The New Islamic State: A Historical Perspective

     It's official.  ISIS has wasted no time in declaring that the Islamic Caliphate is established in the Middle East.  After quickly conquering territories in Iraq and Syria, ISIS now proclaims their intentions of pushing into Europe.  As if that news is not chilling enough, they have demanded allegiance from Muslims around the world.
     I keep returning to this subject, because I don't think enough Americans are aware of the seriousness of this development, nor of the historical significance.  As K.T. McFarland, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs under President Reagan pointed out, it is absolutely essential that one understands that the emergence of ISIS, (and the Sunni-Shiite hostility), has been raging for the last 2500 years.  It has been going on since 500 B.C., and is, in essence the Persian Empire (Shiites) vs. the Babylonian Empire (Sunnis).  It is the same tribes and the same fight that has been going on for centuries.  (The Book of Daniel gives us a biblical and historical perspective of this ongoing conflict.)
     The head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi, now calls himself Caliph Ibrahim, using the name given to the son of the Prophet Muhammad in order to strengthen the claim that he is now the leader of the Muslims and a direct successor to the prophet himself.  This development precludes that Muslims everywhere, not just those in areas under the organization's control, swear loyalty to him.  For added emphasis, he was clever in making his announcement on the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.  The group has also renamed itself The Islamic State, and a spokesman released this statement: "'The legality of all emirates, groups, states and organizations becomes null by the expansion of the caliph's authority and the arrival of its troops to their areas.  Listen to your caliph and obey him. Support your state, which grows every day."

     Make no mistake.  The Islamic State is real and is not shy about announcing its five-year plan.   The Daily Mail reports that the plans include expansion far beyond Muslim-majority countries.  A map shared by their supporters shows that plans are in existence to expand the caliphate throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and large parts of western Asia, including an expansion into parts of Europe.
     The map shows that Spain, which was ruled by Muslims for 700 years until 1492, is marked out as a territory the caliphate plans to have under its control by 2020. They also plan to take control of the Balkan states -- including Greece, Romania and Bulgaria - extending their territories in eastern Europe as far as Austria, which appears to be based on the pre-First World War borders of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
     ISIS has long argued for the return of the geographical boundaries before WWI, and has insisted that the carving up of the Ottoman Empire by Allied forces after the conflict - commonly known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement - was a deliberate attempt to divide Muslims and restrict the likelihood of another caliphate being established.  It is a fact that Muslim extremists have long dreamed of recreating the Islamic state, or caliphate, that ruled over the Middle East, North Africa and beyond, in various forms, over the course of Islam's 1,400-year history.  And now they see their chance to accomplish that goal!
     If you need more evidence that these developments should be taken seriously, take note:  this marks the first time since the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1923 that a Caliph--which means a political successor to the Prophet Mohammad--has been named.  The Islamic State has "marked its borders", is asserting itself as "a legitimate state", and is announcing that it wishes to usher in "a new era of international jihad."
     And we should take them at their word.  What everyone in the world needs to realize is that The Islamic State has managed to do in Syria and Iraq what Al Qaeda never has - carve out a large swath of territory in the heart of the Arab world and control it.   This could mean that al-Queda will be dethroned from their jihadist leadership position, and the younger generation of the jihadist community will become more supportive of [ISIS] because of their slick propaganda and their track record of achieving rapid results through brutality.  If you have been paying attention, then you know that the new Caliph's militant forces are not referred to as terrorist "cells", but as a formidable "army" by noted national security experts.  These same experts warn that they won't stop at the boundaries of Europe.  This is a very real threat to our homeland and our way of life.  Not only do we have to be concerned about American-born jihadists, but Middle East oil could soon be under the control of the Caliphate, or at the very least disrupted.  We face formidable perils on both fronts.
      My purpose in divulging this information is not to be controversial nor to create hysteria.  But if there was ever a need for a Biblical worldview, now is the time.  Bible prophecy indicates that in the End Times, as we get closer to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, God will allow the Medes (who are the modern-day Kurds) to gain power, even as the Lord allows the Arabs to gain power and rebuild the kingdom of Babylon in the heart of Iraq.  The fulfillment of that prophecy is on the horizon!  Furthermore, the Bible tells us in the Book of Revelation that Babylon will be the epicenter of the world's evil in the last days.  This vision is coming into view!  It is time for all men and women to know their history, the Bible, and how you can secure your eternal future.  Please don't waste another minute!

Isaiah 13:11    "And I, the Lord, will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their guilt and iniquity; I will cause the arrogance of the proud to cease and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible and the boasting of the violent and ruthless."

   
   

A Win For Hobby Lobby & The Constitution!

     I sat, holding my breath yesterday morning, awaiting the decision from the Supreme Court on the most important case before the bench, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.  As you should know, the case was to determine whether the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) can exempt a company from federal government regulations requiring employers to provide contraceptive coverage to their female employees.
     In a 5-4 decision, with the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court gave a narrow ruling that "closely-held corporations" can't be forced to provide contraception.  Basically, the Court held that private, family-owned businesses can claim religious exemption to being forced to provide certain contraceptive measures that are designed to end the pregnancy of a fertilized egg; in effect, resulting in abortion.  Specifically, Hobby Lobby objected to four of the 20 contraceptive methods in the mandate; pills and devices that can work after conception, including morning after pills and IUDs.  Essentially, the Supreme Court has voted that our religious convictions matter, and corporations can have a religious viewpoint under federal law.
     I have to admit that tears spontaneously filled my eyes, as I looked heavenward and thanked God.  Perhaps He had heard and answered the collective prayers of Christians who asked that we not be forced to compromise our faith.  Of course, the skeptics will point out that it was a narrow victory; far from unanimous, and is not a clear mandate from either the Court or the populace.  They will argue that women, who wish to receive these methods of birth control, will be denied, and the government was only trying to require businesses to provide a health care option the women need.

