Christians and Cancel Culture

By now, you have probably heard the phrase “cancel culture.”  Dictionary.com defines the term as “the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive.  Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.”

Nonetheless, even this definition fails to encompass the totality of cancel culture. Google, Facebook, YouTube, etc., will block, ban, and cancel anyone who steps over the invisible lines of what they consider offensive.  Cancel culture has also given license to deny the basic 1st Amendment right of free speech.  It far too often becomes an attack on Biblical values.

Since some Christians have become involved with the social justice movement, the question of what role Christians ought to play has been raised on a more frequent basis.

Some activists point to Psalm 82:3, which says, “Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.”  They argue for a kind of Biblical social justice that targets causes like human trafficking, the abuse of the impoverished, and support for the widows.

Even if Christian involvement is limited to the narrow topics listed above, cancel culture is still part of the social justice movement at large.  The big question is: Should the Christians who subscribe to these movements use cancellation?

Stereotypical cancel culture is typified by the firing of a New York Times reporter who merely quoted a racial slur when asking a question.  This attack exhibits a merciless notion of “justice” that disregards intent— even though intent is what matters to God.  As it says in Proverbs 21:2, “A person may think their own ways are right, but the Lord weighs the heart.”

In another classic example, actress Scarlett Johannsson faced cancellation after saying that she should be able to play “any person, or any tree, or any animal.”— in reference to whether she should play a transgender character.

In spite of self-righteous defenses of the practice, Proverbs 26:24-25 unveils its true nature: “Enemies disguise themselves with their lips, but in their hearts they harbor deceit.  Though their speech is charming, do not believe them, for seven abominations fill their hearts.”

Biblical principles aside, cancel culture is also contrary to standard legal principles that have been employed for centuries.  It ignores ideas like the presumption of innocence and preponderance of the evidence.  It makes no room for adjusting the punishment to match the intent.

Remember the reporter who was fired?  The New York Times released a statement after the fact declaring, “We do not tolerate racist language regardless of intent.”

If this attitude was employed in the courtroom, then there would be little discernible difference between homicide and manslaughter.  [“Manslaughter” is traditionally distinguished by state law from “murder” by one crucial thing: “malice aforethought.”  In other words, “intent.”]

Cancel culture does not leave room for nuance and runs the risk of becoming social vigilantism.

No one should be proverbially tried and executed in the court of public opinion without regard for context and any defenses they may offer.  Although a small subset of people who use cancel culture may have good intentions, their methods leave much to be desired.  

Christians should not support this cultural phenomenon.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Woke or Awake – Dark or Light?

“Woke,” according to the Oxford Language Dictionary, means, “… a political term [and] refers to a perceived awareness of issues that concern social justice and racial justice.”  This doesn’t sound so bad on the surface.  Using the word “justice” coupled with the terms social and racial, we get a positive leaning in our minds.  However, did you notice the word “perceived?”  This word throws the statement into a different light.  

Concepts hidden in darkness change their shape and color (meaning) when seen in the real light— the light of God’s Word, the light of Christ.  Social justice and racial justice are terms that are too often used to hide actual meaning in the shadows of darkness— their definitions obscured from reality.  In these types of false understandings there is some truth folded into the mix of definitions— enough truth to pique one’s interest, but enough false to be turned away from God.

It is easy to see how confusing it can get to separate the truth from the lies— good from evil.  We should not just “throw the baby out with the bathwater”— but, it would certainly be better for the baby to have clean water for the next bath.  The “Woke” way of thinking only muddies the water further, rather than clearing anything up.

As Christians, we are “called out of darkness into His wonderful light.” (1 Peter 2:9) Further, we are to be lamps of God’s light to shine in this dark world (Psalm 18:28; 112:4).  God has chosen us to declare His truth and shine His light— enabling others to see clearly.  Avoid being entangled in the murky philosophies of this world where evil is called good and good is called evil (Isaiah 5:20; Romans 1:24-25).  Work hard to separate the truth from the errors— so as to guide others into God’s way.  Do not settle for being “woke” and receiving the world’s praise.  

“Wake up and shout for joy.” (Isaiah 26:19)

“Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord rises upon you.  See, darkness covers the earth and thick darkness is over the peoples— but the Lord rises upon you and His glory appears over you.  Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn.” (Isaiah 60:1-3)

“For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ made His light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 4:6)

Stop hiding this light under a bushel … rather bring it out and let it shine!

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

When Truth Is the Enemy

At its base, says Dr. Frank Wright (Pres./CEO of D.James Kennedy Ministries), the progressive ‘cancel culture’ is less about de-platforming extreme ideas and more about persecuting people with whom they disagree.  Their aim is not correction, but destruction— and they want to make sure nobody hears ideas with which they disagree.

Within the rotunda of Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC, there are many inscriptions adorning the walls.  Among them are these words: “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”  Given today’s ‘cancel culture,’ one can only wonder what the man who crafted the Declaration of Independence might say about it.  Perhaps he would resight the Declaration’s self-evident truths: “That we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Well, apparently what the Lord giveth the Lifetime Network taketh away.  After nearly 3-years of Lifetime airing DJK Ministries’ weekly “Truths That Transform” television program— one in which they apply biblical truths to the great moral, ethical, and cultural question of our day— officials at Lifetime have suddenly decided their program content is too “controversial”— forcing this Christian ministry off their network.

They objected to their exposé on Planned Parenthood— in which they documented their sale of baby body parts derived from abortions.  They objected to our exposé on billionaire radical George Soros and his systematic efforts to undermine American laws and institutions.  They even objected to their program on the spiritual life of George Washington.

While Lifetime Channel cancelled DJK Ministries, other Christian broadcasters on other major cable television channels and networks are cancelling entire blocks of religious programming. This is the new face of corporate responsibility in America— viewpoint discrimination, prior restraint, and outright censorship.

This spitting in the face of those with viewpoints differing from the new ‘woke’* orthodoxy by broadcast and cable television is bad enough— but it gets worse.  Others providing business services to those holding non-favored viewpoints are falling all over each other to demonstrate their ‘woke’ bona fides by denying services to those with the heretical audacity to hold views diverging from those permissible under Progressive woke-ism.

Witness the good folks at wannabe-gatekeeper Mail Chimp— the simian-friendly email platform— whose ‘Standard Terms of Use’ were recently modified to include this language: “Mail Chimp does not allow the distribution of content that is, in our sole discretion, materially false, inaccurate, or misleading in a way that could deceive or confuse others about important events, topics, or circumstances.”

How Mail Chimp is singularly qualified to adjudicate matters of truth or falsity across a wide range of cultural issues escapes the notice of most neutral observers.  But herein lies the genius of Progressive thinkers: If the viewpoint in question is different than ours, it must be false.  Case closed.

Or witness the noble work of the enlightened folks at Wells Fargo in forcibly closing the financial accounts of people highly visible in the conservative and Christian landscape. Or California-based Logix Federal Credit Union refusing accounts to people even doing business with religious organizations.  Naturally, the elephant-in-the-room question is: When will ‘woke’ financial institutions begin targeting the supporters of Christian and conservative organizations?

In a biblical context, many are familiar with the predictive prophecy that restricts buying and selling to those with “the mark of the beast.” (Revelation 13:16-17; 14:9-10; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4) What we see emerging today is a secular version— in reverse order. Instead of everyone having the mark, those with disfavored viewpoints and ideals are anointed with a latter-day scarlet letter.  More like the “No soup for you” pronouncements from Seinfeld’s Soup Nazi (Season 7, Episode 6, Nov. 2, 1995).

However it’s characterized, foundationally the progressive ‘cancel culture’ is less about de-platforming extreme ideas and more about persecuting people with whom they disagree. Their aim is not correction— but destruction.  If the Southern Poverty Law Center were true to their own disingenuous and defamatory definition of hate, they would have to include two-thirds of the Progressive left (and themselves!) on their infamous map.

Today’s Progressives more resemble Orwell’s dystopian epic ‘1984,’— where Winston Smith, who was outed as non-conforming, is brainwashed back to Oceanian orthodoxy and then awaits his execution.

One might argue that the foundational question here is: Why are Progressives so deathly afraid of the free marketplace of ideas?  They are in urgent need of reading—– perhaps for the first time— John Milton’s ‘Areopagitica.’  In his polemic against the state-sponsored cancel culture of his day, this Puritan(!) declared: “Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?”

Milton argued that the best defense of freedom of speech and expression was the debate and discussion of ideas— where good ideas would tend to rise and bad ideas to fall.  Perhaps the ‘cancel culture’ is a latent acknowledgement that Progressive ideas suffer under the weight of scrutiny.

Whatever the case, it is self-evident that the solitary idea nearest to the Progressive heart is to make sure nobody hears your ideas.  This is nothing less than Jefferson’s “tyranny over the mind of man.”  For those who understand how hard-won freedom is, we too must swear eternal hostility against the efforts of those who would steal it.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

* If you frequent social media, you may well have seen posts or tweets about current events that are tagged #staywoke.  ‘Woke’ is a slang term that is easing into the mainstream from some varieties of a dialect called African American Vernacular English (sometimes called AAVE).  In AAVE, ‘awake’ is often rendered as ‘woke,’ as in, “I was sleeping, but now I’m woke.”  The word ‘woke’ became entwined with the Black Lives Matter movement; instead of just being a word that signaled awareness of injustice or racial tension, it became a word of action.  Activists were ‘woke’ and called on others to ‘stay woke.’

