John MacArthur fails to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary risk, plus End Times anti-government speculation

 

As his fight with the state of California continues, John MacArthur has shown, unfortunately, a lack of understanding about how pandemics work, and in this case fails to see the distinction between necessary and unnecessary risk.

In the short video, MacArthur urges, "Go to church...go in the building, don't sit in your parking lot."  The Church of Jesus Christ is NOT its building.  If the people of God worship in a park, that is the Church.  If the people of God worship in a parking lot, in a tent, or online, that too is the Church.  I don't understand this insistence that only when the sanctuary is used can the Church be fulfilling its call to corporate worship.  The text of Scripture makes no such distinction, Matthew 18:20 (NIV) "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”  Of course, the Early Church had no public buildings, but met in homes or in public squares, down by the river, wherever they could.  The Church in China and other hostile countries is forced underground (The Early Church in Rome literally underground in the catacombs during periods of persecution) to survive, but that persecuted Church is certainly being faithful, even if they never meet in a public building.

"You're not going to kill grandma".  Once again, John MacArthur minimizes the pandemic, insisting that the risk isn't real, as the death tolls climbs past 180,000, and that with less than 25% of Americans having been infected thus far, with the CDC reporting 5,799,046 cases, which is no doubt an under-count of the true total, but still leaves room for well over 200,000,000 infections if the virus were to run rampant in America.  From this week's CDC report: Based on death certificate data, the percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia, influenza, or COVID-19 (PIC) for week 33 is 7.8%. This is currently lower than the percentage during week 32 (12.6%); however, the percentage remains above the epidemic threshold and will likely increase as more death certificates are processed.  Whether one agrees or disagrees about specific restrictions, whether from the local government or otherwise, it serves no useful purpose to build your position upon the false-hope that the pandemic isn't really a threat.  I've responded to this misconception on his part before, when GCC first decided to meet in-person with no social distancing and no masks {John MacArthur jumps the shark with COVID-19 response}.  Evidently, John MacArthur continues to refuse to believe the 'narrative' offered by the scientific community as a whole.  This points to a larger issue within the Church in America, and Evangelicalism in particular, of hostility toward science, and a refusal to accept scientific evidence that is politically/culturally unappreciated.  {Why I signed "A Christian Statement on Science for Pandemic Times" from BioLogos}

In addition, John MacArthur offers up a false analogy, one that others have used, equating the risk of the pandemic to the risk of car accidents.  In the first place, they're not the same kind of risk.  Exposure to the pandemic can be controlled, it can be mitigated, even if only partially, thus by choosing to increase that risk, in callous ways for yourself and for others, by ignoring scientific expertise regarding social distancing and masks wearing, one is taking an unnecessary risk.  Automobile travel is a necessary risk, transportation needs to occur in some form or other.  Car accidents only become unnecessary risks when those doing so text while driving, refuse to wear seat belts, drive too fast for the conditions, drink and drive, etc.  Otherwise, car accidents are a risk that is already being minimized, as much as possible.  It is not government tyranny to post speed limits, nor to require seat belts, nor to enforce the law through traffic stops.  This entire analogy is a false one, meant to make the arguments in favor of minimizing COVID-19 risk seem ridiculous, but false analogy are just that, false.

Lastly, John MacArthur is viewing the pandemic through End Times tinted glasses, as the first round in an all out assault upon the Church by a government intent upon destroying it.  He said, "More onerous attempts to lock the Church down in the future" are coming.  The host readily agreed with this assessment.  This is, of course, speculation; the future is unknown.  This view is relatively common in the Church today, I often hear people speak as if the government is chomping at the bit to send us all to the gulag.  There's just one problem with this 'sky is falling' mentality.  It isn't based in reality.  Are there elements within the government that are hostile to Christianity?  Yes, but hardly enough to justify the hysteria.  With nearly 70% of the country's population identifying as Christians, whom does John MacArthur think will be carrying out the crusade against the Church?  Which army will enforce the closure of the roughly 315,000 churches in America, where will the several hundred thousand ministers be incarcerated as 'enemies of the state'?  If you take the suggestion to its logical conclusions, the hype falls apart.  Also, when compared to the persecution of our brothers and sisters in hostile countries in the world today, or with that of the Early Church at the hands of Rome, can we really justify Apocalyptic warnings?  The Church in America has enjoyed for centuries, and enjoys still, a place of privilege.  We are not martyrs, to claim that mantle is a disservice to those who have indeed suffered for the name of Christ.

In the end, the reality of the pandemic is not a 'narrative' that you can choose to believe or reject, it is scientific fact, it is reality.  On the contrary, the narrative being advocated here by John MacArthur is one based in End Times anticipation, anti-government sentiment, and seemingly the influence of politics.  We, the Church, can do better than this, no matter whether we are able to safely meet in-person at this time, or due to the reality of COVID-19, must continue to fellowship and worship outside of the sanctuary.  We are the Church, those called by the Spirit to redemption by the Blood of the Lamb, not the building in which we meet.

 

Why I signed "A Christian Statement on Science for Pandemic Times" from BioLogos

 

A Christian Statement on Science for Pandemic Times

(My comments will be non-bold, the statement itself in bold font).  Before looking at the statement, the answer to a question, who is BioLogos?  The easiest way to answer that would be to look at their website , but I'll sum up: "Our Mission: BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation."  I get it, some of you will stop reading right there.  You've decided that only 6 literal days 6,000 years ago can possibly be accepted as a faithful reading of Genesis 1-3, that no other interpretation could have been valid in Moses' day, or can be in our own.  My own thoughts on the subject can be read here: Faith, Science, and Creation, is there a way forward? but I don't need other Christians to agree with me on this subject provided we can all agree that the Word of God is faithful and true in all that it claims to be.  Some will conclude that the Scriptures intend to be scientific manuals, some will not, and that difference will affect interpretation, but it ought not affect the ability to hold the Word of God as our authority for faith and practice.  There can be common ground.  Within the framework of how those at BioLogos interpret Genesis 1-3, what are they trying to do: Core Commitments:

We embrace the historical Christian faith, upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible.  

We affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years.

We seek truth, ever learning as we study the natural world and the Bible.

We strive for humility and gracious dialogue with those who hold other views.

We aim for excellence in all areas, from science to education to business practices.

If you want to stop and learn more about BioLogos before proceeding, go right ahead, otherwise let's look at the statement itself.

We, the undersigned, join together as Christians who uphold the authority of God’s Word and see science as a tool to understand God’s world. We call on all Christians to follow the advice of public health experts and support scientists doing crucial biomedical research on COVID-19.  

Here is the summary, a commitment to both God's Word as our authority, AND to science (i.e. facts) in the world we inhabit.  Few things bother me as consistently as those who bend/twist the truth for their own purposes, it is a practice that the Church cannot allow itself to participate in.

We are deeply concerned about the polarization and politicization of science in the public square when so many lives are at stake. The word “science” has become a weapon in the culture wars. Scientists are vilified and their findings ignored, while conspiracy theories go viral. Sadly, Christians seem just as susceptible to these trends. Thoughtful Christians may disagree on public policy in response to the coronavirus, but none of us should ignore clear scientific evidence.

This pandemic has reminded us that 'alternative facts' are not real.  If the scientific consensus is that a virus is contagious, that once caught, some of the infected will develop severe symptoms, and some of them will die, it is easy to see if the scientists are speaking the truth.  And low and behold, nearly 200,000 Americans have died from COVID-19.  Science is repeatable, it can be tested and demonstrated.  Conspiracy theories are the opposite, devoid of the ability to stand the light of day, they flourish in the shadows.  As Christ followers, we must be a people who value truth, even uncomfortable truth, even politically disadvantageous truth.  Lies are always corrosive, always potentially dangerous, in a pandemic, to embrace them is to support that which will lead to more people suffering.  It is unacceptable, immoral, and a sure sign that the American Church has unhealthy habits.

It is appropriate for Christians to be skeptical of claims made by scientists who speak outside their area of expertise. We firmly reject claims that science has somehow shown God does not exist or faith is mere superstition. Such claims go beyond what science is capable of investigating. We lament the times when science and medicine have been misused to perpetrate atrocities like the racist Tuskegee experiments. But Christians should listen to scientists and doctors when they speak in their area of expertise, especially when millions of lives are at stake.

