inspired remarks is the Old Testament.
Behind James 2:1-4 is Leviticus 19:15.Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great; but judge your neighbor fairly. The Mosaic judicial system is instructed to show no partiality—either to the rich, or to the poor. Judgment should be even-handed.
James’ application of the Leviticus passage is simple. Show no favoritism. Treat all equally. But what is the remedy for such favoritism—in a church, or at the bar of justice? Would it not be simply “Stop it”?
What one does not hear is the inspired writer suggesting that in order to rectify the wrong of favoritism, that preferential treatment ought be practiced in the opposite direction—by showing “bias” to the poor from this point forward. No, the remedy is to treat all equally. Actually, for James to have commended more partisanship tilted in the direction of the poor would be to practice what he condemns!
Imagine another case. Can one suppose Moses would order that past or historical legal injustices against the poor in Israel, in violation of Leviticus 19:15, should be remedied by now encoding into the system that every other poor person that came before the bar of justice be exonerated based upon the fact of his poverty alone? That would be injustice itself. An atrocity.
One does not remedy injustice by encoding into law more injustice.
But this is exactly what America has done. Racial quotas in employment, education, grading in college, federal assistance, housing and even in legal punishment have become part of the law. Liberal thinking tells us that racial quotas, for example, are a means of diminishing racial discrimination in the past. These new racial quotas are enforced by government fiat.
However, when a racial quota is encoded into law, upheld by the Supreme Court, that establishes favoring a particular racial minority that is perceived to have been popularly discriminated against in the past, we are actually establishing a racism within the system itself. This is SYSTEMIC RACISM. Not only so, but the quota itself discriminates against all others by law that do not fit into that racial minority. This is the real “systemic racism” in America. All in the name of “fighting discrimination.”
It is difficult to imagine a greater injustice to society. Yes, we do have “systemic racism” in this country—in favor of minorities and against the white majority. Brainwashing of an entire culture.
Anyone who has witnessed either a community or a church tearing apart because of rumors, gossip, innuendo’s and idle talk can testify to the fact these types of troubles sometimes take on a life of their own. The general feeling is that, at some point, as situations become more aggravated, one cannot stop it. Whatever may be the initial cause and regardless of how that problem may have become settled by the initial participants, the issues continue to live. This is simply human nature.
It is for this reason that Jesus commanded, “Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are with him in the way; lest haply the adversary delivers you to the judge, the judge delivers you to the officer, and you are cast into prison” (Matt. 5:25). Simply put, if possible, do not allow differences to grow.
The principle is the same with the nature of government, since government is only comprised of fallible humans. The very reason our Founders insisted upon a small government is not only because all of human history demonstrates suffering of individuals at the hands of their own political leaders, but that governing systems that become too large with power gravitating to a central office are unable to be effectively controlled by individuals—in spite of the fact that it is to be “of, by, and for the people.” It is individual freedom that they were after.
Thomas Jefferson bluntly observed that he wanted government simple. “I am for government rigorously frugal and simple.” As far back as 1824, he criticized the size of our government. “I think, myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.” This was not merely personal preference. It was wisdom speaking.
Carelessly casting aside the warnings of the Founders, Americans have allowed all power to coalesce to Washington, D.C. The impediments placed in the Constitution by the Founders to forestall the growth of power are antiquated relics of dusty history. And the sociology of the situation is such that this gigantic leviathan that we have suffered to rule now takes on a life of its own. Some call it The Deep State. Others, The Establishment. Still others referred to it as The Shadow Government.
Whatever label we might put upon it, there is clearly a legion of government bureaucrats deeply buried within the halls of government. These bureaucrats are totalitarian in nature, communist in orientation, and pound out numberless rules, regulations, decrees to control the lives of once-free Americans. It is a fantasy that our elected leaders are in control.
Consider the presidency of Donald Trump and only one small sampling of the Deep State at work.
We now learn that the Justice Department, and specifically its investigative arm, the FBI, while Trump was the chief executive officer of the United States, illegally surveilled Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani during his conversations with Trump on iCloud. This occurred during the manufactured “Russiagate” scandal—pressed by Democrats and the MSM.
Not only was the entire “Russiagate” a red herring, born and bred within the inner recesses of our own government, but the Justice Department itself acted in Mao-like fashion against its own sitting president. Here is the totalitarian “permanent state” or cabal working to destroy Trump from within.
Siding with the rogue FBI is the MSM—The New York Times, The Washington Post, and NBC News—who have now been forced to retract incorrect stories about Rudy Guiliani. They all falsely reported that he had been briefed about the “Russian intelligence influence operation” that had supposedly targeted him. Never mind the clear evidence that was on the table involving the entire Biden syndicate in laundering money from foreign nations. Go punish Guiliani and Trump.
Now more. Within the last two weeks federal investigators carried out a search warrant at the home and office of Guiliani because of his alleged ties to Ukraine — all based upon incorrect information (see Epoch Times, 5-2-21).
