thestream--2020-10-19--Does Supporting President Trump Hurt the Gospel?

The political divide in our nation among Christians seems to be fueled primarily by misinformation and false narratives .
I believe that God is allowing these differences so we can practice Scripture and love those we disagree with .
However , some groups are being outright dishonest .
For example , Not Our Faith — a bipartisan Christian group who seeks to draw away voters — keeps using the “ kids in cages ” argument .
The photo that many refer to was actually taken in 2014 , years before our current president was in office .
And some are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our Goal ?
Take those who say that Christians who support President Trump are hurting the gospel .
Their thought process goes something like this : “ When you support someone like Trump , you alienate people and turn them off to the gospel.
” In order to gain insight into this point of view , I recently spent time with Christians who take this position .
Though I left that meeting with a better understanding of how people feel , I was more convinced than ever of the dangers of allowing our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement that “ supporting the president hurts the gospel ” troubled my thoughts as I drove home .
I wondered , “ Would these same people use this argument in the late 1800s , suggesting that we shouldn ’ t support Lincoln because it could hurt our witness to slave owners ?
” Lincoln was different from President Trump , but the principle still applies : We can ’ t make decisions based on the fear that something will offend .
We must make decisions based on what is right .
Let ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurting the gospel to its logical end .
Does that also mean we shouldn ’ t speak out against abortion because it may hurt our witness to physicians who perform them ?
Or what about the parent who had an abortion — should we not mention any pro-life positions because it may offend them ?
No , it ’ s okay to speak the truth in love and then offer hope as I did in “ The Day I Told My Daughter about My Abortion Decision.
” Offering hope elevates the gospel .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Hollywood because it might offend an executive on Sunset Boulevard ?
Of course not .
Sharing the good news — the gospel — doesn ’ t work if we remain silent and capitulate to political correctness .
If you ’ re walking on eggshells and gauging every word carefully so as not to offend , your speech will be spiritually impotent .
We have too many cowards and too few Spirit-filled leaders .
As Leonard Ravenhill said , “ We have too many puppets in our pulpits and not enough prophets.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Would many of these Christians tell Jesus not to call the religious leaders whitewashed tombs and vipers because it may hurt His witness to them ( Matthew 23:23 , 27 ) ?
Would they tell Jesus not to say , “ A worse thing will come upon you unless you repent , ” ( John 5:14 ) because it will turn His hearers off ?
Would they caution Him against offending His audience when He said , “ Don ’ t fear them who can kill the body ; fear Him who can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ( Matthew 10:28 ) ?
I think we all know the answer .
In 1 Corinthians 9:22 , when Paul said , “ I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some , ” he was being culturally relevant , not truth deficient .
Our attitude shouldn ’ t offend others , but truth will .
We should be more concerned about God ’ s opinion than popular opinion .
I truly believe that a lack of boldness in the pulpit ( and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not spending sufficient time alone with God to allow His Word to empower us .
Instead of spiritual guns of boldness being loaded in the prayer closet , we are turning into passive cowards who cover our lack of boldness with political spins and worldly excuses .
We must preach the difficult truths to set people free .
The church can not neglect , water down , or avoid preaching hard things because it may offend .
Oswald Chambers reminds us that “ the words of the Lord hurt and offend until there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The gospel hurts before it helps ; it condemns before it releases .
To remove everything that offends is to remove the very foundation of the gospel .
The goal of preaching is to faithfully proclaim the Word of God , and not worry about “ crowd appeal.
” The church , as a whole , may have forgotten this vital truth , but it doesn ’ t follow that we should .
We need to be “ woke ” to the things of God and “ cancel ” cowardliness .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Special Note : With this being the most important election in our lifetime , we made my book One Nation Above God available as a free download .
It is a great resource to share with family and friends who are on the fence and for those questioning America ’ s past .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His books , blogs , and sermons can all be found at ShaneIdleman.com .

The political divide in our nation among Christians seems to be fueled primarily by misinformation and false narratives. I believe that God is allowing these differences so we can practice Scripture and love those we disagree with. However, some groups are being outright dishonest. For example, Not Our Faith — a bipartisan Christian group who seeks to draw away voters — keeps using the “kids in cages” argument. The photo that many refer to was actually taken in 2014, years before our current president was in office.
And some are just confused.
Is Not Offending Others Our Goal?
Take those who say that Christians who support President Trump are hurting the gospel. Their thought process goes something like this: “When you support someone like Trump, you alienate people and turn them off to the gospel.” In order to gain insight into this point of view, I recently spent time with Christians who take this position. Though I left that meeting with a better understanding of how people feel, I was more convinced than ever of the dangers of allowing our feelings to outweigh objective truth.
The statement that “supporting the president hurts the gospel” troubled my thoughts as I drove home. I wondered, “Would these same people use this argument in the late 1800s, suggesting that we shouldn’t support Lincoln because it could hurt our witness to slave owners?” Lincoln was different from President Trump, but the principle still applies: We can’t make decisions based on the fear that something will offend. We must make decisions based on what is right.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Let’s take this line of thinking about hurting the gospel to its logical end. Does that also mean we shouldn’t speak out against abortion because it may hurt our witness to physicians who perform them? Or what about the parent who had an abortion — should we not mention any pro-life positions because it may offend them? No, it’s okay to speak the truth in love and then offer hope as I did in “The Day I Told My Daughter about My Abortion Decision.” Offering hope elevates the gospel.
Should I stop talking about the perversion in Hollywood because it might offend an executive on Sunset Boulevard? Of course not. Sharing the good news — the gospel — doesn’t work if we remain silent and capitulate to political correctness. If you’re walking on eggshells and gauging every word carefully so as not to offend, your speech will be spiritually impotent. We have too many cowards and too few Spirit-filled leaders. As Leonard Ravenhill said, “We have too many puppets in our pulpits and not enough prophets.” I couldn’t agree more.
Would “Woke” Christians Rebuke Jesus?
Would many of these Christians tell Jesus not to call the religious leaders whitewashed tombs and vipers because it may hurt His witness to them (Matthew 23:23, 27)? Would they tell Jesus not to say, “A worse thing will come upon you unless you repent,” (John 5:14) because it will turn His hearers off? Would they caution Him against offending His audience when He said, “Don’t fear them who can kill the body; fear Him who can cast both body and soul in hell” (Matthew 10:28)? I think we all know the answer.
We must preach the difficult truths to set people free. The church cannot neglect, water down, or avoid preaching hard things because it may offend.
In 1 Corinthians 9:22, when Paul said, “I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some,” he was being culturally relevant, not truth deficient. Our attitude shouldn’t offend others, but truth will. We should be more concerned about God’s opinion than popular opinion. I truly believe that a lack of boldness in the pulpit (and the pew) is the result of not spending sufficient time alone with God to allow His Word to empower us. Instead of spiritual guns of boldness being loaded in the prayer closet, we are turning into passive cowards who cover our lack of boldness with political spins and worldly excuses.
Don’t Worry About Crowd Appeal
We must preach the difficult truths to set people free. The church cannot neglect, water down, or avoid preaching hard things because it may offend. Oswald Chambers reminds us that “the words of the Lord hurt and offend until there is nothing left to hurt and offend.” The gospel hurts before it helps; it condemns before it releases. To remove everything that offends is to remove the very foundation of the gospel.
The goal of preaching is to faithfully proclaim the Word of God, and not worry about “crowd appeal.” The church, as a whole, may have forgotten this vital truth, but it doesn’t follow that we should. We need to be “woke” to the things of God and “cancel” cowardliness. (Watch a short clip here.)
Special Note:With this being the most important election in our lifetime, we made my book One Nation Above God available as a free download. It is a great resource to share with family and friends who are on the fence and for those questioning America’s past.
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--2020-10-20--The Catholic Case for Biden, Part III: Only Torture the Innocent

We know these are painful subjects .
The last things most of us want to think about these days are probably “ Joe Biden ” and “ the U.S. Catholic bishops.
” Each is riddled with scandal .
Each has disappeared from sight , citing COVID as the pretext .
Biden “ called a lid ” on his campaign through Thursday .
Our bishops called a lid on the sacraments back in March .
But the votes of Catholics are still important in major swing states .
And it ’ s crucial that members of our nation ’ s largest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in line with real Christian principles .
So we have chosen to work our way doggedly through the principles of Catholic social teaching on major issues in this campaign .
We ’ re using as foils , more than guides , the impenetrable document the U.S. Catholic bishops created ( apparently ) to puzzle American voters — and the handy-dandy “ Catholic Voters Guide ” crafted by third-tier academics , put up on the Web , and made to look official .
It was also heavily skewed to favor Biden .
So we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by point , in this series .
Pretexts for Voting for More Gummint Cheese Not that this little document is important in itself .
People looking for excuses to support the pro-abortion Democrats will find them somewhere or other .
But it is indeed important to call out falsehoods , and defend the real value of the Christian tradition of thinking about political issues in light of human dignity , of man created by God and redeemed by Jesus .
We must call both parties to form their policies in light of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s founding in the first place .
Here in Part Three , we look at the issues Catholic Voters Guide raised next .
We ’ ll go through them one by one .
Now on one level it ’ s just silly to treat this as a black and white moral issue .
No major candidate in U.S. history has campaigned as “ pro-war ” in principle , or as an absolute pacifist .
The question is which candidates ’ policies and track record have proven most prudent at avoiding or ending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which either best meet Christian Just War principles .
Joe Biden has quite the record on this issue .
As Michael Brendan Dougherty explained in National Review , Biden has shown a kind of negative infallibility on foreign policy , managing to be wrong on the facts and wildly imprudent again and again .
He opposed the first , limited , internationally-supported Gulf War based on Iraq ’ s real invasion of Kuwait .
Then he backed the second , almost unilateral , unlimited American invasion of Iraq based on imaginary WMDs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ restored order in the country , and favored our reckless pullout that enabled ISIS .
But at least his brother James Biden ’ s company got a $ 1.5 billion contract for Iraq ’ s reconstruction .
Trump , by contrast , has shown sane restraint about U.S. military adventures .
He resisted calls for the use of force against North Korea , and entered talks with that country .
His administration led the efforts that gave us historic peace deals between Arab states and Israel .
Trump scoffed at demands by GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shoot down Russian ones over Syria — to help the “ moderate rebels ” endorsed by Sen. John McCain .
Who turned out to be al Qaeda jihadists .
Trump instead gave technical , air , and Special Forces support to Christian and Kurdish forces in Northeast Syria .
They conquered ISIS and liberated their homeland , in what might be the most just war in modern history .
We do criticize President Trump , however , for not defending our allies ’ interests against the predations of Turkey , which has used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christians .
Reject the Use of Torture We ’ re reluctant to take this one seriously for multiple reasons .
First of all , from a Catholic perspective , the Church has been on both sides of this issue over the centuries .
When it felt threatened by heretics , popes endorsed the use of torture against them , within narrow limits .
Now that the U.S. is threatened by terrorism , and the Vatican is blasé about doctrine , the Church has discovered new qualms about the practice .
Secondly , Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Capable Abortion Act , which was meant to spare innocent babies from the gruesome pain of abortion .
But let ’ s say you wish to claim that sparing terrorist detainees physical coercion aimed at gaining life-saving information is now a timeless Catholic principle .
Yes , Biden comes out ahead of Donald Trump here .
He only favors the useless torture of pre-born children .
Against the Preventative Use of Military Force For some reason , Catholic Voters Guide scores Biden as according with Church teaching here , and Trump as out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was Joe Biden who backed the disastrous Iraq War , which Trump opposed .
Biden was in office and on board with the catastrophic intervention in Libya .
This NATO-led war left that country in chaos , ISIS in control of much of it , and black slave markets once again operating in Libya .
Unfortunately , as a private citizen , Trump also fell for the propaganda demanding the removal of Gaddafi from power .
In office , however , he has been far more restrained in his use of military force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drone attack on Iranian terrorist leader Qasem Soleimani was surgical , didn ’ t harm innocent civilians , and did not bring on national chaos in that country .
Work to Reverse the Spread of Nuclear , Chemical , and Biological Weapons Catholic Voter Guide claims that Biden aligns with the Catholic bishops here , but the evidence it offers is scanty and inconclusive .
It admits that Trump ’ s position is “ inconclusive.
” But it cites as negative evidence Trump ’ s refusal to … launch a useless , counterproductive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used chemical weapons .
Such a war would have left al Qaeda jihadists in control of a country with a million Christians , and millions of other non-Sunni believers , who would have faced persecution .
Against the Direct and Intentional Targeting of Noncombatants in War or Terrorist Attacks On this issue , Catholic Voter Guide gets things right .
Both candidates have supported drone strikes against terrorists that often resulted in collateral damage killing civilians .
However , it ’ s worth weighing the actual effects of both men ’ s efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tortured Syria was to trivialize the ISIS threat .
They relied on appeasing Iran in the hopes of that country counterbalancing ISIS .
Trump tore up the appeasing Iran deal and found decent partners in the region ( the Kurdish/Syriac Christian alliance ) which quickly crushed that terrorist statelet .
Hundreds of thousands of civilians found peace and freedom as a result .
Promotes the Reallocation of Resources from Armed Conflict to the Urgent Needs of the Poor Just the wording of this screams “ agitprop !
” Both Biden and Trump favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy to meet “ the urgent needs of the poor.
” They differ , as do their parties , about how to accomplish the latter .
Biden seems to favor increasing and expanding the dependence of the poor on government handouts .
Indeed , his support of a reckless , open-ended COVID lockdown has helped put millions of Americans out of work and on the dole .
Trump ’ s successful economic policies , before the Wuhan Flu lockdowns outlawed commerce in many states , had brought about record-low unemployment figures in traditionally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s More to Come We will soldier on , in subsequent installments , through the rest of the issues relevant to Catholics and other Americans .
See Part One here , and Part Two here .
Jason Jones is a senior contributor to The Stream .
He is a film producer , author , activist and human rights worker .
You can follow him at @ JasonJonesShow .
John Zmirak is a senior editor at The Stream , and author or co-author of ten books , including The Politically Incorrect Guide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Catholicism .
Together , Jones and Zmirak wrote The Race to Save Our Century .

We know these are painful subjects. The last things most of us want to think about these days are probably “Joe Biden” and “the U.S. Catholic bishops.” Each is riddled with scandal. Each has disappeared from sight, citing COVID as the pretext. Biden “called a lid” on his campaign through Thursday. Our bishops called a lid on the sacraments back in March. But the votes of Catholics are still important in major swing states. And it’s crucial that members of our nation’s largest church cast their vote as sovereign citizens in line with real Christian principles.
So we have chosen to work our way doggedly through the principles of Catholic social teaching on major issues in this campaign. We’re using as foils, more than guides, the impenetrable document the U.S. Catholic bishops created (apparently) to puzzle American voters — and the handy-dandy “Catholic Voters Guide” crafted by third-tier academics, put up on the Web, and made to look official. It was also heavily skewed to favor Biden. So we’re responding to it, point by point, in this series.
Pretexts for Voting for More Gummint Cheese
Not that this little document is important in itself. People looking for excuses to support the pro-abortion Democrats will find them somewhere or other. But it is indeed important to call out falsehoods, and defend the real value of the Christian tradition of thinking about political issues in light of human dignity, of man created by God and redeemed by Jesus. We must call both parties to form their policies in light of this vision, the vision that inspired America’s founding in the first place.
Here in Part Three, we look at the issues Catholic Voters Guide raised next. We’ll go through them one by one.
Avoid War and Promote Peace
Now on one level it’s just silly to treat this as a black and white moral issue. No major candidate in U.S. history has campaigned as “pro-war” in principle, or as an absolute pacifist. The question is which candidates’ policies and track record have proven most prudent at avoiding or ending needless wars. That is, those which either best meet Christian Just War principles. Joe Biden has quite the record on this issue.
As Michael Brendan Dougherty explained in National Review, Biden has shown a kind of negative infallibility on foreign policy, managing to be wrong on the facts and wildly imprudent again and again. He opposed the first, limited, internationally-supported Gulf War based on Iraq’s real invasion of Kuwait. Then he backed the second, almost unilateral, unlimited American invasion of Iraq based on imaginary WMDs. He opposed the “surge” that restored order in the country, and favored our reckless pullout that enabled ISIS. But at least his brother James Biden’s company got a $1.5 billion contract for Iraq’s reconstruction.
People looking for excuses to support the pro-abortion Democrats will find them somewhere or other.
Trump, by contrast, has shown sane restraint about U.S. military adventures. He resisted calls for the use of force against North Korea, and entered talks with that country. His administration led the efforts that gave us historic peace deals between Arab states and Israel.
Trump scoffed at demands by GOP establishment neoconservatives to send U.S. planes to shoot down Russian ones over Syria — to help the “moderate rebels” endorsed by Sen. John McCain. Who turned out to be al Qaeda jihadists. Trump instead gave technical, air, and Special Forces support to Christian and Kurdish forces in Northeast Syria. They conquered ISIS and liberated their homeland, in what might be the most just war in modern history.
We do criticize President Trump, however, for not defending our allies’ interests against the predations of Turkey, which has used those al Qaeda Islamists to persecute local Christians.
Reject the Use of Torture
We’re reluctant to take this one seriously for multiple reasons. First of all, from a Catholic perspective, the Church has been on both sides of this issue over the centuries. When it felt threatened by heretics, popes endorsed the use of torture against them, within narrow limits. Now that the U.S. is threatened by terrorism, and the Vatican is blasé about doctrine, the Church has discovered new qualms about the practice.
Secondly, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris opposed the Pain Capable Abortion Act, which was meant to spare innocent babies from the gruesome pain of abortion. But let’s say you wish to claim that sparing terrorist detainees physical coercion aimed at gaining life-saving information is now a timeless Catholic principle. Yes, Biden comes out ahead of Donald Trump here. He only favors the useless torture of pre-born children.
Against the Preventative Use of Military Force
For some reason, Catholic Voters Guide scores Biden as according with Church teaching here, and Trump as out of tune with it. But it was Joe Biden who backed the disastrous Iraq War, which Trump opposed. Biden was in office and on board with the catastrophic intervention in Libya. This NATO-led war left that country in chaos, ISIS in control of much of it, and black slave markets once again operating in Libya.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Unfortunately, as a private citizen, Trump also fell for the propaganda demanding the removal of Gaddafi from power. In office, however, he has been far more restrained in his use of military force than any president in decades. His drone attack on Iranian terrorist leader Qasem Soleimani was surgical, didn’t harm innocent civilians, and did not bring on national chaos in that country.
Work to Reverse the Spread of Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Weapons
Catholic Voter Guide claims that Biden aligns with the Catholic bishops here, but the evidence it offers is scanty and inconclusive. It admits that Trump’s position is “inconclusive.” But it cites as negative evidence Trump’s refusal to … launch a useless, counterproductive war on Syria after its regime allegedly used chemical weapons. Such a war would have left al Qaeda jihadists in control of a country with a million Christians, and millions of other non-Sunni believers, who would have faced persecution.
Against the Direct and Intentional Targeting of Noncombatants in War or Terrorist Attacks
On this issue, Catholic Voter Guide gets things right. Both candidates have supported drone strikes against terrorists that often resulted in collateral damage killing civilians. However, it’s worth weighing the actual effects of both men’s efforts in office. The Obama/Biden strategy in tortured Syria was to trivialize the ISIS threat. They relied on appeasing Iran in the hopes of that country counterbalancing ISIS. Trump tore up the appeasing Iran deal and found decent partners in the region (the Kurdish/Syriac Christian alliance) which quickly crushed that terrorist statelet. Hundreds of thousands of civilians found peace and freedom as a result.
Promotes the Reallocation of Resources from Armed Conflict to the Urgent Needs of the Poor
Just the wording of this screams “agitprop!” Both Biden and Trump favor large military budgets. Both want the economy to meet “the urgent needs of the poor.” They differ, as do their parties, about how to accomplish the latter. Biden seems to favor increasing and expanding the dependence of the poor on government handouts. Indeed, his support of a reckless, open-ended COVID lockdown has helped put millions of Americans out of work and on the dole. Trump’s successful economic policies, before the Wuhan Flu lockdowns outlawed commerce in many states, had brought about record-low unemployment figures in traditionally poor and non-white communities.
Sorry, There’s More to Come
We will soldier on, in subsequent installments, through the rest of the issues relevant to Catholics and other Americans. See Part One here, and Part Two here.
Jason Jones is a senior contributor to The Stream. He is a film producer, author, activist and human rights worker. You can follow him at @JasonJonesShow.
John Zmirak is a senior editor at The Stream, and author or co-author of ten books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism.
Together, Jones and Zmirak wrote The Race to Save Our Century.


thestream--2020-10-20--New ‘Enneagram Secret’ Book Exposes This Popular ‘Type Test’ As a Dangerous Sham

You ’ d think we already had enough problems to deal with this year .
Add another one .
Evangelical presses are pumping the Enneagram as the “ sacred ” “ road back to you.
” InterVarsity Press has twelve Enneagram books in its catalog now .
Zondervan has just two that I could find , but they ’ re influential .
The Enneagram looks like a personality test .
You fill it out and get results like any other personality inventory , and it reveals “ Types.
” As one teacher , Ross Hudson , says , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ type ’ of person , but a path to God.
” From book titles on the Enneagram , it provides “ a journey to self-discovery , ” or “ your unique path to spiritual growth.
” ( I describe it further in a previous cautionary article . )
Large churches and mission organizations are embracing it , including two with which I myself have had outstanding prior connections : Cru , the mission agency with which I served for 34 years , and Rivers Crossing Community Church in Mason , Ohio , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two pastors , and where my son met his wife .
Publishers are pushing the Enneagram .
I ’ m quite sure it ’ s making them a lot of money .
Now , though , against all their corporate power , comes a pair of researchers who ’ ve done the work to show that it ’ s all based on a sham .
Don Veinot , Joy Veninot , and Marcia Montenegro don ’ t have major publisher power behind them in their new book Richard Rohr and the Enneagram Secret @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final round of editing for typos .
I don ’ t usually review books at this stage of not-quite-readiness , but I feel I must make an exception this time , because someone has to stand up to these big publishers and say “ Stop !
” Someone has to come alongside Christian friends , too , and give them a friendly warning .
Richard Rohr figures prominently in their book ’ s title , because his name looms large in virtually all Christian Enneagram publications .
Suzanne Stabile , author and/or editor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says “ whatever my teaching has become is easily traced back to him.
” ( The Road Back to You , 231 . )
He wrote the Foreword to Christopher Heuertz ’ s The Sacred Enneagram : Finding Your Unique Path to Spiritual Growth ( Zondervan , 2017 ) .
He ’ s a strange mentor for these evangelical presses to feature so brightly , for as Veinot and Montenegro clearly document , Rohr is an out-and-out Christian heretic .
They quote from his website , where he teaches that creation was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incarnation .
He denies Jesus ’ bodily resurrection .
He affirms an old Gnostic heresy , that Jesus and the Christ are two distinct beings .
Veinot and Montenegro quote him speaking of “ the eternal Christ , the Body of God , which is all of creation .
… Jesus and Christ are not exactly the same.
” An article in The New Yorker tells us confirms that .
“ Rohr argues that the spirit of Christ is not the same as the person of Jesus .
Christ — essentially , God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has existed since the beginning of time , suffuses everything in creation , and has been present in all cultures and civilizations .
Jesus is an incarnation of that spirit , and following him is our ‘ best shortcut ’ to accessing it.
” This is not Christianity .
Jesus is no “ shortcut ” !
He ’ s not merely our best way to God ’ s love , He ’ s the only way .
So at this point we must take note that the New Testament condemns nothing so severely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forth a false gospel under the guise of Christianity .
Rohr fits that pattern perfectly .
It ’ s strange to see these authors and publishers give him such a platform .
Not just strange , though ; it ’ s manifestly unbiblical .
So the Enneagram and some of its promoters can be connected to a seriously false teacher .
Does that mean the Enneagram is bad in itself ?
There are certainly more falsehoods surrounding it .
Alice Fryling ’ s Mirror for the Soul : A Christian Guide to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its history badly wrong .
She says the Enneagram ’ s “ Christian roots ” “ probably go back to the desert mothers and fathers of the fourth century.
” Veinot and Montenegro examine that claim in detail , and find that it ’ s off by 15 centuries or so .
The mythological history continues anyway .
Some Enneagram authors say Ramon Llull used it to evangelize Muslims in the 13th century .
Veinot and Montenegro straighten out the myth , telling us Llull “ drew many diagrams overlaying all sorts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these … represent the symbol we recognize today as the Enneagram.
” There ’ s also “ zero evidence , ” they say , that “ he used the tool to evangelize Muslims.
” So what do we know for sure about it ?
The “ only certain history , ” say Veinot and Montenegro , “ is that the Enneagram begins with a man named G. I. Gurdjieff , ” who lived from around 1866 to 1949 .
So much for ancient origins .
Gurdjieff “ believed all the secret laws of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diagram.
” Gurdjieff ’ s teachings have strong associations with what we call New Age beliefs today .
From him the Enneagram ’ s history continues through an occult teacher named Oscar Ichazo ( 1931-2020 ) , then New Ager Claudio Naranjo ( 1932-2019 ) , and from there through another misguided step or two to Richard Rohr .
But What If It ’ s Good Anyway ?
One might still ask , does that mean it ’ s a bad idea to use it ?
Let ’ s start with the easy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea to publish books purveying nonsense about its origins .
And surely by now you must be wondering whether anything that gets off to such a bad start can come to a good end .
Good question .
Veinot and Montenegro document Suzanne Stabile and co-author Ian Cron saying “ Jesus represents all numbers ; it has been said in Christian Enneagram tradition that the Enneagram is the face of God.
” That ’ s not coming to a good end .
There ’ s more , naturally .
Enneagram promoters teach finding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ authentic self ” through the tool .
Veinot and Montenegro point out how this “ resembles the Gnostic teachings in offering a special , ‘ hidden ’ knowledge of a ‘ true self.
’ ” Christopher Heuretz titled his book The Sacred Enneagram .
What makes it sacred ?
Is this not also sending believers down a false path ?
According to Veinot and Montenegro , “ Heuertz redefines redemption as following your personal path on the Enneagram.
” If that ’ s accurate , then it ’ s a terribly false @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Use It , Though ?
Still Veinot and Montenegro ask — and it ’ s a good question — even if it has all these bad associations , can ’ t God redeem it for good use anyway ?
So many Christians claiming so much good from it , after all !
Isn ’ t it at least useful as a personality assessment ?
The answer to that is no .
It doesn ’ t pass any of the standard psychometric validation tests .
Translated into non-tech language , that still means what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no .
As a personality test , there ’ s no good evidence it measures what it claims to measure .
Some say it ’ s not a personality test anyway , it ’ s just your guide to a closer walk with God .
Veinot and Montenegro beg to differ .
God already gave us guides : The Word , the Holy Spirit , and the wisdom and fellowship of His people .
The Enneagram isn ’ t on that list Bored With the Bible ?
This Is Not the Answer Bored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Enneagram !
That ’ s Heuertz ’ s advice .
Sorry , but no , not me .
Not Veinot or Montegro , either .
Maybe you ’ re one of those who love the Enneagram .
You have plenty of company .
Have you given it the kind of study it calls for , though ?
You owe it to yourself to read this book and find out what you ’ re getting yourself into .
Tom Gilson ( @ TomGilsonAuthor ) is a senior editor with The Stream and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including the recently released Too Good To Be False : How Jesus ’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality .

You’d think we already had enough problems to deal with this year. Add another one. Evangelical presses are pumping the Enneagram as the “sacred” “road back to you.” InterVarsity Press has twelve Enneagram books in its catalog now. Zondervan has just two that I could find, but they’re influential.
The Enneagram looks like a personality test. You fill it out and get results like any other personality inventory, and it reveals “Types.” As one teacher, Russ Hudson, says, however, “Type isn’t a ‘type’ of person, but a path to God.” From book titles on the Enneagram, it provides “a journey to self-discovery,” or “your unique path to spiritual growth.” (I describe it further in a previous cautionary article.)
Large churches and mission organizations are embracing it, including two with which I myself have had outstanding prior connections: Cru, the mission agency with which I served for 34 years, and Rivers Crossing Community Church in Mason, Ohio, where I’ve had great fellowship with two pastors, and where my son met his wife.
Publishers are pushing the Enneagram. I’m quite sure it’s making them a lot of money. Now, though, against all their corporate power, comes a pair of researchers who’ve done the work to show that it’s all based on a sham.
Don Veinot, Joy Veninot, and Marcia Montenegro don’t have major publisher power behind them in their new book Richard Rohr and the Enneagram Secret. They’re still planning one final round of editing for typos. I don’t usually review books at this stage of not-quite-readiness, but I feel I must make an exception this time, because someone has to stand up to these big publishers and say “Stop!” Someone has to come alongside Christian friends, too, and give them a friendly warning.
Richard Rohr, Enneagram Leader, Christian Heretic
Richard Rohr figures prominently in their book’s title, because his name looms large in virtually all Christian Enneagram publications. Suzanne Stabile, author and/or editor of at least ten IVP books, says “whatever my teaching has become is easily traced back to him.” (The Road Back to You, 231.) He wrote the Foreword to Christopher Heuertz’s The Sacred Enneagram: Finding Your Unique Path to Spiritual Growth (Zondervan, 2017).
He’s a strange mentor for these evangelical presses to feature so brightly, for as Veinot and Montenegro clearly document, Rohr is an out-and-out Christian heretic. They quote from his website, where he teaches that creation was “the cosmic Christ’s” first incarnation. He denies Jesus’ bodily resurrection. He affirms an old Gnostic heresy, that Jesus and the Christ are two distinct beings. Veinot and Montenegro quote him speaking of “the eternal Christ, the Body of God, which is all of creation. … Jesus and Christ are not exactly the same.”
He’s a strange mentor for these evangelical presses to feature so brightly.
An article in The New Yorker tells us confirms that. “Rohr argues that the spirit of Christ is not the same as the person of Jesus. Christ — essentially, God’s love for the world — has existed since the beginning of time, suffuses everything in creation, and has been present in all cultures and civilizations. Jesus is an incarnation of that spirit, and following him is our ‘best shortcut’ to accessing it.”
This is not Christianity. Jesus is no “shortcut”! He’s not merely our best way to God’s love, He’s the only way. So at this point we must take note that the New Testament condemns nothing so severely as it condemns false teachers, putting forth a false gospel under the guise of Christianity. Rohr fits that pattern perfectly. It’s strange to see these authors and publishers give him such a platform. Not just strange, though; it’s manifestly unbiblical.
Unraveling the Enneagram’s False History
So the Enneagram and some of its promoters can be connected to a seriously false teacher. Does that mean the Enneagram is bad in itself? There are certainly more falsehoods surrounding it. Alice Fryling’s Mirror for the Soul: A Christian Guide to the Enneagram (IVP, 2017) gets its history badly wrong. She says the Enneagram’s “Christian roots” “probably go back to the desert mothers and fathers of the fourth century.” Veinot and Montenegro examine that claim in detail, and find that it’s off by 15 centuries or so.
The mythological history continues anyway. Some Enneagram authors say Ramon Llull used it to evangelize Muslims in the 13th century. Veinot and Montenegro straighten out the myth, telling us Llull “drew many diagrams overlaying all sorts of different shapes. … but none of these … represent the symbol we recognize today as the Enneagram.” There’s also “zero evidence,” they say, that “he used the tool to evangelize Muslims.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
So what do we know for sure about it? The “only certain history,” say Veinot and Montenegro, “is that the Enneagram begins with a man named G. I. Gurdjieff,” who lived from around 1866 to 1949. So much for ancient origins. Gurdjieff “believed all the secret laws of the universe could be seen in his diagram.”
Gurdjieff’s teachings have strong associations with what we call New Age beliefs today. From him the Enneagram’s history continues through an occult teacher named Oscar Ichazo (1931-2020), then New Ager Claudio Naranjo (1932-2019), and from there through another misguided step or two to Richard Rohr.
But What If It’s Good Anyway?
One might still ask, does that mean it’s a bad idea to use it? Let’s start with the easy answer: It’s a bad idea to publish books purveying nonsense about its origins. And surely by now you must be wondering whether anything that gets off to such a bad start can come to a good end.
Good question. Veinot and Montenegro document Suzanne Stabile and co-author Ian Cron saying “Jesus represents all numbers; it has been said in Christian Enneagram tradition that the Enneagram is the face of God.” That’s not coming to a good end.
“Heuertz redefines redemption as following your personal path on the Enneagram.”
There’s more, naturally. Enneagram promoters teach finding “the true self,” an “authentic self” through the tool. Veinot and Montenegro point out how this “resembles the Gnostic teachings in offering a special, ‘hidden’ knowledge of a ‘true self.’”
Christopher Heuretz titled his book The Sacred Enneagram. What makes it sacred? Is this not also sending believers down a false path? According to Veinot and Montenegro, “Heuertz redefines redemption as following your personal path on the Enneagram.” If that’s accurate, then it’s a terribly false gospel.
Can’t God Still Use It, Though?
Still Veinot and Montenegro ask — and it’s a good question — even if it has all these bad associations, can’t God redeem it for good use anyway? So many Christians claiming so much good from it, after all! Isn’t it at least useful as a personality assessment?
The answer to that is no. It doesn’t pass any of the standard psychometric validation tests. Translated into non-tech language, that still means what I said before: The answer is no. As a personality test, there’s no good evidence it measures what it claims to measure.
Some say it’s not a personality test anyway, it’s just your guide to a closer walk with God. Veinot and Montenegro beg to differ. God already gave us guides: The Word, the Holy Spirit, and the wisdom and fellowship of His people. The Enneagram isn’t on that list
Bored With the Bible? This Is Not the Answer
Our authors quote Enneagram advocate Chris Heuertz:
I sort of wonder if the evolved evangelical is getting a little worn out from the same old literal Bible study interpretations of stuff … bored with what their tradition offers, and therefore, they find a deeper and more contemplative system like the Enneagram offers.
Bored with the Bible? Jump on over to the Enneagram! That’s Heuertz’s advice. Sorry, but no, not me. Not Veinot or Montenegro, either.
Maybe you’re one of those who love the Enneagram. You have plenty of company. Have you given it the kind of study it calls for, though? You owe it to yourself to read this book and find out what you’re getting yourself into.
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--2020-10-20--Military Photo of the Day: Life-Fire Exercise Aboard the USS America

A U.S. Marine fires a rifle during a recent live-fire exercise aboard the U.S. Navy amphibious assault ship USS America @ @ @ @ @ brave warrior and his fellow Marines for serving our country overseas .

A U.S. Marine fires a rifle during a recent live-fire exercise aboard the U.S. Navy amphibious assault ship USS America.
Thank you to this brave warrior and his fellow Marines for serving our country overseas.
React to This Article What do you think of our coverage in this article? We value your feedback as we continue to grow.


thestream--2020-10-20--Final Presidential Debate Preview: Trump Teed Up for a Knock-Out

By the end of Thursday night ’ s presidential debate , the 2020 Election may be over .
And there ’ s nothing moderator Kristen Welker , Facebook , Twitter , Google , the Resistance , Pelosi , the COVID-terror merchants , or the Media can do about it .
Operative word there is “ may.
” The potential is there for Joe Biden to suffer a humiliating , campaign crushing , demoralizing defeat .
As Baltimore congressional candidate Kim Klacik might say , “ Come walk with me.
” Do you remember the third debate between Donald Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond Hillary looking pretty sharp in a white pantsuit and very favorable lighting .
Why ?
Because surprisingly , she was a non-factor in the debate .
A supporting player .
The real contest that night was between Donald Trump and “ Could he really be president ?
” She actually lost the second debate , right after the Access Hollywood tape came out .
She didn ’ t finish Trump off .
Fatal mistake .
By the third debate , it was clear America did not want to elect Hillary .
Only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forced to elect her because Trump was too risky a choice ?
” Hence , the third debate was all about kicking Trump ’ s tires .
Hillary might as well have spent the night at yoga classes .
In Thursday ’ s debate , Trump will be the known factor .
Biden is the question mark .
And in this debate , that spells trouble for Uncle Joe .
Or shall we call him , “ The Big Guy ” ?
I wrote before the first debate that Joe Biden had one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had to get through the 90 minutes without looking like a dementia-stricken gaffe machine halfway in the grave .
Nothing else mattered .
With the help of Chris Wallace , and unfortunately , Trump , Biden managed this task .
Trump , I wrote , had one major task , too : Keep to his record ; keep gentle , even genial , pressure on Biden ; and let Biden hang himself .
Unfortunately , Trump found himself in a two-on-one fight and “ gentle ” went out the door .
He went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the media spin that followed , Biden ’ s interruptions , nasty cracks , lies and policy disasters got ignored .
Orange Man Bad .
But Thursday ’ s debate is a different game .
What Trump Must Do Donald Trump ’ s task remains the same … but with the added bonus of being a COVID survivor : Keep touting his successes and show off the smile .
Flood the stage with the I-Beat-COVID-Like-a-Drum positivity .
Present genuine optimism against Biden ’ s doom and gloom .
He ’ s the guy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the guy who hides in his basement , including three days this week .
He ’ s the guy who , love it or like it , lays out his thoughts and plans for voters to see .
Joe ’ s the guy who says you don ’ t deserve to know his plans … while being protected by a media who will only ask him what flavor milk shake he ordered .
Trump Must Ask About the Corruption , Because Moderator Won ’ t Trump must keep gentle pressure on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump has the facts .
Any road Biden tries to go down , Trump has an Obama-Biden superhighway to hell .
Donald Trump must keep calling on Biden to give answers for the corruption allegations .
Heaven knows moderator Welker won ’ t .
Use the two minutes where Biden can ’ t interrupt to spell out what Big Tech was so desperate for voters not to hear .
But he must do it with calm curiosity .
Not anger .
It won ’ t help , and he doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the picking .
For example , “ Your brother James is being investigated and sued for fraud over a health company called Americore .
James told investors that you were really excited about what Americore was doing , and you were going to implement some of their policies in your campaign.
” “ Simple question , big guy : Was James lying when he said he talked with you about this company or are you lying when you say you never discuss your son and brothers ’ businesses ?
” Biden is trapped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American people , or he ’ s just convicted his brother of fraud .
Another example : “ A company with little experience in construction walks into your office while you ’ re overseeing Iraq in 2010 .
Three weeks later , they hire your brother James as VP .
James has less construction experience than my son Barron .
Yet within months they land a $ 1.5 billion deal together to construct 100,000 homes in Iraq .
Now , I ’ m in construction .
I know that ’ s not coincidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal ?
10 % or 50 % .
” Trump ’ s Six Advantages He Didn ’ t Have in the First Debate In addition to gaining in the polls , Donald Trump has five advantages he didn ’ t have in the first debate : First : He beat COVID and is running around the country drawing massive crowds , with the energy and enthusiasm of a teen idol .
Biden ’ s been hiding in a basement .
When he does venture out , he draws crickets and horn-honking Trump supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden ’ s “ No , voters do not deserve to know ” his position on court packing .
Keep hitting that Swamp Creature : Joe doesn ’ t think voters deserve to know anything .
Third : He ’ s got Joe Biden saying he ’ s running for Senate .
“ Good to know you ’ re running for President .
A few days ago you thought you were running for Senate.
” Fourth : He ’ s got Kamala Harris ’ s dismal , snotty performance against Mike Pence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good chance of being president .
“ Why do you think Pelosi ’ s talking using the 25th amendment ?
Wasn ’ t talking about me.
” Fifth : He ’ s got new evidence Biden lied about his involvement in Hunter ’ s Burisma business .
He ’ s got solid evidence Joe Biden sold the Vice Presidency to China .
He ’ s got the line “ My family gave up our riches to serve the country .
You gave up the country to enrich your family.
” Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the teeth … and the target ’ s a lot bigger than it was two weeks ago .
What Joe Must Do Joe Biden has a much more difficult task this time out , and there ’ s only so much the moderator will be able to do to help him .
Joe Biden has to go a full 90 minutes once again on a stage against the most energetic politician in over a century .
He has to do so without getting completely lost in nonsense , or making some horrific gaffe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or looking angry and shattering his Nice-Guy-Joe persona .
His touchy-feely ads mean nothing if he comes across as grouchy and mean-spirited .
Yet , this time Joe has more hurdles to face .
This time , Joe will be forced by the Debate Commission ’ s last-minute rule changes to speak several times for two minutes straight .
And Trump will be coached to let him ramble at other times .
This time , Joe Biden has to answer for saying voters “ don ’ t deserve ” to know his position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he has to fully answer for the new evidence showing how he and his family have cashed in on his public office .
That he lied about not being involved in his son ’ s Burisma dealings .
That he benefited from a pay-to-play schemes involving the Communist Chinese .
Every single time Joe Biden has been asked about his son ’ s business shenanigans , he has lost his temper .
Sure , he is being coached how to answer in the debate , but if Trump keeps pushing different elements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he hold out before his temper bursts ?
In the last debate , Joe Biden had an advantage .
Just surviving meant winning .
This time out , Joe Biden has to beat back Father Time for a second straight time , beat back devastating allegations , beat back his 47 year record in the Swamp , beat back the successes of the Trump presidency , beat back our desire to move forward past COVID , and beat a surging Donald Trump .
Trump Could Take Him Out I said at the top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Of course , anything could happen .
It ’ s 2020 .
And the moderator is NBC ’ s Kristen Welker , a liberal who won ’ t ever be allowed to show her face at 30 Rock again if she doesn ’ t baby Biden , and try to destroy Trump .
And did we mention it ’ s 2020 ?
Still , the pieces are in place for Joe Biden to have a terrible night .
And for Donald Trump to so thoroughly dominate and decimate that going the full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Don ’ t call it a prediction .
Call it a strong suspicion .
A moment will come during the debate when American voters tuning in will know in their hearts , “ It ’ s over.
” And no amount of spin or social media smothering will be able to hide it .
Al Perrotta is the Managing Editor of The Stream and co-author , with @ JZmirak , of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration .
You can follow him at @ StreamingAl .
And if you aren ’ t already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Streamdotorg .

