PREACHER HELPS by Evangelist Don Boys, Ph.D.

Copyright 2009, Don Boys, Ph.D. #113

Under Bill s. 1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th US Congress this letter cannot be considered Spam as long as the sender includes contact information and a method of "removal." To be removed just type REMOVE in the Subject line and hit Reply. 

If you strongly agree with one of these columns, please forward to your mailing list. Some pastors put them is the church bulletin..  Make no changes from title to tag at the end.

Contents:

A Spy at Liberty University!

Bring Back Anti-Sodomy Laws!

Was a Black Man the First U.S. President?

Were Early Christians Independent Baptists?

*Little Known Fact of History

*Illustrations:

*Funny Story:

*Incredible Quotes You Can Use

*Pithy Sayings

*Did You Know?

A Spy at Liberty University!

Don Boys, Ph.D.       

A student at ultra liberal Brown University decided to attend Liberty University and write a book about his experiences. The book, The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner’s Semester at America’s Holiest University by Kevin Roose was interesting, fair, and balanced but not without problems.

The publisher seems to over-state Roose’s clandestine penetration into the inner sanctum of the Religious Right. After all, he did not parachute into Saudi Arabia with a crate of KJV Bibles and a case of cheap crosses for the restless natives. He simply spent a semester at a Christian university. No big deal.

His family, lapsed Quakers, including “two lesbian aunts” thought he had fallen into a snake pit and were concerned about his physical safety! Talk about paranoia! But, of course, in discussing his aunt and her lover, he does not appear at all horrified at their perversion.

The young author learned his religious lessons well and shows a grasp of fundamental doctrines and of our generally accepted lifestyle. Moreover, he presented them fairly, although throughout the book he returns to homosexuality and his “two lesbian aunts.” He discovered that some students were soft on the homosexual issue while he avers that the school takes an intolerant position. He, like almost all critics, cannot understand the fact that it is possible to hate homosexuality without hating homosexuals. Maybe that’s a genetic problem!

Roose was horrified that some of the students would “take a baseball bat” to any sodomite (perfectly good and acceptable word) who approached them. He seems to suggest that sodomites should be permitted to seduce a person and the one seduced does not have the right to defend himself! Yes, it must be genetic.

He often returns to Falwell’s statement following the attack on September 11 when he  blamed abortionists, homosexuals, ACLU, etc., for the attack. Falwell said, “I point the finger in their face and say, ‘you helped this happen.’”  Of course, Falwell did not say that those people were the perpetrators but were the reason God permitted the attack to happen. One of the mantra’s of the left and of many evangelicals is that God does not bring judgment upon people, but of course, a reading of Scripture proves otherwise. After all, the Flood, destruction of Sodom, dispersion at Babel, Judah and Israel taken into captivity, etc., were all God’s judgment for disobedience. However, we must be careful  not to speak for God (unless He has spoken in His Word).

To justify another swipe at Falwell, the author drags up Falwell’s statement to CBS that Mohammad was a “terrorist.” And every educated person knows that the statement is historically correct while not politically correct among the wimps in the media, ministry, and academia.

During his first day at Liberty, he and his family heard Dr. Falwell being introduced by a school official who mentioned Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech and said that Dr. Falwell also had a dream thirty-five years ago. Roose’s parents glared and his father “chortled” and his mom’s “eyes bulged” at the statement. Of course, informed and honest people know that King was an admitted adulterer, boozer, liar, bi-sexual, and plagiarist. However, no major media personality ever admits that or that his famous “I Have a Dream” speech was plagiarized by King from Dr. Archibald Carey who delivered it at the 1952 Republican National Convention!

Falwell had more character in his little toe than King had in his whole body.  Unless King repented of his unbelief just before his assassination, he and Falwell will never meet  accidently (or on purpose) on one of Heaven’s thoroughfares because King’s many speeches and papers clearly prove that he did not believe the Virgin Birth, deity of Christ, inerrancy of Scripture, etc. Of course, he knows better now although it is too late. Eternity is a long time to be wrong!

Roose’s major criticism of Liberty’s academics is their literal interpretation of the Bible especially the Old Testament. Like all desperate Bible critics, he “reveals” the two creation accounts in Genesis; God resting on the seventh day; the universal Flood; the Ark was too small; Moses recording his own death; all very sophomoric criticisms that desperate critics keep bringing up although they have been answered many times.