Alan Dershowitz, a constitutional lawyer, openly stated that the FBI’s raid on Guiliani’s apartment violated the Constitution. “This was just a misuse of the search and seizure power. Initially, it was turned down; now it was approved, both by a judge and by the attorney general of the United States, so it wasn’t lawless action, but I believe that they acted inconsistently with both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and that there should be remedies of it.”
Kash Patel, the lawyer from Queens, New York, who served in senior posts during Trump’s Administration, including senior advisor to the Director of National Intelligence, is also facing a “Justice Department investigation.” Patel had assisted Rep. David Nunes’s investigation of crimes and abuses committed during the FBI’s operation targeting the Trump campaign. He had helped uncover the Democratic-led hoax called “Russiagate.” This is too much for the Democratic-controlled government. Patel is facing payback–an “official” Justice Department investigation.
Apparently, Donald Trump was president “on paper only.” Americans have lost control of their government. The Swamp has always ruled, and now with the Biden Administration they are ensuring no one like Trump will ever take office again. Government “of, by, and for the people” has indeed “perished from the earth” – at least for now.
The 1619 Project, sponsored by the New York Times, is a series of essays and multimedia creations designed to “reframe American history” by claiming America’s founding is based on racism and slavery instead of freedom and liberty. The chief writer for the project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, calls white people “savages” “bloodsuckers” and “murderers” who used Christianity as an excuse to enslave different peoples of the world. Her vitriol, which seems to know no bounds, is now being picked up by many others who are concerned about slavery in America’s history.
A slave is considered to be a person owned by another, without rights, and—like property—to be used and disposed of in whatever way the owner may wish. 1The Encyclopedia of Religion defines slavery as “[A] social and industrial system in which the person and labor of one individual may be disposed of as the property of another.” 2
Setting aside Hannah-Jones’ ignorant vilification of “white people” as the sole perpetrators of this institution, as well as her abysmal lack of knowledge of American history, what is particularly concerning here is that she assails the Bible in her diatribes as somehow teaching the practice of chattel slavery.
What Does the Bible Actually Teach Regarding Slavery?
Moses writes by inspiration that are human beings are created in “the image of God” (Gen. 1:26-27; 9:6). Of all the philosophies of the world, this Divine assertion alone gives all men and women equal dignity. All persons are equal in value to one another. Life itself is a gift of God.
Placing man in the Garden of Eden, God ordered him to “dress the garden and keep it” as well as to “eat of the fruit” which he gathered (Gen. 2:15). These commands imply freedom as well as the right to property. “Thou shalt not steal” is built into the very foundations of the created order.
From these simple premises it is easy to see that God never intended one human being to be the property of another. However, as is the case with polygamy which departed from the marriage institution that God created (Gen. 2:24)— mankind departed sharply from God’s design.
Separated from God men have concocted many schemes which ignore these plain biblical ideals, particularly regarding the value of human life. Aristotle, for example, developed the theory that some persons were servile by their very nature. 3 The school of philosophy known as Stoicism later considered slavery as a mere accident of fortune and therefore it was not a just cause about which one could complain.
The ancient world was actually steeped in slavery, whether it be the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, or Roman world—all practiced slavery. As Everett Ferguson writes, “Slavery was pervasive in ancient civilization.” Thomas C. Edwards, in his superb commentary on the book of 1 Corinthians, notes that the practice of slavery actually sprang from a rejection of God’s Word regarding the dignity of man. “Slavery was an institution that sprang from other fundamental ideas—namely, the superiority of men over women; the religious preeminence of Jew over Gentile; the Greek consciousness of creative political genius …” 4 It was the devaluing of human life that brought about slavery.
1 The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, vol. 3, p. 1462. 2 Ed. Vergilius Ferm, p. 714. 3 Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 854 4 Commentary on 1 Corinthians, p. 182.
Slavery was almost universally practiced in all cultures during Old Testament times. Men and women were enslaved by capture in war (1 Sam. 4:9) or by purchase (Gen. 17:12-13, 27). The Law allowed Hebrews to purchase slaves from foreigners at home or abroad (Lev. 25:44ff). Children born “into the house” of slave-parents were evidently called “house-born slaves” (Gen. 17:12-13).
Interestingly, slavery could be entered by other methods as well. God legislated that if a convicted thief could not make “restitution” and pay his damages and/or fines, money could be raised for this purpose by selling him as a slave (Ex. 22:3). This law showed that slavery involved the production or labor of a person was considered to be his property, which now became the property of the one wronged.
The insolvent debtor, as well as his family, became enslaved to the creditor (2 Kings 4:1). It was also possible for one to sell himself and his labor to escape poverty (Lev. 25:39-43).
However, there are some important considerations that the Old Testament includes. First, in the case of the insolvent debtor, he was not to be treated as a chattel slave, but as a “hired servant” and to be released at the Year of Jubilee (every 50 years on the Jewish calendar) (Lev. 25:39-43). The person who purchased him was instructed “not to rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear thy God.”
Second, to abduct a person and to reduce a stolen person to slavery was punishable by death (Ex. 21:16). Third, to murder a slave was punishable by death (Ex. 21:20; Lev. 24:17,22). The reason for this is once again because of the intrinsic value of a human being. Fourth, the enslaved debtor was to be released after six years (Ex. 21:2). There was no lifetime enslavement.
God, in the Old Testament, taking men where they were, regulated the practice of slavery and softened the edge of it. Contrast that with Roman law whereby a slave is not considered a person.
Old Testament scholar K.A. Kitchen summarizes the spirit of the Old Testament.
Generally, a more humane spirit breathes through the OT laws and customs on slavery, as illustrated by the repeated injunctions in God’s name not to rule over a brother Israelite harshly (e.g. Lev. 25:43,46,53,55; Dt. 15:14ff). Even when Hebrew law and custom on slaves shares in the common heritage of the ancient Semitic world, there is this unique care in God’s name for these people who by status were not people, something absent from the law codes of Babylon or Assyria.5
5 The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, vol. 3, p. 1464.
The New Testament
When asked about marriage, our Lord refers questioners back to the beginning and God’s initial intention with the sacred institution (Matt. 19:3-9). In similar fashion the New Testament elevates the dignity of man (Jas. 3:9) by carrying him back to God’s created order. The beautiful principles of Christianity, influencing cultures one heart at a time, eventually eradicated the practice of slavery by re-asserting the value of human beings.
It is important to see however, that New Testament teaching did not smash with a sledge-hammer one single social institution that had imbedded itself in society. Instead, the doctrine of Christ works as a leaven in the soul of individuals, nations, and cultures. Slavery was one of those institutions.
This explains why the inspired apostles, when discussing the the question of slavery, not only advise masters and slaves how to behave in their particular life-situations, but address themselves to the deep antagonisms in the social world. This will be brought out below.
A cursory reading of the NT might cause one to think that sometimes the apostles seem to sanction slavery; at other times to proclaim its abolition—in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male or female; all are one man in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28).
But Christianity abolishes slavery by assimilating and sanctifying the relation of master and servant in its inmost nature. While it refuses to wield the sword and destroy civil institutions by violence, it so transforms their ruling ideas that those institutions become what they never were before. For instance, Christ bestows on the most degraded and despised slave who is a believer, spiritual endowments that cannot fail to inspire him with a consciousness of freedom. He ceases to be a slave by the very fact of knowing that in the sight of God he is free, and his service ceases to be a bondage because it is now a willing obedience to Christ.6
What about those deep antagonisms that exist in all societies between different peoples? Paul’s overall theme in teaching is summarized in 1 Corinthians 7:10-24 which might be entitled, Live in Harmony with One Another. Like several NT passages in which slaves and masters are addressed, and who were part of local congregations to which the apostles ministered 7 some of the Corinthians were slaves and some were slave-owners. How did God counsel them?
“Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. Were you called being a slave? Care not for it [that is, do not be overly concerned with your social condition. Your calling in Christ ECLIPSES this consideration]. Even if you can be free, use it rather …” (7:20-21).
The phrase “use it rather” following “even if you can be free” has been variously interpreted. It is either interpreted as (1) “… use your freedom,” or, (2) “use slavery …” Many modern commentators, and even the translators of the NIV, consider the phrase to be saying, “if you can gain your freedom, do so” –opting for the first alternative.
But it seems out of character with the theme of the entire section which is to Live in Harmony—even in challenging situations. Further, the next line in the passage (v. 22) begins with the word “for”—which is explanatory of that which has just been said. “FOR, he that was called in the Lord, being a slave, is the Lord’s freedman …” That explanation does not follow if Paul has just said, “if you can become free, do so.”
As John Peter Lange points out in his classic commentary, the “whole drift of the argument is—to make men content with their lot …” 8 That being the case, the translation is, “but even though you may be made free, use your servitude rather [as a means of discipline, and an opportunity for glorifying God by showing fidelity therein].”
6 Edwards, p. 186 7 See Eph. 6:5-8; Col. 3:22-4:1; 1 Pet. 2:18ff. 8 Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Vol. 10, p. 153.
In any case, the main point should not be lost on us. The important thing is to serve God “and the slave should not worry unduly about the fact that he is a slave. If God has called him as a slave, He will give him grace to live as a slave.” 9
F.W. Grosheide understands the verse as simply saying, Use your vocation—whether slave or free. 10 The entire argument of Paul is that the over-riding concern for the Christian is that of spiritual blessings “in Christ”, and this outweighs all other concerns—including slavery! The dominant factor is being a Christian.
How does this fit within the current context of so many churches and Christians all at once becoming extremely exercised about black slavery in history, or stirred to the point of anger about discrimination in the Jim Crow era? How does Paul’s advice comport with emotionally driven screeds today that demand a removal of a Christians’ name from Christian college buildings because those preachers lived during the segregation era but did not stomp it out with vengeance?
An interesting New Testament episode involves the runaway slave Onesimus. Paul met him while a prisoner in Rome (circa 63-64 A.D.), converted him to Christ, and sent him back to his owner, Philemon, a Christian man who lived in Colossae. A cover letter was sent with the returned slave (Col. 4:7,9). It is the book of Philemon.