Science can't tell me anything about the existence (on way or the other) of God.  Why not?  Because the spiritual realm (the existence of the soul, life after death) is beyond its ability to quantify.  The purpose and meaning of life will not be discovered in a lab.  With that boundary in place, the Church should always support ethical scientific pursuits, those aimed at bettering the human condition and furthering the depth and breadth of human understanding.  Scientists can be wrong, they can make errors or be blinded by ego or the pursuit of wealth or fame.  They're like the rest of us in that.  But their work can be tested by other scientists, if they're telling the truth further study will confirm it.

The Bible teaches that our bodies are fearfully and wonderfully made by God (Psalm 139:14). Thus, those doing biomedical research—whether they are Christians or not—are studying the very handiwork of God. Scientists are discovering truths about the virus, our bodies, treatments, and vaccines. As Christians, we know that all truth, including scientific truth, is ultimately from God. 

Doctors, and the scientists whose research aids them, are doing the work of the Lord when they care for others.  It is a form of ministry.  Not of the same kind as that of Gospel ministry itself, but a way of honoring our Heavenly Father, of showing God respect by helping to sustain life.  

God can do miracles of healing, but God also uses doctors and scientists to bring healing. Before Jonas Salk discovered his vaccine, polio killed 350,000 people a year, most of them children. Christians in the biomedical sciences, like Dr. Francis Collins, see their work as continuing the healing ministry of Jesus (Matthew 15:30). Pursuing medical treatment is not a sign of weak faith in God, but a grateful acceptance of God’s gifts.

The beliefs of the Christian Scientists founded by Mary Baker Eddy in the 19th Century, are not mainstream Christianity, although the tendency to see medical care as in competition with faith (rather than complimenting it) has a long history, and still exists in the minds of many Christians.  Hebrews 11:1  New International Version  Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.  We do not need faith to believe that which science can demonstrate.  If doctors can heal a disease, by all means seek that medical care.  Why ignore the blessing of wisdom that God has allowed to blossom through modern medicine?  It is an insult to God to demand that he heal by faith when knowledge exists to heal by medicine.

Scientists of all faiths at many universities and research institutes have been working hard to combat COVID-19, including at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control. Many scientists have dropped their own research programs to devote themselves full time to understanding exactly how this virus works, how it spreads, how the disease can be treated, and which vaccines would be both safe and effective. Experts have been communicating their knowledge in real time as the pandemic progresses, which has led to some confusion. In the early days, they advised the public against masks when supplies were needed for healthcare workers, but later they changed their message in response to more data. A change in expert advice is not a sign of weakness or unreliability, but of good scientific practice and honesty. On the biggest points, scientific predictions have been proven right: scientists said stay-home orders would reduce cases, and thankfully those measures worked. Scientists predicted that ending quarantine too soon would increase cases, and that has been the case. 

Knowledge in incomplete.  Science changes to fit new data.  This doesn't sit well in our hyper-partisan culture where doubt and questioning is viewed as a lack of loyalty or commitment, but its how things work in the real world.  COVID-19 is new, massive amounts of research is ongoing.  Expect corrections, expect there to be new information.  The mask mandate is a case in point.  It would have been less confusing had the majority of scientists arrived at the need to have the public wear masks in January rather than June, but that's hindsight, the reality is that in the Spring there was a mask shortage for healthcare workers, now things have changed; change with them.

Scientists are not all-knowing and have biases like the rest of us. That’s why the process of scientific research has built-in steps for testing, vetting, and validation by the whole community. While any individual scientist may be biased, the community actively critiques each other’s work to reduce bias and errors until together they develop a consensus on what the data are saying. It’s not a perfect process and one can always find dissenters, but scientists working together are far more accurate than one person’s theory on YouTube. Scientists are trained to communicate where the consensus is uncertain and to not overstate conclusions. They may speak in sound bites in an interview, but if you listen a bit longer you will hear the caveats. So when Dr. Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, tells us what scientists have learned about this infectious disease, he should be listened to.

"The Truth doctors don't want you to hear!!"  Sigh.  That's not the way science works, not the way medicine works.  If there really was a 'cure' to COVID-19, it wouldn't be brought to us by the founder of My Pillow {The apparent blasphemy of My Pillow founder Michael Lindell regarding a COVID-19 'cure'.} but by reputable scientists in reputable institutions following rigorous double-blind testing.  Snake Oil salesmen are not how one protects the public during a pandemic.

We need more than science alone to make good decisions. Invoking “science” is not a one-word rationale for public policy; many factors need to be considered. The economic losses and social hardships of the pandemic are painful, and thoughtful Christians will disagree on how to balance those needs with health needs. Even closer to our hearts is the impact of quarantine on church fellowship. As churches reopen, Christians need to balance God’s call to meet together with God’s call to protect the vulnerable among us. We need more than science to make these decisions; we need biblical faith to be wise and discerning (James 3:13-18). As Christians throughout history have shown during other pandemics, our faith is what moves us to deep compassion for the sick, the young, the old, and the vulnerable, as we follow Jesus’ command to care for the least of these (Matthew 25:31-36). Our faith calls us to sacrifice ourselves for others and accept temporary limitations on our freedoms because we have a permanent and complete freedom in Christ (Hebrews 10:34). Our faith helps us be humble and patient when discussing contentious issues (Ephesians 4:2-3). It is our faith, not science, that overcomes fear and brings hope. God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble (Psalm 46:1).

Science can tell us what is, not what should be.  It can outline the likely consequences of actions, not weigh the moral cost of each.  In the end, people and governments have to make tough choices, but they need to do so on the basis of reality not fantasy.  Re-open your church building?  When? How? With what precautions?  There are no easy answers, but we stand a far better chance of making wise decisions when we allow our thought processes to be guided by scientific realities.  The answers we come up with, even if we are all trying to utilize the most up to date and accurate scientific information, won't always be uniform.  That's not news, 500 years ago Martin Luther himself addressed the struggles the Church was having to respond to the Black Death {How should Christians act during a pandemic? - Wisdom from Martin Luther's experience with the Plague}.  We need to seek the Truth, weigh the options, and make use the wisdom God has given us, prayerfully, to seek a way forward.

Therefore, because of our faith in Jesus Christ, we will:

WEAR MASKS

Wear masks in indoor public spaces and follow other physical distancing rules given by public health officials (1 Peter 2:13-17), unless there are underlying health conditions. Yes, wearing a mask is uncomfortable and awkward, but the evidence is clear that masks reduce the chance we will transmit the disease to others. Mask rules are not experts taking away our freedom, but an opportunity to follow Jesus’ command to love our neighbors as ourselves (Luke 6:31).

Paul wouldn't let his moral freedom become a stumbling block to fellow Christians, it is unfortunate that millions of Christians have not followed his lead, but instead have proclaimed that their own freedom to not wear a mask should outweigh any and all public health concerns.

GET VACCINATED

Get vaccinated against COVID-19 when a safe and effective vaccine is available and as directed by a physician. A large fraction of the population needs to be vaccinated to develop the “herd immunity” which protects the immuno-compromised and others who cannot be vaccinated. Vaccination is a provision from God that will prevent disease not only for ourselves but for the most vulnerable among us (Matthew 25:31-36).

The anti-vaccine movement is in overdrive during this pandemic, winning more converts than ever before.  But their entire platform is a lie.  Listen to your primary care doctor.  When the vaccine is safe and ready, trust the doctor with whom you have a relationship, not social media.

CORRECT MISINFORMATION

Correct misinformation and conspiracy theories when we encounter them in our social media and communities. Christians are called to love the truth; we should not be swayed by falsehoods (1 Corinthians 13:6). We will actively promote accurate scientific and public health information from trustworthy, consensus sources, and use this information when making decisions for our families, churches, schools, and workplaces.

By May I was exhausted from the ongoing parade of misinformation on social media.  In fact, I had to block a number of people, and even 'unfriend' one person, to slow down the torrent.  I posted what I could, tried to stem the tide, to do my small part. {For example: An analysis of Rev. Danny Jones, "Is this Coronavirus a Sign of the End of the World?": 1 part very poor interpretation of Scripture, 2 part conspiracy theory = a danger to the Church } The problem is, too many people would prefer that the misinformation they're sharing be the truth, even when it isn't.  Our desire that something be true does not affect whether or not it is.  

WORK FOR JUSTICE

Work for justice for communities who have suffered the most deaths from COVID-19. Christians are called to be courageous in fighting for justice (Micah 6:8). We should be the least indifferent to the disadvantaged and vulnerable. Groups that have been hit hard include the elderly in nursing homes, the Navajo nation where many do not have access to clean water, and people of color who continue to experience discrimination in access to health care.

This pandemic has highlighted some of the flaws in our society that we'd probably rather ignore.  We can't afford to keep doing that.

PRAY

We pray for God to heal the millions of sick, to comfort the thousands of grieving families, and to give wisdom to decision-makers. We pray for God to sustain biomedical and public health researchers as they work to develop treatments and a safe and effective vaccine. We pray for God to protect nurses, doctors, lab techs, and all healthcare workers fighting COVID-19 as they serve patients and our communities. And we pray for God to bless our cities and nation with justice and flourishing for all (Jeremiah 29:7).

Seek truth, do our part, help where we can; and pray.  If you agree with the statement from BioLogos, please consider going to the website and signing, it doesn't matter if you don't represent an organization like those listed as the marque signers, because you yourself are a child of God, a person made in his image, capable of embracing the quest for truth.

The BioLogos statement

Why Legalism doesn't work: Footloose and the self destruction of Jerry Falwell Jr.

 I recently watched the movie Footloose for the first time, and can concur with Peter Parker's response to Star-Lord's assertion in Avengers: Infinity War that it is indeed not the greatest movie of all time.  It is, however, an attempt to assert, although through a flawed vehicle, the known truth that Legalism does not work.  In the movie, Kevin Bacon's character Ren McCormack moves with his mom to a small town in the Rocky Mountain foothills only to discover that the town council under the leadership of John Lithgow's character, Rev. Shaw Moore, have instituted a total ban on youth dances (along with youth drinking) following a tragic car accident that claimed the lives of several of the town's teens, including Rev. Moore's son.  Of course, Ren considers the ban to be oppressive, and is helped in his rebellion against it by the Rev. Moore's own daughter, Ariel (Lori Singer), who rebels against her father through promiscuity, drinking, and a pair of death-wish style stunts.  In the end, Rev. Moore realizes his zeal has gone too far when his acolytes organize an impromptu book burning on the steps of the library.  Moore reluctantly backs down, fearing the worst but resigned to face it, as the teens enjoy their victory with a senior prom.

You might be wondering, what does a movie about the older generation trying to rein in teens via a ban on dancing in 1984 have to do with the cascade of news about the President of Liberty University, Jerry Falwell Jr? {Jerry Falwell Jr. says he's resigned from Liberty Univ. after sex scandal revelations, confusion over future - Fox News}  Footloose is a fictionalized repudiation of Legalism, Liberty University and Jerry Falwell Jr. are a real life testimony.  Liberty University under Jerry Falwell Jr.'s leadership has become one of the largest Evangelical institutions in the world, with 15,000 students on campus, and 95,000 students online.  As such, they carry tremendous influence, influence that has increased dramatically following Jerry Falwell Jr.'s very public foray into American politics in 2015.  Liberty University has an honor called called The Liberty Way, like many Christian educational institutions, which prohibits premarital sex, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and of course, social dancing.  The Liberty Way also requires that students submit to random drug tests, and declares that, "Students must dress modestly and appropriately at all times."

To be sure, organizations need rules and regulations.  Schools need to set boundaries for their students, parents need to define for their children what is, and what is not, acceptable, and have appropriate consequences when those rules are broken.  The opposite of Legalism, Anarchy (Individualism) is certainly not the solution either.  But why doesn't Legalism work?  Why can't we simply list every possible negative behavior, prohibit them all, and watch people follow the rules?

1. Rules by themselves have no power.

The University that I graduated from, Cornerstone University, had rules.  In decades past those rules were not that different from those of Liberty, but from the outside looking in, the attitude behind the use of rules seems very different.  At Cornerstone, our professors were consistent in their quest to teach student how to think, not what to think.  Why?  Cultural mores change, constantly.  What belongs on the 'list' of prohibited behavior is a snapshot of today's standards.  To teach young people to memorize a list is not to teach then how or why such things end up on the list, and it doesn't help them to understand how to react to situations not covered by the dreaded list.  In other words, sustainable and effective morality depends upon enlightened and discerning minds and upon self-awareness and self-control, not upon perfecting a system to take agency away from the individual.  

Without a corresponding attitude of the heart, rules will always fail.  In the Gospels, Jesus contends with the Pharisees, a 1st Century group of zealous Jews who believed they could legislate their way to a moral society.  To be sure, the Law of Moses contains rules, and Jesus was not a rebel who denounced the Law, but he could also see that his opponents were placing burdens upon the people that could not be kept, rather than focusing upon building up the character qualities that would enable people to freely choose to embrace morality.

Matthew 23:1-4 New International Version  23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

2. Making actions forbidden/taboo altogether gives them an allure or mystique.

Romans 7:7-12 New International Version 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

The Apostle Paul, no fan of immoral behavior, recognized the danger associated with making rules, even though many of them are necessary.  This is not news to any parent, one need only tell a two year old that they can't do something in order to encourage that very behavior.  

Take dancing, for example, rather than forbidding all social dancing, why not seek to educate young people on appropriate forms of dancing?  Surely there isn't anything morally objectionable in many forms of dancing, nor to much of the music to which people would dance?  If some kinds of dancing, by some people, lead to temptation, must we ban it all for everyone?  So, why the total ban, what does it accomplish except to encourage young people to engage in the same behavior, but on the sly rather than in public, off the radar, rather than openly.  In other words, Legalism creates some of the very temptation that it thinks that it is suppressing by making the behavior more desirable as an act of rebellion. 

3. Rebellion against unnecessary rules becomes its own snare.

Romans 14:16-23  New International Version  16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.  19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.  22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Continuing with the dancing example.  If a Christian is firmly convinced in his/her own mind that social dancing is not immoral, that he/she can engage in it without temptation to sexual sin (the typical rationale for banning it), then he/she should be able to do so, unless that action causes another person to stumble.  This is Paul's way of balancing Christian liberty and responsibility to others.  However, when an authority over a Christian (parents, church, school) prohibits a behavior, even one that would NOT be sinful for that person to engage in, if that person does it anyway, he or she is still committing an act of rebellion in the process of doing what ought not be for him/her an immoral act.  In other words, the existence of the rule requires rule breaking to engage in behaviors that the Word of God has not prohibited, that conscience and the indwelling Holy Spirit have not warned against.  An offense is created where none need exist.  Rebellion is fostered among those who simply want to be disciples of Jesus.

Back to Jerry Falwell Jr.  In the past, Falwell has been photographed at a dance club, apparently enjoying alcoholic beverages, and recently with his arm around a young woman whose pants are unbuttoned, as are Falwell's, while he holds what he assures in the caption is not really alcohol.  

The bottom 1/3 of the photo was cropped, no need to show the whole thing.

Here's the thing, if Falwell wasn't the head of Liberty University, with its Liberty Way that applies to all students, he would be free to go to a club and enjoy dancing, even drink alcohol in moderation (I know that's taboo for many Evangelicals, but there is no Biblical prohibition on consumption, only drunkenness).  The picture with the young woman would have been over the line, but it wouldn't also reek of hypocrisy as he once again flaunts to the world that he doesn't need to follow the rules that he requires of others.

4. Boundaries can still exist without attempting to limit all possible sources of temptation.

When I was in Antigua,Guatemala, many years ago, I saw an odd sight.  An arch built over the road.  What was its purpose?  To prevent the monks in the monastery on one side from seeing the nuns in the nunnery on the other.  Lust is certainly a temptation to be wary of, and on guard against, but if the only way that we can tame it is to make sure that men and women don't see each other, we're in deep trouble.  Rather than detailed rules that spell out every conceivable temptation and prohibit as much of them as possible, why not teach young people how to think about morality, how to discern between right and wrong, and how to face temptation without succumbing to it?  We need guard rails to keep young people, and ourselves, from going off the road to our destruction, rather than straight jackets to keep them (and us) from doing anything but stay in our cell.  Legalism doesn't work, it never has.  It is far better for the Church, and other Christian organizations, to focus upon teaching and training hearts and minds, and importantly, leading by example.

Sermon Video: Jesus was indignant? Mark 1:40-45

 When a man with leprosy comes to Jesus asking, "If you are willing, you can make me clean." Jesus' emotional response was to be indignant or compassionate? The textual variant here involves the reading in Codex Bezae (the only Greek manuscript to contain it) which may be evidence that copyists had 'fixed' their text to avoid answering the question of why Jesus might be indignant. The answer is simple enough. When confronted with disease, and the hurt that it causes, who wouldn't be angry? Whichever variant is original, Jesus next move it clear: He reached out to touch the man, demonstrating compassion, and healed him. Jesus was willing. We don't always know when God will be willing to miraculously heal, our role is simple: pray, show compassion, kindness, and love.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

The apparent blasphemy of My Pillow founder Michael Lindell regarding a COVID-19 'cure'.

 It is no small thing to commit blasphemy against God.  It seems like doing so on national television would be doubly foolish.  Yet that is what My Pillow founder Michael Lindell just did, whether he is aware of it or not.  Before looking at why Lindell's statements are a violation of the 3rd Commandment, let me get this disclaimer out of the way.  Michael Lindell believes very strongly that Donald Trump is the best President in the history of the United States.  I could care less what his political views are.  Up until this point, I hadn't given him much thought at all, until his interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper where he invoked the name of Jesus Christ, and proclaimed to be doing the Will of God in his stumping for Oleandrin as a miracle cure for COVID-19.  While this pandemic has produced many quake 'cures' and false hopes, this one stands out precisely because the man pushing it is doing so in Christ's name.

It is blasphemy, a violation of the 3rd Commandment {Exodus 20:7 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."}, to use the name of God for any of the following purposes (examples from a larger list), it is my contention watching Lindell's interview, that he has done all four.  Also, Michael Lindell claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ, I'll take him at his word, and consider him a brother in Christ who has lost his way (at least in this regard).
Michael Lindell's interview on CNN with Anderson Cooper
4 facts about oleandrin, an unproven coronavirus treatment reportedly pitched to Trump - by Nicole Pesce of MarketWatch
1. Personal financial gain
Michael Lindell has an ownership stake in a company which just so happens to process Oleandrin.  If enough people believe his claims that it both prevents COVID-19 infection AND cures it, he will make a whole lot of money.
When Prosperity Gospel preachers, or just gold old-fashioned TV evangelists utilize the Gospel and people's devotion to God to enrich themselves, they're committing blasphemy too.  If a businessman does it, he/she is equally guilty of that sin, in the false-preacher's case there are additional points of immoral behavior as they have taken a position of leadership in the Church.
2. To take advantage of the weak, vulnerable, or innocent
During a global pandemic, those most likely to listen to 'snake oil salesmen' are those most vulnerable to the disease in question.  No doubt Oleandrin tales are already spreading around social media under headlines like, "The cure the government doesn't want you to know about.."  Lindell's advocacy will appeal to conspiracy theorists, to desperate people with health conditions who fear the virus, and whose only fault will be listening to him, in part because he invokes the name of Jesus to make his appeal.
3. When your actions will likely harm others
It is highly likely that people will take extracts of this highly toxic plant, at doses that may cause them real harm, because they believe that it will be a 'miracle cure'.  A secondary harm will come from those who take it, are not harmed by it directly, but then who ignore all social distancing precautions because Lindell promised them that they could no longer catch or spread the disease once they begin taking Oleandrin.  {In the interview, Lindell proclaimed himself to be 'immune' to the virus because of Oleandrin.}  The end result will be an increased spread of COVID-19, more false information in the public consciousness, and greater resistance to protective measures.  Lastly, some who catch COVID-19 will be convinced to ignore medical treatment, or fail to quarantine themselves because they're taking Oleandrin.  All of these scenarios are highly likely, and an unknown number of people will be harmed by Lindell's 'cure', once again, in Jesus' name.
4. To avoid scrutiny, as a substitute for Truth, facts, or evidence.
Throughout the interview, Anderson Cooper pressed Michael Lindell to site any reputable study, any evidence at all that Oleandrin could do any of the things that he was claiming, or at the least proof that it wouldn't be harmful to those who take it.  Rather than offer up substance, Lindell on multiple occasions resorted to proclaiming that he was doing what he was doing because God had given him the platform to do so.  In other words, rather than truth, facts, or evidence, Lindell offered up God's reputation as a substitute.  There's just one problem, God's reputation isn't a crutch for you to use to get out of a jam, it isn't a substitute for truth, or a 'no facts necessary' excuse.
Had Michael Lindell left God out of his conversation, I would ignore him, but he didn't, he chose (whether purposefully or not) to use the name of Jesus and the Will of God as surety for his claims.  For all four reasons listed above, that is sadly a classic case of blasphemy.

{Update: FDA rejects oleandrin, an unproven coronavirus therapeutic pushed by MyPillow CEO, as a dietary supplement ingredient - by Jen Christensen and Jamie Gumbrecht, CNN, 9/4/20}