The Aquila Report Archives

Hiding Behind Hedonism and Cynicism

By Joe Holland — 4 months ago

Hedonism and cynicism are unbiblical and ineffective ways of dealing with our natural desire for joy. If you pursue joy with reckless abandon, you will end up striving for more and more while never attaining lasting joy. If you give up the pursuit of joy, adopting a morbid expectation about the future and people, you will spend your life experiencing sorrow and grief for events that may never happen or closing yourself off from experiencing true joy.

In my work with pastors and Christian leaders, we talk about all the challenges that come with leading organizations. These discussions usually end up touching on the need for Christians to deal with powerful and conflicting emotions in a godly way. But for many of the men I work with, a basic biblical understanding of emotions is something they’ve never even thought about. So when the topic of emotions comes up, I often get the question, “What are the basic (or core) emotions?” I answer with my working list: fear, loneliness, anger, sadness, hurt, joy, disdain, guilt, and shame. The response to this list is usually, “Well, how can I feel as much joy and as little of the rest of the list as possible?” It is that question that often leads Christians into the despair of hedonism or cynicism.
Definitions of Despair
Hedonism is a philosophy of living—sometimes adopted explicitly and sometimes implicitly—that places the pursuit of pleasure as the highest good. Because pleasure typically produces (momentary) joy, hedonists think they have found a way to maximize joy. But in the end, this way of living ends in despair.
Researchers have two ways of describing the despair that hedonists eventually experience. The first is hedonic adaptation. This is what hedonists experience when they adapt to their current level of pleasure, resulting in both a malaise and a need to pursue even more pleasure. The cycle is never-ending and ultimately unsatisfying. The second term that describes the eventual despair of the hedonist is anhedonia. This is more of a medical term that describes the apathy and numbness that some hedonists experience after the unbridled pursuit of pleasure. It turns out that God did not design our bodies to experience nonstop worldly pleasure without becoming numb to it.
Read More

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 36

Why Do Democrats Have a Masculinity Problem?

By Andrew T. Walker — 4 months ago

Written by Andrew T. Walker |
Tuesday, October 29, 2024
The typical male is repelled by the notion that homosexuality is a matter of mere moral indifference, as if sodomy were no different than being left-handed. The question is whether they have the freedom to admit that out loud. Under progressive rule, they do not. Will Democrats learn anything from this? No. Because it would require repudiating their entire philosophy.

One of the most intriguing narratives arising out of the 2024 election is the growing gender gap in how men and women identify politically.
Men, especially young men, are becoming more conservative, and women are becoming more liberal. As The New York Times recently reported, men are also becoming more religious.
Media reports exist aplenty at this point, documenting the statistical divide.
Even political strategists are taking notice. Former President Donald Trump and Sen. J.D. Vance, so the story goes, are deliberately building a coalition around men. They appear on all the “bro” podcasts in hopes of channeling all the collective male energy to catapult them to victory. In contrast, Democrats are relying upon women, particularly pro-abortion women, to win in November. As a result, Vice President Kamala Harris has a massive shortfall when it comes to male support. The Democrats know they have a masculinity problem, which is part of the reason that the folksy Gov. Tim Walz was selected as Harris’ running mate. With all of his Midwestern schmaltziness, he adds to that his love for football (“Coach Walz”) and his love for hunting. He is meant to channel the everyday American dad. The masculinity gap also explains the origins of the “White Dudes for Harris” subgroup, which is as cringy and low testosterone as it sounds.
Why are Democrats now having to go to great lengths to get male voters?
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 39

Resurrecting the Bible of Jesus

By Gary Edward Schnittjer — 4 months ago

Consider setting aside the wrongful attitudes moderns bring against the Bible of Jesus. A place to start is taking on the attitude of Jesus toward his Bible. We should own it. Study it. Be humbled by it. Teach it. Tell others what it says about Yahweh’s mercy. I invite you to read it for yourself. There’s no wrong place to begin. Jesus stopped the tempter with three teachings in Deuteronomy 6‒11. This section tells the people to love Yahweh who loved them first. This is one place we can start to see the Bible of Jesus resurrected to its rightful place in our lives.

“It’s embarrassing.”
That is how I answered a question in a recent podcast interview about the Bible of Jesus—what we call the Old Testament.
They had asked: “In all of your experience in teaching at the university level, what would you say students find most difficult when it comes to engaging with the Old Testament?”
I answered the podcast hosts that students are embarrassed because of uninformed prejudice against the Old Testament in the different spheres of students’ lives. Their friends think it’s boring. Churches minimize and correct it. And especially modern culture ridicules it.1
These things are not new. They are not in doubt. These things should be troubling. They should alarm us. That many Christians have accepted the embarrassment of the Old Testament is part of the problem.
Unpacking the embarrassment about the Bible of Jesus is personal. I say this as a Christian and as a professor of Old Testament.
Jesus is not embarrassed about his Bible. He owns it. He studies it. He teaches it. He taunts his enemies with it. He claims it teaches us all we need to know about redemption (Luke 16:31). If this tells us anything, it says we are wrong for being ashamed of his Bible. This means it is not enough to shake our heads and sigh about what has become of the Old Testament in our day. We need to resurrect the Bible of Jesus to its proper place in our lives.
Embarrassment About the Old Testament Among Christians
Churches tend to love the New Testament and Jesus. The Old Testament, not so much. On any given Sunday many churchgoers are bound to hear the contrast between the Old and the New. Christian teachers and preachers speak about the New Testament Christ of love who is unlike the Old Testament God of wrath. The message also can be read in books by church-going scholars or evangelical ministers.
In 2023 a seasoned Old Testament scholar named James W. Watts crossed out all the so-called “immoral” verses in his commentary on Leviticus 11‒20. He goes on to call upon all scholars and Bible publishers to cross out all the “immoral” verses in the entire Bible—the vast majority are in Torah. He lists all of them. Watts’ list includes all commands about killing Canaanites, slavery, patriarchy, capital punishment, and more, as well as some sexual purity standards. He tells laity not to wait for Bible publishers but to cross out the immoral teachings in their own Bibles.2
The pastor of a large church in Georgia named Andy Stanley thinks that the Old Testament is ruining the gospel message. He is troubled by the sharp contrast between the wrathful God of Israel and the Christ of love.3 He tells his readers not to obey the Ten Commandments.4
This is incredibly bad advice. It is also directly opposed to the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament.
Again and again, Christians express their relief at not needing to bother with Old Testament teachings. Congregants shake their heads at what they see as God’s legalistic treatment of ancient Israel. They sometimes even comment on how much different Jesus is. Different than God? That’s not a Christian view. It’s also mistaken.
There are only 613 laws in the Torah. This only seems like a lot until we realize that there are more than 800 commands in the New Testament.5 People worry about the oddness of the laws of Torah. True, but commands in the New Testament are odd, too. Kiss one another (1 Cor 16:20). Women, cover your heads (11:5‒6). Be kind to strangers in case they are angelic beings in disguise (Heb 13:2). And many more.
Christians complain about the difficulty of obeying the laws of Torah. These Christians need to reread the commands of Christ placed at a much more demanding level. Torah says do not murder or commit adultery (Exod 20:13‒14). Jesus says do not act in anger or look with lust (Matt 5:21‒22, 27‒28).
Remember, we are saved by grace alone and nothing of ourselves in order to serve God by good works (Eph 2:8‒10).
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 29

