Fire and Brimstone Preaching--Good Idea or Bad Idea?

First things first:  We’re defining “fire and brimstone” as, preaching righteously against a sin, or a burden of sins that's on every life, or reminding people of Satan or hell, or using the term "blood" or other "offensive" terms.  Let’s look at Peter.  In his very first sermon, in Acts 2:19-21, he began with a quote from Joel 2:

I will show wonders in heaven above And signs in the earth beneath: Blood and fire and vapor of smoke. ²⁰ The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord. ²¹ And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved.’

So he begins his preaching by giving graphic images of the devastation of the Day of the Lord, including "blood" and "fire." Such a terribly negative introduction, don't you think?  This was, at least, book-ended with hopeful statements. God would give His people prophecies, dreams, and images; and He would respond if they call on His name.  Right after the scary statement above, Peter wasted no time in reproaching everyone (Acts 2:22-24a) for a recent incident that was still raw on their nerves—he accused them (notice, he did not place the responsibility on Pilate or on the Pharisees) of crucifying their Messiah.  He didn’t shy away from blunt language:

Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles… ²³ Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;²⁴ whom God raised up…

Note how confrontational Peter is, YOU have crucified Him, you have put Him to death.  Note particularly his calling them “lawless.”  The Jews thought they knew the law, and had abundant scribes and lawyers to tell them exactly how to be lawful to the finest degree possible; so being accused of lawlessness was a gigantic slap in the face, was it not?

He points more emphatically at their mistake in verse 36 in the same sermon:

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

This directness about their sin makes this “fire and brimstone” preaching.  What was the reaction? Surprisingly, a good one, from Acts 2:37-41:

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” ³⁸ Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized…" and, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” ⁴¹ Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

Three thousand people saved!  An astonishing result from one “fire and brimstone” sermon.  These people turned completely around; as later verses show, they were on fire for Christ. 

If something works in a sermon, you do it again, right?  Peter, after healing a lame man, is equally forceful in his reproach of the Jews, in Acts 3:13-15:

…God…glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. ¹⁴ But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, ¹⁵ and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses

Peter again won’t let them escape blame by saying "He never really said He was God."  The Jews knew that certain things He did, certain names He called himself, were idiomatic to Jews, and He clearly claimed Godhood. They knew that Pilate tried hard to prevent this crucifixion, but the Jews wouldn’t let Jesus off the hook.  Peter is again forceful with his language; “you killed the Prince of life,” you delivered Him up, you traded Him for a murderer.  He also accused them of denying Christ.  To do that was a serious charge; if unrepentant, it is a ticket to hell, as Jesus points out in Matthew 10:33:

But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven

Then Peter seems to open the door for them to escape blame, in Acts 3:17:

“Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers.

But how acceptable is it to accept that as a relief from guilt?  Will they agree to say, “Yes, we killed Him, but we did because we were ignorant.” They really knew that their ignorance was their own making; when they screamed for His blood, they were just doing what senseless rioters do. So Peter's backhanded "compliment" was only a temporary respite.  His censorious language reaches its peak in verse 23:

And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet (Jesus) shall be utterly destroyed from among the people. 

A bold statement.  I can only surmise that legitimate rumors of a resurrection must have spread by now,  or else they would have called Peter a lunatic, since he claimed His resurrection in v. 15 above.  So, he told them that if they don't hear Jesus' words, they'll be destroyed.  You just never hear this confrontational preaching anymore, do you?  In any event, except for the priests, the response was amazing, as Acts 4:4 says:

However, many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand. 

Considering that households generally took on a faith together, this suggests at least 10,000 people, including wives and older children, either were saved in this sermon, or have been saved soon after, to follow the father.  When compared to 3000 souls added in his previous sermon, shortly before, this sermon, also classed as "fire and brimstone," might’ve saved another 10,000 people!  Two fire and brimstone sermons, 13,000 saved!  This is shocking, is it not?  .  

Now of course, you might beg off from the obvious conclusion that I'm hinting at, saying, "Wait!  It was an unusual time; the Jews were ultra-sensitive as to what they did, so that made the emotional impact greater."  Well, think on this:  how do sensitive people react when you push their raw emotional buttons, telling them they were wrong and how God will avenge justice on them? The wrong way, that's how.  They mostly don't get repentant, they get angry.  This result was a miracle, really.  I suspect the unusual result was because the Holy Spirit approved his sermon and convicted people's hearts. Maybe you'd say "the Holy Spirit did something special here just to “kick off” Christianity’s start."  Well, “doing something special” is my point.  I believe God honors the boldness of the Word preached, and the Holy Spirit acted to convict as a result.  

Couldn't the Holy Spirit do the same again, acting on a preacher's boldness?  Preachers need to understand that the results are not theirs to claim—the results are God's action.  The Holy Spirit can make a man sick with conviction far better than the preacher can. Your first motive should be to honor God, not to coolly, intellectually persuade people of the benefits of Christianity.  You want to tell the truth about both sides of God, His grace and His jealousness about letting another "god" being first in your life, whether it's envy, greed, sex, whatever, In sermons, pastor should speak of His compassion and His judgment, despite continual harping from the baby Christian gallery about our "narrowness" in the way to heaven, or how we scare people away, and "fear is not a good reason to be saved." If pastors have or respond to such beliefs, they will lack confidence in the greatness of God's Gospel to convince people. Suppose that a pastor is never blunt about sin, and worries about a negative response to such preaching so much that he never delivers a fire and brimstone message.  Given that this is the OPPOSITE from the above, shouldn't he expect results that are the opposite--namely, few people truly saved, congregations immersed in the world, little prayer or Scripture reading to apply what they hear or read?  Are you in a church where everyone loves the pastor because he delivers comfortable messages, even has good timing with jokes? Well, how many parishioners are on fire for God there? How many congregants are willing to do the evangelistic work, how many of you step up and do your gift God gave you? Who, over dinner at a restaurant, say, likes to talk a lot about what Christ is doing to you and people you know? You say, "we don't get that--only the newly saved folks act like that--for a few weeks."  Agrees with my point.  Does your pastor want to save souls more than worry about how some of the people feel about him?  If that's the case, he should be willing to give the hard line, give fire and brimstone a try, right? His model is in God's revealed guidebook, the Book of Acts.  That model is approved from the best teacher, right?  God the Holy Spirit.  But if pastor rejects it, maybe he's got that devil's disease, called "fear of the world."  So how can the Holy Spirit bless his messages? Is this why in many churches, the Holy Spirit is MIA? You see the liturgy, the fine use of words in a fine pastor, at a fine church building, with fine people. Maybe you are linked in to the status folk.  But how many new souls does that get added to you?  It could even be that with bland preaching, your church adds, instead, more “worldly Christians” to his membership (that’s an oxymoron—being worldly and a real Christian doesn’t exist).  These lukewarm people nurtured by a comfy gospel often become trouble in hard times.  They actually get angry and fearful if the Holy Spirit goes to work, changes the length of the service beyond the  60 minutes "that it's always been" and gets some people on fire and starts to shake up the place.  If pastors listen to their complaints, and gets worried himself, he might suppress anything considered "radical" today--such as a revival.

My conclusion is, the Holy Spirit liked Peter’s sermons, and blessed them by convicting people and bringing more souls to heaven.  May God be praised.  When you see these results, why not copy it, pastors? Are you bold enough? 

What we increasingly have, nowadays, is the pastor preaches on the sins that beset America, like homosexuality, etc.  It's easy to attack those kind of sins--because pastor assumes nobody in the congregation have "those" sins--and everyone in the seats agrees.  He will win their favor for sure, as long as the sins outlined belong to someone else.  "Amens" will bounce off the rafters from the old men and women. But I attest that America's REAL problem is divorce, pride, greed, our lost youth killing their spirits with THC marijuana, or oxy, or Adderall, or some other addiction.  Or killing themselves spiritually from fornication and pornography.  Let's see pastor really tag THOSE buttons.  "Baby" Christians everywhere will squirm with discomfort, nag him for being negative, even throw him out.  If they can't get him out by insurrection and scandalous rumor-mongering, they will simply rise up and change churches to where comfort can be re-obtained.  

In Acts 4, Peter preaches like that again, this time before the religious rulers, after a miraculous healing.  If Peter had used worldly logic, it would suggest that he “back off” from a fire and brimstone style with them, knowing that they had the power to imprison him, and then no one would hear the gospel from him again. Better to "go softer" than to be forced to go silent, right?   But the Holy Spirit gave him the fire and brimstone words, as we’re told in Acts 4:8, and you can see his forthrightness in the sermon in verses 10-12:

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel… ¹⁰ let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead… ¹¹ This is the 

‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’

¹² Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

Note that Peter really accuses them of conspiracy to murder.  I would also just like to note, for present day woke readers, the “bigoted intolerance” of Peter’s—or really God’s —statement in verse 12, that there is no salvation in any other faith, like Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.  No salvation in the Jews trying to obey the law--which they had strained and failed at for thousands of years. 

This time, the results are radically different. Namely, the Spirit does convict them--that you can tell because of the anger. They are filled with outrage, gnashing their teeth against him.  And they wouldn't repent from killing Jesus. And they might have even committed the unpardonable sin--attributing to Satan the power of the Holy Spirit. 

So, you say, ah-ha, fire and brimstone has negative results too.  But, hey, it did have a "good" result too--namely, they knew what they did, and made it clear that they rejected Jesus again.  That will come up at the Judgement day, and they will know their guilt is real.  

But, results we have today are radically different.  There are lots of people who THINK they're Christians, but only because they haven't had their gut checked by a confrontation about their sin, or why they're really coming to church (it may be just to be a person of status).  They love to hear about Jesus (or their version of the "sissified" Jesus that is carefully sculpted by the pastor, by avoiding Jesus' confrontational sermons).  These people--we're speaking of millions in America--are deceived today--why is that, you say?  Because when the "rubber hits the road," they will abandon Christ in droves should serious persecution comes.  As long as America gives a good economy and freedom of worship, they have a wonderful relationship with Him.  They are, when you get down to it, lukewarm; they are not hot enough for Christ, for His Lordship in ALL their lives.  They can't handle persecution or serious trials that God might bring their way.  Not hot for Jesus enough to retain optimism and endurance, no matter what.  Nor were they cold--like those Jews were.  But what happens to lukewarm "Christians?"  Jesus vomits them out of His body; see Revelation 3:15-16:

‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of my mouth

Now you may argue another angle.  You could say that, sure, some people are beyond hope, but: if we could have more miraculous healings, as Peter had in Acts 4, we could get more people saved today.   My answer is three-fold:  First, despite His own healings, Jesus was crucified.  So more cool miracles won't save your butt either.  Secondly, the Jewish rulers were not worried about the miracle in Acts 4; their concern was that Peter was preaching that Jesus was raised from the dead. Note verses 1b-2:

…the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came upon them, ² being greatly disturbed that they taught the people and preached in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.

  My third reason is, Jesus knew that salvation by miracles had a twofold design; first, it was to pull more people around to hear His great words.  The words were the key, not the healings; they were calculated to convict of sin, which is essential in being saved.  As you can see in John 2:23-25:

Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did.²⁴ But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men,²⁵ and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man

Secondly, His miracles testified that He was God.  Nobody before had ever brought sight to the blind, only Him.  All of this says, miracles from God can't bring lasting revivals, given the cynicism of these days.  Sure, they will like the Antichrist's miracles (see 2 Thessalonians 2:9), but their perverse discernment shows that they are too stiff-necked and rebellious to repent and endue persecution.  

Now let’s turn to the deacon, Stephen, a fire and brimstone preacher in the “worst” way.  Just like Peter, when Stephen used fire and brimstone style on the religious rulers, the results were again disastrous. He was stoned to death. But God approved Stephen's style, as His miracle in Acts 6:15 clearly implies:

And all who sat in the council, looking steadfastly at him, saw his face as the face of an angel.

He had that pre-glorification glow--the kind we'll all have who are headed for heaven.  

Why did God want Stephen to preach that way, when it resulted in him being killed?  The biggest reason was, God had told the apostles to preach to the Jerusalem first, then to spread out--to Judea, to Samaria, to the world (Acts 1:8).  But the saved folks weren't doing that. So God was willing to let them suffer persecution.  As a result of Stephen's martyrdom, they did spread out--when they fled elsewhere--and brought the Gospel to the whole world. 

Now Stephen uses language guaranteed to touch their “hot buttons” more than Peter, in Acts 7:51 and 52:

“You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. ⁵² Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers

Stiff-necked!  Uncircumcised! (That must’ve hurt—circumcision was a badge of honor to them).  You always resist the Holy Spirit. He told them that they were persecutors, betrayers, and murderers.  This over-the-top language, calling people names, is guaranteed NOT to save, especially those who had their conscience seared, making them possibly demon-oppressed.  So why did God want Stephen to do it? Why would maybe He might want you to do it (we're not talking about a sermon now, we're talking about you and an individual.  Here was the stranger side of evangelism, a possible approach when the sinner has seen the power of God in the past, and yet still refuses). Maybe for judgment day. Or again, as we've implied, over-the-top preaching will expose the worst in people, when they get super-angry, and we get to see who they really are underneath.  Who knows, maybe they will actually see themselves as rebels against God too. Here are people who know how to keep up surface appearance; they worked at being nice, as tolerant and not radical; they were civilized, not overcome with anger.  Maybe, if they saw themselves acting this way, they might see what they really are, and repent.

Here's yet another reason:  We all should be “watchmen,” when culture starts to turn rotten. Ezekiel 33:2-6 explains the idea: 

…let the people of the land take a man from their territory and make him their watchman, ³ when he sees the sword coming upon the land, if he blows the trumpet and warns the people, ⁴ then whoever hears the sound of the trumpet and does not take warning, if the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be on his own head. ⁵ He heard the sound of the trumpet, but did not take warning; his blood shall be upon himself. But he who takes warning will save his life. ⁶ But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.’   

