thestream--2020-09-25--Churches — Open or Die, Fight or Fade Away

“ If you don ’ t stay closed , we will close you.
” Comments like these are commonplace , especially in liberal states like mine ( California ) .
Like most American churches , we closed our doors when President Trump first issued the order early in 2020 .
We were very willing to submit to the governing authorities and protect our community — that is , until the political motivation of the lockdown became obvious .
Recently there was quite a bit of interest over the CDC ’ s statement that only 6 % of people actually died @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nationwide death rate around 0.003 % .
But many liberal organizations rushed to explain it away .
This clearly points to an agenda .
Think of the Public Health Director of Los Angeles County being caught admitting schools won ’ t open for in-class learning until “ we are done with the elections.
” There are numerous other stories as well , such as doctors being told to write COVID-19 as the cause of death even if it was not .
The San Diego Tribune ran a story quoting Supervisor Jim Desmond as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had six pure , solely coronavirus deaths — six out of 3.3 million people.
” I ’ m not minimizing even one death , but there is a greater chance of dying just walking down the street than from COVID-19 in most parts of the US .
What about the increased suicide rate , the alarming divorce rate , the surge in alcohol and drug addiction , and the fear that we are instilling into our children ?
Should we not take these into consideration as well ?
At What Point Does the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point does the church take a stand ?
Thank God for people like John MacArthur , Rob McCoy , Jack Hibbs , Ken Graves , and others who are fanning the flames of boldness .
I believe that if some churches don ’ t open soon , they won ’ t open at all , especially once flu season arrives and those who have the flu will then be suspected as having COVID .
The agenda is crystal clear to those who are looking through the right lens — a biblical lens .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ In America , the Constitution — which our elected representatives are to defend and administer — is our governing document .
The context of submitting to authorities in 1 Peter and Romans 13 is that the government would punish those who do wrong and commend those who do right , as well as uphold the Constitution ( in America ’ s case ) .
Many of our politicians and government officials are actually doing the complete opposite — and defying the Constitution in many ways .
Additionally , it makes it very hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do things such as legitimize pedophilia here in California .
What would God say about that ?
Are people suggesting that God wants us to submit to that type of authority ?
I have a hard time seeing how we are supposed to capitulate to reckless oversight under the banner of “ submitting to governing authorities ” when those authorities are in clear violation of our governing document as well as God ’ s Word .
They are trying to silence the voice of truth .
In Acts 5:29 we find that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We must obey God rather than man !
” Many believe that this is an orchestrated attempt to destroy our economy , disrupt the November elections , initiate a global reset , and ultimately , silence the churches .
Folks , how much more do you need to see before you wake up and take a stand ?
In the Bible , I don ’ t read positive things about cowardliness , but I do read a great deal about boldness .
It ’ s actually a by-product of being filled with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be loving and gentle , but we also must be wise as serpents and bold as lions when it comes to holding the line .
God commands us to expose the unfruitful works of darkness with the truth ( Ephesians 5:11 ) .
Truth is the only thing that stabilizes .
I recently saw a survey on Facebook that asked , “ Do you feel that most church leaders speak up about the real issues facing us today ?
” The overwhelming response was a very loud and clear no !
Pastors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way , but many of you are exchanging truth for tolerance , boldness for balance , and conviction for cowardliness .
Many don ’ t want to offend for fear they might lose their audience .
Pastors and Christian leaders alike , we must take responsibility for the spiritual health of our nation — and make no mistake , whether we accept that responsibility or not , God Himself will hold us accountable .
The pulpit inevitably sets the tone of the religious climate of the nation .
A fearful church simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not God ’ s pulpit .
We must bend when needed but never capitulate .
The Bible calls pastors “ watchmen ” who cry out and sound the alarm to awaken a sleeping church , not sing her lullabies .
The prophet Isaiah , who doesn ’ t mince words about lazy watchmen , says they are blind and ignorant and that they are all dumb dogs who can not bark ( raise their voices to warn ) .
They sleep and lie down , loving to slumber ( see Isaiah 56:9 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may think this wording is too strong , but I can assure you that it is probably not strong enough .
Backing away from speaking the truth in love is a serious offense against God .
Silence about sin is rebelling against the call of God .
If your sermons do not anger the world and challenge the lukewarm from time to time , you should seriously question your calling .
Few Spirit-filled preachers are left , and when one rises , he is quickly dismissed as too political and labeled narrow-minded , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evangelical church in our land is on the verge of having the Lord remove our lampstand because pastors are missing this incredible opportunity to take a bold stance ( see Rev .
2:5 ) .
Silent shepherds are speaking volumes .
Read more here .
Shane Idleman is the founder and lead pastor of Westside Christian Fellowship in Southern California and the creator of the WCF Radio Network .
His program , Regaining Lost Ground , points us back to God and reminds us that although times change , truth does not .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ can all be found at ShaneIdleman.com .

“If you don’t stay closed, we will close you.” Comments like these are commonplace, especially in liberal states like mine (California). Like most American churches, we closed our doors when President Trump first issued the order early in 2020. We were very willing to submit to the governing authorities and protect our community — that is, until the political motivation of the lockdown became obvious.
Recently there was quite a bit of interest over the CDC’s statement that only 6% of people actually died of the coronavirus alone, putting the nationwide death rate around 0.003%. But many liberal organizations rushed to explain it away. This clearly points to an agenda.
Think of the Public Health Director of Los Angeles County being caught admitting schools won’t open for in-class learning until “we are done with the elections.”
There are numerous other stories as well, such as doctors being told to write COVID-19 as the cause of death even if it was not. The San Diego Tribune ran a story quoting Supervisor Jim Desmond as saying, “We’ve unfortunately had six pure, solely coronavirus deaths — six out of 3.3 million people.”
I’m not minimizing even one death, but there is a greater chance of dying just walking down the street than from COVID-19 in most parts of the US. What about the increased suicide rate, the alarming divorce rate, the surge in alcohol and drug addiction, and the fear that we are instilling into our children? Should we not take these into consideration as well?
At What Point Does the Church Take a Stand?
At what point does the church take a stand? Thank God for people like John MacArthur, Rob McCoy, Jack Hibbs, Ken Graves, and others who are fanning the flames of boldness. I believe that if some churches don’t open soon, they won’t open at all, especially once flu season arrives and those who have the flu will then be suspected as having COVID. The agenda is crystal clear to those who are looking through the right lens — a biblical lens.
But what about submitting to authorities? In America, the Constitution — which our elected representatives are to defend and administer — is our governing document. The context of submitting to authorities in 1 Peter and Romans 13 is that the government would punish those who do wrong and commend those who do right, as well as uphold the Constitution (in America’s case). Many of our politicians and government officials are actually doing the complete opposite — and defying the Constitution in many ways.
Additionally, it makes it very hard to submit to governing authorities when they do things such as legitimize pedophilia here in California. What would God say about that? Are people suggesting that God wants us to submit to that type of authority?
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
I have a hard time seeing how we are supposed to capitulate to reckless oversight under the banner of “submitting to governing authorities” when those authorities are in clear violation of our governing document as well as God’s Word. They are trying to silence the voice of truth. In Acts 5:29 we find that we must submit to the highest Authority: “We must obey God rather than man!”
Many believe that this is an orchestrated attempt to destroy our economy, disrupt the November elections, initiate a global reset, and ultimately, silence the churches.
Folks, how much more do you need to see before you wake up and take a stand? In the Bible, I don’t read positive things about cowardliness, but I do read a great deal about boldness. It’s actually a by-product of being filled with the Spirit. Yes, we must be loving and gentle, but we also must be wise as serpents and bold as lions when it comes to holding the line. God commands us to expose the unfruitful works of darkness with the truth (Ephesians 5:11). Truth is the only thing that stabilizes.
Silent Shepherds Speak Volumes
I recently saw a survey on Facebook that asked, “Do you feel that most church leaders speak up about the real issues facing us today?” The overwhelming response was a very loud and clear no!
Pastors, people are looking to us to lead the way, but many of you are exchanging truth for tolerance, boldness for balance, and conviction for cowardliness. Many don’t want to offend for fear they might lose their audience.
Pastors and Christian leaders alike, we must take responsibility for the spiritual health of our nation — and make no mistake, whether we accept that responsibility or not, God Himself will hold us accountable. The pulpit inevitably sets the tone of the religious climate of the nation. A fearful church simply reflects fearful pastors. The silent pulpit is not God’s pulpit. We must bend when needed but never capitulate.
The Bible calls pastors “watchmen” who cry out and sound the alarm to awaken a sleeping church, not sing her lullabies. The prophet Isaiah, who doesn’t mince words about lazy watchmen, says they are blind and ignorant and that they are all dumb dogs who cannot bark (raise their voices to warn). They sleep and lie down, loving to slumber (see Isaiah 56:9).
At first glance, you may think this wording is too strong, but I can assure you that it is probably not strong enough. Backing away from speaking the truth in love is a serious offense against God. Silence about sin is rebelling against the call of God. If your sermons do not anger the world and challenge the lukewarm from time to time, you should seriously question your calling.
Few Spirit-filled preachers are left, and when one rises, he is quickly dismissed as too political and labeled narrow-minded, legalistic, and extreme.
The so-called evangelical church in our land is on the verge of having the Lord remove our lampstand because pastors are missing this incredible opportunity to take a bold stance (see Rev. 2:5). Silent shepherds are speaking volumes. Read more here.
Shane Idleman is the founder and lead pastor of Westside Christian Fellowship in Southern California and the creator of the WCF Radio Network. His program, Regaining Lost Ground, points us back to God and reminds us that although times change, truth does not. His books, blogs, and sermons can all be found at ShaneIdleman.com.


thestream--2020-09-25--Why the Violent Unrest After the Breonna Taylor Decision Only Sabotages Progress

Racial unrest and violent protest gripped major American cities once again Wednesday night .
This time , the outrage erupted after the state of Kentucky announced that two of the Louisville police officers involved in the killing of Breonna Taylor will face no charges and one will face charges for endangering her neighbors .
Taylor was tragically killed during a police search gone wrong after a gunfight broke out between her boyfriend and the police .
Let ’ s be clear : Breonna Taylor should absolutely be alive today .
Setting aside the complicated legal questions and increasingly murky circumstances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not deserve to die .
The anger and emotional pain over her death is eminently understandable—but violence is not .
And violent is the only way to describe the protests and riots that broke out Wednesday night .
Unrest began in Louisville , but also erupted in cities such as Portland , Washington , DC , and Seattle .
In Louisville , nearly 100 people were arrested after protests descended into a riot as arson , looting , and violence broke out .
Windows were shattered , several local businesses were looted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But worst of all , two police officers were reportedly shot during the violent unrest .
They are both in stable condition and a suspect has been arrested .
Meanwhile , similar violence broke out in many other riot-torn cities .
In Portland , for example , another violent agitator attempted to murder several police officers .
Video captured at the scene shows someone deliberately throwing a molotov cocktail into a crowd of police officers , which then erupts in flames .
In Seattle , video shows a police officer being mobbed and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the head with a metal baseball bat .
These are just a few examples from an explosively violent night of unrest .
And they come in the broader context of the months of violent protest since George Floyd ’ s tragic death in late May that has seen more than 24 people die and wrought economic devastation on many urban minority communities .
This kind of violent protest only sabotages true progress toward the kind of reforms that will limit tragedies like Taylor ’ s death .
Reforms such as banning “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kinds of tragedies in the future .
And reforming the civil liability shield known as “ qualified immunity ” would allow more true victims of police brutality to obtain justice and increase accountability .
But we won ’ t achieve these reforms—or any reform—by demonizing and attacking innocent police officers or participating in or condoning violent protest .
Time and time again , research has shown that violent protest only undermines a cause in the eyes of the public .
Here ’ s how FEE ’ s Jon Miltimore summed up new research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology suggests the popularity of social reform movements suffers when movements use “ extreme protest actions , ” which tend to alienate neutral observers and even supporters of a given cause .
Study leaders conducted six experiments involving 3,399 participants to measure how people responded to a variety of social causes , from Black Lives Matter movement to anti-abortion groups .
“ [ Researchers ] found that more extreme behaviors—such as the use of inflammatory rhetoric , blocking traffic , and vandalism—consistently resulted in reduced support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ W. Dolan , the founder of PsyPost , a psychology and neuroscience news website .
In fact , we ’ ve seen this trend play out in real-time in recent months .
Support for the Black Lives Matter movement hit a peak in June , immediately after the death of George Floyd , when protests remained peaceful and a bipartisan consensus for reform began to emerge .
Yet after rioting and looting broke out over the summer , support markedly declined .
“ Public support for the Black Lives Matter movement has declined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A majority of U.S. adults ( 55 % ) now express at least some support for the movement , down from 67 % in June amid nationwide demonstrations sparked by the death of George Floyd .
The share who say they strongly support the movement stands at 29 % , down from 38 % three months ago.
” So , let ’ s be clear about one thing .
The bad-faith agitators who are taking to the streets and engaging in violent unrest and vandalism are not fighting for justice .
They are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and dishonoring Breonna Taylor ’ s memory .
Why would leaders and organizations supposedly dedicated to opposing police brutality be so committed to such a clearly counterproductive strategy ?
Maybe it ’ s because their true priorities lie elsewhere .
Brad Polumbo is a libertarian-conservative journalist and the Eugene S. Thorpe Writing Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education .
This article was originally published on FEE.org .
It is republished here by permission .

Racial unrest and violent protest gripped major American cities once again Wednesday night. This time, the outrage erupted after the state of Kentucky announced that two of the Louisville police officers involved in the killing of Breonna Taylor will face no charges and one will face charges for endangering her neighbors. Taylor was tragically killed during a police search gone wrong after a gunfight broke out between her boyfriend and the police.
Let’s be clear: Breonna Taylor should absolutely be alive today. Setting aside the complicated legal questions and increasingly murky circumstances surrounding the police shooting itself, she did not deserve to die. The anger and emotional pain over her death is eminently understandable—but violence is not.
And violent is the only way to describe the protests and riots that broke out Wednesday night. Unrest began in Louisville, but also erupted in cities such as Portland, Washington, DC, and Seattle.
In Louisville, nearly 100 people were arrested after protests descended into a riot as arson, looting, and violence broke out. Windows were shattered, several local businesses were looted, and multiple fires were started. But worst of all, two police officers were reportedly shot during the violent unrest. They are both in stable condition and a suspect has been arrested.
Police announced nearly 100 arrests in Louisville, Kentucky, after protests over the grand jury’s decision to not indict officers in the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor. Police say some were arrested for damaging businesses and jumping on city vehicles. https://t.co/iRn3Xc0e11 — The Associated Press (@AP) September 24, 2020
On the ground in Louisville, Ky. for @townhallcom and the protesting crowd just heard the charges the grand jury announced for the Breonna Taylor case. They are not happy at all, some people are crying. pic.twitter.com/DwGcYKyha4 — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) September 23, 2020
Meanwhile, similar violence broke out in many other riot-torn cities.
In Portland, for example, another violent agitator attempted to murder several police officers. Video captured at the scene shows someone deliberately throwing a molotov cocktail into a crowd of police officers, which then erupts in flames.
Clear shot of the Molotov thrower in Portland. pic.twitter.com/jpBvY3Lrac — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) September 24, 2020
In Seattle, video shows a police officer being mobbed and attacked, with one rioter hitting him in the head with a metal baseball bat.
Antifa in Seattle attempted to murder a police officer by hitting his head with a metal baseball bat as the Black Lives Matter mob surrounded him. This video was deleted. pic.twitter.com/DoBl5IiDIa — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) September 24, 2020
These are just a few examples from an explosively violent night of unrest. And they come in the broader context of the months of violent protest since George Floyd’s tragic death in late May that has seen more than 24 people die and wrought economic devastation on many urban minority communities.
This kind of violent protest only sabotages true progress toward the kind of reforms that will limit tragedies like Taylor’s death. Reforms such as banning “no-knock” warrants could help prevent these kinds of tragedies in the future. And reforming the civil liability shield known as “qualified immunity” would allow more true victims of police brutality to obtain justice and increase accountability.
But we won’t achieve these reforms—or any reform—by demonizing and attacking innocent police officers or participating in or condoning violent protest. Time and time again, research has shown that violent protest only undermines a cause in the eyes of the public.
Here’s how FEE’s Jon Miltimore summed up new research on this trend:
New research published in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology suggests the popularity of social reform movements suffers when movements use “extreme protest actions,” which tend to alienate neutral observers and even supporters of a given cause. Study leaders conducted six experiments involving 3,399 participants to measure how people responded to a variety of social causes, from Black Lives Matter movement to anti-abortion groups. “[Researchers] found that more extreme behaviors—such as the use of inflammatory rhetoric, blocking traffic, and vandalism—consistently resulted in reduced support for social movements,” writes Eric W. Dolan, the founder of PsyPost, a psychology and neuroscience news website.
In fact, we’ve seen this trend play out in real-time in recent months.
Support for the Black Lives Matter movement hit a peak in June, immediately after the death of George Floyd, when protests remained peaceful and a bipartisan consensus for reform began to emerge. Yet after rioting and looting broke out over the summer, support markedly declined.
“Public support for the Black Lives Matter movement has declined,” Pew Research reports. “A majority of U.S. adults (55%) now express at least some support for the movement, down from 67% in June amid nationwide demonstrations sparked by the death of George Floyd. The share who say they strongly support the movement stands at 29%, down from 38% three months ago.”
So, let’s be clear about one thing. The bad-faith agitators who are taking to the streets and engaging in violent unrest and vandalism are not fighting for justice. They are sabotaging progress toward meaningful criminal justice reform and dishonoring Breonna Taylor’s memory.
Why would leaders and organizations supposedly dedicated to opposing police brutality be so committed to such a clearly counterproductive strategy? Maybe it’s because their true priorities lie elsewhere.
Brad Polumbo is a libertarian-conservative journalist and the Eugene S. Thorpe Writing Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. It is republished here by permission.


thestream--2020-09-25--‘Trump Was Right’: Rank-and-File FBI Agonized Over ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ Witch Hunt

I ’ ve said for a long time that even though the “ 7th Floor ” at the FBI was thoroughly partisan and out to get Trump , the rank-and-file agents and administrators were generally good people just trying to follow the rules and do their jobs .
As it turns out , this observation was right .
FBI text messages and internal notes finally obtained by Michael Flynn lawyer Sidney Powell and included in her latest federal court filing show agents ’ enormous concern with what was going on .
Sure , we ’ ve read plenty of anti-Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hurricane , ” but these newly declassified communications are arguably worse , in that they show a ( to use a word currently in vogue ) SYSTEMIC problem at the FBI that was so serious and so obvious , other agents — their names still redacted — were worried about the potential fallout .
Sean Davis and Mollie Hemingway reported this Thursday in The Federalist , under the headline “ ’ Trump was right ’ : Explosive new FBI texts detail internal furor over handling of ‘ Crossfire Hurricane ” Investigation.
” Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day that CNN leaked that President-elect Trump had been briefed by then-FBI Director James Comey about a ( bogus ) story in the Steele “ dossier , ” one agent texted another , “ We all went out and purchased professional liability insurance.
” “ Yep , ” the first one texted .
“ All the folks at the Agency as well.
” He went on to say , “ …I think the concern…was that there was a big leak at DOJ and the NYT among others was going to do a piece.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one FBI analyst remarked , “ doing all this election research – I think some of these guys want a Clinton presidency.
” Another text from October of 2016 said , “ [ REDACTED ] is one of the worst offenders of the rabbit holes and conspiracy theories.
” And here ’ s a particularly prescient text : “ I ’ m [ telling you ] , man , if this thing ever gets FOIA ’ d , there are going to be some tough questions asked.
” First Request to Shut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But Case Went On We ’ d thought that the order to close down the Flynn investigation came on January 4 , 2017 , the day before the infamous Oval Office meeting with Comey , Brennan , Biden , Yates , Rice and , of course , President Obama .
It turns out that the original order to close the case may have come as early as November 6 , 2016 , Election Day .
National Security Letters — Not Judge Reviewed Subpoenas — Used to Spy on Flynn Finances Another shocking revelation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Flynn ’ s finances , the FBI used not regular subpoenas , but what they call national security letters ( NSL ) , which receive NO JUDICIAL REVIEW .
They were doing this weeks after the initial order to shut the case down .
Agents who knew better were talking amongst themselves about this… “ The decision to NSL finances bought him time , ” one agent says .
( We don ’ t know who “ him ” is . )
“ What do we expect to get from an NSL [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We put out traces , tripwire to the community and nothing.
” “ Bingo , another agent replied .
“ ” So what ’ s an NSL going to do [ ? ]
No content.
” “ Haha this is a nightmare , ” another agent said .
The conversation goes on similarly .
“ Trump Was Right ” … and Obama White House Neck Deep In It In one series of texts sent the same day as the big Oval Office meeting , one agent says that “ Trump was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI was delaying his transition briefings on so-called “ Russian hacking ” so they could cook up evidence against him .
( Was he ever . )
Here are more of the agents ’ texts from the red-letter day of January 5 ( some punctuation fixed ) : “ So razor is going to stay open ?
” “ What ’ s the word on how Obama ’ s briefing went ?
” “ Don ’ t know but people here are scrambling for info to support certain things and it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was right .
Still not put together…why do we do this to ourselves ?
What is wrong with these people ?
?
” The texts even reveal that agents suspected the leaks about Flynn ’ s calls with Russian Ambassador Kislyak were leaked by the White House… “ FYI – someone leaked the Flynn calls with Kislyak to the WSJ [ Wall Street Journal ] .
” “ I ’ m sorry to hear that.
” ( Sarcasm alert . )
I ’ ll resume my duties as Chief Morale Officer and rectify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ignatius.
” ( That ’ s a reference to Washington Post writer David Ignatius . )
“ It ’ s got to be someone on the staff .
PDB [ Presidential Daily Briefing ] staff .
Or WH seniors.
” If you ’ re not up to date on the Flynn case , Hemingway and Davis review that as well , including the bizarre efforts of Judge Sullivan to keep it going despite Barr ’ s decision not to prosecute .
But the real news here is the texting FBI agents were doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was — a political hit job — and they were concerned enough to take out liability policies !
We don ’ t get to see those names , but John Durham does , and let ’ s hope he ’ s talked with every one of them — especially the one who wrote about “ scrambling for info to support certain things.
” As if this weren ’ t enough , we ’ ve also learned that Steele ’ s sub-source for the Steele “ dossier ” had been the subject of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for suspected contact with Russian intel officers .
In other words , they thought he might be a RUSSIAN SPY .
This is something else they should ’ ve disclosed to the FISA court but didn ’ t .
We know this now because the Senate Judiciary Committee is looking into it , and Sen. Lindsay Graham , who chairs the committee , wrote to AG Barr to request expedited information about the reliability of Christopher Steele as a source .
Barr responded by directing the FBI to ( at last ) declassify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d consulted with Durham and determined that revealing this information would not compromise the ongoing investigation .
So it ’ s logical to assume that Durham has already looked into it .
Again , the bitter irony : Democrats have accused Trump for years of “ colluding ” with Russians , when it ’ s the Hillary campaign that did that very thing .
Sen. Graham appeared Thursday night on Hannity to summarize the findings .
He said he hopes this is a “ game-changer , ” but given the slant of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much of anything until we see some indictments , whenever that might be .
Mike Huckabee is the former governor of Arkansas and longtime conservative commentator on issues in culture and current events .
A New York Times best-selling author , he hosts the weekly talk show Huckabee on TBN .

I’ve said for a long time that even though the “7th Floor” at the FBI was thoroughly partisan and out to get Trump, the rank-and-file agents and administrators were generally good people just trying to follow the rules and do their jobs. As it turns out, this observation was right.
FBI text messages and internal notes finally obtained by Michael Flynn lawyer Sidney Powell and included in her latest federal court filing show agents’ enormous concern with what was going on.
Systemic Problems at the FBI
Sure, we’ve read plenty of anti-Trump messages from those involved in “Crossfire Hurricane,” but these newly declassified communications are arguably worse, in that they show a (to use a word currently in vogue) SYSTEMIC problem at the FBI that was so serious and so obvious, other agents — their names still redacted — were worried about the potential fallout.
Sean Davis and Mollie Hemingway reported this Thursday in The Federalist, under the headline “’Trump was right’: Explosive new FBI texts detail internal furor over handling of ‘Crossfire Hurricane” Investigation.”
Here’s something new: The same day that CNN leaked that President-elect Trump had been briefed by then-FBI Director James Comey about a (bogus) story in the Steele “dossier,” one agent texted another, “We all went out and purchased professional liability insurance.”
“Holy crap,” another agent texted back. “All the analysts, too?”
“Yep,” the first one texted. “All the folks at the Agency as well.” He went on to say, “…I think the concern…was that there was a big leak at DOJ and the NYT among others was going to do a piece.”
Earlier, in August of 2016, one FBI analyst remarked, “doing all this election research – I think some of these guys want a Clinton presidency.”
No kidding.
Another text from October of 2016 said, “[REDACTED] is one of the worst offenders of the rabbit holes and conspiracy theories.”
And here’s a particularly prescient text: “I’m [telling you], man, if this thing ever gets FOIA’d, there are going to be some tough questions asked.”
Indeed.
First Request to Shut Down Flynn Investigation Came Election Day … But Case Went On
We’d thought that the order to close down the Flynn investigation came on January 4, 2017, the day before the infamous Oval Office meeting with Comey, Brennan, Biden, Yates, Rice and, of course, President Obama. It turns out that the original order to close the case may have come as early as November 6, 2016, Election Day.
(NOTE: I’m curious to know if this came very late in the day, after they realized to their horror that Trump had won.) One agent texted, “We have some loose ends to tie up, and we all need to meet to discuss what to do with each case – he said shut down Razor.” (“Razor” is code for the Flynn case, which was part of “Crossfire Hurricane.”)
“So glad they’re closing Razor,” another agent responded.
National Security Letters — Not Judge Reviewed Subpoenas — Used to Spy on Flynn Finances
Another shocking revelation in these texts: To spy on Flynn’s finances, the FBI used not regular subpoenas, but what they call national security letters (NSL), which receive NO JUDICIAL REVIEW. They were doing this weeks after the initial order to shut the case down. Agents who knew better were talking amongst themselves about this…
“The decision to NSL finances bought him time,” one agent says. (We don’t know who “him” is.)
“What do we expect to get from an NSL [?],” was the reply. “We put out traces, tripwire to the community and nothing.”
“Bingo, another agent replied. “”So what’s an NSL going to do[?] No content.”
“Haha this is a nightmare,” another agent said. The conversation goes on similarly.
“Trump Was Right” … and Obama White House Neck Deep In It
In one series of texts sent the same day as the big Oval Office meeting, one agent says that “Trump was right” when he tweeted that the FBI was delaying his transition briefings on so-called “Russian hacking” so they could cook up evidence against him. (Was he ever.)
Here are more of the agents’ texts from the red-letter day of January 5 (some punctuation fixed):
“So razor is going to stay open?”
“Yep. Crimes report being drafted.”
“F.”
“What’s the word on how Obama’s briefing went?”
“Don’t know but people here are scrambling for info to support certain things and it’s a madhouse.”
“Jesus. Trump was right. Still not put together…why do we do this to ourselves? What is wrong with these people??”
The texts even reveal that agents suspected the leaks about Flynn’s calls with Russian Ambassador Kislyak were leaked by the White House…
“FYI – someone leaked the Flynn calls with Kislyak to the WSJ [Wall Street Journal].”
“I’m sorry to hear that.” (Sarcasm alert.) I’ll resume my duties as Chief Morale Officer and rectify that.”
“Published this morning by Ignatius.” (That’s a reference to Washington Post writer David Ignatius.)
“It’s got to be someone on the staff. PDB [Presidential Daily Briefing] staff. Or WH seniors.”
If you’re not up to date on the Flynn case, Hemingway and Davis review that as well, including the bizarre efforts of Judge Sullivan to keep it going despite Barr’s decision not to prosecute.
But the real news here is the texting FBI agents were doing that shows they knew exactly what this was — a political hit job — and they were concerned enough to take out liability policies!
We don’t get to see those names, but John Durham does, and let’s hope he’s talked with every one of them — especially the one who wrote about “scrambling for info to support certain things.”
Steele Sub-Source was a Known Russian Spy?
As if this weren’t enough, we’ve also learned that Steele’s sub-source for the Steele “dossier” had been the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 2011 for suspected contact with Russian intel officers. In other words, they thought he might be a RUSSIAN SPY. This is something else they should’ve disclosed to the FISA court but didn’t.
We know this now because the Senate Judiciary Committee is looking into it, and Sen. Lindsay Graham, who chairs the committee, wrote to AG Barr to request expedited information about the reliability of Christopher Steele as a source. Barr responded by directing the FBI to (at last) declassify this material.
Barr said he’d consulted with Durham and determined that revealing this information would not compromise the ongoing investigation. So it’s logical to assume that Durham has already looked into it.
Again, the bitter irony: Democrats have accused Trump for years of “colluding” with Russians, when it’s the Hillary campaign that did that very thing.
Sen. Graham appeared Thursday night on Hannity to summarize the findings. He said he hopes this is a “game-changer,” but given the slant of the media, I doubt it will change much of anything until we see some indictments, whenever that might be.
Mike Huckabee is the former governor of Arkansas and longtime conservative commentator on issues in culture and current events. A New York Times best-selling author, he hosts the weekly talk show Huckabee on TBN.


thestream--2020-09-25--‘This is a Nightmare’: FBI Employees Had Grave Concerns About Flynn Probe, Stunning Records Show

• Documents released in Michael Flynn ’ s ongoing court case on Thursday show that FBI employees expressed reservations about the bureau ’ s probe of the retired general .
• One investigator called the probe a “ nightmare , ” according to internal FBI messages .
• Another message shows an investigator saying they were “ glad ” the FBI planned to close the probe on Nov. 8 , 2016 .
• In October 2016 , an FBI analyst said that the bureau would face “ tough questions ” once documents from the investigation became public through the Freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked on Crossfire Hurricane called the investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn a “ nightmare ” and expressed relief when the bureau considered closing the probe in November 2016 , according to messages released on Thursday .
Flynn ’ s lawyers released the documents in a court filing in his federal criminal case on charges that he lied to the FBI .
The messages show that some FBI employees questioned investigative steps that the bureau took in the investigation .
The FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation against him and three other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their possible ties to Russia .
The messages were culled from the FBI ’ s internal “ Lync ” messaging platform .
The employees are not identified in the document dump , though they appear to have had detailed knowledge of the probe .
One exchange suggests that an FBI official ordered the investigation of Flynn , whose code name was “ Crossfire Razor , ” to be closed on Nov. 8 , 2016 .
“ He said shut down Razor , ” the analyst wrote , adding minutes later : “ So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The time stamp for the message is 5:42 p.m. , which would have been hours before Donald Trump pulled an upset victory over Hillary Clinton in the presidential election .
Other messages show that the FBI agents believed that the bureau was extending the duration of the Flynn investigation by sending out National Security Letters ( NSLs ) to obtain the retired general ’ s financial records .
“ That the decision to nsl [ national security letter ] finances for razor bought him time , ” an FBI employee wrote on Nov. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 , 2016 show analysts doubted whether NSLs were useful for the investigation .
One analyst wrote that investigators had “ put out traces ” and “ tripwires to community ” and found “ nothing.
” “ We didn ’ t find anything else from the investigation about him , ” the analyst wrote , according to the court filing .
Flynn ’ s lawyers said in the court filing that the messages show that investigators used NSLs as “ a ruse ” to extend the investigation .
“ These Stalinist tactics mandate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lawyers said .
The FBI ’ s Washington Field Office drafted a memo on Jan. 4 , 2017 recommending that the counterintelligence investigation of Flynn be closed down .
The memo said that the FBI investigated several leads on Flynn ’ s possible ties to Russia but found no evidence showing that he was working covertly as a Kremlin agent .
Peter Strzok , who was deputy chief of counterintelligence at the time , intervened at the last minute to keep the investigation going , according to documents released in a previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a transcript of Flynn ’ s phone calls on Dec. 29 , 2016 with Sergey Kislyak , the Russian ambassador to the U.S. Strzok and another FBI agent interviewed Flynn about the calls on Jan. 24 , 2017 .
Flynn eventually pleaded guilty to lying during the interview , though he has since retracted his admission of guilt .
Agents Were So Worried by the Wrongdoing They Got Professional Liability Insurance The messages also show that FBI employees expressed concerns that aspects of the investigation of the Trump campaign would eventually be made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 , an FBI employee said that “ tough questions ” would be asked once aspects of the Crossfire Hurricane probe became public through the Freedom of Information Act .
Messages from Jan. 10 , 2017 show an FBI employee telling another that they and others working on the investigation “ all went and purchased professional liability insurance.
” The person said that employees at “ the Agency ” — a possible reference to the CIA — had also purchased insurance .
“ The whole thing is pretty ugly…we shall see how things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The documents are the fifth production of records provided to Flynn ’ s legal team since Attorney General William Barr ordered a review of the investigation in January .
The Justice Department filed a motion to withdraw charges against Flynn on May 7 , citing the discovery of FBI notes and memos that had not been given to Flynn ’ s lawyers .
Barr has said that he believes the FBI under James Comey set a “ perjury trap ” for Flynn .
The case against Flynn remains open because Judge Emmet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to force the Justice Department to explain the decision to drop the case against Flynn .
“ These documents provide information long known to the agents and others at the highest levels of the Department of Justice and the FBI ; information long concealed by the Special Counsel and FBI , ” Flynn ’ s lawyers said in the court filing .
“ This evidence shows outrageous , deliberate misconduct by FBI and DOJ—playing games with the life of a national hero .
”

Documents released in Michael Flynn’s ongoing court case on Thursday show that FBI employees expressed reservations about the bureau’s probe of the retired general.
One investigator called the probe a “nightmare,” according to internal FBI messages.
Another message shows an investigator saying they were “glad” the FBI planned to close the probe on Nov. 8, 2016.
In October 2016, an FBI analyst said that the bureau would face “tough questions” once documents from the investigation became public through the Freedom of Information Act.
FBI employees who worked on Crossfire Hurricane called the investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn a “nightmare” and expressed relief when the bureau considered closing the probe in November 2016, according to messages released on Thursday.
Flynn’s lawyers released the documents in a court filing in his federal criminal case on charges that he lied to the FBI.
The messages show that some FBI employees questioned investigative steps that the bureau took in the investigation. The FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation against him and three other Trump campaign advisers in August 2016 over their possible ties to Russia.
The messages were culled from the FBI’s internal “Lync” messaging platform. The employees are not identified in the document dump, though they appear to have had detailed knowledge of the probe.
One exchange suggests that an FBI official ordered the investigation of Flynn, whose code name was “Crossfire Razor,” to be closed on Nov. 8, 2016.
“He said shut down Razor,” the analyst wrote, adding minutes later: “So glad they’re closing Razor.”
The time stamp for the message is 5:42 p.m., which would have been hours before Donald Trump pulled an upset victory over Hillary Clinton in the presidential election.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Other messages show that the FBI agents believed that the bureau was extending the duration of the Flynn investigation by sending out National Security Letters (NSLs) to obtain the retired general’s financial records.
“That the decision to nsl [national security letter] finances for razor bought him time,” an FBI employee wrote on Nov. 21, 2016.
Messages from Dec. 5, 2016 show analysts doubted whether NSLs were useful for the investigation.
One analyst wrote that investigators had “put out traces” and “tripwires to community” and found “nothing.”
“We didn’t find anything else from the investigation about him,” the analyst wrote, according to the court filing.
Flynn’s lawyers said in the court filing that the messages show that investigators used NSLs as “a ruse” to extend the investigation.
“These Stalinist tactics mandate immediate dismissal of this case,” the lawyers said.
The FBI’s Washington Field Office drafted a memo on Jan. 4, 2017 recommending that the counterintelligence investigation of Flynn be closed down. The memo said that the FBI investigated several leads on Flynn’s possible ties to Russia but found no evidence showing that he was working covertly as a Kremlin agent.
Peter Strzok, who was deputy chief of counterintelligence at the time, intervened at the last minute to keep the investigation going, according to documents released in a previous court filing.
The FBI had obtained a transcript of Flynn’s phone calls on Dec. 29, 2016 with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S.
Strzok and another FBI agent interviewed Flynn about the calls on Jan. 24, 2017. Flynn eventually pleaded guilty to lying during the interview, though he has since retracted his admission of guilt.
Agents Were So Worried by the Wrongdoing They Got Professional Liability Insurance
The messages also show that FBI employees expressed concerns that aspects of the investigation of the Trump campaign would eventually be made public. In one message in October 2016, an FBI employee said that “tough questions” would be asked once aspects of the Crossfire Hurricane probe became public through the Freedom of Information Act.
Messages from Jan. 10, 2017 show an FBI employee telling another that they and others working on the investigation “all went and purchased professional liability insurance.” The person said that employees at “the Agency” — a possible reference to the CIA — had also purchased insurance.
“The whole thing is pretty ugly…we shall see how things pan out,” the analyst wrote.
The documents are the fifth production of records provided to Flynn’s legal team since Attorney General William Barr ordered a review of the investigation in January.
The Justice Department filed a motion to withdraw charges against Flynn on May 7, citing the discovery of FBI notes and memos that had not been given to Flynn’s lawyers. Barr has said that he believes the FBI under James Comey set a “perjury trap” for Flynn.
The case against Flynn remains open because Judge Emmet Sullivan has sued to hold a hearing to force the Justice Department to explain the decision to drop the case against Flynn.
“These documents provide information long known to the agents and others at the highest levels of the Department of Justice and the FBI; information long concealed by the Special Counsel and FBI,” Flynn’s lawyers said in the court filing.
“This evidence shows outrageous, deliberate misconduct by FBI and DOJ—playing games with the life of a national hero.”
Copyright 2020 The Daily Caller News Foundation
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


Uncool When Necessary

“ I can not and will not cut my conscience to fit this year ’ s fashions.
” — Lillian Hellman When playwright Lillian Hellman was called to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1952 , she explained she was willing to answer for her own activities , but refused to give the names of others whom the Committee might want to examine .
Her conscience forbade it ; her position was firm .
That was an unpopular , risky position to take in the Fifties .
Today , people applaud her for it , and much as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too .
While I say let ’ s come out swinging against any attempt to convert America to Socialism or Communism , I also respect the few and the brave who defied the Committee ’ s demand to supply names of anyone remotely suspected of Communist leanings .
That un-American trend went one way ; some , in good conscience , went another .
Everything Old is New Again So it is with movements , especially the heavy handed kind .
When people of influence get drunk on their own power , seldom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
They won ’ t admit their love for being enraged , pumped up on self-righteous adrenaline , nor the emptiness of their own lives which they ’ re trying to fill up with their crusade .
Instead , they ’ ll dress their bullying up as a form of social justice , resisted only by the unenlightened and the infidels .
( Infidels , of course , being anyone who won ’ t convert to their philosophy and demands .
You ’ ve watched the news ; you know what I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in 2020 scores of Americans are obviously susceptible to them .
But they can also be horribly wrong , so the serious disciple of Jesus must ask herself or himself not what direction the social trends are going , but rather , whether it ’ s a direction a Christ follower should take .
Now there are trends that are clearly of this world — gross immodesty , for example , or crude expressions — so bucking them is a no-brainer .
But there are subtler trends of thought and practice as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Among the “ nots ” is the trend towards being cool at the expense of biblical integrity , a trend I hope we can discern and reject .
Its voice goes something like this : • Christians have been rigid in the past about “ absolutes ” and haven ’ t shown much grace .
• In response , upcoming generations now reject rigid ideas about right and wrong , and instead value tolerance over truth , except for anyone who rejects their truth , in which case , of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to be relevant to these folks , Bible-believing Christians need to avoid the appearance of being judgmental about doctrinal issues by listening to ask questions without giving answers , and somehow make disciples by letting people find their own truth .
They must also find ways to reframe radical social causes into a Christianese that will sound acceptable to believers .
That ’ s how to be a culturally cool evangelical in 2020 .
Conviction and Conversation Don ’ t Have to Collide I ’ m probably oversimplifying this , but I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essence of the modern trend towards loosening doctrinal and moral landmarks in the interest of attracting people to our churches and , ultimately , to Christ .
It beckons us to welcome differing viewpoints and talk with people , not just to them , about truth .
Then it calls us to tone down on the absolutes , and lighten up on the essentials .
Small parts of this make sense to me , since a Christian apologist seeks dialogue , and dialogue , by its nature , means an exchange of ideas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seemed pretty engaged in that approach ( Acts 17:2 ) and Jesus Himself reasoned with Nicodemus in what was unquestionably the most important conversation that Pharisee ever had ( John 3:1-21 ) .
So there ’ s definitely a place for listening to other people ’ s ideas , taking their questions and making our communication with them a two-way experience .
But the definition of an apologist is someone who offers an argument in defense of something , not just an argument for the sake of experiencing an argument .
Which means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth , hoping not just to converse , and committed to never coerce , but also desiring to persuade .
In other words — and let ’ s please take this seriously — his passion is for you to embrace the truth , more than it is for you to embrace him .
I ’ m beginning to wonder what we really want .
Are we more concerned with “ not losing people ” than we are with faithfully representing the One who sent us as His ambassadors ?
Because if I understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s more about faithful representation than about making people feel good about us , much less themselves .
Yet more and more Christian books , conferences and messages today seem geared towards showing the culture that we ’ re too cool to speak in absolutes , that we apologize for those backwards Neanderthals who ’ ve taken firm stands on controversial issues in the past , and that if you ’ ll just give us another chance , we ’ ll do better .
Hence the New and Improved Evangelical : vague , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far too polite to speak up on those few things we are certain of .
But before driving over that cliff with our friends might we ask a simple and , I dare say , obvious question : How do you lead people anywhere without clear direction ?
More to the point , how do we evangelize without clear positions on salvation ?
How do we disciple without clear positions on truth ?
How do we enhance maturity in our congregations without sound doctrine , and how can our doctrine be sound if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ifs and Maybes ?
I really do cringe , as you probably do , when I remember some of the tactless , insensitive , un-Christlike things some Christians have said in the past about non-believers , homosexuals , feminists , humanists and Muslims .
Biblical truth said in an unbiblical way is , well , unbiblical .
But that hardly means there are no clear lines to be drawn around those subjects .
We can reject the way we ’ ve expressed our positions without revising the positions themselves , a point I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and all of us need to consider .
So if there ’ s going to be a reform among believers , I ’ m hoping it will come by way of rejecting sarcasm , stereotypes and mean-spiritedness when expressing truth , while at the same time recommitting ourselves to being even more faithful stewards of truth , stating it plainly , expressing it creatively and always remembering that the apologist doesn ’ t apologize for what she or he is sent to say .
Regardless , as Miss Hellman noted , of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the Program Director of Genesis Biblical Counseling and a member of the American Association of Christian Counselors .
His daily blog is Joe Dallas Online .
He is the author of Desires in Conflict , The Game Plan , and When Homosexuality Hits Home .
His latest book is Five Steps to Breaking Free from Porn .
Follow him on Twitter at @ JoeDallasTGP and follow The Stream @ Streamdotorg .

“I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashions.”
— Lillian Hellman
When playwright Lillian Hellman was called to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1952, she explained she was willing to answer for her own activities, but refused to give the names of others whom the Committee might want to examine. Her conscience forbade it; her position was firm.
That was an unpopular, risky position to take in the Fifties. Today, people applaud her for it, and much as I loathe Communism, I do, too.
While I say let’s come out swinging against any attempt to convert America to Socialism or Communism, I also respect the few and the brave who defied the Committee’s demand to supply names of anyone remotely suspected of Communist leanings. That un-American trend went one way; some, in good conscience, went another.
Everything Old is New Again
So it is with movements, especially the heavy handed kind. When people of influence get drunk on their own power, seldom, if ever, will they admit it.
They won’t admit their love for being enraged, pumped up on self-righteous adrenaline, nor the emptiness of their own lives which they’re trying to fill up with their crusade.
Instead, they’ll dress their bullying up as a form of social justice, resisted only by the unenlightened and the infidels. (Infidels, of course, being anyone who won’t convert to their philosophy and demands. You’ve watched the news; you know what I mean.)
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Bandwagons are enticing, and in 2020 scores of Americans are obviously susceptible to them. But they can also be horribly wrong, so the serious disciple of Jesus must ask herself or himself not what direction the social trends are going, but rather, whether it’s a direction a Christ follower should take.
Now there are trends that are clearly of this world — gross immodesty, for example, or crude expressions — so bucking them is a no-brainer. But there are subtler trends of thought and practice as well, some good, some not.
When Cool is Uncool
Among the “nots” is the trend towards being cool at the expense of biblical integrity, a trend I hope we can discern and reject. Its voice goes something like this:
Christians have been rigid in the past about “absolutes” and haven’t shown much grace. In response, upcoming generations now reject rigid ideas about right and wrong, and instead value tolerance over truth, except for anyone who rejects their truth, in which case, of course, intolerance is a virtue. Therefore, to be relevant to these folks, Bible-believing Christians need to avoid the appearance of being judgmental about doctrinal issues by listening to ask questions without giving answers, and somehow make disciples by letting people find their own truth. They must also find ways to reframe radical social causes into a Christianese that will sound acceptable to believers.
That’s how to be a culturally cool evangelical in 2020.
Conviction and Conversation Don’t Have to Collide
I’m probably oversimplifying this, but I’d say that’s the essence of the modern trend towards loosening doctrinal and moral landmarks in the interest of attracting people to our churches and, ultimately, to Christ. It beckons us to welcome differing viewpoints and talk with people, not just to them, about truth. Then it calls us to tone down on the absolutes, and lighten up on the essentials.
Small parts of this make sense to me, since a Christian apologist seeks dialogue, and dialogue, by its nature, means an exchange of ideas.
Fine. After all, Paul seemed pretty engaged in that approach (Acts 17:2) and Jesus Himself reasoned with Nicodemus in what was unquestionably the most important conversation that Pharisee ever had (John 3:1-21).
So there’s definitely a place for listening to other people’s ideas, taking their questions and making our communication with them a two-way experience.
But the definition of an apologist is someone who offers an argument in defense of something, not just an argument for the sake of experiencing an argument. Which means he argues from a position of settled truth, hoping not just to converse, and committed to never coerce, but also desiring to persuade.
In other words — and let’s please take this seriously — his passion is for you to embrace the truth, more than it is for you to embrace him.
Reviewing my Job Description
I’m beginning to wonder what we really want. Are we more concerned with “not losing people” than we are with faithfully representing the One who sent us as His ambassadors? Because if I understand our job description correctly, it’s more about faithful representation than about making people feel good about us, much less themselves.
Yet more and more Christian books, conferences and messages today seem geared towards showing the culture that we’re too cool to speak in absolutes, that we apologize for those backwards Neanderthals who’ve taken firm stands on controversial issues in the past, and that if you’ll just give us another chance, we’ll do better.
Hence the New and Improved Evangelical: vague, nice, uncertain about many things and far too polite to speak up on those few things we are certain of.
Hence the New and Improved Evangelical: vague, nice, uncertain about many things and far too polite to speak up on those few things we are certain of.
But before driving over that cliff with our friends might we ask a simple and, I dare say, obvious question: How do you lead people anywhere without clear direction?
More to the point, how do we evangelize without clear positions on salvation?
How do we disciple without clear positions on truth?
How do we enhance maturity in our congregations without sound doctrine, and how can our doctrine be sound if it amounts to a series of What Ifs and Maybes?
Nobody Likes a Big Mouth
I really do cringe, as you probably do, when I remember some of the tactless, insensitive, un-Christlike things some Christians have said in the past about non-believers, homosexuals, feminists, humanists and Muslims. Biblical truth said in an unbiblical way is, well, unbiblical.
But that hardly means there are no clear lines to be drawn around those subjects. We can reject the way we’ve expressed our positions without revising the positions themselves, a point I think some of us are missing, and all of us need to consider.
So if there’s going to be a reform among believers, I’m hoping it will come by way of rejecting sarcasm, stereotypes and mean-spiritedness when expressing truth, while at the same time recommitting ourselves to being even more faithful stewards of truth, stating it plainly, expressing it creatively and always remembering that the apologist doesn’t apologize for what she or he is sent to say.
Regardless, as Miss Hellman noted, of this year’s fashions.
Joe Dallas is the Program Director of Genesis Biblical Counseling and a member of the American Association of Christian Counselors. His daily blog is Joe Dallas Online. He is the author of Desires in Conflict, The Game Plan, and When Homosexuality Hits Home. His latest book is Five Steps to Breaking Free from Porn. Follow him on Twitter at @JoeDallasTGP and follow The Stream @Streamdotorg.
Originally published at JoeDallas.com. Reprinted with permission.


thestream--2020-09-26--50 Questions #28: ‘Why Does Being a Christian Depend So Much On Where You Came From?’

Part of an extended series of answers to Guy P. Harrison ’ s book 50 Simple Questions for Every Christian .
Read the series intro here .
Guy P. Harrison wants to know , “ Why do birth location and family matter so much ?
” He thinks it should bother us that “ a baby born into a family of Christian evangelicals in a small South Carolina town ” would have a real religious advantage over one “ born into a Muslim or Hindu family in Yemen or Mumbai.
” Actually it does bother a lot of us , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why we have Christian missions , but missionaries could still use a lot more money and manpower than we give them .
But that ’ s not where he ’ s going with his question .
He thinks Christians are ignorant and God is unjust .
Unfortunately I can ’ t disagree with him totally on the first point .
“ Why no comparison shopping ?
” he asks .
“ How can you be sure Jesus is the right or best answer if you haven ’ t given Mohammed a fair hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have done the comparisons .
I recommend Nabeel Qureshi ’ s work as a starting point for others who want to do it , too .
The more Christians look at the strength of our faith — our best thinkers , that is — and compare it to the best in other faiths , the stronger we ’ ll come out .
Christianity has what it takes .
In fact , we ought to encourage this as early in life as possible .
Harrison rather ignorantly thinks Christianity has grown because “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe … from the earliest days of childhood.
” He ’ s dead wrong on that .
I ’ ve met too many atheists whose parents “ told them ” to believe .
The “ Sticky Faith ” research project shows that faith sticks stronger when parents and churches encourage kids to explore , question , and ask instead .
It ’ s nice to be able to agree with Harrison on something — the importance of solid , honest questioning , in this case .
It never lasts very long , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when I read this : “ What might the religious landscape be if all children were taught about ten or fifteen of the most popular religions in an unbiased manner ?
” I think it ’ s hilarious .
I might need to explain , though .
Call that quote Version 1 .
I ’ ll restate it in three new versions , all of which mean exactly the same thing in effect .
• Version 2 : “ What if parents everywhere would teach their kids ten or fifteen religions , without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be true ?
” • Version 3 : “ What if parents everywhere taught their kids there is no true religion , or at least none that anyone could know was true ?
” • Version 4 : “ What if parents everywhere taught their kids that all religions are wrong and I ’ m right ?
In an unbiased manner , of course.
” Such is the blindness of the self-righteous intellect .
Still we have to face the question he raises : Why do children born to Christian parents in Christian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christ ?
Stream contributor David Marshall has written much on this , if you really want to pursue the question .
I ’ ll keep my answer short here .
Harrison ’ s real question is , Why isn ’ t God more fair ?
God ’ s real answer is , Who are you to complain ?
I ’ m very serious about this .
Every time God gives anyone life in Christ , He ’ s giving us better than we deserve .
Is there something about His choices we don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rest of the information , so we can judge whether God is just or not ?
Shall we sit in judgment on Him ?
Paul deals with this strongly in Romans 9:14-21 .
An even better source , though , might be the book of Job .
Job was suffering horrific pain and loss , and his friends kept trying to sort out the justice of it all .
Foolishly , they thought they knew what they were talking about .
They were wrong ; they were missing crucial background information explaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Which One of Us Is God Here ?
” God corrects them for it , but not by filling them in on all the explanatory details .
Instead He puts a question to them : “ Which one of us is God here : You or Me ?
” That ’ s the condensed version .
The whole version fills four , glorious , majestic chapters ( Job 38-41 ) , beginning , Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge ?
Dress for action like a man ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make it known to me .
“ Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth ?
Tell me , if you have understanding .
Who determined its measurements—surely you know !
Or who stretched the line upon it ?
On what were its bases sunk , or who laid its cornerstone , when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy ?
” Nowhere in those four chapters do you hear God defending Himself .
He just reminds them who ’ s who .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Likes It Or Not Guy P. Harrison thinks the Christian God is unfair .
It ’ s as if he thinks he ’ s got the goods on God ; as if he knows enough to pronounce judgment .
God will let him carry on for a while , just as He did Job ’ s friends .
The day will come , though , when God will speak out of the whirlwind .
“ Which one of us is God here : You or Me ?
” Harrison probably won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot out .
God doesn ’ t always explain or defend His justice .
He doesn ’ t have to : We have no business judging Him .
God isn ’ t offering him an unbiased upbringing , either , with ten or fifteen different false gods to choose from .
God will be God , the One True God , in Harrison ’ s life , whether he likes it or not .
Tom Gilson ( @ TomGilsonAuthor ) is a senior editor with The Stream and the author or editor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Too Good To Be False : How Jesus ’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality .

Part of an extended series of answers to Guy P. Harrison’s book 50 Simple Questions for Every Christian. Read the series intro here.
Guy P. Harrison wants to know, “Why do birth location and family matter so much?” He thinks it should bother us that “a baby born into a family of Christian evangelicals in a small South Carolina town” would have a real religious advantage over one “born into a Muslim or Hindu family in Yemen or Mumbai.”
Actually it does bother a lot of us, though not enough. It’s why we have Christian missions, but missionaries could still use a lot more money and manpower than we give them.
But that’s not where he’s going with his question. He thinks Christians are ignorant and God is unjust. Unfortunately I can’t disagree with him totally on the first point. “Why no comparison shopping?” he asks. “How can you be sure Jesus is the right or best answer if you haven’t given Mohammed a fair hearing?”
But some of us actually have done the comparisons. I recommend Nabeel Qureshi’s work as a starting point for others who want to do it, too. The more Christians look at the strength of our faith — our best thinkers, that is — and compare it to the best in other faiths, the stronger we’ll come out. Christianity has what it takes.
Unbiased Parenting? I Laugh!
In fact, we ought to encourage this as early in life as possible. Harrison rather ignorantly thinks Christianity has grown because “the vast majority of Christians were told to believe … from the earliest days of childhood.” He’s dead wrong on that. I’ve met too many atheists whose parents “told them” to believe. The “Sticky Faith” research project shows that faith sticks stronger when parents and churches encourage kids to explore, question, and ask instead.
It’s nice to be able to agree with Harrison on something — the importance of solid, honest questioning, in this case. It never lasts very long, though. I just about burst out laughing when I read this: “What might the religious landscape be if all children were taught about ten or fifteen of the most popular religions in an unbiased manner?”
Such is the blindness of the self-righteous intellect.
I think it’s hilarious. I might need to explain, though. Call that quote Version 1. I’ll restate it in three new versions, all of which mean exactly the same thing in effect.
Version 2: “What if parents everywhere would teach their kids ten or fifteen religions, without hinting that any of them might actually be true?”
Version 3: “What if parents everywhere taught their kids there is no true religion, or at least none that anyone could know was true?”
Version 4: “What if parents everywhere taught their kids that all religions are wrong and I’m right? In an unbiased manner, of course.”
Such is the blindness of the self-righteous intellect.
Is God Unjust?
Still we have to face the question he raises: Why do children born to Christian parents in Christian countries have a better chance of following Christ? Stream contributor David Marshall has written much on this, if you really want to pursue the question. I’ll keep my answer short here.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Harrison’s real question is, Why isn’t God more fair? God’s real answer is, Who are you to complain? I’m very serious about this. Every time God gives anyone life in Christ, He’s giving us better than we deserve. Is there something about His choices we don’t understand? Do we need the rest of the information, so we can judge whether God is just or not? Shall we sit in judgment on Him?
Paul deals with this strongly in Romans 9:14-21. An even better source, though, might be the book of Job. Job was suffering horrific pain and loss, and his friends kept trying to sort out the justice of it all. Foolishly, they thought they knew what they were talking about. They were wrong; they were missing crucial background information explaining why God allowed Job to suffer so.
“Which One of Us Is God Here?”
God corrects them for it, but not by filling them in on all the explanatory details. Instead He puts a question to them: “Which one of us is God here: You or Me?”
That’s the condensed version. The whole version fills four, glorious, majestic chapters (Job 38-41), beginning,
Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
Dress for action like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
Nowhere in those four chapters do you hear God defending Himself. He just reminds them who’s who.
God Will Be God, Whether Harrison Likes It Or Not
Guy P. Harrison thinks the Christian God is unfair. It’s as if he thinks he’s got the goods on God; as if he knows enough to pronounce judgment. God will let him carry on for a while, just as He did Job’s friends. The day will come, though, when God will speak out of the whirlwind. “Which one of us is God here: You or Me?”
Harrison probably won’t like this answer. It leaves a lot out. God doesn’t always explain or defend His justice. He doesn’t have to: We have no business judging Him.
God isn’t offering him an unbiased upbringing, either, with ten or fifteen different false gods to choose from. God will be God, the One True God, in Harrison’s life, whether he likes it or not.
Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) is a senior editor with The Stream and the author or editor of six books, including the recently released Too Good To Be False: How Jesus’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality.


thestream--2020-09-26--Sen. Feinstein and the Barrett Nomination: Does Dogma Divide?

Note : This afternoon at the White House President Donald Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be the next Associate Justice on the Supreme Court , replacing the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
Senator Dianne Feinstein ’ s yoda-like rebuke of Amy Coney Barrett may well go down not only as her personal catch phrase , but as the slogan for the California senator ’ s entire army of comrades .
Dogma is defined as “ a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
” As Barrett is a practicing Catholic , her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teachings of the Christian faith .
Feinstein ’ s fear of dogma is nothing new .
In fact , the repudiation of dogma is the dogma of the left , and it has an interesting history .
Dogma — the idea that there is an authoritative truth is the opposite of relativism — the concept that there is no such thing as truth , or if there is you can ’ t state it in a definitive way .
Rusty Reno ’ s recent book , Return of the Strong Gods is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The short version is that two world wars left Western civilization with a huge case of post traumatic stress disorder .
With heads in their hands , the thinkers concluded that we kill one another because of dogma .
Dogma divides because belief in dogma brings us to say “ I ’ m right and you ’ re wrong.
” Since being right is good and being wrong is bad , the other guy is not only wrong , he ’ s bad .
Because good must defeat evil we ( who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rid of what is bad .
Because we are good and you are bad we must get rid of you , and the only way to really get rid of you is to kill you.
” So , they argued , “ Dogma brought us two world wars , Auschwitz , the atomic bomb , communism and global unrest.
” The thinkers traced the European wars and revolutions of the twentieth century back through the centuries to the religious wars that followed the Protestant revolution .
They reasoned that it was religious dogma @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ since dogma divides and leads to violence we must get rid of dogma.
” Reno draws from a range of philosophers , economists , social theorists , politicians , planners , theologians , sociologists and journalists to make his point .
He shows how , across various disciplines , a consensus emerged that called for relativism rather than revealed truth , situational ethics rather than the dictates of moral theology , multiculturalism instead of nationalism and toleration rather than bigotry .
The political version was democracy , the economic version was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sentimental , pastoral , ecumenically minded , interfaith religion that provides an accompanying soft and gooey spirituality to the liberal dream .
Senator Feinstein ’ s fear of dogma is simply the post-war liberal consensus boiled down to a quotable quote .
What is amazing is that very few people have stopped to think about the abolition of dogma by the intellectual elite .
Do they have a case ?
Does dogma divide ?
Should it be banned ?
Shall we all hold hands and sing John Lennon ’ s Imagine ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that dogma divides because truth divides .
Two plus two equals four and that divides those who believe in arithmetic from everyone else who believes two plus two equals some other number .
Dogma is simply the statement of truth .
As such , one could say dogma unites rather than divides .
It unites everyone who wishes to follow the truth and divides them from those who wish not to .
We can not live without dogma , and if we will not have the dogma of the Christian faith , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other , more fearsome religion .
The Christian dogma will be replaced by any number of other sets of ideological dogma : feminist dogma , communist dogma , environmentalist dogma , racist dogma , fascist dogma , white supremacist dogma … and the list could go on and on .
Furthermore , those who wish to abolish dogma are the ones who end up being the most dogmatic .
The fact is , we can not abolish dogma .
All we can do is choose our dogma .
Who Says So ?
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the question then arises , who is the authority for that dogma ?
Who says so ?
What is the source of authority ?
How do you know and where do you find it ?
It is true that religious creeds , rules and regulations divide , but dogma itself should not .
To understand this , one must first understand what dogma really is and how it relates to a lived Christian experience .
Christians believe their religion is revealed not relative .
God ’ s truth is revealed in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sacred Scriptures and the historic church are witnesses to that revealed truth .
Critics of Christianity will deny and denigrate the stated truths of the Christian faith , but the particular dogmas Christians believe are not the core of the faith .
They are simply the witness and articulation of the primary revelation of God in Christ Jesus .
Christian religion , therefore , is not essentially a written creed or a list of do ’ s and don ’ ts .
It is a personal experience of a living tradition .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The dogma is merely the record of that encounter .
It is the notes on the page of the score of music , but it is not the music .
The dogma is the map for the journey , but it is not the journey .
The dogma is the rules for the game , but it is not the game .
Senator Feinstein need not be afraid of Christian dogma , for true Christian dogma is merely the pointer to something far greater .
All of us should fear a religion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulations and statements of belief .
We should definitely be afraid of any religion that forces others to submit at the point of a sword , and we should rightly resist any religion that uses any kind of force to suppress or coerce others .
This kind of religion , however , is not true Christianity .
True Christianity consists of a supernatural relationship with Jesus Christ that transforms a person from the inside out .
It is not a forced intervention , but a kind invitation to a new kind of existence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with all that is beautiful , good and true — and connects with a life that is abundant and truly free .
Fr Dwight Longenecker is a Catholic priest working in South Carolina .
His new book Immortal Combat-Confronting the Heart of Darkness explores the roots of unrest in our contemporary world .

Note: This afternoon at the White House President Donald Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be the next Associate Justice on the Supreme Court, replacing the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
“The dogma lives loudly in you.”
Senator Dianne Feinstein’s yoda-like rebuke of Amy Coney Barrett may well go down not only as her personal catch phrase, but as the slogan for the California senator’s entire army of comrades.
Dogma is defined as “a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.” As Barrett is a practicing Catholic, her dogma is the historic creed and moral teachings of the Christian faith. Feinstein’s fear of dogma is nothing new. In fact, the repudiation of dogma is the dogma of the left, and it has an interesting history.
The Post War Consensus
Dogma, the idea that there is an authoritative truth, is the opposite of relativism, the concept that there is no such thing as truth, or if there is you can’t state it in a definitive way.
Rusty Reno’s recent book Return of the Strong Gods is an excellent explanation of the roots of relativism. The short version is that two world wars left Western civilization with a huge case of post-traumatic stress disorder. With heads in their hands, the thinkers concluded that we kill one another because of dogma.
The fact is, we cannot abolish dogma. All we can do is choose our dogma.
Dogma divides because belief in dogma brings us to say “I’m right and you’re wrong.” Since being right is good and being wrong is bad, the other guy is not only wrong, he’s bad. Because good must defeat evil we (who are the good people) must get rid of what is bad. Because we are good and you are bad we must get rid of you, and the only way to really get rid of you is to kill you.”
So, they argued, “Dogma brought us two world wars, Auschwitz, the atomic bomb, communism and global unrest.”
The thinkers traced the European wars and revolutions of the twentieth century back through the centuries to the religious wars that followed the Protestant revolution. They reasoned that it was religious dogma that was the problem. They concluded, “since dogma divides and leads to violence we must get rid of dogma.”
Reno draws from a range of philosophers, economists, social theorists, politicians, planners, theologians, sociologists and journalists to make his point. He shows how, across various disciplines, a consensus emerged that called for relativism rather than revealed truth, situational ethics rather than the dictates of moral theology, multiculturalism instead of nationalism and toleration rather than bigotry.
The political version was democracy, the economic version was open markets and the spiritual vision was the sentimental, pastoral, ecumenically minded, interfaith religion that provides an accompanying soft and gooey spirituality to the liberal dream.
Feinstein’s Dogmaphobia
Senator Feinstein’s fear of dogma is simply the post-war liberal consensus boiled down to a quotable quote. What is amazing is that very few people have stopped to think about the abolition of dogma by the intellectual elite. Do they have a case? Does dogma divide? Should it be banned? Shall we all hold hands and sing John Lennon’s Imagine?
In one sense, it is true that dogma divides because truth divides. Two plus two equals four and that divides those who believe in arithmetic from everyone else who believes two plus two equals some other number. Dogma is simply the statement of truth. As such, one could say dogma unites rather than divides. It unites everyone who wishes to follow the truth and divides them from those who wish not to.
We cannot live without dogma, and if we will not have the dogma of the Christian faith, we will soon have the dogma of some other, more fearsome religion. The Christian dogma will be replaced by any number of other sets of ideological dogma: feminist dogma, communist dogma, environmentalist dogma, racist dogma, fascist dogma, white supremacist dogma … and the list could go on and on.
Furthermore, those who wish to abolish dogma are the ones who end up being the most dogmatic.
The fact is, we cannot abolish dogma. All we can do is choose our dogma.
Who Says So?
If all of us choose our own dogma, the question then arises, who is the authority for that dogma? Who says so? What is the source of authority? How do you know and where do you find it?
It is true that religious creeds, rules and regulations divide, but dogma itself should not. To understand this, one must first understand what dogma really is and how it relates to a lived Christian experience.
Christians believe their religion is revealed not relative. God’s truth is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, and the Sacred Scriptures and the historic church are witnesses to that revealed truth. Critics of Christianity will deny and denigrate the stated truths of the Christian faith, but the particular dogmas Christians believe are not the core of the faith. They are simply the witness and articulation of the primary revelation of God in Christ Jesus.
Christian religion, therefore, is not essentially a written creed or a list of do’s and don’ts. It is a personal experience of a living tradition. It is a vital encounter with a person. The dogma is merely the record of that encounter. It is the notes on the page of the score of music, but it is not the music. The dogma is the map for the journey, but it is not the journey. The dogma is the rules for the game, but it is not the game.
Be Not Afraid
Senator Feinstein need not be afraid of Christian dogma, for true Christian dogma is merely the pointer to something far greater.
All of us should fear a religion that is no more than rules and regulations and statements of belief. We should definitely be afraid of any religion that forces others to submit at the point of a sword, and we should rightly resist any religion that uses any kind of force to suppress or coerce others.
This kind of religion, however, is not true Christianity. True Christianity consists of a supernatural relationship with Jesus Christ that transforms a person from the inside out. It is not a forced intervention, but a kind invitation to a new kind of existence — one in which a person connects with all that is beautiful, good and true — and connects with a life that is abundant and truly free.
Fr Dwight Longenecker is a Catholic priest working in South Carolina. His new book Immortal Combat-Confronting the Heart of Darkness explores the roots of unrest in our contemporary world.


thestream--2020-09-26--Author Defends Stealing Everyone’s Stuff … Except the Author’s Stuff

In this video , we show that Vicky Osterweil ’ s book , In Defense of Looting , self-destructs in three ways .
One , it argues against other people ’ s property rights while using copyright law to protect the author ’ s property rights .
Two , it rejects property rights because they support racism while appealing to intellectual property rights , thus promoting racism .
Three , it condemns capitalism — “ We would be able to live without a wage if we freely shared the products of society ” ( p. 16 ) — but then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not freely shared with society , but rather sells for a tidy little profit at the easy-to-find capitalist mega-monster … Amazon !
Over and over , Osterweil undermines the Marxist case by doing the very things the book says shouldn ’ t be done .
In other words , Osterweil ’ s actions contradict her convictions .
Tim Barnett has worked as a speaker for Stand to Reason since 2015 , and serves on the pastoral staff of Cedarview Community Church in Newmarket , Ontario .
Originally published at Stand to Reason @ @ @ @ @

In this video, we show that Vicky Osterweil’s book, In Defense of Looting, self-destructs in three ways. One, it argues against other people’s property rights while using copyright law to protect the author’s property rights. Two, it rejects property rights because they support racism while appealing to intellectual property rights, thus promoting racism. Three, it condemns capitalism — “We would be able to live without a wage if we freely shared the products of society” (p. 16) — but then affirms capitalism in practice since the book is not freely shared with society, but rather sells for a tidy little profit at the easy-to-find capitalist mega-monster … Amazon!
Over and over, Osterweil undermines the Marxist case by doing the very things the book says shouldn’t be done. In other words, Osterweil’s actions contradict her convictions.
Tim Barnett has worked as a speaker for Stand to Reason since 2015, and serves on the pastoral staff of Cedarview Community Church in Newmarket, Ontario.
Originally published at Stand to Reason. Reprinted with permission.