The book can be profitable for all evangelicals and fundamentalists to understand how we are perceived by those on the political and theological left. Some of our rules, regulations, and requirements have no foundation in the Scripture or common sense. But then, the sane among us don’t profess that every regulation at home, church, or school must be proved by the Bible. An example is a dress code. No sane person says that wearing a type of cloth is right or wrong—it is preferred. If a school insists that all male students wear a tie, then that is their rule and if a prospective student doesn’t like that rule, he can enroll elsewhere. However, if school officials declare that the tie rule is scriptural, then students might prefer to look elsewhere.

This book says much about Liberty specifically and the evangelical/fundamental world in general and I think it very worthwhile to deal with some of the problems.

While I am critical of Liberty and most all the other major schools, I am pleased that the media can see a major difference in students at secular universities and Christian universities. After saying that, I maintain that there should be a much greater difference in policies, academics, lifestyles, rules, etc., than there is.

The author quotes many students who have a potty mouth that would horrify students at Christian schools of 25 years ago. He quotes single students discussing the best sexual positions or a group of males ogling a female student wearing a white T-shirt and making obscene comments about her nipples and tight jeans. Dirty jokes and comments and four letter words to express anger, surprise, elation, etc., seem to be accepted at least by their fellow students as normal. Watching R-rated movies seems to be tolerated at least by the students.

He tells of Liberty students Dave and Wayne who went to a lingerie party at a secular university where females wearing sheer lingerie writhed and slithered through the crowd to loud, rock or hip-hop music. After a few drinks, the two Liberty students undressed and joined the lewdness--one wearing boxer shorts and the other dressed only in a male thong! One of them took photos with his cell phone and posted them on his MySpace profile! I thought university students had to have a normal IQ but it seems some can get in with the IQ equal to their ring size. Dave received 78 reprimands, a $650.00 fine, and 30 hours of community service. Roose does not reveal Wayne’s punishment.

Liberty rules are very loose and one wonders what a student has to do to be expelled. A student who spends a night in the room of the opposite sex receives 30 reprimands, $500.00 fine, and 30 hours of community service. Getting an abortion will result in the same “punishment.” And maybe expulsion.

Holding hands is permitted and the no-kissing rule is considered a joke. While reading this book and considering what is accepted at most Christian universities today, my mind wandered back to my student days in the fifties. At Moody where I was a single student, there was a six-inch rule meaning that couples had to be six inches apart at all times! Since I was single and my fiancée was still in a Huntington, WV high school, the rule did not impact me. While I might be willing to admit that such a rule might, just might, be a little extreme, it is far more preferable to present-day practices. Moreover, our hormones were raging just like they are in students today.  It seems this generation of committed, dedicated, youth commonly touch, hug, and kiss even in public. In fact, most young women under 40 years old, hug everyone including the mailman!

May I remind you that the Apostle Paul wrote in  I Cor.. 7:1 that “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” Wonder why he wrote that? Was it only for that day? Afraid not. One thing for sure: if you don’t touch them, you won’t sleep with them.

Obviously, Liberty rules (like all schools) have been adjusted to the times. The Liberty 1976 Handbook prohibited “rock music, country-western music, songs with anti-biblical or anti-American words or any Christian music which without the words sounds like rock music.” One Sunday night at Thomas Road Baptist Church, a Liberty singer, Robie Hiner started singing a rather jumpy song and Dr. Falwell got up, put his hand on his shoulder and said, “Robie, I’ve told you before that we won’t have that kind of music in this church.” In  recent years, all kinds of worldly (a word not used much anymore) music has been used at Thomas Road and at the university. I wonder if Jerry ever apologized to Robie! Moreover, I have been told that Jerry did not like the rock music and even wore earplugs, clapping when everyone else clapped then removing the plugs at the end of the music!

Liberty, with all its flaws, has made a good impression on the world and that would be true of many of the Christian universities. However, because of their compromise, many of these schools have caused great confusion to the body of Christ.  A Liberty publication, Give me Liberty is a small book that helps incoming students become acclimated to the new school. In a chapter titled, “Where Visions Go to Die” we can see what happens when the vision changes. “As we consider Dr. Falwell’s vision…it is important to realize that we are not the first school to seek these lofty goals. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Brown were all started by churches that wanted to train students to serve Christ….However, over time the priorities of these colleges shifted, and they started to focus on increasing the perceived quality of education rather than the spiritual life of the campus. Eventually, these schools achieved their academic goals, but they did so at the expense of their original Christian purposes….Will Liberty fall into the same trap that these universities did, abandoning our Biblical worldview in the name of contemporary academics?”

Most fundamentalist/evangelical colleges have headed in the above direction such as Wheaton, Moody, Trinity Baptist, Fuller Seminary, Baptist Bible College, Tennessee Temple University, Cedarville, Grace, Piedmont, and all Southern Baptist colleges and seminaries. They started with lofty biblical goals and soon, with ambitions of growth, money, and prestige, they began to shift. Even Bob Jones University published a book endorsing social drinking although it has been recently pulled from the shelves! These schools lessened their emphasis in biblical training and emphasized secular courses, sought accreditation, the athletic spotlight, cultural snobbery, etc., and are becoming only a reflection of the original.

I believe Dr. Falwell was sincere and wanted to reach people for Christ, but he was flawed as was Billy Graham: a little compromise won’t be disastrous. After all, we want to reach people. When I heard Dr. Falwell say many years ago that his goal was to have 50,000 students on Liberty Mountain, I was convinced there was “death in the pot.” With such a goal, one can justify almost anything. Falwell, whom I respected and knew, but not well, for over 45 years was never tainted by sexual sins or accused of personal accumulation of wealth. I have applauded him many times for his high personal goals. But he did have a price: not women, not money, not fame, not power. He compromised to reach his arbitrary goal. Our main goal should be to obey God and glorify Him in our lives. If that had been Dr. Falwell’s primary goal, he would not have hired non-Baptist professors, approved rock music, sought accreditation, etc. A church or college does not have to be large and influential, but it has to be true.

So, are many Fundamentalists correct in blasting everything he did? No, they are not. Too many Fundamentalists are too quick to make judgments that are unfair, unkind, and unscriptural. I have challenged those Fundamentalists many times to address the issue of Old Testament kings who returned to God, removed pagan gods, restored the Temple, rebuilt the altar, reinstated the sacrifices, even killed the sodomites, yet did not remove the high places and clean out the groves. God had good things to say about them even though they came up short.

Too many Fundamentalists refuse to admit that they, like Falwell, have failed at times, yet God has not totally rejected them and will continue to use them even with their flaws, failures, and false teachings. We all have feet of clay. 

The author of Unlikely Disciple did the last print interview with Dr. Falwell just before his death. It was published in the school newspaper and was a fair presentation of Falwell. The author liked Falwell’s personality, drive, and sincerity but detested his core beliefs, and I detest  Roose’s core beliefs!

NOTICE to pastors, evangelists and missionaries: If you are interested in a professional webmaster to develop a quality website, you should contact Doug Heckaman in Louisville. He did both my sites— www.cstnews.com   and www.muslimfact.com and I am thrilled with them. Doug is an independent Baptist layman, active in a great church in Louisville where I have preached many times. I have seen numerous Christian websites that have misspelled words, don’t have the address or contact information, and generally scream: “unprofessional.” Contact him today and look at his website below.    

http://tinyurl.com/lveqp8

Bring Back Anti-Sodomy Laws!   

Don Boys, Ph.D.

Politicians, professors, preachers, pundits, perverts, and ordinary people packed the committee room at the Indiana State Capital in October of 1978. The occasion was the introduction of my bill to make sodomy illegal in Indiana, as it had been for a hundred years. In fact, I used the same language that was the original law before radicals repealed it a couple years before I was elected to the Indiana House of Representatives.

After I made my case for the bill, quoting classic studies from highly reputable experts that supported my position that homosexuals are not “born that way,” do recruit, do molest far more than heterosexuals do, and are very dangerous people, the chairman asked for comments. Two preachers came to my defense then the opposition from Indiana University, the media, and academia came down hard on me and my bill. You might think that I was suggesting cameras in every bedroom and stringing up homosexuals from the maple trees on the capital lawn. Or, as Thomas Jefferson suggested, that they be castrated! No, I only suggested 12 years in prison as had been the law for many years.

A professor spoke in defense of sodomy enumerating some famous homosexuals in history. All he proved was that some famous people in history were sexual deviates! No one disputes that. Some famous people in history were drunks, child molesters, thieves, wife beaters, and killers. I could not restrain myself and laughed in his face and into the cameras when the professor declared that King David and Jonathan “were lovers,” (something I had never heard before that time).  Sorry, but it was so outrageous, it was funny. He then did it again when he said that God did not destroy Sodom because of sodomy but (are you ready for this?) it was because the Sodomites were not hospitable to their visitors! I still have his handout making his position.

Perverts (perfectly good word) made the pitch that they were not looking for special rights. They only wanted to be left alone. They wanted to move to a nice suburban home with a picket fence, park matching Volvos in the driveway, and live happily ever after. “Just leave us alone.” I suggested that they wanted far more than that. I said, “You want the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval upon your wicked lifestyle, but you’ll not get it as long as Bible believing Christians are around.” (The Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval guarantees the reliability of products advertised in their magazine and has done so since 1909.)

I may have been wrong because it seems the constant assault by the media, the brainwashing by the public schools, and the failure on the part of churches to teach biblical truth has won the day for perverse living. No longer are the sodomites the bad guys corrupting society but those who warn against them are perceived as “haters” and “bigots.” I tell the truth about sodomy and am called a hater and those who twist the truth like a pretzel are perceived as noble, kind, and liberal. Homosexuals along with liberal politicians will lie, distort, connive, and conspire to make what any sane person knows is abnormal and unnatural into something that is legal, acceptable, even desirable! It is a strange, strange world! 

Even many religious leaders tell us that the Bible is not clear and after all, few juries would send someone to jail for “loving another way.” However, they don’t understand that it is a matter of truth; moreover, with anti-sodomy laws, there would be prosecution for restroom recruiting, cruising, etc.

If Wisconsin had had an anti-sodomy law, the police could have saved many lives from being snuffed out by sodomite Jeffrey Dahmer who molested and killed at least 17 boys, then had sex with them, then ate some of them. At one time, one of them escaped and ran into the street naked, drugged, and bleeding from his rectum. Jeff went after him and noticed that his lover had been stopped by the cops. Jeff told them his “19-year old lover” (who was really 14-years old) and him had had a spat and the kid was returned to Jeff (who was characterized by a Roman Catholic nun as a “boy with a good heart”). Within hours, the boy was dead, his body partly eaten by the “boy with a good heart”! Seven skulls, a heart, several severed hands and penises were found in his apartment!

My bill did not pass because of wimpish Republicans who joined with Democrats to kill it in committee. They also killed common sense.

The Federal Government is considering the outcome of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill that would penalize decent Christians and protect pedophiles and would make this column illegal and expose me to a prison term. So be it. 

Bring back anti-sodomy laws in each state. At least it might keep some of them deep inside the closet if they aren’t in prison and that’s better than nothing.

Copyright 2009, Don Boys, Ph.D.

(Dr.. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 13 books, frequent guest on television and radio talk shows, and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. His  most recent book is ISLAM: America's Trojan Horse!  These columns go to over 11,000 newspapers, television, and radio stations. His web sites are www.cstnews.com  and www.Muslimfact.com.)

Was a Black Man the First U.S. President?

Don Boys, Ph.D.

The old canard that George Washington was not the first U.S. President has been around for at least 40 years and is no more true today than when it was first birthed. It is said that John Hanson was the first president and then extremists added the suggestion that he was black, as it seems everyone in history was who accomplished anything!  In November 1781, Hanson became the third President of Congress to be elected under the terms of the Articles of Confederation; however, he was the first to serve a full year.  Hanson was a Maryland planter who was valuable to the cause of the American Revolution. Under the Articles of Confederation, the United States had no executive branch; the President of Congress was a mostly ceremonial position. John’s grandson promoted the story of Hanson being the “first U.S. President,” and the story “got legs” in about 1932 when it was promoted in a book by Seymour Wemyss Smith.

It is alleged that Hanson lived directly across the river from George Washington and they ran a ferry across the Potomac River; however, John lived 30 miles down river from Washington and the ferry was run by a distant Hanson cousin who lived across from Washington. The biggest problem is that Hanson could not have been the first U.S. President since there was no executive leader until the Constitution took effect in 1789. Furthermore, it is alleged that Hanson served in the Maryland Senate and originated the Great Seal of the United States, both myths being without foundation.

Dick Gregory, comedian and black activist, in one of his columns repeated most of the myths regarding Hanson and added a new one, that John Hanson was the descendant of an “African-American” (known as Blacks to those of us who refuse to change our vocabulary to satisfy extremists who play silly games). Black activists have accused many famous people of being black including Thomas Jefferson’s mother, Lincoln’s mother, Nancy Hanks, Andrew Jackson’s father, Dwight D. Eisenhower's parents, etc. Other famous people allegedly black include Cleopatra, Hannibal, Beethoven,  Cheops, the pharaoh who built the Great Pyramid, the Queen of Sheba, Aesop,  Moses and on and on and on. Of course, if you consider anyone with a drop of Negro blood to be a Black then no doubt many of us would be considered black.  

One of my critics called Hanson a “Moore” although he meant to write, “Moor.” Moors were a nomadic people of Arab and Berber descent whose civilization flourished in North Africa between the 8th and the 15th centuries. They were not blacks. My critic obviously has an agenda but he has not and cannot support his thesis.

I was accused of being “predictably biased” regarding Martin Luther King.. My accuser opined “What ever his flaws where (sic), who are we to judge, none of us are perfect.” He does not understand that one does not have to be perfect to make a judgment about an event, a person, a policy, etc. He defended King suggesting he did the best of his ability to make a difference “the best way he knew how..” Of course, my critic does not know that to be true. He assumes something he has yet to prove.

To put patriot John Hanson (whether black, white, or polka dot) in the same category with Martin Luther King who was an admitted adulterer and a proven plagiarist, liar, and thief is incredible.

Blacks have many famous, highly respected, honorable people whom they can relate to without pulling silly myths out of thin air. They should be applauding great leaders like George Washington Carver, Booker T. Washington, Dr. Charles Drew, Jesse Owens, Joe Louis, etc. Instead, many black activists mention Martin Luther King, W. E. B. Du Bois (brilliant and talented communist and recipient of the Lenin Peace Prize), Paul Robeson (multi-talented socialist, winner of the Stalin Peace Prize), Nelson Mandela an admitted saboteur and author of “Why I am a good Communist” written in his own handwriting. Fanatics recently added another socialist to their favorite list: Barack Hussein Obama!  

No, John Hanson was not the first president of the U. S. and even if he were, he was not black. And the current U.S. President is half black but with his election, it removes from the arsenal of liberal fanatics (white and black) the charge that America is a racist nation. We have proved with the election of Obama that we are not racist—only fools.

Were Early Christians Independent Baptists? (My response to an attack)

Don Boys, Ph.D.

Yes, all my columns are my opinions but they are opinions supported by the Bible and common sense. Christ and the Disciples were not “IFB church members” nor did they “wear coat and ties,” however, they taught what orthodox Christians have always believed since the earliest days of the church. I am saying that the earliest Christians were independent, fundamental Christians and taught the biblical truths Baptists teach today!

I cannot prove that they had three services per week plus training union. You soft evangelicals seem to have a problem with going to church as if it may harm you. I don’t have to go to church, I want to go and once per week is not enough for me. You obviously don’t know or have willingly overlooked the fact that Jesus taught them daily in the Temple according to Matt. 26:55 and Mark 14:49. In Acts 2:46 “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house.” Again in Acts 5:42 “And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.” So, in light of those and other passages, can you justify one service per week? So much for “man-made traditions” as you characterized it. I am eager to get your reply, but I won’t, will I?

You wrote, “They did not wear coat and ties, sing hymns and have Sunday School and three church services and training union.”  No, they did not wear ties since they did not exist but they were not slovenly dressed to call attention to themselves. Moreover, you are wrong because they did sing hymns as Matt. 26:30 and Mark 14:26 clearly state. Please note Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 where Paul commands our singing to be “hymns and spiritual songs,” not just noise.

Moreover, you are willing to “bet” that they had loud music and used tamborines. Maybe, but I would not bet on it. As for Jesus singing along with them, I would agree that is very likely, but what is your point? If you are trying to prove that such a fact justifies the ear-splitting, glass breaking “music” in many churches today, then you have overreached.

You were critical of my reference to the failure of Billy Graham’s pastor in not bringing church discipline upon him for his many compromises with unbelieving preachers, defending baptismal regeneration to a Lutheran magazine and his heretical statements on the Larry King show that people who have never accepted Christ would be in Heaven. According to you, since I am a nobody I have no authority to speak out on Graham and other compromisers. Your lack of knowledge is astounding or is it more sinister: a rejection of what you know to be true? The Bible commands all of us to contend for the faith (Jude 1:3); how about II Tim. 4:2 where we are told to “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” I see no use in beating you over the head with other proof-texts if you will not accept the ones provided.

You closed by saying that you were sorry for me (for trying to be true to Scripture!), when you appear to either lack in knowledge or obedience.

Pastors, please add wwwcstnews.com to your website if you agree with most of what we stand for..

Those of you who have used the Debt Reduction company I recommended a few months ago should contact me with any complaints or recommendations. I will see that the proper people get your comments.

It is time some of you contact me about another revival or family conference in your church. Or maybe a Christian Couples’ Conference.

Little Known Fact of History!

The famous Temple of the goddess Artemis (built in 550 B.C. and also known as Temple of Diana who was worshipped in Ephesus, in today’s Turkey, as the goddess of fertility) was known as one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. One night a man named Herostrates burned down the temple in a quest for fame. The mention of the arsonist's name became a crime punishable by death! From the ruins of the temple, however, the people of Ephesus built a new temple, more glorious than the first. Many considered the new Temple of Artemis to be the greatest wonder of all.

The temple was immense: nearly 100,000 square feet, with 127 columns measuring 60 feet tall and more than 30 feet around. It was twice the height and length of the Parthenon in Athens, and was made entirely of marble.. It was exquisite: 36 of the columns were intricately carved with natural and mythic themes. In the center stood the statue of the goddess of fertility, facing west, toward the