     But Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote his own opinion, pointed out this mandate did not come from an elected body; not from Congress, or one of the three elected Branches of government; but from an unelected bureaucracy, namely from the Department of Health and Human Services.  He found it troubling that an unelected bureaucrat (at the time, Kathleen Sebelius) could set down such sweeping laws that effected the electorate.  That is clearly unConstitutional!
     I will admit that I'm a little confused about the dissenting opinion coming from Justice Ginsberg, who saw this as a gender equality issue in the workplace.  Already, opponents of the Court decision are misleading the public by saying that employers are exempt from providing all contraception methods.  In truth, only four of the twenty were excluded.  Then of course, we are hearing a montage of talking points on the injustice towards women, and how this is part of the continued "war on women."  But these arguments just don't hold water.
     The Court ruled that women who want these contraceptions are not banned from getting them; they have other ways to receive them, like buying them for themselves (as they had been doing for the 30 years before the Affordable Care Act).  Or if HHS was so concerned about the availability of free contraceptive methods, why didn't they pay for them?  (Of course, if the government paid for them, it would mean the American taxpayer would be footing the bill, right?)  In the end, the Court decided that this mandate intruded upon the "individual conscious" of Hobby Lobby's owners, and DID prohibit them from the "free exercise" of their religious beliefs, which is a violation of the First Amendment.  It gives me a small glimmer of hope that our national foundation of religious liberty is still holding strong.  Keep praying, America!

Joshua 24:15        "But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."
   

The Silence Is Telling

     My mind and my soul, these days, are preoccupied with spiritual matters; and so I ask, "Will anyone speak up?"  I have been looking for someone -- anyone -- with some national recognition to speak publicly about the growing persecution of Christians in the world.  I'm not talking about just reporting the news; the facts about what is happening.  That has been done, albeit with little call for action by fellow Christians.  I am talking about someone to call attention to what all Christians should be doing in the face of the slaughter.  There are many faithful bloggers who are alarmed and advocating for spiritual intervention.  But I have found next to nothing from any National Voice.  Sadly, I had to go back nine months to locate an article in The Daily Beast by Kirsten Powers, a political pundit who appears on Fox News, and has written for USA Today, Newsweek, and The Wall Street Journal.
     In the past, I have found very little in common with Ms. Powers.  We are on opposites sides politically, and disagree on just about every major social issue out there.  But I am happy to say that we stand together on the deafening silence of the American Church when it comes to the widespread persecution of Christians.

