Written by S.M. White |
Saturday, March 5, 2022
The battle today is not so much with others, but it’s between our own ears. In our own minds. Fighting to not fear, but to trust the Lord, to move forward with a clear conscience, and be faithful to what the Lord says is true. Like the brave Ukrainian president, we Christians should be willing to stand with no pomp, or favor, or with the world not on our side at all, and say what’s true.

Fear of death, fear of government, fear of mandates, fear of vaccines, fear of anti-vaxers, fear of no income, fear of loss of wealth, fear of what other people will think, fear of growing old, fear of war spilling over, fear of the future, fear of being rejected, fear for your health, fear for loved ones, fear of the culture, fear of missing out, fear of elections, fear of terrorism, fear of abduction, fear of abuse, fear of being exposed, fear of being canceled, fear of peers, fear of making a wrong decision, fear of too much success, fear of failure, fear of loss, fear of global warming, fear of losing power, fear of queers, fear of bad influencers, fear of losing your church, fear of losing your sight, fear of losing your hearing, fear of losing your mind, fear of the unknown, fear of the decline of culture, fear of bad monetary policy, fear of guns, fear of white nationalists, fear of Marxists, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear. It’s the air we breathe today. Everything is about fear. It’s what’s for breakfast.
Fear paralyzes us and makes us do crazy things. I can tell you this that even those with all the power and money, they fear the most. Justin Trudeau is a man acting out of fear. He is imposing tyranny out of abject fear that his worldview narrative is falling apart, and that is what most of these authoritarians in control are doing also. They’re afraid of being exposed as wrong, blamed for something, or their side losing, and so they spread fear and control people like little chess pieces, even ruining lives, because they fear.
I believe that it’s possible that even Putin is doing this act of aggression against Ukraine out of fear. If we pay attention to the things he has said for years, he sees what looks like the West falling apart with postmodernism creating all kinds of crazy behaviors, and he has argued for years that Christendom is the key to the survival of a culture and a nation. There is a big rift right now in the Russian Orthodox church, and Ukraine holds the city that is sort of like their Jerusalem.
I believe that he wants control just like Trudeau does, and Kiev, where the Russian Orthodox church was founded. It was founded in 988 after Vladimer of the Rus having been converted to Christianity through a marriage to the Christian Emperor Basil II’s sister had everyone in the city gather at the river Dnieper for a mass baptism.
In 2019 the Ukrainian part of the Russian Orthodox church declared independence from the rest, and the Russian Orthodox church based in Russia rejected this independence, and declared it was still part of the churches “canonical territory”. So, if Putin will have a legacy of restoring Christendom in our day against the rise of the Godless post-modernism in the rest of the West, he must unite the church and its holy seat must be seen as Moscow.
This is I think, one of the biggest motives of this war. He made a flimsy argument to the corruption and neo-Nazification of the governing authorities in Ukraine (which both Ukraine and Russia are regarded as the 2 most corrupt nations in Europe).
Read More

As Christians we must ask what the future holds. At the end of the Sixties Revolution, Jungian psychologist and Gnostic spiritualist, June Singer, wrote a 1997 book ‘Androgyny: Towards a New Sexuality’. At the end of the Sixties Revolution, she saw and affirmed that the spiritual age of Aquarius was also the age of “androgyny” (the blending of male and female in bi-sexuality, homosexuality and transgenderism). She also correctly predicted the coming cosmology of a “new humanism,” a radical rejection of the biblical God and the cosmology of the Western Christian past.We now see the far-flung effects of what Singer saw so long ago. 

The Queering of the American Child: How a New School Religious Cult Poisons the Minds and Bodies of Normal Kids by Logan Lancing and James Lindsay
A Definition of Queer Theory
I looked forward to reading this book’s definition of Queer Theory (QT) and its effects on our children. (QT refers to “queer homosexuals” and LGBTQ ideology.) I hoped the book would give clarity to a movement that exposes LGBTQ+ thinking, which justifies disordered sexual practice among children as well as adults.
