To help us depend on Him, God gave us self-governance, or self-control (Proverbs 25:28). He also gave us three external forms of government: family government, church government, and civil government. Each operates in its own sphere, though each sphere overlaps with the others. In the case of “caregiving,” the family government, not civil government, is the primary care giver. It is what we might think of as the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

A proposal being debated in my church and denomination (the Presbyterian Church in America) would insert language into our Book of Church Order (BCO) that says, “Men who describe themselves as homosexual, even those who describe themselves as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy by refraining from homosexual conduct, are disqualified from holding office.”
A friend of mine, during a recent conversation on this issue, said that the proposed statement was “political” and did not belong in the BCO.
I know my friend did not mean that homosexuality is only a political issue that has nothing to with faith. I took him to mean instead that the focus of some people in our denomination on those who are gay and celibate has moved beyond faith to politics.
His statement reflects a sentiment popular among some Christians today that evangelical Christians, especially white evangelicals, have politicized the Christian faith.
In an interview with Vox last year, David French said, “Any time you’re going to tie faith to ideas and people who do not either personify biblical ethics or positioned to flow from biblical ethics, you’re creating a real problem. They’ve essentially politicized their faith.”
Notice how carefully French constructs his statement. He has positioned himself so that if he finds a Christian who supports a politician French believes does not “personify biblical ethics,” perhaps Donald Trump?, he can easily claim his opponent has politicized his faith. Likewise, if a Christian takes a position on public policy that French and company do not think “flow[s] from biblical ethics,” French can readily dismiss it as political, not based in faith.
Let’s consider this in the context of an example from Scripture. On a recent American Vision podcast, Gary DeMar mentioned that the dispensational Christian author Dave Hunt complained that John the Baptist cut short a promising ministry by getting involved in politics. What did John do wrong? He pestered Herod about his sin of taking his brother’s wife as his own wife. According to Hunt, John’s politicization of marriage interfered with the purpose and promise of his ministry.
I provide this background because I want to talk about Stacey Abrams, the race baiting progressive gubernatorial candidate in Georgia, from the perspective of biblical ethics. Abrams wants to expand welfare programs for Georgians with disabilities so that more of them are able to live “independently.”
My take on Abrams is what she really wants is not to improve the life of the disabled but a larger, more intrusive government that can be used to destroy what’s left in America of a Christian perspective on government and family.
Yet quite a few evangelicals today would claim my position on this issue is political, not scriptural. That because my ideas do not flow from biblical ethics, I have politicized them. So, I will lay them out here and let you decide.
I ran across Abrams’ focus on disability in the 19th, an online news site which identifies as “an independent, nonprofit newsroom reporting on gender, politics and policy.” It particularly promotes feminism and homosexuality.
The article about Abrams was written by the 19th’s “caregiving reporter.” This in itself tells us something about the progressive agenda. With reporting focusing on the lack of government-supplied caregiving, the implication is that caregiving is only compassionately caring for those in need when it is supplied by the government. This bias shows up clearly in the first paragraph of the Abrams’ story.
Martha Haythorn, 22, has Down syndrome and gets help from her mother with everyday tasks like grocery shopping, meal planning and getting around. The Georgia Institute of Technology student would love to be living independently, but she’s been on a waitlist to receive in-home support services from the state of Georgia for six years — with no end in sight.
We can learn an awful lot from this paragraph if we approach it from a logical and biblical perspective. So let’s do that.
First, let’s focus on logic. The problem described here is that Martha can’t live independently because without these in-home support services she has to do depend on her mother. I looked up what some of these services are. They include:
The staff will assist in acquiring, retaining, and improving skills such as bathing, dressing, chores, walking or moving around and planning or cooking meals. We will even help find ways to get you where you need to go and help you get involved with things you like, such as recreational activities, access to food, making your own schedules and having visitors.
Do you see the problem here? The complaint is that Martha can’t live independently because she has to “get help from her mother with everyday tasks like grocery shopping, meal planning and getting around.”
Read More

Related Posts:

As if by magic, the stage morphed into a massive cathedral with imposing stained-glass windows and a marriage archway. High Priestesses “Material Girl” Madonna and pure “royalty,” Queen Latifah, then appeared on stage to join in marriage 33 couples of numerous sexual permutations, thereby sealing the new religion’s Oneist creed: all religions and all sexualities are One—to the thunderous applause of the thousands present, and to the approbation of millions of television viewers.