The definition of “warn” is to “inform someone of an impending danger…give someone forceful advice about their actions.”  If you are the watchman, it is your obligation to use forceful (i.e, fire and brimstone) language on frequent occasions to steer them clear of danger.  If you don’t, judgment is on you.  A sober reason to change preaching styles now and then!

Now, you pastors and others, may argue that you are following a Scriptural path, as I John 4:7-8 points out:

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. ⁸ He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

So you say, "How can we do fire and brimstone, in light of these "love" verses?  I'm a pastor; how can you think that fear-obsession, that fire and brimstone, is love?"  But let's talk about the real meaning of love.  If a man loves his wife, he protects her, right?  That's a given.  Suppose he comes home from work, and sees his house completely engulfed in a raging fire.  Toxic smoke is pouring out, he can hear the stairway collapsing.  Then he sees his wife, outside, with a strange look on her face, walking steadily toward the house. Maybe she wants to save the baby.  But the firemen are on the scene, ready to do that.  But she still wants to  hurry and save the baby, or her brain has become disoriented by the toxic chemicals. So what does husband do?  Firemen are busy; no time to call anybody's attention to the danger, she will be in the house within seconds.  He steps out in front of her--she goes around him, moving on toward disaster.  He runs up to her, tells her in strong language to stop.  She ignores him, persistently moving ahead.  She's getting close to the front door.  Then he has to do things that are "unreasonable," in most situations.  He wrestles her, tackles her, puts a knee in her back to prevent her from walking into the fire.  

Well, what is hell, after all?  It's far worse than this fire. It's forever.  None of us can imagine God doing that to most people, but we trust His Word to tell the truth. We need to act like it's the truth.  There are times when we should act desperately.  The real truth is, the majority of people will go to hell.  No, you don't believe that, do you?  Proof?  Matthew 7:13-14:

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

.  Yes, you've read it many times.  But do you meditate on His words, really think what He's saying here?

 And we know how certain people live, that some of them can't be Christian, if you go by Scripture, as fewer people do nowadays.  Maybe our own loved one is on a path to hell, per the Bible.  Let's say they were married twice, and are now enjoying life and love with a boyfriend.  You say, "no harm done--they love each other."  You know, we don't know when they may die, or you might die, and the kind of relationship-designed message you can give them about the Gospel would not be delivered to them.  I'm talking about the serious sin, in this case sexual immorality (such as Revelation 21:8:

But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

  You must believe that every Scripture is God's truth.  Yes, sexual immorality is listed alongside sorcerers, and idolaters!  You must believe it from God's Word before speaking to them.  Your warning of hell--that's love, you must believe that too.  It's never too early to get those Scriptures out, get pointed with them.  Hey, we are talking about the dangers of hell, with fire and brimstone.  I guarantee you of one thing.  Even if they cut off relationship with you for being "weird," the desperation on your lips (the desperation of your words will prove that you love them) will haunt them for a long time. You can at least slow them down on their hypnotic walking to hell.  We need to be a continual watchman.  We have the answers.  They don't.  Give them the knowledge. 

Now let's take another angle on this subject of the proper sermon.  When Peter preached to Gentiles, beginning with Cornelius in Acts 10, his approach was completely different.  No more fire and brimstone.  Why?  Well, he saw the Gentiles as a foreign mission.  Jews previously had minimal relations with Gentiles, particularly about religion.  Most of the Gentiles knew little about this Jesus of Nazareth.  They seldom even spoke to the Gentiles.  So the words to the Gentiles were those of instruction and education about Jesus.

So, we see that fire and brimstone preaching was highly successful--or highly non-successful--with the Jews, who knew the Scripture--and knew that Jesus fulfilled many of the prophesied words on the Messiah. Well, speaking of people who likewise should have plenty of Scripture and knowledge, isn't that the U.S. mostly through our history? But today, things are different.  We have lots of Bibles, lots of Christian "tradition," as each denomination defines it.  But hardly anybody reads Scripture.  And parents aren't teaching their children.  As many studies prove, people's knowledge of Jesus has been lost.  So it's like preaching to the Gentiles again. I'm NOT saying that means preaching that God is only love, Christianity is all about benefits, etc.  Preaching to the unknowledgeable is simple:  Tell both sides of God. After you've given the Real gospel in different ways and they don't act, then hit on them with fire and brimstone often.   Go for expository preaching on Matthew through John, cover all sides of God, and how Jesus talked frequently about hell.  Teach about sin, about money and the world, about hell.  You'll see a huge wall of resistance going up.  Either they repent or they leave.  You can tell the sinner from the saved, in how they respond.  Many people would rather believe Scripture is lying on this subject, rather than what it says about the devil and hell. Straighten them out on that.  Tell them you can't cherry-pick Scripture.   

Pastors, resist the urge to assume that everyone in your church is saved, so you conclude not to aggressively warn them.  You say to yourself, the devil has not captured anybody in my church.  (Of course, it doesn't help that you haven't   been preaching on the wiles of the devil.) Yes, it's true that pastors are diplomats--so by nature they push back on this idea.  If the prophetic voices are active, let them speak the hard word to everyone. (That would involve accepting all gifts, changing the service--like the church did in Acts.  Is that bad? Look at the American morals--are we salt to the world?)  The problem I see, is pastors tend to suppress prophetic voices among their leaders.  It seem so negative, and so scary with unpredictability in services. (How pastors hate things beyond their control!  Are they willing to let the Holy Spirit have control?)  Pastors consider the prophets, the sources for those utterances, as speculative, emotionally driven, only believable with a large grain of salt, and pastors don’t like to deal with problems that seem to always result when someone gets their feelings hurt when these guys talk.  And that's even among churches that believe all the gifts are for today.  If pastors don't believe that, they'll shut down the naysayers even quicker.  Many churches like tongues and emotionalism, but the prophet who bewails some of their sins, they still don't like.

Also, church discipline, commanded in Scripture, is totally ignored (I have a blog on that subject).  But take a look at Paul’s statement in I Corinthians 10:11-12.  This was after his listing past sins of lusting after evil things, sexual immorality, etc, all of which are pointed out explicitly in Scripture.  Gee, you might ask, do you really want to mention these terrible things that people are capable of doing?  Here is his answer:

Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. ¹² Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.:

Some Scriptures are for our admonition, to shake a finger at us, to warn us, lest we fall.  Fall, in the above Scripture, might mean going to hell, or taking steps in that direction (a good verse for those who mistakenly believe "once saved, always saved.")  Such admonishment is needed to remind ourselves that we are sinful people and need God every day.  So when was the last time you heard a pastor preach on one of the fallen people in Scriptures, preaching deeply about that person's sin, and concluding the sermon with “so as far as we know, he is in hell even today. We could go there ourselves, taking the path he took.”  Not going to happen, right?  Pastors are trained in seminary that negative preaching is "sadistic."  I know this for a fact.  He is told to begin a sermon lighthearted, and end on a positive note, to send everyone home happy. Keeps everyone coming back, tithing, paying the bills. But God’s goal is sometimes not to make us happy—but to call us up short, to make us sober and vigilant, sometimes to make us introspective.  To make us take a good hard look at ourselves, trying to strip away the self-deception that we fall prey to if we are not bathed in Scripture, which gives us a realistic look at ourselves.

