Is All Sin And Reconciliation Of Sin The Same? Pt. 1

Please allow me to shed light on a particular subject. This is for those who are bible believers. I would say that this is not for the general public in the sense of examining what is right or wrong outside of a biblical context. This article has no regard for governmental legislation on court process in determining truth, right and wrong. So if I may...

The Case

Some have taken to task to say that "all sins are the same" and that there is no sin greater or worse than another. Therefore, we should treat all sin and all sinners the same.

Sentiments such as these are invoked in particularly as it pertains to homosexuality within the church. Some say,

"Since we have adulterers and fornicators in the church and some of them are in position, if there is a homosexual, they are no worse off than some others caught in sexual sin and therefore should be allowed to participate in the church and in church leadership like any other person."

Bishop O C Allen &
1st Gentleman
Rashad Burgess

Because of this, some conclude that to exclude homosexuals from opportunities within the church, such as the opportunity to lead congregations and various aspects of ministry, that such restrictions are no more than an arbitrary standard of men where closeted and even open sexual impurities are rewarded while openly gay men and women are discouraged and held down. In fact, some say that at least the open gay is living their truth and to say that they are worse than anyone else, including those perverts hiding behind the pulpit, is simply hateful and from a secular point of view, discriminatory.

Now, at first glance, this argument and the relevant issues, seem to have some merit. We would have to admit that although the sin of homosexuality has been around for quite some time, we have known adulterers, fornicators and other sexually immoral persons among our ranks and some of them fill positions, and some even do their deeds openly. There are pastors and bishops and other church leaders, who have not just simply failed or committed sins, but who actively live and lead lifestyles contrary to biblical teachings. 

Look at the men caught on video and film, having sex with both women and men in recent times. Then, there are baby and even adult child scandal dramas regularly. The Greenleaf series on OWN, the source of much recent controversy, is said to deal with and expose the ultra lavish lifestyle and sins of former COGIC Presiding Bishop J O Patterson, who fathered children outside of marriage and lived opulently while the majority of the church was filled with common and ordinary people dedicated to living godly and holy. As stated some of them are "leaders", caught in open heterosexual sins, aspire and achieve to the highest heights of the church.

Because noone sins alone, there are women, within the church, who feel that they are confirmed and affirmed to live in and out of the bed of individuals to whom they are not married. Some even feel that it is their mission and duty, to seek out men for illicit relationships and then "expose" them for what they themselves have contributed to, and spent a great deal of time creating. Recently a woman, seeking to expose a married Bishop, made a videotape of him in a hotel room naked. Although she created the video, if it wasn't for her voice you would never know she was in the room. Certainly he was wrong, but she was a willing agent in destruction, making herself available for sex with a married man. What I am saying is that neither of them had anything to brag about or be proud of.   

To be frank, the church must admit that we have some nasty, slimy, filthy dogs (both male and female) that make it a sport to go through the church, manipulate both men, women and even children, and keep on moving under the pretense of "serving the Lord" in some fashion. 

What We Know:

I would say that although the act of sin has changed, expanded and gone to new levels of perversion, none of the sentiments regarding perversion within the church is new to the scriptures or the church:

2 Tim. 3: 5-6 ~ 5-Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6-For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 

Phil. 3:18-19 ~ 18-(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19-Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.) 

In fact, the church has known for years that it has adulterous, fornicating and gay singers, and even other leaders within the church that live immorally. Knowing that sexual immorality and impurity exists within the church does not allow or extend a license in any way for such immorality to continue to exist, thrive or proliferate. God's plan is still one of purity, sanctification and holiness within the life of the believer and ultimately within the context of the church. 

1 Thess. 4:3-8 ~ 3-For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: 4-That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; 5-Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: 6-That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. 7-For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness. 8-He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.

"No need to single out gays and lesbians". Sincere critics, who make this assertion, assume that to single out the gay and lesbian is an act of injustice and man made judgement and therefore not "Christlike" because, "all sins are the same" and heterosexual sin is no better or worse than homosexual sin. 

This is and can be rather complex, and there are some believers who sincerely believe in a holy lifestyle that struggle with this observation and these sentiments. So let's examine this for a minute.

Questions:

Is it unjust to address homosexuality within the church, while being silent about heterosexual sins? Does God view that all sexual sins are the same? Is it not "Christlike" to call homosexuality a sin and exclude homosexuals from service within the church? Should the church be an open field of opportunities in leadership to homosexuals embracing the homosexual lifestyle? These are some major questions and issues within many of our churches today and many leaders are struggling with the issues. 

I will attempt to wade into these waters of church introspection. In a couple of parts, I will address and attempt to answer the following issues:

Bishop Allyson D, Nelson Abrams

I ~ Are there varying degrees of both righteousness, sin and reward, punishment or judgement?

II ~ Is homosexuality from a biblical perspective a sin?

III ~ Is there a difference in the nature of homosexual sin, vs. the nature of sin in general in church and within society?

IV ~ Should the church embrace active homosexuals as leaders within the church?

Section I 

A ~ Are there varying degrees of both righteousness, sin and reward, punishment or judgement? 

B ~ Are all sins the same? 

Rev. 20:12 -14 ~ And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13- And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.14- And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Admittedly, there is a lot about judgement that we don't know. Just the unimaginable scene of judgement itself is beyond our capacity to fully understand. However, there is a lot that we do know and are told from scripture. 

For sure all people and sins will be judged. There will be a day when all men will give an account for their sins. The Saint will give an account through and by the grace and mercy of God from a blood-washed condition. His/her sins will be thrown into the sea of forgetfulness, because of their faith in Jesus. Those sins will not be used against us in judgment and will be remembered no more.

According to 1 Cor. 6, the believer will also have part in judgement of angels and will be called to witness against the sins of the world as well. Believers will receive a reward as Jesus referenced in John 14:1.Unbelievers will receive their reward also and will know exactly what and why they are being judged...for rejecting the saving work and power of the Son of God. 

For both sin and for righteousness, there will be a reward. What is often not considered is that scripture indicates that there will be rewards commensurate to sins and there will be rewards commensurate to righteousness as well. 

We often associate our faith or our level of blessing in heaven with a "reward" or commensurate with what we have overcome on earth. Jesus says as much in Mt. 5 in his sermon on the Mount as he was encouraging those who would suffer persecution for the Lord's sake:

Mt. 5:11-12 ~ 11-Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.12-Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

"Great is your reward in heaven" specifically points out that not only will a person be rewarded with heaven itself, but shall be rewarded in a comparatively great manner with additional rewards aside from heaven only. 

In heaven, there are four and twenty elders who sit around the throne. (Rev. 4:10, 5:8, 14, 7:13, 11:16, 14:3). In Mt. 20:20-23 when responding to the request of  the mother of Zebedee's sons, aka the "sons of thunder" Jesus indicated that only God had the power to place anyone on the right and left, indicating the place of great reward, recognition and honor. As Jesus explained this "position" or honor was commensurate with the work of suffering that would be done by the individual and by the will and command of God. 

Jesus responds to Peter's "we have left all" after speaking to the rich young ruler saying: 

Mt. 19:28-29 ~ 28-And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29-And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life

Jesus reveals who at least half of those 24 elders were and would be that sat upon thrones in heaven and on his right and left hand saying that not only would they receive "everlasting life" but also the reward of "an hundredfold" which was Jewish idiom of the day to indicate a great or wonderful blessing.  

Then there is Paul in 1 Cor. 3: 11-15. Paul here speaks of the works that we do and how some of them would be "burnt up" and others remaining. He indicates that both individuals who present works will be saved, but only the one whose works are not burned up will receive "a reward" (1 Cor. 3:14b). Yes, the ultimate reward is heaven, but there are degrees of gifts that shall be received by each believer. 