A definition of QT appears in the Introduction. QT seeks to “push children to destabilize tradition, eliminate social norms and poison their minds…(ix).” The book denies the value of trangenderism (xvi), as well as recent theories of gender and gender identity (xviii). Apparently, this is a conservative book. A decidedly gay reviewer states that: 
…there is nothing in this book that is accurate, it’s full of hate mongering, misinformation and propaganda. It promotes a Christian white nationalist agenda and is harmful to every LGBTQ person. 
This is indeed a book of conservative convictions except in one area—it justifies homosexual practice. The author defines “queering” as the rejection of anything normative, including binary sexuality (that is heterosexuality) (99), and shows how Drag Queen Story Hour affirms this destabilizing effect on children. Lancing’s theory is that when a society has not agreed on reasonable, healthy sexual norms and behaviors, then unreasonable and unhealthy ideas will fill the vacuum—like men becoming women. But Lancing wants to grant that homosexuality is part of normative living. He states: 
Queer Theory has nothing to do with being gay or lesbian. Gay identity…is rooted in the positive fact of homosexual object-choice…(proposed as) a stable reality.[1]
Citing gay author, David Halperin, the book accepts homosexuality as a positive (thus normative) stabilizing factor in a child’s mind, unlike the noxious results of Queer Theory (114-15). Unfortunately, many conservative thinkers consider homosexuality in exactly this way.
The Idol of Our Time
As this book shows, our culture does not know how to deal with LGBTQ reality, which it seeks to normalize. In her Five Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age, Rosaria Butterfield calls LGBTQ+ ideology “the idol of our time.” Her Lie #1 is “treating homosexuality as normal.”[2] Progressives and many conservatives happily affirm this lie. Carl Trueman wrote recently, 
In the coming decade every single church still calling itself Christian will face a choice: Do we follow Scriptural revelation, or the Sexual Revolution? The cross, or the rainbow flag?[3]
Many evangelicals fail to realize this stark choice. Evangelical pastor, Ken Wilson in his influential book, A Letter to My Congregation (2014) states: “We’re all—male and female—part of the bride of Christ.” He adds: “Maybe we are being asked (by the Spirit) to relax around gender distinctions a little (my italics).”[4] “Evangelical” Preston Sprinkle, a well-known exponent of the so-called Side B position on homosexuality, holds great influence on the student ministry CRU. He states: “I would say being same-sex attracted, while being a part of one’s fallen nature, is not a morally culpable sin that one needs to repent for.”[5] Modern culture, like certain evangelicals, normalizes and justifies gay behavior. This was not always the case.
As late as 1960, all fifty states maintained laws criminalizing sodomy. But things are changing. A strong majority of Americans now says that homosexual relations should be legal, and that the lifestyle is acceptable.[6] “Nearly every major U.S. brand promulgates the LGBT agenda.”[7] The government’s Center for Disease Control gives further present acceptance of LGBTQ practice: the number of LGBTQ students went from 11 percent in 2015 to 26 percent in 2021.[8] During the 2023 American baseball season, the Los Angeles Dodgers honored, not merely featured, an LGBT activist group, The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, composed of men dressed mockingly as Catholic nuns.
This lifestyle affirmation became more formal at the end of 2023, with the “Proclamation on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Pride Month.” President Joe Biden declared the month of June to be a time for all Americans to “recognize the achievements of the LGBTQ+ community, to celebrate the great diversity of the American people, and to wave their flags of pride high.”[9]
It is little wonder that the LGBTQ community is coming for our children. Lesbian author Patricia Nell Warren put it most succinctly: “Whoever captures the kids owns the future.”[10] The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus sings:
“We’re coming for your children.
“We’ll convert your children
Happens bit by bit
Quietly and subtly
And you will barely notice it…
You won’t approve of where they go at night.”
This agenda operates against the backdrop of a new movement called MAPS, Minor Attracted Persons, that is, pedophiles. Microsoft Co-Founder Bill Gates, has invested tens of millions of dollars into a radical nongovernmental organization: The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), which is endorsed by the World Health Organization, a group pushing for young children to be considered “sexual beings.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Despite knowing more today than many Christians in the past, we still need to be careful and humble when interpreting and applying Scripture. If we do not respect historical and cultural differences, we can inadvertently misread Scripture through our own modern cultural lenses. 

I vividly remember the time in my youth that I was in a Bible study with my pastor and we were looking at Luke 14:25-35. I got stuck on Jesus’ words in verse 26: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.” I was a new believer, and it was the first time I had read that passage. I was horrified by the verb “hate,” which today means to intensely dislike something or someone. As an Asian youth steeped in a culture that almost idolizes respect for one’s parents, how could I hate my parents or my siblings? I loved them!
At the time, the Bible passage seemed clear to me: If I don’t hate my parents, I can’t follow Jesus.  But I could not choose between the seemingly irreconcilable options, and I began to weep. After realizing why I was crying, my pastor quickly reassured me that Jesus did not mean for us to literally hate our parents but simply that we must love Jesus more than anyone or anything else. It was hyperbole, he explained.
Of course, it was still a radical and, to some degree, offensive claim. But it became less harsh when understood not as disliking one’s parents, but as loving them less than one loves Jesus.
My youthful self read our modern understanding of “hate” back into Jesus’ use of the word, making his claim more offensive than it already was. I now know that people in Jesus’ ancient Middle Eastern culture often spoke with colorful hyperbole to make a point. This was their custom, and Jesus’ original audience would have understood his statement to be an exaggeration.
That incident was an early lesson for me in this truth about biblical interpretation: The Bible, even though it’s for us, was not written to us, but to audiences greatly removed from us in time, culture, and language. We can never read Scripture plainly, if by “plainly” we mean ignoring our own cultural biases and the cultural and historical gaps between us and the text. If we do not respect the historical, cultural, and linguistic differences between us and Scripture, we are in danger of reading modern cultural ideas back into the Bible and distorting whatever insights we might get out of it.
Clarity of Scripture
I am not saying that the Bible is so obscure that only Bible scholars can understand Scripture properly.  Neither am I arguing against the Reformation’s doctrine of the clarity of Scripture, historically called the “perspicuity of Scripture.” That doctrine does not assert that everything in Scripture is clear and easy to understand. It only teaches that what is necessary for salvation is clear in Scripture. We see this in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646): “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them” (Ch. 1.VII).
Scripture itself shows that some parts of the Bible are not easy to understand: “(Paul’s) letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction,” the apostle Peter writes, (2 Pet. 3:16) and the Ethiopian eunuch needed Philip’s help to understand the prophet Isaiah (Acts 8:26-40).
So even without biblical scholarship, anyone can still read the Bible and sufficiently discern its main message of salvation. But not everything in the Bible is easy to understand, not even for first-century readers like the ones Peter wrote to. How much more difficult must it be for those who are centuries removed from the Scripture’s cultures, customs, and contexts?
Lost in Translation
Modern translations of the Bible, though generally reliable, are not infallible. Despite the translators’ best efforts, there are many cultural and linguistic nuances that cannot always be adequately translated into English or some other language.
For example, most of us know that ancient Greeks had multiple words for “love.” Agape means sacrificial love, philos means brotherly love, and eros denotes erotic or romantic love, to name the most common ones. All of these words are usually rendered into English from the original Greek of the New Testament as simply “love.” Readers of English translations can thus miss out on some linguistic nuances.
In John 21:15-19, for instance, Jesus asks Peter three times if Peter loves him. This is, of course, reminiscent of Peter previously disavowing Jesus three times. We can understand this story as Jesus gently reconciling with Peter and restoring him to his apostleship. What might be lost on us without reading the original Greek, however, is that two different words for “love” were used in that conversation.
Read More
Related Posts: