Court Asks: Why Is Animal Cruelty Banned but Dismemberment of Unborn Babies Legal? – SCOTUS will hear challenge to Roe v. Wade Dec 1st

Michael Foust | Contributor | Tuesday, August 24, 2021

A tiny baby, CNN Blasted as Propaganda for Claiming ‘It’s Not Possible’ to Know Sex at Birth

A federal appeals court that upheld a Texas abortion restriction last week also dabbled in pro-life apologetics by raising an ethical question: Why is it illegal to dismember an animal but permissible to tear apart an unborn baby?

The case involved a Texas law (SB8) that bans a second-trimester abortion procedure known as “dilation and evacuation” (D&E), which involves ripping apart an unborn baby, limb by limb in the womb to prevent a live birth. The pro-life community calls it “dismemberment” abortion.

Although a lower court judge struck down the law, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 9-5 ruling, upheld it.

A group of abortion clinics and doctors had sued the State, seeking to have the law overturned.

Judges Jennifer Walker Elrod and Don R. Willett, who co-wrote the majority decision, noted: “It is … illegal to dismember living animals. … The State urges that SB8 would simply extend the same protection to fetuses.”

Judge Priscilla Owens, who voted with the majority in the judgment, made a similar argument in a concurring opinion.

“The State has expressed its interest in prohibiting the dismemberment of a living fetus,” Owens wrote. “This is congruent with the widely accepted principle that dismemberment of living mammals should be prohibited. For example, unwanted dogs, cats, puppies and kittens in shelters must be humanely euthanized under Texas law.”

Owens then quoted Texas saw, which says dogs and cats in the custody of an animal shelter must be euthanized by sodium pentobarbital.

A D&E abortion, Owens said, is “abhorrent.”

The majority opinion had argued that pregnant women who receive D&E abortions “are not being told what is going to happen to the fetus.” For example, a typical form does not tell the patient that “‘the pregnancy tissue will be removed during the procedure’ and does not explain that the fetus’s body parts – arms, legs, ribs, skull, and everything else – will be ripped apart and pulled out piece by piece,” the majority argued.

Owens and Elrod were nominated by President George W. Bush. Willett was nominated by President Donald Trump.

Photo courtesy: ©Getty Images/Kieferpix

Michael Foust has covered the intersection of faith and news for 20 years. His stories have appeared in Baptist Press, Christianity Today, The Christian Postthe Leaf-Chronicle, the Toronto Star and the Knoxville News-Sentinel.

Supreme Court announces it will hear challenge to Roe v. Wade; stage set for potential landmark ruling

By Dillon Burroughs, The Western Journal September 20, 2021

The Supreme Court has scheduled arguments for Dec. 1 regarding a Mississippi case that seeks to overturn the long-standing Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in the United States.

The Mississippi case will serve as the first major abortion-related case to be heard in the Supreme Court under the new conservative 6-3 majority following the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in October 2020.

The case will address Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act passed in 2018. The act, blocked by two federal courts, generally prohibits abortion after 15 weeks, allowing exceptions only in the case of “medical emergencies or for severe fetal abnormality.” As ABC noted, it has no exceptions for rape or incest.

The brief in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization argued that Roe v. Wade and another landmark abortion decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, were erroneously decided.

“Under the Constitution, may a State prohibit elective abortions before viability? Yes. Why? Because nothing in constitutional text, structure, history, or tradition supports a right to abortion,” read the introduction to the brief, filed by Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch.

After some technical discussion, it reiterates the point.

“Roe and Casey are egregiously wrong. The conclusion that abortion is a constitutional right has no basis in text, structure, history, or tradition …

Roe broke from prior cases, Casey failed to rehabilitate it, and both recognize a right that has no basis in the Constitution.”

It dealt with the complications the court’s previous rulings have imposed.

“Abortion jurisprudence has placed this Court at the center of a controversy that it can never resolve,” the brief added. “And Roe and Casey have produced a jurisprudence that is at war with the demand that this Court act based on neutral principles.”

The Wall Street Journal noted in July, when Mississippi appealed to the Supreme Court, that the state had originally argued the law did not violate court precedents, “suggesting that Roe be overruled only if the court found no other way to uphold the state law.”

In its actual argument to the court, however, it was much more direct. And abortion activists were

“​​Mississippi just said the quiet part out loud,” a statement from Planned Parenthood Action read, according to a July 23 report in The Washington Free Beacon. “This was always their end game: to have the Court overrule 50 years of precedent and allow states to ban abortion.”

“If Roe falls, half the states in the country are poised to ban abortion entirely,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, the pro-abortion group representing Jackson Women’s Health Organization, The Wall Street Journal reported in July.

“Women of childbearing age in the U.S. have never known a world in which they don’t have this basic right, and we will keep fighting to make sure they never will.”

Pro-life groups, meanwhile, see the case holding the potential for a major victory.

In August, the Supreme Court rejected a request to stop an anti-abortion law in Texas from going into effect Sept. 1. The controversial law bans most abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, generally at around six weeks of pregnancy.

The court’s decided 5-4 not to intervene.

Several pro-abortion groups have appealed to Joe Biden and lawmakers to intervene. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she will push for a vote on a new federal-level pro-choice bill later this month.


‘Evil,’ ‘Sad,’ ‘Unbelievable’—Survivors and Leaders React to SBC Executive Committee Decision

By Jessica Lea -September 22, 2021

SBC Executive Committee
The Rev. Bruce Frank, lead pastor of Biltmore Baptist Church of Arden, N.C, speaks during a meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee, Tuesday, Sept. 21, 2021, in Nashville. RNS photo by Bob Smietana

Sexual abuse survivors and church leaders inside and outside the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) are reacting with grief and shock to a Tuesday (Sept. 21) decision from the SBC Executive Committee (EC). The EC decided—in direct opposition to the will of messengers—to delay waiving attorney-client privilege in the investigation into whether or not the EC mishandled allegations of sexual abuse. 

“There were so many things bothersome about these last two days,” said survivor Tiffany Thigpen. “My emotions are switching between anger and sorrow. Waking during the night feeling like I wish I could wash it off, the icky feeling of watching some of these people at work. The lies that drip from tongues.”