The 2023 Grammy’s made a huge splash, while horrifying Christians with its blatant satanic imagery and pagan religious overtones. But this is not so new! As I sat to write an article about the 2023 event, I remembered my reaction to the 2014 Grammy Awards. I wrote the following account:
In 1971, Don McLean sang “Bye-bye, Miss American Pie,” and asked: “…do you have faith in God above, if the Bible tells you so, [or] do you believe in rock and roll, can music save your mortal soul?” Back then there were still options. Asking these two questions in a pop song made sense. No longer. We’ve come a long way, baby. The latest Grammy Awards (January 26, 2014) celebrating the liberating power of music, launched in prime time, with all the stunning technological Hollywood bells and whistles, as THE NEW AMERICAN RELIGION.
Way back in 1988, at the height of his career as a recognized journalist (having made big money ghost-writing Donald Trump’s biography, Art of the Deal), Tony Schwartz went on a journey to understand what was happening to the soul of America. In 1995 he published What Really Matters, an examination of the thought and practice of the leaders of the New Age Movement. He discovered a unique, made-in-America spirituality that joined Eastern and Western practice into “a new American wisdom tradition” that would save the world. On January 26, 2014, that spiritual tradition came out on network television in a resounding worship celebration of a new American religion.
Driven by the “faith” of the leading contemporary purveyors of hip-hop and rap, the moment was enthusiastically sanctioned by the prominently featured elder wise ones—in particular Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and Yoko Ono.
The religious service began with serious “worship,” led by Beyoncé—at 6 pm Pacific, 7pm Central and 8pm Eastern, while children are still watching. Of course, that’s all just fine, since President Obama praised Beyoncé as an important role model for children, including his own. Her outlandishly sexualized dance routine, in a revealing black thong bodysuit over fishnet tights, simulating all the moves belonging solely to the privacy of the marital bedroom, was an act of heterosexual public debauchery. Her hit song, “Drunk in Love” served as an introductory hymn that set the worship tone for the evening. “I’ve been drinking…I get filthy when that liquor gets into me…[I can’t bring myself to type all the words she sang]…Drunk in love.” Beyoncé proudly embraces her sexuality, draping herself in pseudo-ethical notions like “pride” and “self-affirmation,” giving the appearance of moral high-ground while groveling in the gutter.
The order of service continued with testimonies of deliverance. Ex-evangelical Katy Perry (famous for her song, “I Kissed a Girl and Liked It”) celebrated her apostasy, dressed up as a witch with a large red cross on her chest, and was symbolically “burned at the stake.” A sister in rebellion, Kacey Musgraves (who sang in church as a child) won the Country award with her ballad, “Follow Your Arrow.” The arrows were anti-Christian barbs at church-going and traditional ethics. Her song culminated in the exhortation to escape those old-time religion chains:
So make lots of noise, Kiss lots of boys,Or kiss lots of girls, if that’s something you’re into,When the straight and narrow gets a little too straight.
The three-hour service ended on an ecstatic, unholy high note. Macklemore and Ryan Lewis (Grammy for Best New Artist), began the finale with their hit song “Same Love,” which has become an anthem in the gay community. Its religious overtones are easy to see:
America the brave still fears what we don’t knowAnd “God loves all his children” is somehow forgotten.Whatever god you believe in, we come from the same one;Strip away the fear, underneath, it’s all the same love…About time that we raised up!
As if by magic, the stage morphed into a massive cathedral with imposing stained-glass windows and a marriage archway. High Priestesses “Material Girl” Madonna and pure “royalty,” Queen Latifah, then appeared on stage to join in marriage 33 couples of numerous sexual permutations, thereby sealing the new religion’s Oneist creed: all religions and all sexualities are One—to the thunderous applause of the thousands present, and to the approbation of millions of television viewers.
The vacuous marriage sacrament of the “Grammys religion” and its further trivialization as an entertainment stunt, only underlines the spiritually empty gospel that Tinsel Town and its beautiful people were pushing, unopposed, into the homes of people who pay these artists their inflated salaries. There is no competing message, no other opinion allowed from other artists, no apparent way for so many to hear the truth. This is a formula for cultural collapse.
Fast Forward to 2023
At the 2023 Grammys, the religious theme went even further in the promotion of Satanism. Two trans, non-binary, androgynous artists Sam Smith and Kim Petras performed a song entitled “Unholy,” worshiping Satan. Smith was dressed in bright red with horns, surrounded by half-dressed young women twerking him in a highly sexualized manner. All this worshiping of “Satan” was intended to make a non-binary appeal to children to worship Satan and themselves.1 Madonna was still part of the event and this satanic, sexual scene on live TV shows us how far popular culture is falling. It is strange indeed for Pfizer, one of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies, to sponsor this shocking event.
The Babylon Bee makes fun of the event. “In a rare public statement, the Prince of Darkness has distanced himself from last night’s Grammys performance by Sam Smith, which he denounced as “cringy” and “appalling”: “listen, folks, I enjoy demonic sexual perversion just as much as the next guy, but this is just too much,” said the frustrated Father of Lies. “I’m the god of this world! I appear as an angel of light! It’s supposed to be sneaky and subtle! Has Hollywood lost its ability to be subtle? What on earth happened to this town?” 2
But Satanism is not a joke. Such a way of thinking gives occasion to the most radical kind of conclusion. Maria Molzer, a colleague of Carl Jung, who “analyzed” members of some of America’s most wealthy families, (Rockefellers and McCormicks) boldly expresses Jung’s thinking on the conjuctio (joining): “I too think that God and the Devil are two manifestations of the same principle, and that one necessitates the other…We must learn to value the Devil again. The Christian religion expelled him. He asks for his rights again.”3 In the Jungian therapeutic world, Satan becomes your friend. As the esoteric poet, W.B.Yeats said: “Frater Demon est Deus Inversus” (brother Satan is the other side of God).4
Nine years after my original description of the event, the Grammys has gone farther in its rejection of God and its embrace of the very opponent of God, namely Satan. Of course Christians must make this plain, but my friend Thaddeus Williams shows us the right conclusion, as he directly addresses Kim and Sam, the two young non-binary singers who praised Satan in the Grammys this year. With this gladly I end my text, for the Gospel is God’s love of sinners.5
“Dear Kim, your rejection of religion hasn’t made you non-religious. You are still bowing, only to the finite creation rather than the infinite Creator. Let me be crystal clear for you and Sam: You are loved in a way that no sexual experience can grant. We absolutely want you to be a part of Jesus’s movement to bring healing and redemption to a fallen cosmos. We, like you, have made spectacles of our self-worship. But there is grace for us all. Jesus is infinitely more joyous and meaningful than all the world’s accolades and affirmation. He is where our deepest identity is found. Ever since Jesus’ death and resurrection everything changed. The system of self-glorification is on its way out. Please, don’t find yourself on the wrong side of the future. Don’t spend your career parroting the doomed dogmas of an ancient snake. Repent. Find eternal life in Jesus.”
Dr. Peter Jones is scholar in residence at Westminster Seminary California and associate pastor at New Life Presbyterian Church in Escondido, Calif. He is director of truthXchange, a communications center aimed at equipping the Christian community to recognize and effectively respond to the rise of paganism. Used with permission.