Since pastors are often not very good at encouraging us to do these things, may we desire to be closer to God, and warn ourselves to put an end to our own sins and self-deception.  And pray for pastors to become leaders, with more spine.  Willing to warn us away from falling; may God have mercy on us.

Influential Catholics Are Looking For and Speaking of an Alien Savior

This is probably the strangest blog that I have ever written (Note: information herein was taken from a book published in 2013).  I read a book by Cris Putnam and Thomas Horn, two writers that have covered controversy in the past.  This subject is their strangest; but they provided lots of proof, including jaw-dropping quotes by reliable other parties. Their conclusions are well-founded, though radical.  So let’s at least consider it.  We’ll start by looking at the Jesuit priest Guy J. Consolmagno, a leading astronomer who often is a spokesman for the Vatican.  He is brilliant; he has worked for NASA and taught at Harvard and MIT.  Some of his time in 2013 was spent at the Vatican observatory at the summer residence of Pope Francis in Castel Gandolfo, Italy; the rest of his time, since, is at Mt. Graham in Arizona as Director (more on that later) and he is also President of the Vatican Observatory Foundation.  He is close enough to the Pope that he can be called his friend.

His time in public forums is lecturing on the subject of science and religion; specifically, would you believe, extraterrestrial life and its potential impact on the future of faith.  He authored a booklet entitled Intelligent Life in the Universe: Catholic Belief and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life. It was first authorized by Rome, but they changed their mind; it was pulled by the Vatican publisher in 2005, and is no longer available.  But our authors persuaded him to send them a copy of this work.  Here is a partial quote:  Note how he then stretches Jesus’ words in John 10:16 to a strange conclusion:

“…other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:  them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice…” 

Consolmagno’s interpretation:  “Perhaps it’s not so far-fetched to see the Second Person of the Trinity…coming not only as a Son of Man but also as a Child of other races.”

His reference of contrast between Man and “other races,” in context, says that he believes Jesus was referring to alien life when He said “other sheep…not of this fold.”  (The traditional interpretation of the passage is that Jesus is speaking about Gentiles, “not of this (Jewish) fold,” being evangelized for salvation through Him.  There are many references in Paul’s epistles about the effort to evangelize the Gentiles into faith.) 

Jesuit Consolmagno was not alone in his belief about alien life.  Numerous Vatican astronomers, many of them Jesuits, are fervent believers.  And the Vatican believes this enough to lay out a lot of cash looking for alien life--witness the purchase of Mt. Graham observatory, and the attachment of expensive advanced scopes.  It is 80 miles from Tucson, and skirts Indian territories.  Indians, in fact, consider Mt. Graham to be one of the four holiest mountains in the Americas, and tried to stop construction of the observatories.  A large binocular telescope, one of the world’s most advanced optical telescopes, has a new device between its twin mirrors.  Officially, it’s a “Large Binocular Telescope Near-Infrared Utility with Camera and Integral Field Unit for Extragalactic Research.”  And, yes, that name suggests it was very expensive.  Strangely, someone in the Vatican shortened it to L.U.C.I.F.E.R. (which happens to be a name for the devil. The word actually means ‘morning star,’ but Scripture clearly appends it to Satan).  Our authors traveled to Mt. Graham for interviews.  They noticed, how Jesuit astronomers are actually, and earnestly, searching for intelligent alien life.  Surprising to Messrs Putnam and Horn also was the Jesuit astronomers’ frequent reference to UFOs as well. 

Oh, yes…UFOs.  I, like a majority of Americans, was not a believer.  But what shocked me, on research, is that sensible and scientific people—even many of the earlier astronauts--believe in them.  Here is a list of a few believers and their comments:

Edgar Mitchell (Died in 2016).  The former NASA astronaut claimed in 2009 that alien life exists but that the US government was covering up the evidence.  Mr. Mitchell, who was part of the 1971 Apollo 14 moon mission, made the claims in a talk to the fifth annual X-Conference – a meeting of those who believe in UFOs and other life forms.  He also said he had attempted to investigate the 1947 'Roswell Incident', which some believe was the crash-landing of a UFO, but he had been thwarted by military authorities.

He said: "We're not alone. Our destiny, in my opinion, and we might as well get started with it, is [to] become a part of the planetary community. ... We should be ready to reach out beyond our planet and beyond our solar system to find out what is really going on out there.  I urge those who are doubtful: Read the books… start to understand what has really been going on. Because there really is no doubt we are being visited.  The universe that we live in is much more wondrous, exciting, complex and far-reaching than we were ever able to know up to this point in time."

Gordon Cooper (Died in 2004) wrote a letter addressed to the United Nations in 1978 asking the organization to set up a research program to study UFOs. In 1951 when the astronaut was piloting an F-86 over Germany, he spotted saucers.

Bill Clinton has openly spoken out about extraterrestrial life and UFOs and has been very forthcoming about his belief that E.T.s exist and that we’re not alone. Presidents may not be immediately privy to all the nation’s secrets, but Clinton claims to have had aides research Area 51 and Roswell during his presidency.  “If we were visited someday I wouldn’t be surprised,” Clinton said in an interview on Jimmy Kimmel Live that aired in April 2014. “I just hope it’s not like ‘Independence Day.’ … It may be the only way to unite this increasingly divided world of ours. Think about [it,] all the differences among people of Earth would seem small if we feel threatened by a space invader,” he said.

Jimmy Carter (now 97), US President from 1976 to 1980, promised while on the campaign trail that he would make public all documents on UFOs if elected. (He couldn't.) He said: "I don't laugh at people any more when they say they've seen UFOs. I've seen one myself."

General Douglas MacArthur (died 1964), the great (and controversial) leader in the Korean and Second World War, said in 1955 that "the next war will be an interplanetary war. The nations of the earth must someday make a common front against attack by people from other planets. The politics of the future will be cosmic, or interplanetary".

J Edgar Hoover (died 1972), head of the FBI from its inception in 1935 to 1972, said of a famous incident when flying saucers were allegedly fired at over Los Angeles in 1942: "We must insist upon full access to disks recovered. For instance, in the LA case the Army grabbed it and would not let us have it for cursory examination."

Monsignor Corrado Balducci (died 2008), a Vatican theologian, said: "Extraterrestrial contact is a real phenomenon. The Vatican is receiving much information about extraterrestrials and their contacts with humans from its embassies in various countries, such as Mexico, Chile and Venezuela."

