General

The eleventh anniversary of 9-11 ignited a fire storm of jihadist sentiment throughout the Middle East and around the world.

The Obama Administration said the outbreak was due to a YouTube video trailer of the prophet Mohammed that had been released in July (not likely). Others believe that the current mixed signals and weakness in US foreign policy are emboldening those who hate America (more likely).

Bill O’Reilly on The Factor kept asking his guests this week what is it about about Muslim culture that lends to this type of mob hysteria and violence? (No one seemed to give a clear answer.)

Here’s my take: You have to understand “domains” to respond to radical Islam. And you must keep those domains separate in knowing what to do.

Here’s are four ways we must respond to the Islamic uprising.

Whenever I watch a mob scene on television, or ponder a senseless death like that of Libyan US diplomat Christopher Stevens, I go through an array of emotions that all seem to be correct. I am angry at the perpetrators and desire to see them brought to justice. But I also understand the words of Jesus who tells us to “love our enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matthew 5:44).

I also see the need for humanitarian outreach to suffering people who seem to release their pent-up feelings on the rich and powerful around them. And I’ve known all my life that evil people will remain evil people until they are evangelized, meet the Savior of the world, and allow him to change their hearts.

So my response can be varied from hatred to compassion.

To be honest, blowing their head off is the easiest response. The temperate responses take more character and work.

Because of these dichotomies, we better come to grips with how to respond to the current fires of global jihad. The key is understanding the different domains of life.

I wrote a book in 1989 called Leadership for the 21st Century: Changing Nations Through the Power of Serving. It was one of the first treatises at the time on the different spheres or domains of life that make up human society. During my research for the book, I grew to appreciate Abraham Kuyper, Dutch theologian, educator, journalist and politician who, over one hundred years ago, clearly taught God’s sovereignty over all areas of life–but also explained man’s designated domains of authority.

Here’s a relevant quote from the book:

“The concept of sphere authority was foundational to Kuyper’s world view. God was the Supreme Sovereign, with all other authority delegated by Him. On earth were various jurisdictions, all responsible directly to God and designed to operate independently and in complimentary unity. The state, or civil government, was a sphere where officials were to operate according to God’s ordinances (Romans 13). But there were other spheres that were to be completely independent of state authority, but also directly accountable to God. These were the various “social circles,” like family, the Church, education, and the arts.”

You might want to read that paragraph again. The quick summary is:

• God is the ultimate authority but has created other authoritative domains on earth.
• The spheres are independent, responsible to God, but designed to compliment one another.

The important idea is because there are different domains, or authorities, there are also very different responses that are required toward human events, both good and evil.

Let’s now apply that understanding the fires of Islamic jihad that are currently scorching US embassies in over twenty nations around the world.

How should we respond?

Government Domain 

The primary role of human governments according to Romans 13  is to protect our God-given rights to life, liberty, and property (how we pursue happiness). Paul says that governments are responsible to punish evil–hence the need for police, courts of justice, and standing armies. Human governments are not the domain of forgiveness and compassion. They are the sphere of justice and force.

This used to be understood in Western society. We do not allow people to avenge their crimes–that is the role of government. We do not believe in vigilantism. That’s is the state’s responsibility. Our government is tasked with providing police, protecting our borders, and sending our troops to protect our national interests.

In the past fifty years, this correct understanding of government has become muddled as western states have become cradle-to-grave welfare societies where instead of simply protecting the people (the proper domain of government), they’ve taken over the functions of other domains by providing for every type of human need.

Stepping out of your domain is tyranny. It also messes up the actions of the other spheres. Government leaders are not called by God to be compassionate and “make friends” with the world. Their role is to protect, fight for, defend our people–in other words, to be strong in the face of evil.

This is the four-year error of the Obama administration. Governments do not bring peace through weakness or conciliation. As Ronald Reagan taught us, governments create peace through strength (the righteous use of force).