     Like Kirsten, I am dumbfounded at the lack of concern from the pulpits of America.  How can they act as though the persecution is not happening; especially when the headlines scream of beheadings and crucifixions across Iraq?  How can they ignore the young girls in Africa being abducted and forced into conversion to Islam?  Why is no Pastor shouting for Christians across the globe to be praying for our brethren and to be interceding on their behalf?
     All across the Middle East and Africa, armies of Islam are separating the Muslims from the non-Muslims.  Those who are Muslim or can answer questions about Islam are allowed to go free.  Non-Muslims are killed.  In her 2013 article in The Daily Beast, Ms. Powers quoted Nina Shea, an international human-rights lawyer and expert on religious persecution.  Ms. Shea testified in 2011 before Congress regarding the fate of Iraqi Christians, two-thirds of whom have vanished from the country. They have either been murdered or fled in fear for their lives. Said Shea: “In August 2004 … five churches were bombed in Baghdad and Mosul. On a single day in July 2009, seven churches were bombed in Baghdad … The archbishop of Mosul, was kidnapped and killed in early 2008. A bus convoy of Christian students were violently assaulted. Christians … have been raped, tortured, kidnapped, beheaded, and evicted from their homes …”.
     All that was before the uprising of ISIL (or ISIS, if you prefer) in the last few weeks.  In their drive to capture Baghdad, these Sunni Muslim terrorists have demanded that everyone convert to Islam "or face the sword".  Horrifically, many Christians have held fast to their faith and paid with their lives.  Yet, American churches and fellow Christians act as if it was happening to some alien group.
     My fellow Christians, it is happening to our brothers and sisters in Christ!  It is happening to the Body of Christ!  It is happening to people who a part of us!
     Lela Gilbert is an author who wrote a book titled Saturday People, Sunday People, which refers to an Islamic slogan which means “first we kill the Jews, then we kill the Christians.”  In 2013, Gilbert wrote that her Jewish friends and neighbors in Israel “are shocked but not entirely surprised” by the attacks on Christians in the Middle East. “They are rather puzzled, however, by what appears to be a lack of anxiety, action, or advocacy on the part of Western Christians.”  How much more shocked must they be a year or more later!
     Think about it.  American Christians and Churches have no problem getting involved when it comes to the immigrant children at the border, or helping those who have been devastated by natural disasters, or working to support missionaries taking the Gospel to foreign lands.  I agree that these are absolutely all worthy causes, and we should be helping these people.  Yet when it comes to acknowledging that our brothers and sisters in Christ are suffering, their voices are silent.
     Perhaps the saddest picture of this silence comes from the efforts of Representative Frank Wolf, of Virginia, who wrote a letter to 300 Catholic and Protestant leaders complaining about their lack of engagement. “Can you, as a leader in the church, help?” he wrote. “Are you pained by these accounts of persecution? Will you use your sphere of influence to raise the profile of this issue—be it through a sermon, writing or media interview?”  He received very few responses.
     Then Wolf and Representative Anna Eshoo (CA) sponsored legislation last year to create a special envoy at the State Department to advocate for religious minorities in the Middle East and South-Central Asia. It passed in the House overwhelmingly, but died in the Senate.  Did you even hear about it?  Think about the effect we could have had if our legislators had heard from us; if our Churches had educated us about this important legislation?  Oh, I forgot, they are all too worried about their tax status from the corrupt IRS.
     In his letter challenging U.S. religious leaders, Representative Wolf quoted Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was executed for his efforts in the Nazi resistance:  “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”  All Christians, whether in leadership roles or not, should take heed of Bonhoeffer's words and pay attention to history.  The German Church ignored the growing persecution of Jews across Europe.  They turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to it, and they did it at their own peril.  In the end, the German Church was taken over by Nazi ideology and the blood of millions of Jews was upon their hands.  The American Church is flirting with following the same path.  Pastors must throw off the chains of government and speak out about the wave of persecution engulfing Christianity.  The tide of torment is growing into a tsunami and history has shown us what can happen when such evil is allowed to foment unchecked.
     Dietrich Bonhoeffer and a handful of pastors stood alone in the German Church.  He came to America in 1939, hoping to escape the fall of his Church, gain strength from the American Church,  and return to Germany to rebuild the Church from the ashes of war.  But he soon became disillusioned with the American Church, writing:  "I now wonder whether it is true that America is the country without a reformation? ... There hardly ever seem to be "encounters" [with God] in this great country.  But where there is no encounter, where liberty is the only unifying factor, one naturally knows nothing of the community which is created through encounter."  (As Bonhoeffer implies, are we so removed from the sufferings of our Middle Eastern brethren because our Freedom has insulated us against similar attacks?  And how long is that protection going to last?  The ISIL leader announced they're "coming to New York"!)
     While attending an American church in June of 1939, Bonhoeffer wrote of the sermon, "Lively and original, but too much analysis and too little Gospel."  What would he say today??  And again in June of 1939, he wrote about America:  "The separation of church and state does not result in the church continuing to apply itself to its own task; it is no guarantee against secularism.  Nowhere is the church more secularized than where it is separated in principle, as it does here.  This very separation can create an opposition, so that the church engages much more strongly in political and secular things."  (Think the gay marriage issue).
     Now, in June of 2014, some 75 years after Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote those prescient words, we find the Church bearing the fruit of his prophecy.  I fear that the Church no longer "applies itself to its own task".  In Ephesians 4, God calls the leaders of the Church to "equip His people for works of service so that the body may be built up until we reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."
     Is the American Church building up the Body of Christ, which, by the way, includes Christians other than Americans?  Have we reached a UNITY in faith with our Christian brethren throughout the world?  Or are we sitting smugly and comfortably in our churches, whether small or large, and just taking care of ourselves?  Those Christians dying in the Middle East and Africa are our FAMILY!  Are you praying for their safety and protection?  Are you personally feeling their pain and rejoicing when they stand against Evil and refuse to renounce our Lord?  This should be the primary message coming from our pulpits!  We shouldn't have to pass legislation to encourage our Leadership to advocate for our fellow Christians.  This should be a calling upon the hearts of every Christian around the world!
    In the end, I pray that more voices will be heard and more hearts will respond to the cries of our family in faith.  Returning to war-torn Germany, Dietrich Bonhoeffer paid with his life when he determined he must fight Evil, rather than take the conciliatory path of his Church.  My fellow Christians, will you follow the American Church and remain silent; or will you let your voice be heard in the heavens?  May God forgive us for how far we have fallen as His Nation and His Church.

 2 Corinthians 4:13    "And since we have the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, “I believed and therefore I spoke,” we also believe and therefore speak,"

James 3:1 and 2 Timothy 4:3

Not many [of you] should become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we [teachers] will be judged by a higher standard and with greater severity [than other people; thus we assume the greater accountability and the more condemnation].

 For the time is coming when [people] will not tolerate (endure) sound and wholesome instruction, but, having ears itching [for something pleasing and gratifying], they will gather to themselves one teacher after another to a considerable number, chosen to satisfy their own liking and to foster the errors they hold

     These words have such meaning for us in these days.  I have especially experienced the truth of them this week.  I want to make it clear that I do not consider myself worthy of being called a "teacher"; I believe that is reserved for those who have a sanctified calling on their lives to train and instruct and edify.  I merely have a passion for knowing my God and speaking from my heart.  I do not claim that my words are more important than anyone else's.  Every person has the ability to educate themselves in the Holy Word.

      That being said, I can say that I know what it feels like to be condemned by those who do not wish to hear what I have to say about my faith; by those who do not revere the Bible, as I do.  It is tiring and upsetting to hear committed Christians accused of "tap-dancing" around our apologetic arguments, or our Holy God referred to as "that crazy Jehovah".  

     But just as the writers point out, people do not want to consider what the Bible says as truth because it doesn't harmonize with what makes them feel good, or it doesn't agree with the accepted cultural opinion.  And these opinions, by the way, are encouraged by people who have never taken any serious time to study the Word of God.  They don't know the history, let alone what God actually has to say, and why He says it.  They don't have a clue how the Old Testament and the New Testament are actually one covenant between God and those who believe in Him and His Son, Jesus Christ.  They just know that it says what they are doing is wrong.