On The Flip Side

We often, however, overlook that sins and failure will be met with the same degree of temperament and reward as well. Here is what Luke records:

Luke 12:47-48 ~ 47-And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.48-But he that knew not, and
did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him
they will ask the more.

In Luke, Jesus illustrates that the one who "knew" the will of the lord, but failed in that was beaten with "many" stripes, while the other was beaten with "few" stripes simply because those who had been given much to work with shall have a greater responsibility for their failure in refusing to do what God has said to do (in this case an earthly lord would even be cognizant of this difference). This is a principle that Jesus outlines that cannot simply be overlooked. 

I believe that this is a direct allusion to the varying penalty for sin and wrongdoing. For one, there is "less" of a judgment or penalty to pay, even though there is or has been a violation. For another there is a greater punishment or penalty, because the person, though equipped, refused to prepare and hear. Men appear to be judged according to what they have received or been given.   

David cries that the Lord will reward the wicked according to their own works and evil deeds: Ps. 28:4) Yet other scriptures agree that men shall be paid according to their works (Mt. 16:27, Rev. 20:12,13, 2 Cor. 11:15, Rom. 2:6 (the repetition of Ps.28:4) 

B) Are all sins the same? 

Obviously, what is sin is sin. There is no question about what is wrong being wrong. However, if there are different or varying degrees of reward, punishment and judgement about both righteousness and sins, then not only is every reward the same but neither is every sin is equal. Because of justice neither is every sin rewarded the same.

"Thou shalt not steal" (Ex. 20:15, Deut. 5:19) We all know the command. However, there is a difference between a parent who steals 3lbs. of ground beef from a grocery store to feed his family, and a person who steals from individuals to enrich themselves. 

Yes, both have violated both natural law and the law of God. However, like Jesus' views on the Sabbath, Jesus often views the application of the law through the lens of humanity and human experience. Not that he is soft on sin, but he tempers his judgement with righteousness.

David & The Shewbread (1 Sam. 21:6 & Mt. 12:4)

We all remember David in escaping from Saul along with his men. They became hungry and went into the temple at Nob asking to eat bread that was dedicated to the use and consecration of priestly service. (1 Sam. 21) In this scenario, David was reminded of the Law which restricted the use of the bread. However, the priest after giving a very minimal test regarding holiness, gave to David and he ate the bread along with his companions and was not chastised by the Lord for doing so.

Jesus, in Mt. 12:4, when confronted about doing good on the Sabbath Day, argued that although it was unlawful to eat the bread, the bread served a greater purpose and that was to fulfill the will of God toward HIS people. As a type, the bread actually represented Jesus himself, who by the breaking of his body (bread) would actually sustain the word and allow a new Kingdom to enter the world giving us life by his reign.

In this case, what was obviously a "sin" according to the literal interpretation and rendering of scripture, was not judged as so. The reconciliation of the event was in accord with the purpose and command of God.

By Contrast

Adolph Hitler and many with him were responsible for the extermination and genocide of over 7 million Jews and people who sympathized with the Jewish people in Nazi Germany. Families were destroyed, broken up, children, boys and girls, raped, property stolen and people left to suffer. Even over 70 years removed from the events, the atrocities are yet being revealed.  

Is there anyone willing to argue that Hitler's reward in his judgement will be the same as one who has never murdered or broken up families nor embraced racism? Or the same as a person who has not offended humanity on the scale of Hitler's offense? Certainly Hitler will be made to pay for and be judged according to his sins.  The same with Caesar Nero, Stahlin, Pol Pot and a host of others that have used and abused humanity. They will not escape neither judgment nor the reward of their sins! However, their sins will not be rewarded on the same scale as one who stole a biscuit or a pack of ground beef or steaks because they were hungry.

At this point, I can say with confidence that I don't know how God will judge and adjudicate all situations. However, I can say with confidence that God is a JUST judge and he will judge justly.

Final thought in this section: During the Mt. Olivet discourse, Jesus spoke of adultery. Prior to his missive, people thought that there was a difference between their actions and their thoughts. (Mt. 5:27-28) Theirs was a strict, literal interpretation of scripture's teaching against such sins. However, they missed that an evil heart is ultimately equally as bad as wicked actions. Jesus said that if a man, "looks upon a woman" with intent  "to lust after her" has committed adultery. Those who thought that they can lust inwardly without judgement, were caught in their sins with the realization that God saw them and was a judge of the "intents" of the heart as well as the actions of the flesh. So they would not escape judgement by embracing sin on any level.

However, sin by a man's actions creeps into other parts of a person's life. Sin in the heart is worthy of judgement, but sin acted upon could be even worse. A man thinking about an affair, takes it to a new stage of unrighteous reward by acting out upon his thoughts. A man thinking of murder, may be guilty in his heart, but by acting out takes his unrighteous reward to a new level. Same with any sin. Carrying these things out create and produce a greater level of unrighteous reward. 

Yes, in an ultimate sense, sin is sin. All sin is unworthy of a holy God. However, there is a difference and additional penalty for those acting out on their sins or lust. A man looks at a woman and has an inordinate desire. The same man pursues the object of his lust, establishes an illicit relationship. Judgment comes. BOTH will be judged in their sins, but God will distribute the reward as well, as he has promised to personally judge "whore mongers and adulterers I will judge" (Heb. 13:4) It is there that God will look at and see the heart, intents and actions and judge righteously. The actions of unrighteousness will not receive a pass, but God will correct and set the record straight.

All sins are not the same. Some are worse than others. Only God will distinguish the difference in judgment and with regard for unrighteous deeds. However, on earth we can obviously see that all evil does not have the same outcome even though all evil is offensive to a holy God. The other problem with sin and evil is when people seek to normalize it and make it seem right or just. This in and of itself is a great evil and a sin. To rationalize sin as righteousness, is an offense! 

Summary

In this part, I believe that I have established from a scriptural perspective that although heaven in and of itself is a reward, there are additional rewards in heaven that will be given based on faithful service and the work of the believer. I have also established that there is a variation of punishment and judgement that will be delivered as well. So on its face, if there is a variation of the punishment of sin as we can see from scripture, all sins are not the same.

The ultimate reconciliation of unrepentant sin is the same. Hell. However, the rewards and degrees of punishment is unequal and based on the depth of sin that a person embraced, even in their unbelief.

In Pt. 2 I will deal with homosexuality and reconcile the actions of a practicing homosexual with the actions of the heterosexual and with those who engage in various types of relationships and answer the questions, "Is homosexuality a sin? Should homosexuals be promoted or encouraged in ministry positions within the church?" and more.

Blessed! 

Read more!

Religious Freedom & Public Service. Are They Compatible?

We are all aware of the County Clerk, in Kentucky, Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples due to her "right of conscious" in exercising her freedom of religion. In that case the surprise was the number of Christians who objected to Mrs. Davis exercise of her religious beliefs. Some said that she did not have a right to object because gay marriage had been ratified by the courts as law and because she was in a public position that the duties of that position were greater than her ability to carry out her faith in public. The controversy lasted for quite some time and ended when the Governor signed a court order which allowed marriage licenses to be issued without the name of a County Clerk attached. Therefore Mrs. Davis was relived of any obligation to endorse gay marriage publicly while exercising her freedom of religion against nuptualizing such arrangements by signing marriage certificates.

Fast Forward...Midnight Train To Georgia

Rev. Dr. Eric Walsh 

Georgia, quickly becoming the hotbed of activity AGAINST religious freedom, has not only been threatened by Tyler Perry (that he will move his studio unless the State denied a religious freedom bill...result: I WON'T BE SEEING HIS MOVIE ANYTIME SOON!), also recently issued a sanction against a State employee.

It seems that Dr. Eric Walsh was fired from the Georgia Dept. Of Public Health earlier this year because his personal and religious views of homosexuality and evolution were contrary to the "State's" views of those same issues. What is equally as bad, is that the State, evidently prior to dismissing the Dr., demanded that he fork over his sermons and messages preached to his congregation regarding those issues. In addition, the GA Attorney General is now asking for a copy of the minister's sermons to examine them as well. What is worse is that the state is now doing this under a court order.