[1] See Thaddeus Williams, https://wng.org/opinions/satanism-on-display-at-the-grammy-awards-1676031920?fbclid=IwAR3K3i5aJc26boES6qJujn5wLxfhgwjQeBGyTMccxg3oaps-LKf3RSS2nDM&mibextid=l066kq
[2] https://babylonbee.com/news/horrified-satan-distances-self-from-grammys
[3] Noll, The Aryan Christ, 197.
[4] http://yeatsvision.com/Esoteric.html.
[5] https://wng.org/opinions/satanism-on-display-at-the-grammy-awards-1676031920?fbclid=IwAR3K3i5aJc26boES6qJujn5wLxfhgwjQeBGyTMccxg3oaps-LKf3RSS2nDM&mibextid=l066kq
Related Posts:

Written by J. Warner Wallace |
Friday, November 25, 2022
All of us favor “our own”. There are “otherists” in every profession, organization and social group. Wherever there are people, you’ll find this kind of behavior, although our “otherism” will probably be expressed differently depending on the group, situation or historical context. Racism is perhaps the simplest form of “otherism” because it is based on the most obvious feature each of us possesses: our physical appearance. But make no mistake about it, the real problem, the root problem, is far more troubling. “Otherism” can employ nearly any distinctive feature we possess as the impetus for bias and favoritism. Knock down one reason to divide from one another and another can be easily be pressed into service. We do it all the time.

Several years ago at a memorial service held for the ambushed police officers in Dallas, Texas, the President said, “Faced with this violence, we wonder if the divides of race in America can ever be bridged. We wonder if an African-American community that feels unfairly targeted by police, and police departments that feel unfairly maligned for doing their jobs, can ever understand each other’s experience.” In the years that followed, the division only seems worse. Few would argue that we are increasingly divided as a nation, and many identify race as the basis of this division. But racism is simply the expeditious term we apply to a much more common and troubling experience: as humans, our problem isn’t simply racism, it’s what I call “otherism”.
I noticed it many years ago when my German in-laws expressed an interest in my profession as a police officer. One of them asked me what kind of pistol my agency issued. I told him we carried a Glock Model 21. He immediately winced and said, “Ugh, that’s an Austrian gun.” Mind you, this relative was born and raised in Southern Germany, less than one hundred miles from the Austrian border. When I visited the region, many years earlier, I couldn’t tell any difference between the southern Germans and the northern Austrians I met. From my perspective, these two groups looked the same, sounded the same, ate virtually the same food, and lived in the same region of Europe. For all intents and purposes, these two groups should find much around which they could identify and unify, but the line on the ground had become an excuse for division; a way for each group to identify (and separate from) the “other”.
Years later, while serving on our agency’s gang detail, I saw something similar occurring between “cliques” of gangsters in Los Angeles County. Young men of the same race, ethnicity, socio-economic status and region went out of their way to separate from one another, even though they had so much in common. They wore different colors to amplify their sense of “otherness”. They would even kill each other based on the colors they wore, even though without these clothing distinctions, they couldn’t tell each other apart.
Our innate “otherism” (our desire to separate from one another in any way possible) is so deeply rooted that even if every man on the planet was physically identical to every other man (and every woman identical to every other woman), we’d still find some way to separate from one another. Perhaps all the people who live at an even address would express a bias against those who live at an odd address. As crazy as that sounds, our “otherism” is that hardwired into our fallen human nature. In fact, there is a growing body of scientific research demonstrating this “otherist” predisposition.
Read More
Related Posts: