The Shaving of The Razor

By Vinnie MacIsaac

William of Ockham is most famous for what is commonly called “Ockham’s Razor.” When we say Ockham’s Razor, we mostly mean his principle of simplicity. In fact, the very name of my Blog, “Simply Vinnie,” with the tagline, “Unpacking the complicated,” is an homage and tribute to the brilliance of Ockham and his Razor. However, sadly, we have tended to substantially over simplify Ockham to the point of watered-down, tasteless, skim-milk that fits the acronym K.I.S.S. (Keep it Simple Stupid). The tragedy is Ockham is so much more than “keeping it simple!”

We have shaved the Razor itself! The mere fact that we must unpack the complicated to make it simple is not to say truth is simple! But instead, it can be complicated and needs a razor to loosen it from the unnecessary realm of complications to be best understood, in more general terms, before we enrich it with more complexity. However, when we are simple, at the expense of real understanding, we are doing what I call ‘shaving the razor;’ that is, simplifying to the point of meaninglessness and functional uselessness. I call this, tasteless skim-milk theology. It may be low in calories, but it is also useless in fatty meaning. We want to use Ockham’s Razor to find meaning not to shave all meaning away by the crude oversimplification for the sake of the shave.

To stop shaving the Razor, we must first understand who Ockham was. Ockham was an English Franciscan friar (1287 – 1347) who was chosen, from a young age, to enter scholastic theology by his order. That is right, Ockham was first and foremost a medieval theologian who took a strict vow of poverty and took all matters of faith so seriously that he’d rather be summoned by the Pope to defend his positions in Papal court and risk being labeled a heretic than to compromise his convictions. Unless we understand that faithfulness to theological conviction as the core of Ockham, we, in fact, will misunderstand who he was and what is the right use of his Razor.

Ockham’s problem was that scholastic theology, in the medieval era, was so heavy-laden with Greek Metaphysics that the church could not understand its most basic theological tenants unless it could see them through a pagan Greek theological lens. Aristotelian Greek logic, adopted and developed via the minds of Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus, before Ockham, had become the backbone of medieval scholastic theology. Philosophical Realism[i] had become Aristotelian logic on steroids and far advanced beyond anything Aristotle, Aquinas, or Scotus had envisioned. It was this metaphysical dogma Ockham developed his razor to slice through and get back to the Bible (centuries before Luther would ever show up).

To quote Doctor Ryan M. Reeves[ii] what Ockham was saying is “Christian theology is not Aristotelian Philosophy [or one of its many branches], that we just simply build our doctrines on top of. It can’t be that Christian theology is simply the best version of Pagan Philosophy.” And it is here that we can, now, understand that the meaning of Ockham is not just to make things simple for the sake of simply being “right” or most correct. Ockham used his Razor to free Christian doctrine from the mass complexities of Aristotelian logic gone to excess![iii] So, when we talk about his Razor, it is really unfounded to use that Razor to cut away anything complex and reduce things to a simplistic caricature of their full selves. Ockham was using his Razor to free the fullness of thought, not nullify it to nothingness, for the sake of mass appeal. Oversimplification is not at all what Ockham is doing.  Most of us reading Ockham would very quickly find his complexity is a level of difficulty, in its own right! What Ockham is seeking to do is cut away Aristotelian Philosophy from Christian dogma to end up at Biblical theology; which of course, will put him at odds, eventually, with the Pope of his time.

For the sake of example, let’s look at a couple of Ockham cuts so we can see how he worked. That said, don’t overthink them or get lost in these two examples because Metaphysics can do that to the best of us![iv] I have tried, in the spirit of Ockham, not to over or under complicate these examples:

Example one:

Philosophical Realism includes the idea of “Universals.” Universals are “properties that can be applied to many things;” that is to say, a tree, or a car, or a phone, exist independently of their being in the physical world, “they have existed somehow prior to the physical world,”[v] and thus that is why they are real, they are eternal so they can be physical. We know this because there are more than one tree, car, and phone, so therefore they are more than what they are in front of us. [vi] Ockham cuts this down by saying; instead, properties are not eternal forms but rather named concepts, and outside of the physical world, “a tree, or a car, or a phone,” only exist as a term (name) for a concept that exists only in our minds. Yes, there is more than one tree, but tree is only a term, or name, your mind is using to understand the concept “tree,” not some abstract eternal universal form of “phone-ness” and “car-ness” that we identify physical form with.[vii] He, in essence, is not chopping metaphysics, as much as he is pruning it down to the core and thus saying, “Hey guys, get a grip! You are way over-thinking this stuff; sometimes a tree is just a tree!”

Example two:

Aristotle discusses ten categories of investigation[viii] as his primary way of classifying the world around us. For Aristotle, the categories are an investigative rubric, of sorts, for processing thinking about the world.

What the ten categories are is not all that important to my discussion here. However, for the sake of clarity they are; substance, quantity, quality, relationality, somewhere, sometime, being in a position, having, acting, and, being acted upon.[ix]

By the time of academic thinking in the age of Ockham, Aristotle’s categories had become more of entities[x] in and of themselves, rather than a classification rubric for problem-solving or investigation of the world. In short, they were as Doctor Ryan M. Reeves put it, additional proofs “added in” to make the game of metaphysics work. This, of course, was problematic for theology. Think about trying to make the Trinity fit into these ten entities of reality for it to be a real doctrine. What Ockham does is, again, point out our theology does not need all this metaphysics to work. He does this by basically saying, theologians are making up the necessity for all ten of these entities. He is saying, the inclusions of the categories are not real to the Trinity, and certainly not needed. Ockham skillfully uses his Razor and slices the ten down to only three categories. He greatly simplifies it by saying: there is Existence, Qualities, and sometimes Relationality. This is simply to say, things exist because they have substance, they having defining attributes or qualities about them, and sometimes may share a relation to other things with existence. Again, think of how much more straightforward this makes the Trinity. It exists in that God is real and has substance, it has definable attributes we know it by, and is has relationality, in that it is three in one (interrelation) and also relates to us (outsiders). Ockham would say we know this is valid because all three of these categories we see in the Bible about the Trinity.  So, Aristotle is not needed and only complicates the Trinity for the sake of doing Metaphysics.

All of this is to say, Ockham is not that simple after all. But what he is doing is cutting unnecessary metaphysics from medieval theology and doing so hundreds of years before Martin Luther. He is trying to return the church to the Bible as the prime source of scholastic theology, over Aristotle. So, when Ockham says, “When presented with competing hypotheses that make the same predictions, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions”[xi] we need to understand, Ockham was actually talking about the reduction of metaphysics in theology. And he did not know how widely we would, one day, go slicing with his Razor. Mathematician, Philip Gibbs, correctly notes, “The Razor is often cited in stronger forms than Ockham intended.” Then Gibbs cites these frequent summaries of Ockham, as examples which were not at all Ockham’s intention:

 “If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along.”

“The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations.”

“If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest.”

“The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct.”

. . .or in the only form that takes its own advice. . .

“Keep things simple!”[xii]

Ockham was not trying to shift western thought into its most basic forms. He simply wanted to be a good Franciscan friar, have a sound and straightforward Theology, and live out a life of poverty, like Jesus did. And for that; he caught the ire of Pope John XXII in the Avignon Papacy.[xiii]  Rondo Keele, a Professor of Philosophy, in his book, “Ockham Explained: From Razor to Rebellion,”[xiv] makes a good case that Ockham may well be the first Protestant Reformer of sorts. For, without Ockham, Luther would not have had a humanistic background, to bring about the Reformation. Keele’s case is made pretty active when he points out, the whole last quarter of Ockham’s life is not spent in metaphysics at all, but in fighting the Pope and running for his life for daring to advocate the separation of church and state in medieval Europe.

Ockham, having just barely, successfully defended himself against a Papal accusation of heresy over his view of Metaphysics, didn’t even get out of town before he sided against the Pope in another major conflict that would lead to Ockham forever being banished to exile. The dispute is a little complex because the actual discussion took place steeped in Metaphysics. However, the key fight was over the vow of poverty that the Franciscan order took and its logical ramifications on the rest of the Church. The argument goes like this: Ockham is a Franciscan friar.  Franciscans take a vow of poverty. Because they take a vow of poverty, they can’t hold property or wealth.  If they did, Metaphysics would say they do not fit the form of poverty or, at least, not in the way Jesus did. However, Franciscans need food, shelter, and clothes. But if they own them, then they are not metaphysically poor. So, they have an arrangement with the Pope that the Pope, who already holds great wealth, would keep their wealth but give them access to any tangible needs the Order would have.

Ironically, the Pope figures out that the Order is indirectly implying he is corrupt, i.e., not like Jesus, (since he holds property). Moreover, the Pope sees they are suggesting they are holy, or more like Jesus because they don’t hold property. Worse yet, this all takes place during the era of the Avignon Papacy, when the Papacy is already under fire from the Kings for excesses in both wealth and secular power. The problem is the Pope can’t stop holding property because he is the Pope and the very head of the church on Earth. But he also can’t have the Franciscans implying those who own property are not like Jesus because that is the same as publicly accusing him as not being like Jesus. So, the Pope’s solution is not to embrace poverty but rather to force the Franciscans to embrace wealth and own their own property! While that will not make the Pope more like Jesus, it will stop the comparison and end the controversy.

Pope John XXII

What ensues next is a metaphysical fight between the Franciscans and Pope John XXII where “Realism” and the “Razor” battle the question if Franciscans can hold property, or not, is property wealthy, and what makes one have wealth! It is a bizarre and mind-bending argument that no one wins until Ockham and Michael of Cesena literally flee the Pope and run away and hide in the Holy Roman Empire, under the protection of some princes until they die. Ockham spends the rest of his life in exile, not expounding the metaphysics for which he is known best, but arguing against the corruption of the Papacy and the need of separation of Church and State, for which he has not been well recognized enough.  It is these ideas which Ockham develops on the separation of Church and State and the corruption of the Papacy, according to Reeves, that one day would influence an Augustinian Monk named Martin Luther.

I think it is correct, then, to say, when we boil Ockham down to just a simplicity formula, we miss everything! We must resist the temptation to “shave the razor” and over reduce our ideas for the purpose of mass appeal.  If we make Ockham the acronym K.I.S.S (Keep it simple stupid), it is we who are who are stupid, or at least grossly ignorant of both his brilliance and contributions. For me, and for my blog, the mandate for how to use Ockham in the theological sense, oddly enough, is best summed up by a line attributed to Albert Einstein’s take on it, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”[xv] I am simply, Vinnie, and my blog seeks to unpack the complicated, not because complication is not real, but because It can be simplified for the sake of being accessible but never to the point being so simple, it is as unless as watered down, tasteless skim-milk. The “Truth” is rich and creamy but best poured out rather than locked up and aged into hard cheeses. The Razor, should not shave Ockham, it should shave whatever is of man’s philosophy and not of Christ.[xvi]

Let’s follow Ockham’s example and take Christian Theology back to the Bible and common sense, while at the same time refusing to “shave the razor,” and simplifying it to the point of being tasteless and useless. We unpack the truth, to bring understanding, we don’t cut the truth loose to bring a mass appeal or uncommitted seekers. We want to knock, seek, and find, but we want the theology that is worth the find!

Join my Facebook to find more

spiritual growth resources!

Related Articles:

All Bets Are On God!

Kierkegaard: A Single Life [Reflective Review]

Direct Talk On Doubt

Footnotes:

[i] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzqnIJ6qcFw

[ii] Ryan M. Reeves (Ph.D. Cambridge) is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6y-3tiwO5Y)

[iii] It would also be fair to say that Ockham is not at all against Aristotelian Philosophy even, in fact, he is so brilliant at it he writes the literal textbook of his age for it. His problem with it is only that it is not needed for Christians to intelligently understand Christian doctrine. Ockham is a brilliant Aristotelian thinker. He just wants to keep theology, Christian and logic, Aristotelian.

[iv] It would be irony upon irony to overcomplicate Metaphysics in a blog about Ockham.

[v] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

[vi] This concept is called Nominal Metaphysics (Name or Term Metaphysics) also knowns as conceptualism and nominalism.

[vii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNz110GE-FM

[viii] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-categories/

[ix] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxhwRjH5YUg

[x] Ryan M. Reeves (Ph.D. Cambridge) is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6y-3tiwO5Y)

[xi] https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

[xii] Phil Gibbs 1996. https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

[xiii] The Avignon Papacy took place from 1309 to 1376, during which seven successive popes resided in Avignon, in south-east France instead of Rome. It is often called, “Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy” because after the death of Pope Benedict XI, who was attacked in his own Vatican, reportedly by agents of France, the newly elected French Pope Clement V refused to move to Rome as a show of support to the French King.  This was a time of great tension between the Catholic Church and various states (Nations) and the Papacy. In part, King Philippe of France and Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor used argumentation that the Church lived in lavish wealth at the expense of the Nations. The larger question the period was really addressing was who really had the power over secular issues, the state (Kings) or the Church (Popes). This is important in our understanding of Ockham because in the latter period of his life the Holy Roman Emperor would protect him as he lobbed argumentation of separation of Church on the merits of excesses in the Church holding wealth.

[xiv] Rondo Keele, Ockham Explained: From Razor to Rebellion (Ideas Explained) Open Court; 1st edition (May 11, 2010) See https://www.amazon.com/Ockham-Explained-Razor-Rebellion-Ideas/dp/0812696506

[xv] https://quotationcelebration.wordpress.com/2017/01/07/everything-should-be-made-as-simple-as-possible-but-not-simpler-albert-einstein/

[xvi] A counter of Ockham is the Anti-Razor, which also has value. If the Razor cuts way metaphysics to two or three entities (Existence, Qualities, and sometimes Relationality) then the rule of the Anti-Razor first suggested by a contemporary of Ockham, Walter Chatton, states, “If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on.” The point of the Razor and Anti-Razor are to cut enough but to keep enough, to bring clarity.

The post The Shaving of The Razor appeared first on Simply Vinnie - Unpacking The Complicated.

Kierkegaard: A Single Life

A Reflective Book Review

Book by Stephen Backhouse

Reflection by Vinnie MacIsaac

To philosophers, and a certain breed of theologians, Kierkegaard is foundational to thinking about the very merits of faith and even just “being,” or existing, with an individual purpose. Yet to the average person in my pews or readers of my blogs, they likely have never read him, and all but a few likely have ever heard of him. For me, as a Pastor, this is a tragedy! However, it is a tragedy beautifully rectified by Stephen Backhouse and his brilliant Biography of Søren Kierkegaard entitled “Kierkegaard: A Single Life.”

Backhouse’s stated reason for writing this book is that most works on Kierkegaard are too “dense, distant, and unappealing,”[i] for people looking to break into Kierkegaard for the first time. He speaks of his friend Lincoln, who is clergy and a trained theologian, who still struggled. Backhouse delivers extremely well in rectifying that problem with a warm, insightful, page-turner, that grips the reader, throws them into 19^th Danish Culture and quickly attaches readers to the quirky, controversial Kierkegaard. From Preface to Notes, he creates a fascinating characterization that steals your soul and makes it impossible to turn your head away. I read all 291 pages in two sittings, I just could not put it down!

I realize this will not be a widely read blog, but true to Kierkegaard, I write it because life is not about being accepted by the masses but about being called out from them to “A Single Life,” lived for Christ and the truth in Him. Kierkegaard is one of the best minds, in western thought, and the rightful father of whole schools of philosophies[1], worldviews, and ways to consider psychology.  Yet more importantly, to me, his fingerprints are all over the way I choose to live a life of Faith in the public square of pastoral work. I must not fold into the crowd, go with the flow, be synchronized and sanitized by the populace, or swept away into blind denominationalism. Rather  I must stand as a single life, and lead by the truth of Christ in me, forever upholding my faith and denomination to God’s ideals, not the “System’s.” Secondly, I hope this blog, while likely less popular than most of my works, still leads some honest minds out there to both Kierkegaard and Backhouse.

There is so much that I would want to tell you about Kierkegaard, but I will start with saying if you are a first-time reader, or an attempted and failed reader, Backhouse’s “A Single Life” is the ideal place to start so that you will be able to properly piece together key intersections of Kierkegaard’s life, philosophy, and theology. For me the beauty of this book is its simple and practical layout:

Preface/ Acknowledgements

Biography

1. A Controversial Life

2. School Life

3. Family Life

4. Public/Private Life

5. Love Life

6. Writing Life

7. Pirate Life

8. An Armed and Neutral Life

9. A Life Concluded

10. A Life Continued

Afterword

Overviews of the Works of Søren Kierkegaard

The overviews of his works, in my opinion, is worth the price the book itself. It provides the titles, dates, pseudonyms used, and a brief summary of all the key points made in that publication. It, literally, is an in brief literary roadmap to Kierkegaard that helps the reader jump right into the work without feeling lost in the stream of his work. However, when you combine that overview with a compelling, page-turner biography that bleeds context into to those books and their overviews, you have the perfect Kierkegaard kit at your fingertips.

I found Backhouse’s book, at times, had me laughing out loud, other times cheering or shouting aloud in agreement at presumptions now proven, and sadly with pity moved for Søren and Regine and even Peter. Søren and Peter, his brother, had a near classic, real-life prodigal son vs elder son relationship going on; Søren playing the wasteful, floundering son off living it up, while Peter was the dutiful, hardworking elder son who achieved his academics as expected of his Father. Tensions are wound ever tighter when Peter goes to work for the Danish National Church as an Ordained Minister which was also the expectation of Søren, which he stalls out on and eventually rejects. Ultimately, Peter’s vocation and the Danish Church will become Kierkegaard’s target in his war on the faithless faith of the masses defined by the cultural “Christendom” of the era. Added to the drama is a real-life Romeo and Juliet relationship of Søren Kierkegaard and Regine Olsen and now you have all the makings of a what could one day be a whole Netflix/Amazon Soapy Drama series in the making (they seriously should make his life into a Drama series).

In my own opinion, If ever two people were in true love their whole life long it would be first Adam and Eve and secondly Søren Kierkegaard and Regine Olsen. Their love is a tragedy worth the combined creative power of every Greek poet that ever lived! Søren, is the lost, brooding melancholy under-achiever of a wealthy family, steeped in a life of bitter loss and strife, repeated sibling death, and the inability to find himself like Peter his achieving elder brother. And suddenly he becomes hopelessly and utterly smitten by the calm, quiet, soft, gentle love of his beautiful Regine. A chance meeting, a super painfully awkward suitorship by a fumbling Søren, and a mutual infatuation that would last a lifetime of separation from each other makes her the perfect muse that calms the beast and sets his mind afire for a life of existing with purpose. Having now felt the power of love in the world Kierkegaard feels the pull of the love giver from above on his life ever more strongly. The shadows are lifted by the light flooding into his life as James 1:17 becomes his and Regine’s shared engagement verse as they see each other as “Every good and perfect gift is from above coming down from the Father of lights.”  Alas, Søren sacrifices human love for a higher calling to be, “a single life,” free from the control of the masses, seeking to restore true faith to a faithless charade of cultural Christianity. He knows, he loves her enough to release her from the pain and despair of his higher calling. He knows he must hurt her a little now to save her from a life of shame and ridicule of the cross he must now start to bear. And yet, their love, despite his rejection and abandonment, still lasts their full lifetimes; through Regine’s happy, healthy and love-filled marriage to another, and Søren’s one-man war against the church. A nod on the street here, a glance across the pews at a chance sermon on the couple’s favorite bible verse there, and the hidden coded messages in the works of Søren; all seem to be enough to remain in love for life, and yet for both still to move on with life without the other. Tragically, attached and dis-attached throughout eternity, it is a love not bound to need of presence. It is love that sets each other free!

For me, the core of life of Kierkegaard comes down to this: through a painful upbringing, a life of romantic love he could never give into without self-defined sin, the rise to celebrity status as an author, the object of political and public shaming as a mere caricature of himself in the media,[ii] to his failed attempts to reform Bishop Mynster through unreturned friendship, and never having fully been understood by his brother Peter or his own father Michael; there emerges a single clear and clarified Søren with one lone wish in his war on the church: that his People would come to know Christ, and not just the shadow of Christ, in the culturally acceptable Dutch Reform Church.

People can and will, and should, wax on about the Philosophy and intellectualism of Søren Kierkegaard, for being the father of Existentialism and for the brilliancy of his Philosophical contributions of to the world. But they all miss the point if they do not see him, first and foremost, as a theologian with one, and only one, singular purpose in this matured life; namely to call the masses of his country back to an individual, personal relationship with the Christ of the New Testament. His war on the state-sanctioned Danish Lutheran Church was to simply seek to lead it to repentance for becoming the Papacy it had once escaped from. All Philosophical merit in Kierkegaard is simply abstracted from this central concept Jesus and the Cross. The philosophy of Kierkegaard is but a mere shadow of the Theology of Søren.

As for me, what might I say of his impact on my work? Oddly, I have chosen a career path of Peter Kierkegaard[iii], not Søren Kierkegaard.[iv] May God ever permit me to practice the career of Peter with the heart, mind, and soul of Søren. May I always call people, first, to an individual relationship with the Christ of the New Testament[v] and secondly to real, authentic community and not of the mass control of the crowd. May I forever lead people to be true individuals in Christ, making up the community of faith at large, rather than mere puppets without hearts, souls, and minds connected to the Divine. May those I minister to be submitted first and foremost to the Trinity, via Christ, and then to the community as partners, never settling for being mere drones of the “Bishop” at hand.

   Meet Stephen Blackhouse

Footnotes

[1] Postmodernism (likely a grandfather figure), Existentialism, and in my humble opinion finding your of Faith in the community, but not enslaved by the community.

[i] Blackstone pg 15

[ii] See the The Corsair Affair

[iii] An ordained pastor

[iv] The philosophical theologian

[v] And of course full scripture

The post Kierkegaard: A Single Life [Reflective Review] appeared first on Simply Vinnie - Unpacking The Complicated.

Take A Knee To Preserve The Flag:

Op-Ed Opinion

Vinnie MacIsaac

Prologue:

This blog is very short because it originated as a simple social media post that really made a powerful impact to people across political and religious lines. I have had requests to share it with a larger audience.  I am not trying to make a political statement with it. I am seeking to simplify an emotive issue and bring some common sense perspective to it.

Post:

This is the original post I made on Facebook. 

I am the keeper of this flag. It is a privilege I inherited as the Pastor of this church. I keep it beside my desk every day to remind me of the cost of my liberty. It is part of the reason I awake early, every morning, to pray with other believers for this country, the President, and every single police officer in the nation.

I BELIEVE IN LIBERTY.

I believe in liberty if your uniform is blue.

I believe in liberty if your skin is brown.

If you wear a hoodie.  If you get pulled over at a stoplight.  If you kneel on a football field. Or if you want to change the type of shoe you wear. I believe in your right to liberty.

Most of all… I believe we can all do better in the ways we treat each other and the assumptions we make.

So I say, take a knee if you want to. Stand at attention if you want to. But love each other …even when you don’t want too.

#TakeAKnee

#Nike

#ThankYouSoliders

#ServeAndProtect

#PrayForEachOther

#Justice

#Seek2Understand

#LoveNotHate

Vinnie Out.

Epilogue:

The DNA of the USA is the Declaration of Independence which reads; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

When minorities feel threatened or that the judicial system is failing them, if we agree or not, they are also promised the following right in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Protesting, even during the national anthem or the saluting of the flag, is as American as the flag itself! In fact, the flag is simply a symbol of these documents that insist on that right. The real reason Soldiers died was to protect rights like these. And every time we attack those exercising these rights, or a politician calls a protestor a “son of a b^tch” we walk on the grave of fallen soldiers and spit on their sacrifice.

Be better than that… Just Do It!

Appendix:

Why Colin Kaepernick Kneels as a sign of respect to Vets.

Link

Here’s how Nate Boyer got Colin Kaepernick to go from sitting to kneeling

The post Take A Knee To Preserve The Flag: Op-Ed Opinion appeared first on Simply Vinnie - Unpacking The Complicated.

The Thirteen: One Crisis

Vinnie MacIssac

Life is a highway and I love road trips! My best friend and I were trying to finish our Masters’ Degree, as part of our ordination track, when we threw caution to the wind and drove two states away, derailing our graduation date, all to take a summer intensive, in developmental theology, from a living legend who was about to retire from teaching.

Driving down the road, eager with excitement, we were just two pastors, yakking on about geeky-theology stuff, and somehow Romans 13:1 ended up dividing us on this issue of God’s role in directing citizens on issues of war and security.  Knowing, I was not going to win this debate, I simply, and maybe a bit mischievously, said to my friend, “Hey you know what, when we get to class you ought to ask our professor, Dr. Knight, what he thinks is the correct use of that verse.”  That was all it took.  My friend took the bait, hook, line-and-sinker. This, honestly, was unfair.  Because I had already read Dr. George R Knight’s devotional commentary on the Book of Romans and I knew exactly where he stood.

There we were, the first day of class, super excited to be learning at the feet of Dr. George Knight, himself, and my friend had his hand up, “Sir, Sir, can I ask you a question before we get started?”

I know, I should have tried harder to stop my friend. If you have never met Dr. George R Knight, he has often aptly been described as personifying both aspects of Jesus; the Lion and the Lamb.  As my friend eagerly presented his case on
Romans 13:1 being the bedrock of God’s good government on earth, he was sure the good Doctor would concur and correct me.