The State's Way Out

Of course the GA. State Dept. Of Public Health had to know how absurd that their request was. Evidently, instead of claiming that the Dr.'s personal and religious beliefs were the culprit and reason for his termination, they tried to switch the issue as many employers often do in current times, claiming that the Dr. failed to disclose that he had employment "outside" of the Dept. of Health. According to them, it was his failure to report that information that was the cause of his dismissal. Do we think that if he was "cutting grass" on the side, that he would have been dismissed? I don't think so!!!! So at the very least this shows that the State may have discriminated against him in employment if he disclosed that he was a pastor or receiving salary or compensation from a church as well. 

The Real Deal

Anyone that can read "between the tea leaves" can see that the GA. Dept. Of Health is CHALK FULL OF GARBAGE and the Attorney General's office is on something too...the truth is that they actually fired this man because of what he believes, and what he affirms by way of his belief as it pertains to religion, and Christianity in particular...

“He was fired for something he said in a sermon,”“If the government is allowed to fire someone over what he said in his sermons, they can come after any of us for our beliefs on anything.” ~  attorney Jeremy Dys 

Now fire a Muslim for what they say or teaching in a message and see what happens??? Speaking of public service, under Sharia, a Muslim woman cannot even shake a man's hand and a man is restricted from touching a woman that he is not married to...Now, do that in the GA. Dept. Of Public Health. Refuse to even touch or engage individuals of the opposite sex based on religion and the exercise of religious freedom, and I guarantee that there would be all kinds of accommodations and there would NEVER be a problem with employment...In fact he or she would probably get a raise or some deep promotion and plenty of recognition. Allow the Muslim to continue to believe teaching against homosexuality and evolution (as Islam teaches) and they would STILL BE WORKING and secure on the job today!

What the state of GA did is called the new style of Christian persecution, or persecution against Christian and biblical belief. In other words the Christian minister is singled out and treated differently because of what he or she believes, and then the employer seeks some way to rationalize their actions in distancing themselves from the person. The main effort is to rid the workplace of beliefs and belief systems that are contrary to the morality that the workplace feels that it would like to establish, no matter how immoral that workplace or work environment may be.

The very fact that the State feels that they can regulate personal belief that is rooted and based in religion, especially peaceful religion and religious practices and concepts, is rather disturbing and should be something that every serious Christian should be aware of. 

Same Thing, New Era, Different Twist

Looking back at Nazi Germany, we are reminded of the need of the State to create and present a culture and demand that the church to submit to it. The State seeks relationship with the church as much as it, the State, can be preserved or preserve itself.

Take a look back at Nazi Germany for a minute. 

"German tradition had no room for political resistance from the theological perspective, because for more than four hundred years, the evangelical churches in Germany had been closely tied to the state for protection. Using Luther's teaching of "the two kingdoms" (zwei Reiche) , the church and the state had long agreed that the church would not reach into the political sphere and the state would not violate the spiritual realm." [ Stroud, Dean G, "Preaching In Hitler's Shadow, sermons of resistance in the Third Reich" 2013 William B. Eerdmans Link: HERE]

Yes, from a historical perspective, the Socialist State had an interest in what was being taught from the pulpit, even to the point of making "agreements" on how to engage publicly. The agreement that the state needed was for the church to not engage itself in attempting to change and or regulate the State in its ideology allowing the State to set the cultural mood. In other words, the church was to be "quiet" as possible publicly, but take care of its business internally. This compromise had a great price as many non-Jewish clergy would be persecuted and killed simply because of what they believed and taught. The Nazis knew that ideas have consequences, and the brutality of their Reiche against ideals that it did not like or accept, proved it.

Landscape Of The German Church 

In Nazi Germany, among the Protestant churches there arose primarily 2 different divisions or beliefs. There arose the type of Christian known as the Deutsche Christen, or "German Christians. and the other type known as the Bekennende Kirche—the "Confessing Church Christian". The Deutsche Christians were fervently rooted in State leadership, accepting the State Socialism that defined it, loved and taught commitment to the Fiihrer, calling for nationalism and embracing whatever they could that would affirm their racism and superiority based on race. 

On the other hand, the Bekennende Kirche or the "confessing church"Christian, introduced the Barmen Confession of the faith which tied the church to the leadership of Christ and the supremacy and leadership of the word of God as opposed to an earthly leader. From these ranks, whether reluctantly or not, leaders such as Deitrick Bonhoffer, who was executed for a plot to overthrow Hitler, and Martin Niemoller, who was banished to concentration camps for speaking against Hitler, arose. 

Of course there were moderates in these positions as well. Those who called themselves "neutral". It was the neutral church that did not see a benefit in opposing the State, claiming that the plight for all would simply be made worse by resistance. Therefore, some were relegated to doing anything else but addressing the real issues and bringing about change.

There were individuals who would simply help as well. Those who would help Jews escape, provide shelter, food and clothes even against executive orders of the Fiihrer. Many of these individuals would severely suffer for their actions, being betrayed by neighbors, called unpatriotic, and would ultimately be mixed in with Jews and marked for death and killed.

The Catholic Church did not seem to suffer from as much confusion as the Protestant church did. They stuck to Papal Encyclicals which appeared to walk a fine line between the worship of Christ and allegiance to the leader of head of State. Many of the Catholic clergy also availed themselves to helping Jews and speaking against the antisemitism of the state. they too were ripe targets of State anger.

An article on the reaction of the State to openly confessed religious views said this:

When a protest statement was read from the pulpits of Confessing churches in March 1935, for example, Nazi authorities reacted forcefully by briefly arresting over 700 pastors. After the 1937 papal encyclical Mit brennender Sorge ("With burning concern") was read from Catholic pulpits, the Gestapo confiscated copies from diocesan offices throughout the country. [ HERE]

Conclusion, What Can We Learn?

When viewed through the lens of history, we can say that there are many things that remind us of what has taken place and what we observe today. However, there are many things yet different. Here we are in a "free" nation and one that is not a Socialist empire, but we are faced with many challenges of racism, nationalism and a host of other issues. Politically, we yet remain a "free" society although a great deal of the country wants state socialism both in economics and in governance. 

As proof of this we see politician Bernie Sanders, who took his socialism to the democratic party and was nearly made the party's nominee for President. In response to the popularity of the Sanders platform, Hillary Clinton not only adopted, but endorsed many aspects of the Socialist agenda of Sanders in order to appeal to many of his followers. That same sort of socialism is highly accepted in the Black community especially when the talk of it pertains to greater government support within the community, free education and the illusive level playing field and inclusion of all and the elimination of social class. What many have not thought of, is under this rubric and ideology, what happens to personal freedoms? What happens to religious freedom and the ability to self-govern? 

What happened in Germany was the power of the State directly confronting the freedom of mind, heart and conscience through and by religion. Notice, that a person can come up with some of any kind of idea and not have it challenged too much until there is a near tragedy or tragic event, whereas any practice, tenet or belief, especially that based and rooted within Christian theology, seemingly no matter how innocuous, is met with harsh resistance, skepticism, disdain, and even intolerance.  

In this case the State is primarily contending that Christian values and teachings are so incompatible with the State, that if someone believes what the bible teaches and embraces it as a sincerely held belief that their belief makes them incompatible with even employment by the State. It doesn't matter if your public teaching aligns with the State or that you do your job, it matters what you believe.

Maybe the church can take a marker from the world here. The world knows that "belief" is important. The church has a hard time understanding that concept. Ooh, it often says what it believes by way of confession, but as I stated earlier, beliefs have consequences. Are we wishy-washy in or beliefs or are we centered and focused on Christ life Germany's "Confessing church" was? 