Survivor Jennifer Lyell called the meeting a “train wreck” and wrote, “There is much cause for SBCrs to go to bed with aghast hearts tonight. You must. Because you just watched SBC leaders fight against truth. And it’s completely evil. But I also saw some eyes open. I also saw my angst manifest in some who literally couldn’t sit still with it.”

Pastor and EC member Dean Inserra, who spoke out about the importance of waiving attorney-client privilege, tweeted, “Been an emotional two days. I don’t even know how to explain how I feel and what I saw go down. It messed me up.”

SBC Executive Committee Flouts Will of Messengers

At the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, which took place in June, messengers overwhelmingly approved a motion to put an independent task force over an investigation into whether or not the SBC Executive Committee mishandled allegations of sexual abuse. The motion explicitly stated that EC members were to waive attorney-client privilege for this investigation: 

We further move that the task force agree to the accepted best-standards and practices as recommended by the commissioned third-party, including but not limited to the Executive Committee staff and members waiving attorney client privilege in order to ensure full access to information and accuracy in the review.

However, while the EC did agree Tuesday to spend $1.6 million to fund the investigation, members rejected a motion, proposed by Jared Wellman, to waive attorney-client privilege as messengers had directed. The vote against Wellman’s motion was not even close with 55 opposed to it and 20 in favor of it.

Instead members approved a motion that stated, “Resolved that, at this point, attorney-client privilege is not yet being waived but is being flushed out through negotiation.” The motion also requested “the Task Force and EC officers to agree on a contract in 7 days without waiving complete attorney-client privilege at this time.”

One pastor responded to this news on Twitter, saying, “This is a very sad day for us SBC churches. You have ignored the overwhelming will of the messangers [sic]. Watching the proceedings it is clear that many in the EC view the SBC as a Top-Down organization instead of a bottom up convention of churches. I am grieving tonight.”

Some EC members opposed to waiving attorney-client privilege expressed concern that to do so would open the SBC up to lawsuits. In an extended Twitter thread, attorney and victims advocate Rachael Denhollander explained the importance of waiving attorney-client privilege in a situation like this. “You simply cannot accurately diagnose problems without waiving privilege,” she said. “You won’t have access to all the information.” She concluded,

The waiver question is nothing more than this: What is more valuable to you? Insurance proceeds for the bad acting you did? Or people? How much is a little girl (boy, person) worth? That is the only actual question you are answering with waiver of privilege. That’s it. And if anyone tells you otherwise, they are not being honest.

Several EC members, including Wellman, signed a statement condemning the SBC Executive Committee’s decision: 

We grieve yesterday’s vote by the Executive Committee, who in unprecedented fashion prohibited the will of the messengers for an open and transparent investigation into the Executive Committee. It is our opinion that the failed vote only justifies the need for an open investigation. We join with the messengers who desire justice for survivors of sexual abuse, and we feel that this cannot happen so long as the Executive Committee forbids an open and transparent investigation, which must include the waiving of privilege. We will continue to work within the EC to ensure that the will of the messengers is fully honored by the Committee we serve as trustees. That is what we committed to do when we accepted this trust, and it is what we will pursue as a stewardship before God. We invite all Executive Members who share these convictions to join us in this statement.

Attorney and task force member Liz Evan responded to the news in an article where she said that the EC “flagrantly defied the overwhelming will of the Messengers. A few dozen folks in Nashville decided they know better than the 17,000 Messengers appointed by the churches. Waiver of privilege was not something the Messengers delegated to the EC to consider in their discretion; waiver was a direct and specific command from the Messengers, and it was flouted.”

The EC has also opened itself to “massive liability,” said Evan. “In every lawsuit against the SBC thus far, the SBC has been able to argue that we are a bottom-up organization, and therefore the SBC itself has no authority over or liability for what happens at the local church level. That ended today. In every subsequent legal proceeding, plaintiffs can now use this vote to show that we are, in fact, a top-down organization and that the EC is in charge, not the churches.”

There is still the possibility that the SBC Executive Committee could waive attorney-client privilege when officers meet with the Sexual Abuse Task Force on Sept. 28. Some pastors are calling on people to join them in seven days of prayer and fasting to that end.

When Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary president Daniel Akin tweeted Evan’s article, one user responded, “Brother Danny I am sick and never dreamed I would see a convention I have supported and served and loved for so long come to this. Don’t know how I can encourage my people to stay.”

Dr. Russell Moore, who left the SBC this year and whose leaked letters shed light on this very controversy, tweeted, “To those of you who have been bullied and intimidated, had your names and your reputations destroyed by those in ecclesial power because you spoke up about abuse, or stood with those who did: Jesus is far better than this. And he’s watching. Goodbye to all of that.” Beth Moore (no relation), who also left the SBC this year, commented, “I’m so frustrated, I’m sobbing.”

The SBC Sexual Abuse Task Force issued a press release in response to the decision from the SBC Executive Committee. The task force expressed gratitude for the positive steps taken at the meeting, but also voiced disappointment with the committee’s decision to ignore the will of messengers. Said the task force members, “The Task Force will continue exploring best standards practices [sic] and considering investigative methods to ensure the fullest access possible to all relevant information. No entities or individuals, particularly those who claim the name of Christ, should fear truth and transparency.”

What We Lose When We Don’t Forgive

By Chuck Lawless -September 16, 2021


7 Things an Unforgiving Heart Costs Us

Over my years of ministry, I’ve seen too many family members and believers who got angry with each other and refused to forgive. They hung on to their hard feelings as if letting go of them would somehow validate someone else’s wrong actions—which is not the intent of forgiveness. I’m arguing with this article, however, that not forgiving others costs us much:

1. We lose answered prayer. Jesus was clear that we must forgive as we pray: “And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven will also forgive you your wrongdoing” (Mark 11:25). 

2. We lose our Christian witness at some level. That’s because few of us are very good at hiding our frustration and unforgiveness toward others. Eventually, others see our anger. 

3. We lose a battle to the enemy. He’s the evil one who wants to bind us up in bitterness. He delights when we allow our anger to become our idol. 

4. We lose any real sense of peace. We might fake it for a while, but animosity and hostility toward someone else eventually eats at our soul. It consumes us. 

5. We lose an opportunity to live out the gospel. The gospel is about God’s loving forgiveness of us, and we model that love when we forgive others. 

6. We lose years of relationships. I could tell you story after story of family members who separated for many years and reconciled only at a funeral. I can likewise tell stories of some who never reconciled. Years lost.

7. We lose some of our usefulness to the work of God. I’m deeply grateful he uses any of us sinners—that is, none of us is worthy to be his vessel—but we needn’t make ourselves less useful by our ongoing sin of unforgiveness.  

Forgiveness is hard work. It often takes time. It seldom means forgetting. It doesn’t always lead quickly to renewed trust. Sometimes it doesn’t even lead to reconciliation. It is, though, worth more than we gain if we choose not to forgive.

VIDEO Can a Merciful God Create Parasites?


Sir David Attenborough of BBC fame is regularly asked by Christians why he will not give credit to God for the amazing creatures featured on his nature documentaries. He often replies:

My response…is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa—that’s going to make him blind. Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who’s full of mercy.1

This is exactly the conclusion any reasonable and compassionate person should reach. The creation we occupy is full of many things much worse than parasitism.

Sir Attenborough’s logic would be spot on if the literal interpretation of Genesis were not true. Rejecting the truth of man’s evil heart, our rebellion, and the reality of the Curse makes observing our present circumstance of suffering and death considerably confusing, and perhaps a source of resentment.

But by rejecting the truth, they also have no hope of the gospel. Their unknowable god made a universe with time-and-chance evolution that resulted in the same predicament of parasitism—and for no good reason. Therefore, they should be even more upset with this supposed god and its millions of years of evolutionary suffering—but they are not.

So, what about this worm? Did the real God create a parasite that can live in no other way than a child’s eye? Absolutely not! These worms are actually called nematodes. There are about 40,000 species of nematodes, and the majority are not parasitic at all! They exist quite well outside of the human eye. Only 35 of them are parasitic to humans.2 Christians need not shrink back from Sir Attenborough’s questions because, like hummingbirds and orchids, nematodes are amazing!

Nematodes thrive all over the earth. They live in oceans, on mountains, and deep underground. One cubic meter of dirt can contain over a million nematodes. They can lay 200,000 eggs at a time, and they possess the strange ability to die and come back to life decades later in a process known as cryptobiosis (hidden life).

Since we know God made them to be not parasitic at the beginning, what function do they serve? The majority are incredibly beneficial. They feed on the nutritious insides of bacteria and algae and decompose organic matter. This fertilizes the soil, helping plants to thrive. They are not the bad guys after all.

But why are some parasitic? Interestingly, evolutionists also believe that nematodes started out harmless. Researchers published a 2009 paper in Trends in Genetics that explained the following: since nematodes already ride harmlessly on insects, the researchers think that when resources grew scarce, some species learned that they could feed on their insect companions.3 The behavior was just a matter of surviving. Unfortunately, this parasitism is how African river blindness is transmitted. Struggling nematodes learned that they can feed on blackflies. Blackflies learned that they can feed on humans. When an infected fly bites a human, it can transfer the nematodes and thus cause a child to tragically lose his sight.

Truly, all of creation groans (Romans 8:22). But because God is truly merciful, Jesus died for the guilty, and we will be with Him where there is no more suffering or death. Now that is amazing. I hope Sir Attenborough discovers this mercy soon.


  1. Wild, wild life. The Sydney Morning Herald. Posted on March 25, 2003.
  2. Anderson, R. C. 2000. Nematode Parasites of Vertebrates: Their Development and Transmission, 2nd ed. New York: CABI Publishing, 1.
  3. Dieterich, C. and R. J. Sommer. 2009. How to become a parasite—lessons from the genomes of nematodes. Trends in Genetics. 25 (5): 203-209.

* Mr. Arledge is Research Coordinator at the Institute for Creation Research.

Cite this article: Scott Arledge. 2021. Can a Merciful God Create Parasites?Acts & Facts. 50 (8).

VIDEO Why this latest chaotic CRT schoolboard meeting represents a bigger fight for 2022 – Truth about CRT

Christopher Rufo,

Journalist Christopher Rufo, who has uncovered countless documents exposing new-age ‘woke’ ideologies of major American companies and school districts, and was even un-verified on Twitter, he claims, as a result of this reporting, zeroes in on the latest Critical Race Theory schoolboard meeting in Virginia to devolve into chaos and why it is emblematic of a larger political fight for 2022. – via John Bachman Now with John Bachman, weekdays at 12PM ET on Newsmax.


October 5, 2020 Christopher F. Rufo

Trump is right. Training sessions for government employees amounted to political indoctrination.

Moderator Chris Wallace asked President Trump during Tuesday’s debate why he “directed federal agencies to end racial sensitivity training that addresses white privilege or critical race theory.” Mr. Trump answered: “I ended it because it’s racist.” Participants “were asked to do things that were absolutely insane,” he explained. “They were teaching people to hate our country.”

“Nobody’s doing that,” Joe Biden replied. He’s wrong.

My reporting on critical race theory in the federal government was the impetus for the president’s executive order, so I can say with confidence that these training sessions had nothing to do with developing “racial sensitivity.” As I documented in detailed reports for City Journal and the New York Post, critical race theory training sessions in public agencies have pushed a deeply ideological agenda that includes reducing people to a racial essence, segregating them, and judging them by their group identity rather than their individual merit.

The examples are instructive. At a series of events at the Treasury Department and federal financial agencies, diversity trainer Howard Ross taught employees that America was “built on the backs of people who were enslaved” and that all white Americans are complicit in the system of white supremacy “by automatic response to the ways [they’re] taught.” In accompanying documents, Ross argues that white employees can be reduced to the quality of “whiteness,” which is a form of inborn oppression, and must “struggle to own their racism.” He instructs “white managers” to conduct “listening sessions” in which black employees can explain “what it means to be Black” and be “seen in their pain,” with white employees instructed to “sit in their discomfort” and not “fill the silence” with their “own thoughts and feelings.” Black employees, Mr. Ross says, are not “obligated to like you, thank you, feel sorry for you, or forgive you.” For trainings like this, Mr. Ross and his firm have been paid $5 million over 15 years, according to federal disclosures.

At the Sandia National Laboratories, which develops technology for America’s nuclear arsenal, executives held a racially segregated training session for white male employees. The three-day event, which was led by a company called White Men As Full Diversity Partners, set the goal of examining “white male culture” and making the employees take responsibility for their “while privilege,” “male privilege” and “heterosexual privilege.” In one of the opening exercises, the instructors wrote on a whiteboard that “white male culture” can be associated with “white supremacists,” “KKK,” “Aryan Nation,” “MAGA hat” and “mass killings.” On the final day, the trainers asked the employees to write letters to women and people of color, with one participant apologizing for his privilege and another pledging to “be a better ally.”

At the Department of Homeland Security, diversity trainers held a session on “microaggressions,” based on the work of psychologist Derald Sue. In his academic work, Dr. Sue argues that white Americans have been “fed a racial curriculum based on falsehoods, unwarranted fears, and the belief in their own superiority,” and thus have been “socialized into oppressor roles.” Trainers taught Homeland Security employees that the “myth of meritocracy” and “color blindness” are foundations of racist “microaggressions” and “microinequities.” The trainers insisted that phrases such as “America is the land of opportunity,” “Everybody can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough,” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job” are racist statements that harm people of color. They are merely code for “People of color are lazy and/or incompetent and need to work harder.” If a white employee disagrees, his or her point of view is dismissed as a “denial of individual racism” which the trainers deem another type of microaggression.

To any fair-minded observer, these are not “racial sensitivity trainings,” as Mr. Wallace described them at the presidential debate. They are political indoctrination sessions. While this misrepresentation is a disappointment, it isn’t a surprise. Progressive activists and their media enablers have lately been manipulating words to massage the truth: violent riots have become “mostly peaceful protests” and “defund the police” has become “reimagine public safety.” If Mr. Trump and the Republicans want to win the election, they must quickly break through this blockade of euphemisms and educate American voters about the facts. When the debate shifts from generalizations to specifics, progressives will find themselves defending the indefensible.

Christopher F. Rufo is a writer, filmmaker, and senior fellow of Manhattan Institute. He has directed four documentaries for PBS and is currently a contributing editor of City Journal, where he covers critical race theory, homelessness, addiction, crime, and other afflictions.


Going The Extra Mile

By Reverend  Paul N. Papas II
29 June 10

It would seem some people have more obstacles than others. Some will go over, around or through their obstacles, some will stop at their obstacles.

A man purchased a white mouse to use as food for his pet snake. He dropped the unsuspecting mouse into the snake’s cage, where the snake was sleeping in a bed of sawdust. The tiny mouse had a serious problem on his hands. At any moment he could be swallowed alive. Obviously, the mouse needed to come up with a brilliant plan. What did the terrified creature do? He quickly set to work covering the snake with sawdust chips until it was completely buried. With that, the mouse apparently thought he had solved his problem. The solution, however, came from outside. The man took pity on the silly little mouse and removed him from the cage.

No matter how hard we try to cover or deny our problems, its fool’s work. Our problem will eventually awake from sleep and shake off its cover. You can’t hide your head in the sand, especially if you are on the Gulf Coast right now, as you might get covered with oil.

The answers to your problems are often found by thinking outside the box. You must however start by honestly identifying and addressing your problems. A recent Wall Street Journal article addressed the feeling of many people in their hopelessness with respect our nation’s inability to resolve many of our nation’s problems as “Wrong track distress.”

Some will go so far as to re-write history so as to justify their present or their goals. I will give you two examples.

The first example is: Our Country’s history is very important in that we need to know our real foundation. There are those who would like to re-write the history books to take God out and support an anti-Christian message. You may review to see what our Founding Fathers wrote and see their reliance upon God.

If your foundation is faulty your house will crumble from shear weight, wind, rain or snow.

The second example is of a boy named Eric who just graduated from Smithfield High School in Rhode Island. Doctors gave Judith and Dennis a diagnosis for their son, Eric, but they didn’t offer hope. He was autistic, they explained, and likely would end up in an institution. Good call, the 18-year-old salutatorian joked at his graduation this year. “Today I stand before you accepted into every institution of higher learning that I applied to, so I guess, in a way, the experts were right about the institution thing.” He has been accepted to Bryant University, the University of Rhode Island and Rhode Island College, where he will matriculate this fall to study biology.

Eric, whose challenging senior-year course load included calculus and honors physics, academically bested all but one of his 199 classmates at Smithfield High School in Rhode Island. The salutatorian honor came with a requirement: a speech.

“It felt pretty good,” Eric said. “I was pretty confident in what I was saying and how I delivered “, this from a boy who, at 5, had yet to utter a word. When doctors diagnosed Eric with autism, he was nearly 4. He wasn’t speaking, he wasn’t making eye contact, and he was still wearing diapers.

The diagnosis devastated Judith and Dennis. Devastation gave way to acceptance, followed by action. Judith and Dennis refused to accept their son’s poor prognosis. At the time, interventions that are now standard for children with autism were not offered, so Judith researched treatment options, found toddler programs for Eric and spent a lot of time in the bathroom.

Judith taught Eric to speak using symbols, holding up a card when he was hungry or wanted to go outside. This linguistic stepping stone led to sign language and, as his graduation speech attests, a beautiful command of the spoken language.

Academic fluency came easier to Eric than the social half of the high school equation. People with autism have impaired ability to communicate and read social cues. Eric suffered a lot of anxiety, worrying that he would do or say something to offend someone. With help from family and friends, especially from one of the most popular boys at school, Eric overcame all the naysayers. Needless to say Eric had more problems to overcome than most high school boys.

Many people with a medical condition of a mental illness or a physical disability suffer from anxiety in social situations. One concern of theirs is that people will focus on the condition or disability rather than on the person.

Eric hopes to become a pharmacist so he can combine his loves of math and science, and use medicine to help people like it did his grandfather, who passed away from cancer.