It’s Showtime!

By Simon Arscott — 4 months ago

At the heart of God’s show is the cross of Christ (1:23-25). God’s show glorifies what the world is most ashamed of – the crucifixion of the Lord of glory. And, that event obliterates human boasting (1:29), and gives all the glory back to God (1:31). So, this is God’s show! It is show-time at church. But this show isn’t for us to watch with our pop-corn, or sip with our coffee, as we sit comfortably in our seat. It’s not a show, where our children are quietly taken care of, and the parking is easy to find. It’s not where everything is polished, and we slip in and out for the bits of the performance we like.

Some of you will know the internet slang: “TL; DR”. It means “Too long; didn’t read”, and, if we’re honest, it’s how we’ve all found ourselves reacting at times. It’s probably what you’re tempted to do with this piece of writing! I think “TL; DR” illustrates a shift that’s taken place in the 20th C. Entertainment has shifted how our brains react to politics, education and religion. So, today, politicians are forced to offer sound-bites rather than substantial arguments. Children are weaned on a diet of Sesame St or CBeebies, and the one thing they must not experience is boredom. And, likewise, churches feel pressure to put on a good show. This is shown in the architecture of bigger, modern church buildings which are more cinematic – with a stage, lighting, and theatre-style seating. Today, more than ever, we need to grab people’s attention. “There’s no business, like show-business”.
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 25

Volunteer Mums

By Jacob Crouch — 4 months ago

I’m not about to write a book on the proper technique for keeping mums alive. It was just a seed planted in good soil. Honestly, there’s just not much to say about the sower. And so it is with evangelism. We throw the seed, and God grows the seed. Paul shifts the credit off of himself and Apollos by saying, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth” (1 Cor 3:6-7). Do you hear that? “Only God.”

When we bought our house a few years ago, we noticed a nice retaining wall in the backyard that had some shrubs and plants scattered throughout. It was during the winter season, so most things were lying dormant. But when the Spring came, we were pleasantly surprised to find lilies, indigo, red clover. Beautiful shades of red, blue, white, and green. This year, when we looked out, we noticed a plant growing that we hadn’t noticed before. It was a healthy, beautiful white mum. What we realized was that at some point, probably a potted mum had reached the end of its life, and it had been dumped into the retaining wall. We had nothing to do with this plant surviving, and the previous owners probably didn’t know that it had found new life. It’s a beautiful addition to the greenery, but these volunteer mums also encourage me in evangelism.
Sometimes we can get lost in our heads. We want to share the gospel, but we’re scared. We want to talk about Christ, but what if we don’t have all the answers? We love the idea of evangelism, but it all seems so hard. And then we see these volunteer mums. Nothing fancy.
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 27

Nationalism, Globalism, and American Nationality

By John D. Wilsey — 4 months ago

Written by John D. Wilsey |
Tuesday, October 29, 2024
Coming to grips with American nationality is hard work, but it is the work of the American citizen. Christian American citizens have a special responsibility in this work, because we believe that the tension between dignity and fallenness in human nature has been resolved through the Incarnation of the Lord Jesus, and his substitutionary work in redemption on the cross and the resurrection.

