Even though we all know the Southern Baptist Convention is woke, it seems like every day we see another example of just how pervasive this evil is in these churches. Over the years, we’ve uncovered garbage from SBC pastors like David Platt, Matt Chandler, and many others pushing various forms of critical theory and woke social justice tripe. But most of that simply demonstrates just how feeble-minded and non-thinking most pastors and church leaders who buy into this stuff really are.
However, in the document below, you would not believe the extent to which supposedly Bible-believing congregations are now funding what can only be described as a baptized brand of Marxism.
Over the last several years, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has increasingly embraced woke ideologies, despite many of its leaders continuing to stick their heads in the sand over this. This creeping influence is most brazenly evident in a training manual recently uncovered from the North American Mission Board’s “Send Philly” event in 2019. What’s particularly alarming is that these ideologies are being funded by the tithes and offerings of mostly unknowing churchgoers who are being deliberately lied to—dollars that should go towards spreading the gospel, not social theories.
The “Send Philly” curriculum typifies this new direction. Wrapped in the language of urban ministry and outreach, the content is steeped in concepts drawn straight from Critical Race Theory and social justice narratives. These are ideologies that are in direct conflict with the Bible, focusing on societal structures and collective guilt rather than individual sin and redemption.
One of the central themes of this curriculum is an obsession with the “marginalized.” While the Bible does call Christians to care for the oppressed and the needy, this manual shifts the focus toward a secular understanding of oppression. It categorizes individuals not by their spiritual needs or their common identity in Christ but by their socio-economic status, ethnicity, and other worldly metrics. The document dilutes the message of salvation and individual transformation to a message of social reform and systemic restructuring.
In one section, the material discusses “marginalized peoples” in the context of Matthew 25:31-46, twisting Scripture to support a narrative that prioritizes social identity and earthly justice over spiritual regeneration and heavenly justice. It portrays Jesus not primarily as the Savior from sin but as a social reformer, which is a misrepresentation of His mission and the Gospel.
Worse, this manual ventures into areas like systemic racism, environmental oppression, and modern-day slavery—terms loaded with political connotations and underpinned by a worldview that sees “systemic sin” as the root of all societal evils. The curriculum advocates for a form of activism that aligns more closely with leftist political thought than with pastoral ministry or evangelism.
To see tithes being used for promoting such views is distressing as Christians should see their contributions not as just financial gifts but as offerings to God for the purpose of furthering His kingdom—not for advancing a secular agenda cloaked in Christian rhetoric. The misalignment between the financial stewardship of these resources and the theological direction being pursued raises serious questions about accountability and the future direction of the SBC.
Yet, this is where Southern Baptists continue to spend their hard-earned money. What is the return? Are we winning souls or simply appeasing the culture—the far left pagan culture? The infiltration of woke ideology into the SBC through training programs like “Send Philly” reveals a troubling trend. It’s not just about a theological mission drift but about a fundamental restructuring in how the church understands and carries out its mission.
There is a danger that has come into the sheepfold; apostates have come in and they probably have always been here. However, with the prevalence of social media, their influence has spread and it is more important than ever before to recognize the marks of an apostate, a person who at one time knew and maybe even taught the truths of the Bible but walked away or a person who consistently teaches false doctrines to the Church. Jude, the Lord’s youngest human brother, points out several signs of an apostate and I want to draw your attention to them.
1 Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and a brother of James: To those who are the called, loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ.
2 May mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you.
3 Dear friends, although I was eager to write you about the salvation we share, I found it necessary to write and exhort you to contend for the faith that was delivered to the saints once for all. 4 For some men, who were designated for this judgment long ago, have come in by stealth; they are ungodly, turning the grace of our God into promiscuity and denying Jesus Christ, our only Master and Lord.
Right away we begin to see the characteristics of the Apostates that Jude warns about…
1.) Apostates are ungodly (v. 4)
When the New Testament writers say that a person is ungodly, it does not simply mean that the person does not know God, it also means that he does not have a character that is consistent with the revealed Person and Nature of God.
2.) They are morally perverted (v. 4)
In the NIV, promiscuity is translated as “license to commit immorality.” Among other things, these apostates teach that there is no need to struggle to overcome sin. The Greek word rendered as contend, or contend earnestly (NKV, NASB) is agonizomai from which we derive the word agonize. Because our sinful nature will not easily be transformed into Christlikeness, it can seem agonizing, at times to give up that sin in order to be more like Christ.
Many, many apostates teach instead that God will give you all the things you want: health, wealth, possessions, influence, etc and all you have to do is “sow the best offering that you can” without any call to true repentance or humility. Examples of such teachers include but are not limited to Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Jesse Duplantis, Rod Parsley, Joyce Meyer, TD Jakes, Mark Chironna and scads of others. One has even gone so far as to say that anyone who tells you to deny yourself is from Satan. These ignore the command of Jesus to deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Him (Matthew 16:24).
In truth, you do not even have to teach grace as a license to sin however you please to turn grace into license, all you have to do is refuse to teach the truth of God’s grace, that it saves you from sin and its power not simply that it saves you from hell. And just in case you were going to object and say that such things are not perverted, the definition of perverse is something that is contrary to the generally accepted standard or practice. Since the Bible is our standard, anything contradicting the Bible or anything taught in the pulpit that does not match Scripture is, by definition, perverted.
3.) Apostates Deny Christ (v. 4)
Ultimately, this leads to a denial of Christ; the Jesus taught and embraced by the apostates simply is not the Jesus of the Bible.
Apostates: Past and Present
5 Now I want to remind you, though you know all these things: The Lord first saved a people out of Egypt and later destroyed those who did not believe; 6 and He has kept, with eternal chains in darkness for the judgment of the great day, the angels who did not keep their own position but deserted their proper dwelling. 7 In the same way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them committed sexual immorality and practiced perversions, just as angels did, and serve as an example by undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. 8 Nevertheless, these dreamers likewise defile their flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme glorious ones.
4.) They defile the flesh (v.7& 8)
As we are seeing today, apostates defile the flesh in ungodly and unbiblical ways. Some of my evangelical brethren will immediately point to homosexuality but what about other sins: drunkenness, gluttony (I think I have only heard one sermon on gluttony in 25 years), fornication, domestic violence (yes the Bible actually addresses this topic which I have never in my life heard addressed in the pulpit).
Defiling the flesh refers primarily to sexual sin (1 Corinthians 6:18) which is a sin against one’s own body, but this is not exclusive. Remember that Jude’s oldest half-brother, the Lord Jesus Himself, even went so far as to equate contemplating the sin with the actual sin itself (Matthew 5:27-28). When is the last time you heard a sermon about sexual lust (lust of the flesh), greed (lust of the eyes), or counteracting the boastful pride of life by being poor in spirit?
5.)Apostates are Rebellious (v. 8)
By not teaching what the Bible actually says, these apostates live in and encourage rebellion in others. A pastor once told me that 1% out of submission is equal to being 100% in rebellion against God. To deny a doctrine, the reality of hell for example (Rob Bell) and to teach that denial to others is absolute rebellion against God. To refuse to yield to the Authority of Scripture is to refuse to yield to the Author. They go hand in hand; authority entails submission.
6.) Apostates Revile holy angels (v. 8)
This is a mark against Pentecostals if I ever saw one. Growing up Pentecostal, I cannot tell you how many times I have seen pastors “bind” satan or command him to do this or that; both of which are patently absurd. If Michael, the highest angel (archangel means chief angel) dares not to speak against the devil, what in the world possesses a “Christian” to do so? There is no biblical justification to think you can command an angel to do anything. Even fallen angels serve at the pleasure of God Almighty and Him alone. They advance His agenda and they fulfill His sovereign decrees and so, not matter how much your favorite teacher might tell you otherwise, you cannot command them to do anything and it is ridiculous to think the opposite.
7.) Essentially, Apostates are ignorant (v. 8)
The behavior we have discussed so far demonstrates an absolute willful ignorance of both the Things of God and of His Person. To know Him as He is demands that one is to submit to Him. Look to Revelation chapter one and see the reaction of John when he saw just a picture of the Resurrected Christ and you will see what kind of response a true knowledge of God the Son results in.
9 Yet Michael the archangel, when he was disputing with the Devil in a debate about Moses’ body, did not dare bring an abusive condemnation against him but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” 10 But these people blaspheme anything they don’t understand. What they know by instinct like unreasoning animals—they destroy themselves with these things.
8.) Apostates are continually having vain ideas (vs. 8-10)
Continuing with the idea of ignorance, apostates have vain/foolish ideas. Word of Faith teachers, for example, tell you that you can name and claim your promise from Scripture and activate a response from God based on your faith. This is hubris and is no different than the idea of “binding satan.” I have heard them justify this nonsense by saying all the promises of God are yea and amen. That is only half the truth and is therefore not the truth. All of God’s promises are yea and amen but only in so far as to the person(s) they apply to. I will bless them that bless you and curse them that curse you is a very true promise but it only applies to the Nation of Israel for that is whom God made the promise to.
It is utter vanity and foolishness to presume anything upon Him Who sits upon the Throne. Do not allow yourself to mistake God’s patience for tolerance. Every person living will have their appointed time before the Throne; the Righteous will see the Bema (the Judgment Seat for rewards) and the wicked and apostates will see the Great White Throne as Heaven’s court dispenses eternal justice.
9.) Apostasy leads to self-destruction (v. 10)
What is the natural end result of apostasy? Self-destruction. God does not have to directly do anything to these, all He has to do is say to them, “thy will be done” and step aside. How many ministries have been damaged and even destroyed by ministers who thought they could get away with this or that? I would list names but that is impractical.
I can say from personal experience, getting your own way can be deadly, to your soul as well as your body. After all, there is a way which seemeth right unto a man and the end thereof is destruction. (Proverbs 14:12 & 16:25)
11 Woe to them! For they have traveled in the way of Cain, have abandoned themselves to the error of Balaam for profit, and have perished in Korah’s rebellion.
The Apostates’ Doom
12 These are the ones who are like dangerous reefs[e] at your love feasts. They feast with you, nurturing only themselves without fear. They are waterless clouds carried along by winds; trees in late autumn—fruitless, twice dead, pulled out by the roots; 13 wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shameful deeds; wandering stars for whom the blackness of darkness is reserved forever! 14 And Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied about them: Look! The Lord comes[f] with thousands of His holy ones 15 to execute judgment on all and to convict them[g] of all their ungodly acts that they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things ungodly sinners have said against Him. 16 These people are discontented grumblers, walking according to their desires; their mouths utter arrogant words, flattering people for their own advantage.
I will deal with all of these together: they are person-centric and reflect the oldest sin in the book, pride. Pride is that sin that caused Lucifer to lose his place in heaven and it will do you the same favor. Pride looks at another, finds his/her deficiency, and then exalts self because you don’t have that particular deficiency. It causes one to puff up and think of oneself more than he/she really is. Pride, the oldest known sin, is the truest and surest mark of the apostate. No matter what other signs you see, the Christian that demonstrates pride is on treacherous ground and in real danger of going where one does not want to be, apostasy.
17 But you, dear friends, remember what was predicted by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; 18 they told you, “In the end time there will be scoffers walking according to their own ungodly desires.”
15.) In a sense, apostates are mockers (v. 18)
2 Peter 3:4, They will say where is the promise of His coming. I would add to that, they will say things like no serious Christian believes in Hell or, no loving, tolerant Christian rejects gays, or they will dismiss the creation account as a myth/a metaphor.
Mark it out, every single apostate has some passage or doctrine that he does not like and by dismissing it, they make a mockery of God…for now.
19 These people create divisions and are unbelievers, not having the Spirit.
16.) Cause division (v. 19) 17.)Worldly-minded 18.) Without the Spirit(v. 19)
Apostates cause division in the church because they are worldly-minded and they are worldly-minded because they do not have the Holy Spirit and they do not have the Holy Spirit because they are worldly-minded.
It’s a vicious cycle once you walk away from the truth of Scripture and only the Holy Spirit can bring you back.
Exhortation and Benediction
20 But you, dear friends, as you build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, expecting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ for eternal life. 22 Have mercy on those who doubt; 23 save others by snatching them from the fire; have mercy on others but with fear, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh. 24 Now to Him who is able to protect you from stumbling and to make you stand in the presence of His glory, blameless and with great joy, 25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, power, and authority before all time, now and forever. Amen.
Beloved, you may be reading this and say that you have seen some of these signs in your own life. That is both good and bad news. It is bad in that a propensity toward apostasy may exist but it is good in that the Holy Spirit is doing His work of convicting sin. What should you do if you see signs of apostasy in your life or if you are following a False Teacher? Repent right away. If the Holy Spirit is convicting you, agree with Him immediately and confess that sin. He will restore to communion with Him and you can continue to grow in grace.
Jonathan Cahn is truly appropriately named. He is indeed a con / Cahn man. A revealer of Old Testament mysteries that only he knows. One of the many signs of a false prophet. In Christ, Pastor Steve <><
***************************
It is appropriate that we continue to warn Christians about the dangerous teachings of Jonathan Cahn, who positions himself as a modern-day prophet and decoder of biblical mysteries. Despite numerous bold predictions about economic collapses and national disasters, Cahn has yet to provide a prophecy that has come true, demonstrating the falsehood of his claims.
Cahn predicted that the Shemitah year of 2015 would bring a significant financial “great shaking,” which did not occur. His books, filled with supposed “harbingers” and ominous forecasts following events like 9/11, have also failed to materialize any true prophetic insight. His frequent appearances on Jim Bakker’s show, known for doomsday predictions and survival product sales, further underscore the baselessness of his prophetic claims.
Adding to the evidence of his false teachings, Cahn’s prophetic claims have even reached the ranks of New York Times Best-Sellers, widely disseminating his dubious predictions. Up until the very last minute of the most recent Shemitah cycle, Cahn maintained that a global “shaking” was imminent. This prediction, like his others, proved false when the Shemitah ended without incident, demonstrating his lack of credibility and revealing his prophecies as nothing more than sensationalism.
Fans of Cahn might argue that he is not a prophet but merely an “interpreter” of biblical prophecy. However, Cahn has taken non-prophetic scriptures and misapplied them to current events, claiming divine insights that simply do not hold up under scrutiny.
Join Us and Get These Perks:
✅ No Ads in Articles ✅ Access to Comments and Discussions ✅ Community Chats ✅ Full Article and Podcast Archive ✅ The Joy of Supporting Our Work 😉
In his book, The Oracle: The Jubilean Mysteries Revealed, Cahn suggests that he alone possesses the knowledge to unlock ancient secrets supposedly pointing to modern figures and events, including insinuations that Donald Trump is mentioned in the Bible.
“Could an ancient prophecy and a mysterious ordinance given in a Middle Eastern desert over 3,000 years ago be determining the events of our day?”
Could some of the most famous people of modern history and current events be secretly linked to this mystery—even a modern president of the United States?
Could this ancient revelation pinpoint the events of our times down to the year, month and day of their occurring?
Could a mysterious phenomenon be manifesting on the world stage on an exact timetable determined from ancient times?
Could these manifestations have altered—and now be altering—the course of world events?
The Bible is clear about false prophets: “when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him” (Deuteronomy 18:22). Jonathan Cahn’s consistent inaccuracies and sensationalism are not just errors; they are indicative of a deeper disregard for the true prophetic spirit of the Scriptures.
In defending his failed prophecies, Cahn has even issued legal threats against critics, such as a laughable cease and desist letter, showcasing his unwillingness to face legitimate scrutiny and claiming that he is being falsely accused of being a false prophet. His actions contradict the humble and open-hearted approach that characterizes genuine biblical leadership.
Jonathan Cahn’s teachings, particularly his flawed interpretations and failed prophecies, should serve as a red flag for anyone considering listening to him. They reflect a broader issue within certain circles of Christianity that elevates sensationalism over sound doctrine. Christians are urged to rely on the full counsel of God’s Word, rather than the speculative and sensational interpretations offered by false teachers like Cahn.
Jonathan Cahn has demonstrated a consistent pattern of misleading his audience with predictions that fail to materialize, coupled with a defensive posture against criticism. It is vital for believers to remain vigilant and discerning, grounding themselves in Scripture and rejecting those who distort its truths for personal gain or sensationalism.
The Dissenter is primarily supported by its readers. The best way to support us is to subscribe to our members-only site where you will receive all of our content ad-free, plus you will get member-only exclusive content.
The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission’s (ERLC) Brent Leatherwood’s journey to the center of Southern Baptist policymaking reads not so much as a pilgrimage of faith but rather a trek through the thickets of political activism, where the compass often points left under the guise of “Christian justice.”
Leatherwood’s form of activism, which is a form of “third way-ism,” disguised as “conservatism,” suggests an attempt to straddle the divide between traditional conservatism and progressive ideologies.
Leatherwood’s political trajectory can be traced back to his tenure as the executive director of the Tennessee Republican Party, where his political savvy was honed not on the battlegrounds of polarizing rhetoric but within the more nuanced realms of policy and influence. His ascendancy within the ERLC began under the leadership of far-left political activist and Democrat staffer, Russell Moore, and was essentially a culmination of a career steeped in political strategy and engagement with civic issues.
Yet, it is precisely this background that should lead us to scrutinize the true north of his compass: Does his background point toward a synthesis of justice and Christian ethics, or is he merely using his Southern Baptist platform to advance an ideological agenda out of step with the majority of Southern Baptists.
The crux of the matter is whether Leatherwood’s political activism and policy inclinations harmonize with the chorus of voices within the denomination or is he, and the organization he works for, a rogue entity with no accountability.
In the aftermath of the tragic shooting at the hands of a “transgender” assailant at the Covenant Day School in Nashville—a school that his children also attend—Leatherwood’s response was to wield this moment of vulnerability as a fulcrum for gun control advocacy. It quickly became clear that this wasn’t a measured step toward school safety, it was an exploitation of grief for policy change.
In a letter addressed to Lt. Gov. Randy McNally, House Speaker Cameron Sexton, and all members of the legislature, Leatherwood presents an appeal from both his personal experience and on behalf of the majority Southern Baptist sentiment, according to The Tennessean. He urged lawmakers to ensure that no school in Tennessee ever has to endure the same nightmare as the Covenant School tragedy again.
Leatherwood told the lawmakers that Southern Baptists make up one-fifth of the population of Tennessee and have repeatedly called for ways to reduce gun violence, a seemingly veiled threat by the former leader of the TN Republican Party that he may use his power of leadership over Southern Baptists to sway the vote. “Other voices are saying there is too little time left in this legislative session to consider such a proposal. Little credence should be given to that,” he said in the letter, according to the Tennessean.
His battle did not end at the doorsteps of legislative reform but continued into the halls of public knowledge, where he sought to keep the assailant’s motives—a matter of clear public interest—shrouded in secrecy. It was only when a media outlet pierced this veil, releasing the manifesto that revealed these motives—the manifesto clearly indicated a motive that debunks the left’s prevalent “white supremacy” narrative, hence the massive orchestrated cover-up led by Leatherwood. After the leak, Leatherwood condemned the media with far greater vigor than he had condemned the attack itself.
Leatherwood’s advocacy doesn’t pause at the nation’s internal strife but extends its hand across its borders. Here in the United States, he has consistently used his SBC platform to lobby for lax immigration policies, an approach unquestionably at odds with the concerns many Southern Baptists have about national security and the rule of law. His open borders and amnesty activism further accentuate the schism between his political advocacy and the sentiments of a significant portion of Southern Baptists he claims to represent.
The dichotomy between his domestic and international policy stances is unmistakable. While Leatherwood speaks for, so he says, Southern Baptists, a body whose majority disagrees with him, he stands on the backs of conservative Americans to push policies that are anti-American while lobbying Congress to defend a corrupt nation halfway around the planet.