Ronald Reagan (died 2004) saw a UFO during a 1974 Cessna Citation flight.  He was with three other passengers. He alerted pilot Bill Paynter to the UFO, which was described as being elongated and moving at an incredible speed. Reagan told the story to the Wall Street Journal’s Washington bureau chief Norman C. Miller, according to the Discovery Channel.  He said, "I looked out the window and saw this white light. It was zigzagging around. I went up to the pilot and I said to him: 'Let's follow it!' We followed it for several minutes. It was a bright white light.  We followed it to Bakersfield, and all of a sudden to our utter amazement it went straight up into the heavens.  He expressed thoughts on the matter similar to Clinton’s:  He said in a speech to the United Nations in 1987, according to MSNBC: “I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.”

Mikhail Gorbachev (now 91), the USSR's last head of state: "The phenomenon of UFOs does exist, and it must be treated seriously."

And let’s not forget one of our smartest Christians, Dr. Walter Martin (died 1989), who founded Christian Research Institute in 1960 and who authored the famous textbook, The Kingdom of the Occult. In a portion of his 1970 UFO presentation, he not only took the UFO phenomenon seriously, but he was also an eyewitness to a flying saucer. 

The G-factors for sharp turns alluded to were impossible--they would cause the pilot to pass out or die.  So, OK, let’s just say, on wild speculation, that there have been UFOs—aliens who have visited earth.  What would that mean?  Well, our authors Putnam and Horn believe (and I agree) that IF this has happened, these were visits by demons to prepare us for the devil’s greatest deception of all time, in the last days. What might happen is, they eventually would land on earth, preferably in a big city, show themselves to be much smarter than man; why not, demons are smart—when they are under a master strategist, Satan.  And, being from another dimension, they can perform unbelievable tricks as well.  The story that they could spread is, they created, or to use a popular term, “seeded” us.  And they stand ready to give us a gift--fantastic scientific and medical knowledge.  We could live a much longer time.  We could feel immortal, as gods.  And we could change our belief system to worshipping them, or their god.  With their presence as proof, it's possible that most people will believe their gospel (in a desire for longer life), and a world religion will be born.  Christians, who believe in the “old, Neanderthal” theology of sin, judgment, blood and sacrifice, would be directly persecuted for trying to stop man’s evolution into this glorious future of worship.

As you can see, this directly feeds into the Bible’s vision of the last days.  (I have other blogs on the future).  I have always wondered, frankly, how an actual WORLD religion, specifically mentioned in Revelation, would be possible in this deeply conflicted world. As is intimated by two of our Christian writers above, these invaders could suggest that all of mankind would like to decide on this religion from another world, and man’s purpose and origin. That’s the only way I see to a single world religion that the Bible predicts. But like I said—this is all a gigantic deception by the devil to pull us away from the real God.

But here’s another brain-blowing revelation—certain important Jesuits, with a lot of influence, believe this and were willing to be quoted on it.  Let’s take a look at Jesuit George V. Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory and its Advanced Technology Telescope—the one in Mt. Graham which is expressly looking for extraterrestrial life.  In addition to his duties as a Jesuit, he was a professor in the University of Arizona’s astronomy department, as well as associate director of the Steward Observatory.  He appeared with Richard Dawkins advocating a deistic form of Darwinism (This blasphemes the Genesis record of Creation).  Jesuit Coyne stunned the high priest of atheism by promoting a radical form of pluralism, the idea that all religions lead to the same God.  (P.S. God does not hold to this theology, as many Scriptures suggest).  Coyne stretches the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy, even given Rome’s embrace of postmodernism.  On another occasion, he claimed that the Scriptures are scientifically inaccurate obscurantisms--music to the ears of secularists and pagans universal.  It seems that one prophet, Malachi Martin, was right:  In his book The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church (1987), Martin (who died in 1999) asserts there is a “satanic cabal” among Jesuits, and he lamented that this sort of postmodernism has become the stock and trade of third-millennium Jesuitism.  A prophet among Catholics.

Or let’s have a listen to Rome’s heralded demonologist, Monsignor Corrado Balducci.  He was a theologian of the Vatican Curia (governing body at Rome), a long-time exorcist for the archdiocese of Rome, also a friend of  pope Benedict, and a Prelate of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and the Society for the Propagation of the Faith. No Catholic demonologist has more clout.   He asserted that extraterrestrial encounters “are not demonic, they are not due to psychological impairment, and they are not a case of entity attachment.”  Of course, this begs the question—How does he know? He further fulminates that “We don’t even have to waste a thought on the devil and his demons…they are purely spiritual beings, limited in their activity by God, and not able to bring all their hatred to us.”  (His suggestion that they are limited to the spirit realm is defying Scripture, which in many places show how angels—what demons are, only they became bad angels—have taken on material form). 

Or, how about a listen to Notre Dame theologian Thomas O’Mera, who is on the forefront of Catholic exotheology (defined as "speculation on the theological significance of extra-terrestrial life") with his book Vast Universe, and his interviews with the Huffington Post.  Here is his blasphemous statement on Jesus’ claims about limitations of salvation:  “Is Jesus so central a figure that only he and his Middle Eastern religious world can reveal God?”  Of course, the fact that Jesus IS God should certify Jesus' ability to reveal God. This corrupt modernist has a brother when Vatican II was designed, as one of its more influential figures in molding it. 

Karl Rahner (one of the most influential Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century) has proposed that a sincere Hindu or Buddhist can be saved without knowledge of the Gospel.  This view was explicitly endorsed during Vatican II. 

I should mention that Rome has never admonished any of the men mentioned above, despite their un-Biblical statements, nor removed them from any of their influential positions.       

   

Now I hope you’re ready, because I have the last bit of mind-blowing material for you.  Fr. Coyne (see above) was, shall we say, partially traditional when he said, “Should intelligent (alien) life be found, the Church would be obliged to address the question of whether extraterrestrials might be brought within the fold and baptized.”  In 2009, the Vatican had a 150^th celebration of publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species. (Yes they did. Real Christian churches were long hostile to Darwin because his theory conflicted with the literal biblical account of creation; but the Catholic Church never condemned Darwin. Pope John Paul II said that evolution was "more than a hypothesis;" and he has never been contradicted by popes since).  A leading American scholar of biology, Prof. Francisco Ayala, told that conference that the so-called theory of intelligent design, proposed by Creationists, is flawed.  "The design of organisms is not what would be expected from an intelligent engineer, but imperfect and worse," he said.  (Imagine what God feels about being called "not an intelligent engineer.")  Further, he blathered: "Defects, dysfunctions, oddities, waste and cruelty pervade the living  world".  So the Catholic rulers agreed (any speaker has to submit an outline of his speech ahead of time; if approved, he is allowed to speak) to having a speaker tell them that the choice they have, is either an imperfect designer-God, or Darwinism.  I have to disagree, folks—any imperfections we have is due to our sin, and our responsibility for it.  Scriptures are clear that God created the world perfect.  Any real study of its balance and design will fill you with awe.