It seems everyone has an opinion about nationalism these days. Something called “Christian nationalism” emerged once Donald Trump came on the political scene a decade ago, and especially after January 6, 2021. Since the publication of Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry’s 2020 book, Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States, Christian nationalism has become a veritable cottage industry. Scores of authors, particularly on the left, have sought to get in on the action, publishing title after title excoriating the concept as racist, fascist, patriarchal, violent, and “neither American nor Christian” (in the words of a recently released book by Michael W. Austin).
Others, mainly on the right, have embraced the moniker of Christian nationalism with relish. Stephen Wolfe’s 2021 book, The Case for Christian Nationalism, serves as a manifesto for a magisterial, Erastian polity headed by a Christian prince who serves in the capacity of a king-priest. Whereas the leftist critique of Christian nationalism has developed into a theory of everything progressives hate about conservatives, Wolfe’s book serves as a thumb thrust directly into the eye of the progressive left.
Prior to 2016, the cultural masthead for religious national identity was American exceptionalism—the idea that America was special, unique, and praiseworthy among the nations of the world. A fickle American culture exchanged “exceptionalism” for “nationalism” with little understanding or reflection on the meaning of either term. Since the dawn of the twenty-first century, both “exceptionalism” and “nationalism” have been deployed by the left to describe all that is wrong with America. The left prefers open borders, multiculturalism, multilingualism, and globalism to anything that speaks of American particularity as a nation with a language, culture, governing philosophy, tradition, or heroes of its own. Herein, I hope to briefly explain why this leftist ideology of cosmopolitanism is faulty, and that the better way is not a nationalism, but the conservation of a patriotic nationality that serves as a faithful stewardship of the best of American tradition. This conservative patriotism is in fact a means of loving our neighbor.
Cosmopolitanism
Political theorist Steven B. Smith’s book, Reclaiming Patriotism in an Age of Extremes, helpfully provides a contrast between nationalism, patriotism, and what he calls cosmopolitanism. He writes, “nationalism is not patriotism’s exact opposite but a deformation of the patriotic spirit.” On the other hand, Smith understands cosmopolitanism as a world citizenship—it is universal, not particular. Tracing the history of cosmopolitanism in the West from Plato, to the Stoics, to the Roman Empire, and to the Enlightenment in the modern period, Smith rightly argued the cosmopolitanism is an abstraction, a chimera, utopian, without “passion and intensity” and “a joyless disposition.”
Most compellingly, Smith describes cosmopolitanism by using the term “cool.” He writes, “Cool is above all an aesthetic pose, expressed in dress, cuisine, language, and shopping. It is a stance of detached irony, a withholding of emotional commitment.” Cool became mainstream after World War II, particular during the liberation movements of the 1960s. Cool transcends good and evil and “has an unmistakenly urban vibe, designating hipness and an indifference to conventional norms, with a slightly outlaw flavor.” Cosmopolitanism—a form of globalism that prizes international diversity in the West for the sake of diversity—is the epitome of cool, because to be cosmopolitan is to transcend national distinctives, borders, citizenship, and politics. Cosmopolitanism is thoroughly postmodern, in that it rejects the normative in favor of the sentimental and experiential.
Thus, it is difficult to make a rational case against cosmopolitanism, because it is by definition irrational. There is no concrete example of cosmopolitanism in history. Even multi-national states and empires like the Roman Empire of antiquity, the Holy Roman Empire of medieval and early modern Europe, or the Austro-Hungarian Empire of late modernity took their shapes around contours defined by practice, statecraft, tradition, religion, and physical boundaries over time. Cosmopolitanism is, as Smith lucidly describes it, not much more than a “vibe.”
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 31

Voting For Less Evil

By Ken Gentry — 4 months ago

As I have been pointing out, we are in a socio-political struggle for the long run. Therefore, I have been urging that we act accordingly. Like it or not, in politics we cannot expect overnight success through one particular election or by means of a “perfect” candidate. To continually vote for the “perfect” candidate when we know he is going to lose does not help us build for the future, for by that we are ceding more victories to the overt liberals. Liberalism is messy. When its goo gets all over the place, it is very difficult to clean up the mess.

