Athlete praised for coming out?

Here we go again. Liberal media is relentlessly interested in making homosexuality headline news. What would have been previously left to gossip magazines is now considered front-page story.

The media machine has been in overdrive to praise college athlete, Michael Sam, as an example of courage for admitting that he prefers sex with men. Did we really need to know about his private sexual desires? I don’t want to know.

Even our President and First Lady were quick to publicly congratulate the athlete as an example of courage. While our military, who sacrifice greatly for our freedoms, receive form letters, a gay athlete gets personal tweets of praise! Is there something wrong with this picture? 

And, once again, those who take a different view on the morality of Michael Sam’s sexual lifestyle will be demonized as bigoted hate-mongers who belong to a Neanderthal fringe group of radical right-wing fundamentalist. I’ll personally expect the same barrage of emails accusing me of anything from being a closet homosexual to a Bible-thumping hater (who, as a pastor, should only be spreading love and acceptance). 

Some will even accuse me of keeping homosexuality in the news! This sad response has become so predictable that it strains credulity. The malicious plan behind it is to marginalize people like the Chic-fil-A and Duck Dynasty supporters as racists for turning out by the hundreds of thousands in support of traditional marriage. 

But this issue has absolutely nothing to do with race or civil rights battles for racial equality. Intelligent people see through the manipulation of falsely comparing the kind of sex people want with the racial identity of others. 

Imagine thirty years ago a reputable news agency giving headline attention to the courage of an athlete for telling the nation that he prefers sex with men. Of course, some would like us to believe that current knowledge should lead to a more progressive view of sexuality. Yet there’s not a bit of credible, compelling information to treat homosexual desire as an unalterable condition of birth. 

This is an agenda to exalt and normalize the kind of sex a person wants based on the absolute rule of individual desire. Yet it’s a disservice to society to remove sexuality from a category of human choosing based on creation of humanity as male and female. 

Perhaps some of my readers take the view that what people do sexually in the privacy of their lives is not anyone else’s business as long as it’s legal. Fair enough. Don’t splash it on the front page. If you take the privacy view, you should know that radical gay activists are determined to make their sexual desires your business by demanding your celebration of same-sex lifestyles.

I firmly reject all mistreatment of people who struggle with sexual or gender identity, but I also disagree with those who tell people God created them to be homosexual.   

Many years ago, a college student came to me for counseling about same-sex attraction. Other counselors encouraged him to accept his attraction as normal, as they way God made him. But he told me that he couldn’t accept it no matter how hard he tried. He also admitted that no matter how many laws or people supported homosexuality; it wouldn’t diminish his inner turmoil.

I refused to be one more cruel voice sending him off into hopelessness because I knew that when we live contrary to the way God made and planned for us to live, it’s actually a good thing for us to feel outside of that plan.

I recommended a compassionate alternative by encouraging this young man to come along side fellow strugglers who battle temptations in a context of grace and truth. I invited him to join others in discovering the freedom that can be found in living by Gods grace through His Spirit. Although my struggles are not the ones he experienced, I assured him that I also battle temptations because we all do.

Our Churches must work harder to become these kinds of communities of redemption and restoration and the gospel is “the power of God” (Romans 1:16) that will shape us into them.

Of course, at the end of the day, people are free (in every State of this nation) to pursue a homosexual lifestyle and to reject the validity of communities that believe in and encourage transformation from homosexual living.

No matter how many media groups and radical judges try to change society, the view I take here is the majority in our country and it’s also the view of true love and compassion for all people — without discrimination. 

Steve Cornell

A legal Pandora’s box


Although a majority of Americans do not favor gay marriage, many believe that the institution of marriage will be redefined. They believe that the historic position of our nation (and of human history) will be rejected as a relic of ignorance and bigotry.

Yet the current changes counted as victories for gay marriage are not happening because the people want it this way, but by judicial coercion; not by democracy but by oligarchy.

A number of years ago, I suggested that legalization of gay marriage as a civil right will open a legal Pandora’s box throughout the nation. When I said this at a University open forum, a visiting law professor rejected my assertion. She was then countered by a highly recognized lawyer in the audience who listed cases currently in the courts that validated my concerns.

I recently stated that it would be more politically and legally amendable and create less social unrest if the gay community said, “All we want is marriage and the benefits that come with it. We are not asking for civil rights status as a minority group along the lines of racial identity. We are not asking for businesses and Churches to be forced to affirm gay marriage. We are not asking for curriculum changes at the schools to include gay marriage and families.”

Instead of this approach, we’re seeing growing numbers of lawsuits aimed at those who hold religious convictions against gay marriage. Religious freedoms of Americans are clearly being threatened over gay marriage.

Gay activists are determined to force the public to bow to the sexual preferences of a very small percentage of our population. If they are successful, people will not be permitted to teach the historical view of our nation and the view Jesus taught that marriage is a gift from God for male and female (Matthew 19:4-6). If you hold to this view, you’ll be forced into public silence or threatened with the accusation of discrimination under federal law.

We must remind ourselves of the explicit and deceptive strategy that has been used to change public opinion. Beyond media efforts to normalize the homosexual lifestyle, the public has been subjected to an endless manipulation of words and ideas to promote the sexual lifestyle of those who prefer same gender sex.

The seven points in the link below survey the distortions of truth used to change the way the public thinks about sexuality and marriage. My purpose in exposing the agenda is not to force my beliefs on others or to suggest that I am more righteous. We simply must recognize the manipulation and deception for the sake of discernment and rational dialogue.

See: The strategy has seven key tactics 

Steve Cornell

A disturbing pattern exposed

Did the governor of New York actually say that pro-life people have no place in the state of New York? Does he think he can speak for all New Yorkers?

During a radio interview, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo spoke about a schism among Republicans, saying, “Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right to life, pro-assault weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.’’

Was Cuomo referring mainly to politicians he labels as “extreme conservatives’’? Probably. But by claiming “that’s not who New Yorkers are,’’ Cuomo went too far. He arrogantly alienated a lot of New Yorkers who don’t see things his way.

Yet, as much as I disapprove of the governor’s arrogance, I am not surprised by it. This is the spirit that is starting to dominate the Democratic Party. It’s an insistence on only one way to think about a growing number of issues if you want to be accepted in the party.

There must be unquestioned support for abortion (disguised as women’s rights or health), full endorsement of gay marriage (disguised as civil rights with manipulative accusations of bigotry and discrimination toward those who disagree) and devotion to big government (disguised as income equality and compassion for the poor). These are litmus tests for the party faithful.

Even more disruptive to civility and tolerance is the condescending ridicule aimed at people who see things differently. Watch a discussion on something like CNN’s “Crossfire’’ and you’ll see the snarky smirks and hear the belittling tones. Who wants to be identified with this attitude of intolerance? I don’t like it among conservatives or liberals.

According to Cuomo, there’s no safe zone for Democrats if they oppose abortion, defend the 14th Amendment or disagree with homosexual marriage. Evidently, he also believes that there’s no place for them in New York if they want to be true New Yorkers. I couldn’t make this stuff up!

Cuomo was just parroting a media effort of more radical liberals to convince people that they belong to a crazy fringe if they see things differently. “It’s the way the whole nation is going,’’ we’re told. But this is an empty hope that saying something often enough will make it real.  

Although abortion on demand is a provision of federal law, for example, it’s not because the people had any say about it. The courts acted without the consent of the governed. It wasn’t democracy at work. The same is true of gay marriage. Do you think gay marriage is legal in a growing number of states because the democratic process led to it? Think again. In state after state, the courts thumbed their judicial noses at the public and forced their view of sexuality on entire states. Are we an oligarchy or a democracy? Is this what representation was meant to be?

And all of this has been done under a contrived sense of evolutionary progress. By changing terms from “baby’’ to “fetus’’ and from “sexual preference’’ to “sexual orientation,’’ people give themselves a delusional sense that they are progressive. There is no scientific evidence for denying that a fetus is a human life with the potential of becoming a mature human being. We might try to assure ourselves that we’re only terminating a pregnancy, but abortion terminates a human life in its early stages.

As for homosexuality, if you want a same-sex relationship as consenting adults, you’re free to have one in every state of the nation. But to ask the whole country to equate the kind of sex you desire with unalterable realities like race and gender not only removes sexuality from moral categories, it offends people who are turning away from the lifestyle and it lacks scientific evidence.

If the state offered gay couples benefits and privileges that come with legal marriage, it should not be done as a civil right for a special class of citizens. This is the wrong category, and using it would inevitably violate the religious and individual freedoms of those who disagree with homosexual behavior. If the state equates homosexuality with race, people will be obligated to honor it under threat of civil law.

Manipulating the category of civil rights like this will only cause deeper alienation between gays and society. Is this what we want? There must be a way we can rise above the divisive arrogance expressed by Andrew Cuomo, because our current approach is deeply dividing the nation.

Steven W. Cornell, senior pastor at Millersville Bible Church and a correspondent for Lancaster Newspapers Inc. 

Sexual preference or Sexual orientation?


Watch closely when words change because controlling the vocabulary is essential to controlling people.

Homosexuals once used the words “sexual preference” to talk about their choice. But the term “preference” was later rejected and replaced with “orientation” to facilitate a shift to normalize homosexual lifestyles in America.

Homosexuals also use to say, “All we want is to be left alone to live the way we desire.” This was partly due to ways that gays were wrongly mistreated for choosing different sexual lifestyles. All decent citizens should oppose mistreatment and violence against others. Since same sex behavior between consenting adults is legal in every state, those who target gays for abuse or violence should expect to be punished for criminal behavior. 

But somewhere along the way, the effort moved from seeking protection to demanding normalization. A strategic change of terms from preference to orientation came as part of that move.  And the change has been largely based on an effort to promote the misleading and manipulative argument that equates race and gender with the kind of sex people want.

The change had noting to do with the emergence of any new scientific evidence but was solely based on a strategy to lead society to embrace the necessity and normalization of same-sex lifestyles. 

The entire agenda of gay marriage depends upon the comparison of same-sex behavior as an unalterable and necessary condition of a person’s nature equal with race and gender. The comparison, however, is false and manipulative. Ironically, this agenda has turned into a weapon to bully, intimidate and abuse anyone who dares to think or speak differently. Are homosexuals using the same behaviors toward others that were wrongly brought against them? 

As a matter of clarification, it should be understood that while a person can be born with many inclinations or desires — even a variety of sexual ones, it is foolish to elevate each person’s sexual desires to something intrinsically necessary to their nature.

While we can clearly argue that heterosexual behavior is necessary to the survival of humanity, this does not mean that we should validate all heterosexual choices as necessary and acceptable by claiming it to be part of one’s nature. Sexuality is inseparable from behavior — not a condition of birth like race or gender.

As with all sexuality, we should speak of homosexuality in a context of human choosing — not as a civil right. Two men could be caring friends with a deep affection for each other without being homosexual. Homosexuality is not part of their relationship unless they choose to engage in same-sex acts with one another.  

What do we say to the many people who have left a homosexual lifestyle on moral grounds? What do we say to people who willingly try to resist homosexual lust out of obedience to God? 

Even if I could prove that I was born genetically conditioned to be sexually attracted to women, it wouldn’t mean that acting on the attraction would always be the ethically right decision.

Sexuality is necessarily connected with volition. As long as we make laws that regulate sexual behaviors, we are implying that sexuality is not the same as race or gender (no matter how much one claims that the laws step on his rights by refusing him equality). 

Consider, as an example, an adulterous woman who complains that her act of adultery (i.e. her wrongful heterosexual behavior) was because of her distant and uncaring husband. Sympathy toward her for being in a troubled marriage is understandable but it doesn’t mean that her act of adultery was the morally right choice.

All law making involves impositions of morality to varying degrees — especially if someone can claim that the law excludes him or discriminates against him. Most laws also have religious connections. What do we mean when we talk about equality for all? The very nature of lawmaking easily conflicts with absolute options of equality.

Deceitful word games are not new. They’ve been used in similar ways when “fetus” was substituted for “baby” to push a pro-abortion agenda. The plan has been to use the terms often enough to change the way people think. Yet neither change (for same-sex preference or for abortion) was based on scientific evidence that required different terms. The changes are based on specific agendas to re-engineer culture around the morality of those using the new terms.

I realize that America is a free society where people are free to do this. But it doesn’t mean that everyone else must accept the deception and the agenda. This is where it gets ugly because a militant wave of hate has been directed from radical homosexuals toward anyone who dares to see things differently about same-sex behavior.

The more widely the false comparison is accepted, the more people fear being accused of racial or gender discrimination. Who wants to be label a bigot or a racist or a homophobe? 

Radical homosexuals are free to sell their agenda but when they get ugly, Americans need to stand up and say, “Enough is enough!” “We don’t buy the false comparison and we won’t let you use it to bully others with your sexual lifestyles any more than we would let Phil Robertson move from his beliefs to hateful treatment of homosexuals.”

So what’s the difference between Phil Robertson (from Duck Dynasty) and gay activists? True tolerance. 

Phil stated his beliefs but didn’t demand nationwide conformity to them. Gay activists state their beliefs and demand nationwide conformity. And then they quickly demonize anyone who disagrees — repeatedly accusing good people of being racists bigots for holding a different viewpoint. 

If homosexuals want a radical revision of historic marriage laws from the standard used for most of human history, American history and the only one validated by Jesus (Matthew 19), they should expect to have to make a very strong case and to hear why others disagree or do not accept their case. This is just the way it works. It’s not about discrimination, bias or intolerance. These accusations must be firmly rejected as tools of manipulation to coerce and silence others. 

Steve Cornell

See also:

Big difference between Phil Robertson and Gay Activists

simple-300x388-1What’s the difference between Phil Robertson (Duck Dynasty) and gay activists? Tolerance.

Phil stated his beliefs but didn’t demand nationwide conformity to them. Gay activists state their beliefs and demand nationwide conformity. And then they quickly demonize anyone who disagrees — repeatedly accusing good people of being racists bigots for holding a different viewpoint.

How did we fall for this? Why do we allow it?


A seven point strategy has been used - 7 tactics for promoting gay marriage

Steve Cornell

Exposing two popular lies

“Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate” (Rick Warren).

It appears that the cultural leaders promoting these lies have been dealt a setback by the Duck Dynasty debate

This is partly because the lies have been built on a propaganda myth about the majority of Americans endorsing gay marriage. Proponents of this myth have used it to foster a sense of cultural superiority to oppress anyone who dares to take a different view. I’ve repeatedly exposed the myth as both false and intentionally manipulative. But more people need to know how the myth has been deceitfully promoted on a 7 point strategy to redefine sexuality and marriage.

While it’s true that more people today are accepting of gay marriage than a decade ago, many Americans just don’t care one way or another (until you step on their freedoms by forcing an agenda on them). It’s far more likely that a majority still support traditional marriage. Whatever opposition there is to gay marriage among the majority, it doesn’t mean that they hate people who choose a gay lifestyle.

Those who project hate on others are using the lies as tools of manipulation to demonize people and read evil into the slightest expressions of disagreement or public support of traditional marriage.

A civil people should not stand by silently in the face of such high level manipulation, false accusation and intolerance. 

The GLADD organization (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) has been in the forefront of the militant march against true tolerance and sensible, civilized conduct . 

“GLAAD has worked tirelessly to marginalize and suppress the free speech of Christian leaders, Christian businesses and conservative talk-radio hosts… The group’s mission is not about equality or defending against ‘defamation.’ It’s about silencing critics, making open debate radioactive, demonizing people of faith and making even the slightest perceived slight a hate crime.” (Michelle Malkin).

It appears that one of the lessons of the Duck controversy is that far more people are now willing to draw a line against the elitist cultural effort to manipulate and impugn well-intentioned people for simply saying what they believe. This controversy has rattled the media machine by exposing the myth about the majority standing against people like Phil Robertson for daring to quote a Bible verse that doesn’t support a homosexual lifestyle.

Do I expect change? Sadly, it appears that change will only occur if it involves a loss of money (see: The Cracker Barrel story).

Perhaps, however, the whole issue can lead us to restore reason and sanity to society by exposing the two lies articulated above. Then we’ll likely get along with each other in a more civilized way despite our differences. In other words, we’ll practice the true virtue of tolerance.

Steve Cornell

Consider also:

Duck controversy?

Notice the slight play on words in my title?

Phil Robertson, patriarch and star of Duck Dynasty is not one to “duck controversy” when it comes to his Christian beliefs.

Of course, as the story unfolds, we discover how he can say whatever he wants in an interview as long as he doesn’t cross the sacred line by talking negatively about those who prefer homosexual sex. This is what got him into some trouble with the A&E Network.

It’s not controversial that the network distanced themselves from Robertson’s personal views. Most people could accept their right to do that. A&E, however, went too far when they put Robertson on “indefinite suspension.” This amounts to an intrusive effort to control Robertson’s personal liberty and free speech in what he says on his own time. And let’s be honest, there is no way that Robertson’s views could have surprised the network.

This means that they don’t care if he holds his view as long as he doesn’t talk about it — at least not publicly. Like others on this issue, they’re saying, “Keep it to yourself or keep it in your Church!” There is no safe place for publicly disagreeing with a homosexual lifestyle.

If A&E made their decision based on concerns about loss of business, I expect we will see them back pedal in the near future. 

I agree with Al Mohler who said, “the controversy over Duck Dynasty sends a clear signal to anyone who has anything to risk in public life: Say nothing about the sinfulness of homosexual acts or risk sure and certain destruction by the revolutionaries of the new morality. You have been warned.”

I also agree with Russell Moore, “If the reports are true that the reality TV star’s suspension was due to his stated views on homosexuality then I hardly think silencing him can be called open-minded. In fact, it’s the sort of censorious cultural fundamentalism that is neither ‘progressive’ nor ‘pluralistic.’”

Listen, we should all be able to agree that the virtue of tolerance is necessary to protect civility in a diverse society. America is a nation of significant ethnic, religious, ideological and lifestyle diversity. Tolerance is not just “putting up with differences,” but truly respecting others despite differences.

Tolerance, as a virtue, shines most when people deeply disagree but treat each other with respect. Society suffers when people do not respect each other on lawfully permitted differences. Somewhere along the way, however, true tolerance was replaced with a counterfeit operating under the same name. The new version demands full agreement not respect. The results are eroding our freedoms. 

Tolerance has become a strategy of power to control people rather than a virtue to promote civility. 

On many issues the public largely feels like we are given a choice between agreeing with a set of politically approved ideas or being labeled intolerant, irrationally phobic or even a hateful bigot. 

I am not suggesting that it’s easy to protect unity in the kind of diversity we have in our country. But we simply can’t promote unity by forcing everyone to see things one way under a threat of being demonized for disagreeing. I believe most people have had enough of this distortion of tolerance.

  • Are you tired of being told what to think and say on certain issues?
  • Do you feel forced to pretend you agree on politically correct sensitivity issues?
  • Does tolerance feel more like a strategy to silence you than a virtue to free you?
  • Are you tired of the sensitivity police trying to control what people say? 

The practice of zero tolerance on narrowly defined sensitivity issues has resulted in a long list of absurd punishments — even of children in our schools. Hate laws are being used to enlist thought police to read motives where they do not exist. A growing number of people are being sued for following their long-held religious and moral convictions. 

I am grateful to live in a country that has largely moved past the days of racial and gender sectarianism. We must protect people from discrimination based on matters of nature beyond their ability to control or change. I am not suggesting that we are completely victorious in these areas, but, like most people, I am tired of those who refuse to celebrate our advances out of a desire to be seen as victims to whom society is in debt.

We need a wake-up call to what’s happening in our country. Forced agreement on debatable issues threatens true tolerance and violates freedom. The virtue of tolerance functions where there is disagreement but respect. Intolerance forces people to pretend they have no differences. 

Think about it.

Steve Cornell

Duck Dynasty Alert

Phil Robertson, star and patriarch of A&E reality show, Duck Dynasty, has been put on “indefinite suspension” by the Network. Why?  For sharing his personal views about homosexual behavior in an interview.

Among other comments, Robertson said, “Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong… Sin becomes fine. … Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

Robertson than quoted the scripture that says, “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.” (I Corinthians 6:9-10)

Robertson went on to say, “I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

The Network responded saying, “We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty,”

GLAAD rep Wilson Cruz responded to Robertson’s comments with the following statement:

“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. 

”Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”

This kind of inflammatory reaction actually encourages intolerance because it distorts what Robertson said and reads evil motives into his heart. It also demands that people take their  view of Christianity as the true view – even though Robertson quoted from the Bible itself.

This radical intolerance and violation of free speech has to stop.

Robertson didn’t say anything with malice or hate. Why isn’t he free to share his personal views? His direct and pointed style is a big part of what people like about him.

We cannot remain silent in the face of such radical intolerance toward anyone who dares to disagree with the sexual choices of homosexuals.

Enough is enough!

There is no safe zone for people to take a different view on homosexual sex. You are now required by the radical members of the gay community to take their view of sexuality. Evidently, you’re also required to accept their truncated view of Christianity.

How long will reasonable citizens allow this kind of intolerance and policing of speech from a small vocal group of radical gays? They don’t even represent the majority approach from the gay community.

We are being manipulated and coerced under fear of punishment for holding a different view of homosexual behavior. And people have been deceived into thinking that the kind of sex one prefers is equal to the ethnicity one is born with. This is an irrational and false comparison. When will the people say, “Enough is enough!”? When will we stand firmly against false accusations of hate and bigotry simply for disagreeing?

The people who are no longer free are those who choose to believe what most people throughout human history and what a majority of Americans still believe, that marriage is a relationship meant for male and female. Yet to openly say that you believe this is asking to be vilified and subject to verbal assault.

Who are we kidding? This non-sense has to stop!

Don’t misunderstand.

If we required treating all people with respect no matter their sexual preference, I would fully agree. And Robertson was unequivocally clear about his agreement with this. But this is not the what radical gays are demanding from all Americans.

The morality currently being imposed says that if you choose a different viewpoint on homosexual behavior, you’ll be treated as a social outcast and made the object of condescending ridicule or angry intolerance — you might even get fired from your job!

This is a strategy of social coercion to force everyone to approve the sexual preferences of a small number of people who want to engage same-sex behavior. We’re not being asked to tolerate but being forced to approve and celebrate homosexual preferences. In many places, you’re simply not permitted to have a different viewpoint.

This irrational insanity must end.

Is this the kind of tolerance we want for our Country? Why can’t we have mutual respect without coercion and control?

One of the greatest needs of this nation is promotion and modeling of the virtues of respect, honor and neighbor love. These qualities support the true virtue of tolerance. They’re also the qualities Robertson and his family teach and model.

Steve Cornell

See: Restore True Tolerance to America

4 links worth seeing (and an extra)

The Stem and the Flower by David Brooks

“So one’s attitude toward politics should be a passionate devotion to a mundane and limited thing. Government is essential, but, to switch metaphors ridiculously, it’s the stem of the flower, not the bloom. The best government is boring, gradual and orderly. It’s steady reform, not exciting transformation. It’s keeping the peace and promoting justice and creating a background setting for mobility, but it doesn’t deliver meaning.”

The true culture war aggressors by Jonah Goldberg

“Maybe someone can explain to me how, exactly, conservatives are aggressors in the culture war?” Goldberg decisively demonstrates that they are not.

9 Lies the Media Likes to Tell About Evangelical Christians

“I realize that, “the media” is not a monolith. So I’m using the word generally here. However, I keep seeing the following narrative played out in scores of interviews, commentaries, and pundit discussions across the TV news networks, magazines, and the Internet.

So while there are certainly exceptions, I’ve identified nine common lies perpetuated by people in the media. Granted, there are enough vocal evangelicals to bolster each of these stereotypes, so the media isn’t completely responsible. But nuance is necessary here. Thus this post.”

Pearl Harbor survivor James Downing, 100, shares story of that fateful day

Pearl Harbor survivor James Downing, 100, shares story of that fateful day

The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, December 7, 1941. 

A great interview with the late Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones (Take time to listen)