By the end of Thursday night’s presidential debate, the 2020 Election may be over. And there’s nothing moderator Kristen Welker, Facebook, Twitter, Google, the Resistance, Pelosi, the COVID-terror merchants, or the Media can do about it.
Operative word there is “may.” The potential is there for Joe Biden to suffer a humiliating, campaign crushing, demoralizing defeat.
As Baltimore congressional candidate Kim Klacik might say, “Come walk with me.”
A Quick Look Back at 2016
First stop, 2016.
Do you remember the third debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton? Probably not much, beyond Hillary looking pretty sharp in a white pantsuit and very favorable lighting. Why? Because surprisingly, she was a non-factor in the debate. A supporting player. The real contest that night was between Donald Trump and “Could he really be president?”
She actually lost the second debate, right after the Access Hollywood tape came out. She didn’t finish Trump off. Fatal mistake. By the third debate, it was clear America did not want to elect Hillary. Only question was: “Would we be forced to elect her because Trump was too risky a choice?” Hence, the third debate was all about kicking Trump’s tires. Hillary might as well have spent the night at yoga classes.
In Thursday’s debate, Trump will be the known factor. Biden is the question mark. And in this debate, that spells trouble for Uncle Joe. Or shall we call him, “The Big Guy”?
The First Debate
I wrote before the first debate that Joe Biden had one task and one task only: He had to get through the 90 minutes without looking like a dementia-stricken gaffe machine halfway in the grave. Nothing else mattered. With the help of Chris Wallace, and unfortunately, Trump, Biden managed this task.
Trump, I wrote, had one major task, too: Keep to his record; keep gentle, even genial, pressure on Biden; and let Biden hang himself. Unfortunately, Trump found himself in a two-on-one fight and “gentle” went out the door. He went full MMA fighter from Queens. In the media spin that followed, Biden’s interruptions, nasty cracks, lies and policy disasters got ignored. Orange Man Bad.
But Thursday’s debate is a different game.
What Trump Must Do
Donald Trump’s task remains the same … but with the added bonus of being a COVID survivor: Keep touting his successes and show off the smile. Flood the stage with the I-Beat-COVID-Like-a-Drum positivity. Present genuine optimism against Biden’s doom and gloom.
He’s the guy who dances to “YMCA.” Joe’s the guy who hides in his basement, including three days this week.
He’s the guy who, love it or like it, lays out his thoughts and plans for voters to see. Joe’s the guy who says you don’t deserve to know his plans … while being protected by a media who will only ask him what flavor milk shake he ordered.
Trump Must Ask About the Corruption, Because Moderator Won’t
Trump must keep gentle pressure on Biden. Not harsh. Not interrupting. Trump has the facts. Any road Biden tries to go down, Trump has an Obama-Biden superhighway to hell.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Donald Trump must keep calling on Biden to give answers for the corruption allegations. Heaven knows moderator Welker won’t. Use the two minutes where Biden can’t interrupt to spell out what Big Tech was so desperate for voters not to hear.
But he must do it with calm curiosity. Not anger. It won’t help, and he doesn’t need it. Joe is ripe for the picking.
For example, “Your brother James is being investigated and sued for fraud over a health company called Americore. James told investors that you were really excited about what Americore was doing, and you were going to implement some of their policies in your campaign.”
“Simple question, big guy: Was James lying when he said he talked with you about this company or are you lying when you say you never discuss your son and brothers’ businesses?”
Biden is trapped. Either he admits lying to the American people, or he’s just convicted his brother of fraud.
Another example: “A company with little experience in construction walks into your office while you’re overseeing Iraq in 2010. Three weeks later, they hire your brother James as VP. James has less construction experience than my son Barron. Yet within months they land a $1.5 billion deal together to construct 100,000 homes in Iraq. Now, I’m in construction. I know that’s not coincidence. What was your cut on that deal? 10% or 50%.”
Trump’s Six Advantages He Didn’t Have in the First Debate
In addition to gaining in the polls, Donald Trump has five advantages he didn’t have in the first debate:
First: He beat COVID and is running around the country drawing massive crowds, with the energy and enthusiasm of a teen idol. Biden’s been hiding in a basement. When he does venture out, he draws crickets and horn-honking Trump supporters.
Second: He’s got Joe Biden’s “No, voters do not deserve to know” his position on court packing. Keep hitting that Swamp Creature: Joe doesn’t think voters deserve to know anything.
Third: He’s got Joe Biden saying he’s running for Senate. “Good to know you’re running for President. A few days ago you thought you were running for Senate.”
Fourth: He’s got Kamala Harris’s dismal, snotty performance against Mike Pence. Constantly remind people, Kamala has a good chance of being president. “Why do you think Pelosi’s talking using the 25th amendment? Wasn’t talking about me.”
Fifth: He’s got new evidence Biden lied about his involvement in Hunter’s Burisma business. He’s got solid evidence Joe Biden sold the Vice Presidency to China. He’s got the line “My family gave up our riches to serve the country. You gave up the country to enrich your family.”
Sixth: He’s dancing.
Donald Trump goes into the final debate armed to the teeth … and the target’s a lot bigger than it was two weeks ago.
What Joe Must Do
Joe Biden has a much more difficult task this time out, and there’s only so much the moderator will be able to do to help him.
Joe Biden has to go a full 90 minutes once again on a stage against the most energetic politician in over a century. He has to do so without getting completely lost in nonsense, or making some horrific gaffe. Or looking old and feeble. Or looking angry and shattering his Nice-Guy-Joe persona. His touchy-feely ads mean nothing if he comes across as grouchy and mean-spirited.
Yet, this time Joe has more hurdles to face. This time, Joe will be forced by the Debate Commission’s last-minute rule changes to speak several times for two minutes straight. And Trump will be coached to let him ramble at other times.
This time, Joe Biden has to answer for saying voters “don’t deserve” to know his position on court packing.
And most explosively, he has to fully answer for the new evidence showing how he and his family have cashed in on his public office. That he lied about not being involved in his son’s Burisma dealings. That he benefited from pay-to-play schemes involving the Communist Chinese.
Every single time Joe Biden has been asked about his son’s business shenanigans, he has lost his temper. Sure, he is being coached how to answer in the debate, but if Trump keeps pushing different elements of the scandal, how long can he hold out before his temper bursts?
In the last debate, Joe Biden had an advantage. Just surviving meant winning.
This time out, Joe Biden has to beat back Father Time for a second straight time, beat back devastating allegations, beat back his 47 year record in the Swamp, beat back the successes of the Trump presidency, beat back our desire to move forward past COVID, and beat a surging Donald Trump.
That is a monumental task.
Trump Could Take Him Out
I said at the top that Election 2020 could well end here. Of course, anything could happen. It’s 2020. And the moderator is NBC’s Kristen Welker, a liberal who won’t ever be allowed to show her face at 30 Rock again if she doesn’t baby Biden, and try to destroy Trump. And did we mention it’s 2020?
Still, the pieces are in place for Joe Biden to have a terrible night. And for Donald Trump to so thoroughly dominate and decimate that going the full 90 minutes would almost seem cruel.
Don’t call it a prediction. Call it a strong suspicion. A moment will come during the debate when American voters tuning in will know in their hearts, “It’s over.” And no amount of spin or social media smothering will be able to hide it.
Al Perrotta is the Managing Editor of The Stream and co-author, with @JZmirak, of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration. You can follow him at @StreamingAl. And if you aren’t already, please follow The Stream at @Streamdotorg.


thestream--2020-10-20--When Antifa’s Barbarism Offends Worshipers of the Hindu God Kali

For months we have been saying that the spirit behind the violent protests and riots is not from above but from below .
It is the spirit of chaos .
Of lawlessness .
Of destruction .
Of murder .
It is the spirit that motivates a grown man to kneel down on a burning American flag , hold a heart over his face , and then rip it apart as the blood drips down into his mouth and onto his face .
This a picture of the spirit of Antifa .
This is straight from the pit .
As for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signify the heart of President Trump .
Watch the video for yourself ( viewer discretion advised ) and tell me if this is anything but satanic .
It was filmed at a protest in Boston this past weekend , and it doesn ’ t get much uglier than this .
The crazed protester ( really , worshiper ) , with blood splattered on his face and clothes , then shouts out repeatedly , “ I ’ m on fire !
” before rolling to his back .
Then , with his right hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along with others ) , “ Kali ma !
Kali ma !
” ( They also yell out , “ [ Expletive ] Trump !
” ) This perverse video has even come to the attention of the people of India , with a headline in OpIndia reading : “ Watch : Antifa anti-Trump protesters spread Hinduphobia , eat US President ’ s heart in symbolic ritual while chanting ‘ Kali Maa ’ .
” Indeed , “ The whole incident appears to be a remarkable demonstration of Hinduphobia and the individuals here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control of their mental faculties .
They are clearly using Goddess Kali to justify their own antisocial behaviour .
In the process , they are insulting the faith and religious sentiments of Hindus with impunity.
” And where , pray tell , did these demonized protesters get the idea of ripping out someone ’ s heart while shouting , “ Kali Ma ” ?
The answer is obvious .
It is from the movie Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom .
Specifically , it is from the horribly famous scene where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ritual of removing the still beating heart of a [ living human ! ]
sacrifice ” before lowering that human sacrifice into the fire .
This is From Below , Not From Above If you watch the video from that scene ( viewer discretion is again advised ) , you will see something that really parallels the Antifa ritual .
This includes ripping out of the heart of the victim ( this was done symbolically at the Antifa rally before the heart was ripped apart ) .
This includes the clutched right hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and of the crazed Antifa protester ) .
This includes crying out , “ Kali ma !
” ( meaning , mother Kali , the name given to the goddess Kali by millions of Hindu worshipers ) .
And this includes a frenzied crowd of fellow worshipers dancing and chanting along .
In the movie , it is clear that the people are under a spell .
In the video , it is also clear that the people are under a spell .
All of this should be branded and exposed as demonic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way beyond politics .
It is unrelated to righteous protests .
It is a crazed bloodlust in the name of a Hindu deity .
It glorifies ripping out and eating the heart of the president of the United States .
To repeat : this is from below , not from above .
Even if some of the participants were simply trying to get attention and put on a show , it takes a special kind of sick to do something like that .
And every person of conscience should call out this evil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s Rhetoric Is Unjustifiable , Yet It ’ s a Far Cry From This Darkness As for the president , I understand that he provokes lots of hatred .
I stand against his referring to CNN as “ dumb [ expletives ] ” for the network ’ s constant reporting on COVID-19 .
( The crowd at his rally in Arizona certainly enjoyed the moment . )
I stand against him responding positively to the “ Lock her up !
” chant directed at Michigan ’ s Governor Whitmer at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yes , that ’ s the same governor who was the target of a kidnapping and assassination plot just days ago . )
I stand against his ruthless trashing of members even of his own team , most recently calling Dr. Anthony Fauci “ an idiot ” who “ gets more airtime than anybody since Bob Hope.
” None of this good .
None of this is necessary .
And none of this is helpful .
To the contrary , it is ugly and it is unjustifiable .
Not only so , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with so many Americans stretched to their emotional limits , some of this rhetoric is downright dangerous .
If I could , I would plead with the president to watch his words , remembering that life and death are in the power of the tongue ( Proverbs 18:21 ) .
But Trump ’ s unfortunate rhetoric is still a far cry from the satanic madness that works through Antifa .
And it reminds us that , while Donald Trump certainly does not personify the forces of light , Antifa members certainly personify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expose them and resist them , in Jesus ’ name .
Dr. Michael Brown ( www.askdrbrown.org ) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program .
His latest book is Evangelicals at the Crossroads : Will We Pass the Trump Test ?
Connect with him on Facebook , Twitter or YouTube .

For months we have been saying that the spirit behind the violent protests and riots is not from above but from below. It is the spirit of chaos. Of lawlessness. Of destruction. Of murder. It is the spirit that motivates a grown man to kneel down on a burning American flag, hold a heart over his face, and then rip it apart as the blood drips down into his mouth and onto his face.
This a picture of the spirit of Antifa. This is straight from the pit.
As for the heart, it was intended to signify the heart of President Trump.
Watch the video for yourself (viewer discretion advised) and tell me if this is anything but satanic. It was filmed at a protest in Boston this past weekend, and it doesn’t get much uglier than this.
Yet there’s more.
Crazed Protestor Performing Bloody Mock Ritual Invokes Hindu Goddess Kali
The crazed protester (really, worshiper), with blood splattered on his face and clothes, then shouts out repeatedly, “I’m on fire!” before rolling to his back.
Then, with his right hand clutched, he begins to yell (along with others), “Kali ma! Kali ma!” (They also yell out, “[Expletive] Trump!”)
This perverse video has even come to the attention of the people of India, with a headline in OpIndia reading: “Watch: Antifa anti-Trump protesters spread Hinduphobia, eat US President’s heart in symbolic ritual while chanting ‘Kali Maa’.”
Indeed, “The whole incident appears to be a remarkable demonstration of Hinduphobia and the individuals here do not come across as people with control of their mental faculties. They are clearly using Goddess Kali to justify their own antisocial behaviour. In the process, they are insulting the faith and religious sentiments of Hindus with impunity.”
And where, pray tell, did these demonized protesters get the idea of ripping out someone’s heart while shouting, “Kali Ma”?
The answer is obvious. It is from the movie Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Specifically, it is from the horribly famous scene where the priest “Mola Ram performs the ancient ritual of removing the still beating heart of a [living human!] sacrifice” before lowering that human sacrifice into the fire.
This is From Below, Not From Above
If you watch the video from that scene (viewer discretion is again advised), you will see something that really parallels the Antifa ritual.
This includes ripping out of the heart of the victim (this was done symbolically at the Antifa rally before the heart was ripped apart).
This includes the clutched right hand (of the priest in the movie and of the crazed Antifa protester).
This includes crying out, “Kali ma!” (meaning, mother Kali, the name given to the goddess Kali by millions of Hindu worshipers).
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
And this includes a frenzied crowd of fellow worshipers dancing and chanting along.
In the movie, it is clear that the people are under a spell. In the video, it is also clear that the people are under a spell.
All of this should be branded and exposed as demonic, plain and simple. It is way beyond politics. It is unrelated to righteous protests. It is a crazed bloodlust in the name of a Hindu deity. It glorifies ripping out and eating the heart of the president of the United States.
To repeat: this is from below, not from above.
Even if some of the participants were simply trying to get attention and put on a show, it takes a special kind of sick to do something like that. And every person of conscience should call out this evil for what it is.
Some of Trump’s Rhetoric Is Unjustifiable, Yet It’s a Far Cry From This Darkness
As for the president, I understand that he provokes lots of hatred.
I stand against his referring to CNN as “dumb [expletives]” for the network’s constant reporting on COVID-19. (The crowd at his rally in Arizona certainly enjoyed the moment.)
I stand against him responding positively to the “Lock her up!” chant directed at Michigan’s Governor Whitmer at a Michigan rally over the weekend. (Yes, that’s the same governor who was the target of a kidnapping and assassination plot just days ago.)
I stand against his ruthless trashing of members even of his own team, most recently calling Dr. Anthony Fauci “an idiot” who “gets more airtime than anybody since Bob Hope.”
None of this good. None of this is necessary. And none of this is helpful. To the contrary, it is ugly and it is unjustifiable. Not only so, but it stirs up even more animosity and, with so many Americans stretched to their emotional limits, some of this rhetoric is downright dangerous.
If I could, I would plead with the president to watch his words, remembering that life and death are in the power of the tongue (Proverbs 18:21).
But Trump’s unfortunate rhetoric is still a far cry from the satanic madness that works through Antifa. And it reminds us that, while Donald Trump certainly does not personify the forces of light, Antifa members certainly personify the forces of darkness.
Let us expose them and resist them, in Jesus’ name.
Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is Evangelicals at the Crossroads: Will We Pass the Trump Test? Connect with him on Facebook, Twitter or YouTube.


thestream--2020-10-20--FOUNDATIONS: What is ‘Court Packing’ and Why is it a Significant Issue?