These are the times that God is calling for every Christian to make their faith known to the world. I believe only them that stand WILL stand in the day of judgement. I know I want to be one that stands for my Lord. How about you?

Blessed! 

Read more!

109th Holy Convocation, COGIC IMPACTS & A Safe Church Plan

The 2016 annual Holy Convocation of the Church Of God In Christ (Nov. 7th ~ Nov. 13th) is on the horizon. This year is also an election year within the church with many individuals vieing for position at some level or another.

Schedule For 109th Annual Holy Convocation, click HERE

Current Presiding Bishop Charles E. Blake recently unveiled a new church culture initiative called "COGIC IMPACTS" which is bound to be the talk among preachers and church leaders. From the website:

"COGIC IMPACTS is a culture model that will help us build a stronger culture. This model was designed and developed expressly for COGIC and has been introduced by Bishop Blake to COGIC employees and the General Board. COGIC IMPACTS is a deliberate attempt to define our culture and how we will work in tandem."

With the call that "what we do is who we are" COGIC IMPACTS outlines the following regarding the acronym:

Integrity – The quality of being honest and having strong moral uprightness.

Measurable Results – Establishing SMART goals that highlight success.

Passionate – Self-driven attitude about your work that leads to success.
Adaptable – Able to adjust to new conditions. 

Collaborative – Working together to create or produce solutions. 

Timely Manner – Done Expeditiously 

Service Oriented – Providing outstanding service & support to COGIC and on behalf of COGIC.

To enlighten us further on what is being said, the term "SMART" is often accredited to concepts of Time Management and Organizational Objectives produced and presented by Peter Drucker spoken of in 1981 by George T. Doran in an issue of "Management Review". Defining the elements and boarders of good management, the acronym is generally summarized as follows:

Specific

~ Well defined
~ Clear to anyone that has a basic knowledge of the project 

Measurable~ Know if the goal is obtainable and how far away completion is
~ Find out when you have achieved your goal 

Agreed Upon~ Agreement with all the stakeholders what the goals should be 

Realistic~ Within the availability of resources, knowledge and time 

Time-Based~ Enough time to achieve the goal
~ Not too much time, which can affect project performance

In essence, the Bishop is calling for a completely new culture in dealing with church management and administrative issues and moving forward as a church. Rather than view projects with emotion, our Bishop seems to be asking that we now view ministry and the causes within ministry with "intent" and with "purposeful planning". 

Pushback: "That is not a Spirit led"

Some will invariably view this approach as less "spiritual" than times past in which we were "led of the Spirit" to the extent that we solved and addressed issues first and planned later. It is a more cognitive approach than what we have experienced in the past. 

Interfacing "IMPACTS" With Sexual Misconduct & Abuse

While there is very little talk of it in open circles, the 109th Holy Convocation meets us with a host of issues challenging the "I" representing the integrity of many of our leaders. There are some issues regarding sexual impropriety and misconduct among church leaders and even Bishops that have come to the surface. There are some who have decided to live immoral ungodly double-lives. Caught on tape entertaining girlfriends attempting to cover their sins. Still there are others who's personal character is not befitting to leadership, becoming internet trolls, even cussing out individuals who do not agree with them. Then there are yet others who have an ever evolving list and chain of new illegitimate children coming to surface seemingly year after year. In some cases these are the "Eli"(s) who thought that they would not have to answer for their sins, but are sadly confronted with them now like never before. 

Then there is Earl Carter who implemented an all out attack on Presiding Bishop Blake leading and encouraging a host of haters to follow his sins, It seems that Earl Carter, so badly wanted the "attention" of the Presiding Bishop, that he recently went to completely new LOW, and sad level of destruction producing a FAKE "sex-tape" allegedly of our Presiding Bishop even against what appears to be an order for him to refrain from his personal attacks on the Bishop. Initially promising to "take down" the leader, it seems that Carter himself is now on the run, being taken down in some fashion trying to dodge his ultimate judgement which he seems to have heaped upon his own head with his never-ending rantings. 

For the REAL Victims or Survivors

Ministry of the church is what the church is called to do. Managing an organization, while commendable, is not exactly the mission or commission of the church. With that said, we can ask, what of LEGITIMATE cases that deal with our INTEGRITY as a church? If we are leading into the next generation with integrity as a mandate, how do we plan to deal with victims of sexual abuse and clergy misconduct? Do we think that it is essential to implement a SAFE CHURCH PLAN, that will protect our members and support a level of integrity that we seek? 

You see, it is not just good enough to talk about the speed and efficiency at which we do business. We MUST continue to act like and be a CHURCH. In that calling,  it is my firm belief that we must deal with and help those that are the most vulnerable among us and seek to apply the healing salve of Christ to all men, but in particularly to those to whom we have been entrusted to partner with in this spiritual mission

The mission of "I Am My Brother's Keeper Christian Advocacy Council" is exactly this. IMBKCAC is an untapped resource, specifically designed to provide a level of INTEGRITY to the way the church protects and heals the most vulnerable among us. . 

What is our average church rating in:

The interface between the Pastor/leader and the congregation?
The interface between the congregation and ministry leaders?
Youth ministry integrity & safety?
Survivor support and path of liberation?
Planned congregational response to issues of sexual integrity & abuse?
Planned path for survivor restoration?
Does a solid network of services designed to heal survivors?
Path of restoration for families?

These are some of the evaluations that IMBKCAC will make in determining if your church, district or jurisdiction is a SAFE ENVIRONMENT. Out of all that we do, if we are not seeking to implement a SAFE CHURCH PLAN, we are falling far short of what we are to do in supporting and creating integrity. In other words, we have undermined the very first part of the acronym of IMPACTS...The "I" or INTEGRITY....

If we are seeking to be a church founded on integrity to biblical values, then we cannot continue to have elections without creating or mentioning a platform that delivers integrity tout every congregation, every district, every jurisdiction and the national church itself. For anyone skeptical of whether we need a SAFE CHURCH PLAN, please listen to these podcasts

COGIC Survivors Pt. 1

COGIC Survivors Pt. 2

COGIC Survivors Pt. 3

If one can hear those broadcasts, and not consider that we should have a sense of urgency in dealing with the issues of victimization in a much better way, then I don't believe that you have the heart of Christ.

In all, I believe that we have some opportunities to serve that we have not previously had or experienced. Will we rise to the challenge of not only an organizational and cultural change of operation, but also a cultural change of how we minister to victims of some of the worst experiences imaginable. I hope so. So far noone says a word. Maybe we will have the opportunity to once again raise the issue.

Blessed!    

Read more!

Election Countdown & The Future Of American Freedom & Morality

Prov. 12:7
The wicked are overthrown and are no more, but the house of the righteous will stand.

The 2016 Presidential election season is drawing to a close. In what has arguably been a hotly contested and probably the most contentious campaign in American history, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have outlined their positions which in many areas are in sharp contrast to one another. Of course, all of this has confused many who carry the same bible causing some to pit themselves against one another for one reason or another.

One thing is for sure, the candidates themselves both have serious issues. Hillary has email issues and a low value of confidence or trust among most non-democrats. Even among many democrats, Hillary is simply unable to connect and untrustworthy. On the other hand, Trump has issues such as his characterizations of women, immigrants and his continued statements of the election being rigged which has caused many to distance themselves from him. The career politician is enraged because Trump is not a career politician and has seemed to amass a great deal of support without their assistance, support or political pandering. 

Voting "For" Or "Against"?

With all the confusion, many individuals have shrank away from the personality of the candidates. With neither personality being particularly appealing, some have taken the thought that they are not voting "for" any particular candidate, but voting "against" ideals and ideologies that are offensive and unsupportable. In other words, some are now looking to vote on the issues that concern them as opposed to voting for the "person" that they like or that appeals to their idea of being Presidential.   

Issues at odds:

Immigration & Immigration Reform...Republican Donald Trump has outlined an America that will do more than ever to secure it's boarders. He has even promised to build a wall that Mexico will "reimburse" America for. At the same time ratchet up pressure on individuals from foreign countries hostile to America and opposed to American interests. In a controversial plan, Donald has said that immigrants, in the country now illegally, could suffer deportation while others could come under greater scrutiny simply because of where they came from. Democrat Hilary Clinton has proposed a version of immigration reform which includes a "path to citizenship" which is tantamount to the Democratic ideal of amnesty, granting immediate and unquestioned citizenship to immigrants already in the country whether here legally or not. Amnesty is something that not even the Supreme Court has upheld in recent times and is not likely to pass until another Supreme Court Justice is appointed. 

Religious Freedom... Probably the most fundamental part of this election is religious freedom and what it means to be free religiously. Some of what this comes down to is who's bathroom do you believe men and women should be allowed to enter in public, and do you want to take rights away from a woman and give them to a man born a man by gender? In addition, do you believe that the State should impose state values on religious organizations and subdue their practices effectively forcing the churches to operate according to State values? 

Democrat Hillary Clinton claims to value religion and religious freedom as a deep part of the American experience. However, she has repeatedly said that she believes that religious values and beliefs are not static, but changeable to cultural values and therefore should be flexible in accommodating values that she and others in her camp believe are better suited to be called American values. recently, When speaking of Christians and Christian values as they oppose LGBT rights, she spoke of Christians (not merely Trump supporters) as "deplorable" and "irredeemable". While the media spun the commentary to infer that she was simply be speaking of "Trump supporters, the comments were actually in reference to committed Christians living out their faith, holding to the biblical mandate that same gender relationships are morally unacceptable.

Recognizing the nature of her commentary, Breitbart reported:

"So what kind of “religious liberty” does Clinton and the Obama administration believe is acceptable? As conservative giant Ken Blackwell wrote this week in an article for The Hillpicked up by the Drudge Report, during his time in Latin America, Clinton’s running mate Tim Kaine became a zealous advocate of “liberation theology,” which is “a radical, Marxist-based ideology at odds with the Church, the pope, and the United States, but supportive of (and supported by) the Soviet Union.”

So theology that calls for government-run socialized healthcare or government redistribution of wealth is okay, but theology that adheres to millennia-old Christian teachings on human life, other social issues, and religious liberty are “deplorable,” so much so that those who hold such views are “irredeemable” in the eyes of a woman who wants to become the most powerful person in the world. That was why in 2015 she said in a speech that orthodox Christian views on these issues “have to be changed.” [ARTICLE HERE]

It seems that Hillary has gone to great lengths to associate a Trump candidacy with Russia and even Vladimir Putin, while minimizing her acceptance of Marxism which is a solidly communist ideal and value. Even the Pope, in his zeal to enter the Presidential race, sold out the Catholics to the Marxist ideal and religious freedom value.

While Donald Trump, who was not in tune with religious issues and value arguments at the beginning of his campaign, adopts the Republican platform of religious freedom which not only includes religious right of worship but is also inclusive of carrying out religious values within the public square and in all that one does. Even though Donald has been victim of an impingement upon religious freedom and personal privacy, by saying that he would allow men to enter women's bathrooms in his Trump Tower, based on gender identity, rather than birth identity, his acceptance of such ideas appears to be a business decision rather a closely held view of religious freedoms. While Hillary's acceptance of limited and restricted religious freedoms, and no personal freedom (Marxism) when gender identity is a factor, is staunchly aligned with the DNC policy of accepting and promoting the LGBT agenda and even communism itself. In fact, advocates of the DNC's position consistently call traditional values discrimination and bigotry. Hillary's version of suspended religious freedom, is limited to religious worship, and not the bearing out of one values within the public square.  Hillary's views are clear, and encourage a rolling back of religious freedom, demanding change in every proposed religious freedom extending to healthcare, the workplace, employment, contraception, childbirth and other areas. Under Hillary's vision, a stand for religion is bigotry and discrimination. To teach values contrary to the state and what the state accepts as law or right, could be un-American and subject to penalty. This is called fascism and is the exact policy that Hillary embraces and has fought for for years. I strongly believe that the Hillary's version of Religious freedom is anything but American. Unfortunately, she is hardly subject to change in this area.

So the question is can ANY committed Christian vote FOR a Clinton Presidency knowing the implications of her views and how they will be played out in the executive branch of government. 

Abortion...Donald Trump has appeared to align himself with the Republican party line of anti- abortionist rhetoric, even to the point of promising a defunding Planned Parenthood which is the leading organization in the US providing abortion services or referrals for abortions to women under the guise of "women's health services". For the Black community abortion is an issue of special importance, as the Black community has disproportionately been target with abortion services, especially the Planned Parenthood organization, some say to the tune of aborting over 13 million children since 1972. In fact, abortion has become so popular that it is and has often been marketed as a contraceptive alternative especially to low income Blacks and minorities. On the contrary, Hillary has seemingly doubled-down on the funding of Planned Parenthood (as she believes that this is one of those religious views that must change) promising that a woman's right of choice overrides any right of the unborn. Her view is in step with the 1972 Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision that declared than an unborn child did not have 14th Amendment rights, and therefore no constitutional protections. It is really quite amazing that someone that claims to be a champion of the rights of women and those who are underserved, is in abject disregard that a fetus is a human and therefore deserving of a right to life. Nonetheless, Hillary's position is an extension of the DNC's position and President Obama, who also sought to expand abortion even late into the 3rd tri-mester of pregnancy even up until the point of partial birth, ( a procedure that Democrat President Bill Clinton endorsed as well) which allows a child to be killed as long as his/her head remains within the womb. In essence, babies have no rights, little value and at the end of the day it's all about dollars and funding. Now which position sounds more Presidential? 

The War On Terrorism...Hillary clearly believes that doing what we are doing now will defeat terrorists as long as we continue to employ and recruit Muslim regimes to secure their own countries and fight for their own freedom. The problem is that as this writing is being published, what we are doing now is not working. Look at Mosul for example...under the plan that the President outlined, ISIS was expanding in the Mid-East. What seemed to be a small, extremist group, nearly doubled in size and sophistication. The Mid-East required an adequate response. A response much better than what we had been given by the Obama administration and a State department led by Hillary. Therefore, and as a result we are currently sending more and more soldiers back to war to engage the terrorist enemy when President Obama had committed no American troops back in the military venue or theater.  Donald, on the other hand makes no bones about it...he has said that the military must be ramped up to a level that is able to unequivocally defeat ISIS and terrorists threats in a hands-down manner. In other words, the level of troops or resources to defeat ISIS, under a Trump regime, is not nor has ever been defined. If we think that we will be out of the business of war, under Trump or Clinton, that is an illusion.

Foreign Trade...One of the problems with the American economy is our weak or inept foreign trade deals. Many have called our current agreements a disaster, and if we look at them, we must be honest and question what the motivations were to get into some of these deals that restrict us, while expanding the interest of others. The empty factories and closed businesses could be the best argument that the deals were bad and devestating to the American economy. It is here that seemingly both political parties agree, but with differing opinions on how to bring about a fix. While we must remember that both Republicans and Democrats agreed to these deals, that it is the republican platform reaching out with the most radical approach to the solution...AMERICA FIRST!...While that chant may not resonate with all Democrats who worry about the world's response to such sentiment, it certainly resonates with the American public, both union and factory workers who were put out of business by agreements such as NAFTA. Trump has promised to scrap the trade agreements and impliment a system of tariffs, while Clinton, realizing the system is bad, seems to seek to renegotiate the agreements and penalize companies seeking to leave the country to take advantage of deals left open by the agreements. (Remember NAFTA was signed into law under Republican George Bush)

The Economy...One can hardly separate the economy from foreign trade but we will note that while both candidates promise that their plans will improve the economy, we are yet left with the same and similar ideas that have existed for years, both failing and succeeding to some degree. Though President Obama inherited a devastated economy, the national debt of the United States has nearly doubled since he has been in office. In response and as a fix to our ills, Hillary makes war on her own social class, (the wealthy) promising more taxes from the rich elite, to whom Donald promises tax cuts and a trickle-down effect from the elite to the rank and file, similar to Reagan's economic plan. Hillary's version of economic fairness is a throw-back of Bernie Sanders style socialism where the wealth of the wealthy is seized through complex law and requirements to fund the needs of the masses and in particularly the working poor. Teasers such as "free education" is highlighted as a benefit to the poor, with no or little regard to who is actually going to pay for it (because it is NOT free) The fundamental problem is that this whole approach assumes that the poor can never get wealth by any other means than taking it from the wealthy and that the wealthy should be penalized in some fashion for success and wealth even if it is inherited wealth. In the effort of the Democrat to speak against classism, they actually CREATE and promote classism and class dissent through their efforts and rhetoric. This is similar to what republicans did under Reagan with the implementation of stricter community policing and the so called "war on drugs" which was more tantamount to a war on classes of individuals more than the drugs themselves. 

The Supreme Court...While philosophies on the use and purpose of the Supreme Court is evidently and obviously different on both sides of this campaign, this is probably one of the most critical elements of the election. Many say that the next President may appoint up to 3 Justices over his/her term. Therefore, clear guidance and a theory and view of legal precedence is in order. Why? With the passing of Antonin Scalia, who was, by all accounts, a conservative Justice, the court is currently split evenly between alleged liberals (who supposedly favor democratic arguments) and conservatives (who supposedly favor republican ideals and values) What is certain is that Hillary believes that Supreme Court Justices should be able to legislate from the bench, creating law as opposed to merely examining the constitutionality of certain legislation and questions. Therefore, under Hillary's vision the Supreme Court there would be a law making body, responsible for telling all citizens what the law is after it has reviewed a case. Whereas under a Republican vision,  the Supreme Court is a body entrusted to protect the constitutional rights of citizens. These are two totally different  philosophical approaches to the bench and legislative law in America, and will have an effect on American jurisprudence and values for generations to come, especially due to the life-time appointments of the justices.  

Conclusion

Yes, there is enough fanfare for everyone. Emails, alleged sexual misconduct,potential jail time,  threat of suit...There is more than enough to choke a horse. However, for the next 4 years we will either be bound on a worse path of values reduction than what we have seen under an Obama Presidency or we will put the brakes on some issues in an attempt to reverse what many see as a moral decline and a reversion to ideals that will not build, but that will ultimately destroy us as a people. Certainly, neither candidate will destroy or build anything over night, but each one will have an impact that will have a long lasting effect upon the plight of our nation. 

While Trump's in your face style may be offensive to some, and others claim that he is a racist, one must ask if the moral setting that Americans find themselves in currently is worth going unchecked another 4 years.

Remember, it was a Clinton State Department that hailed proliferating the homosexual agenda all over the world when she left office. She was in part responsible not for gay rights, but for gay preference that we are witnessing across the country. It is Christians and biblical values that are being put to open shame. Christians are being told that they are bigots and that they are out of step with even being American and in some cases "patriotic" simply because they accept the values upon which our nation was founded.

It is at that juncture that personalities mean nothing...only TRUTH matters in the end. It is TRUTH that builds and TRUTH that strengthens. The LIES that we have been told this election cycle are sad. Both democratic and republican lies STINK...However, the truth is that we need a reversion to traditional moral values and this false sense of a "new morality" must be challenged. What we will find is that doing the right thing, the biblical thing, will always stand and come out on top, building a nation. 

Prov. 24:3-4 ~ 3-Through wisdom is an house builded; and by understanding it is established: 4-And by knowledge shall the chambers be filled with all precious and pleasant riches.

I am Pastor Harvey Burnett and I approved this message...in Jesus name! Amen!!!

Blessed!

Read more!

Islam, Submission With No Peace Pt. 15...Listen & Understand

Read more!

Podcasts Are Back Up

We are indeed sorry that the podcasts have not been available for the past few months. They are however available as of 9/30/2016.

ALL Podcasts can be found HERE 

If you like any of the broadcasts and like to listen to them repeatedly, please download and save what you can now. By the new year, 2017, with the exception of a few of them on top of the list, we hope to have a completely new list of podcasts. There are far too many things happening and we must get the word out. 

So THANK YOU for listening and enjoying this work. Continue to pray for me and the work of the Lord and we believe that together, we are making a difference in the Kingdom of the Lord!

Blessed!

Read more!

LIFE Matters

I don't need to say anything else but ZIANNA OLIPHANT...You should remember that name. I will!

Read more!

"No culture of accountability"

What does sexual abuse and miscounduct by athletes of Baylor University have to do with sexual abuse and clergy sexual miscounduct in a church? Read on, I'll tell ya:

In an interview with ESPN Sports News, former Baylor University football coach Art Briles explains the legacy that will forever mark his tenure as Baylor head coach because of failure to deal with sexual assault and abuse in a manner that was intense and unyielding. 

To be clear Coach Briles could not possibly stop every choice and action of his players. However, the coach and others in the Baylor system could have done a much better job of responding to sexual abuse allegations and handling the issues that forever shape and change lives of real individuals.

COGIC Election

2016 is the election year in COGIC. For years, I have asked this church to get real and deal with some serious cultural issues as it pertains to how it responds to allegations of sexual abuse and clergy sins. To date, we have done little to make sure that a solid system of accountability is in place and That current offenders are not only reported to legal professionals but are removed from office and positions of responsibility within the church.

While we have candidates that feel that they can lead a church, NONE have said a word about this vitally important issue and the church's standing within the community and the world.

Can COGIC create a "culture of accountability"? Or will it allow the culture to come calling on it and demand better of it? 

Once thing is for sure, similar to Coach Briles, who is an upstanding gentleman by all accounts...if we don't deal with it, it will deal with us...COGIC will not be able to escape based in its name...and you better believe that!!!!

Blessed!

Read more!

American Freedom & Football...A Kaepernick Story

In a recent Facebook posting, this is what I had to say regarding the Colin Kaepernick exercise of free speech and protest. 

"Now please allow me to say something...

The football QB known as Colin Kaeprrnick made and continues to make a stand for what he believes and has every right to voice his opinion and launch his protest by every peaceful means of a free society in which he lives. 

Many people have said that because he is a person that earns millions of dollars and is Black that he is somehow exempt from being able to protest....Others have said that his wallet proves that racism does not exist in America. What we hear when that is said is ample proof of the hypocrisy that we have accepted as Americans when it comes to fairness, equality, money and Black exceptionalism. 

When such sentiments are invoked it is clearly a throwback to the slave/master mentality. Should a Black man not protest because he has 40 acres and a mule? Should Black exceptionalism remove blocks of successful Black men and women from the struggle and liberation of them that are suffering? 

To believe that is to believe that money buys equality and further that money should buy silence. This is the root of slavery. This is the philosophical construct of the slave master. For the trade of money the person is purchased to sit silently and be who we tell him that he is...His name is TOBY...we have demanded his identity to be reconstructed to our liking...this is the American hypocrisy that he is protesting. Not the military or good police and what works in society. He protests what is wrong in society and given life and strength by our hypocrisy and failure to act upon what we know should be addressed. 

Most times the White wealthy are unopposed in dissent of any fashion and are understood to represent an "honorable" cause. So much so until a nation (America) that dishonored the flag of another (Great Britain) taking land that was not theirs (What we call America now), wealthy and poor working together were called PATRIOTS, pioneers and exemplary Americans. 