Let’s break this down a bit. Brent Leatherwood, speaking on behalf of over 13 million Southern Baptists, asks lawmakers to implement harsh and ineffective gun control policies in the United States which would only benefit criminals while also asking Congress to force the American taxpayer to send unlimited guns and weapons to Ukraine—who knows whose hands that will end up in.
Same with border control. As millions of invaders cross the American Southern border, Leatherwood lobbies for amnesty as he pushes Congress to defend the Ukrainian border at the expense of the American worker.
The greater question here is not only are Leatherwood’s political views unbiblical and progressive but what is the role of the denomination in public policy making? Should someone in such an influential religious position use his platform to push political policies—particularly, really bad political policies?
I’m not sure, but I’m inclined to believe that the Church has a duty to speak biblical truth to the conscience of the nation, including to lawmakers, that would influence policies that are God-honoring. But the alignment—or misalignment—of Leatherwood’s progressive political activism with the conservative political and Christian views of most Southern Baptists brings to light these questions. Where is the accountability?
Another of the myriad of reasons that our church left the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Leader after leader are afraid to boldly stand on the Word and confront the apostasy of our times. Brent Leatherwood is all about job security, and as far as truth, the Word, and scripture, he has the backbone of a jellyfish. The video below, reveals Leatherwood to be a wolf in sheepskin. His demeanor is that of a secular CEO and does not represent the Christian faith in the least. He is concerned about his position and he is afraid of apostates, and cares not for the Lord’s truth. Personally, I could not stay with such a denomination and sleep soundly. In Christ, Pastor Steve <><
…instead be deadly to Leatherwood’s and the ERLC’s cause. After the release of the Nashville shooter’s manifesto yesterday, Leatherwood held a press briefing with arguably one of the most disingenuous displays of passion I’ve ever seen—it was borderline sociopathic.
Earlier this week, Leatherwood was confronted by Steven Crowder and his team after a court hearing as Leatherwood continues to push for a court order to keep any information regarding the motivation of this attack from the public. Leatherwood, like the weasel that he is, refuses to answer any questions and acts just like any leftist politician who is more concerned about his career than he is about the truth.
On March 27, 2023, a mass shooting occurred at The Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee, which resulted in multiple fatalities. The attack was carried out by a transgender leftist who had written a “manifesto” which has currently been withheld due to public records requests made by the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department as well as the activism of Southern Baptist Convention ERLC head, Brent Leatherwood.
Brent Leatherwood, head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy arm, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), is calling on TN lawmakers to back a proposal by Governor Bill Lee for an extreme risk protective order law, also known as red flag laws. The proposal would allow the state to temporarily restrict gun purchases if the state deems one to be a danger to themselves or others, yet the criteria that would be used to make the determination remains unclear.
Brent Leatherwood, who is also a parent of three children at Covenant School where the shooting by a deranged transgender assailant took place, shared his experience of receiving a call that a shooter was at the school. In a series of tweets on April 3, he recounted how the trauma and memories of the tragedy would be with his family for the rest of their lives.
“We’ve become numb to these tragedies as a society,” Leatherwood wrote on Twitter. “Defenseless, innocent lives being taken. We should never accept this as a reality. We need to commit ourselves to finding an answer to this epidemic and not rest until it is solved. Count me as a solution seeker on this.”
Unsurprisingly, Leatherwood has exploited this tragedy and used his platform as a Southern Baptist leader in order to advance stricter anti-Second Amendment gun control laws. In a letter addressed to Lt. Gov. Randy McNally, House Speaker Cameron Sexton, and all members of the legislature, Leatherwood presented an appeal from both his personal experience and on behalf of the majority Southern Baptist sentiment, according to The Tennessean. He urged lawmakers to ensure that no school in Tennessee ever has to endure the same nightmare as the Covenant School tragedy again.
Leatherwood told the lawmakers that Southern Baptists make up one-fifth of the population of Tennessee and have repeatedly called for ways to reduce gun violence, a seemingly veiled threat by the former leader of the TN Republican Party that he may use his power of leadership over Southern Baptists to sway the vote. “Other voices are saying there is too little time left in this legislative session to consider such a proposal. Little credence should be given to that,” he said in the letter, according to the Tennessean.
In a report at the Epoch Times, it has been further revealed that Leatherwood had not only been advocating for stricter gun laws, but he’s also been working overtime to censor the manifesto written by the deranged transgender activist who killed innocent people on that day. While one would think that a conservative, Bible-believing Christian leader in his right mind could only think of a deranged, transvestite killer as an “unhinged activist,” instead, Leatherwood refers to those who are calling for transparency as such.
Brent and Meredith Leatherwood, parents of three children who were present that day, echo Kinney in saying their current anguish comes from “unhinged activists, unthinking partisans, conspiracy theorists, and various media outlets that value clicks over their community.”
The Leatherwoods said their family had also received “hints” of threats of legal action in order to intimidate them from trying to stop the release of the records. Leatherwood, through his position with the Southern Baptist Convention, has called on stricter gun laws following the shooting.
In November 2023, copies of the shooter’s manifesto were released by Steven Crowder and his media team. Leatherwood proceeded to attack the media and others who had been pushing for the release.
Leatherwood, along with a minority coalition of other parents in the school, had been seeking every possible way to stop the release of the shooter’s written manifesto to the public, and had been successful in preventing the release for several months.
From the release of the manifesto, the Nashville shooter was revealed, as suspected, to be racially motivated in her attack. In fact, the manifesto clearly demonstrated a motive that was built upon the ideologies of Critical Race Theory and anti-white sentiment. Leatherwood, knowing this, had claimed that the release of the manifesto and the motive for this person’s attack was not important and would “re-victimize” the parents and students at the school.
However, in the 2019 El Paso shooting, the ERLC believed that the motive for the attack was important. But that attack was motivated by “white supremacy,” a narrative they had been pushing as a dangerous and deadly ideology.
But since the motive for the Nashville shooting went against the narrative of “white supremacy,” it became clear that the release of the information wouldn’t be deadly to others, but would instead be deadly to Leatherwood’s and the ERLC’s cause. After the release of the Nashville shooter’s manifesto yesterday, Leatherwood held a press briefing with arguably one of the most disingenuous displays of passion I’ve ever seen—it was borderline sociopathic.
Earlier this week, Leatherwood was confronted by Steven Crowder and his team after a court hearing as Leatherwood continues to push for a court order to keep any information regarding the motivation of this attack from the public. Leatherwood, like the weasel that he is, refuses to answer any questions and acts just like any leftist politician who is more concerned about his career than he is about the truth.
Watch:
The Dissenter is primarily supported by its readers. The best way to support us is to subscribe to our members-only site where you will receive all of our content ad-free, plus you will get member-only exclusive content.
We need your support. As big tech continues its crackdown on conservative blogs, our days on these platforms are numbered. Go Ad-Free plus get Exclusive Member-Only content by subscribing to us on Substack!
In a nation that once heralded the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, a shadow has fallen, casting a long and dark silhouette over the moral landscape. At the heart of this darkness lies the tragedy of systematic child-murder, a scourge that has not only marred but fundamentally altered the character of America.
The blanket and collective endorsement and normalization of abortion in America are not mere policy failures—they are the stench of a rotting spiritual corpse, symptoms of a deadly spiritual poison, collectively ingested by a nation once alive with the zeal of a people who believe in God. It is a brazen affront to the Creator, an act of rebellion that screams into the heavens, demanding a response. And respond, God will—for He is just, and His justice will not sleep forever.
The Scripture is unequivocal in its affirmation of life’s sanctity, from conception to natural death. “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you,” declares the Lord in Jeremiah 1:5. Yet, this divine pronouncement has been met with disdain, as millions of lives have been extinguished in the name of convenience and autonomy.
The blood of the innocent cries out from the ground, and we, as a nation, have covered our ears to the sound.
This is not merely a failing of the left or those who openly champion abortion “rights.” Nor can the blame be laid solely at the feet of progressive politicians like Stacey Abrams or Raphael Warnock, who, while vocally supportive of abortion, are but cogs in a much larger machine of moral decay.
The culpability extends to every corner of American society, from the halls of power to the pews of our churches, where silence and inaction have become the order of the day.
God’s character—His holiness, justice, and righteousness—demands a reckoning. He is a God of love and mercy, yes, but He is also a God of wrath, poised to judge those who lift their middle fingers to Him and His laws while breathing His air and desecrating His creation. America, once the land of hope and a light to the nations, is now a sewage dump where the world flushes its moral sewage and it festers to become what we call “progress.”
Join Us and Get These Perks:
✅ No Ads in Articles ✅ Access to Comments and Discussions ✅ Community Chats ✅ Full Article and Podcast Archive ✅ The Joy of Supporting Our Work 😉
America now stands on the brink of divine judgment, having traded its heritage for a mess of pottage.
Yet, abortion isn’t the root cause of our problems as a nation—it is a symptom of a deeper, spiritual malaise. It is a heart condition, pride, that afflicts the very souls of men. It is a reflection of a society that has turned its back on God, elevating human wisdom, comfort, and desire above divine decree. And in doing so, we have incited the wrath of the God who is sovereign over us, and it would be both right and just for Him to utterly destroy us, to hand us over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that perhaps some might be saved on the day of the Lord.
Yet, even in this, God’s mercy shines forth. For His judgments are not merely punitive. They are redemptive, designed to bring us to our knees in repentance, that we might turn from our wickedness and live. The call to repentance is urgent, pressing, and it is a call to each individual and to the nation as a whole. We must forsake our sinful ways and seek the face of God, acknowledging Him as Lord and King.
This is a matter of utmost seriousness, a spiritual battle that rages around us, demanding our full attention and engagement. The goal is not the salvation of America—America is dead. The goal is the glory of God and the salvation of souls. The church must rise, casting aside complacency and lukewarmness, to proclaim the truth of the Gospel.
We are not without hope, for we serve a mighty God, sovereign over all the earth. His purposes will stand, and His kingdom will come, on earth as it is in heaven. Yet we must gird ourselves for battle, armed with the full armor of God, that we might stand firm against the schemes of the devil.
America stands at a crossroads, and the path we choose will determine our fate. Will we continue down the road of rebellion and face the righteous wrath of God, or will we repent and return to the Lord, seeking His mercy and forgiveness? The choice is ours, and the time to decide is now.
But if we continue to spurn the Lord and shed innocent blood, we may well find that the God of justice has left us to our own devices, a nation abandoned to the consequences of its sin.
Today’s church often features no mention of sin, applies no discipline, totally ignores the reality of the need for repentance (Luke 13:3,5), as well as the soon coming judgment of God and Hell. Maranatha, Pastor Steve <><
1st Corinthians 5 (NASB) 1-It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. 2-You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.
3-For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4-In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5-I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6-Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? 7-Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ, our Passover also has been sacrificed. 8-Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9-I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10-I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11-But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12-For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13-But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.
There are several points that must be considered, grasped, and accepted before a proper understanding of this difficult passage is possible. Not difficult in the sense of being particularly elusive in its meaning, but difficult in its subject matter. These are as follows:
1) The purpose of excommunication is twofold and motivated by love for Christ and His church. To hopefully rescue the erring member and preserve the safety and purity of the body.
2) At no point in this passage is the man under consideration called by the apostle a brother in Christ. (we’ll get there)
3) The “judgment” Paul is talking about is not the final judgment of eternal destiny, but a judgment of the man’s fruit and hence the present credibility of his claim on Christ.
4) Excommunication is both the sentence of that Judgement and the judgment itself.
5) While gross sexual immorality is the example at hand, excommunication is to be carried out upon all flagrant, stubbornly practiced, unrepentant sin. ============================================================
There can be no disagreement on the nature and severity of the sin being here not only tolerated but fallaciously held up as an object of liberty from law by the Corinthian church. (another story for another time) Leviticus 18:8 specifically forbids relations with one’s father’s wife. Paul makes clear that this perversion is of such a nature that it would raise the eyebrows of even the pagan residents of Corinth who were certainly no strangers to deviance and debauchery.
Paul’s mind, as he sets forth in verse 5, is not to exact vengeance or to look down on this man in self-righteous condemnation, but his hope is that through this, the severest of Church discipline he may be finally saved. ———————————————————– The offender is referred to directly 7 times in this passage and indirectly a few more. The first direct reference is in v.1 where Paul uses a simple pronoun (τινα – tina), rendered here by the NASB crew as “someone”. A person.
The second is in v.2 where he is called “the one” in the NASB. “Him” in the ESV. This is a single-letter article, the rough breathing omicron, pronounced “haw” which is most often translated as “the”. The English word “one” is added to make the thought flow in our language. “The one who has done this”.
The third is in v.3. Here we have the article again except in the accusative case this time. (It is nominative in v.2) Translated “him” in the NASB and “the one” in the ESV.
We have 2 references to this man in v.5. The first is the pronoun τοιοῦτος (toy oo toss), which indicates classification or kind. The NASB renders this as “such a one”. Meaning “a guy like this”. The ESV is a little bland here with “this man”. The KJV actually flavors this more fully with “such an one”. The second reference in v.5 is another article. Here in the neuter gender. “The” spirit is what it actually says. The KJV translates it that way. More modern translations change the gender in English to “his”. Masculine. A legitimate liberty as it is indisputable that that’s what it means. “his spirit may be saved”.
