Image is……nothing.

 I grew up in southern California – I confess it.  Throughout my life, I knew that I lived in a socially progressive state.   By progressive, I don’t mean actual progress, but progressive in the sense of liberal social-engineering.  One way in which California has excelled in such “progressiveness” lies in the area of a Gestapo-like secular-education system that presents itself as a kind of second member of Humanism’s trinity.  Of course, the other two members of this idol are Evolution & Sexual Promiscuity.  This is why I often say that I grew up as an evolutionary atheist.  It is not that my parents foisted this upon me per se, instead the educational environment in which I was raised pummeled me with a dogmatically humanistic “theology” which left me with no other alternatives of thought, because…

…my teachers were the infallible operatives of the state.

What else might one expect from Humanism’s incarnation of secular education but infallibility?  And lest anyone question California’s special devotion to its only-begotten, remember that approximately 50% of California’s annual budget is consumed by an educational system that can barely get by with spending roughly $10,000.00 per student, per year. 

Question:  Can I have $60,000.00 in annual school credits for my six children?  

All this to say (sadly) that I wasn’t terribly surprised when I read this reported abomination, as supplied on Fox News:

AP Story, Friday, March 07, 2008

LOS ANGELES  —  California parents without teaching credentials cannot legally home school their children, according to a recent state appellate court ruling.

“Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children,” Justice H. Walter Croskey wrote in a Feb. 28 opinion for the 2nd District Court of Appeal.

Noncompliance could lead to criminal complaints against the parents, Croskey said.

The immediate impact of the ruling was not clear. Opponents said they will appeal.

An estimated 166,000 students in California are home schooled, but it was unclear how many of them are taught solely by an uncredentialed parent.

To earn a five-year preliminary teaching credential in California, a person must obtain a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university and complete multiple examinations.

Until now, California allowed home schooling if parents filed paperwork to establish themselves as small, private schools; hired a credentialed tutor; or enrolled their child in an independent study program run by an established school while teaching the child at home.

The state left enforcement up to local school districts, but there has been little oversight.

The old system “works so well, I don’t see any reason to change it,” said J. Michael Smith, president of the Virginia-based Home School Legal Defense Association.

The ruling stems from a case involving Phillip and Mary Long, a Los Angeles-area couple whose eight children are enrolled or have been enrolled in Sunland Christian School in suburban Sylmar and occasionally have taken tests there.

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services intervened after the couple’s eldest child “reported physical and emotional mistreatment” by the father, court papers said. The department conducted an investigation and found that despite the couple’s assertion that their children were enrolled at Sunland, they were educated at home by their mother, who does not have a teaching credential.

An attorney appointed to represent two of the Longs’ young children asked the court to order that the children physically attend a public or private school. A trial court disagreed, and the lawyer appealed.

Under California law, children are required to enroll in and attend public schools unless they attend a private school, or are tutored by a credentialed teacher. The appeals panel found that the Longs did not adequately demonstrate that the exemptions apply to their children.

Attorneys for the state Department of Education were reviewing the ruling, and home schooling organizations were lining up against it.

Phillip Long vowed to take the case to the state Supreme Court.

“I have sincerely held religious beliefs,” he told the Los Angeles Times. “Public schools conflict with that. I have to go with what my conscience requires me.”

Please forgive my cynicism here, but California has been an obnoxious band leader for the nation.  The rest of the nation has followed many of the policies that have been tooted by this west-coast pied piper.  Time will tell whether this verse of Humanism’s bad-trinitarian hymn will catch on or not.

 The Apostle John said – Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you (1 John 3:13).  Having recently posted a video review of Hitchens’ book god is not Great, I have been reminded of the Apostle’s wisdom concerning the predictability of the world’s vehemence against Christ.  I would ask that you pray that some of these critics of Christ would watch the above video and consider the folly of “atheism” while giving an ear to the Gospel as it is presented in both the You Tube and God Tube versions.  People need the Lord.

…or at least we can say that Christopher Hitchens knows very well that God exists, and that by using the word “believe,” I mean no more than what is taught in James 2:19.  Ultimately, men like Mr. Hitchens live in the denial of their innate knowledge of God because all men are in fact suppressive persons (SP).  No, I don’t mean SP as denoted in the vernacular of Scientology (SP = anyone who opposes Scientology).  Instead, by calling men suppressive I mean this:

Romans 1:18: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness…

Apart from grace, all men suppress (katechonton > hold down, hide) the fact that they know the truth about God, His righteousness, and His coming wrath.  As to this latter point, men tend to resist the truth of God’s wrath with special fervor, and for this reason the doctrine of hell is often tossed about like an unwanted rag-doll; even by those who profess to believe the truth of the Gospel.  Having mentioned Mr. Hitchens in this context, let me add another player into this discussion of suppression –  Mr. Brian McLaren.  Consider what Mr. McLaren has to say about the doctrine of Hell:

McLaren: This is, one of the huge problems is the traditional understanding of hell. Because if the cross is in line with Jesus’ teaching then—I won’t say, the only, and I certainly won’t say even the primary—but a primary meaning of the cross is that the kingdom of God doesn’t come like the kingdoms of the this world, by inflicting violence and coercing people. But that the kingdom of God comes through suffering and willing, voluntary sacrifice. But in an ironic way, the doctrine of hell basically says, no, that that’s not really true. That in the end, God gets His way through coercion and violence and intimidation and domination, just like every other kingdom does. The cross isn’t the center then. The cross is almost a distraction and false advertising for God. [Interview With Brian McLaren, By Leif Hansen]

What we have here, in McLaren’s intuitive theology, is a classic example of a man who has chosen to place all his bets on a deity that only possesses a handful of attributes – as in love, mercy, and grace.  This is one of the central legacies of theological liberalism: just take the God of the Bible and redress Him with a few threads of divine attributes, while casting aside all other aspects of His character, like His holiness, righteousness & justice.  This little trick is called jelly-bean theology – just pick out the ones that you don’t like, and eat only what satisfies your personal taste.

Mr. McLaren’s theology of Hell is completely devoid of…theology.  Sadly, his notion of truth represents the theological trend of the past 100 years here in America, and it is becoming more mainstream via the Emergent Church movement. 

Now let us compare Mr. McLaren and Mr. Hitchens for a moment.  As odd as it may seem, Mr. McLaren’s doctrine of hell is actually exceeded by the “atheist,” Christopher Hitchens!  I say this because on several occasions, Mr. Hitchens has expressed a wish for the existence of hell so that some transgressors on our planet could receive the just judgment that Mr. Hitchens believes they deserve.  With reference to this, Hitchens has expressed his desire that Jerry Falwell and the Archbishop of Canterbury to go to the Lake of Fire; as well, he has frequently called “Mother Theresa” the Angel of Hell.  Clearly, as an atheist, Mr. Hitchens’ views of justice and truth are rooted in nothing more than his own intuition of justice – which, like a sine wave, only intersects the axis of truth from time to time; however, within the crucible of his angry rants are the remnants of this suppressed truth:  “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men…”  Hitchens would no doubt claim that his statements regarding hell are ironic, and yet his emotive rants do reveal a desire within his heart for some form of divine justice – albeit subjectively defined by his own views of truth.  The point here is this –

It’s a sad day in America when an atheist’s notion of hell & justice exceeds that of a reputed “Christian” theologian.

Strangely, Hitchens is closer to the concept of hell than is the “theologian” Brian McLaren – and yet, neither of them comprehend this important doctrine in any real sense.  In the broader scheme of things, both men are suppressing the truth of God’s holiness, justice, and wrath through their own stilted opinions.  One does it by means of the false garb of religion, while the other does it via the self-deception of “atheism.” 

In the end, they both amount to nothing but a denial of God’s authority and truth.

often find myself repeating Solomon’s wisdom concerning the wickedness of mankind:

Ecclesiastes 1:9-10: 9 That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. 10 Is there anything of which one might say, “See this, it is new”? Already it has existed for ages which were before us.”

This world, along with fallen humanity itself, yields nothing that is ever substantially new.  Based upon this truth, I no longer look at anything in the present day as a novelty, rather I see the innovations of modern man as being nothing more than a tired-out rehashing of humanity’s longstanding devotion to sin, corruption, and all that is deemed as useless in the eyes of almighty God.  Thus, whenever men craft a “new” philosophy or a “new” religion, we can be sure that such a “new” thing “already has existed for ages which were before us.”  This principle is most often seen in the generational rehashings of man-made religion.  At the most fundamental level, all man-made religions share the common thread of rejecting biblical Christianity.  This is most often evidenced by means of direct denials of Christ’s deity, His crucifixion, and His exclusivity as the only Savior of mankind.  However, for the scores of people who don’t even understand such doctrinal matters regarding the person and work of Jesus Christ, they should still be able to see obvious differences between the false religions of this world and the genuine article of Christianity.  The differences of which I speak are that of hatred versus love. There are many false religions of the modern day which show their true colors by means of the hatred that they have for their critics and defectors.  Uniquely, it is the Christian who loves his enemies – even those who persecute, mock and criticize them (Matt. 5:43-48); and yet we don’t have to go very far to find examples of false religionists who are eager to persecute, mock, and hate their opponents.  We have recently seen the barrage of hate supplied by the disciples of Muhammed who will gladly “behead those who insult Islam.”  The westernized version of this doctrine is seen in the form of the countless lawsuits leveled against anyone who dares to question the actions and teachings of Islam.  In America, we have litigious hatred that is expressed by Islamic groups like C.A.I.R., and Canada is getting a taste of this same vehemence via the Alberta Human Rights Commission vs. Ezra Levant here.  Needless to say, these westernized followers of Muhammed are not the only perpetuators of litigious violence.  Consider, for example, the “doctrine” of L. Ron Hubbard who taught his followers that the detractors of Scientology should be met with vengeance:

SP Order.  Fair game.  May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist.  May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.  [HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE, Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex Remimeo.  HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967, Issue IV]

“SP” stands for “Suppressive Person” – i.e., any critic of Scientology.  The evidences of this hateful policy are here with us today, as in the case of the BBC program, Panorama – Scientology and Me:

Despite the ugliness of what takes place in the program produced by BBC’s Panorama, it should be noted that such abuse is quite mild in comparison to the vast lineup of people who have been harassed, persecuted, and even sued by the “church” of Scientology.  The many testimonies of these victims stand as the stark evidence of Hubbard’s “Fair Game” doctrine of hatred and retribution; and while the church of Scientology’s doctrine of vengeance does not explicitly include the beheading of “SP’s,” we should still remember that such retributive policies are only a few degrees away from the ancient and violent standards of Mohammedanism.  In the end, these religions unveil a common essence of hatred:

James 1:20: …the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.

All of this I offer to the reader for two important reasons: 

1.  For Christians – let this be a reminder to us about what it means to imitate the Lord our God.  Being salt and light in this world means imitating our Heavenly Father who “causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45).  It is not for us to take vengeance on our critics, but instead we are called to obey Christ who said:  “…love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt. 5:44).  We are called to more than just speaking the Gospel – we are called to live it in the presence of men.

2.  For non-Christians – please read #1 above (if you haven’t already).  Do know that you will meet many people in your life who name the name of Christ, but seem to serve a religion of hatred rather than of love.  When such experiences come your way, recall to mind the words of Christ above and remember that Hell will be filled with such false pretenders (Matt. 7:21-23).  People who walk perpetually in hatred and vengeance are not serving Christ – so do not be deceived.  But do know this – the Gospel’s message of grace and mercy is coming to an end; and it will come to an end when Christ returns to judge the living and the dead.  This is why the Christian does not exact vengeance upon the critics of Christ, for only Christ has been given the prerogative of such judgment (John 5:26-27, Revelation 6:12-17); and when His judgment comes, God’s Gospel of grace and mercy, in Christ alone, will end.  So do not be deceived.  God’s patience is indeed great, but it will not endure forever.

Christianity is the one unique gem which sits atop the dark backdrop of man-made religion.  It glistens with brilliance in contrast to the lightless void which surrounds it, therefore the religious harbingers of hatred are quite evident, revealing the clear differences between the children of God and the children of the Devil [1 John 3:10-13].  In many respects, those who believe that vengeance is their prerogative are in fact looking to take the place of God Himself.  Let no one be deceived – this is nothing less than human pride, arrogance, and blasphemy – the very worn-out things that have been around since the fall of mankind.

Indeed, nothing is new…

Update:  I would also recommend the following video which surveys Hubbard’s life.  Frankly speaking it is an interesting illustration of how men will gladly believe a lie rather than believe the truth.  Hubbard seemed to understand this principle and he exploited it to the fullest measure.  Ultimately, L. Ron Hubbard was nothing more than a science-fiction writer – from his beginning and to his bitter end:

 

“…nuff said…”

It is important for us to remember that our highest calling in life is to love, know, and imitate the Lord our God.  Concerning this latter issue of imitation, it is understood that Christ is the believer’s ultimate standard of that imitation – therefore following Him is central to true discipleship (John 21:22).  

That’s simple enough, right?

What may seem like a simple principle is actually fraught with much difficulty – but only because of human sin.  The human heart, in all its weakness, is often inclined to establish at least two false departures from this aforementioned principle, and I offer these for your consideration: 

1.  People often deviate from the imitation of Christ by becoming the followers of men. This is often done by giving preeminence to some favored spiritual leader above the Lord Himself.

2.  As well, a person can deviate from the imitation of Christ by believing that his own standard of “truth” should be followed – over any other.  When men believe this, they demote Christ’s supremacy while exalting their own “wisdom” over God.

All in all, the above corruptions amount to nothing but man-centered thinking.  The reasons for these corruptions will vary, but none of them are ever justified.  Whether by means of overt rebellion, religious arrogance, ignorance, or spiritual indifference – those who steer away from the imitation of Christ enter into very dangerous territory.  What I present here is more than theoretical doctrine – this is something that we must all take to heart, because these errors of thought and action are much easier to commit than we might be inclined to think.  For example, when we consider the first defection of thought above (exalting others above Christ), it is oftentimes the case that Christians will do this without even believing that they have done so.  I find, especially in this era of “pop” Christianity, that many will attach themselves to some modern preaching-hero who is quite popular and has a strong public image.  Too many Christians today are ready to imitate such heroes without much critical thought, and when their “infallible” leaders engage in questionable behavior, then a battery of excuses are offered to cover their poor judgment.  It is true that we are to imitate godly leaders who imitate Christ (1 Cor. 11:1), but we must also remember that such a calling is never designed to supplant our ultimate and direct imitation of Christ Himself – Otherwise, how else can we take seriously Paul’s adverbial qualification, “…as I also am of Christ.”?  Examples of such “pop Christianity” aren’t hard to find, as in this case, with portions of this dialogue as an unfortunate follow-up.  Or even closer to home, we have this man who will need equally creative defenders for what he is doing in the name of Christ.  What is far more important than our buddies and heroes in this fallen world is Christ Himself and the grave message of the Gospel.  When men seek to condescend to the lost is such a way that cheapens the Gospel’s message, then we must remember that we have a much higher standard to follow! – in whatever we do, let us do all to the glory of God alone.

As to the latter error above (exalting ourselves over Christ), we find the corruption of theological arrogance or even perfectionism arising from this form of thought.  Calvin was surrounded by the latter error in his day, and therefore he said the following with reference to 1 John 3:16:

“It is, indeed, certain, that we are far from being equal to Christ: but the Apostle recommends to us the imitation of him; for though we do not overtake him, it is yet meet, that we should follow his steps, though at a distance.”  John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries: 1 John, electronic ed., Logos Library System; Calvin’s Commentaries (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1998), 1 Jn 3:16.

“Though at a distance…” – consider that thought for a moment:  Even if one were to take the most godly saint who ever lived on this earth, past or present, you can know this about him/her – such a saint is no match for the matchless purity, perfection, and righteousness of the One who is called by name, The Lord our Righteousness [yhwh tzidkenu, Jer. 23:5-6] – The Lord Jesus Christ.  Knowing this truth is essential, for in this understanding, we can know our limitations well.  Such knowledge is an antidote to: 

Theological Arrogance:  The wisdom of men is no match of God’s wisdom, for even the “foolishness” of God is greater than the wisdom of men (1 Cor. 1:25).  Therefore, if you were to take the wisest man that this world can offer – compare him to the Omniscient Lord Himself, then what you find is that your “wise” theologian is a mindless fool.

Pride:  Even if we were to shed our blood for the cause of Christ, such a sacrifice could never atone for our own sins, nor could they atone for the sins of any other.

Presumption:  We can know much about men, but we could never know the thoughts and intentions of the human heart (whether our own, or that of others) as only Christ can (Matt. 9:1-8). 

Hypercalvinistic Arrogance:  Only Christ could omnisciently declare to His audience – “…you will die in your sin”, however, as the messengers of Christ, our privilege is to spread the seed of the Gospel remembering that we do not have the ability to know who are the elect of God, and who are not (2 Tim. 2:10).

When you think about it, the concept of imitating Christ is quite basic; however, the manner in which we defect from this standard is multifaceted, and it is often the case that such defections are harder for us to see because of the deceptions of our own heart (Jer. 17:9-10).   Therefore, I would suggest that the narrow path of imitation must also include a watchful eye that can see the outer boundaries that must be avoided.  In other words, walking the narrow pathway of wisdom (Eph. 5:15) demands that we avoid any extreme that would draw us away to the left or to the right (Joshua 1:7-8).  Therefore, the one who walks with discernment does so by keeping his focus on Christ, while seeking to keep his distance from his own sinful inclination to be led astray:

Ephesians 5:15-16: 15 Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, 16 making the most of your time, because the days are evil.

Solus Christus.

For a number of years I have had the strong inclination that the 2008 presidential election would be a difficult, controversial, and telling contest.  The odd cornucopia of candidates within the Republican field, along with the disturbing options amongst the Democrats, promise to yield an interesting contest in the months to come.  With regard to the Republican camp, it has been my suspicion that there may be a sharp division within the party in view of the fact that there are a growing number of “Republicans” who are decidedly pro-choice and pro-homosexual.  It seems as though the historic ethical standards of the Republican party have been falling by the wayside, and little has been done to stem the tide.  Additionally, there has been a rise within the so-called “Christian Conservative” movement which seems to care less about the spiritual convictions of the candidates – just so long as they have a form of “morality” that at least looks Christian in some way.  However, I must say that what a man actually believes is crucial, for it informs us about his ultimate character; or as the Apostle John said:

1 John 3:10: 10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God…

What has been disturbing to me, of late, is this apparent disregard of the simple truth that there are only two classes of people in this world:  the children of God, and the children of the Devil.  Minimizing or ignoring this truth does not make it go away, and it is simply a lie to say that there is some supposed third category of the “almost saved” or the “partially lost.”  John’s binary description of humanity is crucial, for it helps us to remember that salvation is not an evolutionary process (to borrow a term).  It is for this reason that I am in the habit of exhorting Christians to investigate the professions of faith given by anyone who names the name of Christ for the simple reason that the Bible makes a distinction between:

1.  The children of the Devil who do not make a pretense of faith in Christ and,

2.  The children of the Devil who do make a pretense of faith in Christ. 

In fact, those that do profess faith in Christ (falsely and deceptively) are to be treated in a special manner:

2 John 7-11: 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. 9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

“Those that go too far” as John says, are those who have passed beyond the bounds of orthodox Christianity and have thus falsified their profession of faith in Christ – these are the ones who are sinning against a greater light (2 Peter 2) such that “it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them” (2 Peter 2:21).  Those that blemish the name of the Lord in this way are given greater scrutiny and judgment, just as the incarnate Son of God did with the false religious leaders of His day. 

With this in mind, I wanted to point out some of the oddities that have been produced as a result of our having a Republican candidate who is a Mormon – Gov. Mitt Romney.  Many have come to his aid, arguing that his religious beliefs should in no way prevent Christians from voting for him.  His morality and religious ethics are often pointed out in order to prove that he isn’t so different from those within the Christian community.  However, Romney has been quite evasive about his own beliefs.  When pressed about the distinctives of his Mormon beliefs, he has insisted that the particulars of the Mormon religion have nothing to do with the integrity of his bid to run for the office of President of the United States.  In fact, the defacto protocol has become to forsake any debate about one’s religious belief as being off-limits, as if this had anything to do with the separation clause in Article 1 of the Bill of Rights (people seem to forget these words – “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]”).  Prohibiting open debate about the “free exercise” of one’s faith and religion is actually unconstitutional.  Sadly, this un-authorized amendment of silenced-religious-debate, has become the governing principle of the electoral process.

All of this leads me to point out a disturbing event that took place between Governors Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney.  Huckabee had asked this question in a recent interview: 

“Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?” 

For this question alone Romney responded on NBC’s Today Show by saying:  

“…I think attacking someone’s religion is really going too far. It’s just not the American way, and I think people will reject that.” 

The discerning reader and voter must ask this question:  “Is such a question as this really an ‘attack’ on Mormonism, such that the inquirer should apologize for it?” 

Answer:  NO!

Huckabee’s question was not only a good question, but it is a very important one.  Despite the LDS’s attempts to smoke-screen the issue, their own book – “Gospel Principles” tells the story of their insidious, non-Christian heresy:  

“We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said, “Whom shall I send?” (Abraham 3:27). Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said, “Here am I, send me” (Abraham 3:27).  Jesus was willing to come to the earth, give his life for us, and take upon himself our sins. He, like our Heavenly Father, wanted us to choose whether we would obey Heavenly Father’s commandments. He knew we must be free to choose in order to prove ourselves worthy of exaltation. Jesus said, “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever” (Moses 4:2).  Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1). Satan wanted to force us all to do his will. Under his plan, we would not be allowed to choose. He would take away the freedom of choice that our Father had given us. Satan wanted to have all the honor for our salvation.”   (LDS “Gospel Principles”, Chapter 3).

Not only do the Mormons believe that Christ and Satan are brothers, but they teach a concept of universal brotherhood that yields several forms of heresy:

1. Their Notion of Universal Fatherhood:  Their false teaching concerning universal Fatherhood leads them to deny the uniqueness of Sonship as possessed by the Son of God alone:  “”We believe, as other Christians believe and as Paul wrote, that God is the father of all…That means that all beings were created by God and are his spirit children” (Kim Farah, LDS spokeswoman). 

2.  Their Notion of the Son’s Inferiority:  They deny the essential equality of the Son with the Father by teaching that His Sonship was the result of his incarnation, in contradiction to the doctrine of eternal Sonship as reveled in John 1:18.   Kim Farah, LDS spokeswoman, continues:  “God is the father of all…that means that all beings were created by God and are his spirit children…Christ, on the other hand, was the only begotten in the flesh and we worship him as the son of God and the savior of mankind.”   

3.  Their Notion that the Son is a Created Being:  In consequence to the teaching mentioned above, we see that they make Lucifer “a son of God” on a par with the Son of God, resultantly equating the Lord with the created Angels.  Such a correlation as this reduces the Son of God to that of a created being (Hebrews 1).   

It would seem to me that a Christian should be aware of the fact that there are candidates who make a pretense of faith in Christ, and yet their true religious beliefs amount to nothing less than open blasphemy against Jesus Christ.  Ultimately, Mr. Huckabee’s question about the Mormon religion was an opportunity to speak of Christ.  I do believe that there is something far more important than a presidential election here – it is the truthful and open proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  He is our true hope – not the next president of the United States.  Thus, I must ask:  Mr. Huckabee, how could you possibly apologize for a perfectly legitimate question?

 

Especially after you said this:

Every man has an epistemology – even the atheist.  Thus, I agree that one’s “faith” is important, such that we ought to know what that faith is, and how it will impact the one who serves in the highest office in this land.  What is at stake is much more than the future destiny of this temporal nation – what we must guard the most is our present representation and proclamation of our eternal Lord.

…there’s no place like home!