Last week I started reading the novel "Safely Home" by Randy Alcorn. It's a story of two former Harvard roommates, one from America and the other from China, reunited after a separation of time, distance and life choices. Li Quan is a devoted Christian who returned to China after he graduated. Ben is a person who lost his way as he pursued promotion in his business career.
There is a part in the story where Ben and Quan are at the Great Wall of China. Ben is impressed by its beauty, not knowing the larger history behind it. There Quan gives a proverb to Ben - one which has been bouncing around in my head ever since reading it. "A frog was in a well," Quan said. "A bird stopped to drink at the well. They argued about how the sky looked. The frog thought it was very small. The bird thought it was very big." "O…kay." "The bird could see the sky as it really was. The frog could only see a tiny part of it. We do not always see as clearly as we think we do." In communist countries, there is a strategic effort to control how people view things. Why? Well, if you control the narrative, you control a person's perception. If you control the perception, you control the nation. Karl Marx understood this, and that is why one of the ten strategies he wrote to implement communism successfully is the centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. But how do you control how someone perceives something? Communist countries, such as China, employs the use of propaganda (i.e. information given with an intentional bias or misleading nature to promote a particular point of view), censorship (involving suppression of critical coverage) and control of content (typically through centralization of media under the state or monetary influence). From what I have read, each communist party maintained a department to monitor and suppress any information that did not go along with the party. These tactics aren't just found in China; it's here in Canada. There are many examples, but I want to focus on how the government and the government-sponsored media have been handling the trucker convoy. From the beginning, Trudeau has been controlling the narrative. It's evident in his speech on January 26th, in which he lays a framework to view the event.
Having laid the framework by which to view this event, he then lambasts the truckers. And here, we explicitly see his communist leaning. In a communist society, the individual's best interests are indistinguishable from the society's best interest. Thus, the idea of an individual freedom (such as the freedom of medical choice) is incompatible with a communist ideology. With that said, notice Trudeau's rhetoric. "The small fringe minority of people that are on their way to Ottawa, that are holding unacceptable views that they are expressing, do not represent the views of Canadians who have been there for each other, who know that following the science and stepping up to protect each other is the best way to continue to ensure our freedoms, our rights, our values as a country." Trudeau's argument is simple, the truckers' view (ie. the freedom of medical choice) is unacceptable because it doesn't fit in with the majority of Canadians. Is this what makes a view acceptable? In a communist society, yes. The narrative was firmly set at that point – the truckers were a small fringe minority with unacceptable beliefs. The government, along with government-sponsored media, intentionally sought to limit your view of the event – making you see the event like a frog in a well seeing the sky. Just consider how they reported on this convoy as they made their way to Ottawa.
And when they finally arrived in Ottawa, what happened? They continued with the talking point of extremism and hatred. There has been circulation of pictures and articles about Terry Fox being "defaced", the cenotaph being used as a parking lot, people carrying confederate flags and swastikas, disgracing of the unknown soldier memorial (by urinating and dancing on it), verbal harassment at a soup kitchen (reported here), and "F*** Trudeau" signs. I'm not here to disprove whether these things happened. Many people are already shining light on that. I simply want you to consider how mainstream media's reporting influences how you perceive this convoy and its cause. So consider, is your view being limited and influenced by the media on this event? Here are some necessary questions to consider as you critically think about the trucker convoy. These questions can also be applied to other protests, causes and events being covered in our nation.
As Quan said to Ben, "We do not always see as clearly as we think we do". Sometimes the reason for that is because the media influences us to see it a certain way. This is especially true in communist countries like China, where the state party controls the media. What about Canada? How free is our media to report on things? Mainstream media is largely sponsored by the government - and the government has a certain narrative. God warns us about jumping to conclusions. In Proverbs, we read, "If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame" (Proverbs 18:13). A couple of verses later, we read, "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him" (Proverbs 18:17). God wants us to practice critical thinking – the objective analysis of available facts, evidence, observations and arguments to form a judgement. He wants us to step back, ask questions, cross-examine the evidence, and attempt not only to see the bigger picture but what is true. Will we do it perfectly? No. But we should consistently, persistently, and humbly engage in this activity, nonetheless. So ask yourself, are you the frog or the bird? Are you only seeing a piece of the picture (the part that government-sponsored media wants you to see) or the whole thing? Are you doing what God desires and weighing everything, cross-examining what you have read, heard and seen? Are you thinking for yourself, or are you being controlled and conformed to the narrative?
0 Comments
Edited: This article has led to some confusion and upset feelings. This was not my intention. I acknowledged that there are faithful churches that are standing up against the government overreach. They have made great sacrifices. Thankfully, I belong to one! This article is not an attack against them, but an indictment against the unfaithful churches that have (and still do) bowed the knee to ceaser. The church as a collective should have united together and pushed back against the unjust mandates. And yet the majority hid and compromised. This is what upsets me. And this is what I was writing against.
"The convoy of freedom" has rolled out and is heading to Ottawa to protest the mandates. It's a bitter-sweet thing to me. It's sweet to see many Canadians rallying together, putting pressure on our tyrannical government. However, I grieve at the same time. Why? Because it should be the church leading the charge (Prov. 28:4-5). We are to be the moral backbone of our nation, calling out evil and urging people to repent (Eph. 5:11). We are the butler and pillar of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), actively teaching others what God has decreed (Mt. 28:19-20); yet many have hidden, cowered and compromised. This will be an unfavourable opinion, and I desperately hope that I'm wrong because I'm tired of the injustice and evil that our government is allowed to get away with. Still, though there is a movement and lots of hype from certain people, the truckers most likely will not succeed. The government won't listen. They are already suppressing things: turning off cameras, showing bias reporting, and pushing the narrative of vaccines. The government will suppress the movement, like a defiant toddler with its fingers in their ears. There is really only one way out of the mess we are in. Repentance, obedience and prayer. One verse that sums this up for me is 2 Chronicles 7:14, "if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land." If the truckers managed to succeed and the government relented of the mandates, what would that mean for our country? The truckers are the ones who are elevated and praised for their heroism, while the church (as a collective) continues to be seen as irrelevant. The truckers are seen as the ones who will fight against injustice, while the church will bend to tyrannical rule. The truckers will be viewed as the saviours of Canada, and the church will continue to bleed. Now, this may sound like jealousy. But the reason I see this as a grievous thing is not only should we be the ones who ought to care for what is right, but God's reputation is on the line. Whether we like it or not, how we behave as a church reflects on God. To justify cowardice, and compromise God's clear teachings, brings shame to God. And that should horrify us! If the truckers managed to succeed, and the government relented from the mandates, then what? Though we may have the freedom to engage in society and freely travel, we are still in a morally perverted country. Will we look to our truckers to get us back to being a Christian nation? Will the compromised churches then wake up and get to work confronting bills like C4 and others anti-Christian legislation. Their track record hasn't really been good up to this point. If the mandates were taken away, we still have a government that praised the passing of Bill C4. We still have a government that dismisses the Bible as a myth. As one person has said, we don't live in a post-Christian culture anymore; we live in an anti-Christian culture. There will progressively be more and worse things coming down. Yes, I support what the truckers are doing. Yes, I think what they are doing is good. God has given innate rights and freedoms to all people, which the government should be upholding. To stand up for these things by putting pressure on the governing authorities is the morally right thing to do. But this should be the church's fight. I grieve that most churches in Canada continue to cower and compromise. If the truckers did succeed, I can't help but view this as a Deborah and Barak situation. Barak was a weak, cowardly man who didn't want to do his role and needed his hand held by Deborah. Deborah was a lady who took on a role that really wasn't meant for her and yet led Israel into victory. God was gracious and gave victory, yet that victory was given to Deborah and Jael when it should have been Barak's. In case you missed it, I'm viewing the church as Barak and Deborah as the truckers. I don't think I'm off the mark. I remember when I was still pastoring under Village Missions, the organization's director was hoping for a day like this. A day when those outside the church would lead a revolt and bring an end to this season. I shook my head then, and I shake it now. Why are we waiting for the world to act first? We are supposed to be leading in moral issues, not the world! So church, take up the fight. Lead the way! Show and teach our country the way that God has decreed. Man up and stop being like Barak. It's time to be faithful and courageous. Praise the Lord for churches and Christians that are already doing this. Written by Aimee Hanson
How did God respond to the wicked nations that sacrificed their children to false gods (2 Kings 3: 27, 2 Kings 17: 17-18, 2 Kings 21:2-6, Jer. 7: 30-34, and 2 Chron. 33:6)? How do you think God is responding now to Canada, where tens of thousands of children are murdered yearly for the god of self. We don't have recorded the exact amount since there are no records of how many babies have died as a result of the abortion pill. North American churches have been preaching on sanctity of life in the middle of January because the decision of Roe vs. Wade was on January 22, 1973. In solidarity with American Christians, I would like to share a little about Canada's history of abortion laws. The case similar to Roe v. Wade in Canada: R. V. Morgentaler had its verdict on January 28, 1988. Two years after Canada was founded in 1869, abortion was illegal until 1969. In 1969 the Omnibus Bill was brought forth, which changed several laws in the criminal code. This bill was introduced by Justice Minister, The Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau. It changed many laws, including making contraception legal and also allowing abortions to take place with the approval of three or more doctors. Most Canadians are unaware that 34 years ago, there was a case that made abortions legal for all stages of pregnancy. This case questioned whether Canadian Charter rights were consistent with the criminalization of abortions that did not have approval from 3 or more doctors. It was determined the women's Charter rights of "life, liberty and security of the person" were in violation. The child's charter rights have not been in view, and it was not determined whether they are included in the Charter's right to life as they were considered "potential life." God, who created all things, wants us to protect the most vulnerable, and that includes the unborn. On November 16, 1989, a court case ruled that a father's rights did not exist or supersede the mother's right to control her body. Since then, many other challenges have been brought forward, and nothing has changed. One of which was Bill C-233 "Sex-selective Abortion Act" seeking to make it illegal for sex-selective abortions. David Hanson from Church Awake wrote about it here. Canadian taxpayer dollars fund abortions in Canada and around the world. There has also been further evil done in my home province. In 2020, NS ruled it illegal to protest an abortion facility or pharmacy that sells an abortion pill. On March 10, 2020, Bill 242, "Protecting Access to Reproductive health Care Act" made royal assent in the NS legislature. This act makes it illegal for anyone to persuade someone to not have an abortion while 20 m from the land the building is on. To break this law could result in a $5000 fine or 6-month imprisonment for a first offence. Why do I keep insisting abortion is evil? There is another body inside the mother. In fact, when a doctor (or murderer) conducts an abortion, he has to ensure he or she gets the full fetus out for her health and protection. In doing so, they count the limbs to make sure there are two arms and two legs and all the rest of the body parts. You might ask wouldn't the fetus come all at once? There are different ways abortions are done based on the stage of pregnancy. I was taught that one of the common ways is to destroy the baby being created by God inside the mother by taking it out piece by piece. I say this because most aren't disgusted by the word abortion in Canada. You need to know how depraved it is to willingly and celebratorily kill the unborn. I know that it may make people literally sick to know this if they didn't know. Church Awake did an interview with Bill Davenport, who is Executive Directory of a pregnancy care centre here in the valley. He said many women who undergo an abortion have mental anguish that can last for years, sometimes resulting in an addiction to resolve the pain following it. God can save you from your sin if you've had an abortion. God did that for Erin Coates; listen to here testimony here. What hope does Canada have if we are under God's judgment for unjust laws? Here are some things we can do...
Do not sit by while a holocaust is happening in your country. What God calls good, Marxism calls evil. God’s design, of family and parental authority, has been under attack for longer than perhaps many of us realize. In the 19th century, Karl Marx sought to dismantle this structure. Why? I shared a couple of the reasons in the last blog, but I will list them down here for convenience. Marx believed that the family structure:
For these reasons, the family structure and parental authority had to be destroyed. It was an oppressive structure that perpetrated further oppression. This Marxist understanding continues to resurface throughout the years. In 2020 Noah Berlatsky, a writer and Marxist wrote on Twitter: “Parents are tyrants. Parent is an oppressive class, like rich people or white people. There are things you can do to try to minimize the abuse that’s endemic to the parent/children relationship, but it is always there”. This is a stark example of Marxism seeking to undermine parental authority. And it was met with a lot of pushback. But these aren’t the only examples that we see of Marxist influence in our culture regarding the family. Here’s one more. The philosophy of “It takes a village to raise a child.” Hillary Clinton popularized this saying in 1995 with a book by this title. Though this may seem innocent, today’s understanding takes away the exclusive rights of the parents over the raising of their children. It is taken from African culture, where it is believed that a child does not belong to one family but all families. This is what Marx envisioned the family to be. Statism. What the world wants as a family structure and what God desires the family to be, is often polarizing, as we will see as we now look at God’s design. God has established the children in the home to submit to their parents. Parental authority is implied in the Ten Commandments, which is the capstone of God’s Law. Exodus 20:12 – “Honour your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you” (cf. Deut. 5:16) The word “honour” means “heavy” or “to give weight.” Honouring someone is to be respectful in word or action and have an inward attitude of esteem for the person’s position. For a child to honour their parents means to:
God’s law emphasizes the honour that ought to be shown to the parents by forbidding a child to mock, strike or curse at his parents (Ex. 21:15-17; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 27:16; Prov. 20:20; 23:22), as well as rebel against their instruction (Deut. 21:18; Pr. 6:20). There were severe consequences attached to breaking these laws, and graphic judgement is even warned about (Pro. 30:17). God takes seriously the parental authority structure he has established in the home. And since He does not change, we see the instruction for children to respect, honour and obey their parents reiterated in the New Testament. Paul repeats it in Ephesians 6:1-3 where he writes: Ephesians 6:1-3 – “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. ‘Honor your father and mother’ (this is the first commandment with a promise), ‘that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land’. (cf. Col. 3:20) Children are to obey and honour their parents "in all things" (Col. 3:20). For the sake of clarity, all things does not include sin. Any time a parent instructs their child to sin, they are to obey the higher authority - God. Yet, in all things that are not sin a child is to obey and honour their parent. Why? Because God has given each parent authority over their child. Now let’s define this authority. A parent’s authority can be broken down into two categories:
It’s clear from scripture that families are not democracies. Everyone’s decisions don’t carry equal eight. It is a monarchy, with the father and mother given the authority to lead. To add to this, there is a hierarchy within that hierarchy. Since the husband is the head of his wife, he is also the head of the family. Yes, both parents ought to be on the same page as they lead their children, but it’s the father who is ultimately the one who makes the final decisions in the family (Numbers 20:1-16; 1 Tim. 3:2). And yet our culture usurps the father’s authority by making the mother the dominant one in the family. Men, we need to be the ones leading our families. We cannot abdicate our responsibility and simply allow our wife to be the one teaching and training our children. It’s easy to go home from a stressful day at work and check out, but our role as a father doesn’t stop simply because we had a rough day. Fathers are specifically commanded in Ephesians to “bring them [our children] up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). This requires faithful effort each and every day. But there’s another trend happening as well. Parents are being encouraged to not only get on the same level as their child (becoming their friend or big brother/sister) but allow their child to make the decisions. Some advocate free-range parenting which gives the child the responsibility to make their own decisions and set their own boundaries (which is something parents are responsible for). Some advocate that you need to get consent from your children for everything involving their body and person (i.e. hugs, diaper changes, bathtime, etc.). The parent must wait before permission is given. Both of these are foreign to the biblical model. Now, this shouldn’t take us by surprise. We were warned that parental authority would be looked down upon (2 Timothy 3:2). Romans 1 even teaches us that a nation given over to judgement is marked by being “disobedient to parents” (Rom. 1:30). How much evidence do we need to be convinced that Canada is under judgement? Our culture needs not simply homes with both parents, but homes with both parents who take their role seriously and train their children to do what is wise and good. Parental authority is not something to give up. It is God’s design that brings about at least three significant benefits.
The parent's role is to lead, the child's role is to submit and follow. It's that simple. And whereas Marxism seeks to paint this as an oppressive structure, it is God's good design which protects the child today and prepares the child for tomorrow. It has been a couple of months since I wrote about the authority structures woven into God’s great tapestry. So, as a recap:
This article focuses on another realm – family – and the authority structures that God has established in that sphere. This will take two separate weeks. First, we will focus on the authority of the husband. And then the authority of the father. I’ve entitled these next two blog posts “Patriarchy is Biblical.” Now that might make your nostrils flare but hear me out before you rush to conclusions. So, where do we begin? Definitions! Patriarchy is appropriately defined as “a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.” You might believe that this is a dated system based upon gender inequality stemming from misogyny and chauvinism. If you do, it’s because you have been influenced by feminism and marxism. According to Marx and Engels, the structure of a monogamous committed marriage, where the husband is head of the home, came to be in the 18th century through evolutionary process and economic pressures. They theorized that originally people lived in egalitarian communes given to free love where there was no marital commitment to a single spouse (as well as family commitment). Marx and Engel believed that the husband as head of the home was a social construct designed to passively teach the acceptance of hierarchy, promoting class struggle between the labourers (proletariat) and the business-owners (bourgeoises). It was something that needed to be dismantled. Feminism, based on the Marxist premise of class struggle between the oppressed and oppressor, has led the charge in dismantling this structure. They view such a structure as oppressive, with the husband being the oppressor and the wife being the oppressed. But what does the Bible teach? This should be our greatest concern. If we know what it teaches, then we can understand the design that God has established. And since God is the one that created everything, and knows how it functions together, then we can trust that it is good. So, what does the Bible teach? Put simply, the husband is the head of the home. Ephesians 5:23 – “For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour”. 1 Corinthians 11:3 – “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” The Bible is clear, but what does it mean for the husband to be the head of his wife? It doesn’t mean that he is superior to his wife. The wife and husband are equal in worth because both are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). The Christian wife and husband are spiritual equals because both are positionally in Christ (Gal. 3:28). But yet, the husband is the head of the wife. Just as the head governs the body, the husband has been established by God as the leader in the marriage relationship. And all this begins in the creation account.
It’s clear to see that unlike what marxism teaches, this authority structure did not evolve but was instead established at the beginning. It’s also important to note that this structure originated before the fall. It is God’s good design. Authority is something we should not despise. When used righteously, it is a good and joyous thing (cf. Proverbs 29:2). There’s protection in a marriage when:
When we as husbands lead well, it’s a good and beautiful thing. Yet our world, for multiple reasons, attempts to dismantle this structure. I’ve heard it said a couple of times, usually tongue-in-cheek, “The husband is the head, but the wife is the neck that turns the head.” This expression is also a distortion of God’s good design since it inverts the role of husband and wife. It depicts the wife as the one who truly leads and governs her husband, which directly contrasts with what God has established. If God’s pattern is a good and beautiful thing, why do marxism and feminism seek to destroy it? As I have already mentioned, marxism sought to overthrow the husband’s headship for economic reasons. With no hierarchy in the family, then the working-class wouldn’t submit easily to the business owners. I will dig more into the employee/employer relationship in a future blog. Feminism took cultural marxism and applied it, seeing the husband as the oppressor. In some situations, this is true. Some husbands are lazy and don’t want to lead, and some are abusive and desire to domineer over their wife (where the wife is seen but not heard). Both are husbands who fail to embrace the creation design. But there is another layer in feminism that is spiritual. God had warned Eve that she would desire to rule over her husband (Genesis 3:16). This is precisely what we see throughout history up to this present day. Sitcoms are filled with strong women ruling over silly husbands incapable of leading. This has been propagated throughout our culture. So, what do we do? We reclaim the role that God has given us. We man up, lead our wives with biblical wisdom and conviction, and sacrificially provide for her needs above our own. This activity will take courage, commitment and love. The courage to take on responsibility and lead. The commitment to stick it out even when things are challenging. And a love for God, which supersedes our love for our bride. A love that desires above all else to faithfully study His Word and commit to His way so that you may lead well. Written By Guest Writer
Satan has a way of taking what is God’s and attempting to destroy it. The most prevalent worldview in North America is a complete distortion of God’s design. It is complete with a false end-times doctrine. It is not taught in those terms, however, so believer beware! When I went to school, I was taught about climate change – in both the catholic and public schools I attended. I’ve had to spend time unlearning what I was taught, and there is still so much for me to learn on this topic. However, I have learned that climate change leading to the end of the world is the world’s eschatology. The world’s idea of how our planet will come to an end is nothing more than a lie. We know this because no Christian eschatology will lead to an understanding of the world ending with climate change. I suppose some Christians may point to the fire that Peter talks about in 2 Peter 3:7-12, which consumes the world as a reference to climate change, but I’ll get back to that a little later. It’s easy to dismiss this topic, but as Christians, we need to determine where we stand on this issue. Why? Because eschatology matters as it impacts our life. Due to the world’s belief system regarding the end, movies like Day after Tomorrow (2004) and An Inconvenient Truth (2006) have been made, Canada passed a motion in June 2019 for a National Climate Emergency (see also this link), Calgary enacted a climate change lockdown, and in BC a doctor has been diagnosing patients with climate change. There is really so many more examples that could be added, but I think its evident that what we think determines how we live. Before we get too far into the conversation, we need to begin with definitions, so we are on the same page. What is eschatology? “-ology” is the “study of” and “eschatos” means “last” or “end” in Greek. This word means the study of last days or judgement. What is climate change? The Oxford dictionary defines it this way: “a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels.” While eschatology is not a term used outside the church, I believe the world’s eschatology is that the world will end in climate change because the message the world is sending us is we must change the way we live or else the world will end soon. This message is a fearful one to hear and is often presented with little hope of reversal. In fact, it’s been documented that many young people live in fear that the world will end soon due to climate change. This false ideology has real impacts on the next generation’s mental health. As Christians, we owe it to them to teach them we only need to fear the world ending if we don’t fear the only one who can end the world. As I have mentioned, I understand there are Christians who believe God will destroy the earth by fire and restore it with a new earth or New Jerusalem. However, Revelation tells us the New Jerusalem is the church or bride of Christ, not a new earth (Rev. 21:1-2, 9-10). The world will not come to an end. Instead, it will be cleansed from sin and continue forever in a perfect state. We are told that climate change results from fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions. Meaning that they believe the way we use the land and its resources are connected with the end of the world. I hope most Christians have considered our role in climate change, starting with Genesis 1: 28-30. A command or role given to Adam and Eve was to steward the garden well as they take dominion over the land and animals as part of the Adamic covenant. Then after the flood, God restated this dominion role to Noah in Genesis 9: 1-7 over the land and animals as part of the Noahic covenant. There is no indication throughout scripture that this dominion has ended; there is, however, much to the contrary. Those who receive eternal life in Jesus will inherit the earth (Matt. 5:5, Matt. 24: 37-41, Psalm 37: 9,11, 22, 29). In Matt. 25:14-30, Jesus tells the parable of the talents. On the surface, we learn God wants us to steward what he gives us. There is, of course, a much deeper meaning to the text. To steward our land well means we use it to make it better. It is stewarding well to be self-sustaining. Part of using the land to make it better is using the oil found under the soil. We need oil for homes to be warm, to drive vehicles (especially in rural areas, which makes up most of Canada), running machines (snow blower/lawn mower etc.), insulation for housing (petroleum based product), transporting goods, and so many more things we use every day. Oil is something we cannot live without. Only an evil government would make it more difficult for you to have a warm home. Now I know those who received public education as I did would say, “they are not making it more difficult to have a warm house; they are making it, so we all have clean energy because fossil fuels are dirty and have been causing climate change.” Now the supposed clean energy will eventually deteriorate, then what? Solar panels and wind turbines are discarded into landfills where they will never break down and simply waste space. Is that better than fossil fuels? How will solar panels work to keep us warm in the winter when there isn’t enough sun in Canada due to shorter days and more cloudy days during that season? Interestingly, this link explains how Canada’s emissions are staying the same or going down. Anthony Furey demonstrates that tackling climate change is unnecessary for Canada. There is much more to this debate that cannot be fully tackled in such a short blog. Please listen to Liberty Dispatch episode 70 Debunking Doctrine of the Climate Cult. They dig deeper into the climate cult, addressing their erroneous beliefs and claims regarding our “sin” of destroying the earth and our penance needed to avoid this judgement. It’s an episode you’ll want to listen to! |
AuthorHello! I'm glad you found my blog. My name is David Hanson, and I am a concerned Christian who desires for the church of North America to become aware and begin to think biblically of what is happening around them in society. It's time for the church to awake and speak into the current events of the day. We alone have the truth to navigate life effectively. That truth is the Word of God. Archives
May 2022
Categories |