     Rather than exploring why Jehovah might warn against their behavior, and any benefits they might derive from this information, they choose to make themselves and their desires higher than Him.  And they will look for guides, and instructors, and authors, and mentors, and professors, and, yes, even pastors that will support the misguided and grandiose view of their own judgments. 

     In the end, the more uncomfortable a Biblical view makes them feel, the more they must condemn and ridicule it.  The alternative is to admit there might be some truth in our faith, which would undermine everything they stand for.  So, I can see why Scripture warns us that not too many should put themselves in the position of standing up to the culture.  It's a thankless job and you are sure to be mocked and scorned.  But what greater service can you give to the Lord?  Whatever we have to endure for Him, is nothing compared to what he suffered for us.  It is a privilege to defend my faith in the face of derision and contempt.  And what an honor to promote the Truth to a fallen world.

Social Commentary: When Does It Stop?

     I have been slightly amused over the cacophony of voices lamenting the offensive use of "Redskins" when referring to a particular football team.  I say "slightly", because at the root of all this commotion is the breakdown of a culture that has become so self-centered, everything offends them.
     I am not saying that there are not legitimate reasons to take offense when language is used to intentionally cause harm or damage to an individual or group of people.  I think we can all agree that whenever words are calculatingly and consciously designed to cause suffering, then it's not OK.  Common sense dictates this perspective.
     But it has become increasingly acceptable to try to limit someone's speech (if one doesn't agree with it), by raising the ante and accusing them of an even greater offense.  Take this for instance:  It is quite apparent that so-called comedian Russell Brand doesn't agree with Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro's assessment of our options in dealing with the growing ISIS insurgency in Iraq.  To be completely honest, I'm not sure how I feel about her analysis either.  She further identified ISIS to be, in her opinion, “a fanatical religious terrorist organization.”  But this is still a nation where we can voice our various opinions, and agree to disagree, right?
     Well, simply disagreeing is not enough for Mr. Brand.  He found Ms. Pirro's remarks offensive, so he felt obliged to deliver a nearly 10-minute YouTube rant, calling Fox News a "fanatical terrorist propagandist organization" and calling Judge Jeanine "a savage", and calling her choice of words "invective, just incendiary language, just volatile combative, angry language. That – I’m not being sensational – that is more dangerous than ISIS."
     So, let's step back from this diatribe for a moment.  On the one hand, you have a woman who offers her personal opinion (for which she has been hired) about a very serious situation.  Agree or disagree with her evaluation, it is just that ... her judgment of the situation and the perpetrators.  Then you have an unrelated third party, who decides he doesn't agree with her opinion, but it's now OK to personally attack her.  Somehow, her words, which had nothing to do with him, have become personally offensive to him.  Why could he not have issued a counter statement presenting his own opinion on the subject?  Why does he feel that a different opinion gives him the right to claim an aggravated insult, and subsequently give him permission to issue his own offensive language?  And her words were more dangerous than chopping off heads?  Really?!?  Perhaps, Mr. Brand, you'd like to have a personal exchange with both of them and see which one causes you more suffering.
     I hate to refer to childhood axioms, but what happened to "Two wrongs don't make a right" and "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me"?  Yet again, maybe "childish" is the perfect characterization of this trend.  Have we become so self-absorbed and egocentric that everything revolves around our feelings, our views, our pride?  Whatever happened to rising above it all?  Only you can let words harm you.  And I find it curious that third parties are suddenly feeling offended on behalf of other parties, often creating disharmony where there was none.
     Are there words that may not be polite, or can be less than pleasant; even repulsive?  Of course!  But if we start reacting to every syllable that annoys us or that we don't like, how long before every business comes under scrutiny?  How long before our courts are clogged with endless lawsuits?  How long before everybody is offended by something?  Our culture certainly seems confused to me ... TOLERANCE is supposed to be the culture's slogan; but apparently it's a one-way street, and being offended is the new entitlement.

James 1:19    "Know this, my dear brothers and sisters: everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to grow angry."

Surprises From SCOTUS

     I must admit that I am mildly surprised at the recent decisions by the Supreme Court.  Although I am still skeptical that the Constitution has more influence than Politics in their recent determinations, I sense at least an attempt to fulfill their Judicial obligation in the governing of this nation.
     It's actually very simple.  The Supreme Court's primary role is to interpret the Constitution.  In essence, they interpret the meaning of laws, and oftentimes determine what national policy will be when it applies law to specific disputes.   And that's where Politics often takes precedence.  After all, it is the goal of each incoming President to appoint Justices that will support his political agenda.  It then remains to be seen to whom these supreme lawyers of the land owe their allegiance ... the man and the culture, or the Constitution.