“ Court Packing ” hardly seems like a notable issue for our Foundations series .
It ’ s become a major talking point for this year ’ s election , however , and the implications of any political party advocating for it are frightening .
Thus , it demands our attention .
The term refers to the U.S. Supreme Court .
It ’ s a bit of a misnomer , as it seems to imply that a president will do his best to fill as many seats as possible with judges who favor his own political leaning .
Sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trip .
The size of the suitcase limits the number of clothes you can stuff inside .
That ’ s not actually what the term has come to mean , however .
The question currently being discussed has to do with actually expanding the number judges on the Supreme Court .
Back to our analogy , that wouldn ’ t mean packing more into the suitcase .
It would mean getting a bigger suitcase !
Here ’ s the real scenario that ’ s playing out in front of us .
President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a single term .
His appointment of conservative , originalist judges has caused great fury from the Left .
The passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg last month left yet another vacancy that the President can fill .
President Trump was quick to appoint conservative Amy Coney Barrett , whose Christian faith was a famous sticking point for Democrats in her appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals 3 years ago .
As of this writing , she ’ s in the middle of a new and contentious confirmation hearing before the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seats on the Supreme Court .
Depending on who you ask , the 8 remaining judges are generally split , with 5 conservative justices and 3 liberal .
Arguably it ’ s more of a 4-4 split , because Chief Justice Roberts , appointed by President George W. Bush , has very often sided with liberals in his decisions .
So how does “ court packing ” fit into this scenario ?
If the current Senate confirms Barrett , that would tip the scales in favor of conservatives to liberals , either 5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depending on how you count it .
Either way , liberals will not be happy .
If Joe Biden is elected president , and if Barrett takes that 9th seat , he might fight to increase the number of justices .
That ’ s the question under discussion now .
Suppose we go with the 5-4 perspective .
Biden could add 2 more seats raising the total 11 , and then fill those seats with liberals .
That would tip the scales back to liberals over conservatives , 6 to 5 .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and legal , let ’ s do a quick history lesson .
The U.S. Constitution gives the president authority to choose justices for the Supreme Court , but the number of seats on the court is decided by Congress .
The Constitution itself doesn ’ t actually say how many Supreme Court justices there should be .
For the first several decades of our country , that number fluctuated .
After much trial and error , Congress finally decided on 9 in 1860 .
That remained unchallenged until the 1930s .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Great Depression , and FDR began pushing for additional judges to approve his “ New Deal.
” His court-packing attempt was roundly rejected , and in fact , the large Republican sweep of Congress the next year is often blamed on this .
At any rate , the number hasn ’ t changed now in more than 150 years .
Here ’ s the trouble , and why this is such an important issue to understand .
Our Founders understood the need to keep our three branches of government separate .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the early French Republic was that there was no separation between the legislative and judicial branches .
If court packing is allowed to happen in America , the effect would be that loss of separation .
Congress , our legislative branch , could pass any law it wanted without fear of it being struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court , our judicial branch .
Where We Stand at the Moment Both presidential and vice presidential candidates Joe Biden and Kamala Harris continue to refuse to give a clear answer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has fueled a growing suspicion that , if elected , they would push to expand the number of justices .
Biden ’ s most recent statement remains , “ You ’ ll know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over.
” At the vice presidential debate a few weeks ago , Mike Pence , challenging Harris on her non-answer , said , “ This is a classic case of , if you can ’ t win by the rules , you ’ re going to change the rules , ” And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate introduced a constitutional amendment that “ the Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices.
” Which would eliminate any ability to pack the court .
The bottom line is this : the president , whoever that is , does not have the power to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court .
Only Congress can do that .
But if a certain political party decides to make it happen , it would destroy the barrier between those making laws and those who decide whether those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point , it would invalidate the Constitution ’ s intent .
It would make the Bill of Rights easy to dismiss .
It would give too much power to one party .
This article is part of a new Stream series called Foundations .
As we approach this year ’ s election , it appears that the most fundamental principles upon which the American republic was founded are being called into question .
Foundations is a tool for pastors , teachers , leaders and all people of faith to learn why , from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support the Constitution — with an emphasis on the First and Second Amendments — and wise policies that promote freedom .
Visit the Foundations page to see all the articles in this series .
This is also the first article in the series to be captured on video .
Please watch our special guest host Marissa Hays bring this topic to life .

“Court Packing” hardly seems like a notable issue for our Foundations series. It’s become a major talking point for this year’s election, however, and the implications of any political party advocating for it are frightening. Thus, it demands our attention.
The term refers to the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s a bit of a misnomer, as it seems to imply that a president will do his best to fill as many seats as possible with judges who favor his own political leaning. Sort of like packing a suitcase for a long trip. The size of the suitcase limits the number of clothes you can stuff inside.
That’s not actually what the term has come to mean, however. The question currently being discussed has to do with actually expanding the number of judges on the Supreme Court. Back to our analogy, that wouldn’t mean packing more into the suitcase. It would mean getting a bigger suitcase!
More Than a Theory
Here’s the real scenario that’s playing out in front of us. President Trump has appointed a near-unprecedented number of judges in a single term. His appointment of conservative, originalist judges has caused great fury from the Left.
The passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg last month left yet another vacancy that the President can fill. President Trump was quick to appoint conservative Amy Coney Barrett, whose Christian faith was a famous sticking point for Democrats in her appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals 3 years ago. As of this writing, she’s in the middle of a new and contentious confirmation hearing before the Senate.
Right now, there are 9 seats on the Supreme Court. Depending on who you ask, the 8 remaining judges are generally split, with 5 conservative justices and 3 liberal. Arguably it’s more of a 4-4 split, because Chief Justice Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush, has very often sided with liberals in his decisions.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
So how does “court packing” fit into this scenario? If the current Senate confirms Barrett, that would tip the scales in favor of conservatives to liberals, either 5 to 4 or 6 to 3, depending on how you count it. Either way, liberals will not be happy.
If Joe Biden is elected president, and if Barrett takes that 9th seat, he might fight to increase the number of justices. That’s the question under discussion now. Suppose we go with the 5-4 perspective. Biden could add 2 more seats raising the total 11, and then fill those seats with liberals. That would tip the scales back to liberals over conservatives, 6 to 5.
Why 9 Justices?
To understand what’s possible, likely, and legal, let’s do a quick history lesson. The U.S. Constitution gives the president authority to choose justices for the Supreme Court, but the number of seats on the court is decided by Congress. The Constitution itself doesn’t actually say how many Supreme Court justices there should be.
For the first several decades of our country, that number fluctuated. After much trial and error, Congress finally decided on 9 in 1860. That remained unchallenged until the 1930s. The country was still struggling to recover from the Great Depression, and FDR began pushing for additional judges to approve his “New Deal.” His court-packing attempt was roundly rejected, and in fact, the large Republican sweep of Congress the next year is often blamed on this. At any rate, the number hasn’t changed now in more than 150 years.
Congress, our legislative branch, could pass any law it wanted without fear of it being struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, our judicial branch.
Here’s the trouble, and why this is such an important issue to understand. Our Founders understood the need to keep our three branches of government separate. In fact, one of the major failings of the early French Republic was that there was no separation between the legislative and judicial branches. If court packing is allowed to happen in America, the effect would be that loss of separation. Congress, our legislative branch, could pass any law it wanted without fear of it being struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, our judicial branch.
Where We Stand at the Moment
Both presidential and vice presidential candidates Joe Biden and Kamala Harris continue to refuse to give a clear answer to the court packing question. Their silence has fueled a growing suspicion that, if elected, they would push to expand the number of justices. Biden’s most recent statement remains, “You’ll know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over.”
At the vice presidential debate a few weeks ago, Mike Pence, challenging Harris on her non-answer, said, “This is a classic case of, if you can’t win by the rules, you’re going to change the rules,” And just yesterday, GOP members of the Senate introduced a constitutional amendment that “the Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices.” Which would eliminate any ability to pack the court.
The bottom line is this: the president, whoever that is, does not have the power to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Only Congress can do that. But if a certain political party decides to make it happen, it would destroy the barrier between those making laws and those who decide whether those laws are constitutional. More to the point, it would invalidate the Constitution’s intent. It would make the Bill of Rights easy to dismiss. It would give too much power to one party.
To read more articles about court packing, click here.
This article is part of a new Stream series called Foundations. As we approach this year’s election, it appears that the most fundamental principles upon which the American republic was founded are being called into question. Foundations is a tool for pastors, teachers, leaders and all people of faith to learn why, from a Biblical view, we should continue to support the Constitution — with an emphasis on the First and Second Amendments — and wise policies that promote freedom. Visit the Foundations page to see all the articles in this series.


thestream--2020-10-20--Christian Voting Myth #3: ‘I Don’t Like Either Candidate, So What’s the Point?’

This is part 3 of a 4-part series debunking four common myths Christians use to not vote .
Read myth # 1 : “ One Vote Doesn ’ t Make a Difference ” ; myth # 2 : “ God Is in Charge Anyway So It Doesn ’ t Matter if I Vote ” ; and myth # 4 “ I ’ m Not in the Majority Where I Live , So Why Bother ?
” In an ideal world , you would always have the option to vote for really great people that you agree with in every respect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , your ballot may give you choices that make you feel less like you ’ re choosing someone to represent your values and more like you are choosing a cancer treatment .
In that situation , what you want most is a different option .
But sometimes there is no different option .
What should you do then ?
For a lot of people , the answer is “ nothing.
” Instead of voting , they choose to be absent from the process , absolve themselves of responsibility and blame God for allowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Bad , Better or Worse One reason it ’ s sometimes difficult to vote is because we want to support someone without reservation .
On social media , we “ like ” people that we care about , things that makes us laugh or ideas that we agree with .
Our “ like ” is our stamp of approval .
If we only like it a little bit , we ’ re likely to move on to something else .
There ’ s a temptation to treat our ballot the same way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unqualified support , we are tempted to abstain and wait for something better .
But voting is not like social media .
It ’ s more like filling a job vacancy .
The job has to be filled and the Constitution has dictated the timeline .
The fact that you haven ’ t found the ideal candidate may be frustrating , but it is not relevant to the fact that the job is going to be filled .
Your desire to find someone you can give unqualified support to is noted but not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that situation , it may be more helpful to think less about good and bad and more about better or worse .
Is that possible ?
Maybe .
Character always matters , but if a completely virtuous person is not one of your choices , maybe the policies represented by one candidate are more virtuous than the policies of the other candidates .
Is one candidate working on behalf of the abortion industry while the other works to defend life ?
Does one candidate defend conscience rights while the other supports suing nuns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Does one candidate want parents involved in their child ’ s education and health care decisions while the other wants the state to interfere with parental rights ?
In a situation where all the candidates are flawed , we might be able to find clarity if we allow ourselves to think less about people involved and more about policies that will be affected .
In addition , if there is no “ best candidate , ” it may be helpful to think about the “ best team.
” No politician works alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political party , and all candidates have donors and supporters .
Executive offices , like mayors , governors and presidents also appoint cabinet members , judges , ambassadors and thousands of other positions that affect how government operates .
Which candidate , for political reasons , is going to be pressured more often to do things you like and which candidate is going to face pressure to do things you won ’ t like ?
If the two foremen are not people you especially care for , is there a reason to prefer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sometimes seems the end is near , we do still live on earth and that means we will be consistently faced with imperfect choices .
It would be nice if the choice was always clearly good or evil , but it ’ s not .
Sometimes the choice is better or worse , and if you aren ’ t willing to choose better , you may find yourself stuck with worse .
Read myth # 4 : “ I ’ m Not in the Majority Where I Live , So Why Bother ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biblical Worldview and Strategic Engagement at Family Research Council .
He combines extensive legal , political , and policy experience with a love for the way biblical truth cultivates human flourishing .

This is part 3 of a 4-part series debunking four common myths Christians use to not vote. Read myth #1: “One Vote Doesn’t Make a Difference”; myth #2: “God Is in Charge Anyway So It Doesn’t Matter if I Vote”; and myth #4 “I’m Not in the Majority Where I Live, So Why Bother?”
Real World Choices
In an ideal world, you would always have the option to vote for really great people that you agree with in every respect. In the real world, however, your ballot may give you choices that make you feel less like you’re choosing someone to represent your values and more like you are choosing a cancer treatment. In that situation, what you want most is a different option. But sometimes there is no different option. What should you do then?
For a lot of people, the answer is “nothing.” Instead of voting, they choose to be absent from the process, absolve themselves of responsibility and blame God for allowing it to come to this.
Good and Bad, Better or Worse
One reason it’s sometimes difficult to vote is because we want to support someone without reservation. On social media, we “like” people that we care about, things that makes us laugh or ideas that we agree with. Our “like” is our stamp of approval. If we only like it a little bit, we’re likely to move on to something else.
There’s a temptation to treat our ballot the same way. If we can’t give unqualified support, we are tempted to abstain and wait for something better. But voting is not like social media. It’s more like filling a job vacancy. The job has to be filled and the Constitution has dictated the timeline. The fact that you haven’t found the ideal candidate may be frustrating, but it is not relevant to the fact that the job is going to be filled.
Sometimes the choice is better or worse, and if you aren’t willing to choose better, you may find yourself stuck with worse.
Your desire to find someone you can give unqualified support to is noted but not especially helpful under the circumstances. In that situation, it may be more helpful to think less about good and bad and more about better or worse. Is that possible? Maybe.
Character always matters, but if a completely virtuous person is not one of your choices, maybe the policies represented by one candidate are more virtuous than the policies of the other candidates. Is one candidate working on behalf of the abortion industry while the other works to defend life? Does one candidate defend conscience rights while the other supports suing nuns and churches that live out their faith? Does one candidate want parents involved in their child’s education and health care decisions while the other wants the state to interfere with parental rights? In a situation where all the candidates are flawed, we might be able to find clarity if we allow ourselves to think less about people involved and more about policies that will be affected.
The “Best Team”
In addition, if there is no “best candidate,” it may be helpful to think about the “best team.” No politician works alone. Most candidates are part of a political party, and all candidates have donors and supporters. Executive offices, like mayors, governors and presidents also appoint cabinet members, judges, ambassadors and thousands of other positions that affect how government operates.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Which candidate, for political reasons, is going to be pressured more often to do things you like and which candidate is going to face pressure to do things you won’t like? If the two foremen are not people you especially care for, is there a reason to prefer one crew over another?
Though it sometimes seems the end is near, we do still live on earth and that means we will be consistently faced with imperfect choices. It would be nice if the choice was always clearly good or evil, but it’s not. Sometimes the choice is better or worse, and if you aren’t willing to choose better, you may find yourself stuck with worse.
Read myth #4: “I’m Not in the Majority Where I Live, So Why Bother?”
Joseph Backholm is Senior Fellow for Biblical Worldview and Strategic Engagement at Family Research Council. He combines extensive legal, political, and policy experience with a love for the way biblical truth cultivates human flourishing.
Originally published at FRCBlog.


thestream--2020-10-20--The Trump I Know Documentary Dispels the Myths About Women in the Administration and Campaign

“ One of the biggest misunderstandings is that there ’ s not — or there ’ s very little — female influence in the White House or in the [ Trump reelection ] campaign , ” said Matthew Thayer .
Thayer ’ s film The Trump I Know , available to stream now , will be released to DVD later this month and is coming soon to Amazon Prime .
Produced by Joe Knopp ( Unplanned ) and Daryl Lefever ( Unplanned ) , the new documentary highlights the women who work for President Trump , both in his administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women describe the Trump they know , which is a person far from the caricature the media portrays .
Trump ’ s campaign is made up of over 60 % women .
Trump also has many senior advisors in his administration who are women .
“ These women have [ a ] story to tell and nobody ’ s listening to them , ” Thayer told The Stream .
These women include Mercedes Schlapp , senior advisor for the Trump reelection campaign ; Lara Trump , Eric ’ s Trump ’ s wife @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign ; Kayleigh McEnany , press secretary ; Paula White-Cain , pastor to Trump ; KellyAnne Conway , former counselor to the president , and many more .
The Trump the women know doesn ’ t care what a person looks like , but only if they can get the job done .
“ His number one question is , ‘ Can you get the job done for me ? '
” Lara Trump explained .
They don ’ t have 60 % women because the campaign wanted women .
“ This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the job who happened to be women , ” said Lara .
Women want to be part of the reelection campaign , and that ’ s not the narrative the mainstream media wants people to hear .
“ [ Democrats ] tried to stop us from telling that story in 2016 , ” she added .
“ That ’ s why I got out on the road with a bus full of women and said , ‘ There are women that support Donald Trump . '
” Gail Wilson , Deputy Executive Director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s reelection campaign managers believe that women can take charge and have a seat at the table .
“ They want to create an environment that women do feel that they have a voice , they have something to say.
” Most of the women are moms , too .
The reelection campaign ’ s managers have been very supportive of the MAGA moms .
Mercedes has five daughters .
It didn ’ t stop her boss from hiring her .
She has worked in two different White Houses and now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And how many women were pregnant all at the same time ?
” She questioned .
“ I think [ the bosses ] all value what we ’ re able to contribute to the campaign.
” The women of Trump are “ strong and powerful and opinionated women , ” she added .
The women agree that Trump affirms them regularly .
“ The main thing that I heard from every one of them , was … how much he calls out identity , ” said Thayer .
“ How much he says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ Every single one of them seem to express … that he saw something in them before they saw it in themselves.
” Mainstream media and the Left want to erase all of the years they adored Donald Trump .
“ And now all of the sudden , he ’ s running as a Republican and he ’ s the enemy , ” said Katrina Pierson , Senior Advisor for the Trump reelection campaign .
“ The entire 80s have been erased , the entire 90s have been erased .
Donald Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 80s and 90s with regards to race or women , or people would have to acknowledge the fact that it was Donald Trump who worked with Jesse Jackson.
” She pointed out a video of Jackson praising Donald Trump for helping Black men get involved on Wall Street .
“ He doesn ’ t see race , he doesn ’ t see gender , he sees potential , ” Pierson said .
“ He sees people.
” Nancy Flory is an associate editor at The Stream .
You can follow her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Streamdotorg .

“One of the biggest misunderstandings is that there’s not — or there’s very little — female influence in the White House or in the [Trump reelection] campaign,” said Matthew Thayer. Thayer’s film The Trump I Know, available to stream now, will be released to DVD later this month and is coming soon to Amazon Prime.
Produced by Joe Knopp (Unplanned) and Daryl Lefever (Unplanned), the new documentary highlights the women who work for President Trump, both in his administration and in his reelection campaign. The women describe the Trump they know, which is a person far from the caricature the media portrays.
A Story to Tell
Trump’s campaign is made up of over 60% women. Trump also has many senior advisors in his administration who are women. “These women have [a] story to tell and nobody’s listening to them,” Thayer told The Stream. These women include Mercedes Schlapp, senior advisor for the Trump reelection campaign; Lara Trump, Eric’s Trump’s wife and senior advisor for the Trump reelection campaign; Kayleigh McEnany, press secretary; Paula White-Cain, pastor to Trump; KellyAnne Conway, former counselor to the president, and many more.
The Trump the women know doesn’t care what a person looks like, but only if they can get the job done. “His number one question is, ‘Can you get the job done for me?'” Lara Trump explained.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
They don’t have 60% women because the campaign wanted women. “This is because we hire the best people for the job who happened to be women,” said Lara. Women want to be part of the reelection campaign, and that’s not the narrative the mainstream media wants people to hear. “[Democrats] tried to stop us from telling that story in 2016,” she added. “That’s why I got out on the road with a bus full of women and said, ‘There are women that support Donald Trump.'”
A Seat at the Table
Gail Wilson, Deputy Executive Director for Black Voices for Trump, said Trump’s reelection campaign managers believe that women can take charge and have a seat at the table. “They want to create an environment that women do feel that they have a voice, they have something to say.”
Most of the women are moms, too. The reelection campaign’s managers have been very supportive of the MAGA moms. Mercedes has five daughters. It didn’t stop her boss from hiring her. She has worked in two different White Houses and now works on the reelection campaign. “And how many women were pregnant all at the same time?” She questioned. “I think [the bosses] all value what we’re able to contribute to the campaign.” The women of Trump are “strong and powerful and opinionated women,” she added.
Trump Sees People
The women agree that Trump affirms them regularly. “The main thing that I heard from every one of them, was … how much he calls out identity,” said Thayer. “How much he says, ‘You’ve got this.’ Every single one of them seem to express … that he saw something in them before they saw it in themselves.”
Mainstream media and the Left want to erase all of the years they adored Donald Trump. “And now all of the sudden, he’s running as a Republican and he’s the enemy,” said Katrina Pierson, Senior Advisor for the Trump reelection campaign. “The entire 80s have been erased, the entire 90s have been erased. Donald Trump’s history was never brought up between the 80s and 90s with regards to race or women, or people would have to acknowledge the fact that it was Donald Trump who worked with Jesse Jackson.” She pointed out a video of Jackson praising Donald Trump for helping Black men get involved on Wall Street.
“He doesn’t see race, he doesn’t see gender, he sees potential,” Pierson said. “He sees people.”
Watch the teaser trailer:
For more information and to see the film, go to TrumpIKnow.com.
Nancy Flory is an associate editor at The Stream. You can follow her @NancyFlory3, and follow The Stream @Streamdotorg.