The sixth time we find the “someone” from verse 1 being referred to directly (though as part of a category) is in v.11. This one is VERY important. Here we have a participle form of the verb ὀνομάζω (on omad zo). Paul’s use of this word and phraseology carries with it his intention that his readers understand the inconclusive nature of this man’s status as a “brother”. This word used this way brings the meaning of taking a name or designation. Technically, it could be understood either in the middle voice, which would mean that the man is calling himself a brother or in the passive voice, which would mean that others are calling him that. Or both. The point is that his being CALLED a brother is not the same as his actually being one.
While not incorrect, the ESV regrettably sort of obscures this with the rendering “bears the name of brother”. My beloved NASB nails it with “so-called brother”. That is EXACTLY what is being conveyed. This man is being considered a Christian brother when the evidence does not necessarily support that conclusion. It’s not necessarily the case that he is NOT a brother either. We don’t know yet. We have to wait to see how he responds to excommunication. More on that a little later. If Paul wanted them and us to consider this man a brother, he would have simply said “any brother” and not included this phraseology at all. It would have been less work to do so.
The last time in this chapter that our subject is referred to directly is the quotation of a principle found in several places in the book of Deuteronomy. (13:5, 17:7, 17:12, 21:21, and 22:21. Also Judges 20:13) This is in verse 13. “REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.” Caps as per the NASB translators indicating a quotation from the Old Testament. The word “man” does not occur in the text. It is presumed. A standard practice when translating Koine Greek into English. (though this is almost certainly a quotation from the Septuagint) In every instance of this principle under this phrase in the above cited OT passages, it simply says “remove the evil” and the offender was to be put to death. The crimes ranged from disrespecting authority to falsely prophesying to immorality. Saints are never referred to as evil or wicked persons. They may lapse into evil or wicked acts sometimes, but they are never referred to in these terms as persons. Of course, we don’t physically execute such folks in the new covenant age, but it does help us understand how seriously to view the man in our passage here.
To sum up this section on that note, it is an illegitimate imposition upon the text to refer to this man or anyone else like him as a brother or sister in Christ. The apostle never does so and in fact, uses specific language in v.11 to make that explicitly clear.
Satan is referred to in scripture as “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4), “the prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2) and he under whose power lies the whole world. (1 John 5:19)
Being cut off from the comfort and strength of the fellowship of believers as well as being denied the means of grace in the administration of the word and the communion table IS being “delivered to Satan”. It is being sent into exile outside the camp to fend for oneself in enemy territory. The hope being that the pain and misery of this state of affairs might drive the subject to repentance as is befitting one who is the heir of final salvation.
Let’s now take a closer look at verse 5. After declaring his judgment upon the offender in v.4 (we’ll touch on judging a bit later too), Paul defines this judgment, as I went into above, as “delivering to Satan”. The purpose is for the “destruction of the flesh”. The short version for this phrase is that “flesh” is here being used to connote the whole of the sinful carnal man still dead in Adam and who will not be completely shed while we are still in this body.
It should be noted that some tie this to Romans 1 where this same Paul refers to those involved in homosexuality as “receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”
In the Romans 1 passage though, the penalty is received in their “persons” (NASB) or “themselves” (ESV). This is a pronoun (reflexive) ἑαυτοῦ (heh ow too) and carries with it the idea of personhood itself. It is not the same as the flesh (σάρξ – sarx). Though the “dishonoring” of their bodies (ch. 1:24) may be part of the penalty, it is not intended to be redemptive in any way that can be gotten out of the text of the Romans passage. But the “destruction of the flesh” in 1st Corinthians 5 is overtly stated to hopefully be the instrument of that man’s rescue from the path to perdition. The people group described beginning with the 24th verse of the first chapter of Romans is not comparable to the man in 1st Corinthians 5 whom Paul judges and commands the church to judge by putting him out into the Devil’s world in the hope of saving him. In Romans 1 these people are abandoned by God Himself under His direct unmediated judgement. Not Paul’s or the church.
One major key to understanding the lesson of 1st Corinthians 5 is the aorist, subjunctive, passive form of σῴζω (sode zo) which pretty much every translation anybody should care about renders as “MAY be saved” in vs.5. The aorist, subjunctive, passive (3rd person singular, which person and number aren’t as important in this case) is very precise. I had to do a good bit of research on this. I’m just good enough with Koine Greek to stumble through and know that one can get into trouble quickly by oversimplifying the grammar.
The aorist tense is already somewhat mystifying because we don’t have one in English. The subjunctive mood is the mood, generally speaking, of contingency. Combined with the aorist tense and passive voice as here, it can be used differently than if in the middle or active voices. The bottom line is that this form of this word translated as “may be saved” in this context, indicates that the credibility of his testimony as a Christian brother depends on how he ultimately responds to his excommunication. His spirit MAY be saved on the day of the Lord Jesus. But maybe not too. We don’t know yet until we see what he does. That this is the meaning of the subjunctive passive here is strengthened by what I have said above in reference to ὀνομάζω (on omad zo) in verse 11.
This man is treated as a “so called”, possible brother whose testimony is contingent upon how he responds to ecclesiastical excommunication.
If he is a brother, he will repent and return. If he is not a brother and is to have any hope, it will come through the painful lash of excommunication. That is God’s definition of love in this circumstance. If he does not repent and shows himself not to be a brother after all, he needed to go anyway because Paul says that the leaven of his tolerated sin will pollute the whole church. Others will think they too can have what they see as the literal best of both worlds. Do what I want now and then an early retirement in Gods’ paradise. VERY dangerous and those who preach it will have the blood of those who believe it on their hands.
All Paul had to do was use a future indicative (or maybe even the subjunctive mood, but not the passive voice) to say his spirit “WILL be saved” if he was making that guarantee. That’s not what he said though.
With that in mind, I have also heard it preached that this passage is a glorious exposition of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. That through all this, this man was kept safe in Christ and his salvation was never in question. This is simply untrue for all the reasons I have given. His salvation was the very thing that WAS in question until his repentance and restoration. Some solid expositors say he was unregenerate until his repentance and restoration. Some say his repentance and restoration demonstrated his regenerate state. I say it doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that Paul says to treat him as unregenerate, a wicked man (vs.13) and give him no comfort or assurance of salvation until his repentance and restoration are forthcoming.
Maybe the toughest part of this passage of all is that it’s somewhat easier to excommunicate somebody for raw public immorality or some other very “serious” sin. This passage is even harder when we consider the following quick points.
Paul makes it crystal clear that this applies only to those inside the visible church. “So-called brethren” (v. 11) Those closest to us and hence most painful to deal with in this manner. Not those in the world (v.10) In fact we are everywhere commanded to portray Christ to those who don’t know him, by our gracious love for them. We should live amongst them and be in their lives except when it would be disobedience to other commands of God to do so.
He also makes it crystal clear that he is speaking about ANY flagrant, open sin. We know this because he gives 2 representative lists in vs. 10 and 11 that include immoral people, the covetous and swindlers, idolaters, revilers, and drunkards. His indisputable intent is to have them understand that everything he’s said in this chapter (though there were no chapters when he wrote it) about this man with his father’s wife, also applies to any open flagrant and unrepentant sin. A swindler is a thief. A reviler is essentially an abusive loud mouth and a gossip.
He says not to associate or even eat with them. In that culture, taking a meal with somebody was a significant act of acceptance and fraternity. It was not the bare action of chewing and swallowing food that was being forbidden though. It was any and all friendly association or interaction whatsoever.
I hasten to clarify that he is absolutely NOT referring to those who are fighting the Romans 7 war. A brother or sister who hates their sin, calls it sin and wars against it, is to be embraced, walked with, and supported for as long as they fight. Excommunication and shunning are for obstinate, unrepentant, practitioners of sin who have exalted their own desires over the Word of God, the purity and safety of the flock, and the reputation of Christ.
It is noteworthy as well that in v.12 the apostle Paul, somewhat sarcastically, but very rhetorically, chides this church for… hang on… NOT judging. He tells them not to worry about the corruption in the world, but you dern well better git yourselves about the business of judging those who claim to be one of us. This flies squarely in the face of the loud chanting mantra of our day, which is … “JUDGE NOT!!” The most biblically illiterate scriptural simpletons on the face of God’s green earth can quote Matthew 7:1 even though 90% of them don’t even know where in the Bible it is. There certainly is such a thing as self righteous, legalistic judgment which the Lord hates at least as much as immorality. (Luke 18:9-14, Proverbs 6:16-19) By far the greater problem we have today though is timid permissiveness.
As always, I welcome thoughtful, constructive criticism and engagement. I will believe whatever I am convinced the Bible teaches, no matter who or what it costs me or makes me wrong about. Show me my error from the text and you will have my sincere and enthusiastic gratitude for having been used by the Lord to bring your brother into greater truth.
We are being actively censored on many platforms because of our conservative views. The more places you follow us, the more likely we are to get our message out. Please support us by following us on Facebook, following us on Twitter, following us on Parler, following us on Instagram, and visiting our gear and apparel store. Also, please subscribe to our newsletter. If you would like to support us financially, a contribution of any amount is greatly appreciated.
Many sincere Christians have confused, conflicting, and convoluted notions about what became the War for Independence or, as some call it, the Revolutionary War. However, it was not a revolution but a war of self-defense, and that fact is seldom discussed in America’s classrooms. When the pertinent facts are known, Americans will have no embarrassment over our “rebel” past.
The Stamp Act of 1765 was a power grab by King George III whereby various publications and legal forms in America would require a stamp (tax) before they could be issued. The colonialists resented the act as being taxation without representation. That same year Virginia’s Patrick Henry weighed in with his speech advocating “no taxation without representation.” England repealed the act the following year.
Things simmered for a while, then came the 1770 Townshend Acts, a tax on goods imported from England. Citizens in Boston protested, resulting in the Boston Massacre where five Americans were killed.
Americans saw a pattern of King George III making a point that he could demand taxes without any input from those being taxed. Colonists erupted in 1773 with the Boston Tea Party when 150 colonists, dressed as Mohawk Indians, dumped the newly arrived tea into the harbor at Boston. There would be no tax on that tea!
The year 1775 was a pivotal year for the colonists. Late night on April 18, Paul Revere and William Dawes saddled up for their famous midnight ride to Lexington and Concord to warn the locals that the British were approaching to take the guns and ammunition stored there. (Gun control was an issue even back then!) Early on the 19th, 77 Americans were on the village green and faced the well-dressed English redcoats. Eight Americans were killed, and ten were wounded, and many of the redcoats died in their retreat to Boston, being pursued by the colonists who fired from behind trees. By the time the redcoats arrived in Boston, they had 273 casualties and the Americans 95. In June of that year, the Battle of Bunker Hill took place. Please note that at that time Americans were still not talking about separating from their mother country.
Most Americans wanted conciliation, not confrontation with the Crown. They wanted satisfaction, not separation from the Mother Country. Our second President, John Adams’ opinion was that only about a third of the colonists wanted independence, a third supported Britain and a third had no opinion.
On December 22, 1775, King George announced that the colonies were free from British rule through his Prohibitory Act! This crucial fact is almost unknown by modern Americans, and it puts the War for Independence in a completely different light. The Act provided that any ship trading with the colonies would be considered a “lawful prize.” Furthermore, it provided that all American crews could be “impressed” (forced) to serve in the British Navy as if they had chosen to enlist! Also, the cargoes would be sold, along with the ships, and the money would accrue to England. The Act also provided that some of the plunder would be sent to an English hospital, making it more palatable to those Englishmen (in Britain and America) with a conscience.
Sporadic fighting between American patriots and King George’s redcoats continued after the “shot heard around the world” at Lexington and Concord; however, the colonists still did not want to separate from England! It would not be until July of 1776 that frustrated and angry Americans would declare their independence.
King George declared war on the colonies, making the war a war of self-defense, not rebellion! In fact, our leaders always referred to themselves as loyal subjects of the King! Ben Franklin’s letter to the King in February of 1775 spoke of “your Majesty’s Subjects in America.” The Olive Branch Petition of May 1775 (submitted to the English Court on September 1) referred to themselves as “faithful subjects” and “most dutiful subjects.” The King would not even accept that petition! So, the colonies could see no hope for reconciliation as late as September of 1775.
The following month King George III “jumped the gun” and told Parliament that the American rebellion had “become more general and is manifestly carried on for the purpose of establishing an independent empire.” However, that was not correct. American leaders had not made any assertion as to pursuing independence from England. In fact, the Pennsylvania Assembly gave clear instructions to their congressional delegates that they “dissent from and utterly reject any propositions, should such be made, that may cause or lead to a separation from our mother country.” (English Historical Documents, p. 170.) Other colonies followed the leadership of Pennsylvania and issued similar instructions to their delegates.
When news of King George’s hasty action arrived in America in February of 1776, every informed person knew that the King had basically declared war on the colonies. One colonist, Joseph Hewes, who was opposed to a break with England, wrote: “The Act of Parliament prohibiting all trade and commerce between Great Britain and the colonies has been lately brought here by a Mr. Temple from London….I fear it will make the breach between the two countries so wide as never more to be reconciled….I see no prospect of reconciliation. Nothing is left now but to fight it out” (letter to Samuel Johnston, dated March 20, 1776).
When the Second Continental Congress met on May 10, 1776, it was apparent that they considered the Prohibitory Act of 1775 as the significant turning point in the separation from England. They asserted that George had “excluded the inhabitants of these united colonies from the protection of his Crown.” Their resolution ended with: “Resolved, that it be recommended to the respective assemblies of the united colonies…to adopt such government as shall…best conduce to the happiness and safety and their constituents in particular and America in general.” In other words, it’s all over except the fighting! The arrogant King had cut off the colonies, so bring it on!
America was now an independent nation!
John Adams said of the Act, “It throws thirteen colonies out of the royal protection, levels all distinctions, and makes us independent despite our supplications and entreaties…It may be fortunate that the act of independency should come from the British Parliament rather than the American Congress.” (Letter to Horatio Gates, dated March 23, 1776.)
There have been many false charges made by Christian leaders for many years about the break with England. How could Christian Americans who had been impacted by the Great Awakening in the 1740s become such red-hot zealots and rebel against the mother country? Now you can see that was not the case. We were forced to defend ourselves against the King who had cut the strings with the colonies. While there were actions perpetrated by non-Christian or shallow Christian patriots during that time, we modern Americans have no reason to be defensive about America’s past.
King George III was the source of many irrational acts that precipitated the deaths of 25,000 American soldiers; 8,000 of them died in battle, and the other 17,000 deaths came from disease. It appeared that King George tried to push away the Americans with his many belligerent actions. But then King George had an excuse. He was part of European royalty known for incestuous marriages for decades. In his later years, he spoke nonsense for 58 hours and made many notorious statements and decisions, much to the embarrassment of his family and the British nation.
However, Americans know about an out-of-control leader, refusing to take advice and not admitting personal errors, and making tragic national and international decisions. And finally, talking nonsense for hours. Yes, Americans are aware of that.
God help America. Our best days are behind us, and the American Dream is now a nightmare.
(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Boys authored 20 books, the most recent, Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets! The eBook is available at Amazon.com for $4.99. Other titles at http://www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D., and visit his blog. Send a request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles and click here to support his work with a donation.)
We are being actively censored on many platforms because of our conservative views. The more places you follow us, the more likely we are to get our message out. Please support us by following us on Facebook, following us on Twitter, following us on Parler, following us on Instagram, and visiting our gear and apparel store. Also, please subscribe to our newsletter. If you would like to support us financially, a contribution of any amount is greatly appreciated.
Today marks a historic day in America as one of the longest-running blights on the face of this nation has finally been removed. Today, the Supreme Court—much of whom were hand-picked by former President Donald Trump—overturned the infamous Roe v. Wade decision.
Roe v. Wade was the flawed Supreme Court decision that has stood for over 50 years that guaranteed a woman the “constitutional” right to kill her unborn child if she did not want to carry him through to birth. That ruling has resulted in the deaths of millions upon millions of innocent unborn children in this nation alone. And while the ruling to overturn that decision today does not and will not end abortion, it is a certain and necessary step in that direction as the federal courts can no longer strike down state laws on abortion.
As this blight on America has finally been lifted, one would think this to be cause for celebration among the Church’s most vocal activists against abuse—namely Beth Moore, Russell Moore, and their ilk. After all, what’s more abusive than the cold-blooded murder of an innocent child who’s never taken his first breath?
But that isn’t the case. Those voices are silent. In fact, the moment that ruling was made public, those vocal voices went into complete silence. As of the time of this writing, Beth Moore has paused from her spastic, every-couple-minutes Twitter tirades, to give us this very important message: …nothing.
And, of course, there’s Andy Stanley. Stanley likes to blather constantly about the evil acts of white supremacy, racism, and white nationalism—but today, he paused to let us know what he thinks about the Supreme Court ruling: …nothing.
Those who are at least making an attempt to speak out on the ruling are using the opportunity to steer the Church toward embracing socialism. Here’s Thabiti Anyabwile telling us that we shouldn’t just work to “forbid abortion,” but embrace an ethic that promotes financial welfare for mothers.
For The Gospel Coalition author, Duke Kwon, his primary concern is how saving innocent lives will serve to intensify concerns about women’s health, equity, and “injustice”—whatever that is.
And like a broken record, the Big Eva types repeat the mantra: make abortion unnecessary and unthinkable—the motto of the upcoming ERLC conference which suggests that because the Church hasn’t been involved in enough social justice, abortion has been thinkable and necessary.
The fact is, for the Christian, abortion is already unthinkable and unnecessary. It is only conceivably necessary for those who have ulterior motives, self-interests, and social agendas. The entire Evangelical Twittersphere is filled with this mantra today. Those people, however, do not understand the God of life whom they are dishonoring with their words.
Let’s be blunt and not mince words and pussyfoot around. Beth Moore is a feminist and proponent of a woman’s right to butcher her unborn baby and toss it in the local dumpster behind the “clinic.” The men who promote such murders, are likewise endorsing the illicit adulterous acts that lead to the killing of the innocents. The altar of “my body” and my reproductive rights clearly omits the unborn baby and is totally selfish, self serving, ungodly, and against the Hippocratic Oath that doctors take.
Why am I not surprised? Of course, Bart Barber believes repentance is not necessary and that “grace” covers the abomination. Bart does not believe God’s Holy Writ: Jude 4 “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” Romans 6:1-2 “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?”
What else is there to say except I am glad that our church voted unanimously to leave the Southern Baptist Convention Wednesday evening. Maranatha, Pastor Steve <><
In the words of James Merritt, “there is no leftward drift. None.” Obviously, that statement is absurd. The Southern Baptist Convention has now elected the third president in a row who has downplayed the sin of homosexuality.
In 2019, JD Greear—who was elected president in 2018—preached a sermon on Romans 1 and concluded that God believes other sins, such as boasting, are more egregious than homosexuality. In 2021, we revealed that his successor, Ed Litton, had been plagiarizing all of his sermons and taught this same, unbiblical teaching. For Greear and Litton, the Bible only “whispers” about homosexuality.
Now, some tweets from 2014 have surfaced and revealed that the newly-elected president, Bart Barber, believes that one can be saved and still practice unrepentant, serial homosexuality.
During a 2014 Twitter thread, Barber asserted that he believes that everyone at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, which was headed by Russell Moore at the time, believed this:
When pressed, he doubled down and compared homosexuality to boasting and said that practicing serial, unrepentant sin is not enough to send you to Hell if you are “saved by grace.”
But the Scriptures do not teach this. The Scriptures teach that those who have been saved by grace cease to practice serial unrepentant sin and it is not ambiguous on this point.
4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. —1 John 3:4-10
And:
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. —1 Corinthians 6:9-11
We are being actively censored on many platforms because of our conservative views. The more places you follow us, the more likely we are to get our message out. Please support us by following us on Facebook, following us on Twitter, following us on Parler, following us on Instagram, and visiting our gear and apparel store. Also, please subscribe to our newsletter. If you would like to support us financially, a contribution of any amount is greatly appreciated.
Even Steven 