No Demographics in Christ

In the letter that Paul writes to the Church of Galatia, he calls for unity and implores the Christians to find camaraderie in their faith in Christ’s death and resurrection: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)

This call for brotherhood is especially poignant considering the past few years which have seemed to sharply divide the United States of America over some of the very lines that Paul names in Galatians: religion, enslavement, and sex.

In the age of social justice movements, it has become increasingly clear that there are many individuals who are pushing the notion that the sum-total of a person’s value can be reduced to accidents of their circumstances: race, ethnicity, sex, ability, nationality, economic status, etc.

This framework is based on the idea that there are inherent power struggles between demographics (especially intersectional demographics) and that there are always oppressors and oppresses.  For a prime example of this ideology, consider this quotation from a Time article on the subject: “Think of an LGBT African-American woman and a heterosexual white woman who are both working class.  They ‘do not experience the same levels of discrimination, even when they are working within the same structures that may locate them as poor.’”

Since claiming an oppressed identity has become a form of social currency, it has become important that the identity that one adopts be “justified” to those who would question it.  This is the controversy at the center of the Hilaria Baldwin scandal that took up far too many headlines.  It was alleged that Baldwin, a Boston-born yoga instructor and wife of Alec Baldwin, fabricated a Spanish/Latina identity, including faking an accent, to capitalize on special social benefits afforded to members of this “oppressed” class that were meant to even in the odds in their favor.  Baldwin had defended herself by saying that she spent time in both Spain and Boston as a child and that she called Spain “home” because her parents now live there.  This has done nothing but generate ire of those who describe themselves as “actual Latinos.”

This kind of anger is derived from one key problem: a crisis of identity.  People at large no longer have a strong sense of who they are and what they mean— without splitting their sense of self into a multitude of demographic groups.

This has led to clashes and disunity, even within the Church.  This conflict has become so great that a group of Christians felt called to publish a “Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel” to deal with their concerns that social justice activism runs the risk of becoming heretical.

Although there are certainly people on both sides of this issue who have good intentions, the fact of the matter is that dissecting a person— based on arbitrary demographics— has an inherent bad tendency to make people more prone to discarding the unifying identity of “Christian.”  This is a dangerous outcome that must be guarded against.  Our duty is to advance the Kingdom of God— not a special interest group.  In Ephesians 2:10 we are reminded that “…we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

To pursue this calling, we cannot allow ourselves to devolve into squabbles over who is and is not a member of an “oppressed class.”  The slaves which Paul called to brotherhood were certainly being called to unity— even though they were certainly oppressed.  That is not to say that Paul called them to accept wanton abuse— but, rather, to say that they should find their sense of self in the Lord and Body of Christ, not in their slavehood.

Our identity is and should always be foremost defined by being members of the Kingdom of God.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Why Do the Wicked Prosper?

As Christians, we know that we live in a fallen world.  When Adam and Eve disobeyed the commands of God, they brought sin, death, and brokenness into the human world by splitting the relationship they had with the Triune God.  The first part of 1 Corinthians 15:22 reminds us as much, saying— “For as in Adam all die …”

The COVID pandemic has brought out the worst of this fallen humanity and displayed all the callous and exaggerated pride that fills the twisted hearts of humankind.

For example, a recent Wall Street Journal article indicated that China refused to give the World Health Organization access to raw data on COVID-19 cases at the beginning of the global pandemic.  Burying this information might have led to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of people and caused untold pain and heartache.  Do the Chinese government officials feel any guilt for their callousness?  Probably not.  Have they been punished for their nationalistic attempts to prop up the image of their repressive government?  Like before, the answer is probably not.

If you want further proof, look to the United States, where New York Governor Andrew Cuomo hid data that indicated the pressure his administration exerted on nursing homes to take COVID patients likely contributed to deaths and illnesses as the contagion spread through the facilities.  Cuomo’s former aide admitted that they hid the data out of fear it would “be used against us.”  Has Cuomo received any genuine retribution for the consequences of this obviously stupid decision?  No.  Has he been punished for trying to hide the disastrous results of his actions?  Also, no.

Even normal expectations of basic decency are all-too-often lacking.  For instance, despite promising to fire anyone who was known to be abusive, President Biden’s Administration announced that they would merely be suspending a week’s worth of pay to TJ Ducklo— despite his threatening a female reporter who outed one of his affairs with a different journalist.

Often, Christians lament the folly of evil people, wondering how it is that they do not receive any apparent retribution for their actions.  They are not alone in this lament.  The prophet Jeremiah expressed similar sorrow over two millennia ago in Jeremiah 12:1.  The prophet boldly interrogates God with his own perceived injustices: “You are always righteous, Lord, when I bring a case before you.  Yet I would speak with You about Your justice: Why does the way of the wicked prosper?  Why do all the faithless live at ease?”

Despite the apparent wrongness of this impunity, Christians would be wise to remember God’s promise in Ecclesiastes 12:14— “For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.”

It is also important to remember that there is hope beyond this world.  Although the first part of 1 Corinthians 15:22 reminds us that Adam’s sin has condemned our world (“For as in Adam all die …”), the second part offers us hope— “… so in Christ all will be made alive.”

No matter how dark or bleak the world seems— No matter how evil humankind becomes— God will ultimately hold the wicked accountable.  He will save those who trust in His Son’s name.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Catholic Spokesman Gives Biden a ‘No Confidence’ Vote on Religious Rights

Within his first month in office, President Biden (who campaigned on “equity” for all) is already receiving backlash from a prominent religious leader for catering to the LGBTQ community— when it comes to fighting for “human rights.”  Michael Haverluck of OneNewsNow.com reports.

Catholic League President Bill Donohue argues that even though Biden spent his first day as president discussing human rights, he focused on giving privileges to homosexuals and transgenders— to the exclusion of most other people groups.  The Democratic president, says Donohue, began his Oval Office duties by signing a flurry of executive orders— including one forcing all federal agencies to add sex and gender to discrimination protections.

“Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room or school sports,” Biden declared via executive order on January 20— confirming his administration’s determination to permit biological males to compete against girls in sports while sharing their locker rooms, showers and restrooms.

Global LGBTQ push The Catholic League leader emphasizes that Biden is pushing LGBTQ activism beyond America’s borders.  “President Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken said he was committed to taking numerous steps to prioritize the rights of what he called LGBTQ persons abroad,” Donohue noted.  “Before his confirmation, Blinken vowed to fill an LGBTQ envoy at the United Nations, as well as to allow U.S. embassies abroad to fly the LGBTQ pride flag.”

Biden also signed an executive order expanding the number of refugees permitted into the United States— giving more access to refugees with LGBTQ gender and sexual orientations.  “My administration will reinvigorate our leadership on LGBTQI issues and do it internationally,” Biden vowed without saying what the ‘I’ stands for, according to the Catholic League, before adding an unexplained symbol to the acrostic.  “We want to lead by the power of our example in the cause of advancing the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons around the world.”

Donohue admits he found that declaration unsettling.  “The determination of the Biden Administration to impose radical secular Western values on parts of the world that do not share our libertine vision of sexuality is disturbing,” Donohue expressed.  And one thing couldn't be clearer about the president’s proclamation, Donohue added: The negative effect it will have on religious rights.  “He made it plain that his interest in this subject extends far beyond efforts to combat discrimination,” Donohue stressed.  “He wants an activist campaign that encourages foreign aid programs abroad to promote the agenda of the LGBT community. This directive could potentially limit the federal funding that religious organizations receive.”

Donohue impressed that his organization could not find any directives or executive orders to improve Christian human rights— amidst Biden’s “obsession” with heaping on privileges to sexual minorities— despite proliferating Christian persecution in China, Africa, the Middle East, and countless regions globally being regularly reported by human rights groups.

“The persecution of Christians is on the rise,” Donohue revealed from the findings of Open Doors and Freedom House.  “For example, in 2020, more than 340-million people faced maltreatment, victimization and oppression for their faith in Christ.  A total of 4,761-Christians were martyred.  Every day, on average, 13-Christians were killed, 12-churches or Christian buildings were attacked, and 12-Christians were unjustly arrested or imprisoned.”

Leftist ideologies, such as those touted by Biden, were included in the leading causes for Christian persecution – among Islamism, communism, repressive regimes and weak states – and Donohue said it is disturbing that America’s second Catholic president refuses to acknowledge or address the abysmal treatment of Christians around the world.  

“He must know, or should know, that Christians are being slaughtered and unjustly imprisoned in record numbers— they are not the victims of mere discrimination in the workplace,” Donohue asserted.  “Why are the rights of LGBT people given preferential treatment over Christians and other people of faith?  Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons, Muslims and observant Jews would love to know.”

The Catholic leader had a few more questions for Biden regarding his limited so-called “human rights” campaign.

“Whatever happened to respect for diversity?  Aren’t we supposed to respect the cultural norms and values of other peoples?” Donohue asked.  “Why are we engaging in ideological imperialism, shoving our twisted ideas of sexuality down the throats of Africans, Asians, and Muslims?”

The outspoken Catholic essentially gave Biden a vote of no confidence regarding the protection of Christians’ God-given rights— both home and abroad.

“Biden’s selective interest in human rights is disturbing, as it … suggests that the rights of Christians at home – such as the Little Sisters of the Poor – count less than the rights of males and females who are sexually confused,” Donohue concluded.  “To put it mildly, our ‘devout Catholic’ president has gotten off to a bad start on human rights.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Not “Unity” – But Humility

In Romans 14:1-3 we read that Christians do not have to be in complete agreement on every matter.  In Paul’s words, “accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.”

Just as Christians are not required to be united with one another on every matter, neither is the nation required to be so united.

“Unity” was a word that was used all-too-frequently during President Joe Biden’s inaugural address.  He declared that “…without unity, there is no peace, only bitterness and fury.”

Contrary to the President’s commentary, unity for its own sake is not what this nation needs; and political disagreements, do not, invariably, lead to bitterness and fury.

It is possible to have a respectful debate that is approached with humility.  If it is possible within the politics of the church, it is possible within our society.

A prime example of this respectful and humble disagreement can be found in the friendship between the late Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  The two often found themselves on opposite ends of the political spectrum.  However, they remained close friends who shared a love of food, travel, and opera.  They respected each other and refused to discard or “cancel” one another’s work simply because they disagreed.

President Biden likely intended his speech to address the wide public and social incivility— which has plagued the political discussions of our nation.  However, dis-unity is not the cause of our current problems.

Our current political discussions lack civility— because both sides have discarded the virtue of respect and humility.  We have alienated our fellow Americans by caring too much about ideological conformity— or “unity,” as the President put it.  Even within factions, like the social justice movement, disagreements in thought have led to degrading terms like “Uncle Tom foolery” being thrown at scholars like Loretta Ross— who advocated for “calling-in” instead of “calling-out.”

Collins English Dictionary says that “When there is unity, people are in agreement and act together for a particular purpose.”

Given the Loretta Ross example, the factions engaged in this rift are currently no more united than the American people.

In 1 Peter 2:17, Christians are called to— “…show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.”  Although these words call for respect and humility, they do not require Christians to agree with everyone or aid them in achieving a purpose that they consider immoral.

The idea of moral objections is fundamental— given that our nation is still predominantly Christian.  There are many Christian objectors to the President’s proposed policies— and I’m one of them!

Consider a letter-to-the-editor from a self-described Catholic who stated— “The Democrat platform clearly promotes many horrendous intrinsic evils; of which abortion is the preeminent but NOT the only one, in addition to the failing policies on poverty and human rights.”

Despite President Biden’s inaugural address, the people of the United States are not in agreement and cannot, in good conscience, act together to achieve the same purposes as his administration.  That kind of society would stifle the free market of ideas that the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution was intended to protect.

Neither repression nor a civil war is an answer to these ills.  It is critical at this point that cooler heads prevail.  The Biblical virtues of respect and humility need to be mutually accorded between political opponents.  “Just agree with me, already!” cannot be used as a substitute for grappling with the reality that America is not united.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Conform or Transform?

A much-loved passage of Scripture is— “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Romans 12:2, ESV)

More than ever in my lifetime, there is a determined push for believers to conform— instead of being transformed.  There are several examples: compliancy rules of COVID; social media standards; vaccination regulations; acceptance of variant lifestyles and the list goes on.  With all this pressure to conform, let's take a look at what conformity means as described here:

By definition, “conformity is the tendency for an individual to align their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors with those of the people around them.  Conformity can take the form of overt social pressure or subtler, unconscious influence.  Regardless of its form, it can be a powerful force— able to change how large groups behave, to start or end conflicts, and much more.  At its worst, though, it can bring out a person’s darkest impulses and even be used to justify— and carry out— large-scale atrocities.”

Given the awareness of the many times we are called upon to conform, how does the Christian stay in that place of transformation that renews the mind and places us in God's will?  Britt Mooney, former missionary in Korea and podcast speaker of “Kingdom over coffee,” shares five tips to guide the Christian in staying in the will of God:

1. Stop doing things for God.  Live with Him.
2. Submit your will to the Father’s will.
3. Ask yourself, “Does the decision go contrary to God’s revealed universal law?”
4. Humbly seek counsel from the community of faith.
5. Don’t worry about making a mistake.

God revealing His will is found in the continuing transformation of the mind.  Godly activities are commendable— but living with God in the mindset of, “Is this Godly?” is better.  That mindset then bears witness in action such as with Daniel when he chose not to conform to the King’s food: “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.” (Daniel 1:8)  Daniel submitted his will in favor of the Father’s will.

It is easy to conform.  It is almost mindless.  We see, we do.  And not all conformity is evil.  Driving on the correct side of the street is an example of conforming that is good for everyone.  It is when we conform to the world and float blindly in the river of “whatever” that we find ourselves seeking “evil with the masses” (Exodus 23:2) rather than “being alert and sober.” (I Thessalonians 5:6)  Stop and grab for the hand of another believer to yank you back to the shore and solid ground.

Don’t become so well-adjusted to your culture that you fit into it without even thinking. Instead, fix your attention on God.  You’ll be changed from the inside out.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

SCOTUS Clears Way for Worship

On February 5th, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that California (CA) officials cannot bar churches from holding indoor services amid the COVID pandemic.  They issued orders siding with churches that had protested the state banning indoor services (but not agreeing to strike down prohibitions on singing and chanting during indoor services), and not blocking CA from imposing 25% capacity restrictions in areas deemed Tier 1 on a scale of virus transmission.

The case drew four different opinions from the nine person SCOTUS:

1. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “federal courts owe significant deference to politically accountable officials with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.’”  “The state has concluded, for example, that singing indoors poses a heightened risk of transmitting COVID-19.  I see no basis in this record for overriding that aspect of the state public health framework,” he added.  “At the same time, the state’s present determination— that the maximum number of adherents who can safely worship in the most cavernous cathedral is zero— appears to reflect not expertise or discretion, but instead insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake.”

2. Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito said California “has openly imposed more stringent regulations on religious institutions than on many businesses” since the arrival of COVID-19.  While California forbade any kind of indoor worship in most of the state, it allowed most retail operations to have 25% occupancy indoors and other businesses 50% or more occupancy.  Justice Gorsuch added, “When a state so obviously targets religion for differential treatment, our job becomes that much clearer.”

3. Justice Amy Barrett, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote in a concurring opinion that she largely agreed with Justice Gorsuch, but didn’t believe the court should block the prohibition on singing and chanting.  “The applicants bore the burden of establishing their entitlement to relief from the singing ban.  In my view, they did not carry that burden— at least not on this record.  As the case comes to us, it remains unclear whether the singing ban applies across the board (and thus constitutes a neutral and generally applicable law) or else favors certain sectors (and thus triggers more searching review),” she wrote.  “Of course, if a chorister can sing in a Hollywood studio but not in her church, California’s regulations cannot be viewed as neutral.  But the record is uncertain, and the decisions below unfortunately shed little light on the issue.”

4. The three Democrat-appointed justices banded together in a dissenting opinion led by Justice Elena Kagan, who said justices on the court “are not scientists” and don’t “know much about public health policy.”  “Yet today the court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic.  The court orders California to weaken its restrictions on public gatherings by making a special exception for worship services.  The majority does so even though the state’s policies treat worship just as favorably as secular activities (including political assemblies) that, according to medical evidence, pose the same risk of COVID transmission,” Kagan alleged.  “Under the court’s injunction, the state must instead treat worship services like secular activities that pose a much lesser danger.  That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.”

The ruling dealt with cases from Harvest Rock Church and South Bay United Pentecostal Church— two churches that sought relief from CA Gov. Gavin Newsom’s harsh restrictions imposed through a tiered system.

In an emailed statement, Newsom’s press secretary Daniel Lopez told The Epoch Times: “The state of California has taken necessary steps throughout the pandemic to protect Californians from COVID-19 and prevent our health care system from being overwhelmed by the disease, particularly during the recent surge.  While the Supreme Court enjoined the state’s restriction on indoor worship services in counties where COVID-19 is widespread, the Court left in place public health measures imposed to protect worshippers, their families, and the communities in which they live.  We will continue to enforce the restrictions the Supreme Court left in place and, after reviewing the decision, and revise guidelines for worship services to continue to protect the lives of Californians.”!

To be clear: God has not granted civic rulers authority over the doctrine, practice, or polity of the Church.  It has never been the prerogative of civil government to order, modify, forbid, or mandate worship.  The worship of Christ’s Church is not subject to Caesar— rather, Caesar (himself) is subject to God.  Jesus affirmed that principle when He was brought before Pilate and told the Roman Governor: “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above.” (John 19:11)  And because Christ is Head of the Church, Ecclesiastical matters pertain to His Kingdom— not Caesar’s.  Jesus drew a stark distinction between those two kingdoms when He said: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Mark 12:17)  Our Lord (Himself) always rendered to Caesar what was Caesar’s— but He never offered to Caesar what belongs solely to God.  Accordingly, the honor that we rightly owe our earthly governmental authorities does not include compliance— when such officials attempt to subvert sound doctrine, corrupt Biblical morality, exercise Ecclesiastical authority, or usurp Christ as Head of the Church … in any other way.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

UN Effort to Create List of ‘LGBT Hate Groups’

Ryan Foley of Christian Post writes— A conservative group is warning that the United Nations (UN) is preparing to compile a list of “LGBT hate groups” that could be used as a “blacklist” to punish groups and organizations that subscribe to traditional beliefs about gender and sexuality.

According to the Center for Family and Human Rights (CFHR), “the UN rights office is collecting the names of anyone who opposes the LGBT agenda in any way.”  The report addresses the contents of a “call for input to a thematic report” on the topic of “gender, sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Issued by Victor Madrigal-Borloz (the UN’s independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity), the call for input requests information on individual nation-states’ actions regarding issues of sexual orientation and gender identity in addition to asking for information about groups that oppose the idea that “the meanings attached to sex (and other) differences are socially created.”

In other words, Madrigal-Borloz is seeking information about which organizations within a particular country subscribe to the idea that there are only two genders.  He begins the call for input by noting that “many States have adopted gender as a key concept in laws and policies aimed at protecting women and LGBT persons against violence and discrimination.”

Madrigal-Borloz laments the fact that “within multilateral and regional organizations, among other fora, there are currently narratives that, under different lines of characterization (including the accusation of so-called ‘gender ideology’), seek to eliminate the gender framework from international human rights law instruments and processes, and national legislative and policy documents.”

The stated purpose of the impending report is to “document how these narratives are being used to fuel violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and their particular impact on sexual and reproductive rights.”  Madrigal-Borloz seeks responses from “States, regional and national human rights institutions, non-governmental organization, UN agencies, academic institutions, local governments and other relevant stakeholders.”

The first four questions he seeks answers to deal with (1) actions taken by individual states to establish definitions of gender, (2) establish policies “aiming to address violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,” (3) establish databases detailing forms of violence and discrimination against LGBT people, and (4) teach comprehensive sexuality education.

The remaining questions ask about narratives that exist surrounding gender and sexuality within specific countries.  These questions cause the CFHR particular concern.

“Are there examples where the concept of gender has been used in religious narratives or narratives of tradition, traditional values or protection of the family to hinder the adoption of legislative policy measures aimed at addressing or eradicating violence and discrimination based on sex, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity?” Madrigal-Borloz asks.

Additional questions ask about whether “‘gender ideology,’ ‘genderism’ or other gender-related concepts have been used to introduce retrogressive measures, in particular but not limited to LGBT communities,” and if there have been “initiatives taken by States in connection with the right to freedom of religion, belief or conscience (including the figure of conscientious objection) that have had the practical impact of limiting the enjoyment of human rights (including sexual and reproductive rights) of LGBT persons.”

“Who are main actors who argue that the defenders of human rights of LGBT individuals are furthering a so-called ‘gender ideology’?  What are their main arguments?  Have they been ineffective in regressing the human rights of LGBT individuals?  Have their strategies directly or indirectly also impacted on the human rights of women and girls?”

The CFHR warns that “the UN LGBT czar appears to be adopting the approach of the Southern Poverty Law Center, of creating a list of ‘hate groups.’”  The CFHR noted that Madrigal-Borloz had previously urged states to “take decisive action” against “representatives of churches and faith-based groups” that “infringe on the rights of LGBT persons” using “hate speech.”

Unfortunately, most churches and clergy will not make the list!  I better make the list— or I’ve not been faithful to the proclamation of God’s truth!

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

House Taking Up “Equality Act”

The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote this week on House Resolution 5 (H.R. 5)— the so-called “Equality Act.”  This will have disastrous consequences for women, children, and people of a Biblical worldview.  It mandates an anti-life, anti-family, and anti-faith agenda upon all Americans.

H.R. 5 adds the legally undefined “sexual orientation and gender identity” (SOGI) to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal non-discrimination laws.  The bill redefines “sex” to no longer mean the biological (and Biblical) “male or female.”  Instead, “sex” would include sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

H.R. 5 brings the power of the federal government against those who believe the biological truth of God’s design, that “male and female He created them” (Genesis 5:2).  The bill labels Christian beliefs about marriage, sexuality, and family “discriminatory.”  It empowers the federal government to punish disagreement on these important issues.

This dangerous bill provides no religious exemptions.  In fact, it explicitly exempts the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as a defense for violations.

Similar SOGI laws have been passed in many states and local municipalities— so we already know some of the negative consequences as noted in this brief overview of some of the problems with the “Equality Act” according to Attorney Travis Weber— V.P. for Policy & Gov’t Affairs of the Family Research Council:

The Equality Act jeopardizes women’s privacy and safety.

The Equality Act’s expansion of the Title II “Public Accommodations” definition means that females would no longer have privacy in public bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, or even battered women’s shelters.  State and local laws to this effect are already causing fallout: A kindergartener was assaulted by a boy in her school bathroom.  A rape survivor was forced to quit her job when her employer began allowing men into women’s private facilities.  A man was allowed residence in a shelter, and nine women are suing because they were sexually harassed.

The Equality Act unfairly penalizes female athletes by allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports.

For example, biological boys won first and second place at a Connecticut girls’ high school indoor track championship.  As a result, two biological girls fell below the threshold to advance to the next meet— inhibiting their ability to be seen by college recruiters and obtain scholarships.  [Scholarships are sometimes the only avenue students have to pursue higher education, which could lead to better job opportunities and better pay.]

The Equality Act would undermine real civil rights gains women have made.

For example, the Small Business Administration Office of Women’s Business Ownership— whose mission is to “enable and empower women entrepreneurs through advocacy, outreach, education and support”— would have to give biological men who identify as women access to its programs.

The Equality Act would interfere with the medical profession.

It would force doctors and others who provide legitimate hormone treatments and surgical procedures for patients with certain physical conditions to offer those treatments for individuals with gender dysphoria.  Their moral or medical opinions about assisting individuals in physically altering their bodies would be disregarded.  Medicine would be politicized— despite science telling us these treatments are actually harmful.  A 2011 Swedish study, one of the most robust on the issue, found that post-surgery individuals had a suicide completion rate 19 times higher than the general population.  The risk of psychiatric hospitalization was 2.8 times higher even after adjustment for prior psychiatric disease.  Additionally, death by neoplasm (a benign or cancerous mass) and cardiovascular disease was 2 to 2.5 times higher.  There is also evidence that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones can cause cancer, heart disease, diabetes, blood clots, stroke, and more.  The Equality Act’s requirements would override a doctor’s concern about any of these points.

The Equality Act could erode parental rights.

When Ohio parents declined hormone treatment for their child, the Children’s Hospital of Cincinnati involved child protective services, and the parents were ultimately stripped of their parental rights.

The Equality Act would severely erode religious freedom.

The Equality Act expressly exempts itself from the RFRA— the flagship religious liberty law.

The Equality Act’s expansion of public accommodations could require churches and houses of worship to violate their beliefs regarding how they use their facilities.

Its changes to employment law would prohibit some houses of worship from ensuring their clergy and employees abide by their doctrines or beliefs about marriage, sexual behavior, and the distinction between the sexes.

Federal aid could be denied to students attending faith-based institutions— unless those institutions abandon policies and practices reflecting their sincerely held beliefs about marriage and sexuality.

The Equality Act would inhibit faith-based charities’ ability to operate.

Faith-based organizations and others play a vital role in the adoption and foster care system and generally receive funding under Title IV of the Social Security Act to help do their important work.  The Equality Act would force them to violate their beliefs or shut down, displacing children like the thousands left hanging in Illinois when Catholic Charities was shut down under a similar law.

The Equality Act could be the most pro-abortion legislation to pass the House in a decade.

Not only would this bill expand “public accommodations” to include health care providers, but it would add sex discrimination as a protected class.  It would then define prohibitions on “sex discrimination” to include preventing and treating “pregnancy … or a related medical condition” (which can include abortion) less favorably than other physical conditions.  This change would essentially create an abortion mandate.  In conjunction with the RFRA exemption and expansion of what constitutes a public accommodation, this also jeopardizes long-standing federal conscience laws that protect those opposed to abortion.  The Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding for abortion, would also be in jeopardy.

The Equality Act shamefully attempts to usurp the civil rights movement’s history and legacy.

In no way are one’s sexual conduct and inclinations equivalent to the innate characteristic of skin color.  Suggesting or implying as much diminishes the hard-fought gains of this movement.  Indeed, scientific evidence shows that “sexual orientation” is quite fluid and that “gender identity” is not fixed.  But if the Equality Act becomes law, its backers may use the courts to force its ideas into public school curricula around the country.  Indeed, the idea that these notions are equivalent to skin color is false, and failure to recognize this falsehood only harms all affected.

Listen: Now is the time to express your objection to H.R. 5 with your elected officials.  Contact them today to tell them not to cosponsor and not to support the Equality Act.  Let them know that a vote in favor of H.R. 5 does not represent your viewpoint.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

The Return

I feel the time has come for me to return to posting on my blog— Kingdom Builder … because of the evident need to enlighten God’s people with an understanding of the Biblical worldview.  I am fully aware that the strong opposition to ‘truth’ may well attempt to censor my words— in part or in full— as they have in the past.  Yet, I feel compelled to be “salt and light” amid the distasteful news and ever-increasing darkness within our culture.

Just as the Apostle Paul wrote to the Church at Philippi— “Whatever is true … think on such things.” (Philippians 4:8)— so I (as a Christian) will strive to speak the truth with the hope that you will “think on such things.”  But beyond your thinking, please share these postings as far-and-wide as you are capable.  Do not merely ‘keep the faith’— but ‘share it.’

Starting next week, I will return to posting on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.  My posts will reveal both personal thoughts and those of others … which I will endeavor to properly credit.

Until then, may God anoint and protect this proclamation of truth— to His honor and glory.  Amen.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel