The Forbidden Topic

Among most Christian nonprofit organizations (such as Warrior of Faith) there is one topic that is taboo – politics. 

There are two good reasons for this, the primary one being one of law and regulation. While there is some debate whether the Johnson Amendment is unconstitutional or not, the fact is that it is currently the law of the land. In short, in order to retain tax-exempt status, the organization may not engage in endorsement of political candidates. Many organizations, although this is not stated in the law, extend that to silence on ANY political issue.  This is mostly due to either a misunderstanding of the law, or the second reason.

This second reason is a desire to be able to minister to the widest demographic possible. Simply put, any political stand will automatically alienate a significant number of those a ministry is trying to reach.

However, I believe that the time has come for us as serious disciples of Christ to take a firm stand in the political arena. But before I elaborate, I need to make something crystal clear:


Having said that, be aware that the rest of this article is the opinion of Curly, and is NOT to be understood to be that of WoF as an organization. I post this out of concern for the future of God’s people in the USA, and not as a spokesman for Warrior of Faith. I speak for myself alone.

So let’s get started. The first thing to keep in mind when thinking about politics is that for the Christian, politics really isn’t primarily about politics!  My topic for this article is politics, so I won’t be talking about Church, Family, or other considerations except as how they relate to the topic at hand. Our priorities when it comes to political issues is that our loyalties and focus MUST be in this order:


While God’s people are consistently throughout Scripture instructed to be good and loyal citizens of their country, we are also consistently reminded that our first loyalty ALWAYS must be to our Creator and Savior. Any politician or political party that as a basic principle of their platform is in direct, willing violation or encourages their constituents to violate this non-negotiable tenant of life must be opposed. While it is rare to find a politician that does not stray into ethical grey (or even black) areas, if their fundamental political goals oppose or hamper the ability of God’s people to live as He intends, then for an informed Christian to vote for that individual or party is to willingly oppose God. 

After God, COUNTRY:

As stated above, it is our duty as Christians as well as citizens to be good, law-abiding citizens of our country. However, it goes well beyond that; to properly represent Christ we must also actively seek to uphold the laws and norms that support the security and well-being of our country and citizens. 

We live in a country that is a Democratic Republic. In short, we as legal citizens vote for politicians to represent us, and those politicians (at least on a Federal level) enact and enforce laws that they deem best represents their constituents and the country as a whole. On the state level, we often have the opportunity to vote on individual legislation as well. At least, that’s how it is supposed to work. 

There are Constitutional safeguards against government overreach (as well as the ballot box) to repeal, replace, or nullify laws which we feel violate our rights or which are unacceptable for other reasons, but unless those laws force us to directly disobey God’s revealed directives we are obligated to obey those laws until they are changed, or (rarely) disobey as a an action to obtain ‘standing’ to challenge that law in court.


Keep in mind that God’s priorities and commands for church, family, and community MUST inform and drive your decision of party affiliation. While NO political party in the US can be considered “Christian”, there are parties that uphold Christian values more than not, and some that are blatantly anti-Christian.

Thankfully, I live in a state that allows me to register and an Independent, and I have chosen not to align myself with any particular party. While it makes informed voting much more difficult than for someone who votes a straight party line, I find that in many cases there have been Democrat, Libertarian, Republican, and Tea Party candidates that were more qualified and aligned with Christian values than those running for that position from other parties.

At least until now. This last year, one of the major political parties has gone so far opposed to not only Christianity and national security but the rule of law that for the first time ever, I feel compelled to speak out against ANY candidate from that party simply because for anyone to represent that party they must effectively reject Christ. Strong words, I know, but consider the evidence.

-) Not only has the Democratic party adopted “reproductive rights” – a euphemism for abortion at any time for any reason – but by repeatedly voting en masse in Congress AGAINST legislation to ensure that every infant born alive be given life-saving medical attention has embraced both pre-born and newborn infanticide as a core party value.

To be clear – the Democratic party stands for not only the murder of unborn babies, but the murder of unwanted LIVE babies as well. Make no mistake. Murder is commonly defined as the deliberate ending of an innocent human life. Abortion and the killing of unwanted newborn babies is murder, and the Democratic party supports such murder. This is indefensible.

-) The United States is unique in that it has from the founding of the country had remarkably lax immigration restrictions, especially compared to socialistic, communistic, and totalitarian states. However, as any country that cares about the safety and security of citizens and legally admitted aliens (foreign citizens) there are laws against harboring and aiding those who enter the country illegally.

It is historical (and contemporary – look at the violent mess in much of Europe) fact that any country that fails to significantly secure its’ borders from illegal encroachment will eventually be either economically bankrupt, overpowered by hostile forces, or descend into chaos from sheer numbers.

It has become the official stand of the Democratic Party that there should be no restrictions on who enters our country, regardless of whether they are simply looking for a peaceful life for their families, terrorist operatives, drug runners, or violent criminals. Couple this with the party’s consistent efforts to largely dismantle our military as well as disarm the civilian population and it is hard to argue that the Democratic party has any real regard for the safety and security of the country.

-) The Democratic Party has, especially in the last year, shown a callous and blatant disregard for the rule of law whenever their agenda is opposed. Elected Democratic congresspeople have not only publicly called for support for but encouraged violent actions taken by two gangster groups : Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA. Note that I’m making no comment on their political aims; I’m calling attention to the fact that rather than work to change laws and policies they oppose by legal, peaceful means they choose to riot and loot – and the Democrats who encourage them are not sanctioned by their party, but applauded for it!

-) Finally, the policies and methods used by the Democratic Party are increasingly that of what they prefer to call “Democratic Socialism”. These methods and policies are almost indistinguishable from those of the National Socialist Party of Germany in the mid 20th century, the U.S.S.R., and many other totalitarian states. Sadly, the historically inevitable outcome of any political system based on the forced redistribution of wealth is that of a totalitarian state that is diametrically opposed to any religion that does not make itself subservient to the State, and to Christianity in particular. This is readily apparent in the rhetoric and legislation proposed by Democratic lawmakers; by their own admission, it is their position that any religious expression that actually points out sin and the need of a Savior must ALWAYS be silent when opposing the leftist gods of ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’. This is even taken to the extreme that many elected Democratic Congresspersons contend that adherence to Christianity should make candidates ineligible to serve as a Federal Judge!

To sum up, for these reasons, it is my belief that to support any candidate that identifies as a Democrat is to support the Christless, Godless ideology that is a grave danger not only to the security of the United States but the rule of law and will ultimately lead to not only the descent of our society into chaos, but a system of state-sponsored persecution as well.

Something to think and pray about.


There are WAY too many news articles, relevant quotes, and historical articles to link to, so rather than including a link list that would be longer than the post itself I encourage you to use Duckduckgo, Bing, Dogpile, or even Google to do a search on a variety of topics mentioned. Here’s a short list of topics to get you started:

The Johnson amendment


ANTIFA violence

Black Lives Matter violence

German National Socialist Party

US illegal immigrant crime rate

Democratic party and religion

United States Electoral College

Elected officials and infanticide

LGBT Responses pt. 2

In the last post, I promised to give a few brief answers to the most common objections I hear to the Biblical worldview concerning the LGBT lifestyle. Here they are:

-) Homosexuality is not a sin.
I expect this one from non-Christians; when you deny God’s right to define sin then anything is acceptable as long as you want it to be. What surprises me is when someone who professes to be a disciple of Christ asserts this.
The Bible is very clear, as is Jesus Himself. I explained that in my first post on this subject, but it bears repeating. Both in the Old and New Testaments, homosexual activity is presented as a sin.

Some relevant passages are: Matthew 19:3-5 (discussed in an earlier post here), Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:24-27, 1 Timothy 1:10

-) Homosexuality is not a choice, therefore it cannot be wrong.
This is a not very subtle variation of the “it isn’t a sin” argument, and is far from the ‘fact’ it is usually presented to be. While there are studies cited that indicate that there may be a genetic propensity for homosexuality (cited in the link list below), not only do the most recent concur that the influence is marginal at best, there are no less than eight studies of identical twins that disprove even this theory (also linked below). Continue reading

A Christlike Response to Those Who Support the LGBT Lifestyle

(Note: instead of citing Scripture throughout this article as usual, I will list relevant passages at the end)

The comment I hear quite often about Christians is that we are bigoted/intorlerant/hateful just because we refuse to condone and enable a lifestyle that we disagree with.

Granted, there are a few “Christian” groups and quite a disturbingly large number of people who claim to be Christian that oppose the LGBT supporters and practictioners in ways and with words that are hateful or demeaning in tone. Some of that is in response to the hateful, derogatory, and malicious rhetoric that constantly flows from the LGBT activist community, some out of personal animosity – but all wrong and unChristlike.

The other extreme of Christian response is to either remain silent (and by doing so giving tacit approval) or to actively approve the lifestyle. This approach is often taken out of fear of reprisal or public disapproval, sometimes out of a belief that the LGBT stand is appropriate – but this response is equally wrong, and equally (perhaps even more) unChristlike.

Unfortunately, the constant LGBT rants and name-calling, setting up straw men to knock down, and focusing on the extreme opponents that descend to their methods of public discourse is quite effective in drowning out those of us who attempt to share Christ’s view of this matter in a gentle but firm way.

I’ve noticed that there is a basic reluctance on both sides of the fence to try and really understand the worldview and perspective of the other side. I expect that from the LGBT support side; I find it disturbing from the Christian side. How can we hope to have any kind of an impact, or expect the other side to even consider our view if we refuse to listen to them?

So, here’s a short summary of what I understand both sides to believe. Keep in mind that these are general statements. Continue reading

The Reality of Evil Shows the Existence of God

The single most prevalent objection to Christianity I hear from atheists as well as those from the pagan ‘roll your own religion’ community is the objection based on the presence of evil. It is usually stated like this:

“ If there is an all-powerful, all-knowing and good God, then he would not only be able but willing to prevent evil. But there is evil, therefore God doesn’t exist.”

The dictionary definitions of evil can be summarized by this: “Evil is anything that is morally wrong, or is a cause or source of suffering or destruction.”

In other words, evil is the absence of good, and the degree to which something is evil is directly related to the degree to which it reduces that which is good. For example, calling someone ugly is usually considered mildly bad (or evil), but torturing a child to death just for ‘the fun of it’ is the epitome of evil – or at least close to it. Continue reading

Signpost – Moral Law, pt. 2

Last week, we established that there is absolute moral truth; this week we will propose the necessity of an absolute moral truth giver.

Without a transcendent source, moral truth cannot be anything other than subjective, and changeable. Since there are moral absolutes, there must be a source, and that source must be good, powerful and a person. In short, God.

=) The source of moral law must be powerful enough to enforce that law. The only being both good enough and powerful enough to do so must transcend both time and space in order to enforce a law effective for all people at all times.

=) The source of moral law must be good. Since it has been determined that moral law by definition is good, the source of that law must also be good. Because that source must be a person, it must be God. God is by definition good, so any being that is not good is not God.

=) God must be a person, as moral laws, like civil or criminal laws, can only be enforced by persons. Continue reading

Signpost Series – Moral Law

I’ve recently been asked to give a blueprint for how to present the Gospel to atheists, sort of a ‘Four Spiritual Laws’ or ‘Way of the Master’ approach to those who don’t even believe God exists, much less that the Bible is authoritative.

It isn’t that easy. The atheists that I know are a very diverse group in that they present a wide variety of objections to the existence of God. While most of the time, these objections are little more than a way to avoid dealing with the underlying emotional reasons for their stand, their stated reasons must be shown false before any meaningful look at the Scripture can take place.

So, instead of a blueprint, let’s take a ‘roadmap’ approach. The beginning point is atheism, and the endpoint is discipleship. While the goal is fixed, there can be a variety of roads to get there. I’ve decided to post an article each week detailing one of the major signposts on the map. I call it the Signpost series. Continue reading