One reason the Islamic world is currently raging is that this administration has projected weakness to the world–both economically and in foreign policy. Evil doesn’t smile at weakness–it tries to cut off your head. How can evil be brought back into line? Through wise use of strength and force (justice) that is greater than its own.

The American government is truly missing George W Bush these days. For all his faults, he was a strong leader who commanded respect in the world through not tolerating evil. That’s government’s role–their domain. Our current president doesn’t understand that. We need a different kind of leader to put out the fires  by staring down the jihadists with a wise use of force.

Needed government response: Vote once again for leaders who believe in peace through strength.

Prayer Domain

Bill O’Reilly kept asking his guests, “Why are radical Muslims–their culture–so reactionary, violent, and murderous?” He continued, “When Al-Jezeera puts out commentaries that defame or make fun of Christ, we don’t storm the Arab embassies and murder their diplomats. We may protest or boycott, but we believe in free speech and not in mob violence and rule.”

So why is the jihadist world different?

One reason is the invisible demonic domain that is active throughout the earth. Satan was a murderer from the beginning, and his demons love nothing more than to hurt and destroy human beings (John 8:44). Cultures that do not embrace the love and forgiveness of God lay themselves wide open for the venom of demons in their social veins. Without godly self-control, they feel little conscience toward rioting, killing, or raping the innocent.

Anarchy is simply Satan unleashed in human beings. There is no better explanation than that for what is taking place right now all over the world. You are looking at human crowds that are being stirred up by devils. A spiritual reaction is required by a spiritual problem.

Needed prayer response: Dust off the Frank Peretti books and give yourself to fervent intercession against the demonic powers.

Individual Domain

This realm often requires a very different response for those who have been victims of evil, like the families of those killed on 9-11, or more recently, the loved ones connected with Ambassador Stevens and the others murdered in Libya.

But Jesus was very clear in the Sermon on the Mount how individuals–not nations–are to respond to evil. We are to turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile, and even pray for those who are persecuting us (Matthew 5:38-48).

Why? Shouldn’t we retaliate–blow off their heads?

No, that’s the government’s job–and they can do it better and impersonally with fairness and justice. Jesus doesn’t let us take violence into our personal hands because we end up becoming like those who hurt us.

Revenge destroys. It eats us up and ruins the gracious image of God in us. So when you see human injustice on the television screen, or experience it personally in your heart, don’t become like those who violated you. Support the government to bring evil-doers to justice. That’s not your domain.

Needed individual response: “Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you” (Ephesians 4:32).

Church Domain

Finally, there is the domain of the Church that we must consider. We said that governments must work for justice through strength, intercessors must pray that Christ would bind the spiritual powers who enflame mob behavior, and, as individuals, we are to love and forgive those who would hurt us.

But there is one other vital domain that has a role in combatting global jihad–the Church of Jesus Christ. Mistakenly, we took on the role of “government” during the Medieval Crusades and fought the Muslims sword to sword. That was a huge mistake.

The Church must be the arm of compassion among the suffering masses of the Muslim world, and also a gentle voice of conversion to Jesus as Savior and Lord. There are over one billion Muslims in the world today because we have not adequately shared Christ’s Good News with them. They are the least unevangelized peoples on earth. Many have never heard of the God who died for their sins.

Throughout history, when the Church failed to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth, God used world events to bring the unsaved to them. The Vikings were allowed to conquer Europe because Christians of the era failed to go to the north to evangelize them.

So God brought them down from the north! Through this exchange, many became Christians and to this day, Scandinavia is a region that has known the ways of the Prince of Peace.

Is God using global jihad to get our attention? Have we failed to go, failed to pray for the largest unreached group of people on earth?

The riots indicate yes. If we don’t go to them (in mercy), they are coming to us (in judgment).

Needed Church response: Pray for the Islamic nations. Support missionaries who labor there. Go yourself as God leads and empowers.

And don’t forget the domains of life.

The ones you occupy determine everything you do.

Today as we prayerfully remember the unspeakable tragedy of 9-11, I am reminded that one of the strategies of the satanic world is get human beings to use words in manipulative ways to cover up the reality of destruction.

As the doomed planes were bearing down on Twin Towers in New York, the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and the ground near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, the hijackers purportedly shouted out “Allahu Akbar” (God is Great).

These words sounded lofty and good, but they really meant “You are about to die!”

This deceptive demonic strategy continues in many forms. Especially during this political season, we must ask God for discernment when we hear certain “words.” To the casual ear they may sound helpful and right.

But they are really code words for destruction.

Of course, the tactic of saying one thing while meaning another goes all the way back to the beginning of time.

The serpent in the Garden of Eden used a clever verbal smokescreen to deceive Adam & Eve. He deliberately lied to them, saying, “Did God actually say ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden?’ and then assured them that if they did eat of the fruit, “You will not surely die” (Genesis 3:1,4).

It was a lie. When they disobeyed, they immediately experienced “death” (spiritual separation from God), and eventually that led to physical death which was a consequence of their transgression.

They had been fooled by words that sounded right and pleasant. They had failed to comprehend their true meaning. Thus the words were simply code words for their own destruction.

There are many code words in the current political debate. I will highlight a few of them and pray that God would lift the veil from many eyes.

Choice

This word was heard scores of times at a recent political convention. Many speakers, most of them women, applauded the concept of “choice” as “reproductive freedom,” “a woman’s right to choose” and many other positive spins.

Of course, the word “choice” is a decent word in itself. God uses it frequently in the Scriptures. In Deuteronomy 30:19, he tells us, “Today I have given you the choice between life and death, between blessings and curses. Now I call on heaven and earth to witness the choice you make. Oh, that you would choose life, so that you and your descendants might live!”

So God believes in choice. But, of course, in the Deuteronomy passage, the choice is “life.”

In a recent political convention it was exactly the opposite.

It’s amazing to me how “choice” has become some kind of virtuous code word for abortion. We believe in “choice, choice, choice” as if there’s something noble in choosing itself. However, there’s no morality in the idea of choice. The morality comes over what you choose.

So what are the feminists celebrating when they champion choice? I’m a straightforward guy and like to ask simple questions. What are they choosing? The honest answer is “I’m choosing an abortion.” Going a little further, with greater honesty, we might ask, “What actually happens in the choice to abort?” The truthful answer is, “I kill my baby.”

So choice is really death. I’m choosing to kill my own child (for a variety of personal reasons).

Here’s the bottom line of the abortion debate: You’re either pro-life (letting your child be born and live) or you’re pro-death (willing to kill your own offspring for almost any reason). That’s the true way to frame the argument. You are not pro-choice–which is a verbal hoax. You are pro-killing innocent babies.

Remember that the next time you hear the “choice” mantra.

Choice is a code word for destroying defenseless human beings.

Entitled

This is a word that is also being used extensively today, and the discussion will continue because it is a huge problem in United States and the Western world. We have been taught by our governments that we are “entitled” to certain monies for Social Security, Medicare, disabilities, food stamps, or other government benefits.

Another way of stating this is that you “deserve” something from the state.

Some of this is proper. In the case of Social Security, most people have contributed to a fund where, if the government was honest, the money should have been invested, caused a good return, and should be given back to the worker in their latter years of life.

So, for example, if you paid $200,000 in SS taxes over a lifetime, and it was invested properly, then you deserve to receive that amount plus interest when you retire.

But it is mostly a charade, and at the least, an abysmally-run program. The money you gave to the government was never invested, and it didn’t create a return. Besides, Social Security was designed to help people who retired at age 65 and died around age 71–not for people are living into their eighties and nineties.

So this poorly managed Ponzi scheme is forcing the younger generations to pay for the unrealistic promises that were made to the greatest generation. But there are not enough workers to do so, and the program is growing broke.

And we are building our “new society” on this kind of reasoning. In truth, the only thing that human beings are entitled to is to be separated from God because of our sins. That’s what we really deserve--not money and benefits for life.

Some human entitlements are appropriate. Many are not. Overall, the code word of “entitled” does three things to a society: It destroys human dignity, it kills personal incentive, and if it is not changed and re-defined, it destroys government budgets. Think Europe–and next–the United States.

Love

This has probably been the most satanically-manipulated word of all time. One example is the teenager who says he “loves” his girfriend as a prelude to asking her for sex. In this case, love is simply raging hormones that want to be satisfied by lust.

In the current cultural climate the most common mis-use of the word “love” relates to the secular promotion of homosexual marriage. This tactic was in full force at the recent political convention–even by the president of  the United States. He and others boldly stated: “You should be able to marry who you love.”

Sounds so good–but is really so bad. Humans beings have learned from revelation and experience over five thousand years that children need a mom and dad, and that having sex with “whoever you love” destroys the gene pool (incest), tears apart families (adultery), brings hurt and disease to singles (fornication), causes gender confusion (homosexuality), and brings man down to the level of animals (bestiality).

You can “love” anyone you want–but you can’t or shouldn’t have sex with them. The sexual prohibitions are there to help people not hurt them. Love is truly defined as “doing what’s best for another person from God’s perspective.” So the consummation of sexual love should only be between a married man and woman who can create children and protect and nurture them via their union.

The modern code word of “love” will further destroy the family–and many individuals along the way.

Investing -Fairness

Two other code words being thrown around in the political arena are the words “investing” in the future and being “fair” when it comes to taxes.

I think you get the political hoax of “investing.” It’s a clever political term for raising your taxes. Sounds like you’re loaning your money to the government and will get a return for it. No, they just want to tax you more for their own purposes. Because governments face no competition and easily become bloated, they are very poor at investing money, but very good spending and wasting it.

Hence the need for smaller government–not more “investments in the future.”

Tax “fairness” is the other word game. We are told endlessly by somethat the rich don’t pay their fair share in taxes and that they should pay more. And more. And more.

However, politifact.com tells us that the top 5% in America pay 57% of all federal income taxes, the wealthiest 25% pay 86% of the same, and 49% of Americans pay none at all.

Does that seem fair? It’s more than fair. “Taxing the rich” is simply a class warfare mechanism to grow the size of government.

“Investing” and being “fair” are modern-day code words for growing tyranny and destroying jobs.

Forward

President Obama is using the word “Forward” as the overarching slogan of his 2012 campaign. the word implies progress, goodness, prosperity, moving in the correct direction.

But I submit to you that this slogan is also a code word of the 2012 election cycle. In 2012, taking further steps in the current direction will take us off a social and economic cliff from which there may be no return.

The following video called “Words Matter” is quite an eye-opener.

My friends in America and the Western world: Don’t be fooled by the code words of destruction.

Listen carefully.

Search for the real meaning.

And discern and live for the truth in every area of your life.

For a number of years I have considered Indian-born conservative thinker Dinesh D’Souza one of the brightest lights on the American scene.

I would call him the Francis Schaeffer of the current political debate.

His books have blessed me greatly. What’s So Great About America? is a tremendous apologetic about the biblical principles of liberty that made the United States the most free and prosperous nation in history. What’s So Great About Christianity? explains how the Christian faith reigns supreme in the development of civilization and has no equal among the world’s religions.

My dad really liked Life After Death: The Evidence in which D’Souza rebuts the atheist dogma that we die like dogs with no hope of an afterlife. It’s a great pre-evangelism tool for thinking people who are hoping there is a heaven.

Dinesh D’Souza’s latest triumph is the movie documentary 2016 where he searches Barack Obama’s inner compass and what kind of America he will give us by 2016 if he is re-elected.

Is Obama a liberal, a socialist, a communist, or a progressive?

None of the above.

Dinesh gives us another answer, and I believe he could be right.

I took my wife Shirley to an evening showing of 2016 on a beautiful Northwest night when most people would be expected to stay outside and enjoy the gorgeous sunshine. We traveled to a nearby town that is not known for being conservative in a state (WA) which is clearly labeled blue.

On the way, Shirley said that we would probably be the only people in the theater.

She was wrong. By the time 2016 began at 7:15pm. the theater was filled with people our age. I wish there had been more young people–but I think they were watching The Expendables 2 on a neighboring screen. Unfortunately it is the older generations who currently watch the news and are deeply concerned about the future.

The film is a documentary where Dinesh details his interest in what might have shaped Barack Obama’s view of the world. D’Souza traveled to Hawaii and analyzed Obama’s birth roots. He flew to Jakarta, Indonesia where Barry Sotero spent his grade-school years, and where his sister Maya was born.

Interestingly, Dinesh could relate to Barry Sotero’s upbringing and many other aspects of his life. He he himself was raised in India, also a developing nation. He and Barack Obama were born the same year (1961). They graduated from college the same year (1983) and they got married the same year (1992). Both came to the American mainland and launched their successful careers.

Back to the documentary, D’Souza then traveled to Hawaii and delineated the “founding fathers” that shaped teenage Barry Sotero’s life. They were not the same group of people that we consider the founding fathers of America.

Then Dinesh trekked back to the mainland US where Barry Sotero went to Occidental College (1979-1981), Columbia University (1983), and Harvard Law School (1988-91). He interviewed classmates and professors who shaped Barack’s Obama’s young adult thinking. These interviews were enlightening because the president has refused to release his college records and papers to the public–so we are left to speculate on the evolution of his life philosophy.

A central theme of the movie is the role of Barack Obama Sr. played in the life of our current president. Young Barack never knew his dad as a child–meeting him only once in Hawaii when he was eleven years old. During his college years, Obama had a deep desire to go to his father’s homeland of Kenya and find out what made his dad tick. He arrived there in 1987 just before he began Harvard Law School.

The “Barack Obama Time-line” describes the search for his roots this way:

“He arrives there because he knows very little of his father. He wants to know who his father was, so he can understand his own identity. In Alego, Barack Obama meets his late father’s family for the first time. He meets his grandmother and half siblings, cousins, nieces and nephews. The trip to Kenya helps Barack Obama realize the struggles that his father went through. It gives Barack a sense that the work he is doing is directly connected to his Kenyan family and their struggles. Barack Obama says: ‘[the visit] helped unify my outward self with my inward self in an important way.'”

The impact of the Kenya trip is described in great detail in Obama’s biography Dreams From My Father (whose words are heard throughout 2016 in Barack Obama’s own voice recording giving you the impression that he himself is narrating the D’ Souza documentary). Amazingly, the trip to Kenya takes up one third of the autobiography.

D’Souza simulates in the movie (with Obama’s own words telling the story in the background) how he knelt at his father’s grave in 1987 and experienced an epiphany of his identity and calling. For the remainder of his life, he would commit to live out the “dreams from his father” which had ended in a tragic car accident in 1982.

By this time, the thoughtful and analytical D’Souza has laid out a very compelling case as to what motivates Barack Obama that he gleaned from his father.

It is this: Barack Obama is an anti-colonialist, like his father, who believes that America is the last remaining colonial power in the world. His job, his destiny, is to see America brought down to size.

This revelation led to much discussion between Shirley and I after the movie. We talked about how the colonial period between the 16th and 20th centuries saw many European Powers sail the world–nations like Spain, Portugal, France, Holland, England and others–to expand and export their civilization. As is well documented in history, the colonial period produced many good results, but also some negatives ones:

• The good list includes the coming of the Christian faith to many cultures living in abject poverty and pagan darkness–elevating people through industrialization, modernization, free enterprise, the development of the middle class, and growing prosperity. If you look around the world today, the colonial period really brought Africa, the Americas, the Pacific islands and Asia into the blessings of Christian civilization.
• The bad list includes the aspects of colonialization that departed from the Christian worldview and exploited natural resources for the mother countries, suppressed and even enslaved peoples, unnecessarily destroyed aspects of local cultures, and in a phrase “did not practice the Golden Rule.”

The central insight of the film is that Barack Obama Sr. was a rabid anti-colonialist who participated in the Mau Mau Uprising of 1952-60 which led to Kenyan independence from Great Britain. His later views morphed into socialism-communism, but at the heart of his passion was a hatred for the Western colonial powers.

D’Souza believes that senior’s anti-colonialism made a profound impact on junior.

Barack Hussein Obama says the same in Dreams From My Father.

While Dinesh D’Souza was visiting Kenyan, he met with Barack Obama’s half brother George who famously lives in a shanty on the outskirts of Nairobi. This interview was the highlight of the film for me.

I’d always wondered why Barack Obama, who regularly talks about the importance of “being our brother’s keeper,” has done nothing to help his poor brother. Barack and Michelle Obama are now multi-millionaires (primarily due to book royalties), and could certainly write a check for $10,000 or $100,000 to help brother George escape the clutches of poverty. But they never have.

Now I know why. It was a great insight of the movie.

D’Souza interviews George on a park bench. He asks him whether he’s bitter that his wealthy and successful brother hasn’t helped him in life. George displays no ill will toward his older brother and says nothing offensive. In fact, he acknowledges that Brother Barack “is helping him by trying to help the whole world.”

Then D’Souza asks about George’s worldview, especially on the subject of colonialism. George responds that pushing the English out of Kenya actually hurt the country. He says that Kenya is poor today because the English didn’t stay long enough to elevate them out of poverty. He mentions South Africa as a nation where the Western powers stayed longer, and because of that, South Africa is much wealthier and more prosperous than Kenya is today.

D’Souza seems a bit intrigued that George is more positive toward colonialism when it is very apparent that his father and brother are not. Dinesh concludes that maybe this is the reason that Barack and George have no relationship and that the Obamas haven’t helped him.

George doesn’t share their worldview.

Having come to the conclusion that Barack Obama’s worldview is inherited from his father, and that he is anti-colonial when he looks at history and politics, D’Souza then examines the policies that Obama has pursued in his first presidential term. One is disdain for the rich and the course of exploding public debt. D’Souza surmises this is a deliberate strategy by the Obama administration to bring down the economic political colonialism of America to be more in line with other nations.

Same is true on the defense front. Obama has spent his first four years apologizing for America and shrinking our international influence and power. Again, he appears to have an anti-colonial agenda: America is the only remaining superpower (colonizer), and must be brought down to size.

The movie concludes with D’Souza imagining by 2016 what America might look like if Obama is allowed to continue his anti-colonial policies. The picture is not pretty.

At the end of the movie, the audience seemed gripped with realization of what really motivates Barack Obama. I have heard that in some theaters people cheered. In ours, everyone quietly filed out in deep contemplation and hushed conversations.

On our drive home, my normally placid wife said something like this: “Barack Obama is anti-American. He does not believe in this country. He is not one of us. He really wants to change America into a humbled colonial power.”

Reluctantly, I have to agree. I believe Dinesh D’Souza has given us the best glimpse so far into Barack Obama’s soul. D’Souza’s research is impeccable, thoughtful, non-reactionary and well supported by the words and actions of Barack Obama’s life.

No wonder 2016 stunned Hollywood in making nine million dollars on its opening weekend in one thousand theaters. This coming weekend, it is expanding into 2000 theaters across the country.

We have just received wisdom and warning from a brilliant Indian thinker.

What will the American people do with that knowledge?