The latest word on the evolution of man starts with Jesuit priest Guy J. Consolmagno (see earlier).  He called his job reconciling ”the wildest reaches of science fiction (which he doesn’t think is fiction) with the flint-eyed dogma of the Holy See.”  He believes in “the Jesus Seed,” which says that every planet that harbors intelligent life may also have had a Christ walk across its methane seas.  Further on this is from the May 2008 L’Osservatore Romano (a Vatican approved newspaper), recording an interview with a Vatican spokesperson, Father Funes, who wrote “The Extraterrestrial Is My Brother.”  He was asked whether extraterrestrials need to be redeemed.  His answer:  “God was made man in Jesus to save us…if other intelligent beings exist, it is not said that they would have need of redemption.”  Thus, he asserts that some extraterrestrials are morally superior to men--as if he knew.  He asserts in his book Brother Astronomer:  Adventures of a Vatican Scientist that they may come here to evangelize us. Yes, we need to learn a new gospel from the aliens.

But let me give you one more infamous quote:  In a paper for the Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science website, Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti—an Opus Dei theologian of the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome—says these “spiritual aliens” should be respected.  He states that this would not immediately oblige the Christian “to renounce his own faith”….but that such a renunciation could come soon after as the new “religious content” originating outside Earth is confirmed as reasonable and credible.  Once it is verified, we are obliged to “conduct a re-reading of the Gospel inclusive of the new data.”  This is explained more thoroughly by former Vatican observatory vice director Christopher Corbally in his article “What if There Were Other Inhabited Worlds?”  He concluded that Jesus simply might not remain the only Word of salvation.  He quotes:  “Christ..is not necessarily the only word spoken to the universe…to aliens, it does not have to be a repeated death-and-resurrection…” (But Christ is the only Revelation of God, the Logos, the Word--says Scripture.) 

So, with such radical assertions, do Jesuits and Catholic hierarchy want us to throw away Scripture? 

My question to all this is, what is the alien gospel that they speak of, when they suggest that aliens would redeem us?  What is its source?  I believe to have a world religion, if they exist, these "aliens" are really demons--and their source is Satan. Their gospel would include the same one Satan gave to Eve--"ye shall be as gods."  Because long, pleasant lives are waiting for us.

One final quote from Monsignor Balducci:  Extraterrestrials “were already interacting with Earth.”  This idea is repeated by Fr Malachi Martin:  “the highest levels of Vatican administration know what’s going on in space, and what’s approaching us…”  

So there you have it.  These Catholic “prophets” are preparing the world to listen to a new Gospel, and it's getting ready to happen soon.  Their longing for extraterrestrials to teach us may lead many people away from the real Gospel, to eternal death.  They say, let’s throw out the old, get on board with the new, right?  No, wrong.  Let’s pray that none of this nightmare will ever happen. 

Acknowledgement:  Book by Putnam and Horn, Exo-Vaticana:  The Vatican’s Astonishing Plan for the Arrival of an Alien Savior

When Persecution Comes

I’m summarizing a great CD by David Bercot, about the possible upcoming persecution by the U.S. government against its Christian citizens, specifically those who “live out” the Bible. He begins by saying, there are two types of persecution: primary and secondary. Both are serious, in terms of possible death or imprisonment. "Primary" persecution may begin with a law that is intended to attack Christians--the intent of such a law is to outlaw Christianity itself, or to force everyone to worship another religion. The ancient Roman Empire made Christianity illegal around 90 AD, but thankfully, it was only enforced sporadically. Plus, Rome required everyone to believe in the divinity of Caesar. Today, primary persecution is practiced in North Korea, and in various sections of Near East countries under Islamic rule.

In "secondary" persecution, the intent is not necessarily to persecute Christians; but the law would require us to do something or say something that would violate Christ’s teachings. An example would be a conscription law requiring military service, which some Christians throughout the world would not do, maintaining that Jesus’ commands do not permit killing, even if he/she is the enemy.  Another example was where there were state churches established by the Catholic Church in the middle ages, and everyone was required to be a member, participating in its sacraments, thus acceding to all its doctrines. Many Waldensians, a serious Christian protesting group, went through the motions of attending Catholic services, but then had private meetings of their own. But other Waldensians still saw this as bowing to Rome, refused to do so, and came under severe persecution. In the end, all the Waldensians were declared heretical by Rome in 1215, they were nearly all killed or went elsewhere by the 1600s, and survive today in small groups in Italy, Germany, the U.S., Argentina, and Uruguay.

Mr. Bercot doesn’t feel that the U.S. Christians will face primary persecution in the next 20-30 years (barring a possible Tribulation period), but considering how government can quickly and radically change, it’s better to be prepared now.

But Mr. Bercot does believe that secondary persecution in the U.S. is more likely, as more laws create a conflict between U.S. government requirements and our Christian faith. When to rebel is sometimes uncertain, and Mr. Bercot believes we should pick our battles carefully. Every time some anti-moral law is passed (abortion, for instance), it’s easy to feel rebellious. But remember, our first rule is to follow God’s Word in Romans 13:1-7:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Remember that Paul is writing during the time of one of the most violent governments in history, one that shortly would begin throwing Christians to the lions. Yet he doesn’t advocate open rebellion. So that means, for us: We lean toward obeying the laws--

UNLESS obedience to the law would cause us to violate a law, or principle, of Jesus Christ.

To stick to the spirit of God’s Word, we should be the ones most conscientiously obeying the laws. But if the law demands that we disobey Christ’s commands, we ignore it. Follow the kingdom of God rather than the kingdom of men.

Too many Christians break a law for light reasons. Here is an example of how we break the law simply because it’s “inconvenient” to our Christian work, and how we play games with our minds excusing our action. Say you run a food delivery and selling service to quite a number of people. The law requires that you have a commercial kitchen, subject to government certification and inspection and so forth. But you cut corners because if you seriously obeyed the law, you would have to slash the profits or take on another occupation. Since that would harm your time available for Christian service, you justify (in your mind) breaking the law. But the Scriptural point is, nothing in the food law requires us to violate Christ’s principles. The law is just inconvenient to our time for Christ. So the law is not persecution. And breaking it is illegitimate and not condoned by Christ.

Many Christians are upset with Supreme Court decisions making new laws. Well, consider how our system of jurisprudence works. We learned in school the simplicity that laws are made by legislators, and interpreted by courts. But the truth is, courts have a lot to say about how a law is made. In the process of interpreting laws, courts also help shape how they finally look and are applied. They fill in gaps that are left by the statutes the legislators have left, they decide how various laws interact with one another, they restrict the operation of certain statutes, they may strike down a statute as being unconstitutional, and they may interpret a statute in unexpected ways. Their interpretation IS the law. You can’t have 300 million people with different opinions of what a law means having a say; anarchy would result. You need a final arbiter—and that is the Supreme Court. We may disagree with the result, but we have to follow their decision as law. But as we said before, UNLESS obedience to the law would cause us to violate a principle of Christ.