We should be more like devastated Judith and Dennis. Devastation gave way to acceptance, followed by action to achieve more good results like Eric. Eric proved that no matter what the challenge you can succeed. A famous person once said where there is a will there is a way.

The Hole In Our Holiness

CIRCA 1900: A colorfully illustrated temperance bible study card from circa 1900 reads, “Elijah’s Spirit On Elisha. 2 Kings 2: 6-15. How much more shall your heavenly father give the holy spirit to them that ask him?” (Photo by Donaldson Collection/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images)

Sept 17, 2021 By Kevin Deyoung 

I have a growing concern that younger evangelicals do not take seriously the Bible’s call to personal holiness. We are too at peace with worldliness in our homes, too at ease with sin in our lives, too content with spiritual immaturity in our churches.

God’s mission in the world is to save a people and sanctify his people. Christ died “that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.” (2 Cor. 5:15) We were chosen in Christ “before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.” (Eph. 1:4) Christ “loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her…so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” (Eph. 5:25-27) Christ “gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.” (Titus 2:14)

J.C. Ryle, the Bishop of Liverpool during the nineteenth century, was right: “We must be holy, because this is one grand end and purpose for which Christ came into the world…Jesus is a complete Savior. He does not merely take away the guilt of a believer’s sin, He does more—He breaks its power (1 Pet. 1:2; Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9; Heb. 12:10).” My fear is that as we rightly celebrate, and in some quarters rediscover, all that Christ saved us from, we will give little thought and make little effort concerning all that Christ saved us to.

The pursuit of holiness does not occupy the place in our hearts that it should.

There are several reasons for the relative neglect of personal holiness:

1. It was too common in the past to equate holiness with abstaining from a few taboo practices like drinking, smoking, and dancing. In a previous generation, godliness meant you didn’t do these things. Younger generations have little patience for these sorts of rules. They either don’t agree with the rules, or they figure they’ve got those bases covered so there’s not much else to worry about.

2. Related to the first reason is the fear that a passion for holiness makes you some kind of weird holdover from a bygone era. As soon as you talk about swearing or movies or music or modesty or sexual purity or self-control or just plain godliness, people get nervous that others will call them legalistic, or worse, a fundamentalist.

3. We live in a culture of cool, and to be cool means you differentiate yourself from others. That has often meant pushing the boundaries with language, with entertainment, with alcohol, and with fashion. Of course, holiness is much more than these things, but in an effort to be hip, many Christians have figured holiness has nothing to do with these things. They’ve willingly embraced Christian freedom, but they’ve not earnestly pursued Christian virtue.

4. Among more liberal Christians, a radical pursuit of holiness is often suspect because any talk of right and wrong behaviors feels judgmental and intolerant. If we are to be “without spot or blemish,” it necessitates we distinguish between what sort of attitudes, actions and habits are pure and what sort are impure. This sort of sorting gets you in trouble with the pluralism police.

5. Among conservative Christians, there is sometimes the mistaken notion that if we are truly gospel-centered, we won’t talk about rules or imperatives or exhort Christians to moral exertion. To be sure, there is a rash of moralistic teaching out there, but sometimes we go to the other extreme and act as if the Bible shouldn’t advise our morals at all. We are so eager not to confuse indicatives and imperatives (a point I’ve made many times) that if we’re not careful, we’ll drop the imperatives altogether. We’ve been afraid of words like diligence, effort and obedience. We’ve downplayed verses that call us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12) or command us to cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit (2 Cor. 7:1) or warn against even a hint of immorality among the saints (Eph. 5:3).

I find it telling that you can find plenty of young Christians today who are really excited about justice and serving in their communities. You can find Christians fired up about evangelism. You can find lots of Generation XYZ believers passionate about precise theology. Yes and amen to all that. But where are the Christians known for their zeal for holiness? Where is the corresponding passion for honoring Christ with Christlike obedience? We need more Christian leaders on our campuses, in our cities, in our seminaries who will say with Paul, “Look carefully then how you walk.” (Eph. 5:15)

When is the last time we took a verse like Ephesians 5:4—“Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving”—when is the last time we took a verse like this and even began to try to apply this to our conversation, our joking, our movies, our YouTube clips, our TV and commercial intake? The fact of the matter is if you read through the New Testament epistles, you will find very few explicit commands that tell us to evangelize and very few explicit commands that tell us to take care of the poor in our communities, but there are dozens and dozens of verses in the New Testament that enjoin us, in one way or another, to be holy as God is holy (e.g., 1 Peter 1:13-16).

I do not wish to denigrate any of the other biblical emphases capturing the attention of younger evangelicals. But I believe God would have us be much more careful with our eyes, our ears and our mouth. It’s not pietism, legalism or fundamentalism to take holiness seriously. It’s the way of all those who have been called to a holy calling by a holy God.

Scriptures: 1 Peter, Ephesians 5:4, Isaiah 52:11, Isaiah 52:11-12, Titus 2:14

YouVersion partners with translation groups in campaign to translate Bible globally by 2033

By Nicole Alcindor, CP Contributor| Thursday, September 09, 2021

Unsplash/Aaron Burden

The popular mobile Bible app YouVersion has partnered with an alliance of 10 leading Bible translation organizations to help reach the goal of making the Gospel available to 95% of the world’s population by 2033.

The collaboration plan, which some initially deemed impossible in this lifetime, will also aim to see the New Testament available in 99.96% of the languages available. 

Ideas for theillumiNations partnership have been brewing since 2010 at an organized launch gathering. The association was created as 3,732 languages of the world’s over 7,000 languages have little or no translated Scripture.

“The Bible transforms lives, and we want to give back and bring awareness,” YouVersion Founder Bobby Gruenewald told The Christian Post in an interview. “It’s important that people know that God speaks their languages too.” 

Gruenewald created YouVersion, commonly known as the Bible app, in 2008 when he was struggling to establish a consistent pattern in the time he spent reading the Bible. Since its inception, the app alone has been installed on more than 400 million unique devices and downloaded in every country on earth.

Gruenewald said that while the app has seen millions “draw nearer to the Bible,” the ministry realized that it needed to expand to other languages, including “smaller languages have never heard Jesus’ words.”

“As a ministry, we made a commitment to make the Bible available in everyone’s heart languages,” he said.

Missio Nexus — the largest evangelistic association of churches and organizations in North America — reported in 2016 that about one-sixth of the world’s population (1.3 billion people) don’t have a translation of the complete Bible in the language they speak best.

Although Gruenewald said that YouVersion staff are not translators, their role in the partnership will entail advocacy to enhance the work that translators with IllumiNations’ partner organizations will do in the next dozen years. 

Organizations involved in the IllumiNaitions alliance include American Bible Society, Biblica, Deaf Bible Society, Lutheran Bible Translators, Seed Company, SIL International, United Bible Societies, The Word for the World, Pioneer Bible Translators and Wycliffe Bible Translators USA.

The work needed to translate the Bible into different dialects, Gruenewald said, is no easy feat. It once took up to 12 years for a single translation to happen. 

Originally, Bibles were mostly translated through long-term missions work. Missionaries would travel to areas that never heard the Gospel translated in their languages. They would immerse themselves among the people to learn their languages and ultimately aid in Bible translation efforts.

But over time, with advancements in technology and translation methodologies, the translation process has sped up.

“Technology gives momentum around bible translations because it was very difficult to translate because people who speak these languages live in different areas and tribes,” Gruenewald said. “Now methodologies have changed partly due to technology, as well as more donors get even more excited about this. The willingness of the leaders of translations ministries to put aside logos and brands to get work done and completed is what has led to these advancements.”

Gruenewald said he hopes more people will donate to the financial cause of achieving more Bible translations. He also hopes YouVersion will impact many more lives and lead to more people wanting to participate in the Bible translation effort. 

“This is a big, audacious and aggressive goal, but this is a God-centered plan that has brought so much unity and faith. And when there is great unity and faith, God answers,” he added.

In an earlier interview with CP, Mart Green, the ministry investment officer of Hobby Lobby, said the illumiNations partnership provides Bible translation organizations collaboration and a centralized database that allows them to accomplish more together than they can apart. 

“None of our ministry partners can say that they are going to eradicate Bible poverty with their organization,” Green said. “But when we come together, [they] can now say that because they have nine other teammates.”

VIDEO Daniel and the king’s vaccine mandate – FDA Employee: Feds Need to Create a ‘Nazi-Germany’ Style Registry of Unvaccinated Americans

Scott Lively addresses the ‘Doctrine of Bodily Sovereignty’ and exemption efforts


The very first test of Daniel the prophet in the Bible book that bears his name was whether he would submit to a special “health” regime, mandated by Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar:

“But Daniel made up his mind that he would not defile himself with the king’s choice food or with the wine which he drank; so he sought permission from the commander of the officials that he might not defile himself. … The commander of the officials said to Daniel, ‘I am afraid of my lord the king, who has allotted your food and your drink; for why should he see your faces looking gaunt in comparison to the youths who are your own age? Then you would make me forfeit my head to the king.’ But Daniel said to the overseer … ‘Please put your servants to the test for ten days, and let us be given some vegetables to eat and water to drink.’ … So he listened to them in this matter, and put them to the test for ten days. And at the end of ten days their appearance seemed better, and they were fatter than all the youths who had been eating the king’s choice food.”

This passage seems a close parallel to the scenario of government health mandates Christians are now facing across the world.

The elites, represented here by Nebuchadnezzar, have their own ideas about what is best for the common people, and assume for themselves the right to impose their will by force.

The particulars of the mandate, represented in Daniel 1 by certain foods and wine, are about whether or not to allow substances into one’s body against one’s will.

The motive of the people (Daniel and his three companions) to resist the mandate is religious in nature.

The government enforcement mechanism, represented by the overseer, is coercive implementation by intermediaries such as private businesses, which face serious penalties for not serving as health police over their customers/clients.

The solution, then as now, is a “request” for a religious exemption (backed by the implicit promise of civil disobedience).

And in the end, just as has been proved by today’s non-vaxers, Daniel’s choice not to submit to the mandate was vindicated by his superior health status compared to those who did.

Daniel 1 provides a strong support for the Christian Doctrine of Bodily Sovereignty that my First Century Bible Church has codified in our campaign to provide personalized Religious Exemption letters to any Christian who requests one (see

Here is a basic summary of the doctrine cited in our letter:

“Our Church believes in the absolute sovereignty of God in all things, and His delegation of authority to human beings over the control of their own minds and bodies (Colossians 1:16–17; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20). We believe we possess both the God-given ability to reason and the gift of free will to make our own choices regarding our lives, inclusive of our health and well-being, and that individuals should be the ones to make their own decisions pertaining to any and all medical services and medications, including all decisions regarding vaccines no matter what conditions – including pandemics – may be present. The choice to use or accept any forms of external intervention to address any mental or physical health problem remains a sacred personal right, notwithstanding the opinion of other people, including medical professionals and government officials.”

As we have rolled out this program we have seen a variety of responses from the “overseers.” Most grant the exemption as a matter of policy, in many cases apparently grateful to have the simple solution of putting a form in their files. Some try to push back against the exemption by forcing the requesting party to prove the sincerity of his or her religious belief. A few try to craft their “proof of sincerity” policy to be as restrictive as possible, with the apparent goal denying all requests while protecting themselves from the legal consequences.

The worst of this latter category is the attempt to tie the right of exemption to an official church dogma against all medicines. One hospital went so far as to require all religiously exempt employees to swear off Tylenol and Tums. In my view, policies such as this represent an unconstitutional effort to “establish religion” by defining what is “acceptable” church doctrine.

However, as stated above, our doctrinal position is rooted in God-given bodily sovereignty, not a dogmatic opposition to all medicines.

We have also seen efforts to force people to prove their religious sincerity by how often they attend church and identifying where they attend church. The implication is that the lack of church attendance, or having an exemption from a non-local church is a disqualifier. We advice people who face this type of resistance to remind the “overseers” of the government lockdowns to neutralize those objections. Most Christians had to move to an online church such as ours during the pandemic.

Ultimately, the crux of the religious exemption fight comes down to your sincerity of religious belief – something that cannot truly be known by anyone but you. But as a practical matter, evidence of sincerity is important. Our program has people formally register their agreement with our doctrine to receive a personalized letter on church stationary. That letter alone has been sufficient in most cases. Where an employer-mandated additional form must be filled and signed by clergy, we have done that as well for registered members, some of whom report that their own local pastor refuses to do so. I find that shocking, since all that is required in most such cases is an attestation that the church member’s religious objection to the mandate is sincere. Why would any pastor refuse to attest to his own church member’s sincerity of belief, even if he disagreed with that belief?

Daniel set an excellent example for Christians today regarding “health” mandates that violate our right of bodily sovereignty. We should follow his example, while also remembering that Daniel’s first test was to prepare him for a second, tougher one (the lion’s den) in which the mandate was to worship a gold statue of the king, spiritually equivalent to the Mark of the Beast.

Listen to an audio version of this column:

Gov. Ron DeSantis is making a major announcement in Tallahassee

PART 1: Federal Govt HHS Whistleblower Goes Public With Secret Recordings “Vaccine is Full of Sh*t”

USA Today Trying to ‘Fact Check’ Our ‘Claims’ in #CovidVaxExposed Part 1 – O’Keefe Says He Will Sue!

Part II of Project Veritas’ Bombshell Covid Vaccine Recordings – FDA Employee: Feds Need to Create a ‘Nazi-Germany’ Style Registry of Unvaccinated Americans, “Go Door to Door and Stab Everyone”

By Julian Conradson September 22, 2021 updated

On Monday, Project Veritas released the first installment of their #CovidVaxExposed undercover report.

Whistleblower Jodi O’Malley went to Project Veritas to expose horrific revelations from her time as an employee at the Health and Human Services. She was able to go undercover and provide the secret recordings to the whistleblower outlet.

Part one of the report sent shockwaves through social media. It had over 2 million views on Twitter alone – and we all know how much they love to shadowban content on their platform. 

On Wednesday, the guerilla journalists dropped part 2 and it was just as impactful as the first, if not more so.

Americans should be shocked.

The second 10-minute video shows an FDA employee – Taylor Lee – speaking about horrific ways they would force people to comply with vaccine mandates. 

At the beginning of the undercover interview, Lee talks about vaccine hesitancy among African-Americans, admitting they have every right to be cautious, but explains that the Feds should just break out the blow darts, fill them with the vaccine, and shoot them at the black dissenters or anyone else who won’t comply with the vax mandate. “That’s where we’re going.” He added.

“You get blow-darts of J&J (Johnson&Johnson Covid Vaccine) – and like go to the unvaccinated and blow it into them

Just shoot everyone.”

Oh, and also just use drones to do it. Apparently, they have the funding.

“Drones… Drone darts. Easy. Like the funding’s there. Its easy to do.

At this point i dont care about your bodily autonomy.”

What a psychopath… This guy is clearly unhinged.

When the interviewer asks Lee how they will be able to reach the hesitant minority population to convince them to take the jab, he offers an unsurprising, but horrific solution – “It’s fine, we will go for the whites first.”

Which according to him, will be no problem for the liberal propaganda machine.

“We’ll post video campaigns about doing it to whites first, and then they can’t call it [racist]”

Predictably, this bootlicking FDA goon was also in favor of going door-to-door to force vaccinate people against their will. He suggests using the same federal resources that are used to Census the population in order to do so. 

According to Lee, it’s time for the Federal Government to compile a Nazi-style (even he acknowledges as much) registry of unvaccinated Americans.

“I mean, Census goes door-to-door if you don’t respond, so we have the infrastructure to do it. 

It will cost a ton of money, but at that point there needs to be a registry of people who aren’t vaccinated. – Although that’s sounding very [Nazi] Germany at the same point.”

How many more Taylor LEEs are employed by the FDA? Let alone, at all of the other agencies in the tyrannical health regime?

Here is the full part II:


An Emotional Affair: How to Guard Your Marriage

By To Love, Honor, and Vacuum -August 3, 2021

Today’s post from Sheila at To Love, Honor and Vacuum is a great look at why an emotional affair is dangerous, but also preventable. While it’s written to women, this is extremely applicable to men as well. Enjoy!

Q: I am happily married to my husband. I don’t want to leave him, I’m very attracted to him. We’ve been married for [redacted] years and he has become more caring and loving than he was in the beginning. I know that he is who God wants me to be with.

The problem is, there is this man from church who I’ve developed an attraction to. I didn’t mean to, and I’ve tried to reason the feelings away. This man has never made a ‘move’ on me, or anything. My husband thinks he talks to me a little too much, so he likes me to only talk to him when he’s around and I comply. I find myself looking forward to seeing him, dressing up “for church”… It really makes me dislike myself. I’ve prayed about it a lot.

The other day I asked my husband what he would do if I died. He said that he didn’t know, that he’d miss me terribly, and that he’d get lots of help from family and the church. Then he asked me what I’d do, immediately my mind went to the man at church and how I’d want to marry him. I don’t even really know the man that well. I only know his major interests. I didn’t tell my husband that, I just said that I didn’t want to think about him dying, and I don’t want him to die, it’s the truth.

Help. I hate having these feelings. I want them to go away. I keep praying about it, and limiting talking to the man. I try to only talk to the women at church now, because he is popular with the men at the church. How to I stay emotionally faithful to my husband? I hate the thought that I may be having an emotional affair.

Wow. Okay, I know she’s not alone, so I want to give some practical help today.

I want to say something right off the bat that people may be surprised to hear:

Just because you are attracted to someone else DOES NOT mean that there is something wrong with your marriage.

Did you hear that? Let that sink in. I think we sometimes believe that attraction can only happen if we are unhappy, or lacking something. But you are not DEAD. You are simply married. And sometimes we meet someone who pushes all the right buttons.

We’re then thrown through a tailspin of bewilderment. You thought you were immune to this, because you have a great marriage. You’re in love with your husband. How could this be happening to you?

So here are some thoughts, in no particular order:

Emotional Affair Fact #1: Temptation is Not Sin

Jesus was tempted. Feeling attracted to someone is not a sin. And it really can happen to anyone–even someone with a good marriage.

Emotional Affair Fact #2: Temptation Does Not Mean there is Something Wrong with Your Marriage

As soon as we’re tempted, and feel attracted to someone else, we often start to look at our marriage and figure there’s something horribly wrong. There’s some unmet need, and my subconscious is trying to point it out to me.

That could be true, but from the women I’ve spoken with I’d say that’s not necessarily true at all. Your marriage very well could be fine. It may not be, of course; but being tempted does not mean that something IS wrong with your marriage.

When we are attracted to someone else, the worst thing we can do is to then assume that we are unhappy with our marriage. That makes us start to doubt our marriage even more, or even look for things that are wrong with our marriage that explain why we’re feeling that attraction. “I must find my husband lacking if I’m attracted to this guy.” No, that’s not true. You just may very well fit with that other guy as well.

I am not one of those “there is only one person out there in the world meant for you” kind of person. I believe that God lets us choose our spouse, and that it is then up to us to become the best spouse we can be. Perhaps it’s because my grandfather was married three times to three wonderful but very different women (they all kept dying of cancer on him). Were those last two marriages substandard because the first was the love of his life? No, I don’t think so. He was happy in all three marriages, because he decided to love those women and be the best husband he could for each of them.

So the fact that you are attracted to someone else may simply be because there are many different people you could have potentially worked with.

Now, perhaps there is something wrong with your marriage. Hopefully this, then, will be the nudge to start addressing that problem by going to a counselor, talking to your husband about it, or doing something to change the dynamic. But it does not necessarily mean something is wrong, and assuming your marriage is on the skids is the worst thing you could do at a time like this.

Emotional Affair Fact #3: You Are In a Battle

You are not to blame for being tempted. This does not mean there is something wrong with your marriage. However, what you do with those feelings is something for which you are held to account.

If you start dreaming about the guy, or dressing up for the guy, or thinking about what you will say the next time you see him, you have crossed over from the temptation to the actively participating in the fantasy. You’re having an emotional affair (an affair of the mind).And that’s dangerous–even if he’s not reciprocating.

What I’m getting from this letter writer is the question, “how can I make this go away??!?” And I understand the feeling. You just want this horrible reality that you’re attracted to this guy to go away. You want these thoughts to vanish.

But the problem is that we begin to think that our thoughts and attraction is something that just happens, and we have no control over it, these thoughts come, and you do nothing to banish them. Because you feel that there is nothing you can do against these thoughts. 

You are not powerless, though, against thoughts or attractions. This is an empowering message if you’re struggling with unwanted thoughts or attractions! We DO have control over our thoughts. We can choose whether to entertain them or not.

We take every thought captive. We choose what to think about. If a thought enters your head that you know is wrong, replace it with something else. Pray. Sing a worship song. Make that your prompt to text something nice to your husband. Seriously, every time you think about this other guy, go text your husband and tell him something new that you love about him. Whenever you think about this man, go and hug your children. Choose to replace the thought.

Why don’t we do this? Because the thoughts are actually fun. Infatuation is fun. Infatuation is heady, and more intoxicating than a drug. But it’s not real. What’s real is deciding to love someone, day in and day out. So recognize you’re in a battle and fight! If you engage in that fight for long enough, by praying and taking every thought captive, you’ll find that your thought patterns do start to change. But don’t expect it to be easy.You have to FIGHT!

Emotional Affair Fact #4: Don’t Convince Yourself He’d Be an Awful Husband

I think often we feel, “oh, if I saw his flaws I wouldn’t be attracted to him anymore.” I think that’s a wrong way of looking at it. You see your husband’s flaws, and you’re still attracted to him, but that’s because you have decided to love him. If you decided to love this other guy, chances are you could overlook his flaws, too.

Stopping the infatuation with the other guy does not depend on seeing him as a horrible human being; it depends on seeing your husband in the right light, and taking your thoughts captive. Don’t think about how this guy probably snores and farts in his sleep; think about how much you love your husband, and how you will remain faithful. Fight the battle, ladies!

If you left your husband for him, you would open yourself up for a world of hurt. You’d hurt your families. You’d hurt your kids. You’d hurt your husband. And you’d hurt your relationship with God.

It isn’t about whether or not he’d be better with you than with your husband; it’s that you’ve already made a vow to your husband, and to break that would have serious awful consequences. So fight! Fight FOR your marriage way more than you fight AGAINST this guy. Make strengthening your marriage your priority; not seeing this guy as an awful guy.

If you want some practical ways to fight for your marriage, I have a free 5-day emotional connection e-course at my site for married couples. If you’ve been struggling to connect emotionally with your husband, or you feel that there are barriers to emotional connection, I seriously recommend trying this course! (And again, it’s free!) 

Emotional Affair Fact #5: Set up Boundaries so the Attraction Does not Become a Full-Blown Emotional Affair (or worse)

Set up boundaries in your marriage. It sounds like she is already do this: she’s not talking by herself to him very much; she’s trying to keep her husband near when he’s around. She’s trying to make sure that they don’t develop a real relationship that could blossom into an emotional affair–or worse. Good decisions!

I’d encourage anyone who is tempted by an emotional affair to set up some serious boundaries and do not let yourself be put in a compromising situation. Don’t text him–even if you can think of a legitimate reason to do so. (We’re on a committee together, and I need to tell him about the next meeting. I can text him then, right?). No. Because chances are you’ll start trying to think of more “legitimate” reasons to text him. Don’t friend him on Facebook. Don’t be alone with him. If you are on a committee with him, consider leaving that committee. If you work with him, consider leaving that job. I know that not all of these actions may be possible, but what I have found is that when you put distance between the person that you think that you are emotionally attracted to, and put your energy into your husband, that attraction wanes.

Emotional Affair Fact #6: Love Your Husband Wholeheartedly

Dedicate yourself even more to loving your husband. Make your sex life greatFlirt with him. Nurture your marriage every way you can. As you find yourself spending more and more time with your husband, you’ll likely find your attraction to the guy diminishing.

What do you think? Have you ever been in danger of an emotional affair? How did you extricate yourself? And what boundaries for marriage work best for you?

Read Next on Thriving Marriages  This Weekly Routine Will Build the Marriage of Your Dreams