[An edited excerpt from Political Issues Made Easy (Victorious Hope Publishing)]
America is a republic, not a democracy. Rather than being a democracy run directly by the people, we are a republic in which we elect our officials and empower them to make decisions on our behalf. Every adult citizen of the United States (unless he is a felon) has the right to vote. And as Christians our worldview obligates us to vote so that we might exercise a righteous influence on the governance of the nation.
But now the rub. Though Christians are well-represented in America, two problems reduce our influence: (1) we do not represent a majority of the population, and (2) we are not in agreement among ourselves regarding political matters.
As a consequence of our present circumstances, we have few really good candidates from which to choose for our leaders. What are we to do? How shall we operate in such a mixed political environment? I would like to offer direction for what we as Christian citizens should do. As I begin I will first consider:
Our Current Dilemma
Because there are so few candidates operating on strongly-held biblical principles, and because more often than not those few good ones have little chance of winning a general election, we find ourselves facing a dilemma. The voting quandary we face is known as “the lesser of evils.” That is, if we as voters are in a political election involving several candidates and we realize that the best candidate cannot win, what are we to do? We face the prospect of either voting for our preferred candidate, knowing that he will lose, or voting for an alternative, more viable but less acceptable candidate with the hope that he will defeat the other even lesser qualified candidate. In this case the alternative candidate becomes the “lesser of evils” remaining among those who have a good chance of being elected.
Many devout Christians even urge us not to consider voting for the lesser of evils. For instance, a website called “Defending. Contending” states: “my current position is that true Christians should not have to vote if they first have to sit down and estimate which candidate is the lesser of two evils.”1 Peter Diezel puts it more forcefully: “I just can’t get myself to believe that it is good to vote for evil. The last I heard, the lesser of two evils is still evil.”2
These are strong words representing vigorous evangelical challenges to Christians considering voting for a candidate lacking the full panoply of conservative convictions. Yet we certainly must bring our firmly-held Christian worldview to bear upon the political order. What are we to think of these challenges? How are we to respond to the challenge of the lesser of evils?
I believe that though these comments are well-intended, and though they have a surface plausibility, they ultimately fail as a proper Christian response to our predicament. Let me explain from a conservative-political and a Bible-based Christian perspective why I would say this, by noting:
Our Christian Response
In allowing the lesser-of-evils approach to voting from a Christian perspective, I would have us first note the principles involved, then consider their theological and biblical justifications. I present the question of principles first to introduce the argument; then I will show why I believe we can endorse it from within a Christian worldview.
The Question of Principle
We need carefully to reflect on the question of principle itself, which I will do under several headings.
First, distinguishing our principles. When we are engaging in politics we must be careful not to place our political actions (e.g., voting) on the same level as our doctrinal commitments (i.e., faith in Scripture). We must be careful not to develop a messianic political outlook. That is, we should not believe that if we can only elect the right candidate he will save our nation.
This problem of viewing political principles as if they are on the same level as doctrinal convictions is quite widespread. For instance, consider the “Defending Contending” website cited above. Notice how the writer (“Pilgrim”) sets up the debate: “true Christians should not have to vote if they first have to sit down and estimate which candidate is the lesser of two evils.” This writer is classifying “true” Christians by their voting rather than by their doctrinal commitments and personal lifestyle. This type of thinking apparently believes that “by their votes you shall know them.”
Our doctrinal convictions differ from our political actions in that they are immune from revision. Doctrinal convictions are rooted in the complete and permanent revelation of God in Scripture. Of course, our political positions should be rooted in our understanding of Scripture so that they are relatively secure commitments. But our political actions are not drawn directly from the Bible, and they are caught up in a system built on the necessity of compromise. We do not vote for our doctrinal convictions. Political actions are not on the same level as doctrinal convictions. They also invariably involve a commitment to fallen men and their political promises.
Evangelical Christian theologian J. I. Packer has wisely observed:
“Political compromise, the basic maneuver [of politics], is quite a different thing from the sacrificing of principles. Whatever may be true in the field of ethics, compromise in politics means not the abandonment of principle, but realistic readiness to settle for what one thinks to be less than ideal when it is all that one can get at the moment. The principle that compromise expresses is that half a loaf is better than no bread.”3
Second, establishing our principles. Those Christians who argue that we must vote for the “right” candidate because of our principles overlook an important issue: the problem of competing principles. What do I mean?
Let us take as one example a commitment to “constitutional government.” Usually conservative Christians desire a candidate who will operate on constitutional principle. Now suppose three candidates are running for a particular office. Candidate A is promoting a platform based on strong constitutional commitments. Candidate B has some strong positions but is weak in other areas. Candidate C has little interest in maintaining constitutional policies and is promoting a platform clearly antithetical to the Constitution. But now suppose (as is often the case) that Candidate A has dismal poll numbers that indicate a virtually certain landslide loss.
The strongly-committed Constitutionalist Christian now faces a dilemma. He loves Candidate A’s platform, but recognizes that he almost certainly will go down to defeat. He knows that if he votes for Candidate A, then he is ultimately helping Candidate C by drawing off pro-Constitutional voters. Consequently, he decides to vote for semi-Constitutional Candidate B over anti-Constitutional Candidate C. By this action he is acting in a lesser-of-evils manner. But is he thereby acting in an unprincipled manner? No! Indeed, it is quite the opposite. Let me explain.
Since the Christian voting for the lesser of evils has strongly-held pro-Constitution principles, his basic political commitment is to defend and promote constitutional government. Therefore, in light of the very real circumstances he is facing, he is acting on virtually the same principle as the Christian who would only vote for Candidate A. That is, he is voting to support the Constitution by recognizing that if Candidate C were elected he would radically undermine it. He is voting therefore to limit the damage done to our Constitutional form of government. Therefore, by voting for Candidate B his principles regarding Constitutional government have led him to defend the Constitution as best he can in the current circumstances by opposing the greater, more dangerous enemy of the Constitution. Had he voted for Candidate A (who was certain to lose), then Candidate C would effectively be gaining a vote which would allow him to gain more anti-Constitutional influence in the long run.
By voting for the lesser of evils, the Christian is operating in terms of principled realism. The other Christian who will only vote for the “pure” candidate is voting in terms of idealism. The principled realist engages in a stop-loss voting with a long-term hope for the day when more greatly committed Constitutionalists will be able to win an election. Voting for a sure loss is like saying: “Be warmed and filled.” Your heart (i.e., principle) is right but your actions (i.e., voting) are unhelpful (even harmful).
Let me provide a helpful illustration of how principled realism (lesser of evils voting) can lead to a better outcome than idealism, while attempting to hold the line. Let us say that two bills are presented in the House of Representatives regarding abortion. Both of these bills are being offered in our current legal climate which allows abortion-on-demand (abortion for any and all reasons) throughout the nation. Bill A takes a strong pro-life position by making all abortions illegal. Bill B takes a largely pro-life position by declaring most abortions illegal except in the case of the potential death of the mother or rape or incest.
Now suppose that a straw vote has clearly shown that the strongly pro-life Bill A would go down to a resounding defeat, but that the largely pro-life Bill B could win the House vote. For which bill should the Christian Congressman vote? He wants to stop abortion. But if he votes for Bill A which is destined to defeat, abortion-on-demand remains the law of the land. If, however, he votes for Bill B then abortions will be largely curtailed. Tragically, if he stands on his idealism and refuses to vote for the lesser bill, he will have consigned tens of thousands of pre-born babies to death. On principle.
Surely as Christians we should strive to do what we morally can to resist evil. In fact, this should be one of the basic principles of Christian social concern. But consider our a position today: we usually have voting choices that are imperfect, but nevertheless have the opportunity to vote against the “greater evil.” Since the very best candidate often has no chance of winning, should we not vote in a way that effectively opposes the greater evil? Is this not a good principle — in light of our circumstances? Why let the greater evil have the victory because we approach politics as an all-or-nothing proposition?
Third, evaluating our principles. We are considering political issues in this book, and are especially focusing on voting as an important political act that Christians should pursue. As believers we often find ourselves and our principles under assault. One of our principles should be to strive to protect our other principles as best we can against the majority opposition. I am arguing that, given our circumstances, we sometimes have to act as principled realists and vote for the lesser of evils in defending our principles for the long haul. Just as freedoms may be lost incrementally, they may also be re-established incrementally.
Unfortunately, many idealistic Christians will reject any call to voting for the lesser of evils. Sometimes they will ask: “As a Christian why would you vote for the lesser of evils?” The answer, of course is: “Because I want less evil.”
Some of these will indignantly rebuke principled-realist Christians by complaining that they should never vote for the lesser of evils. But when considered from a Christian perspective, this position is self-refuting and borders on a messianic conception of politics. After all, Christians should be aware that unless Christ is on the ballot every vote is for the lesser of evils. Does not Jesus say: “No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18b). In fact, he can even speak to his followers as children of the “heavenly Father” and yet call them “evil”: “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?” (Luke 11:13).
In opposing the lesser of evils the Christian could not even vote for the Apostle Paul, for he says of himself: “I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. . . . For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. . . . I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good” (Rom. 7:14, 19, 21). He even cites the Old Testament’s universal declaration: “There is none righteous, not even one” (Rom. 3:10).
Because of these realities no conservative Christian can avoid voting for the lesser of evils. A vote for the Apostle Paul would be — on Paul’s own admission — a lesser of evils! No candidate in this fallen world is perfect; all candidates have some flaws, some “evil.” In such a world we cannot escape lesser-of-evils voting.
Taking this a step further, I would argue that an attempt to vote for a “perfect” candidate by voting third-party in national presidential elections is unrealistic, risky, and self-defeating. It is unrealistic because excellent third party candidates fare miserably and embarrassingly in presidential elections. They have absolutely no chance of winning. And as a consequence they project the appearance of an ineffectual, back-water Christianity with little or no clout.
This can be demonstrated statistically. In the 2000 election Patrick Buchanan of the Reform Party (deemed by many Christians as an excellent candidate) garnered only 448,895 votes out of 105,405,100 cast. This translates to 0.42 % of all votes. Howard Phillips, a strong Christian representing the biblically-faithful Constitution Party received only 98,020 votes, for 0.09% of the vote. In the 2004 election the Constitution Party candidate received only 144,499 votes, for 0.12% of all votes. In 2008 the Constitution Party garnered only 199,880 votes or 0.15% of the total.