Doctor Knight, was as gentle as a Lamb. He listened, smiled, leaned down towards the desk making full eye contact, matching faces, like the sweet, joy-filled, grandfather figure that he is; and then with a flicker in his eyes, he transformed, in a millisecond, into the roaring Lion of the tribe of Judah, and barked out, “Don’t you know, that was Hitler’s favorite verse? What’s a teacher to think of you on the first day of class?” And the whole class broke into laughter defusing the matter at hand.

But Romans 13:1 is no laughing matter at all. Romans 13 has been used as a pretext for all kinds of government, and church/ state control throughout history; like Luther to subjugate the peasants[1], like the British loyalists during the American Revolution and to justify slavery in America[2], not to mention to keep people from opposing Hitler during the Holocaust[3], just to name a few. When Christians use Romans 13:1 to justify the injustice of a political power they are ripping the verse right out of the womb of its context, and aborting it from the very message of love, liberty, and freedom of equality both Paul and the Bible teaches.

Romans 13 was originally written by the Apostle Paul to Christians in Rome, just as Emperor Nero[4] was rising to power among other authorities who, in Paul’s time, were hostile to the church.^[5]  Paul, commonly believed to be writing from Corinth[6] to Christians throughout the Roman Empire, was telling them to keep focused on their religious mission and not stir up unnecessary trouble with the, already hostile, authorities of the time.

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”^[7]

Paul was not lending power and authority to the tyrannical Roman government; he was telling Christians to get out of the way!  Remember, this was the government that mercilessly persecuted the early church and who had crucified Christ, himself. Yet, Christians from Rome did have some political power, because they had citizenship; even Paul was tempted, at times, to use it. So, Paul warns them that true power resides in God alone! Rome had been chosen by God for a purpose that was not the business of the Church. The church was to be focused on the mission of preaching Jesus to the ends of the Roman Empire and the world.

Professor Ken Boa, (Ph.D., ThM, DPhil, President of Trinity House Publishers) reflecting on this tension found in Romans 13:1-2 offers these important thoughts:

 “What Paul wanted the believers in Rome to understand was, in the Roman Empire (or any other), “No one from the east or the west or from the desert can exalt a man. But it is God who judges: He brings one down, he exalts another… The fact that “governing authorities” are human authorities—sinners just like us—is perhaps what makes it so difficult… How far is the Christian expected to go in obeying civil authorities—especially when those authorities demand that which goes against the will of God?”^[8]

That question provides much-needed context to the Romans 13:1 crisis because God certainly would not have been telling Christian to obey Nero, deny Christ, and worship idols, and submit to death. Furthermore, Paul would never give an absolute command contrary to the rest of the Apostles, who declared, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”[9]

Paul was not teaching his followers to be patriotic citizens of Rome but rather to be citizens that survived the crushing power of Rome against Christians!

Doctor George R Knight, (BA, MA, MDiv, EdD, a retired professor from Andrews Seminary) the author of, Exploring Romans: A Devotional Commentary says, God established the government because, “Without it, life exists only by the law of the jungle.”[10] In other words, it exists to hold the most basic order of life in place. Yet it only has the authority to do it as a “Servant of God.”[11] That is to say, it is not an unchecked power unto itself, but rather it is an imperfect tool God uses.

Knight goes on to remind us;

“And what about those early Christian martyrs who lost their lives to the Roman emperors Decius and Diocletian? They had commanded Roman citizens to worship them on the pain of death. All that a Christian had to do was to bow down and curse Christ. Such was the direct order of the Roman government.  We should never forget that it is the very government that Paul refers to in Romans 13 that not only crucified Jesus but would eventually take the apostle’s own life… Thus earthly rulers are not supreme but operate under delegated authority. They are God’s servants and nothing more, in spite of whatever exalted views they may have of themselves… When the state steps out of its rightful role and seeks to become the supreme authority, in the place of God, it has departed its legitimate function. Thus when the regulations of the state conflict with loyalty to God, civil disobedience is not only appropriate but demanded by the first commandment of the Decalogue (Ex. 20:3).”[12]

As we exegete Romans 13:1 and its context, one thing we all must hold certain is that the Bible should never be exegeted by the State;  particularly not this verse, because it has been used, historically, to oppress so many people by various governments. It is a fundamental principle of religious liberty that the American government, or any government, should never tell Christians what to believe.  This practice should be opposed by all Bible-believing Christians, and particularly by all Protestants and Evangelicals. Protestants have a long and brutal history of having to escape persecution from the State when it united with Papal and other church/state combinations. In fact, the United States arose, in large part, from the very escape of such tyrannical forces.[13]

Our Founding Fathers, when envisioning what sort of nation we were to be, made this idea the founding principle of the Bill of Rights.  The first amendment of the constitution was adopted on December 15, 1791, and promised that the government could not show favor to the establishment of any religion because if it did, it would suppress both freedoms of conviction and speech.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”[14]

Thomas Jefferson in his distinguished and renowned letter to the Danbury Baptists on Jan. 1. 1802, further explained the intent of this concept:

“Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”[15]

When Jeff Sessions, acting in his official role as The US Attorney General, stood before the press, defending the policy of his office by saying; “I would cite to you  the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order. Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful”[16] he violated the spirit of the text and the stated intent of Thomas Jefferson and our Founding Fathers for our Religious Liberty. Jeff Sessions, with those words, created what I call the current, “Romans Thirteen: One Crisis”. Regardless if we agreed, or not with his policy, every Bible-believing, constitution loving, Christian in the nation, ought to have stood up, with one voice, denouncing such actions. So why did we not?

Have Christians and Constitutionalist,  alike, become so side-tracked with policy, political tribalism, or even apathy, that we would be willing to ignore our very own religious liberties, and bow down once again to the golden statue on the plains of Dura[17], and worship the golden image, forsaking Yahweh our Lord, and embracing our new rulers? Have we already, sold ourselves back into the slavery of church ruled by the State? This is what I call the “Romans Thirteen: One Crisis,” and now the church must awake to its danger before it becomes the new norm. This is the spirit of those in the crowd, on that terrible day, who cried out with a “zero tolerance” voice for the God who ‘immigrated’ to this world to save them, “We have no king but Caesar!”[18] We must not forsake our liberty of religious freedom, by handing over our religious understanding to the State to use, even if with good intentions, lest we find that Caesar is the only version of God we have left!

To be fair, perhaps Jeff Sessions, and later to a lesser significance Sarah Huckabee Sanders[19], did not mean act against years of religious liberty and separation of church and state. Perhaps, they felt cornered, or even pressed by the media, or as Christians serving in higher office to defend their own faith because of what people were saying about their current immigration policy[20], but as gracious as I can be about the motivations of their actions, I cannot excuse the great danger in which they have placed all of America.

It is not enough, that Jeff Sessions’ own church seeks  now to possibly discipline him[21] “alleging he has misused his “tremendous social/political power” in his enforcement of the nation’s laws”[22] and “criticizes Sessions for citing Romans 13 to justify the policies.”[23] We all must, as Bible-believing, liberty-loving Christians, stand up and demand that the Government get out of our pulpit, out of our Bible, and out of the business of justifying political policy with subjective interpretations of our Bible! This was not a national prayer breakfast, or a traditional holiday address, or a generic call for God’s blessing on our nation. This was the defense of the execution of the legal policy of the United States Department of Justice, with a personal application, of the preferred peculiar religious discernment, held by the nation’s chief lawyer, the Attorney General; and thus, must be seen as a serious threat to religious liberty and the first amendment. If apathetic Christians, Pastors, Ministers, Church officials, and Denominations do not stand up to abhor and abominate such practices as this, the time will soon be upon us that whoever happens to reside in the White House at any given time might as well be called both President and Pope.

For the irony that directly stands before us is this: The Apostle Paul was writing to Christians living in the greater Roman Empire about appropriate Christian obedience to Rome and yet, this is the exact same Rome that in just a few hundred years, would unite with the church in partnership, and evoke brutal church and state powers and attempt to crush out any Christian who opposed their interpretations of the Bible. The conclusion is sobering, a “Romans Thirteen: One Crisis,” will always, in time, produce a “Revelation Thirteen: Fifteen Crisis.”

“Let anyone who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”[24] [25]

Video appendix:

Footnotes:

[1] Luther, Martin (1525). Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants.

[2] Mullen, Lincoln. “The Fight to Define Romans 13”. The Atlantic. Retrieved 17 June 2018

[3] George R Knight. Exploring Romans: A Devotional Commentary. Review & Herald (December 18, 2013)

[4] “Nero | Roman emperor”. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2017-07-02.

^[5] Boa, K., & Kruidenier, W. (2000). Romans (Vol. 6, p. 392). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

[6] Dunn, xliv; Stuhlmacher, 5;

^[7] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ro 13:1). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

^[8] Boa, K., & Kruidenier, W. (2000). Romans (Vol. 6, p. 392-394). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

[9] Acts 5:29

[10] George R Knight. Exploring Romans: A Devotional Commentary. Review & Herald (December 18, 2013), p. 249

[11] Ibid. p.250

[12] Ibid p.250-251 (quotes gathered to summarize the larger point)

[13] The Library of Congress, America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 1. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

[14] https://www.ushistory.org/gov/10b.asp

[15] Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists  – Library of Congress Information Bulletin

[16] Swenson, Kyle (15 June 2018). “Sessions says the Bible justifies separating immigrant families. The verses he cited are infamous”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 17 June 2018.

[17] The plain where Nebuchadnezzar set up the golden image, (Daniel 3:1)

[18]  John 19:15

[19] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-4tGZLyW0A

[20] Such a position, as this, granted particularly to Jeff Session, is extremely liberal in generosity considering the nature of the position he holds, his vast history of public service, and his University of Alabama School of Law education.

[21] https://time.com/5316396/united-methodist-church-discipline-jeff-sessions-child-separation/

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Revelation 2:29

[25] I would like to say a special thanks to Michael D. Peabody, Esq. for his support and assistance in the inspiration and formation of some of my key ideas enclosed in this article.

The post The Thirteen: One Crisis appeared first on Simply Vinnie - Unpacking The Complicated.

THE POLITICS OF JESUS

Part Three of Three of the series “Dispelling Theo-Politics”

By Vinnie MacIsaac

The classic question often asked of first-year theology students, “Was Jesus a Liberal or a Conservative?”[1] And the question, as you might expect, is a trap. There are usually only three emphatic answers that come back from students boasting complete certainty: 1) Jesus was a Conservative. 2) Jesus was a Liberal or 3) Both.

I won’t keep you lingering for long. It is true Jesus was not a Liberal, nor a Conservative. But, if you think you will outsmart the question by saying “both,” then you’re more duped than those who insist He was one or the other. Jesus is not Earthly political; He is Heavenly minded. Thus, He is Heavenly minded at all times, even during Earthly conflicts. The solutions to earthly problems are only to be found in Heavenly virtue.   When modern day Christians miss that point, if they know it or not, they are, in fact, building an image to the Beast[2]. The Beast, as outlined in Revelation, is, after all, the ultimate Earthly political machine posing as a Spiritual solution. Endtime followers of Jesus can have nothing to do with that machine or with vacillating between the dynamic extremes it permits, in order to keep the whole world in its grasp. The American culture war is a mere illusion of the Beast power of Revelation because it keeps everyone apprehended by the great quagmire of the imbroglio sliding gamut up and down the glissade façade of left to right; and right to left; trying to find the right balance, which really does not exist.

For Jesus, the solution to Earthly politics is looking up to Heavenly virtue, not balancing equal wrongs.

If I am on the left, I am not with Jesus. If I am on the right, I am not with Jesus. And If I am in the center, I am not with Jesus; because Jesus never answers Earthly political problems with an Earthly political see-saw, not even with a perfectly balanced one. Being in the center only ensures you will be equally wrong on both spectrums because neither ends of the teeter-totter were right to start with. For Jesus, the solution to Earthly politics is looking up to Heavenly virtue, not balancing equal wrongs.

I am ever indebted to my undergrad Political Science professor, Dr. John Beck[3], who drilled this brilliant definition of politics into my head, “Politics is the study of who gets what, when, where, and how. The end.” If you stop and think about it, and re-read that simple, yet profound, statement you will begin to see that it is not only true, but it is how the world works and how, in the end, The Beast power gains that power to place the Anti-Christ above Jesus, in the last hour of history. We fight. We fight with each other, over what? That’s right. It is a “what” that we all fight over; as in “Who gets what?” and when they get it, how they get it, and where is it going to come from? If we talk about abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, social spending, caring for our Vets, immigration, supporting our troops, etc., it is always a conversation of, “who gets what, when, where, and how.” It is also always a fight, which most often involves lies, corruption, coercion, manipulations, and oppression; which are the favored tools of the Anti-Christ system. I am certain the devil delights in watching Christians take up his cause in the name of Jesus and religious liberty.

True religious liberty can’t be found in earthly politics because, by definition, true religious liberty is liberating.   It refuses to engage in oppression…

True religious liberty can’t be found in earthly politics because, by definition, true religious liberty is liberating.   It refuses to engage in oppression, nor buy into the distorted contortion that God won’t back the liberty of mankind. Some think we must resort to man’s politics or lose ground to the world at large. The Politics of Jesus dispels this notion, and He never lowers Himself to stoop to human dependency to fix human problems.

A perfect example of how Jesus dealt with Earthly Politics is found in how Jesus dealt with being repeatedly cornered on taxes. Notice in Mark 12 and Matthew 22 the Pharisees and Herodians (the religious conservatives and the state-sanctioned liberals) are, in fact, trying to force Jesus to give an answer that will fit someplace on the teeter-totter of Earthly Politics. Because they know, as soon as Jesus declares a side they will finally be able to compromise Him and pit people against Him in the “who gets what, when, where, and how conundrum.” Jesus, Himself, reads their intent and actually spoke it out loud so that we could not mistake it or sidestep it, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?” It is important to understand, we are not much better than the Pharisees and Herodians in this story. We are often the exact kind of hypocrite Jesus railed against here. I know and confess I have been, and easily can be again, without great care and connection to Heaven. When we try to force people to see that the only answer to Earthly problems is picking either extreme or even a safe middle ground on the Earthly teeter-totter of politics, we are hypocrites trapping ourselves and others. In fact, as painful as it is to admit it, when we do this, we are making “disciples of Hell” because we are actively engaged in evangelism for the Anti-Christ!

Jesus teaches by example, earthly solutions are temporal and fleeting but a loving Father never forsakes His children; ergo you have no need to be waging political jihad for His principles.

Jesus is not playing Centralist Politics when he declares, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” He is being resounding electrifying in His political metrics so that we don’t miss His point. Give to Caesar, because this is not a Heavenly matter; it is just money. Who do you trust as your provider; Caesar or God? Wealth and security do not come from man, so stop trying to hold on to it. Don’t fight, corrupt, lie, cheat, and oppress to hold on to that which was really never yours; but rather, give to God what is His! And what belongs to God is both your allegiance and your faith in Heavenly virtue and Godly love to provide for all your “who gets what” needs. In others words, Jesus teaches by example, earthly solutions are temporal and fleeting. But a loving Father never forsakes His children; ergo you have no need to be waging political jihad for His principles. Yes, be politically reasonable; you have to engage this world. But do so based on Heavenly virtue, knowing that God is ultimately in charge, not man.

Jesus sought to teach this same idea to Peter in Matthew 17. Peter is cornered by the local “IRS” in Capernaum for not having paid the Temple Tax[4]. When the authorities ask if Jesus pays taxes Peter rushes in asserting that Jesus most certainly is in favor of paying taxes, when, in fact, Peter has no idea if Jesus is in favor of it and has to run home and ask him. Jesus actually mentions a radically different political taxation plan that exempts the children of God from paying taxes but rather shifts them back to those who don’t share ownership in the Temple. But, then, He tells Peter even though their system is not perfect, let’s still pay our taxes, “so that we may not cause offense.” Notice what Jesus is doing, He is yielding to what looks like “Earthly Politics,” but, in fact, is “Heavenly Virtue,” not wishing to offend if you don’t really have to. Then Jesus gives Peter the ultimate “Heavenly Virtue” lesson: You don’t need to yield to earthly means out of fear of the “who gets what conundrum,” because when you look to do what Heaven would want, rather than man, God will provide for it. And so Jesus tells Peter, “Go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”

It is not easy. I don’t want to make it sound like a bed of roses. Earthly problems are very complex because sin is flagrant, bare-faced, and out of control. Some days, with some events, we want to just stand up and scream, “Unfair! I am not taking this anymore!” And that is exactly what the darkness behind the Beast power lurks in wait for; left, right, center, he could care less. All he needs is, desire, and all he seeks is a spirit of intolerance, disgust, and unrest; and boom he will ignite the Anti-Christ power, impose forced worship, and kill all who will not bow. The evil of this Beast power is already unleashed in this world. We won’t stop it! But we can avoid joining it. However, the only way I know to do that is to practice the Politics of Jesus.

Jesus answers the “who gets what, when, where and how predicament like this: “God gets all allegiance, all the time, whenever and where ever political questions are raised, and His will should be done on Earth as it is in Heaven with love, compassion, equality, justice, and self-sacrifice in the place of earthly force, anger, and intolerance.” There are no cookie-cutter positions with Jesus. There are only multiple attempts to bring Heavenly virtue to a shifting, broken, pluralistic world. Which means, the same principles often get expressed in varying methodologies as we respond to Earthly degrees of sin, but we must always be guided by Heavenly Virtue, not earthly ideology.

We are called to make Disciples of Christ. We cannot afford to err by embracing Earthy politics because that always makes Disciples of the Beast power. Alas, I greatly fear with each passing year, the church, at large, is making Disciples for the wrong team!

What team are you playing on?

CLICK HERE FOR TO RETURN TO PART ONE  – Rejecting The King

Foot Notes:

[1] I first heard this question from Dr. Donn Leatherman as Southern Adventist University who literally drove around with a bumper sticker on his van that read, “Jesus was not a Republican or a Democrat.”

[2] For the purposes of this article the Beast power mentioned through it refers to the Beast power of Revelation 13 and the Anti-Christ in general.

[3] I took Intro To American Political Science from Doctor Beck at Vance-Granville Community College in Henderson NC in 2003.

[4] The Temple Tax was both a religious tax and a secular tax because King Herod had beatified the Temple with an expensive re-model at the expense of the state.

The post THE POLITICS OF JESUS (Dispelling Theo Politics Pt3) appeared first on Simply Vinnie - Unpacking The Complicated.

POLITICAL IDOLATRY

Part Two of Three of the series “Dispelling Theo-Politics”

By Vinnie MacIsaac

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” (Deuteronomy 6:4-5)

There were two great sins in ancient Israel:
1) Wanting a King like the other nations.
2) Wanting Gods like the other nations.

It is important to understand they are intertwined. When God’s people rejected God as their only sovereign King^[1] they rejected all forms of Godly Political Leadership. All types of Human leadership, since, have been but a marred reflection of who God is and what God meant the nations to become. Israel, in their great sin of demanding a king like the nations, actually doomed all the nations because the Gentiles were intended to learn to have a King, like Israel, and not the other way around. Understand that this great sin did not go away. It leads them to reject Jesus just as It leads us right to this very moment in modern politics and what will bring about the final great persecution of the church foretold in Revelation 13. It is the sin of rejecting God’s political leadership that we have all, and will all, continue to do that gives The Beast the ability to take full control as we have been warned:

“And The Beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months.  It opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is, those who dwell in heaven. Also, it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation, and all who dwell on the earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. If anyone has an ear, let him hear: If anyone is to be taken captive, to captivity he goes; if anyone is to be slain with the sword, with the sword must he be slain. Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints.“ (Revelation 13:5-10)

What is Idolatry? Idolatry comes in two basic packages:
1) Declaring yourself to be God
2) Giving worship to something or someone else that is not God.

As far back as Egypt’s Pharaohs, and even further back into Imperial cults and tribal cults kings, chiefs, and shaman were associated with, if not outright identified as, deities^[2]. So it follows, then, that when Israel was demanding a King, they were doing much more than rejecting God’s political leadership but desiring new gods. It is no wonder they kept falling into literal idolatry all the years of their existence.

How different are we today than Israel of old? Do we think the Government can solve our problems? More to the Biblical point, do we believe there is a form of government that can solve our problems? What is our real hope in? All human types of government are rooted in some sort of idolatry because they, in essence, seek to fix problems only God could fix[3]. You can have big government, you can have small governments but both will be rooted in human reasoning. We have tried tribal governments, monarchs, dictatorships, democracies, republics, socialist states, mixed democratic socialism and straight up communism, and all of them eventually break down.

The reason they break down is as simple as Sociology 101. I learned this basic lesson from my freshman college professor, Steve Arvey, who drilled it into my head, “Rational systems break down when you introduce irrational variables; and humanity itself has always been, and will always be, an uncontrollable, irrational variable that creates chaos in reality where order seems logical in theory.”^[4] The point I abstracted from my teacher’s wisdom is there is no form of governance, that man can create, that can restore the broken (or irrational) nature of the fallen man. If a man is unable to govern himself in a fallen state then on what logic would he be able to govern others? Did the great and wise Rabbi not already tell us that the blind cannot lead the blind? (Luke 6:39, Matthew 15:14)

We cannot return to Eden until the Earth is made new, and we cannot return to true theocracy until Jesus restores all things;

“And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God, himself, will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” Revelation 21:3-4

Furthermore, the central crisis of the end of the world and Satanic persecution of the church in Revelation 13 stems exactly from man’s irrational attempts to restore a theocracy on man’s terms; which is the only terms from which fallen men can function. This is the race the world is running towards with every change of government and political season or movement;

“And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain.” Revelation 13:15

So what does God expect us to do? Well, prepare for the coming Kingdom of Jesus Christ, the only truly fit ruler of the universe, of course! However, I have also become convicted that to avoid falling into the snares of the Revelation 13 crisis; we need to understand we cannot invest all hope and all salvation in any political affiliation that comes from man. For they all lead to national and global idolatry that we find outlined in Revelation 13, 17 and 18.

While it is true all human systems are broken it is also true that some are more broken than others and God still works in the commodity of humanities brokeness. The Apostle Paul, in Roman’s 13:1-7 suggests that God is using current political systems to hold order temporally but goes on to expound in verses 8-14 that, ideally, God’s real government would be founded on mutual love. What this means is we should prayerfully seek out the best governing systems, that reflect God’s compassion towards each other and reflect on some limited level sacrificial giving. Each of us must seek what God permits by identifying them on personal understandings of Biblical values and then trust God to unfold His permissive will even at times when we can’t understand His reasoning from our fallen human perspective. Here in the west that would mean I can’t honestly in full identify with the western political left or political right because my identity is not apart of any political ideology.  Rather my political identity is found only in my unfolding reflection of Christ as it collaborates with a deepening understanding of Biblical values in a vastly changing pluralistic world context. Under such conditions, it would be foolish to see political affiliation as static.

I am personally convicted that the common practice among Christians to self-identify with either the left of the right and their ideological platforms is actually bullish Idolatry.

I am personally convicted that the common practice among Christians to self-identify with either the left of the right and their ideological platforms is actually bullish Idolatry. While there are biblical values on the left like; equality, feminism, care of those in poverty, and other general protections for the underprivileged; the right can also lay claims to being pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and pro-protestant work ethic. To even try to identify which of these two platforms is more Biblical is to ignore the reality and certainty, that while both hold some values in common with Christianity, neither are Godly because both are steeped in philosophical humanism and therefore contain vast amounts of unbiblical propositions in their mix. Thus, the “right” direction for a Christian to vote is likely subjective to the ever-shifting paradigms in our pluralistic society at that particular time or even region. Therefore, such things as how to vote can only be decided in personal prayer and supplication with seeking the will of the Holy Spirit in that moment’s specific social, political, and cultural situations.

In other words, a Christian who finds themselves voting along party lines is likely, at times, certainly voting against the Holy Spirit and is not being sensitive to God’s leading in their growing spiritual journey. That is why we should move to finding our values first from our identity in God and the teachings of His Word, rather than from popular political ideology and debated talking points that we find on modern news outlets.

To be frank, political ideology is idolatry to the born-again Christian because a born-again Christian’s identity should ever be grounded in Jesus and his teachings; and no such political party exists. It is to make something other than Jesus your King, your solution, your Savior.

To be frank, political ideology is idolatry to the born-again Christian because a born-again Christian’s identity should ever be grounded in Jesus and his teachings; and no such political party exists. It is to make something other than Jesus your King, your solution, your Savior. Political ideology lets you say evil things about people, vote evil things that hurt people, and hope evil things to happen to people, all in the name of what you believe is right!  For me, it is the start of that hate that is festering in the heart of the faithful as they march away from Jesus and are transformed into becoming Satanic Soldiers who embrace the second beast’s methods found in Revelation 13, namely, a forced ideology which leads to his forced worship.

“Hear what the LORD says to you, people of Israel. This is what the LORD says: “Do not learn the ways of the nations or be terrified by signs in the heavens, though the nations are terrified by them. For the practices of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel. Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field, their idols cannot speak; they must be carried because they cannot walk. Do not fear them; they can do no harm nor can they do any good.” No one is like you, LORD; you are great, and your name is mighty in power.” Jeremiah 10:1-6

CLICK HERE FOR PART THREE  – The Politics Of Jesus

CLICK HERE FOR TO RETURN TO PART ONE  – Rejecting The King

Footnotes

^[1]  I will deal with in detail in the second installment of this series.

^[2] “The rulers of Egypt, first the kings and later the pharaohs, were gods as well as men who ruled by divine right. Each king was ‘the son of god’, who at the point of death became one with his father, a god in a cosmic Heaven.” Christopher Knight, Robert Lomas (August 1, 2001). The Hiram Key: Pharaohs, Freemasons and the Discovery of the Secret Scrolls of Jesus, 100. ISBN 978-1-931412-75-9. Available in print from Fair Winds. Sourced from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities#Imperial_cults

[3] That is not to say we should do nothing but it is just to say nothing we do will hold for long.

^[4] Steve Arvey, Intro to Sociology; Sheridan College, Oakville Ont, Canada.

The post POLITICAL IDOLATRY (Dispelling Theo Politics Pt2) appeared first on Simply Vinnie - Unpacking The Complicated.

REJECTING THE KING

Part One of Three of the series “Dispelling Theo-Politics”

By Vinnie MacIsaac

“Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, “Behold, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.”  But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” Samuel prayed to the Lord.  And the Lord said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.” 1 Samuel 8:4-7

Since Eden, all change happens because of our responses to corruption, or our desires to use corruption as our tool. The reason is simply that since our exit out of Eden, all of humanity and our world is hurling down a decline that leads to utter destruction. Sometimes we are trying to escape corruption, other times to contain it, and more often to create and expand it. I can’t blame Israel for wanting to avoid the corruption of the sons of Samuel, but their bewailing laments for a King because of this corruption is a schema of chicanery. It is an excuse of convenience, and their own words rise to condemn them; “Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.”

The real desire of Israel is to be like the pagan nations around them and to have priestly kings like the pagans in the surrounding lands. Israel, all the way back to the days of Moses and Joshua, has always had a not- so- secret crush on the pagan cultic gods of the lands. This was the reason Yahweh repeatedly showed Himself to be more powerful than the pagan idols of the nations by doing incredible and unexplainable feats, like parting the Red Sea, slaying the eldest sons of Egypt, tumbling the walls of Jericho and so forth. There was to be no mistake about who was the real God. Nor about whose nations should rise and become the shining light to the rest of the other nations.

Jesus became the bright star in Bethlehem because Israel refused to shine before the world and proclaim Him as the only rightful King and Priest of this world and the whole universe.

Jesus became the bright star in Bethlehem because Israel refused to shine before the world and proclaim Him as the only rightful King and Priest of this world and the whole universe. Imagine the gloom that day in Heaven. The very ones whom God had brought in and given the promised-land so that they would be strategically positioned to declare the real King of the universe to the nations, in essence, said, “Pass! Nah, we’d rather have a different king, we don’t need a king like Jesus. We want a king like the other nations over there.” Often we read this story and rightfully see it as sad, but fail to fully grasp the depths of the spiritual catastrophe it is and the implacable results it consummated in forging our direction, even unto the end of the world.

Stop and consider what this moment in history was; Jesus Christ was rejected as the political leader of the world by his own Church! If God’s people, God’s priesthood, God’s Holy Nation could deny the only true and faithful political leader the world would ever see,  what hope would spiritually blind pagan nations and priests have?[1]

It is not conjectured to say God permitted this rebellion because he knew there could be no turning back from it once it entered the heart of man. It was not really a rejection of Samuel and his sons, but rather of God and His Son, King Jesus. God comforts Samuel by affirming to him the real motivations of the hearts of Israel was not Samuel’s failure but their lack of faith in God’s divine politically leadership. It is with compassion that God tells Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.”

King Saul started out as the best option man could make. He was bright, strong, good looking and Kingly. But man’s best efforts, man’s best selections, man’s desired style of leadership vastly differ from God’s. When King Saul quickly defaulted to apostasy, God selected David as an example of what godly leadership looked like. As we know, David’s reign was not without problems.  But perhaps the greatest of those problems was actually David’s lifespan which gave way to Solomon, whose vast wisdom, still, could not hold the nation together and Israel fell into an ever-increasing state of rebellion against God and the embracing of utter Idolatry; one king after another. The lesson worth noting here: even if God helps you select godly political leadership that is in subjection to Him, it is always going to come in limited packaging and time.

Humanity, as a whole, has been on a downward spiral of political leadership ever since the death of King David. The only exception to this rule, of course, is King Jesus. However, on his first Advent, he did not come to lead politically but to spiritually atone for sin. He famously told his disciples, right before his ascension, not to focus on political ambitions but to seek the Holy Spirit and the spiritual mission of spreading the gospel.

“So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”  He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.  But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” Acts 1:6-8

The Apostle Paul tells us that God appoints leadership to sustain earthly order and despite the imperfection of human kingdoms, Christians ought to obey these authorities as much as possible.

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” (Romans 13:1)

Paul even goes on to advocate a faithful paying of taxes to governing authorities because God is using them to subdue the wrongdoers. In other words, since man has rejected the political leadership of Jesus, God uses imperfect systems of governing authority as stopgap ways of holding the order until the return of Christ. The fallout or penalty of such systems is taxation and leadership that is often enforced by brute force (see Romans 13 vs 5-7). However, Paul is quick to point out that among people of faith leadership was meant to be forged in love, not hierarchical authority (see Romans 13 vs 8-10).

God’s system of government has always been based on sacrificial love as a method to produce reciprocal love that binds the universe together with unbreakable existence. This is why Revelation 13 pits God’s version of governance of love directly against the Sea and Land Beast’s system of governance by intolerance and force. John the Revelator calls Jesus the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth. (Revelation 13:8) John is establishing that God’s rule of law is love, not force. God’s system is about ensuring equality of love by showing that God does not force the will of men but was willing to make Jesus the great sacrifice for us as the very foundation of His rightful Kingship and governance of men. Meanwhile, John the Revelator, in contrast, paints the Beast powers of Revelation 13 as using willful force, hierarchical authority, and even willingness to committing mass genocide as a means of stability to govern the world (see Revelation 13 vs 7,8, 12, 15-17). It should be clear even from a light devotional reading of this chapter that these two governmental styles are polar opposites of each other!

“Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall;

All the king’s horses and all the king’s men

Couldn’t put Humpty together again.”

The familiar nursery rhyme of Humpty Dumpty is an apt way to describe the end time system of the world depicted in Revelation 13, 17, and 18 where we see the Beast power’s system of political, economic, and spiritual powers are doomed. It is doomed because it has rejected and is devoid of the Kingship of Jesus which is the only way to sustain life and order in the universe.

Revelation 17 declares,

“…for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast until the words of God are fulfilled. And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth.” (Revelation 17:15-18)

Chapter 18 continues to paint the failing world systems at the end of time:

“And the kings of the earth, who committed sexual immorality and lived in luxury with her, will weep and wail over her when they see the smoke of her burning. They will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, “Alas! Alas! You great city, you mighty city, Babylon!For in a single hour your judgment has come.” (Revelation 18:9-10)

It is when mankind has exhausted the frailties of all the failed systems of earthly governance and there are no more systems to turn to which will save his beloved Babylonian way of life that he realizes the error of his ways, as shown in 1 Samuel 8.  Sadly, it is already too late when mankind, once again, agrees on returning to a theocracy. It’s when monarchies, dictatorships, democracies, and capitalist and socialist states, all fail and no longer can sustain any order that man seeks religious rule.  It is then globally agreed that the only system of governance that can work is a universal theocracy with a visible but spiritual chain of command. Only this time instead of King Jesus, this theocracy is built around the worship of the Beast of Revelation 13! And instead of being instituted by sacrificial love and producing reciprocal love, it is forged in hierarchical power, hate, and forced worship of the Beast power! “…the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain.” Revelation 13:15b

It was in that garden of Genesis that man, in listening to the serpent over God, he rejected the spiritual leadership of God which put him on the ‘non-repealable’ path to the rejection of God’s political leadership of 1 Samuel 8. These two events have left all humanity bankrupt and desolate of spiritual, moral fortitude and basic dexterity of the administration of even simple governance that can be sustained for prolonged periods of time. All attempts implode into stratified oppressive, tyrannical systems of governance, that despite man’s best-laid and well-intentioned plans, keep rerouting us to an inescapable Revelation 13 end time trajectory. With the wrong King at the head of the world, humanity devoid of God has the only destruction as its final destination.

It is, in fact, the rejection of The King of Kings, that sent men, even well-meaning and spiritual men, on a collision course of installing a false theocracy that worships the Antichrist and enslaves once free men to worship it and give it power. Therefore, the conclusion is unavoidable and assured that Christians who hold fast to rebuilding systems of nationalism under the banner God, by using political means to achieve spiritual outcomes, are not only ripe for the end time deception but are veritably building the foundations of the theocracy of the Beast power.

The final questions remains;

Which King do you really serve? And which king are you willing to reject from your life before it is too late? Are you rejecting the King? Which one? It matters.

CLICK HERE FOR PART TWO  – Political Idolatry

Footnotes:

[1] Which is all the more reason we ought to stand in awe each Advent season when we hear the repeated story of the Wise Men in the East who come to find the baby Jesus. See Matthew Chapter 2.

The post REJECTING THE KING (Dispelling Theo Politics Pt1) appeared first on Simply Vinnie - Unpacking The Complicated.

A New Declaration

Pastor Vinnie

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”^[1]

The Declaration of Independence is perhaps the single most important document of liberty in the western world with the only other possible exception being the Magna Carta Libertatum^[2] that forged the direction that would lead to the dream that true liberty could exist in a free, civilized world of everyday people. Still, as great of a document as the Declaration of Independence is I have come to ask, “self-evident,” to whom?

Self-evident literally means “not needing to be demonstrated or explained; obvious.”^[3] It seems it needs to be explained to a lot of people still these days! This dream that was cast over 241 years ago has never yet come to pass for many living in the “land of the free and home of the the brave.”

Liberty, freedom, equality, the pursuit of happiness, they are not left or right ideas. They don’t excessively belong to liberals or conservatives but rather ought to be the basis where both can and should have full agreement. Let the bleeding heart liberal, who’s own name stands for “Liberty,” say to the conservative patriot, who’s desire it is to hold up founding principles, “All men deserve compassion, respect, and basic human rights.” And let the conservative patriot echo back, “Amen brother, our founding conservative documents declares that, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Among Liberals and Conservatives, there ought to be no disagreement, yet there is still too much and often more noise of conflict than peace and clarity. Certainly, Christians can fare better overall than the divide found in modern politics right?

For the Christian, also have a founding document, but this founding document is superior even to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and even the Bill of Rights. Our founding document is the very word of the Creator and cannot be denied by any real Christian regardless of political ideology. This founding document also offers some unalienable Rights that will be self-evident by those who follow God’s Declarations but perhaps its seem at times to be getting lost in the political fray of the left and right that echo even in the hallways of the church. Let us this Independence Day declare our self-evident values of liberty we hold because of God’s Declaration to us!

1) The Word of God declares people of faith will respect immigrants.

• “You must not oppress foreigners. You know what it’s like to be a foreigner, for you yourselves were once aliens in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 23:9)

• ‘This is what the LORD says: Administer justice and righteousness. Rescue the victim of robbery from the hand of his oppressor. Don’t exploit or brutalize the foreigner, the fatherless, or the widow. Don’t shed innocent blood in this place. (Jeremiah 22:3)

2) The Word of God declares liberty to the poor and that people of true faith should aid in that liberty.

• Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed. (Proverbs 19:17)

• For I was hungry, and you gave me food, I was thirsty, and you gave me drink, I was a stranger, and you welcomed me. (Matthew 25:46)

• You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’ (Deuteronomy 15:10-11)

3) The Word of God showed tolerance and not hate towards the seed of Islam just as God did to the seed of the Jews who shared the same father, Abraham. Let us seek to reach both for Christ.

• And the angel of the LORD said to her, “Behold, you are pregnant and shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael because the LORD has listened to your affliction. (Genesis 16:11)

• And God heard the voice of the boy, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heard the voice of the boy where he is. Up! Lift up the boy, and hold him fast with your hand, for I will make him into a great nation. (Genesis 21:17-18)

• Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

4) The Word of God declares God loves sinners and so should His followers.

• And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17)

• But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

5) The Word of God declares that His followers will protect the children.

• Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. (Psalm 127:3)

• See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 18:10)

• Before I formed you in the womb I knew you before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5)

6) The Word of God declares we should stand against oppression in all its forms

• Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause. (Isaiah 1:17)

• “Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness, and his upper rooms by injustice, who makes his neighbor serve him for nothing and does not give him his wages.” (Jeremiah 22:13)

• The Lord is a stronghold for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble. (Psalms 9:9)

7) The Word of God declares all people equal, and God followers likewise should engage in no forms of prejudice, discrimination, or racism.

• “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” John 14:34

• 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)

• For God does not show favoritism. (Romans 2:11)

• If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. (James 2:8-9 )

• Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language, and people. (Revelation 14)

These are inalienable, self-evident, biblical rights, principles, and declarations of liberty, justice, and freedom of oppression that come from the mouth of God! All who accept the Bible as their creed must yield to its word above ideology least they make politics an idol that they worship above Jesus!

This Independence Day we have the opportunity to make a New Declaration. That Declaration regardless of if we Republication, Democrat, or Independent, on the left or the right or hugging the center, would be that we are first and foremost Christians who declare the Word of God over the politics of man as our founding documents, principles, and values! We can declare, anew, that we will not justify away what is inalienable, self-evident, and above all Biblical!

 Let the church say AMEN!

——-

^[1] Declaration of Independence; Thomas Jefferson with influence from John Locke.

^[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

^[3] Google Dictionary.

Related Articles

Jesus And The Disinherited 

It’s A Beautiful Day 

 Rejecting The King

The Thirteen: One Crisis

#JESUSFIRST

The post A New Declaration appeared first on Simply Vinnie - Unpacking The Complicated.

What If I Told You About Faith in Politics?

By Vinnie MacIsaac

Counting down to inauguration 2017 I started what turned out to be a rather interesting social media experiment.

If you’re like me you see Christians taking all kinds of political positions on social media and if you are at all like me at times you wonder how does a person of faith get to that position?   Secondly, if you have been on social media for five years or five minutes you likely have faced the scorn of a random outrage from a reasonable question or contrary position on a political issue of even among the most trusted social media “friends.”

My Experiment: I posted for 10 days leading up to inauguration a series of Tweets that I assumed every Christian should (or at least could) agree with.  Of course I was limited by my own perspective and thus I was wrong, there was a lot of push back (mostly on Facebook some twitter). Over time my followers who did not push back but enjoyed them starteed calling them “truth bombs” and I picked up the hashtag #truthbomb. Enjoy:

 

What if I told you not everything is the Media’s fault? #personalresponsibility #media #seektruth

— Vince MacIsaac (@VinceMacIsaac) January 11, 2017

What if I told you that God is more concerned about your virtue then he is your political affiliation? #USA #churchandstate #truthbomb

— Vince MacIsaac (@VinceMacIsaac) January 12, 2017

What If told you Jesus was not a Republican or a Democratic or an Amercian or even a western? #USA #churchandstate #truthbomb

— Vince MacIsaac (@VinceMacIsaac) January 13, 2017

What if I told you the Church Jesus founded openly flaunted redistribution of wealth as a key church value? Acts 2:45-47 #truthbomb

— Vince MacIsaac (@VinceMacIsaac) January 14, 2017

What if I told you, your political opposite is not the devil but you might be based on how you treat and talk to and about them? #Truthbomb

— Vince MacIsaac (@VinceMacIsaac) January 15, 2017

What if I told you Jesus and Martin Luther King both had a dream, and it was the same dream? John17:21 #martinlutherkingday #truthbomb #USA

— Vince MacIsaac (@VinceMacIsaac) January 16, 2017

What if I told you that breaking the 9th commandment also applies to how you treat politicians and elected officials? #truthbomb #usa #faith

— Vince MacIsaac (@VinceMacIsaac) January 17, 2017

What if I told you we should pray for and not curse those political leaders we dislike and fear the most? (Matt5:44) #truthbomb #USA

— Vince MacIsaac (@VinceMacIsaac) January 18, 2017

What if I told you that Jesus was not against paying his taxes even to oppressive political systems? Luke 20:25 Matthew 17:24-27 #truthbomb

— Vince MacIsaac (@VinceMacIsaac) January 19, 2017

What if I told you that being pro-life logically includes being anti- death penalty, and extreme caution in invoking war. #truthbomb #USA

— Vince MacIsaac (@VinceMacIsaac) January 19, 2017

What if I told you God permits all leaders. Some do His will knowingly and others not. Both good and bad God will use. #truthbomb #USA

— Vince MacIsaac (@VinceMacIsaac) January 20, 2017

My Conclusion: People of faith surprised me. People who I thought would push certain ways by in large did not. And disagreements were not at partisan as you would have thought. Maybe we are not that divided after all? Yet, at times I wondered if people really practiced their convictions but that was not really my business to explore. Maybe the best outcome of this experiment was that on several tweets it really got people who disagree to talk.  If you want to comment on any of these you missed do so on Twitter on in my comments section on this blog. I’d love to hear from you or even debate you some.

Post Script:

Well 45th, batter up! Go with God because only God can bring the Unity you speak of. God Bless America. God is our Hope! @realDonaldTrump

— Vince MacIsaac (@VinceMacIsaac) January 20, 2017

The post What If I Told You About My Faith in Politics? appeared first on Simply Vinnie - Unpacking The Complicated.