Posted in Announcements, Books

Mac Deaver’s New Book Now Available from Biblical Notes Publications

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

photoPublished July 2013 in hardcover by Biblical Notes Publications, Except One Be Born From Above has 317 pages, including sixteen chapters and three appendices. Copies can be purchased for $14.00 plus $3.75 S&H ($17.75 total). Please send your order, with payment (personal checks accepted, made out to Mac Deaver) to:

Mac Deaver

P.O. Box 327

Sheffield, TX 79781

Perhaps the best way to introduce the book is to include excerpts from the preface (below). If some of the questions it raises pique your interest (and they should), then you might well enjoy this fascinating study. Having read several times through the manuscript prior to publication, I’ve found it simultaneously simple, challenging, faith-building, and significantly helpful in understanding and appreciating the crucial concept of “new birth” as taught by Jesus. In point of fact, the word “groundbreaking” comes to mind — not in the sense of its being new, but, rather, by way of its clearing aside a few baseless assumptions, making it possible to see better what the New Testament has been saying all along.

Back in 1864, J. W. McGarvey wrote, “I have for some years been convinced that the immersion in the Holy Spirit is not fully understood, and that it needs investigation and discussion de novo. The same may be said of the entire subject of the Holy Spirit and his work in human salvation.” The church has grappled with the topic a long time. Many of prominence have helped us down unhelpful paths that darkened understanding we might otherwise have had, if some unbiblical assumptions had not been drummed into our thinking. Please get the book, read it, understand what it is saying, and, if you are inclined, pass it on to others.   –Weylan Deaver

Excerpts from the Preface of Except One Be Born From Above

by Mac Deaver

Have you ever wondered why it is that some of us have claimed for years that there are certain “measures” of the Holy Spirit when, in fact, the Bible says that there are none? Have you ever heard anyone ever really conclusively prove that Holy Spirit baptism was an exclusively first century phenomenon? Why is it that the cases of kingdom entry in the book of Acts are usually all called cases of conversion, when in some of the cases, conversion does not take place on the same day that kingdom entry does? Why wasn’t Cornelius told to repent of his sins? How is it that he could be baptized in the Holy Spirit before he was baptized in water? And if his baptism in Spirit was to prove that it was time for the Gentiles to enter the kingdom, then why didn’t we conclude that when it was time for the Samaritans to enter the kingdom that their reception of the Holy Spirit was a baptism in the Spirit as well? And what do human hands have to do, if anything, with the reception of the Holy Spirit?

When did the apostles actually enter the kingdom? And when did they repent of their sins? Did they repent of their sins on the same day that they entered the kingdom? Why was Jesus baptized in water? …And why is it that most members of the church have assumed that in Matthew 28:18-20 (when Jesus was giving what we call the “great commission”) even though he was speaking to the apostles only, we somehow reached the conclusion that we are included, but in Acts 1:5 (in the same context) when he was promising Holy Spirit baptism as he was speaking to the apostles only, that we are somehow excluded? What is wrong with such analysis?

And just what was lacking anyway to prevent the kingdom from being established prior to Pentecost of Acts 2? How could Apollos be a member of the church and yet not know that the Holy Spirit had come? When did the apostle Paul receive Holy Spirit baptism? And why is it that for years and years many of us have simply assumed that Holy Spirit baptism is miraculous in its nature without ever seeing any conclusive proof (logical argument) that such is so? How is it that members of the churches of Christ, generally speaking, reached the conclusion that Holy Spirit baptism is not applicable today? …Is it possible that we have failed to recognize a key distinction between baptism in Spirit and power from Spirit while at the same time we elevated the use of apostolic “hands” in Scripture to a position or status that they never had?

And how does every case of kingdom entry in the book of Acts “square” with the words of Jesus in John 3:5? Have you carefully considered the historical transition that was taking place in the book of Acts which transition lasted for about thirty years and which was an exclusively first century phenomenon? And have you ever thought about the precision of the words of Jesus to Nicodemus and what he left out that we, on occasion, have assumed that he meant? Is there any justification in the same context for taking water to mean real water, and flesh to mean real flesh only to conclude that Spirit in the very same passage has to be something other than Spirit and cannot possibly be the Holy Spirit himself?

If you have ever been puzzled by some of the questions here posed, you may want to explore the contents of this book. In this volume, Except One Be Born From Above, such questions will be answered and greater clarity thrown on the book of Acts because of the angle from which it is and should be viewed. It is amazing how many passages we in the past have unintentionally distorted in order to make them harmonize with our incorrect view on Holy Spirit baptism. But once the correction is made, it is absolutely astonishing as to how many more passages can be left alone to simply convey the meaning originally intended.

This is not a book that calls in question the absolute necessity of water baptism, for water baptism has actually been conclusively proven by sound argument in public discussion to be essential to the forgiveness of a sinner’s past sins. I have debated this issue myself, and I am thoroughly convinced of the essentiality of water baptism in order for a sinner to become a saint. The revisiting of the water baptism topic can only reconfirm the truth that we have for years rightly upheld. Churches of Christ have historically advocated and defended the essentiality of water baptism (immersion) throughout our history in preaching, teaching, writing, and debating. However, we have failed to see the nature of Holy Spirit baptism and the full meaning of the one birth of water and Spirit.

It has taken us a while to see the conceptual connection between the various aspects of Holy Spirit doctrine. But from the study in which we have been for a long time engaged on the Holy Spirit, we see now more clearly than ever how passages on the Holy Spirit fit together so harmoniously. And we see the connection between the various cases of “conversion” that we read about in the book of Acts. We have in the past had to unintentionally “torture” certain texts to make them teach what they never said. We did not do this on purpose nor with malice. But because we had the wrong idea as to the nature and purpose of Holy Spirit baptism, we wound up “rewriting” Scripture.

When we get the doctrine of Holy Spirit baptism correct, we can then see clearly (1) the fact of the personal indwelling, (2) the fact of internal Spirit help, and (3) the complete rather than partial nature of the new birth, and even (4) a connection between the nature of the Christian and his prospects in the coming resurrection! So many wondrous truths come together when we reinvestigate the meaning of the Lord’s precious words to Nicodemus: “…Except one be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God…Except one be born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:3, 5).

If the reader can make a valiant effort to put aside preconceived notions and personal prejudices that may have been entrenched in his heart for years and years regarding the topic of Holy Spirit baptism, and if he will demand of me that the conclusions I present are supported by conclusive proof, he has my sincere appreciation. It took a while for others to get me to revisit the topic. I did not want to have to give serious attention to a topic that I was convinced had been long ago understood by most of our brethren. But I was so wrong in thinking that most of us had understood it and that I, therefore, did not need to give more attention to it. I can appreciate the reluctance that some now have in not giving the topic the attention that I am convinced that it certainly deserves.

We will never see the coherence between all the passages on the Holy Spirit that discuss his relationship to Christians unless and until we get our minds correctly settled on the topic of Holy Spirit baptism. It is that fundamental and crucial. Once we understand what Jesus really said in John 3 to Nicodemus, we can then understand the progression of the history in Acts and finally see how all of the cases of kingdom entry as recorded by Luke fit together without a single exception. There are no cases of exception to the requirements of kingdom entry in the book of Acts!

It is my hope that you have a most enjoyable “trip” through this book, and I desire that your intellectual and spiritual journey be most profitable. May God bless your efforts as you restudy this topic and think seriously about what Jesus meant when he said, “Except one be born anew (ASV footnote: from above), he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Mac Deaver

Sheffield, Texas

Posted in Christianity and Culture

If You Give a Fool a Favor

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

How often does it make headlines that an atheist group is upset that prayers are being said somewhere, or that some religious symbol is in the public, or that something is said or written that makes unbelief feel the least bit unwelcome? It does seem that adamant atheists think that Bible-believers’ main duty in America is to make sure atheists are not made uncomfortable in any way by their presence. The best expression of Christianity is one that is neither seen nor heard by any potentially offended unbeliever. A recent grievance from the godless is chronicled by Fox News contributor Todd Starnes in a July 24, 2013 online article, “Chaplain Ordered to Remove Religious Essay From Military Website.” Evidently, it is no longer a given that chaplains can do the very things that make them chaplains, lest some atheist see and feel discrimination (which has become one of the longest four-letter words in English). The Air Force chaplain’s column dealt with the origin of the phrase, “no atheists in foxholes.” Naturally, an atheist group complained. The Air Force capitulated and, within hours, the essay was removed. In the ongoing offensive to eliminate what offends, we rarely step back to analyze the scenario’s illogic. If the atheist is right about God’s non-existence, then nothing in the universe has intrinsic value, including his own feelings and mental comfort. Therefore, if the atheist is right, why should anyone care what he approves, since his views are just as meaningless as anyone else’s? In other words, if the atheist is right about atheism, then he is implying the rest of us have no obligation to listen to him about anything. Atheism implies its own worthlessness. Let that sink in. It has always been that “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 14:1). What does it say of our military, or society that we craft any custom or policy based on the complaints of fools?

Posted in Doctrine

Pope Tweets and Purgatory

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

Twitter is a very popular social media site where millions of people post short messages, called “tweets,” consisting of 140 or fewer characters. Twitter users include celebrities, politicians, athletes, academics, conservatives, liberals, government agencies, schools, businesses, etc. and cover any and every interest imaginable. Twitter users pick accounts they want to follow, which lets them keep up with their favorite tweets. Even Francis, the new Roman Catholic Pope, has a Twitter account. Yes, the Pope tweets.

Tom Kington has an article in The Guardian (July 16, 2013 http://www.guardian.co.uk) titled “Vatican offers ‘time off purgatory’ to followers of Pope Francis tweets.” Excerpts follow, in italics.

“In its latest attempt to keep up with the times the Vatican has married one of its oldest traditions to the world of social media by offering ‘indulgences’ to followers of Pope Francis’ tweets.

The church’s granted indulgences reduce the time Catholics believe they will have to spend in purgatory after they have confessed and been absolved of their sins.

The remissions got a bad name in the Middle Ages because unscrupulous churchmen sold them for large sums of money. But now indulgences are being applied to the 21st century.

But a senior Vatican official warned web-surfing Catholics that indulgences still required a dose of old-fashioned faith, and that paradise was not just a few mouse clicks away.

‘You can’t obtain indulgences like getting a coffee from a vending machine,’ Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli, head of the pontifical council for social communication, told the Italian daily Corriere della Sera.

Indulgences these days are granted to those who carry out certain tasks – such as climbing the Sacred Steps, in Rome (reportedly brought from Pontius Pilate’s house after Jesus scaled them before his crucifixion), a feat that earns believers seven years off purgatory.

But attendance at events such as the Catholic World Youth Day, in Rio de Janeiro, a week-long event starting on 22 July, can also win an indulgence.

Mindful of the faithful who cannot afford to fly to Brazil, the Vatican’s sacred apostolic penitentiary, a court which handles the forgiveness of sins, has also extended the privilege to those following the ‘rites and pious exercises’ of the event on television, radio and through social media.

‘That includes following Twitter,’ said a source at the penitentiary, referring to Pope Francis’ Twitter account, which has gathered seven million followers. ‘But you must be following the events live. It is not as if you can get an indulgence by chatting on the internet.’

In its decree, the penitentiary said that getting an indulgence would hinge on the beneficiary having previously confessed and being ‘truly penitent and contrite’.

Praying while following events in Rio online would need to be carried out with ‘requisite devotion’, it suggested.”

There are so many things to be said about this piece. Then again, it seems to fit perfectly in the category of, “no comment necessary.” Anyone who can read this story with straight face surely has little to no acquaintance with the Bible. It doesn’t matter how many qualifiers they try to add to pass it off as legitimate, like “you must be following the events live,” you must be “truly penitent,” and that paradise is “not just a few mouse clicks away,” such a bankrupt, unbiblical theory of salvation is simply past salvaging. Did the Apostle Paul ever talk about the church having a “court which handles the forgiveness of sins”? Did Jesus do any preaching about a “Pope”? Did the Apostle Peter write about “purgatory”? All those Catholic mainstays are just as absent from Scripture as is the concept of indulgences. When salvation is connected to a church court which offers sinners early release from an imaginary place if they follow the Pope’s tweets (but only in real time), then Catholicism has become a caricature.

Posted in Doctrine, Evangelism

Should evangelism include mention of the church?

Posted on by Randal

Should Christians preach Christ without mentioning the church? Not a few insist that we should. The church does not save, they say, and they are correct, in a very true, primary sense.

But neither does baptism save, in that same primary sense. Christ alone saves. Christ alone as sacrifice for sin is able to extend forgiveness to man and restore him to God’s presence. So perhaps we shouldn’t preach baptism, or faith, or any other subject except the facts of the crucifixion?

In another sense, however, the church does save. (Just as baptism does, too, 1 Pet. 3.21.) Through the church God’s salvation in Christ is made known. People are reached with the message through the church.

Paul praised one congregation by saying that “from you the message of the Lord has echoed forth” (1 Thes. 1.8 NET). To another he said they were “offering to [pagans] the message of life” (Php. 2.16 OEB). He told Timothy that “the church of the living God [is] the support and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3.15), meaning, in part, that the church is the carrier of the gospel truth.

Even the term “to save” is used in that secondary sense of being responsible for the salvation of others.

  • Jude tells us to “save others by snatching them out of the fire” (Jude 23).
  • James wants us to “know that the one who turns a sinner back from his wandering path will save that person’s soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins” (James 5.20). (This is the same word “to save” that James uses in 1.21 for the implanted word which saves our souls.)
  • Paul tells Timothy to persevere in the right life and teaching, “because by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you” (1 Tim. 4.16). (Again, this is the same word he uses in the letter earlier, in 1.15, to quote that trustworthy saying, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.”)
  • And the same Paul who said in 1 Corinthians 1.21 that ” God was pleased to save those who believe by the foolishness of preaching,” also declared his famous statement, “I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I may save some” (1 Cor. 9.22).

Christians save non-Christians. The church saves people. If that is true, if their presence in the world is essential to the salvation of sinners, why is the church never to be mentioned as a part of God’s eternal plan to redeem mankind? Strange, is it not? Continue reading “Should evangelism include mention of the church?” →

Posted in Christianity and Culture, LGBTQ

Then and Now

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

“While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian.” General George Washington gave those words to his army at Valley Forge on May 2, 1778. Modern sensibilities and prejudices (allegedly enlightened and tolerant) would disallow Gen. Washington from even thinking about saying that out loud. Were he alive today, the Founder of our Country would be supremely unelectable and condemned in the court of public opinion. On May 12, 1779 Gen. Washington told some Delaware Indians, “You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ.” With today’s political-correctness run amok, that statement would be deemed totally unacceptable on so many levels. In March of 1778 Gen. Washington had a soldier drummed out of the army, “never to return,” for “attempting to commit sodomy.” Our current Commander-in-Chief does not seem proud of America’s historic beliefs and achievements (made possible by a gracious God), but he does take pride in homosexuality and seeks its tireless promotion and forced acceptance–even designating June 2013 as “gay pride month.” The cultural divide is quickly opening into a chasm so wide it will not be closed without one side’s defeat. We can seek our country’s roots, grounded in principles taken directly from the Bible, or we can continue transforming into an increasingly godless, secular, immoral, confused people who proudly tolerate everything except the very beliefs that got America off the ground. The difference in then and now is a difference of day and night. We are reminded of the sobering words of Thomas Jefferson, “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever….”

Posted in Announcements, Books

Upcoming Book by Mac Deaver

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

We’re very pleased to announce the forthcoming book by Mac Deaver, Except One Be Born From Above, published by Biblical Notes Publications in the summer of 2013. It will contain sixteen chapters and over three hundred pages of intriguing material on the new birth, centering around Jesus’ statements to Nicodemus in John 3. Realizing traditionally held views are not correct by virtue of having been long adopted, this book examines current belief and practice in light of what the inspired text actually does and does not say. Thoughtful readers may find themselves challenged with nearly every turn of the page. Thoughtful critics should find their hands full in trying to undermine or refute the book’s vigorous case. The interest here is not to win an argument, but to understand and defend the gospel, around which all Christians should be united. Stay tuned for more details. At the printer now, the book will, hopefully, be ready to ship to readers as early as July.

Posted in Christianity and Culture, LGBTQ

Sin Pride Month

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

In case you haven’t heard, we Americans are supposed to be celebrating sin this month. At least, that’s what our President tells us. From his whitehouse.gov website comes a proclamation which reads, in part:

“NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2013 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists, and to celebrate the great diversity of the American people.”

Sin has come a long way, hasn’t it? There was a time when it troubled people. Remember when Abraham’s nephew, Lot (a resident of Sodom), was “greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked” (2 Peter 2:7)? Of course, Lot was distressed by wickedness because he was “righteous” (ibid.). Which explains why our President is not distressed at all about homosexuality. President Obama proudly endorses evil, doing whatever he can to force its acceptance by the rest of us. We refuse to follow him on such a misguided errand. In fact, here is another quote, but, instead of coming from a presidential desk, it comes from the throne in heaven:

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10, ESV).

Now, if it is right to single out a particular sin as an object of celebration (a concept which ought to be too absurd to mention), then why not add some more special months to the calendar, such as…

  • National Pride in Sexual Immorality Month
  • National Pride in Idol Worship Month
  • National Adultery Pride Month
  • National Thief Pride Month
  • National Drunk Pride Month

Not long ago there were laws on the books against sodomy (i.e. homosexuality). Today, we are supposed to prop up homosexuality at every opportunity, applaud it by governmental proclamation, and reserve hatred only for those who refuse to endorse it. If the President is serious about the need to, in his words, “eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists,” then my question to him is this: Why does your Oval Office harbor such prejudice against the Bible and those who believe it? When is the President going to become intolerant with a culture that increasingly is willing to kick Christianity in the teeth? Obama’s hypocrisy is as odious as it is obvious and, for all his championing of “great diversity,” he clearly has no respect and little tolerance for views differing from his own, such as those held by Christians who still understand the distinction between good and evil.

No, Mr. President, we take no “pride” in homosexuality in any of its perverse manifestations. Neither in this month, nor in any other will we respect your directive to do so. Moreover, we hold your proclamation in contempt, realizing the utter foolishness of taking “pride” in anything which the Lord condemns. We bow to no king but Jesus, and he has already made a proclamation that excels and supercedes yours in every way. But, as long as we’re talking about “pride,” Mr. President, we submit this truth to your consideration: “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18).

Posted in Christianity and Culture, Doctrine

“Whatever It Takes”

Posted on by lmkilpatrick1

By Marlin Kilpatrick

In a recent church bulletin, the elders of the Heritage church of Christ (Fort Worth, Texas) made a Special Announcement under the title of Whatever It Takes. The Heritage elders announced that, beginning in the fall 2013, Heritage’s evening services will include instrumental music. The Sunday morning services will remain a cappella. The late brother J. D. Tant, gospel preacher, was known for his saying, “Brethren, we are drifting.” If he were still living he would say, “Brethren, we have drifted.” Fellow Christians, the Lord’s church is in deep spiritual trouble.

In the announcement it was claimed, “…all the elders were in agreement that “scripture does not prohibit the use of instruments in our worship.” On many issues it is good that all the elders be in agreement, but on this issue it matters not one whit that the elders are in agreement. While the elders may be “in agreement,” they are in disagreement with the Lord and his word. In the avenue of worshiping God in song, the scriptures are very specific: only singing is authorized. The use of instrumental music in Christian worship introduces another kind of music, which the scriptures do not authorize. In public debate with denominational preachers, faithful gospel preachers have met this issue time and again, and not once have denominational preachers been able to falsify this claim. Brethren, are we going to just throw away what we know the scriptures teach and become just another denominational church among many?

In their Special Announcement, the elders claimed “that the addition of instrumental worship service would be beneficial to our quest to reach the lost.” Here is where their “Whatever it Takes” enters the picture. Supposedly, if it takes instrumental music in worship to reach the lost, then the use of instrumental music is what we should do. But, the use of that which is sinful in worship will not save the lost. Where is the benefit in filling the auditorium with lost souls, even if they do enjoy the music? The only power to save the lost is the gospel of Christ (Rom. 1:16), but to pervert the gospel by using instrumental music in worship is in direct violation of Paul’s words (cf. Gal. 1:6-9), and renders the gospel powerless.

In the aforementioned rationale, where does such “reasoning” stop. If we use instruments of music in addition to our singing, in an effort not to offend the lost, when it comes to the question of music, then what will we do when the lost object (most already do) to baptism for the remission of sins? What will we do when someone objects to immersion in water, and insists on being sprinkled, instead? On what scriptural basis could we refuse to turn the Lord’s Supper into a common meal and remember the Lord’s death on Saturday night, if we use the rationale used by Heritage’s elders? Brethren, we are opening the flood gates, and when we do the Lord will hold us accountable. Such action as that taken by Heritage’s elders is a rejection of the need for scriptural authority for all that we do (cf. Col. 3:17). Correctly ascertaining scriptural authority on this issue will settle the matter.

In their Special Announcement, the Heritage elders said, “…we have spent a great deal of time studying the issue and praying for God to reveal his will as to what we should do.” The spending of “a great deal of time studying the issue” is commendable, but praying “for God to reveal his will as to what we should do,” is a waste of time. God has already revealed his will, and it is his will which we should obey. If we do, we will sing praises to him without instruments of music (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). The New Testament is God’s final revelation to man. He will not reveal anything that is contradictory to his already revealed will. So waiting for God to reveal what we should do, when he has already revealed what he desires in worship, is useless.

Hopefully, the Heritage elders will see their mistake and repent. If this does not happen, it then becomes an issue of fellowship. We cannot fellowship error and please our Lord. Think about it.

Posted in Christianity and Culture, World Religions

Leftists and Islamists: Strange Bedfellows

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

The church of Christ and the gospel it seeks to uphold and defend are under attack from all directions. If we take seriously what the Bible teaches about Satan’s efforts, this should come as no surprise. If we realize that every Christian will be called on to suffer persecution of one brand or another (2 Tim. 3:12), we should be expecting it.

In point of fact, the “schemes of the devil” (Eph. 6:11) are so clever that we can even expect the unexpected. Have you ever been astonished at the palpable reluctance of the American media to criticize Islam? For example, on May 22 two Muslims plowed into a young British soldier in London in their car, then got out and attacked him with knives and a meat cleaver, nearly beheading the corpse. The murderous Muslims shouted “Allah Akbar” (Arabic for “God is great”) and recorded on camera a hateful speech before police arrived. In the recorded rant, one of the Muslims, hands covered in blood, said: “We swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone…You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don’t care about you…You think politicians are going to die? No, it’s going to be the average guy, like you, and your children.”

By now, American journalists and politicians should readily acknowledge the undeniable pattern emerging from a growing string of tragedies. In 2009 a Muslim soldier murdered thirteen and injured over thirty while shouting “Allahu Akhbar” at Ford Hood in Killeen, Texas. Yet, the Obama administration insists it was simply a case of workplace violence. On April 15, 2013 two bombs went off at the Boston Marathon, killing three and injuring 264, perpetrated by two foreign-born Muslim brothers. Yet, on May 23, 2013 President Obama boasted of his tenure, “There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure.” It seems we are doomed to the delusion that the religion of Islam is not an existential threat to American life.

Thus, to return to the late case of the murdered British soldier, consider how it was reported in America on the evening it happened (according to a newsbusters.org piece, “Networks’ Evening Shows Don’t Name Islam in London Terror Attack,” by Matthew Philbin). Brian Williams of NBC news said the killers vented “their message about religion and politics,” while NBC correspondent Michelle Kosinski remarked that one of the murderers “made a long political statement…”. Over at CBS, reporter Charlie D’Agata observed, “Witnesses said that the men shouted ‘god is great’ in Arabic during the attacks,” but there was no effort by CBS to emphasize or lay blame on Islam as a motive. At ABC news, Diane Sawyer said “officials in the United States and the United Kingdom are studying the meaning of this tape,” while ABC news reporter Lama Hasan said authorities were trying to learn “whether or not one of [the attackers] is of African origin with ties to terrorist groups.”

Even though one of the killers, moments after the murder, looked at a video camera and said, “We swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone,” (which is what the Koran demands), our naivety knows no bounds. Leftist Americans scratch their heads and wonder what could have motivated such a grisly attack. Though a picture emerges, each new attack is met with an unwillingness to connect the dots.

Islam represents everything an increasingly godless American culture claims to hate. Islam puts to death adulterers and homosexuals, where godless liberals celebrate a sexual free-for-all where anything goes, and perversion is placed on the pedestal of respect. Islam calls for women to be covered, while the irreligious celebrate nakedness (in print, on film, in public). Islam opposes the consumption of alcohol, while America consumes it in volume. Islam opposes pornography while the Left supports it. Islam calls for everyone to submit to Allah, while godless liberalism refuses to submit to any lawgiving deity. Islam calls for a world ruled by Islam, whereas cultural leftists decry any organized religion. Islam says the Koran is ultimate law, but Leftists seem to recognize their own lusts as ultimate law, and the U.S. Constitution is respected by neither as the country’s highest authority. If truth be told, America’s constitutional republic and an Islamic society are definitionally incompatible. But there is none so blind as he who will not see.

Disparate as liberalism and Islam are, you would think liberal American journalists and Hollywood-types would be first in line to criticize Islam every chance they got. You might think the Left would see Islam as its greatest enemy. All things considered, Muslims should be coming under ever-increasing scrutiny and condemnation by the Left, since their respective worldviews are so diametrically opposed to each other. Or, are they?

It might be suggested that the Left is afraid to criticize Islam due to the latter’s obvious violent inclinations. While that is doubtless so in many countries, Islam in America has not reached a level of influence to scare us into submission. Muslims represent a small minority of our population. There must be another, more relevant answer. Why do American Muslims want to live in a country whose culture and governmental institutions stand in the way of the Koran’s influence? And why does our liberal American society seem so reluctant to offer criticism of Islam, when it stands for so many things liberals have a visceral reaction against?

Perhaps the answer lies in what they both have in common. The American Left hates the church of Christ. Islam hates the church of Christ. If there is one thing a godless worldview and an Islamic worldview have in common, it is this: they both fundamentally oppose the gospel of Christ. They both hate the Bible and the truth it contains. Think of it this way. By rejecting the truth of the gospel, liberalism embraces a worldview authored by the devil (who is the “father of lies,” John 8:44). By rejecting the truth of the gospel, Muslims also embrace a worldview from the same author. So, though they at first seem inherently different, liberalism and Islam both stem from worldviews issued from the devil. Both mindsets ultimately come from the same place! And the devil knows, whether it helps liberalism, or whether it helps Islam, it will make things harder on the Lord’s church. Since preventing men’s salvation seems his chief concern, Satan cares not from which direction the hindrance comes. In the case of American liberals, the devil has made for them a strange bedfellow, indeed.