Many Christians feel the Court does not respect freedom of religion. Keep in mind, courts cannot give us absolute rights for freedom of religion. An example is when your idea of freedom of religion causes you to infringe on someone else’s rights. Case in point: the Ken Miller trial of several years ago. A woman had a baby while she was in a lesbian relationship. Both women grew to love the baby. Later she became a Christian, broke off her relationship, and the Vermont courts had given the other woman visiting rights to the child, as a marriage would do. But she objected to the relationship of the lesbian with her child. She could not get the courts to change, so she decided to flee the country rather than comply with the court’s visitation order. Her relative (Ken Miller, a pastor) helped her in what amounted to a parental kidnapping, and he was later convicted for doing so.

Keep in mind, both she and Ken can believe or speak whatever they want about homosexuality. Ken is free to teach that to his congregation (at least for now). He is free to deny membership of a homosexual at his church (since membership is a “privilege,” not a “right.”) He is free to refuse to participate in the marriage of two homosexuals, since they only have the right to get married by a state official, not to force any minister they choose (we have rights of association). The first amendment has given them all those rights. But their problem is, they have infringed on the court-granted rights of another—namely the right of visitation. Now if the other lesbian woman was a known child abuser, this story would be different. But a homosexual is not automatically a child abuser, so the court stood by her visitation right and against the man who helped someone infringe that right. (The authorities never found the kidnaper). The courts behaved properly, given the laws as they now stand.

On a related issue, the courts may also allow the state to force you to violate your first-amendment Christian beliefs, so long as they perceive that the state has an “overriding governmental interest.” For instance, the courts did decide that the first amendment doesn’t allow for conscientious objection when a country goes to war, since the “overriding” state interest is for preservation of the state and its freedoms, and every man should be armed to defend themselves to maintain that--even though you believe that Christ’s commands about how to treat enemies do not include killing them (what if some of them are believers, too? You have killed your brothers in the Lord). Fortunately, Congress moved contrarily, and made laws anyhow to legislate conscientious objection—but Congressional laws are not inalienable, and can be revoked by another law or by a court in a flash.

In another situation that went the other way, in Wisconsin vs. Yoder, the court decided that Wisconsin didn’t have an overriding interest in how the Amish children were only taught through eighth grade, when the state required 10th grade. The Amish children, having learned reading and writing, were then being taught superb vocational skills at home. The Amish and their kids were decent, tax-paying, law-abiding members of society, and not a financial burden on the state. Their breaking of the education law was for sincere religious purposes. So the eighth grade education was not shown to be harming society, and Wisconsin lost its effort to prove its overriding interest. The first amendment won here. (This story could be completely different if the court decided that Amish religion harmed the kids. Such an opinion would not upset too many people, in the current “spiritually asleep” culture).

Now you see that you can’t depend on court protection—but we stress that you don’t decide what to do based on it anyhow. The issue is, if they’re asking you to violate Christ’s commands, you have to rebel. Regardless of consequences.  If you were a conscientious objector, what if the Congress took away conscientious objection, would that mean you would have to grab a weapon and start killing? No. All Mr. Bercot is saying, is, don’t be under any illusions about court protection or constitutional protection from persecution. Don’t assume the rapture has to get here before you can be persecuted. Christ told us that persecution would be our lot (Matthew 5). He was persecuted, to say the least—and are servants any better than their master?

What are the legal issues breathing down our necks in America to give Christians trouble today? Mr. Bercot picks two: (1) children; and (2) homosexuals. On (1), the government has become more and more involved in “protecting” our children, and taking them away from parents on sometimes biased evidence. Maybe there is more child abuse going on, but maybe the problem is how the government defines child abuse differently than before. So far, it’s the cults that see their kids taken away, but don’t be surprised when people who are radical in the cause of Christ can expect to be seen as “cults” too. After all, some of them isolate their kids by doing home schooling, some restrict their kids from what they call “worldly” influences, and they dress funny (as opposed as the sexual apparel rampant today). Here is an interesting case that we can learn a lot from: the polygamous Mormon group in Texas in 2008. They had a thing for marrying young girls to men who wanted them obedient.  We disagree with their polygamous practices, of course, but hear me out for learning’s sake. The “child protection” that family service departments love to kick in, began from an anonymous call from a girl who claimed to be 14 and a member of the group, who told how she was sexually abused. The child protection services jumped and took away all the children of the group. I’m even talking babies and boys (who were not under any threat—just the girls). When later it was proven to be a false call—it actually came from a young woman in Colorado, who was never a member of the group, who made the story up—but still, the state refused to give back the kids! They continued their investigation for several months before returning most of them. Consider what that means, Christian, down the road—let's say, here’s a Christian religious group, maybe meeting at home, maybe having some “activist” or “funny” beliefs (we're not talking about polygamous here), and someone who doesn’t like them could make a prank call, and suddenly you could have the trauma of having the kids removed for several months and investigated. Sounds to me like you’re guilty until proven innocent, and government watchdogs are ignoring the trauma of separating children and parents. They do what government likes to do—they’re heavy-handed and slow.

For those of you who don’t care about the state’s abuse here, since weird cults are not OK with you (even though this group had lived quiet peaceable lives), just keep in mind the quote from Christian pastor Martin Niemoller during the early days of the Nazi oppression of the Jews, when most people weren’t interested in helping the Jews: “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist; then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist; then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew; then they came for me; and there was no one left to speak for me.” The day will come when serious Christians here will be under attack. Serious Christians are appearing as strange to more and more people, folks. What’s strange now (say, home schooling children), could become anti-public policy. And then WE will become a “cult.” I suggest we nip government arrogance by defending anyone whose rights are violated.

It’s important to realize that a lot of hand-wringing could be avoided if we just wake up to the fact that the Supreme Court, the President, et al are going to do what comes naturally, as government is not majority-controlled by serious Christians—as is true for most institutions. I have argued in a separate blog that most people in America, in fact, are not Christians, even though they say they are. The statistics back up my claim. My point is, it does no good to become fearful over every wrong cultural movement and try to elect politicians, when they really can’t make a difference, or betray us and our beliefs. The real key to protecting our kids, and ourselves, is to learn to love God, as “perfect love casts out fear,” I John 4:18. Develop spiritual keys to defeating life’s down times. We can’t rely on politicians to bring us peace and protection—we rely on God, and His peace.

The second area of possible persecution for us are laws considering discrimination against homosexuals. An important sidebar is this—13 years ago, Canada made a law against “hate speech,” defined as speech or writing that “incites hatred against any identifiable group.” A devoted, but crude, Christian in Saskatchewan mailed out flyers, speaking against the public schools, how they endorsed homosexuality as an alternate lifestyle. In 2013 he was guilty of violating the hate speech laws. What did he say, you ask? He said “now the homosexuals want to share their filth and propaganda with our children;” a sex education course “degenerated into a filthy session where gay and lesbian teachers used dirty language to describe lesbian sex and sodomy to their teenage audience.” I suspect if he smoothed his language, he wouldn’t have gone to court. But just because he is crude, do we strip him of his free speech? What group did he incite? There were no riots afterward. On the other hand, the media treated him as a Neanderthal, pathetic, hater. THEY incited people to despise him, only they did it with cunning finesse. The point of all this is, I can see hate speech legislation not far off in America. There are already many cries by people for us to be “politically correct” or "woke."  We get blocked out on Facebook or websites that attempt to tell the truth about Mormonism, for instance.

There are many more important arguments that we could raise (such as people’s complacency about being saved when they’re not) to talk with people. You probably won’t win those arguments to them either, but you made them think about hell and heaven a little. Remember, neither Jesus nor His disciples spent a minute arguing against culture. As Paul said, he preached only Christ. The Holy Spirit will make them more moral, when they become saved. If we’re asked point blank about God and gays, I suggest we recite Scripture (people will make fun of it if it’s the Old Testament).  Work on your New Testament quotes, such as Romans 1:26 or Matthew 19—but don’t get any itchy trigger-finger to quote them. Let’s hope that simply quoting Scriptures will never throw you in courts as “hate speech”—but who knows when that may change?

Mr. Bercot sees the following in the future: (1) laws that require church and home schools to include homosexuality in the curriculum as an acceptable alternate lifestyle; and (2) laws that prohibit preaching against homosexuality as a sin, or as “wrong.” If a preacher wants to cover these subjects in his sermon, from God’s Word, it wouldn’t be a good idea for the church to record it—it can then be used against him in court.

Keep in mind that affected trades that are not desirable for serious Christians include: certified counselors, psychologists and psychiatrists, public schoolteachers, certain college professors, government officers—all of which will not certify you if you express the view that homosexuality is “wrong.” Stay away from these—along with operating a motel, an apartment, or running a B&B. You will be sued repeatedly for discriminating against homosexuals by not sheltering them overnight. If you’re a florist, someone will want you to decorate a gay wedding—the same idea goes for cake-making and videography. Christians are already losing regularly in courts in these areas.

So, what do Christians do? (1) Change the profession you’re in, or thinking of joining, if one of the above persecutes you. Or, if you’re a landlord, downgrade the renting out to only a few units—the laws are often different for small businesses. These actions could involve sacrifices and loss of money, but that’s the cross we should gladly bear for Him. The other major option is (2) Heed Jesus’ advice in Matthew 10:23:

When they persecute you in this city, flee to another …

Why not move? You say it’s a federal law that I'm persecuted for, so it doesn’t help to move—but remember, enforcement tends to be sporadic; it depends on local sensitivities. Moving out of San Francisco to Kentucky might leave you untouched til’ you retire. Before you move, study your possible new locations and the leaders of local society, carefully. Remember, don’t get paranoid yet—despite the Canadian hate crime law, nobody has been arrested preaching in a Canadian church (maybe that’s because the pastors are avoiding “hot” subjects). But if things get really bad all over the USA, consider even moving to another country. There are many that are kinder to Christians than the U.S., even right now.

If we face laws in the future that criminalize the way we educate our children, it’s smart to move before the state moves in to grab your child. Fleeing after that means you get charged with parental kidnapping, which is a felony—and kidnapping is a federal offense, which means the FBI is after you.  Parental kidnapping is a continuing offense, so the FBI never stops looking for you—the statute of limitations doesn’t even start until you’re apprehended. And don’t forget, if the state grabs your child, it’s smarter to work through the legal system, than to grab the child and run when you visit. Then if they catch you, you will most likely permanently lose custody.

If you do grab your child and are ready to run after a court order against you, beware of leaving “tracks” in the form of digital or electronic footprints. Emails may serve as silent witnesses against us. Just “deleting” it doesn’t remove it from your computer, unless you have a software program which buries it by overwriting it with countless lines of gibberish. That make the forensic guys crazy. Forensic guys can determine the date and brand of a flash drive inserted into your computer as well. They can also trace any Google searches you’ve made. You don’t want to give away information on where you’re headed if fleeing from the government. Keep in mind, emails that you have sent have a recipient—and emails that you receive have a sender, whose computer may be searched by the government as well as yours. Also keep in mind that g-mails are also stored on Google servers, which the government may access by forcing Google to turn them over. Any service provider, for that matter, may have a copy of your emails.

The solution? Don’t use emails to communicate sensitive topics. Try letters, using a trusted courier if speed is necessary. If you’re already under investigation, keep in mind, the government may open your letters. It helps to send out through a public postal bin in another town, leaving your name and address off the envelope. Or try face-to-face communication, if at all possible.

Cell phones are another problem. If you talk during your escape, you can be traced by the government by simply seeing what tower it’s pinging from. The phone also has GPS, which the government can trace you as well even if you don’t call anyone. Best to remove the batteries when you’re running. Turn off any other GPS systems (like Garmin), unless you absolutely need it for navigation (go back to Mapquest, maybe?)

When talking at home, remember that land lines have more privacy, since it’s harder for the government to tap—they need a court order. But they can obtain records on who you called—and the government might use them to help locate you, or they might use the call-recipient as witness against you.

Solution? Ditch the cell phone when on the move. Use public phones-curse their rarity. Thus, the way to beat the government’s high-tech capabilities is—go low-tech.

Finally, if you’re arrested, you will be advised of your Miranda rights. Take advantage of them. Say nothing except “let me call a lawyer.” Ignore the police’s telling you “it will go a lot easier for you” to confess. It’s a lie. Also, be aware of a document called “search incident to an arrest.” It gives the government freedom to search and attach whatever’s on you or close around you when they arrest you.  It’s best, if you can see the arresting officers approaching your door, to drop your cell phone, then go outside, close the door behind you, and then get arrested. If you’re in your car, with GPS, or computer nearby, it’s best to park, lock, and walk to the arresting officers, or get someone else to drive you to the police station. Finally, IF you’ve already been charged with a crime, destroying evidence after that is also a crime. My previous advice on deleting can be done before you’ve been officially charged. Keep in mind—an arrest does not mean you have been charged yet, don’t assume that.

Don’t forget, all communication with your attorney is confidential, so you need to be honest about your past. BUT don’t share your intent to engage in “crimes” in the future—that’s not protected by law, and your attorney can be forced to witness that against you. It is legal to discuss with your attorney “what if” scenarios to try to determine what’s within the boundary of the law. “What if” is not a crime yet (except in the movie Minority Report). Also keep in mind, everyone you involve in helping you could also be prosecuted with you. The less you tell them about what you’re doing, the better—or if you could do it yourself, that might be best. But you would miss out on the bonding experience of doing something “illegal” together for the cause of Christ. The day may come when small groups of Christians will have great causes and sacrifice their lives and reputations together.
Let us be wise as serpents, yet innocent as doves. Our lives mean nothing in the cause of Christ. Endure the hard times, to be with Him eternally—a much better goal, is it not?

Acknowledgement: Dave Bercot CD, “When Persecution Comes,” Scroll Publishing.