These wars were foundational to the development of the political institutions of the West. They were part of a vast social/cultural/political process that ultimately replaced feudalism and the “divine right of kings” with the centralized, capital-based governments that dominate the world today.

The ferocious wars of these centuries made a deep impression on the collective memory of European people. Estimates of Central European deaths in the Thirty Years’ War run from 3 to 7 million (many of these resulting from starvation and disease among the civilian population). Deaths from war, disease, and starvation during the English Civil War have been estimated at around 800,000, or 4 percent, 6 percent, and 40 percent of England, Scotland, and Ireland’s populations respectively. Because nearly all of the participants in these wars had religious loyalties and convictions, religious feelings were often exploited by rulers. But religion was not the underlying motivation.

Two well-known examples involved the establishment of Lutheranism and Anglicanism. In the 16th century, Martin Luther’s reasons for breaking with the Catholic Church were theological, but the Reformation would have been quickly crushed if it hadn’t been supported by powerful European rulers whose motivations were primarily political and economic. King Henry VIII of England separated from Rome and formed the Anglican Church for pragmatic, nonreligious reasons—largely due to the refusal of the pope to grant an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. He believed the Catholic Church was interfering with the internal affairs of his kingdom. He also wanted to nationalize the vast holdings of the Catholic Church in England to consolidate his power.

In The Myth of Religious Violence (Oxford Press), William Cavanaugh refers to recent scholarship to show that the underlying causes of the “religious wars” of the 16th and 17th centuries weren’t religious. Cavanaugh includes eight pages of examples, of which the following quotation is only the first:

If there truly were a war of all sects against all, one would expect that war would have broken out soon after Europe split into Catholic and Protestant factions. However, between the time that Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the church door at Wittenberg in 1517 and the outbreak of the first commonly cited religious war—the Schmalkaldic War of 1546–1547—almost thirty years would pass. The Catholic prosecutor of the Schmalkaldic War, Holy Roman emperor Charles V, spent much of the decade following Luther’s excommunication in 1520 at war not against Lutherans, but against the pope. As Richard Dunn points out, “Charles V’s soldiers sacked Rome, not Wittenberg, in 1527, and when the papacy belatedly sponsored a reform program, both the Habsburgs and the Valois refused to endorse much of it, rejecting especially those Trentine decrees which encroached on their sovereign authority.” The wars of the 1540s were part of the ongoing struggle between the pope and the emperor for control over Italy and over the church in German territories (The Myth of Religious Violence, 143-44).

Cavanaugh provides massive documentation showing that rather than the state being the peace-making force that eventually solved the problem of religiously motivated violence, the process of centralizing public authority in a secular state was itself the most significant cause of violence. “There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the transfer of power to the emergent state was a cause, not the solution, to the wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries” (ibid., p. 162).

These wars replaced the religion of the church with the religion of the state.

The historical evidence renders . . . the idea that the modern state saved Europe from religious violence . . . unbelievable. State building . . . was a significant cause of the violence. An important aspect of state building was the absorption of the church by the state, which exacerbated and enforced ecclesial differences and therefore contributed to warfare between Catholics and Protestants. In the process, the state did not rein in and tame religion but became itself sacralized. The transfer of power from the church to the state was accompanied by a migration of the holy from church to state (ibid., p. 176).

(The reason many still consider religion the primary cause of war and violence is discussed in (Is Religion Evil?)

The post Were Disagreements Over Christian Doctrine the Main Cause for European “Religious Wars” of the 16th and 17th Centuries? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.

Although most Christians agree that war is sometimes necessary in self defense (See the ATQ article When Is a War Just?), and nominal “Christians” have often wrongfully launched or participated in wars of aggression, genuine, New Testament Christianity would never be the cause of war.

The New Testament is neither hostile towards non-Christians, nor does it rationalize aggression against them.

Christianity’s core beliefs are clearly defined by the New Testament:

1. Humanity is sinful and needs redemption.

2. God loves the entire human race, regardless of race, gender, or cultural background.

3. The perfect life and atoning death of Jesus Christ provided our redemption.

4. Jesus is the “firstborn of many brethren” (Romans 8:29), the model for Christian living (John 17:16-26).

The New Testament views all people—including Christians—as sinners in need of forgiveness and calls on them to repent their sins, accept God’s free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ, and live gratefully, lovingly, and obediently with Jesus as their model. It portrays all people as equal in spiritual worth, whether rich, poor, male, female, slave, or free (Acts 17:26; Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:9-11; 1 Peter 2:9). It also separates spiritual authority from governmental authority (Mark 12:16-17, John 19:11, John 18:36-37).

The New Testament requires Christians to be concerned for their enemies (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:20-34; Acts 7:60; 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, 13; Ephesians 5:1-2); to shun self-righteousness (Matthew 7:3-5; John 8:3-11; Romans 5:8-11; Galatians 6:1); to repudiate the idols of ethnic pride and privilege (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 10:30-37; Luke 17:11-19; John 4:9); to refrain from judging other people’s hearts (Matthew 13:24-30); to realize that one’s responsibility to God is of a higher order than one’s responsibility to the state (Mark 12:13-17); and to forgive repentant sinners and forswear revenge against them (Luke 23:34; Romans 12:14-21; Ephesians 4:31).

Only when flagrantly distorted and misapplied can the words of the New Testament be taken to imply that Christians should forcefully impose their faith on others. The gospel of Jesus Christ commands Christians to overcome evil with good; realize that love and forgiveness are essential to the establishment of God’s kingdom; be conscious of the distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world; and be humble as sinners who have not only been forgiven but graciously given the power to live an obedient life.

The post Why Is New Testament Christianity Opposed to War? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.

Bearing a mark ensuring that anyone who killed him would suffer vengeance seven times over, Cain founded the first city (Genesis 4:17) along with a social order that could be preserved only through fear of vengeance and retribution. It wasn’t long before Cain’s great-great-great grandson Lamech defiantly boasted that while God might avenge Cain’s murder seven times, he could personally avenge himself seventy-seven times (Genesis 4:23-24).¹ Soon civilization was so corrupt and violent that God destroyed it in a flood, sparing only one just man and his family (Genesis 6:9-13)

But human violence didn’t end with the flood. The offspring of the patriarchs through whom God intended to establish His kingdom (Genesis 12:1-3) took possession of the Promised Land and established a city at Mount Zion. Although the bearers of the promise, they soon filled their own city with such violence that God brought judgment against them by means of even more violent nations (Ezekiel 7:23-27; Matthew 23:34-24:2).

Like Cain, the people of Noah’s day, and the Israelites, people of every generation are alienated from God. Without a connection of love and trust with the Creator, they are also alienated from each other and themselves. Yet rather than turning to God for affirmation and meaning, they seek it in social convention. Further, just as Cain hated Abel, people hate genuine prophets and honest men and choose leaders willing to nurture their illusions. The more their leaders flatter and mislead them, the more the people admire and honor them (1 Samuel 8:6-9).

Founded on falsehood, culture is deeply flawed, doomed to fail (Lamentations 2:14; Micah 3:11; Luke 6:39; Isaiah 30:10; Isaiah 56:10; Jeremiah 5:31), and satanic at its core (Ephesians 6:12). When consensus crumbles, disillusionment brings fear, isolation, suspicion, and rage. Just like Adam and Eve, we dread exposure of our “nakedness”—our pretense to purpose when we have no purpose, our pretense to strength when we have no strength, our pretense to peace when we have no peace, our pretense to love when we have no love. When the social contract fails, the violence of our hearts is unleashed in a desperate search for a scapegoat to blame.

Perhaps the scapegoat will be a politician or political party that was once viewed with adulation. Perhaps it will be an ethnic or religious minority. Perhaps it will be an “enemy” nation or alliance of nations.

Unwilling to accept responsibility and unwilling to turn to God, we unleash chaos. At this point, the dehumanizing, demoniacal madness of Saul (1 Samuel 18:10-11; 19:9-10; 20:33) and the dweller of the Gadarene tombs (Mark 5:1-5) becomes manifest. We objectify and kill fellow human beings like insects and vermin. Our “enemies” respond in kind.

Yet our greatest rage, like the rage of Cain, is roused when someone like Abel exposes our need for redemption.

1. In Matthew 18:21-22, Jesus apparently has Lamech’s boast in mind. In sharp contrast with a social order founded on vengeance and hatred, Jesus said that his disciples should forgive those who sin against them “seventy times seven.” Back To Article

The post What Is the Underlying Cause of Violence? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.

Richard Dawkins points to violence around the world that is justified with religious rationalizations, and says that it is wrong for children to be given identities such as Catholic, Muslim, and Hindu at a young age that result in their distrust and hatred of others with different religious/faith identities.

His implication seems to be that someone (presumably people who agree with him, assisted by governmental power) should stop religious indoctrination of children. This raises the question: What will replace religious training of the young? Children are inevitably going to develop identities and will have to have some kind of faith, even if it isn’t “religious.”

Would it be better if faith in a particular form of religion and the people who represent it (Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism, etc.) were replaced with faith in a “universal” ideology such as Communism, or faith in one’s people or nation (Judaism, nationalism, etc.)? Probably not. The ideologies of Communism and Fascist/nationalist movements were major contributors to the two World Wars and other major and minor wars of the past century.

What about faith in something that transcends religion, ideology, ethnicity, and nationalism? Can we trust the corporate/economic system (let’s call it “mammon”—the worship of material wealth) that is currently invading and reshaping the world, obliterating cultures, peoples, and traditions, and making the poor spiritually and materially poorer while granting a small elite hitherto unimaginable riches and power?¹ Degraded “mammonite” culture is proliferating like a bacterial infection by means of the Internet, mass media, and actual military and political aggression. In fact, it seems apparent to many that one of the greatest forces for destruction and evil in the world today is misguided faith in the corporate/economic beast that is reshaping the world to suit its needs.

Faith in mammon doesn’t seem to be a good idea either. How about faith in science and reason?

Unfortunately, as the political and social leaders of the past 300 years have discovered, science and reason are tools that can be used for good or evil, but they aren’t adequate objects of faith.

What’s left as a basis for faith?

• Religion (faith in God) is out.

• Nationalism is out.

• Ideology is out.

• The corporate/capitalist system is out.

It looks like Mr. Dawkins would have to say that we need to have faith that atheists like him would indoctrinate children wisely if government gave them the power to do so.

If Mr. Dawkins had this kind of power, we would discover sooner rather than later that he and others sharing his perspective are really no more trustworthy than the religionists, ideologues, and nationalists who have caused humanity so much suffering and heartache.

The ultimate cause of violence in the world is not religion, nationalism, ideology (including atheism), or even mammon. The primary cause of violence is evil that is deeply embedded in human nature, an evil deadliest when undetected or ignored. Hearts unaware of their own wickedness corrupt faith of any kind into evil and violence.

1. In Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:9, Jesus personifies the Aramaic word for riches, making it the name for an idol/false god that people worship rather than the true God. Back To Article

The post Is Richard Dawkins’ Claim That Religious Faith Is the Main Cause of Violence Correct? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.

¹ Further, children should be taught how to cooperate with authority whenever possible to defuse situations. But it would be dangerous to teach a child that it is always wrong to protect himself and defend his interests.

Jesus understood children. We can be sure that when He took them in His arms and said that we all need to become like them to enter the kingdom of God (Mark 10:13-16), He wasn’t naive about how cruel they can be. The playground, in its own way, is a jungle as ruthless as most spheres of adult life.

It’s likely that a child trained to unconditionally defer to others will develop a crippling pattern of avoidance and an unhealthy fear of conflict. An immature mind can easily be shaped to think that it is “loving” to back away from confrontation—to be a coward when courage is called for. If we follow the “golden rule”—”So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12)—we won’t always allow aggressors to carry out their aggression successfully. If we do, we encourage behavior that brings harm.

Kids should be taught restraint—the ability to discern just how much force is needed, and to apply no more force than necessary. This may involve “turning the other cheek.” ² But children are sometimes confronted with bullies who leave them no choice but to resist or be abused. Sometimes a bully will leave without a blow being thrown, merely at the recognition of a child’s unwillingness to be dominated. On other occasions, a fight may ensue that ends with little real damage to either child, but which will result in a major boost of status and self-esteem for the child who refused to be dominated.

Children aren’t miniature adults. Adults may have the maturity to understand the deep sayings of Jesus, though they struggle to live in accordance with them. We shouldn’t expect children to understand things beyond their spiritual and emotional development. To do so would likely provoke them to wrath (Ephesians 6:4), or to cause them to stumble (Luke 17:1-2). We need to protect them when it’s possible, but we also need to allow them to develop the tools they will need to understand and effectively respond to the challenges of adult life.

1. Sometimes adults can successfully intervene and guide children through difficult situations, teaching valuable spiritual lessons in the process. Back To Article
2. See the ATQ article, What Did Jesus Mean When He Said to Turn the Other Cheek (Matthew 5:39)? Back To Article

The post Should Children Be Taught to Fight Back or Be Told to “Turn the Other Cheek”? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.

Imagine an armed intruder has broken into your home in the middle of the night and is terrorizing your family. If you have a weapon, what would be a faithful and godly response? Would you be showing trust in God by offering no resistance, or would defending your loved ones with lethal force be a better representation of faith?

Neither option is without risk and ambiguity. If you don’t resist, your wife and children may be violated, tortured, and killed to sate the lusts of a sadistic psychopath. If you do resist, you may always carry with you the image of the intruder’s dying eyes and wonder whether you misjudged his intentions.

There seems to be no clear-cut “right” or “wrong” answer to the question of which response would be best.

The references in which Jesus recommends a passive response to aggression may refer most clearly to situations in which resistance is futile (Matthew 5:39). For a Jew under the control of Roman military authority, the best defense would have been to behave in an unexpectedly free manner—to turn the other cheek.

The golden rule (Matthew 7:12 ) states that we should do to others what we would like them to do to us. If I were committing acts of violence against other people, the worst thing that could happen to me would be for me to continue. It would be right for someone to stop me for the good of my own soul. Every wrongful act of violence that I commit sends me farther down the pathway of evil.

Perhaps this is why the New Testament endorses the responsibility of government to resist and punish evildoers (Romans 13:1-6 ). Any view we take concerning the use of force to resist evil must have a deep and comprehensive view of the reality of evil in this world. It would be comforting if we could find refuge in a principle like “it is absolutely wrong to kill” or “it is absolutely right to kill in self-defense.” But the reality of this fallen world makes such certainty impossible.

While many wars have been immoral (just as many police actions and acts of personal aggression are immoral), it is not possible to demonstrate that all acts of war are immoral.

Most wars are an abomination in the eyes of God, and, regrettably, a compromised Christendom has identified itself with some of them. However, under certain circumstances, there seems no alternative than protecting the innocent against evil.

One of the most serious mistakes that Christians can make is to believe that participation in a just war is grounds to ignore Jesus’ command for them to love their enemies (Matthew 5:43-47 ). Wartime propaganda always tries to arouse hatred towards the enemy by portraying them as unqualifiedly evil. Largely due to the lingering effects of wartime propaganda, the Germans in the Second World War are still considered exemplary of absolute military evil. Although many Americans still have some memory of the Great Depression, few are aware of the fragile and dangerous political state of Europe during the 1920s and 30s. Many patriotic Germans were concerned and frightened by the imminent threat of Stalin’s gigantic Communist army massing along Western Europe’s borders.¹ Even after the beginning of the Second World War, many German solders, like General Rommel, either risked their lives or gave them up in resistance to immoral orders and a failed attempt to overthrow Hitler. Through the course of history, leaders come to mind who astonish us with their idealism and courage, but trouble us nonetheless because of the ambiguities of the struggles in which they were engaged: Charlemagne, Luther, Calvin, Cromwell, Toussaint Louverture, Wellington, Bolivar, Washington, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and many others.

Christian ideals must be applied to the real circumstances of life. Because we live in a fallen world, life’s circumstances are seldom as clear-cut as we would like them to be. Accordingly, we need to be responsible citizens of our world, ready to use any avenues available to us to seek justice and true honor.

Christians must be wary of propaganda for war. Every war, like every act of personal self-defense, must be evaluated according to the golden rule and principles of justice.

1. Stalin had made no secret of his intentions to eventually invade and conquer Europe.
   In 1928 he foresaw “a constant struggle against social democracy in all areas.” The tasks he set were “to destroy fascism, overthrow capitalism, install Soviet control, and free the colonies from slavery.” And “a great deal will depend on whether we succeed in delaying the inevitable war with the capitalist world until the time when the capitalists are fighting one another.”

   Documents that have been published in the Soviet Union since the reduction and eventual collapse of censorship beginning in the mid 1980s show the extent to which Soviet society was being prepared psychologically and militarily for war against the West. There is, in fact, overwhelming evidence that rather than being the innocent victim of German aggression, Stalin, with 5,710,000 men, 115,900 artillery, 22,300 tanks, and 22,400 aircraft (the Germans had 4.6 million men, 43,407 artillery, 3,998 tanks, and 3,904 aircraft) had secretly been preparing his own surprise attack on Germany.

   (From Marius Broekmeyer, Stalin, the Russians, and Their War 1941-1945 [The University of Wisconsin Press].) Back To Article

The post Is Pacifism Always Best? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.

Governmental use of military power didn’t change significantly when Constantine made Christianity the leading religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine and his Christianized Roman successors were often as corrupt and ruthless as earlier pagan emperors. Yet the church quickly began to identify with Caesar’s government and its need to impose order, forgot the distinction that earlier Christians drew between Caesar’s realm and the kingdom of God, and began to assume that military service under “Christian rulers” is identical to service for Christ. This perspective resulted in Christian involvement in military actions from the third century until today.

The fact that Jesus Christ was condemned and crucified by earthly political and religious rulers should make it clear that the goals and values of earthly governments are not necessarily in harmony with those of the kingdom of God.

Admittedly, there is a time for war. Christians who generally abhor violence don’t believe they are obligated to stand by and permit violence to be done to their loved ones or themselves. (See the ATQ article, Is Pacifism Always Best?) Many Christians believe that under certain circumstances war is justifiable. (See the ATQ article, When is War Just?)

Yet few wars are genuinely just, and the consequences of unjust wars are always worse than the circumstances triggering them. Even a brief review of the wars of the past century is enough to show how far nominally Christian nations have departed from just-war principles.

World War I began almost by accident when the actions of a lone terrorist unleashed a chain reaction of violence. After the United States was drawn in by propaganda and deception, President Wilson’s idealistic hopes for “a war to end all wars” were not realized. Sixteen million died, 21 million were wounded, and a cruel and unjust Treaty of Versailles set the stage for World War II.

World War II, in turn, set new precedents for the slaughter of civilians (over 40 million civilians died, along with over 25 million military personnel), created a Communist world empire, and motivated the production of weapons capable of obliterating most human life on the planet.

The commander of US forces in Europe during World War II, Five-Star General Dwight David Eisenhower, was elected President in 1952. “Ike” was troubled and alarmed by the changing relationship between government, military, and the private sector. In his January 17, 1961, farewell address, he warned of the rise of “a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions, where none had existed before”:

We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.¹

President Eisenhower’s warnings were prophetic. High level intrigue, including the deceptions behind the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, drew the United States into a Vietnamese conflict that resulted in millions of deaths.  A handful of major corporations gradually gained control of all major media outlets, and independent, unelected government agencies like the CIA also became deeply embedded in the media. ²  As in George Orwell’s prophetic novel, 1984, few US citizens realized how much their perceptions of historical and current events were being shaped by “spin” and disinformation.

We now know that fabricated reports of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and false linkage between the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan and the atrocities of September 11, 2001 were used to justify the United States’ invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, directly and indirectly killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Nearly 6,000 American military personnel have died so far. After 9 years, no clear end to the violence is in sight.

President Eisenhower’s call for “an alert and knowledgeable citizenry” has never been more relevant, but too few Americans seem concerned about whether there is a legal, constitutional,³ and moral basis for their nation’s military actions. This is tragic, as an idealistic young person who wants to serve his country without knowledge of the social and political realities behind political and military policy may find himself directly participating in naked evil. A soldier may have to take a stand that will risk his career or life.

According to Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, the centurion who was held responsible to execute James had himself executed at the same time. On many occasions, a Christian soldier may be in a unique position to dispense justice, protect the innocent, and bring honor to the name of Jesus Christ. At the same time, however, he will be subjected to greater pressures to conform to evil, submit to unjust authority, and remain silent to avoid punishment, court martial, or death.

Because of the legal and moral issues involved with national wars, young people and their parents need to understand the nature of a career in today’s military and its spiritual consequences. Because the goal of military training is immediate, reflexive obedience under stress, it can be dehumanizing. The circumstances and environment of military life can be degrading. Young people in the military often face overwhelming temptations and negative peer influences. (The introduction of women to combat units creates further potential for abuse.⁴) There is no way a young person can anticipate the reality of death, crippling injury, chronic debilitating illness (Agent Orange Syndrome, Gulf War Syndrome), and the psychological trauma inflicted by modern war conditions (often referred to as “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder”).⁵

If nations didn’t protect themselves with military force, nothing would limit the power of predatory states. On the other hand, there is a fine line between protection and exploitation, between a nation protecting its citizens against predatory states or becoming a predator itself. Given today’s political realities, a citizen today can’t simply assume that his government’s wars are worthy of unquestioning support. A young person should never consider enlistment in the military merely another option for employment. It is a commitment with profound spiritual consequences, and if done for the wrong reasons could have devastating consequences.

1. President Eisenhower listed several specific areas of danger:
   

   Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades . . .
   The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
   Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. (Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address, January 17, 1961). Back To Article

2. See, for example, Carl Bernstein’s classic article, “The CIA and the Media” (10-20-77) in Rolling Stone. Back To Article
3. Although the Constitution isn’t the inspired Word of God, it was designed by people who generally held a biblical worldview. Human nature was viewed realistically, with awareness of our capacity for corruption and self-deception. Checks and balances were carefully set up to keep the new government from falling under the control of any one of its branches—or any powerful faction. Therefore, faithfulness to the Constitution is not unrelated to faithfulness to Scripture. Unconstitutional uses of governmental power and unconstitutional military actions are indications that basic biblical moral values are being violated. Back To Article
4. A recent Time magazine article, “Sexual Assaults on Female Soldiers: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” reported that nearly a third of women in the armed forces have been raped or sexually assaulted, and quoted a Pentagon estimate that 80 to 90 percent of rapes go unreported. Back To Article
5. The Rand Corporation report, “Invisible Wounds of War” reached this conclusion:
   

   Assuming that the prevalence found in this study is representative of the 1.64 million service members who had been deployed for OEF/OIF (Afghanistan) estimate that approximately 300,000 individuals currently suffer from PTSD or major depression and that 320,000 individuals experienced a probable TBI during deployment. About one-third of those previously deployed have at least one of these three conditions, and about 5% report symptoms of all three. Some specific groups, previously understudied—including the Reserve Components and those who have left military service—may be at higher risk of suffering from these conditions. Back To Article

The post Should Christians Serve in the Military? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.

The post Why Are “Enlightened” Modern People Dangerous? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.

The post Won’t Christians’ Support of Israel Encourage Jews to Believe in Christ? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.