In it Paul admonishes Philemon to “receive him back” and treat him no longer as a slave, but as a brother in Christ. “Not now as a slave, but more than slave, a brother beloved specially to me, but how much more unto you, both in the flesh and in the Lord?” (16) It is noteworthy that Paul does not command Philemon to “free him” but appeals to him on the basis of brotherhood. It is also worth mentioning that Paul actually sent Onesimus back to his slave master.
Once again, Christianity revolutionizes and changes the world, but not by pouring out into the streets, holding a nation hostage with violence and smashing its cultural symbols. It does so with the teaching of the peace of Jesus Christ.
John Peter Lange summarizes the entire disposition of biblical Christianity to slavery. Christ and his followers “assailed no existing social institutions from without—marriages, callings, and conditions were to remain as they were.” Christianity wrought “from within” a “sanctifying and ennobling” influence over individual character.
Biblical principles “employed the existing bonds of society as conductors through which to diffuse its saving power—sanctifying wives through husbands, and husbands through wives, children through parents, and parents through children; and even servants through masters and masters through servants.”
Further, as seen above, Christianity aims at the preservation of peace in a society—as far as possible—in consistency with being faithful to God (See Rom. 12:17-21). Christ wants us to “ignore outward distinctions—counting outward distinctions as of little moment, in comparison with the inward state.” How our society needs this lesson! What a difference this would make to the writers of the New York Times and the 1619 Project!
9 Leon Morris, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, 1 Corinthians, p. 113. 10 NICNT, 1 Corinthians, p. 170.
Christ’s teachings “begot contentment with the outward estate, by imparting a blessing which more than counterbalanced all earthly ill.” Not only so, but the Lord Jesus “reconciled the opposite poles of human condition, freedom and obligation in the love it engendered, making the slave a freeman, and putting the freeman under obligations to serve, and making all alike free, and all alike obligated.”
Finally, the Bible places “all in the presence of God, in whose sight it constrained believers to live; whose honor it urged all to sub-serve, and from whom it invited all to derive their chief good.” 11
The gospel brings to mankind a belief and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ. Faithfulness is commanded which involves the improvement of one’s character which in turn improves the conditions of society. When people place the glory of God foremost, not only is slavery eradicated as a social condition, but it is seen to be a very little thing in the ultimate scheme of things. It is past time for people to come to Christ and lift themselves above the grievances of slavery past or racism present.
MADRID — Throughout the United Nations COP25 “Climate” summit in Spain, America, the GOP, and President Donald Trump — not carbon dioxide or even “climate change” — were public enemy number one. Indeed, the U.S. government, the American people, their elected officials, and what remains of the free-market system that ushered in unprecedented global prosperity were all viciously and relentlessly attacked.
Globalists, communists, Islamists, socialists, environmentalists, and crackpots of all varieties dropped the mask in a carefully orchestrated show. Incredibly, even the many prominent Americans who spoke at the summit demonized their own nation and the freedom that made it so succesful. If the “climate” coalition gets its way, the consequences will be catastrophic for America, liberty, self-government, and material well-being.
At a “Fridays for the Future” protest that began inside before heading into the street, shrieking children and “youth” screamed all sorts of Marxist talking points while putting their hands in the air — each one painted with an occult-style eye painted on it. The “young people,” terrorized and carefully managed by adults, chanted, among other things, “This is what a feminist looks like.” Occasionally, people would stand up and rant about the alleged evils of America, CO2, patriarchy, energy companies, markets, and more.
Once outside, the dozens of noisy children, made to look like an enormous march by the media, surrounded by well-spoken adults giving instructions and adoring “journalists” broadcasting the spectacle to the world, shouted “anti-capitalist, anti-capitalist” over and over again. Then they began chanting “system change, not climate change.” When asked about it, every protester said the goal was to dismantle what remains of the market system.
On the last day of the summit, “CommunismoEsVida” (Communism Is Life) was trending on Twitter in Spain as indoctrinated children on social media ranted against economic freedom.
Inside, similar rhetoric was everywhere. Infamous Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki, for instance, called for an end to free market. “Capitalism is at the heart of what is driving” alleged man-made climate change, he declared at UN summit. “We’ve got to throw the system out.”
He probably felt right at home. Even the big cheese, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, is an admitted socialist. Before taking the reins at the UN, he led the Socialist International, the world’s most powerful alliance of Socialist and Marxist political parties, many with the blood of countless innocents on their hands.
Among the significant demands was that the U.S. government hand over climate “reparations” under the guise of “loss and damage.” Hundreds of “youth” activists — many funded by the very governments and companies they were “protesting” against — demanded that America fork over the money. In short, poor and middle-class American taxpayers would end up paying Third World kleptocrats for supposedly causing bad weather, forest fires, and other natural disasters. Seriously. The UN now claims America cannot avoid paying up.
Adults speaking at the summit sounded similar. On one of the most prominent platforms in the entire UN summit, radical population-control advocate Stuart Scott with the group “Scientists Warning” blasted the United States as the “the kleptocratic States of America.” Speaking of President Trump, he went even further. “This man is a threat to the planet, as is his corporate owned Republican Party, who have been bought by the fossil fuel industry and other polluting industries,” argued Scott.