Tragically, Hitler won Germany on a divided vote. “Hitler became Germany’s chancellor (prime minister) without ever having received more than 37 percent of the popular vote in the elections he had entered.”4 This shows the risky nature of third party candidacies. Split votes can often produce horrible results. Six million Jews paid with their lives on the basis of a split vote — as ultimately did over 40 million who died in the European theater of World War 2.
Fourth, explaining our principles. The principled realist recognizes the nature of our American political system: it is virtually impossible statistically for a third-party candidate to win. Generally, they only cause one of the two major party candidates to lose, such as Ross Perot in 1992. In 1992 George H. W. Bush was projected to win as much as 55% of the vote, coming off high approval ratings and a rather week unknown governor from Arkansas. But with Perot’s entry into the race and his securing of 18.91% of the vote, Bill Clinton won with only 43.01% of the national vote. Clinton never was elected by a majority vote in either of his two presidential wins.
Some challenge the lesser-of-evils approach by arguing that it is simply a choice of fast poison (the bad candidate) versus slow poison (the tolerable candidate). They ask: “Why prefer slow poison over fast poison?” I would ask: Which would you prefer to accidentally ingest if you were thirty minutes from a hospital? In politics, if we have to vote for “slow poison,” we can at least buy some time to work on a “cure.” After all, the worst candidate often wins when conservative votes are drawn away to dream candidates. By drawing votes away from a tolerable but electable candidate you are actually taking fast-acting poison by default.
Others ask: “Why do we keep voting the same way (for centrist candidate) but expect different results (Christian- principled leaders)?” This question is a two-edged sword for it can be turned on the Christian idealist: “Why do some Christians keep voting for third party candidates and watching their candidate be demolished (receiving less than 1% of the vote), while allowing their votes effectively to be siphoned off to the more liberal candidate?” Beating our head against the wall in small numbers is not a good game plan.
But now we must consider:
The Question of Theology
As Christians living in God’s world, we must understand that we are here in the world for the long run. And as we come to grips with this it will be encouraging to recognize an important method of God’s dealings with man: gradualism, or incrementalism. That is, God generally works gradually over time to accomplish his purpose. We must therefore be willing to labor for our Christian influence in politics over time, not expecting all to be accomplished over night.
This theological principle should buttress our hope for the future. It allows us to seek smaller, stop-loss victories now with a goal to winning larger ones as history unfolds. Thus, this theological principle shows the practical wisdom in accepting compromise in our political actions (not compromise of our principles themselves) in the present time with a view to gaining influence in the long run. Rather than approaching politics as an all-or-nothing venture, we must recognize the significance of incremental victory over time.
In Scripture we find the principle of gradualism embodied in the actions of God in history. God works by slow providence over time by means of a “here a little; there a little” gradualism (Isa. 28:10). Indeed, he encourages his people by rhetorically asking: “who has despised the day of small things?” (Zech. 4:10).
For instance, we see divine gradualism at work in various theological issues in the Bible.
Redemption. God promised redemption just after the entry of sin into the human race in Eden (Gen. 3:15). Yet its accomplishment follows thousands of years after Adam when Christ comes (Gal. 4:4–5; cp. Eph. 1:10).
Revelation. God did not give us his entire, written revelation all at once. Rather he gradually unfolded his Word to men over a period of some 1,500 years, from Moses’s writings (1450 BC) until the last of the New Testament was written in the first century (Heb. 1:1–2a; cp. 1 Pet. 1:10–12).
Sanctification. Even in God’s gracious salvation he works gradually in our lives. Though our justification brings salvation as a once-for-all act (Rom. 4:2–3; 5:1), God works sanctification within us by an ongoing process throughout our lives (1 Pet. 2:2; cp. Phil. 2:12-13).
It is difficult for us to be patient in a day of freeze-dried this and instant-that where scientists can measure actions in nanoseconds. But God teaches us in his Word to work patiently for the long run. We should not be dismayed if our political activities do not produce instant fruit. Sometimes we must expect less than we would hope for — by voting for the lesser evil.
But now how does this all square with:
The Question of Scripture
I believe in a Christian worldview rooted in Scripture. But how can we encourage Christians to compromise in their voting while maintaining their worldview? The question of compromise is particularly significant for Christians who are uncompromisingly committed to Scripture. So then, does the question of compromise undermine all the practical arguments brought up by Christian idealists?
This is an important matter to consider — especially in that it frequently arises in Christian political discussions. Does the Bible have anything to say regarding the question of compromise? Actually it does. It allows realistic, principled compromise. Consider the following examples.
Jesus’ practice. Christ specifically compromised on a matter so as not to cause offense. As the Son of God he was not required to pay the two-drachma tax. Nevertheless we read in Matthew:
“When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, ‘Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, ‘What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?’ When Peter said, ‘From strangers,’ Jesus said to him, ‘Then the sons are exempt. However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me.’” (Matt. 17:24–27)
He could have affirmed his immunity from paying the tax, which would have underscored his claim to his deity. But here he “compromised” on that particular issue and paid the tax — so as not to cause offense.
In fact, consider the following situation. Rome was a pagan nation dominating Israel, and each legion carried an idolatrous Standard (Signums) for their identification. The Jewish historian Josephus was an eyewitness to the destruction the Jewish temple in AD 70. He reported that the Romans “carried their standards into the temple court and, setting them up opposite the eastern gate, there sacrificed to them, and with rousing acclamations hailed Titus as imperator” (Wars 6:6:1). The church father Tertullian (AD 160–220) writes: “The camp religion of the Romans is all through a worship of the standards, a setting the standards above all gods” (Apology 16).
Nevertheless, though Jesus interacted with Roman soldiers he never encouraged them to leave the army (Matt. 8:5–13).5 Neither did John the Baptist when directly asked by soldiers “what shall we do?” (Luke 3:14).
Jesus employs an illustration in his parabolic teaching that recognizes that we must think in terms of practical solutions and be willing to compromise as we look to larger goals.6 He taught twin parables on discipleship that employed strategic compromise for securing our ultimate goals.
“For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’7
“Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.” (Luke 14:28–31)
In the second parable, the king here planning for battle surely has a desire for victory. Yet as he looks realistically at his prospects he realizes the potential for loss. Consequently, he begins working on a compromise to settle the differences with the opposing king.
Likewise, today we do not compromise our conservative principles regarding proper constitutional government. But we sometimes have to alter our action (our vote) for the lesser of evils with a view to maintaining as many constitutional policies and practices as we can.
Our Long-term Strategy
As I have been pointing out, we are in a socio-political struggle for the long run. Therefore, I have been urging that we act accordingly. Like it or not, in politics we cannot expect overnight success through one particular election or by means of a “perfect” candidate. To continually vote for the “perfect” candidate when we know he is going to lose does not help us build for the future, for by that we are ceding more victories to the overt liberals. Liberalism is messy. When its goo gets all over the place, it is very difficult to clean up the mess.
Why should we continually butt our heads against the wall each election cycle? It performs no useful service except for providing a steady drumbeat leading Christians in the march away from long-term influence. But what about those with less grandiose designs who hold that voting for the perfect Christian candidate will at least make “a statement”? More often than not they make the wrong statement: “Let’s lose this one for Jesus.” Their dismal poll numbers can make a statement, but not a very loud one. Sadly, conservative and moderate candidates can split the vote against the dangerous liberal candidate.
Recognizing the necessity of strategic compromise and incremental advance we should be willing to seek smaller political victories in the meantime. And rather than hoping against hope for the perfect presidential candidate to be elected, we will have to accept a tolerable candidate who functions like a finger in the dike effectively buying us more time — and keep us from throwing good money and our political hopes into a losing cause. Change tends to be generational rather than overnight.
We should not expect to change the nation in one fell swoop. Rather we should engage the more manageable work of changing a political party from within. Transforming a political party that is relatively close to several of our positions is easier than trying to change an entire nation that is literally “all over the map.” Like it or not, American government is effectively a two-party system.
If worse comes to worse, we may eventually need to create a new political party from within the established lesser-of-evils party. But this would need to start out on a more local level and build toward higher offices and larger goals in the long run. For instance, today many Christians tend to put too much hope in the presidential election, hoping for the big prize. Turnouts in mid-term elections are generally around 20% small than in presidential elections. We should begin by working locally in small realms rather than trying to leap to the presidency.
Former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill coined the phrase: “all politics is local.” By that he meant that people tend to vote on matters of local interest and significance. This requires that politicians must recognize the needs of their constituencies. And since this is generally true, it also underscores the significance of learning about local needs by working in lower offices — as training for higher office.
Our nation used to be more acclimated to localism in its early days. Of course, slow transportation and limited communication had much to do with that. Today Christians need to take a greater (not sole) interest in local elections, such as mayoral, city and county councils, county administrators, sheriffs, and so forth. Once we have built success and gained experience in these more local areas, we can move on to state legislatures and governorships. And then to congressional and senatorial office, and on to the presidency. Secure foundations must be laid before a gold dome can be placed on the top.
Conclusion
As conservative, evangelical Christians we are committed to principle at the very core of our being. The doctrinal convictions we hold regarding our holy faith serve as the very foundation for our lives — they are our most basic principles. And as servants of Christ we love and seek the right, just, and good. Consequently, it is difficult for us to compromise since our very lives are rooted in God-given principles.
We do not, of course, compromise our principles themselves. That would make us what we are not. But sometimes we must compromise our methods. In promoting Christian politics in a mixed and antagonistic environment such as we have in America, we must recognize the opposition we face. We must accept as a political principle that we will have to oppose the greater evil by sometimes voting for the lesser good.
In this chapter we have seen how our long term goal for victory must often involve a short term strategy which is painful but necessary. We must recognize the big picture and learn patience in seeking to bring it into proper focus. We saw how even theology and Scripture allow compromise in our methods in seeking the ultimate greater good. Voting the lesser of evils is necessary in a fallen world where all human action is tainted by evil.
Dr. Ken Gentry is a retired Presbyterian minister who is an emeritus teaching elder in the Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Assembly (RPCGA).