     This week at least, SCOTUS seems to have kept their eyes on the fundamental principles of our Founding document.  First up, and in an astonishingly unanimous ruling, the Court announced that police may not generally search the cellphones of people they arrest without first getting search warrants.  In writing his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said, “Modern cellphones, as a category, implicate privacy concerns far beyond those implicated by the search of a cigarette pack, a wallet or a purse. A conclusion that inspecting the contents of an arrestee’s pockets works no substantial additional intrusion on privacy beyond the arrest itself may make sense as applied to physical items, but any extension of that reasoning to digital data has to rest on its own bottom."
     Roberts further stated that cell phones bear little resemblance to the type of brief physical search that is common during an arrest; due to their storage capabilities, they are actually mini-computers.  While I applaud this securing of our Fourth Amendment right of undue search and seizure, I'm not entirely comfortable that Roberts wrote that law enforcement could seize and secure a cellphone until a warrant is obtained to search its contents, should they (law enforcement) fear destruction of evidence.  How easy will that be to allege?  But at least we now know to insist on a warrant before turning over our cell phones.
     Secondly, in a stunning decision for a politically-split Court, SCOTUS's first case involving the Constitution’s recess appointments clause ended in a unanimous decision holding that President Obama’s appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012, without Senate confirmation, were illegal.  The President invoked the Constitution’s provision giving the president the power to make temporary appointments when the Senate is in recess. 
     Justice Stephen Breyer said in his majority opinion that a congressional break has to last at least 10 days to be considered a recess under the Constitution.  In effect, they rejected the President's argument that the Senate was on an extended holiday break and that the brief sessions it held every three days – what lawmakers call “pro forma” – were a sham that was intended to prevent him from filling seats on the NLRB.
     The Constitution requires that the Senate and House must get the other’s consent for a break lasting longer than three days.  Recess appointments are nothing new; both Presidents Bush and Clinton took advantage of this Constitutional clause.  But Obama was the first president to try to make recess appointments when Congress explicitly said it was not in recess.  This ruling appears to institute a return to the governing rules of the Constitution.
     Then there was the decision that extending a buffer zone 35 feet from abortion clinic entrances violates the First Amendment rights of protesters.  The Justices were unanimous in their decision.  However, The Boston Globe reports that while the court was unanimous in the outcome, Chief Justice Roberts joined with the four liberal justices to strike down the buffer zone on narrow grounds. In a separate opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized Roberts’ opinion for carrying forward ‘‘this court’s practice of giving abortion-rights advocates a pass when it comes to suppressing the free-speech rights of their opponents.’’
     The case began when Boston-area grandmother Eleanor McCullen and other abortion opponents sued over the limits on their activities at Planned Parenthood health centers in Boston, Springfield and Worcester, Massachusetts.  Mark Rienzi, who represented the protesters at the Supreme Court, said, ‘‘The government cannot reserve its public sidewalks for Planned Parenthood, as if their message is the only one women should be allowed to hear. Today’s decision confirms that the First Amendment is for everyone, and that the government cannot silence peaceful speakers. That result is good news for Eleanor McCullen, and it is great news for the women she helps.’’  I agree!
     Of course, all eyes are on the expected decision next week on the Hobby Lobby case.  The question this case is seeking to solve is whether for-profit companies have a right to exercise religious freedom under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal law passed in 1993 that states the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability."
     At the heart of Hobby Lobby's case is their owner's contention that their "religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception." Because of the religious nature of Hobby Lobby's business, they assert that they are entitled to a religious freedom exemption from the Affordable Care Act's mandate because of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act — the same exemption that has been afforded to nonprofits with a religious nature.
     Whatever the Court decides, it will most probably not decide the fate of the Affordable Care Act as a whole.  But it would be a step towards protecting religious Americans from the pressure of an autocratic government.  I hope they make the right decision.  For me, God's law always trumps man's law.  We will see.

Acts 5:29     But Peter and the apostles answered and said, "We must obey God rather than men."

What You Need To Know About The Caliphate

     I find it a little disconcerting that I have to go to news sources outside this country (most notably the U.K.) to get a more accurate picture of world events.  Perhaps it is because the rise of fundamentalist Islam has taken a greater toll upon their country.  But we would do well to take note of these effects, and therefore be better informed and prepared.
     In fact, Before It's News reports that in the Middle East, a very dangerous thing for the West is happening, and it is happening rapidly.  A Muslim Caliphate is growing literally by the day. What is a Caliphate? A Caliphate is taken from the Arabic word Khilafa which means ‘succession’.  A Caliphate is an Islamic state led by a man with dual power.  That leader is both the supreme religious leader and a primary political leader, also known as a Caliph, or successor to Mohammed. The Caliph closely follows and strictly adheres to Sharia law over the land.
     Now, there will be those who will say that a Caliphate is a historical term, and has no significance in the modern world.  But anyone paying attention cannot deny the escalation of Sharia law, nor ignore the warnings of those who wish to see it instituted here and around the world.