The idea that American officials and the voters who elect them represent a mortal danger to the planet has been a common theme for weeks. Prominent professor of international relations Ole Wæver at the University of Copenhagen even suggested that the UN Security Council could decide that “climate change” is a “threat to international peace and security,” thereby sending in UN “peacekeeping” troops to enforce its climate mandates at the barrel of a gun.
Scott, who told The New American in an interview that reducing the population of the planet was urgent, continued to spew hatred against Trump while sitting on the UN stage. “They have together done a huge disservice to humanity and all of life on Earth,” he said about Trump and Republicans. “They’ve done all this for the sake of money. Make no mistake: Trump has got a particular personality aberration.”
“The callousness of this man is astonishing and revolting,” Scott continued, blasting Trump’s “amazing depravity.” Not a single pro-Trump or pro-GOP speaker was allowed on stage to offer an alternate perspective.
Sharing the stage with him was Dan Galpren, an attorney and legal advisor to leading climate alarmist James Hansen. “The derangement goes well further than Trump,” he told the UN summit, adding that the entire Republican Party was deranged, as well. Even though the American people who voted for those elected officials pay more for the UN than anybody on the planet, nobody challenged the narrative in an official capacity throughout the entire two-week summit.
For some reason, Scott then shared some teenage gossip he heard about Trump during his childhood. “I grew up a couple miles away from where Donald Trump grew up,” he said. “And the story in the hood — the neighborhood — was that he got kicked out of a couple schools locally, and so his parents put him in a military academy where they tolerated him as long as his parents paid. And his initials became the acronym for serving detention at the military academy.”
He also claimed that by getting the U.S. government out of the UN Paris agreement, Trump was “not trying to protect the American people, that’s very clear.” Using nasty foul language to demonize Trump, Scott said the president was a reality TV star, “you will recall, who could create his own reality on his programs.” “This man somehow cheated, lied, hoodwinked the public into becoming president of the United States,” Scott said, claiming the GOP had rigged the election through “a lot of gerrymandering the districts to help make that possible.”
Christians, of course, say, “What Would Jesus Do?” when considering actions. Scott, though, concluded his highly controversial remarks by asking, “What would Greta do?” It fit perfectly with the words by Trump’s former climate advisor, Dr. William Happer of Princeton, who spoke at a separate non-UN summit in Madrid and accused the man-made warming crowd of being a “bizarre cult” that would do enormous damage if not stopped.
Other major speakers at the UN summit called for massive depopulation of America and Europe in order to stop “climate change,” while others said reducing the number of Africans and Asians should be a top priority.
Former Secretary of State John Kerry, an uber-wealthy former politician who also spoke from one of the most prominent stages at the UN summit, declared that he was ashamed to be American. “I assume the burden unfortunately of a country that is the largest naysayer of all,” he told throngs of officials, journalists, and activists from around the world. “And I’m sorry for that. I regret it enormously. Only the United States of America has a head of government who calls climate change a Chinese hoax.”
Kerry also took some time to lie, multiple times, about various issues ranging from diesel particulate to the supposed “science” underpinning the man-made-warming hypothesis. He claimed solar power, “now absolutely, under any standard by whatever you measure, is cheaper than coal, no question about it.” If that were true, everybody would be using solar power, of course.
Currently serving American officials who spoke at the summit were also extremists opposed to fundamental American values. Speaking on a panel called “Subnational strategies in North America for meeting Paris Commitments,” for instance, Wisconsin Lieutenant Governor Mandela Barnes called on the world to “stymie capitalism.” All of the other U.S. and Canadian officials were similarly left-wing extremists.
Indeed, despite constant shrieking about “this is what democracy looks like,” there was literally no representation for conservative Americans or Republicans anywhere at the summit. Not a single conservative, pro-America speaker could be found among the 25,000 attendees. There was just a tiny handful of American patriots who reject the man-made global-warming hypothesis even allowed in the conference, and none of them were given a platform to speak.
Prestigious U.S. scientists who reject the man-made-warming narrative were also denied a platform to share their views or express their concerns. Instead, a coalition of “skeptic” and “realist” scientists and experts such as Princeton physicist Dr. Happer, who served on Trump’s National Security Council, had to gather elsewhere in Madrid to present their views. Out of thousands of journalists from around the world, just a tiny handful showed up at the Climate Reality Conference they hosted.
In the spectacles, funded by the Kremlin and the Rockefeller oil dynasty, trophies were handed out to activists pretending to be Donald Trump, who would stand up and make America look evil, greedy, and ridiculous. There were many supposed reasons for America being the worst country in the world: Not handing over enough money, not slashing CO2 emissions quickly enough, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, sending delegates to represent U.S. interests despite being in the withdrawal process, and more.
Despite all the hatred, the U.S. delegation hardly rocked the boat in a serious way. “The United States continues to lead on clean, affordable, and secure energy while reducing all types of emissions ― including greenhouse gases ― over the last 15 years,” said U.S. Ambassador Marcia Bernicat, who headed the U.S. delegation. “Our model shows how innovation and open markets lead to greater prosperity, fewer emissions, and more secure sources of energy.”
After saying this COP25 would be the last one where the U.S. government would be a party to the UN Paris Agreement, she vowed that Washington, D.C., would remain involved. “We remain fully committed to working with you, our global partners, to enhance resilience, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and prepare for and respond to natural disasters,” Ambassador Bernicat said during the three-minute time allotted to the U.S. government.
In conversations with The New American, U.S. State Department officials said the reason 50 American delegates were required was to “represent U.S. interests” while the federal government remained involved in the Paris Agreement officially until next year. Depending on who one talked to though, it was not clear whether the U.S. delegation was advancing or slowing down “progress” on the UN’s controversial “climate” agenda.
“The United States is proud of its record as a world leader in reducing emissions, driving economic growth, and fostering resilience at home and abroad,” a State Department spokesman told The New American. “The United States will continue to be a leader in assisting our partners to reduce emissions, protect natural resources, increase resilience, and respond to natural disasters.”
With U.S. officials perpetuating the narrative that CO2 is pollution, despite Trump having called the theory a “hoax” to benefit Communist China, all the rage might seem hard to understand. But at least one heavyweight on the side of climate realism suggested the hatred against America had to do with the U.S. government’s lack of cooperation.
“Why is the UN having a hard time advancing the global warming ball?” asked Craig Rucker, president of the free market-oriented environmental group known as CFACT. “One name — Donald J. Trump and his plans to pull America out of the Paris Climate Accord. It’s no fun making spending plans when you can’t leach off the world’s biggest economy.”
“What is actually happening at this year’s UN climate talks is a wait-and-see game geared toward next November’s American election,” he continued. “After watching Britain give the Tory party its biggest victory since Thatcher during the talks, and moves now afoot to pull Britain out of the E.U. once and for all, government by global bureaucracy is under threat. The UN is plenty scared.”
Of course, if CO2 were the real enemy, the UN summit would have been praising America non-stop, as the nation’s emissions of the essential gas continue to plummet. Instead of America being demonized, the “climate justice” warriors would have targeted Communist China, which is far and away the world’s largest emitter of CO2. And yet, not only was the murderous regime in Beijing not criticized; increasingly, it has been painted as the savior of multilateral “climate solutions.”
With the raw hatred against America and freedom that was on display throughout the COP25, it should be beyond clear to Congress that not one more American cent should be used to fund this absurdity known as the UN. Instead, though, Democrats led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised to keep America shackled to the UN’s “climate” regime at all costs. The American voter is now the only significant human force holding back planetary disaster in the form of a UN “climate” regime. The next election will be crucial.
As reported by CNN, a Methodist church in California is displaying a nativity scene depicting Jesus, Mary and Joseph as refugees in cages to “draw attention to the conditions faced by migrants seeking asylum in the United States.” The Claremont United Methodist Church, which is about 30 miles east of Los Angeles, “posted the photo on its website showing the three held in separate cages topped with barbed wire. The baby Jesus is wrapped in a silver foil blanket.” The “lead pastor” Karen Clark Ristine told CNN that “we thought about the most famous refugee family in the world.”
The United Methodist Church, ever ready to warp biblical narratives into liberal political messages, has displayed a stunning ignorance of the Bible. As Gary DeMar observes, “Leftists have little regard for the Bible unless it can be used to scold Christians for judging righteously … and to support socialism based on a passage about voluntary giving (Acts 2:42-45; 4:32-35).”
As I wrote in a former article, there are several biblical considerations that need be made. (1) God Himself established borders of nations. Read Acts 17:26. (2) God demanded that Old Testament Israel respect the borders of other nations. God gave Mt. Seir to Esau and his descendants for a “possession.” Therefore, Israel, when coming out of Egypt, was not to cross it (Deuteronomy. 2:5). The same regarded Israel’s respect of Moab’s borders.
(3) Once settled in Canaan, the Israelites were sternly warned to “drive the Canaanites out.” The stated reason for this was to preserve the culture of Israel (Numbers. 33:51,52). (4) Even Abraham was deported once it was discovered that he lied to border agents. Read Genesis 12. (5) Regarding Jesus and the holy family, as DeMar notes, they were living within the confines of the Roman Empire. Egypt was part of the Roman Empire at the time of Jesus’ birth. Their escape from Bethlehem was only to another Roman Province. (6) Another command given to Joseph and Mary was that they were to return to their homeland after the death of Herod (Matthew. 2:20). DeMar asks, “How many refugees return to their home nations after entering the United States?”
Ellie Bufkin of the Washington Examiner, wrote the following. “Democratic Texas Rep. Al Green claimed that President Trump’s impeachment was necessary to deal with the ‘original’ sin of slavery.
“During a Saturday appearance on MSNBC, the congressman cited an interest in acting on behalf of people of color. ‘I do believe, ma’am, that we have to deal with the original sin,’ Green said to host Alex Witt. ‘We have to deal with slavery. Slavery was the thing that put all of what President Trump has done lately into motion. It’s [the] insidious scion of racism. The president has played on racism, and he’s used that as a weapon to galvanize a base of support to mobilize people.’”
Let’s step back a moment.
The biblical scholar R.C. Foster observed over a hundred years ago that the rejection of Jesus by his home town of Nazareth (Luke 4) was in part due to the “most common and worst of crimes”—ingratitude. “It is often true that the more that is done for unworthy people, the less they appreciate it and the more they presume upon the generosity of others and grow in the false grandeur of their own conceit.” That this is self-evidently true is seen in the sad reality now in America. Ingratitude.
Prior to the creation of our welfare state in America, charity was practiced by individuals, churches and private organizations. This was the formula of the Founding Fathers. So successful was it that there is no record of people dying on the streets because of lack of food, shelter or medical assistance. Americans were the most generous people on the earth. So thought Alexis de Tocqueville when visiting our country from France in 1831 and 1832.
Enter the welfare state of the federal government. It has helped create the opposite of its stated goal of alleviating the poor. Not only has poverty continued to rise in America, but the sense of “entitlement” followed by the “worst of crimes”—ingratitude—has become commonplace. This has now morphed into a boiling hatred for whites in many minority communities that one can hear, see, and feel.
See the statistics on recipients of the state-sponsored welfare state. According to the U.S. Census Bureau “approximately 21.3 percent of people in the United States participated in major means-tested government assistance programs each month in 2012.” Participation rates for the black population is at 41.6 percent; followed by Hispanics at 36.4 percent; then Asians or Pacific Islanders at 17.8 percent; lastly, by non-Hispanic whites at 13.2 percent. Stating the obvious, the Bureau concluded “blacks were more likely to participate in government assistance programs in an average month.”
Added to overt financial assistance from the public trough, minority communities have also been the favored recipients of government policies such as affirmative action which has been touted as necessary to fight the enduring effects of white racism. Our entire culture is saturated with affirmative action practices, from educational institutions, medical schools, law schools, even the military itself. But instead of alleviating racial animosity, the only enduring lesson that is being ingrained is hatred for a white America that supposedly is racist.
Back to Al Green. Hatred simply seethes in America. The comment by Democratic Texas lawmaker Al Green, who claims that America needs to deal with racism of the past by impeaching President Trump, is a perfect example. To Green, everything that occurs is colored in racial tones. White America can elect a Barack Obama, can pay millions of dollars to black sports and entertainment hero’s; can acquiesce to affirmative action programs that favor people of color in all segments of society—yet nothing is enough. Atonement is never found. This is the way hate works. Hate is a leviathan with an insatiable appetite. Always hungry for more, but never satisfied. Al Green is afflicted with it, and it has become so pervasive that Green feels comfortable airing his hatred on national television.
The “original sin” of which Al Green speaks is ingratitude. His own. His ingratitude for being a legislative leader in the greatest country that has ever existed. Hehas allowed the ingratitude in his soul to hard-boil into hatred. Al Green hasn’t ever been a slave; nor his father, and I dare say even his grandfather. He knows no slave holders in America, nor the sons of slave holders. The only people that are slaves are the middle-class taxpayers who support his gigantic welfare state. But this is not enough.
Just as with the election of Barack Obama, many whites supposed that racial animosity would subside, but they were mistaken. It metastasized. Hatred knows no bounds. Even if Donald Trump is successfully impeached and removed from office, which would be a travesty in American justice, Al Green’s hatred will only increase.
Shockingly, the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, recently signed into law measures to expand abortion rights across the state. Mislabeled the Reproductive Health Act, the state of New York wanted to put protective barriers around Roe v Wade which Democrats feared could be overturned by a more conservative Supreme Court under Donald Trump. Cuomo stated: “With the signing of this bill, we are sending a clear message that whatever happens in Washington, women in New York will always have the fundamental right to control their own body.”
The bill allows women to abort their babies up to the very moment of birth, even as they prepare for delivery. This grotesque ignoring of the value of children’s lives by abortion—properly called infanticide—is alarming and should serve as a wake-up call to all Americans as to the wicked direction of leftist politics.
Herod the Great, the unusually cruel king of Judea who served under the auspices of Emperor Augustus at the time of our Lord’s birth, was in the last years of his reign when he learned that “the King of the Jews” was to be born in Bethlehem. In an effort to exterminate Jesus Christ, the newborn king, Herod ruthlessly slaughtered all of the babies of Bethlehem from two years old and younger (Matt. 2:16). Cuomo is cut out of the same cloth.
What’s next? Allowing the murder of children up to two years old? New York’s reasoning is that their bill involves the Reproductive Health of a woman. What about her Psychological Health? Here is how two Italian utilitarian professors argued for infanticide-even after birth-due to a woman’s psychological health.
However, having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health
of the woman or for her already existing children, regardless of the condition of the fetus. This could happen in the case of a woman who loses her partner after she finds out that she is pregnant and therefore feels she will not be able to take care of the possible child by herself.
Giubilini & Minerva
The above statement was published in a prestigious online Journal of Medical Ethics several years ago. If that is not an argument for infanticide, it would be difficult to determine what would constitute one. It was co-authored by Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and Francesca Minerva of the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. Their position is that killing of a newborn baby is “ethically permissible” in all circumstances where abortion would be.
To soften our minds to this horrific suggestion, they tell us that the unborn child as well as the newborn is “only a potential person.” Further, feeling that “infanticide” is too strong a term, they therefore “propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion.’” This emphasizes “that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than a child.” In other words, quit thinking in human terms like “child” or “baby.”
The “circumstances” which would “ethically” allow “abortion” include such considerations as when the “well-being of the family” is at risk. And then, almost unbelievably, the professors tell us that “The best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice…”
Biubilini & Minerva’s reasoning is simply an extension of the justification for Cuomo’s abortion bill. Let New Yorkers or any pro-choice person give a coherent answer as to the conceptual difference between a woman’s reproductive health and her psychological health. This cannot be done precisely because abortion itself is infanticide: the killing of innocent God-given life.
Once a society begins wickedly exterminating its unborn children (America has murdered more than 1 million babies a year since 1973—financed in large part by taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood) a hardening of the conscience begins that inevitably leads to open Herodian-style infanticide. New York proudly leads the way downward.
One might ask the professors, or the Governor, who sets himself forth as some great one on this issue, just how long after birth might a baby be murdered? The professors are not certain on this point. That will have to be settled by “neurologists and psychologists” who advise the “king.” And that advice will be skewed depending upon the interest of the crown.
The New Birth– “Not even this great ruler of the Jews could enter the kingdom of God but by a New Birth! “
One of most powerful interviews in the NT is that of Jesus by Nicodemus recorded in John 3. In it the terms of entrance into the kingdom of God are explained. “Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Nicodemus was going against scholarly public opinion of that day by coming to Jesus. Their disposition was flat rejection. Not interested in considering the Lord’s teaching, the Sanhedrin council, of which Nicodemus was a member, instead plotted to murder Christ. For that reason, Nicodemus was a “secret disciple” (7:51,52).
Prominent in Jesus’ teaching to Nicodemus was that noted above: The New Birth—without which no one would see the Kingdom of God (3:3). Not even this great ruler of the Jews could enter the kingdom of God but by a New Birth! Do not miss the point that one is not saved simply by being a faithful Jew. The kingdom cannot be a Jewish entity. Imagine the shock Nicodemus experienced. Jews supposed they would be members of the Messiah’s kingdom by virtue of natural birth. This is wrong. “How could this be?” asked Nicodemus.
Jesus explains: The New Birth consists of “water and spirit” (3:5). One birth, two elements. The fact is given in v. 3. The details in v. 5. Spirit refers to the Holy Spirit. A person is led by the Spirit (Rom. 8:12) into a New Birth. The Spirit speaks to us through His word. Water refers to the water of baptism. Richard Hooker (1533-1600), one of the “divines” if the Church of England, wrote a three-volume study. In it he stated: “Of all the ancient writers there is not one to be named who ever expounded the text otherwise than implying water baptism.”
Another Church of England leader of 1638, John Boys, expanded: “ …Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Beda, Theophylact … Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Ambrose, Basil, Gregory …” all understood the text as referring to water baptism as essential to entrance into the Kingdom of God.
How then do many moderns seek to explain the passage as having nothing to do with the essentiality of water baptism? Henry Alford, Greek scholar and Bible translator of yesteryear, puts it succinctly: “All attempts to get rid of baptism in this passage have sprung from doctrinal prejudices by which views of expositors have been warped.” Examples of these abound.
It is NOT: “Water—which is Spirit” (John Calvin). It is NOT: “Water alone” which equals infant baptism or “baptismal regeneration” as taught by the Catholic Church. Baptism, “merely as a rite, apart from the operation of the spirit, does not impart new life” (Vincent, Word Studies, II, 92).
Neither is it that “water” represents physical birth and “spirit”represents “spiritual birth.” Many modern day Baptists have sought refuge in this to avoid the implication of water baptism. They suggest that Jesus in essence answers Nicodemus this way when asked about the New Birth: “One must be born of his mother in natural birth THEN he may be born again by the Spirit.”
Several things need be said here: (1) The form of the expression “water and spirit” makes water and spirit inseparable. One birth—two elements. So states Greek scholar B.F. Westcott, one of translators of the ASV. (2) This overlooks that the whole expression ‘water and Spirit’ defines the manner in which one is born again. G.R. Beasley-Murray, a modern-day Baptist, notes that “suggestions like these do not do justice to the text and have not commended themselves to scholarly opinion.” (3) A parallel is found in John 4:24 where we are commanded to “worship in spirit and truth.” One preposition governs both nouns—spirit and truth. One worship; Two aspects. So also here in John 3:5.
One cannot enter into the kingdom of God but by a spiritual birth (led by the Spirit) through water baptism. Strange ideas to Nicodemus who supposed that traditional Judaism was the door into the Messianic kingdom. Strange ideas to denominations today who seek to avoid water baptism as essential to salvation.