1 “Pilgrim” on the “Defending Contending” website (June 6, 2009). http://
defendingcontending.com/2011/06/09/should-christians-vote-for-the-lesser-of- two-evils/
2 Peter Diezel, “Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils Is Evil.” “Word of His Grace” website (May 9, 2008). http://www.wordofhisgrace.org/evilisevil.htm
3 J. I. Packer, “How to Recognize a Christian Citizen,” Christianity Today Institute in Christianity Today, 29: 7 (April 19, 1985), 7.
4 “Hitler and Germany: 1927–35,” Macro-History and World Report website. http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch16.htm
5 By special privilege for Israel, Rome did not bring such images into Jerusalem.
6 The parables themselves are actually teaching the cost of discipleship, and ultimately not calling for compromise. But the illustrations he uses are from the practical world regarding acceptable actions. We are focusing on the real-world illustration rather than the spiritual-life implication of discipleship. As one commentator notes: “Jesus constructs these parables along parallel lines: a hypothetical, demanding enterprise + analysis of the adequacy of existing resources vis-á-vis the requisite resources for achieving a successful conclusion to the enterprise + outcome when available resources fall short.” Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 566.
7 The implied compromise is that the man desiring to build a tower may have to drop the building project because of the likely failure to finish the project. He obviously wanted the tower, but he saw failure looming over the project, so would surely dismiss it.

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 28

Transgenderism and Homosexuality: Hindu Monism’s Philosophical Triumph

By Vishal Mangalwadi — 4 months ago

Mann, a Unitarian, said that the Church should not educate because it teaches “divisive doctrines” such as the Trinity. According to Mann, children do not need to learn Truths (doctrines) such as Trinity. They need to learn Virtue (ethics): to honor parents, elders, and teachers; to not covet or steal someone’s pencil or pear. The Bible should be taught, said Mann, as the source of values, but not as the source of truth. This distinction became spiritually fatal.

In February 2022, President Joe Biden nominated Mrs. Ketanji Jackson Brown to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the USA. During the confirmation hearings, she was asked, “What is a woman?”
The learned graduate from Harvard Law School refused to answer on the ground that she is “not a biologist.”
Why don’t the intellectual elite know what a woman is?
Well, the only way to define a woman is to differentiate her from man: Is “female” different from “male”?
By
Vishal Mangalwadi
In February 2022, President Joe Biden nominated Mrs. Ketanji Jackson Brown to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the USA. During the confirmation hearings, she was asked, “What is a woman?”
The learned graduate from Harvard Law School refused to answer on the ground that she is “not a biologist.”
Why don’t the intellectual elite know what a woman is?
Well, the only way to define a woman is to differentiate her from man: Is “female” different from “male”?
If male and female are different, then how can they be same and equal? If they are the same, how can a rationalist define a woman?
Fifty years ago, it would have sounded preposterous that a supreme court nominee could not answer a basic question about the distinction between male and female. How did the West get here? While Carl Trueman has done an admirable job of showing the western philosophical scaffolding that makes transgenderism possible, there is surprising stream of thought that has fed into the larger confusion over male and female: A stream of thought with eastern garb. In this article, I’ll briefly outline how Hindu Monism undermined male-female dualism, renunciation of marriage, and male-female inequality. Finally I’ll outline how Hinduism’s rise in the West became a factor in homosexual and transgender acceptance.
Hinduism and Transgenderism: Unlikely Allies?
Hindu Monism is a crucial factor that explains a Rationalist’s dilemma of defining a woman. The belief that All-is-One suggests that every human being may have male and female chakras (energies). Dualism of male and female—the traditional binary view of gender—may be an illusion, Maya. Monism asserts that there is only one Soul: it is God—Infinite. That divine soul incorporates both male and female within it.
Monism means that every male has female energy (Shakti) within him and every female has male (Shiva) chakra (psychic center) within her.
The Hippies of the 1970s, came to India and learnt Tantra. They were taught that the female chakra lies at the bottom of the spine, a few millimeters above the rectum. It is called Kundalini. The male chakra, Shiva, resides in the crown chakra, on top. According to Hinduism, everyone has both male (Shiva) and female (Shakti) energy centers. Salvation, Enlightenment or Self-realization dawns only when female and male energies merge to become One.
This “Enlightenment” is experienced when one awakens his feminine energy or Kundalini,. For normally it lies dormant, coiled up as a serpent. Meditation awakens the Kundalini. Tantric meditation includes manipulation of one’s genitals. That may require the expertise of a guru or a sex partner—whether male or female, the gender of the partner is irrelevant.
Once awakened, Kundalini, that is, the feminine Shakti, travels up the spine through five different chakras or psychic centers. The meditator gets different psychedelic/occult/mystic experiences when the Kundalini passes through one of these chakras. The climax comes when one’s female energy merges into male energy and the two become one. At that stage, the Enlightened soul experiences its divinity.
This mystical philosophy understands Salvation as Enlightenment, not as forgiveness of sin or a sinner’s reconciliation with his Holy Father. For a Monist, to be saved is to experience or to “Realize” one’s Divinity. It means transcending the finiteness of being male or female; becoming One with everything. Thus, it is somewhat incidental whether a romantic relationship involves a man and a woman, or two men, or two woman—since the ultimate goal is oneness with everything. If two men enter into a homosexual relationship, even in this arrangement one of them experiences himself as a female. But in Hindu Monism, the ultimate belief is that they are neither male nor female, but one with the universe.
Hindu Renunciation of Marriage
Biblical marriage presupposes that each of us is finite. I am male, not female. Therefore, in order to be complete, I need my wife—my better-half. God-likeness means being one with my spouse for the rest of my life. But what if my Self is already Infinite? What if the female is already within me? In that case, I don’t need my wife; I need to experience my own Divinity/Infinity.
It is for this reason that in Hinduism, the mystical quest for Self-Realization begins with renunciation of marriage. That ceremonial Oath of renouncing spouse and family is called taking Sannyas. Abandoning one’s wife and family is called Brahmacharya—a term wrongly translated, “Celibacy.”
In English, Celibacy connotes renunciation of sex. Brahmacharya, on the other hand, harnesses sexual energy to become God or Infinite. Osho Rajneesh (1931–1990), the guru who taught Sex for Salvation, was honest in translating Brahmacharya as neo-sannyas. It is neo-asceticism because it admits that a seeker does not renounce sex. He uses sex to transcend the finite self—the binary view of sexuality as male or female. In his blockbuster novel, Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown expounded Tantric Sex, calling it Gnostic Christianity.
To summarize: some post-Christian intellectuals that believe that male and female are interchangeable, find it difficult to make sense of the dualism of two distinct genders—male and female. They feel that Monism may be a possible explanation against the binary that the Bible enjoins. The problem is that denying the difference between male and female messes up these intellectuals’ traditional definitions of gender, sex, marriage, love, childcare, family or faithfulness. It gets to the point where a person cannot even answer the basis question of what a woman is. Their confusion ends up destroying wisdom and the family—the foundations of society. As the prophets lamented, a people without understanding condemn themselves to self-destruction (Hosea. 4:6, 14).
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 24

Why We Need Zephaniah

By Daniel C. Timmer — 4 months ago

Written by Daniel C. Timmer |
Tuesday, October 29, 2024
When Zephaniah describes how God supernaturally transforms human hearts and turns their desires to him, the prophet consistently integrates the relational, behavioral, and internal dimensions of this change. Those who holistically embrace his will pursue righteousness (v. 3), unity (3:9), proper worship (vv. 9–10), and humility (2:3; 3:11). In the end, God’s saving work will completely remove the pride that motivated his people’s rebellion (3:11) along with their corrupt desires that produced sinful words and deeds (v. 13).

Apart from Zephaniah’s depiction of God’s exuberant joy over his redeemed people (3:17) that John Piper has popularized in his preaching, the book of Zephaniah hasn’t received the attention it merits. This neglect is unwarranted not only because the prophecy is God’s Word but because Zephaniah’s bold, broad, and beautiful presentation of God at the center of redemptive history makes his book as relevant to contemporary readers as it was to its initial audience.
The prophet’s presentation of sin and its remedy is particularly potent. Zephaniah’s message moves far beyond predictions of judgment against the sins prevalent in Judah in the late seventh century BC. It also presents glorious salvation promises of salvation and the superlative restoration of God’s repentant people (vv. 14–17).
Three facets of the book’s message capture this redemptive movement.
1. Sin and Its Consequences
Zephaniah’s diagnosis of the world’s fundamental problem is bold. The book begins with a blunt announcement that God will meet humanity’s rebellion with the direst consequences imaginable (1:3). And more immediately, Zephaniah makes clear that due to Babylon’s rise and the predations of Judah’s neighbors, severe judgment is no idle threat; it’s standing at the door.
In his first chapter, Zephaniah emphasizes Judah’s violations of the first commandment as the grounds for God’s judgment (vv. 4–6). Rather than trusting that God would protect and preserve his people when they remained faithful to him, Judah responded to geopolitical threats by attempting to ensure its stability and success outside the boundaries of the covenant: by looking to other nations for help. Many in Judah assumed God would do neither good nor ill in response to this sinful autonomy (v. 12). They’d turned God into an abstract idea with no relevance for their daily lives or for the future. But this way of thinking and living was tragically mistaken.
God refutes Judah’s rebellion in absolute terms, weaving announcements of judgment into the litany of Judah’s sins (vv. 4–13). Then, Zephaniah 1 culminates in the foreboding day of the Lord that’ll bring the irreversible destruction of sinners worldwide (vv. 14–18). Contrary to the mistaken belief of many Judeans, divine justice will bring their imagined self-sufficiency and immunity from the covenant crashing down on their heads.
Zephaniah’s uncompromising and unflattering evaluation of humanity at large, and of God’s old covenant people in particular, reminds believers they must take their sins seriously and practice repentance habitually. Zephaniah’s message also refutes visions of justice and liberty that look to social or political efforts to bring the transcendent change only God’s saving power can deliver.
2. Grace and Repentance
In light of these dire threats, it’s surprising that Zephaniah offers hope in the very next section (2:1–3). But God’s immense patience makes a way for rebellious Judah to escape his punishment. Zephaniah calls the people to repentance, and his call is uncompromising. It demands a radical reorientation of the heart, for the Lord to be made absolutely central by the “humble of the land, who do his just commands.”
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 32

The 95 Theses: A Reformation Spark

By Ryan Biese — 4 months ago

Luther’s 95 Theses decried the sale of indulgences by developing a number of themes: First, the Christian life is to be one of repentance and daily turning from sin rather than doing things (penance) to obtain pardon and removal of penalty. Here he was critiquing the Roman Catholic sacrament of penance. Second, the Church, and particularly the pope, lacks the authority to forgive sins, only God can do this.

October 31st marks the 507th Anniversary of what historians widely regard as the beginning of the Reformation. Its beginning was rather humble and unassuming: a local scholar and monk hung a poster – written in Latin – inviting philosophical debate over 95 separate theses.
Martin Luther, did not intend to start anything of the kind. Luther merely posed the question of whether it was right for the church to be selling “indulgences” to those who could afford them. According to the Church of Rome, an “indulgence” is a removal of the penalty for sin. According to legend, Luther posted his theses on the church door, which functioned as an “academic bulletin board.” Luther was hoping for a scholastic debate on the legitimacy of this practice.
YouTube Video: The Reformation Polka
At that time, the Pope of Rome wanted money to build a new basilica and to finance it he authorized the sale of indulgences, which promised remission of the penalties of sins in exchange for money.
While Luther’s own prince banned the sale of these indulgences within his territory, Luther was outraged at the idea that his parishioners might be traveling to a neighboring town to buy them.
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.