Yet today, they burn jerseys of an athlete that has paid for his place with bumps, bruises, and all sorts of other injuries and an insurmountable amount of time and pain that none of his critics care to mention. He has run every play, followed the rules for free while others earned millions off of his success. 

Remember the "owners"? They traded or what we call "contracted" to give him money but they too made insurmountable dollars off of the talents he honed and developed over the years. They only contributed after the fact. In any sense none of their contribution included taking away of his personal freedoms? Or do we now say that payments (ie: money & salaries) now strip individuals of their freedom? If so, that is the essence of slavery is it not? 

No, I have no regard for the BLM movement but I have every regard for a free man's right to dissent, not based on what he has done in the past, but what he has come to stand for and believe now. 

For those, all of those, to call him un-American is to affirm that the flag is nothing more than a sham. If the flag cannot guarantee his right of dissent then it certainly cannot provide his freedom. 

I say listen to the young man. He may be saying something that many of us if not all of us have known for generations...only something GOOD is worth fighting for!

I am Pastor Harvey Burnett, God gave me my freedom and I approved this message.

Blessed!

Read more!

Has God Ordained Donald Trump , Hillary Clinton or any Presidential Candidate to be President?

During almost every election cycle, someone invariably insists that their candidate has been "sent by God" to either lead the nation or be appointed to position. The same can be said of the current election cycle. 

The Arguments or should we say Rationalizations?

Some, such as David Hodges of 'The Common Sense Show Blog',  contend that similar to Jehosaphat that Trump has somehow been "chosen by God" to lead the nation even if he is unaware of it or not. Although he doesn't mention it like this, Trump is similar to the Babylonians who ransacked Israel at the behest of God as a fulfillment of prophecy and is destined to be President. Hodges, like many, are not disillusioned that Trump is godly, but contend that God is doing "something" within the nation that he would not do otherwise. 

Then there is Michelle Bachmann who, in an interview with CBN invoked what she thought was contained in the book of Daniel:

Ps. 75:6-7 ~ 6-For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. 7-But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.

I believe she was referring to Daniel 4:17, only that America is NOT a "Kingdom" as Daniel outlines. However, Bachmann indicated that out of the initial 17 Republican candidates and against all odds, Donald Trump was raised to the top  to be the Republican nominee, and by virtue of that his candidacy is surely of God and is something that she will support because she does not believe that "God sits things out" or is uncaring about the Presidency. Nevertheless, her interview can be found HERE. 

I am not saying that either person is wrong for their thinking and for examining the issue in light of truth and why we are here today doing what we are doing. But there are some problems with what I believe may be "linear thinking" on the issue, especially as it pertains to a God who does not necessarily think linearlly (sic) or for purposes that we can outline. 

The first problem I believe is a slippery slope problem.

Slippery Slope

Arguments like Hodges and Bachmann's could be froth full of problems for Christians to explain. In order to defeat contradiction, one should be able to apply the same or similar logic to many different things and even other leaders and leaderships and not exclusively "American" leaders or leadership, that is unless one thinks that God only cares about America and or Americans. 

Example, Adolph Hitler (1939-1945) was certainly "raised up" to lead the German people at a time in history. I am confident that there were some great things that happened under his leadership. However, we KNOW that some of the most horrific things in modern history also happened under his leadership as well. The murder of over 12 million primarily Jews and the ungodly racist hatred and anti-semitism that spewed from the nation as a result could hardly be said to be either "prophetic" or "ordained by God" under any circumstance. Yet it happened.

The leadership of Pol Pot(1975-1979) killed and destroyed over 1.7 million people, nearly a third of the Cambodia. Was he "raised up" by God or was he a part of "prophecy"? It cannot be argued that he led the people. 

There there is former Russian leader Jozef Stalin(1932-1939) who is said to have murdered over 7 million people or caused them to have been put to death.

How about Fidel Castro (1959-1999) of Cuba? Former leader of a nation that has gained new open relations with America. Fidel is said to have been responsible for killing over 30,000 Cubans for disagreeing with his leadership.   

So it is a very difficult argument to make that either Hitler, Pot, Stalin, or Castro were fulfillment of prophecy, especially when, like Trump, neither of their names were called by God. It is furthermore difficult to say that either of these people came to power because they were "ordained" or sanctioned by God to do what they did by virtue of their exaltation or ability to reach the heights of leadership. 

In fact the latter thought would give rise to a warped conclusion that no matter how a person acts in "office" or after being "raised up" that they are somehow "special" to God or similar to the Blues Brothers "on a mission from God".  This is confusing for many especially in light of NT admonitions saying that we, as Christians, should be "subject" to the authorities that rule because their rule is because of God or their office is sanctioned of God. (Rom. 13:1, Titus 3:0, 11, 1 Peter 2:13-17)

I think out of hat conclusions along these lines, that leaders are "of God" and are to be obeyed and or reverenced simply because they are in position, are equally as flawed.  

The Conclusion Of The Skeptic & Atheist

In the blog, "500 Questions about God & Christianity" the blog author, who describes himself as a "mild mannered former Christian" examines the issue regarding the 2012 Presidential election in which commentary was similar to what it is now regarding "God's plan for the Presidency". This is what the "former Christian" concludes:  

"So does God appoint evil leaders? According to the Bible, yes. 

This fact highlights many contradictions that exist in God’s behavior: he’s benevolent, yet gives rise to evil leaders; he leads his followers to vote for one leader, yet he appoints another; he guides the motives of all leaders, yet they still disagree; he orders his followers to do good, and then orders them to obey evil leaders; he punishes nations and people who are helpless, and grants victory to evil tyrants; and he insists he establishes all authority, and then denies establishing all authority. 

If the Bible is truly inspired by God, one wonders why such contradictions exist."

In short, the situation of "leaders being ordained of God" as "former Christian" suggests calls into question the character of God. If these are the only alternatives, I would agree. Thank God however, that none of what I have outlined is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the rise and fall of evil men and women to either secular or spiritual office. Please allow me to explain.

Alternate View

In this, I must lay a few layers of ideas and truths to set the stage for my ultimate conclusion. Please be patient and read through each section to see if my mini-conclusions are sound. I'll be glad to respond to feedback and modifications in the commentary section, so please don't hesitate...

The Sovereignty & Nature Of God

First, we know that God is sovereign. Sovereignty meaning that God can act in any manner that he wishes in accord with his nature, without question or being subject to any authority. However, we also know that God is good. A good God does not operate his sovereignty outside of the realm of his goodness. 

Now if this is to be accepted, we must reconcile how God is good. Is he good by nature or are his acts good simply because he says that they are good? If it is because he says or calls his acts good, then his goodness could be arbitrary. In other words, God could call even the most vile evil, "good". However, if his good or goodness is because his nature is good, then his good acts cannot be separated from his nature.  In fact, I would like to go further and state that if goodness exists at all, it is because HE (ie: God) is good. Now, I already hear the critic. They say well in that case, if evil exists it is because God is evil and that I cannot have it one way without the other. Well, I simply say that I side with Norm Giessler on this one who stated that God made evil possible, but man made evil actual by and according to his choice of evil!!!

With the free will contingency in mind, one of the greatest goodnesses(sic) of God would be the extension of free will to free moral agents. Individuals who both have the will and right to make a choice of God and or of evil. One could argue that was not God's original intent, as God did not allow Adam or eve to eat of the "Tree of the knowledge of good and evil"(Gen 2:9, 17), however God being God, knowing all, made a built in contingency in that Jesus was a propitiation for sin from the beginning of all creation. 

Free will that is made to do one thing or another is not free will. Being given overwhelming reasons to do something is still not a violation of free will, because in the end one could make a choice either to do or not to do. Being forced to do something is compulsion and possibly determinism. Although many individuals argue this regularly (that God compels both the righteous and unrighteous to act and do what he wants them to do) I will not deal with it in detail here. One thing that God has preserved among humanity is the ability of men to make choices. I believe that it would be a violation of God's "goodness" to strip men of that choice to implement either good or evil, make a good decision or a bad decision out of man's own mind. However, that choice can be directed by God and ultimately does not at any time escape the knowledge or preparation of God in any way. 