 
     So, just to give you an idea of how important an issue this is, consider this information printed in the U.K.'s Daily Mail:
• Syria:  Moderate Sunni rebels and al-Quada linked jihadists are attempting to overthrow the Shia regime in a 3-year civil war that has left 150,000 dead.
• Iraq:  Sunni militants (ISIL) capture huge sections of the country on their march to Baghdad in an insurgency aimed at toppling the Shia-led government and creating an Islamic state across the Iraq-Syria border.
•  Saudi Arabia:  Hard-line Sunni regime has supported rebels in Syria, while Baghdad accuses the Saudis of financing the Sunni Islamic militants in Iraq.
• China (June 24):  The government releases videos showing how Islamic militants are using the internet to incite terrorist activities in the country after a string of attacks.
• Kenya (June 24):  At least 5 people have died in an attack on Kenya's coast just days after Al Shabbab kills 60 people in twin massacres in revenge for Kenya's military role in Somalia.
• Malaysia (June 24):  The highest court in the land upholds a ban on Catholics using the word Allah  to refer to the Muslim god, in what some experts fear is a growing Islamization of the country.
• Central African Republic:  Human rights groups warn that revenge attacks between Christian and Islamic militia risk creating conditions of a genocide similar to that in Bosnia in the 1990s.
• Nigeria (June 25):  At least 21 killed and 17 injured in an explosion at a shopping center in Abuja.  The attack was blamed on Islamic militants, and followed Boko Haram's abduction of 90 villagers yesterday and the kidnapping of 300 Christian schoolgirls last month.
• Libya (June 25):  Libyans head to the polls for parliamentary elections as violence from a patchwork of militias, including Islamic extremists, grips the country since the ouster of Muammar Ghaddafi. 
• Sudan (June 24):  Sudanese mother freed from death sentence for marrying a Christian is charged with fraud as she tries to leave the country for not using her Muslim name on travel documents.
     These facts alone should alert you to the very real crisis that the world is facing.  And lest you think that these are just civil wars and infighting that will remain within the boundaries of the Middle East, please reconsider.  Again, The Daily Mail reports that Islamist militants fighting in Iraq and Syria are producing a weekly English language magazine designed to recruit and radicalize would-be jihadists in the West.  The magazine, which is professionally designed and edited, is published by AlHayat Media Center - the propaganda wing of ISIS, the Sunni militant group whose brutal campaign to establish an Islamic state in the Middle East has been branded too extreme even by Al Qaeda.
     And they know what they are doing.  Titled, 'The Islamic State Report', the weekly magazine is published every seven days.  Now on it's fourth edition, the first was printed on June 1st. A fifth edition is expected to be released on Saturday.
     As with any propaganda tool, the magazine presents arguments in favor of ISIS and their objective.  It opens with several pages describing the history of the Middle East, and attempts to justify the establishing of a caliphate as a mission to correct the carving up of the region by Allied forces in the aftermath of the First World War.  Combine this message with heavy social media presence, and one can see how this could be effectively used against the West .
     The publication of the magazine is just the latest in ISIS's massive propaganda campaign, which includes dozens of accounts such as Twitter, Facebook and Ask.Fm.  Would-be jihadists in the West are encouraged to make contact through private smartphone messenger services, and ISIS has even developed its own android app.  They have also released slick English language recruitment videos, and even sell ISIS-themed clothing and memorabilia, such as T-shirts, ball caps and cuddly toys.  And the propaganda is working.
     Britain's Home Secretary reports that it is believed that about 400 young men have left the UK to join ISIS in the Middle East.  Secretary Theresa May warned these jihadists are now 'just a few hours flying time' from striking Britain, adding that they will 'want to attack us' when they return.  She said the terror threat was now 'on the doorstep of Europe' and was the most serious since 9/11.
     And are we naive enough to think that our homeland has not been targeted by this slick and persuasive campaign?  Just a few short years ago, the mention of a new Caliphate was ridiculed and labeled paranoid.  Now it is boldly publicized in a professional and inviting magazine, and brazenly touted across all lines of social media.  September 11, 2001 surprised us all, and it devastated this nation.  Now, there are those who wish to do more than "harm" us; their goal is submission or total destruction.  And they are broadcasting their intentions.  What more proof do we need? When will the West (and specifically, this country) wake up?

1 Peter 5:8    "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about; seeking whom he may devour."

The Unbelievers In the Church

     This post is likely to be condemned by many.  But I cannot sit idly by and not comment on the latest controversy within the Church.  To that end, one of the benefits of where the Lord has placed me at this time in my life, is that I have the liberty and time to do a lot of studying and research.  It has not been until the last few years that I have taken advantage of this opportunity; and I owe my newfound dedication to the desire that He has instilled in my heart.  I now have a hunger to know more about Him; to see more clearly how I, as a Believer, am to view this world; and to discern how I am to consider the changes coming in the modern Church.
     Please know that I do not claim any unique revelations.  My thoughts and opinions are my own.  That being said, I enjoy listening to various "Watchmen", whom I believe have had sincere callings on their lives.  When I consider any of their commentaries, I compare them to Scripture, and then let the Holy Spirit guide my thoughts to align with God's.

     I am telling you all this as a preface to what I think is a disturbing trend among American Christians.  When I see a major U.S. denomination openly disregard the teachings of Scripture, I must agree with the Watchman, Pastor David Lankford, who boldly calls them "Unbelievers".  If you haven't guessed by now, I am talking about the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s official embrace of same-sex marriage at its General Assembly meeting last week.  The decision was made to allow clergy to marry gay couples in states where same-sex unions are legal, and the resolution has been met with approval by both gay rights activists and Church pastors alike.
     The executive director of a gay rights organization in Iowa stated, “More and more, we are seeing people of faith embrace the freedom to marry. And so, it only makes sense that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — one of the largest Christian groups in the nation — makes this important step toward equality.”  Then there was this statement by the pastor of Memorial Presbyterian Church in Bay City, Michigan, "God loves everybody.  There’s got to be someone out there that someone can fall in love with, and if they happen to be of the same sex, that’s God’s will as well.”  While his state doesn’t permit same-sex marriage, he said that his church is prepared to offer gay matrimonies if and when the time comes.
     First of all, this is not an issue of "loving our fellow man", and I will deny any charges of enmity or bigotry.  For me, it is all about honoring God's Word.  So, here is where I must agree with Pastor Lankford.  I can almost guarantee that each member of those Presbyterian congregations consider themselves "people of faith" and "Believers".  But here is my heartfelt question:  How can you call yourself a Believer, if by your words and your actions, you do not believe God's Word?  As His Church, shouldn't you seek to know what He says about the institution of marriage?  And if you are a believer of His Word, then you know that you cannot please both Him and the World.
     I will tell you that if you google "the biblical definition of marriage", you will find numerous links to sites that declare "there is no specific details or directions about marriage".  Other sites will say "The Bible's definition of marriage can be confusing and contradictory".  There's even a site written by a Jewish rabbi which states, "The Bible does not give any single, clear definition of marriage."  But I must ask them all this question:  Are you searching the Scriptures for how God established His ordained union, or are you cherry-picking Scripture to echo the culture and make yourselves more relevant?
     You see, if I am going to call myself a "Believer", then I hold myself to the standard of believing what God has told me in the Book of Genesis.  Specifically, in Genesis chapter 2, God declares it is not good for Adam (the first man) to live alone. All the animals are there, but none of them are a suitable partner for Adam. God, therefore, in a special act of creation, makes a woman. Just a few verses later, the woman is called “his wife” (Genesis 2:25). Eden was the scene of the first marriage, ordained by God Himself. The author of Genesis then records the standard by which all future marriages are defined: “A man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).
     This passage of Scripture gives several points for understanding God’s design for marriage. First, marriage involves a man and a woman. The Hebrew word for “wife” is gender-specific; it cannot mean anything other than “a woman.” There is no passage in Scripture that mentions a marriage involving anything other than a man and a woman. It is impossible for a family to form or human reproduction to take place asexually. Since God ordained sex to only take place between a married couple, it follows that God’s design is for the family unit to be formed when a man and woman come together in a sexual relationship and have children.
     So, no matter how much "the faithful" in the modern Church want to honor love between people, no matter their sex, and proclaim that it is "God's will" that they should be married, they can only do that if they do not believe God's Word.  That would make them an "Unbeliever", even if they consider themselves Christian.  I know that sounds harsh and condemning, but it is really a simple matter of semantics.  If you are a Believer, you are a devotee of God, who reveals Himself and His higher authority through His Word.  You believe (trust and accept) His Word -- every word!  That does not mean that we get to reinterpret His Word to reflect our human feelings and desires, no matter how "loving" they may seem.  The very need to reinterpret the Bible shows that one disbelieves what has been revealed.  Therefore, I guess it should come as no surprise that the world desires to change what God has instituted in order to satisfy their human desires.
     But it saddens me to see the Church following the culture, rather than leading it.  In so doing, they (seem to me) to have lost their purpose ... to preach the Gospel to all people that the lost may be saved and that the righteous might be encouraged and edified.  Perhaps they no longer believe this either.

Romans 8:7    "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot."





   

Let's Look At The Entire Picture

     I have heard various member of the Mainstream Media decrying the "inhuman" conditions that the illegal immigrants are enduring on our Southern border.  Pictures flood the airwaves of thousands of children crowded into what amounts to holding tanks.  And the talking heads criticize the Border Patrol for compelling these unaccompanied minors to be housed in such dangerous and unhealthy conditions.
     It is true that conditions are abysmal.  It is also true that these minors have traveled hundreds, sometimes thousands, of miles to freedom, only to find themselves restricted from "the promised land".  But that appears to be temporary and is only part of the story.

     Our Border Patrol has suddenly found themselves being overwhelmed because of the misguided policy of our federal government.  There is no room to house the vast quantity of people.  The immigrants, themselves, have told Border agents that they are streaming in unprecedented numbers to our country because rumors about so-called “permisos” – permission to stay in the United States – are running wild across Central America.  The word is that they will be welcomed and given entry.  Our Border Patrol has been given no help in dealing with this influx, and they have simply been deluged by this flood of humanity.
     As Fox News has reported, the sheer numbers of children and "family units" arriving daily has swamped the system.  The children and unaccompanied minors can’t be immediately sent back – and they can’t be left alone in the U.S. to fend for themselves. They are supposed to be handed off to the Department of Health and Human Services within 72 hours.  The numbers simply make that impossible.  And as many children as have crossed the border, their numbers are eclipsed by the "family units" racing to get into the United States. They are traveling hundreds of miles with small children, knowing that under U.S. law, they will not be deported immediately. Many of them are in the advanced stages of pregnancy and will likely have a child that will become an American citizen.
     The problem is not one that has an easy solution.  What makes it worse is that the men and women that comprise the U.S. Border patrol have been instructed not to talk to the media.  But why?  Will they cast a shadow on the image of helpless children that pro-Amnesty supporters want the American people to see?  Will their testimony cast doubt on the Department of Homeland Security's policy of "deferred action for childhood arrivals?" This policy allows children and family units to stay in the U.S. for at least three months pending removal action.  And scariest of all, do these images belie the threat of possible terrorists integrating among the innocents?
     Texas Representative Henry Cuellar, who is a Democrat, by the way, is critical of our current immigration policies.  “If you're a pregnant woman, or you're a family unit, they’re gonna give you a piece of paper where you promise to show up in 90 days,” Cuellar told Fox. “And I tell you, they're not going to show up in 90 days. No way.”
     Does our immigration policy need to be rewritten? Strengthened? Updated? Absolutely!  But creating a humanitarian crisis in an effort to overwhelm and collapse the current system is not only unethical; it is immoral.  These are people, not just numbers.  And we are encouraging them and exploiting them for political gain, while censoring and threatening our hard-working Border Patrol agents for speaking the truth.   They will tell you there are those seeking asylum because they love the freedom this country offers, and those who want nothing more than to destroy the freedom that America represents.  Sadly, we are not just facing embattled fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq; we now have a new line to defend and it is on our own Southern border.  May Heaven's hosts protect us!

UPDATE:  Texas Governor Rick Perry is now using up to $1.3 million per week to secure the Texas Border.  Texas Department of Public Safety officers will assist Border Patrol agents in dealing with the humanitarian crisis.  Meanwhile a small town in the state of Virginia refused to become the location of a large illegal immigrant shelter, housing hundreds of Central American children.  The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services must now try to relocate these vulnerable children to a new site.  This crisis is growing out of control!

Psalm 91:11    "For He will give His angels [especial] charge over you to accompany and defend and preserve you in all your ways [of obedience and service]."

   
   

Reasons To Celebrate

   

     There are days when it is time to stop looking at the increasing deterioration of the world and look for those events that we can celebrate.  I will admit that the headlines seem to extol far more negative news than positive, but let's take a break, shall we?  For one day, let's take our eyes off the warnings of impending doom and bask in the joy of small victories.
     First off, we can take great joy in the fact that Justina Pelletier has been returned to the loving care of her family, after being a ward of the State for the last 16 months.  All the hostility directed by a Massachusetts child protection agency towards her parents seems to have accomplished nothing.  She  is still suffering from her digestion problems, even after 16 months of the psychiatric care the State insisted she needed.  It is hard to know exactly why the judicial system reversed its custody decision regarding Justina and returned her to her parents, but for now, we can celebrate that these medical child abuse charges have been dismissed.  We can also hope that the "Free Justina" campaign will be successful in championing legislation to avoid future cases like this.
      Then, there is the recent Gallup poll, in which nearly half (42%) of Americans say that they believe in Creationism; that God created the human race.  And when you consider that there has been a major push to indoctrinate our schoolchildren in the superiority of the theory of Evolution, then I would say that's cause for celebration.  Mind you, we must not give up the battle.  The numbers that believe there is Evolution guided by God, and those who believe Evolution with no God have been climbing, but God is still the primary factor in the existence of mankind.  And it feels as if Believers have finally developed a spine, and are speaking out to challenge any propaganda that seeks to eliminate God from the discussion.  It's about time!
     In the "Culture" category, I just have to give a standing ovation to Green Beret and Purple Heart recipient Bryan Sikes, who delivered a most appropriate slap-down to spoiled celebrity Gwyneth Paltrow, who compared getting nasty Twitter comments to "fighting in a war".  Here, in part, is Mr. Sikes's fitting response:
     Miss Paltrow,  I'd first like to start out by saying how terrible I feel for you and all your friends that on a daily basis have to endure mean words written by people you don't know ... You said, "Its almost like, how in war, you go through this bloody dehumanizing thing and then something is defined out of it." I could see how you, and others like you in "the biz", could be so insecure and mentally weak that you could pair the difficulty of your life on twitter to my brothers who have had their limbs ripped off and seen their friends shot, blown up, burned and disfigured, or wake up every morning in pain – while just starting the day is a challenge ....
     You know what is really "dehumanizing", Miss Paltrow? The fact that you'd even consider that your life as an "A-list" celebrity reading internet comments could even compare to war and what is endured on the battlefield. You and the other "A-listers" that think like you are laughable. You all have actually convinced yourselves that you in some way face difficulty on a regular basis. Let me be the first to burst your bubble: a long line at Starbucks, your driver being 3 minutes late, a scuff mark on your $1200 shoes and a mean tweet do not constitute difficulty in the eyes of a soldier.
     Understand me when I say this: war does not define me. It is a chapter in my life that helped shape me. Being a husband and father is what defines me. Remember, sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never…be close to what war is.  Now, that is worthy of public praise.  Good job, Soldier!  I salute you!
     And lastly, I want to salute Brian Fisher, the founder of Online For Life.  Brian listened to that nagging voice in his heart that urged him to find a technological method to counter abortion.  The Blaze reports his story:  “God just wouldn’t let this idea go of saving children from death in the womb and so in 2009 — honestly, begrudgingly -- I started this nonprofit."
     He realized that there’s 2 million searches on the Internet for abortion terminology -- in the United States alone!   “So that’s where the mission field is, if you will,” he says, and since its inception, the concept behind Online for Life has been simple: The group ensures that Internet searches for abortion include prominent links to pro-life causes instead of only showing women links to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.  The idea is to give these women alternatives, to urge them to visit pro-life clinics, and to bring their children to term, rather than seek abortions. Online for Life tracks the search results and appointments women make to assess how effective the ministry is in its reach.
      Fisher reports that his first victory came in June, 2010, when a baby was saved in Pittsburgh.  The mother contacted a pregnancy center she learned about through the Online For Life website and decided to keep her baby.  Since then the organization has saved 1,976 babies.  While they have a long way to go to offset the more than 1,000,000 aborted babies in the U.S. each year, we can celebrate each and every one of those precious 1,976 lives; and we can pray for further success stories from Online For Life.  The angels in heaven are cheering Brian Fisher on!
     So, while none of these stories captured the coveted spotlight in prominent news cycles, we can savor them for a moment, and take joy from the fact that the little things still matter.  These glimpses of God's Grace, in a world turned upside down, deserve our notice and our gratitude.  When the day seems gloomy, hang on to these moments of light and remember them.  There will be more, I promise.

Psalm 47:1     Clap your hands, all peoples! Shout to God with loud songs of joy!