What and Where is the Real “War on Women”

During this political season, we hear a lot about the “war on women” in America.  But the fact is women blessed to be born in a Judeo-Christian Western culture have opportunities few women in history have ever experienced.  America has women campaigning to become President of the United States from both parties.  There are women who are corporate and community leaders who are leaving their mark on the future of their organizations and our communities.

The true “war on women” is going on in other parts of our world.  As a result of outrageous attacks in Cologne, Germany on New Year’s Eve, the extent of that “war” has finally received media attention.  Police have received nearly 700 complaints of robbery or sexual assault and several rapes on that evening alone.  The majority of the suspects identified have been asylum seekers – mostly North African or Arabic – and Cologne police officers are still sifting through 350 hours of civilian cellphone and surveillance video to identify more perpetrators.

Johanna, an 18-year-old victim interviewed for the New York Times, said, “We were just pressed on all sides by people.  I was grabbed continually…. That was really the worst night of my life.”  Local police were overwhelmed.  Another victim complained, “I had never experienced that a policeman said, ‘I would love to help you but I can’t.’  That was really the worst.  Who should you turn to as a woman?  What should I do?”

What happened in Cologne was not an isolated incident.  That evening, there were similar attacks in Hamburg, Stuttgart, Frankfurt, and Nuremberg.  A rash of sexual assaults took place in Austria, Sweden, Switzerland and Finland.

Ingrid Carlqvist, with the Grapestone Institute, reports that rapes in Norway and Sweden have sky-rocketed in recent years as their Muslim refugee and migrant populations have soared.  Attackers assert that under Shariah, it’s okay to rape Norwegian and Swedish women … because they are considered “infidels.”  Sweden is fighting their new reputation as “the rape capital of the West.”

As President Obama works to accept more Islamic refugees, will America be next?

Rukmini Callimachi, writing in the New York Times, documents how ISIS hallows a “Theology of Rape.”  An ISIS fighter who raped a 12-year-old Iraqi girl “took the time to explain that what he was about to do was not a sin.  Because the preteen girl practiced a religion other than Islam, the Quran not only gave him the right to rape her - it condoned and encouraged it, he insisted.”

Just last year, several UK cities, including Rotherham and Birmingham, finally reported that predominantly Pakistani “grooming gangs” targeted English school girls … some as young as 11-years-old.  These girls were fed with drugs and alcohol, and then were sexually abused and raped.  In the city of Rotherham, it is estimated about 1,400 girls were “groomed” and sexually abused over the last 16-years.  Local ‘politically correct’ officials knew it, but failed to stop it or issue warnings … for fear of being labeled racists. America cannot afford to let political correctness silence our concern about new refugees.

Some governmental officials have warned women to keep at “arm’s length” from young Muslim men.  Are American women to cover themselves up to avoid enticement or to stay inside unless accompanied by a man?  Townhall columnist Helen Raleigh assertively rejected such inane suggestions saying, “Cultures which believe a woman shouldn’t drive, or treat woman as nothing but a sexual object, or practice ‘honor killing,’ should not be tolerated or accepted in a society which promotes individual rights and human freedom…. There is a big difference between appreciating a culture versus unconditional tolerance.  I wish more people, especially politicians, would have the backbone to reject multiculturalism, and insist that any culture whose values and practices violate human freedom has no place in America.”

Instead of the United States trying to outdo other countries in seeing who can accept the most refugees, we must ensure that those who seek asylum here truly embrace our freedoms and women’s rights.  There’s room for diversity of religion and race, but no “war on women.”  Without an Islamic reformation, this is not the time for an influx of more refugees.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Inter-Faith Christian Vote Would Dominate Election Results

A major political development is taking place under the radar that could make a difference in 2016 and beyond.  It involves evangelicals and Catholics who are moving to overlook their religious differences to act as one on important issues.

Dr. Jay Richards, a prominent Catholic writer, works with influential evangelicals to push the two faiths closer together.  “These two people groups, these two religious bodies in the United States in many ways hold the solution to renewing our culture,” he told CBN News.  He believes that hasn’t happened yet … because of a failure to see how much they have in common and can gain by joining forces.  “Part of the reason that Christians have become so un-influential in American culture is because we exist and live in 10,000 individual little ghettoes, little silos,” he explained.  “It doesn’t mean we’re necessarily now fighting each other.  It means we’re not working together.”

But Americans have come a long way from when a Catholic politician’s faith worked against him and made it hard for him to even get elected.  Today, you see prominent Christians like Catholic Sen. Marco Rubio and evangelical Sen. Ted Cruz supported equally by each other’s religious group.

Richards is working with evangelical leader James Robison to reach both Catholics and evangelicals.  “There’s a lot of mixing,” Richards said.  “Some of my closest Catholic friends are Cruz supporters.  And some of my best evangelical friends are Rubio supporters.  So I think that’s actually very healthy.  These things aren’t dividing up over these religious differences.”

If even more conservative religious groups could start working in unity, Richards believes it could halt the downward spiral of a nation that appears to be growing more anti-Christian by the year.  “What we do, how we vote, actually matters,” he told CBN News.  “We actually have some responsibility for these things.”  He goes on to say, “And so I hope we’ll use, frankly, the attacks on Christianity and religious freedom as an opportunity to come together, to think strategically, to say, ‘Okay, how do we create a public and effective witness when we come together in the public square?’ ”

Imagine it: As a united force, Catholics and evangelicals would form, by far, the largest voting bloc in the United States.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

NYC Values Could Cost You $250K If Guilty of ‘Transphobia’

Over the past few weeks, we’ve heard a lot of back-and-forth by candidates arguing ‘New York values.’  What’s most interesting is the claim that New Yorkers are no different than anywhere else in America.  Really?  Think again.  Let me sight just one (of many) differences.

Largely below the radar, radical legislation was enacted in New York City to protect the rights of those who identify as transgender – at the cost of everyone else.  And when I say “cost,” I’m not exaggerating.  Violators of these new laws could cost them up to $250,000 for a single offense.

What exactly do these new laws do?  Rather than regurgitate the legal jargon, Dr. Michael Brown (President of FIRE School of Ministry) gives this practical example:

Let’s say you own a gym where men and women come in to work out and get in shape.  A man comes in – at least, to all appearances he’s a man – but he proceeds to enter the women’s locker room to change.  You approach him and say, “Sir, I’m sorry, but you’re going into the ladies’ room.  The men’s locker room is across the hallway.”  He replies, “First, I’m not ‘sir,’ I’m ‘ma’am.’  Second, I have the legal right to use the locker room that I identify with, and I identify as a woman.”  If you refuse to refer to him as she/her, you have broken the law and could be fined.  If you refuse to let him use the women’s locker room, where the ladies are not expecting a biological male to be changing, nor are they expecting him to shower naked in the stall next to them, you have also broken the law and could be fined.  What if you decide to ask for proof that this man really identifies as a woman?  Perhaps he can produce a letter from a doctor saying that he has been diagnosed as transgender and has been undergoing hormone therapy for the last two years?  Perhaps he has had sex-change surgery, at least in part?  Sorry, but it is illegal for you even to ask for such proof.

As reported by MassResistance, “On December 21, New York City’s Commission on Human Rights announced that it has re-interpreted the city’s trans-gender anti-discrimination law.  The result is more radical and oppressive than we’ve seen so far in the U.S.  It covers all people in the areas of employment, public accommodations (i.e., restaurants, theaters, stores, health clubs, etc.), and housing.  Included are fines of up to $250,000 for each violation.” 

This means that if you own a restaurant and the same scenario unfolds, this time with this gentleman (who perceives himself to be a woman) walking into the ladies’ bathroom immediately after a little girl walks in, if you try to stop him, you have broken the law.  So who cares about traumatizing the little girl?

Dr. Brown says, “I am not suggesting that the man in question is a sexual predator (although it is documented that non-transgender, heterosexual male predators have abused these laws to satisfy their voyeurism).  But I am suggesting that the rights of the little girl are at least as important as this man’s rights, and it is outrageous to think that the little girl could be traumatized in order to accommodate this man’s personal perceptions.

Yet the New York laws go even further.  As cited again by MassResitance, some of the new laws include: 

• Limiting a person’s options to only “male” and “female.”  How this works was not completely explained.
• Sex stereotyping.  If a company allows women to wear wigs, makeup, skirts, and jewelry – it must also allow men to do so.  Any conversation about a person’s non-conformity to gender norms is also prohibited.
• Imposing different dress codes based on sex.  For example, if a restaurant requires waitresses to wear skirts and high heels, it must also require male waiters do so.  Or, it may not require only male patrons to wear ties.

Is this anything less than madness?  Is this anything less than a war on gender?  It is one thing to do our best to understand the struggles of those who identify as transgender; but it is quite another thing to turn society upside down in the process.

These outrageous laws don’t reflect my Judeo-Christian values.  They are clearly New York City values!  While my Christian faith calls for compassion for those struggling with gender identity, it doesn’t require me to capitulate to man’s insanity.  America is governed by “nature’s law” (referenced in the Declaration of Independence) – meaning the unwritten body of universal moral principles that underlie the ethical and legal norms by which human conduct is evaluated and governed.  These self-evident truths are endowed by our Creator … who made us male and female.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

P.S. – I fully acknowledge that not all New Yorkers support these outrageous laws.  Many God-fearing people of New York are equally appalled.  My prayers go up for those who live by biblical principles in such a godless society.

How Does Your Presidential Candidate Remember the Murder of 58M on this 43rd Anniversary of the American Holocaust?

On this 43rd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court Roe v Wade decision … legalizing abortion ‘on demand’ … and in memory of the some 58-million fellow Americans who have been murdered as result, it is only fitting in this election year of 2016 to examine the presidential candidates’ position on the sanctity of human life.

The political question is this: Should governments make laws to protect the lives of the pre-born?  If the answer to that question is ‘yes,’ then there are more specific questions, such as: Should the pre-born be protected from the moment of conception to the moment of birth; or only from some later point in pregnancy?  What should the pre-born be called – a fetus, a pre-born child, and unborn child, or a baby?  What kind of penalties should be attached to taking the life of a pre-born child?  Even for those who do not think governments should make laws protecting the lives of pre-born children, other policy questions remain: Should governments pay for women to have abortions?  Should physicians and other health-care providers who think abortion is morally wrong be compelled to perform abortions?  Should government policies promote or discourage abortions?

Several passages in the Bible suggest that a pre-born child should be thought of as a person from the moment of conception.  For example, before the birth of John the Baptist, when his mother, Elizabeth, was in about her sixth month of pregnancy, she was visited by her relative, Mary, who was to become the mother of Jesus.  St. Luke records Elizabeth exclaiming – “Behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.” (Luke 1:41-44)  Under the influence of the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth calls the pre-born child a baby.

One of the fundamental responsibilities of a government is to protect the lives of the people it governs.  For if government is to punish those who do evil and to prevent them from harming the innocent, then a government certainly must protect its people from the ultimate harm of being killed.  If pre-born children are considered persons, then surely government should protect their lives.  In fact, it is especially the weak and helpless (those without other means of protection) who should be the objects of governmental protection.

But the sanctity of human life is not limited to pre-born children.  There is also the issue of euthanasia which raises the question: Should governments make laws against intentionally taking the lives of elderly or the dying persons?  This issue often comes to focus in the case of terminally ill patients who are experiencing chronic pain and who no longer want to live and who may even wish that they could be put to death.  It also is a question in the case of people who have lost much or most of their mental capacities because of a coma or severe dementia; or patients who through severe injury or illness appeared to have no reasonable human hope of recovery.  What should the law all do in such cases?

The primary biblical teaching in this regard is found in the Ten Commandments: “You shall not murder.” (Exodus 20:13)  This commandment, which is affirmed in the New Testament (Matthew 18:19 and Romans 13:9) applies to all human beings created in the image of God.  It does not say, “You shall not murder, except when a person is more than 80 or 90 years old”, or “You shall not murder except when a very ill person wants to be murdered.”  Just as the command against murder prohibits abortion in the very early stages of human life, so the command against murder also prohibits intentionally taking the life of a person in the final stages of human life.  The word translated “murder” includes both premeditated murder and also an accidental causing of another person’s death.  One other passage of special significance is 2 Samuel 1:1-16.  King Saul had recently died in battle, in effect making David the king.  A few days after the battle where Saul had died, a man came to David and claimed that he had found Saul gravely wounded; and that Saul had begged for the man to kill him, and the man had done so.  In several ways this was an act of euthanasia.  Yet David’s response was to order capital punishment for the man who had done this.  In other words, the person who carried out euthanasia is guilty of murder.

The direction of society takes on the question of euthanasia is a reflection of how highly it values human life and how highly it values God’s command not to murder.  In societies where physician-assisted suicide becomes legal, this will set the stage for a further erosion of the protection of human life.  Some people will be thought “too old” to deserve medical treatment.  Compassion and care for the elderly will diminish, and they will be more and more thought of as burdens to care for, rather than valuable members of the society.  And, unless we experience premature death, all of us will ourselves one day be those elderly people who need care and support from others.

Where does your candidate stand on the sanctity of human life?