The Knowledge Of God

With that said, and backtracking on what I have already stated, we know that if God is God at all, then he is omniscient. This means that he has all knowledge, both past, present and future. There is nothing that has got by him or nothing that can catch him unaware or unprepared. This is where it gets sticky, God, because of his knowledge, has made certain determinations. Those determinations are based and rooted in his goodness. Those determinations are not merely "responsive", or not merely in response or as a result of what men and mankind does. If they are in response to man, then it seems that life, living and purpose are man centered as opposed to God centered or sovereignty inspired. However, it could be that what we 'think" is man centered or inspired is ultimately inspired by God, as nothing has happened that has caught God by surprise as stated. 

At this point many simply say, "did God ordain it or did he not?" The only answer that can be given is that at times, he does and has "ordained"however at other times he has "permitted" something to be that he has not necessarily "ordained". 

For example, no one can hardly successfully argue that God "ordained" a husband to kill his wife and kids or for a mother to do the same. Or for a baby or a baby's mother to die in a drive by shooting or by a stray bullet. Or for a person to rape and or molest another. No one can say that Go has ordained these things, YET every man has a appointed time to live and to die, and every person on earth is subject to be touched as a result of crime or evil.  

Quickly. I use "ordain" here to mean something that God has "decreed" or declared that will happen without question or failure. 

The further question is "how does God ordain" or what is the "process" by which he has decreed something? ie: is the process open to change even if the purpose or ultimate aim is fixed? These are things that the bible is not clear on and where our faith in HIM his nature and HIS will for us is exercised. 

The King & His Heart

The bible constructs that the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord and that the Lord directs or turns that heart in a manner that pleases him. (Prov. 21:1) 

What this does not say is that God controls the King as a "puppet". Although at times a "puppet" could be made out of a person that follows the whims and dictates of their own minds and hearts. However, it does affirm that even the King can do no more or less than what the Lord has instructed, allows, or permits. So God setting the boundaries or parameters in no wise hampers free will.  

A Word On Pharaoh

Some conclude that Pharaoh was inexplicably tied to his own destruction because God "hardened his heart". (Ex. 7:3, 9:12, 10:20,27, 11:10, 14:4) I have often taught that this view, that God made Pharaoh obstinate as a result of his holding his heart in that position is incorrect. Pharaoh, who had control over his own heart, chose his obstinance against God of his own free will. However the language is similar to the language that a man uses when he has committed the crime of abusing his wife or children...in nearly every case the offender, in this case the man, will say that the wife or children "made" him do what he did. Of course we naturally know that no one took the hands of another and made them abuse them...however, the message is clear that the offender believes that the victims actions, however slight, caused the perpetrator of the crime to act. In any case, we all understand that the perpetrator is responsible for and had full control over their own actions unless they were working in self-defense.

Sisera & The Judges

One of the basic lessons of the Old Testament (OT) is that of the Judges and the "sin cycle" or the "cycle of restoration" that was displayed. We observe that like clockwork, when the people of God had a champion, they served the Lord, only to backslide when the Judge did not reign The people would indulge in sin, go through punishment for it, seek the Lord through calls for repentance and help, enjoy the blessings of restoration and renewal only to go back through the cycle again. 

During these times, it was clear that the Lord had allowed these things, even directing them clearly at times, for a purpose. In judges, it is clear that the purpose was to call men to prayer, fellowship and union with HIM. 

One such character that brought Israel to repentance and as such was a "servant" of God, was the character of Sisera. After judge Ehud died, the book of Judges records this:

Judges 4:1-3 ~ 1-And the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD, when Ehud was dead. 2-And the LORD sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, that reigned in Hazor; the captain of whose host was Sisera, which dwelt in Harosheth of the Gentiles.3-And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel.

Jabin had Sisera as a general and appointed him over Israel. Sisera "oppressed" Israel for 20 years. Notice the purpose of God was to call Israel BACK to himself after they had backslid, but at the same time everyone acted out of their own free will. Jabin's appointment was his. Sisera's oppression was his. The people's repentance to God was their own. However, it was orchestrated and directed by God for his purpose without missing a beat. The ultimate purpose, following the story and the book, was to bring the people of God to a deeper, new and better relationship with HIM. 

So it is with the precision of a weaver or someone making intricate details to the smallest of things that God sewed together the tapestry of Israel's past and our present. Do we understand the why all the time? Absolutely not. We are not God and neither are we required to be. That is where faith in HIS character takes over.      

Summary To The Point & Conclusion:
I've talked through many things, but here is a quick summary/snapshot of some of the things:

God is good
God is sovereign
God is omniscient

God acts in his sovereignty according to his nature
God has a plan according to his omniscience that will not be missed
God responds to man and mankind based on their response to HIM
God is active in the choices of man and not merely responsive

Man makes choices for which God cannot be blamed
God deals with man according to those free will responses
God ultimately uses whom he will to do his bidding. Those who do this do not necessarily always do honoring things, by their own freewill choices.

God's ultimate aim is to bring man into union and fellowship with HIM

The Question:

In light of these things, lets look back at the original or initial question:

Has God ordained Donald Trump , Hillary Clinton or any Presidential candidate to be President? 

I would contend that while God is certainly not indifferent, God's plan does not necessarily center around either the Trump or Clinton brand.  Neither candidate has a relationship with HIM to do "righteously" by the people of God. I contend that God's ultimate aim is to call  men and women of God to repentance, union and fellowship with HIM. Certainly a Trump presidency, similar to a Clinton presidency should call ALL men to repentance because we will be equally as jacked up, in my opinion and in many instances if not most, more jacked up with Clinton!

Just like when President Obama, Bush, Clinton and others were elected and throughout their Presidencies, God has placed America in a position in which it MUST pray and renew its relationship with God. Trump is not a man of "prophecy" in my opinion and I see no parallel to any biblical character with the exception of the admonitions of Solomon about the wealthy and boisterous. I certainly see no parallel of Clinton either and just because either of them has ascended to high political ranks, I see no special calling upon either of their lives other than that they, as well as all men, good or evil, are instruments in the hands of God.  

Trump is not a deliverer and certainly doesn't claim to be one. Clinton, is not a deliverer and does not make the claim either. So neither of them can be vessels in the sense that either of them have some ethereal call upon their lives to be President and to do righteously as in doing what the bible requires men and women to do.

Their policies and practices make it difficult for any bible believer to fully give themselves to support any. For example, Trump has no clue as to why men should not be allowed into women's bathrooms, and views gay rights as a matter of a business move, while Clinton thinks it is a benefit to continue to promote abortion as a choice greater than the life of the baby that is destroyed in the process.

So I will agree and disagree with both Hodges and Bachmann. If Trump is in prophecy he is in there by being a man that boasts and speaks great things, but as one who does not represent biblical values. Although neither of these candidates are Kings, although some may think they are, both are on the same footing. They are humans, seeking to lead a secular nation into secular ideals and values with a fascad that God is pleased. 

Personally, God could not possibly be pleased with either of the candidates. As stated, they both have serious issues. The lesser "issue" is not necessarily a "lesser evil". They are just different evils that should leave the true believer with the knowledge that God is at work by taking away any natural hope of our deliverance as a people, heed the call of God to prayer and seeking him diligently. If we were waiting for a natural deliverance we should be confident by now that such a deliverer is not coming through this or any new political or social process.

Jesus is Lord and remains Lord and is calling ALL of us to him for HIS leadership.This election cycle, I hope that people everywhere will be able to see that and know that no matter what, without God our nation is in trouble and will remain so. 

Blessed! 

Read more!