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

“Pretend to Be Christians, Wear Cross Necklaces” says ISIS

Imagine that!  The leaders of the Islamic State (ISIS) have put forth new guidance urging its followers in the West to pretend to be Christians before committing lone wolf, terrorist attacks.  According to The Daily Telegraph, the 58-page terror pamphlet titled “Safety and Security Guidelines for Lone Wolf Mujahideen” instructs its adherents to trim their beards, wear Western-style aftershave and even pretend to be Christians by wearing cross necklaces in order to avoid arousing suspicion.  “No doubt that today, at the era of the lone wolves, brothers in the West need to know some important things about safety in order to ensure success in their operations,” reads the manual (in part).  “We thought a lot of non-Arabic speaking brothers would find it interesting and may apply it in their blessed operations,” it adds.

After revealing some of the ‘best places’ to carry out terror attacks (such as loud nightclubs), the guide provides a few disturbing tips for future jihadists:

• “If you can avoid having a beard, wearing qamis [Islamic tunics], using miswak [teeth cleaning twigs] and having a booklet of dhikr [prayers and devotional acts] with you, it’s better.  It is permissible for you to wear a necklace showing a Christian cross,” it explains.
• “As you know, Christians – or even atheist Westerners with Christian background – wear crosses on their necklaces.  But don’t wear a cross necklace if you have a Muslim name on your passport, as that may look strange,” the guide adds.

This new manual, which was released on ISIS-linked Twitter accounts and other social media sites, is the latest in a series of twisted English-language propaganda attempts carried out by the terror group.  The Telegraph notes that over the past year, ISIS has released dozens of online documents, instructing their followers on everything from how to build a bomb factory to how to cross into Syria via Turkey without being caught.

Last November, supporters of the group released a pamphlet titled “Oh Media Correspondent, You are the Mujahid” in an attempt to further their social media and internet presence.  The manual, which has been published in Arabic and English, is accompanied by an 18-minute video and displays the terrorist group’s chilling knowledge of the world-wide web.

Then, in December, the group released detailed instructions via social media on how to make a home-made weapon that the writer says could disable jet fighters, notes the Washington Times.  Later in December, ISIS released guidelines encouraging fighters to disguise themselves as Iraqi security forces before committing atrocities.

To counter violent extremism, the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department announced last week it will start a new task force to help allies craft localized anti-terrorism messages and help prevent the release of future English-language propaganda material.  Officials are also reworking a currently existing State Department program that was created to serve as an information war room to “challenge the Islamic State online and erode its appeal.”

“Ultimately, it is not going to be enough to defeat ISIL in the battlefield,” President Obama told representatives of more than 100-nations and civil society groups.  “We have to prevent it from radicalizing, recruiting and inspiring others to violence in the first place. And this means defeating their ideology.”

A senior administration official added that the objective in sending so many top officials to Silicon Valley was to make sure the tech firms “understand what we are up against with respect to ISIL.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Philly Cop-1 / Islamic Terrorist-0

As many of you know, I hail from Philadelphia.  It’s my place of birth and Pennsylvania is where I was raised and attended all my schooling.  Having said this, I wish to say a word about the recent shooting involving one of Philly’s ‘men in blue.’

Philadelphia Police Officer Jessie Hartnett, who has been on the force for 5- years, was ambushed in his vehicle.  Hartnett was shot in the arm multiple times after 13-shots were fired into the police car.  He was able to return fire and hit the suspect – 30-year-old Edward Archer … who has survived.  Though the Mayor said differently, the police are now confirming the situation as a terrorism investigation and have revealed the suspect admitted to carrying out the shooting in the name of Islam after pledging loyalty to ISIS.  Police officials said at a press conference, “He [the suspect] said he did it for his religious beliefs.”  Officials also confirmed the gun used to carry out the ambush was stolen.  The gun was reportedly stolen from a home, but it is still unclear how the suspect got the weapon.  “This is a criminal, with a stolen gun, who tried to kill one of our officers,” another official stated.

The FBI is working on the case.  According to police, the suspect has a long, felony record.

After reviewing video footage of the incident, fellow police officers are applauding Harnett for his bravery.  “I can’t say enough about his bravery and how he conducted himself,” said Police Commissioner Richard Ross.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Alabama Has More Than a Winning Football Team – They’ve Got Moore

Last week, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, issued an administrative order saying, “Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.”

Moore went on to write, “Confusion and uncertainty exist among the probate judges of this State as to the effect of Obergefell on the ‘existing orders’ in API.  Many probate judges are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in accordance with Obergefell; others are issuing marriage licenses only to couples of the opposite gender or have ceased issuing all marriage licenses.”  Therefore, pursuant to his responsibility to “take any such other, further or additional action as may be necessary for the orderly administration of justice within the state,” Chief Justice Moore has ordered Alabama probate judges to uphold the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.

“I applaud Chief Justice Roy Moore for this order reaffirming the marriage law in Alabama,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel.  “The Alabama Supreme Court issued an order in March 2015 barring probate judges from issuing same-sex marriage licenses after a federal court in January of last year overturned Alabama’s voter-approved constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman,” Staver explained. 

“In Alabama and across America, state judiciaries and legislatures are standing up against the federal judiciary or anyone else who wants to come up with some cockeyed view that somehow the Constitution now births some newfound notion of same-sex marriage.  The opinion of five lawyers on the U.S. Supreme Court regarding same-sex marriage is lawless and without legal or historical support,” Staver concluded.

May God grant America more Moores!

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

When “God is Love” Gives License to Sin

I can’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve been told that I shouldn’t judge sinful behavior – because “God is love.”  Admittedly, it more often than not is from a non-believer who wants to commit every sin of his/her desires.  The phrase gives license to plunge headlong into wickedness – because, after all, “God is love.”

For instance, those seeking to have adulterous relationships often use this passage about God since at the heart of their adultery is their own view of what love is.  They live by the premise that if you can quote one verse in the Bible proving that God is a loving God, then He must not be a judging God; and then you can go off and commit any sin you would like … be it adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, etc.

Rev. Timothy Hammons is a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America and serves as Pastor of Redeemer Christian Fellowship in Roswell, NM says there are some things we should know about God … and this verse where this declaration is made … before you do so.

First off, there are only two places in the Bible that directly say “God is love,” both of which are found in John’s first letter to his fellow believers.  John is not writing to the world or the people of the world.  In his letter he makes it clear that there are those who are “in Christ” and those of the world.  Those of the world have no part with the people of God, with Christ, or with the forgiveness found in Christ because they deny Christ.  Therefore any hope of the love of God being the world’s to obtain is unthinkable.

Secondly, John shows us what this love means.  1John 4:7-9 reads, “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.  In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.”

John is defining what the love of God means for those who are in Christ; he is showing believers in Christ, what manner they are to live in Christ in response to the gift of salvation that comes through Christ.  He tells us that “God is love” and shows us what that love looks like.  He doesn’t say anything about not sending the masses to hell, or allowing the wicked of the world off the hook for their wickedness.  There is no reference to universalism in this passage at all – but a direct link to believers as recipients of God’s love through His Son.

Long before John gets to his point about describing God’s love for us, he has already made it clear that we cannot continue on in sinfulness if we want to be a part of God’s people.  He says:

If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

John makes it clear that the path to licentiousness is not acceptable for the believer. There is no place for the “way of sin” in the life of the believer – who knows that we do sin, but this is not our habit for when we do, we certainly do not embrace that sin and hold it up as something to honor and behold as so many do in our world today.

But the broader abuse of this passage is the liberty many take by defining what God is by this verse without respect to the Bible’s other claims about what and who God is.  In other words, those who abuse this truth do so because they also ignore God’s other attributes, like His holiness.

His holiness, points out Rev. Hammons, has far more implications for the world and non-believers than His love does.  Whereas the believer is the recipient of God’s special love, the non-believer is the recipient to God’s special judgment.  This is because God’s holiness demands that sin be dealt with.

God deals with man’s sinfulness in one of two ways.  The first way, is His dealing with our sin via the cross of Christ.  Out of His love for His people, God has provided the atoning sacrifice necessary to deal with our sin.  When we place our faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, our sin is imputed to Christ and dealt with on the cross, while His righteousness is imputed to us, making us acceptable before the Heavenly Father.  To reject Christ and His sacrifice is to reject God’s love.

This leads to the other way that God deals with man’s sinfulness: through His judgment and wrath.  He does this both temporally and eternally.  His holiness demands it and He will not clear the guilty (Exodus 34:6-8).  This being the case, should not the mantra of those seeking to share the good news of Christ be: God is holy! instead of God is love?  After all, so many people have a warped view of what love is, that it really comes nowhere close to revealing what God’s love is.  

The concept of love has been abused by our culture that we are actually doing a disservice by echoing the truth.  It would be much better to say God is holy and then explaining what that means instead of this abused concept that God is loving, therefore meaning that He loves us unconditionally.  He doesn’t love us unconditionally.  The conditions of His love are very specific and many people are ignorant of these biblical truths.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Whether Public or Privately Exposed, How Should We React to Sexual Abuse?

You have no doubt heard the troubling news concerning Josh Duggar of the reality television program “19 Kids and Counting” and Bill Cosby of the formerly long-running “Cosby Show.”  Both cases provide another opportunity to think about how we should react to sexual abuse.

Sexual abusers are found among Christians, atheists, Muslims, etc.  They are found among liberals and conservatives.  Sexual abuse occurs in traditional households and leftist communes.  When a highly-visible Christian or a secular celebrity personality falls to sexual sin or is found to be guilty of sexual abuse there is no room for boasting from either camp.

Sexual sin is birthed in the heart long before it is coveted with the eyes or acted upon with the body.  This is not to say that Christian churches and families must, therefore, tolerate such actions nor in any way seek to cover up sexual abuse.  Among Christians, sexual sin which does not violate the law can and should be dealt with through the means of church discipline (Matthew 18; 1 Corinthians 5).  Illegal sexual activity, however, is never an in-house matter for the Church (look at today’s Roman Catholic Church).  Christians are accountable to God to report any sexual abuse to governing authorities God has entrusted to administer justice (Romans 13:1-7).  The failure of the Church to do so is a sin both against God and the victim.

Having said this, let it also be said that the Church must never demand that victims of sexual abuse quickly forgive their abuser.  Listen: In the Bible forgiveness is always (always!) predicated upon repentance.  The Church needs to understand the unique nature of sexual abuse.  It is a profoundly heinous sort of crime and the victims must therefore be cared for in a way that reflects the horror of what they have suffered.  That means they must be protected from their abuser.  For some this may mean never having to be physically present with the abuser again; for others it may mean giving victims considerable distance in time before counseling them to consider forgiveness and this only in response to repentance.  It must also be understood that forgiveness, especially in cases of sexual abuse, is not a simple one-time event.  For the victim, forgiveness is typically a long and painful process.  And while the mercy of Jesus certainly offers both the rationale and the power to forgive, the victims must never be expected to move through this quickly.

Jesus is a Redeemer of people and the damage we do and that which is done to us.  Our witness does not ultimately rest upon lives without sin and families without failures, but upon the power of the Gospel of Jesus.  While it is certainly true that there ought to be a visible resemblance between what we proclaim and how we live, this congruence will be, for as long as we are on earth, incomplete at best.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Constitutional Comments Create Criticism

Just last week, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made remarks at Archbishop Rummel High School in Metairie, Louisiana in which he said that the Constitution was never meant to be neutral about religion.  Indeed, he said, “there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition.”  He admitted that “you can’t favor one denomination over another,” but that doesn’t mean that religion cannot be favored over non-religion.

Scalia’s comments have ignited a firestorm.  Scalia’s critics say he ignores the meaning of the ‘establishment clause’ which supposedly bars government aid to religious institutions.  In fact, it was written in support of the primary clause – the free exercise clause.  

University of South Dakota law professor Patrick M. Garry, author of Wrestling with God: The Courts’ Tortuous Treatment of Religion, notes that “The first and foremost concern of the framers of the First Amendment was not to create a separation of church and state, but to guarantee religious freedom.  And the absence of an established church was just one aspect of achieving freedom of religion.”

Garry demolishes the idea that the 1st Amendment is neutral about religion.  “The First Amendment framers did not intend to strip religion of its uniqueness, or to make it exactly equal to every secular institution in society.  To the contrary, the establishment clause aims only to keep government from singling out certain religious sects for preferential treatment, not from showing any favoritism to religion in general.”

The founders publicly funded the building of churches; permitted the use of governmental buildings for worship; paid for some salaries of ministers … to include military chaplains and westward missionaries; paid for the publication of Bibles; and allowed for state churches.  While this has since changed, Scalia is still correct in saying that there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the government to be neutral about religion.

Listen: The 1st Amendment is about freedom of religion, not freedom from religion; and the government is prohibited from establishing any one religion.  Read it again – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … ”  Note: You do not find the phrase “separation of church and state.” 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

DoJ Nominee Threatens Religious Liberty

President Obama’s nominee to serve as the top U.S. tax prosecutor has stalled over an obscure letter he wrote 7-years ago questioning the legal tactics of a group that wants pastors to speak out on politics.

The standoff involves Cono Namorato, a Washington defense attorney and former government lawyer, who was nominated February 24, 2015 to serve as the assistant attorney general over the Justice Department’s (DoJ) tax division.  The outcome will determine the leadership of the division’s 370-criminal/civil lawyers, who pursue offshore tax evasion and other investigations.

73-year old Namorato, won bipartisan praise at his July 22 hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee; but never got a confirmation vote from that panel.  Some members of the judiciary panel have expressed concerns.  After Namorato’s hearing Republican Senator Charles Grassley, the panel’s chairman, asked him about a 2008 letter he co-signed that urged the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to investigate the actions of lawyers at the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF).  ADF seeks to use the legal system to promote Christian values like religious freedom, the sanctity of life and marriage and family.  It opposes a 1954 change to the tax code that bars tax-exempt organizations from taking a stand on political candidates.  ADF has challenged IRS to enforce the law, which would lay the groundwork for a legal challenge on 1st Amendment grounds.  

According to its website, ADF encourages pastors to speak “freely and boldly from their pulpit about the issues of the day.”  It says the “IRS controls pulpits” because it can “tell pastors what they can and cannot preach.”  The ADF claims that 4,100 pastors agree the 1954 law must be changed, that 2,032 have violated it since 2008; and that 1,600 preached an election sermon in October 2014.

In September 2008, when the group was starting its “Pulpit Freedom Initiative,” Namorato and two other lawyers at his Washington firm, Caplin & Drysdale, wrote to the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility.  They said the ADF was “explicitly soliciting churches across America to violate Federal law” for tax-exempt organizations in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.  By encouraging “mass violation of Federal tax law,” the ADF engaged in “incompetent and disreputable conduct” under regulations governing behavior for lawyers who practice before the IRS, they wrote.  The letter urged an investigation into whether the lawyers violated the conduct rules, and advocated “immediate and appropriate action to address this flagrant disregard of the ethical rules for practice before the IRS.”  The IRS took no action against the ADF.

“Mr. Namorato’s documented involvement in encouraging the IRS to investigate lawyers working with the Pulpit Freedom Initiative is quite concerning to a number of members, including the chairman,” said committee spokesman Taylor Foy.  “The committee thoroughly vets all nominees,” Foy said.  “When questions arise during that deliberative process, those concerns are dealt with before proceeding.  At this point, those concerns have not been addressed for this nominee.”

In 19-written questions and responses dated July 31 and August 14, Grassley pressed Namorato on the 2008 letter.  The senator asked what guidance Namorato, if confirmed, would give the IRS about whether it should monitor the content of sermons.  Namorato said the Tax Division’s role on that question is limited.  Grassley asked Namorato how he would view the Pulpit Freedom Initiative.  “If I am confirmed and the IRS were to determine that a church or pastor violated the restrictions on political activity and referred the matter to the Tax Division, I would ensure that the merits of the litigation were evaluated in the same manner as any other referral,” Namorato responded.  In response to Grassley, Namorato also said he didn’t believe the lawyers acted criminally.  Yet, he said, his concern was with the ADF’s “active solicitation of clients for the purpose of assisting them in committing a violation of law.”

If Namorato is confirmed, his work in a DoJ tax division is a valid concern for America’s pastors and churches, who could be in jeopardy of losing their tax-exempt status for exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

ADF has written a letter to the Judiciary Committee chair, Senator Chuck Grassley, urging the nomination be rejected.  If you believe in religious liberty as clearly defined in the U.S. Constitution, then add your voice to the rejection of Obama’s nomination … while there is yet time.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Pro-Life Health Providers are the Target of ACLU

A lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) against a Catholic hospital system would make it a crime to be a pro-life healthcare worker.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is asking a federal judge to allow it to intervene in the lawsuit filed against Trinity Health and its staff … involving 86-facilities in 21-states.  If the ACLU should win, the hospitals and their workers – despite their religious convictions – would be required to do abortions.

ADF attorney Kevin Theriot says “not only is there no law that requires faith-based hospitals and medical personnel to commit such acts against their faith and conscience, but federal law directly prohibits the government from engaging in any such coercion.”  In addition, Theriot says the government cannot tie any funding to a requirement that hospitals and their workers give up their constitutional freedoms.

According to Matt Bowman, who is also an attorney with ADF, the lawsuit – if successful – would make being a pro-life healthcare provider illegal.  “Forcing healthcare workers to act contrary to their convictions?  That’s counterproductive, it’s unnecessary – and it’s illegal," he adds.

In addition to Trinity Health, ADF is representing the Catholic Medical Association, the Christian Medical & Dental Association, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologist, and Concerned Women for America – all of which could be affected by the outcome of the lawsuit.

If the ACLU were to win, the medical facilities could also be forced to perform sterilizations and provide abortion-causing drugs.

Listen: don’t be deceived.  This is not about providing women’s healthcare (i.e., abortions, contraceptives, etc.) … for they are easily accessible at other providers.  This is all about denying providers of their pro-life (religious) convictions – therefore, their Constitutional 1st Amendment right to exercise their faith without government interference.      

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Will KY’s Christmas Gift of Religious Liberty be America’s in 2016?

Before year-end 2015, Kentucky’s newly elected governor, Matt Bevin, issued an executive order that eliminates the names of all county clerks from marriage licenses and thereby protects the unalienable constitutional rights and religious freedoms for Kim Davis and all other clerks in Kentucky.

According to Matt Staver, Davis’ attorney and founder of the Christian civil rights firm Liberty Counsel, “This action is a fulfillment of a campaign promise by Gov. Bevin and is directly what our client Kim Davis has been requesting for months.  This promise will enable her and other clerks to do their jobs without compromising religious values and beliefs.”

Gov. Bevin’s statement reads in part:

“To ensure that the sincerely held religious beliefs of all Kentuckians are honored, Executive Order 2015-048 directs the Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives to issue a revised marriage license form to the offices of all Kentucky County Clerks.  The name of the County Clerk is no longer required to appear on the form.”

While the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (alone) should be enough to ensure these safeguards, the unconstitutional actions of five “progressive” lawyers on the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), who (back in June 2015), presumed to capriciously redefine the immutable meaning of marriage (violating both natural law and the manifold Biblical proscription against the sin of unnatural same-sex deviancy), has created legal and moral chaos from coast-to-coast, making fixes such as that issued by Gov. Bevin necessary. Furthermore, these extremist lawyers’ subjective and unprecedented opinion will require additional fixes in all other states to reaffirm Christians’ objective and constitutionally guaranteed rights.  Although the fight to repair the perversion of marriage committed by the SCOTUS will continue, this is an important step in the right direction.

[For more background on Davis’ arbitrary imprisonment by tyrannical federal Judge David Bunning you can read my previous postings dated: August 17, September 4.]

“This is a wonderful Christmas gift for Kim Davis,” continued Staver.  “This executive order is a clear, simple accommodation on behalf of Kim Davis and all Kentucky clerks … this order proves our point that a reasonable accommodation should have been done to avoid Kim having to spend time in jail.”

“Bah humbug!” cried the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).  “Governor Bevin’s executive action has added to the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over marriage licensing in Kentucky,” claimed ACLU of Kentucky Legal Director William Sharp.  “The requirement that the county clerk’s name appear on marriage licenses is prescribed by Kentucky law and is not subject to unilateral change by the governor,” he demanded … proving that the anti-Christian left’s goal was never about so-called ‘marriage equality’ but, rather, was to force Christians to deny marriage reality and personally affirm, under penalty of law, ‘gay marriages.’  [I said this in my blogs dated: June 29, July 29, August 24.]

The ACLU will soon have little more to say on the subject as lawmakers are poised to further codify and build upon Bevin’s executive order.  “Next month, the Kentucky legislature is expected to update the state’s marriage laws and will consider a provision exempting county clerks from having to issue them,” reports ABC News.  “Davis said Kentucky’s marriage laws have been ‘completely eviscerated’ by the Supreme Court’s ruling and said she would be willing to come to the state Capitol to testify about any changes.”

Other state legislatures, as well as the U.S. Congress, must soon follow suit if any progress is to be made into the impasse between secularist change agents hostile to religious freedom, and the faithful Christians who enjoy it as a matter of law.

“In an interview with the Associated Press about her year at the center of one of the biggest social changes in decades, Davis described it as ‘a very emotional and a very real situation to all people.’  But she said simply telling others about her faith was not ‘going to make anybody believe anything.’  And so she put her faith in action by refusing to issue the licenses,” added ABC.

“No one would ever have remembered a county clerk that just said … ‘Even though I don’t agree with it, it’s OK.  I’ll do it,’” Davis said.  “If I could be remembered for one thing, it’s that I was not afraid to not compromise myself.”

Kim Davis will certainly be remembered for her steadfast refusal to compromise herself. But she, along with Gov. Bevin, will also be remembered for helping, this Christmas season, to re-establish the gift of religious freedom for the people of Kentucky.

Even so, the war for our culture will continue into the New Year of 2016 … and well beyond.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel