Conventional financial advice for those individuals with an abundance of financial resources is that they have three people on their financial team: an experienced and knowledgeable banker, an attorney who is an expert in financial legal affairs and documents, and a savvy CPA (Certified Public Accountant). Each of these professionals brings separate and vitally needed information and protection that will ensure one’s hard-earned wealth is not foolishly squandered away in frivolous, unwise or even illegal means.
The Bible tacitly teaches this in Proverbs 11:14: “Where there is no guidance the people fall, but in abundance of counselors there is victory.” (NASB)
Christian evangelists, open-air preachers, and other believers who witness in the public areas of the United States also need an experienced team of experts on their side; one of the most helpful and needed are attorneys: those who practice civil law and those who practice criminal law.
But both civil and criminal lawyers should be experts in First Amendment law because this area is a vast and complicated one, much like the rest of the law. I have found that even among practicing civil lawyers, few are trained and have extensive experience in dealing with the intricacies and nuances of free speech rights.
I cannot overstate the importance of having both types of attorneys on board for your evangelistic efforts. From my experience, and any honest attorney will agree, a civil attorney is not well versed in criminal law and a criminal attorney is not well versed in civil law. Neither law specialists, whether they are criminal or civil, have much desire in taking on cases not in their speciality because they understand how much knowledge and experience is required to be an expert in each.
In my almost 40 years of street evangelism, and particularly since I began open-air preaching approximately 25 years ago, I have been in countless situations where the police have been called due to our evangelistic efforts. For example, the most common interaction with the police has been over the issue of using amplification while preaching outdoors. Of all the issues facing evangelists, this rates at the top for police involvement due to complaints from the public.
Then there is the often contested issue of whether or not we can hand out Gospel literature in various public venues. For example, can we hand out tracts in an event in a typical city or town that has closed off various public streets to host a special event where the public has been invited, say at a large, outdoor street fair?
Or can someone preach directly outside, with or without amplification, at a Jehovah’s Witness Convention hosted by a city’s public conference center? Does the fact that the JW’s rented the arena preclude someone from witnessing on the convention’s grounds?
These few examples are rarely cut and dry. In fact, each separate event you wish to witness and evangelize at usually brings a host of unique circumstances and legalities that require legal experts to scrutinize to determine whether or not the particular form of evangelism you wish to do is allowed by that city’s statutes.
Even this presents another unique and challenging situation. Take a typical city noise ordinance that, on its face, makes amplification in certain locations in the city illegal. The city might not have any issue with you for wanting to preach using just your natural voice, but they have a city ordinance that forbids you speaking using amplification.
Is their law constitutional? Has that law been written specifically targeting the preaching of the Gospel via amplification? Sometimes the answer is “yes.” Now, you have a law on the books, enforceable by the police. What do you do?
These are all reasons why we need to be at least somewhat knowledgeable on first amendment and criminal law. I have seen over and over again that most Christians are bullied by both the police and the public over their witnessing efforts for the main reason of silencing their public witness. All kinds of reasons, excuses and quasi-legal arguments are offered, some persuasive and legal and others pure nonsense. But how do you know? This is where experienced, knowledgeable attorneys come into play and are an invaluable tool in your evangelism toolbox. And because Christians have little knowledge in these areas, their default mode is to obey the police and end their outreach at that location, even if they have a first amendment right to be there doing what they are doing.
But attorneys are prohibitively expensive, charging hundreds of dollars an hour for their time in counseling you. This is why you need to find attorneys who are Christians who will give you advice on a “pro-bono” basis. In other words, for free. Ideally, they will understand the need to assist the Body of Christ in these kind of situations without charging them and consider it part of their ministry and service to the Lord to help out a brother and sister in need of their valuable advice.
Let me warn you: these kind of attorneys are rare. I have discovered through personal experience time and again that even attorneys who drop hints they are Christians will not spend more than the briefest amount of time with you unless you pay them substantial retainers.
But there are some, albeit few, who wish to serve the Lord by providing expert legal advice for free. I hope to write more about this in another post, but suffice to say, my desire in writing this is to convince you that the time to look for attorneys is today, before you find yourself in a situation where you might get arrested.
I have a list of law firms I’ve accumulated over the years that might be able to help you. Please drop me a note in the comments section if you need legal assistance due to your witnessing/evangelistic efforts and I will get in contact with you. You can also email me at: email@example.com.
I’m going to minister and preach on the campus of UC Berkeley starting this Monday, December 26, 2018, for one full week (Lord willing). I was there in 2014 ago for about three months for what was called the “Berkeley Blitz.” This will be the “Berkeley Blitz #2.”
UC Berkeley has become a hotbed of LGBTQ extremism, hate and intolerance for Christians. As this video from Fox News details, Christian UC Berkeley Senator Isabella Chow has been under assault by “Big Gay” and it is only getting worse for this brave Christian. Pay particular attention to how Ms. Chow answered the question posed to her by Laura Ingram beginning at 5:16.
My hope is to make a public and BOLD show of support for her and use this national issue as a springboard for the preaching and teaching of the Lord’s ways and to give the Gospel to those who are willing and ready to hear.
If you live in the Berkeley area, I want to invite you to join the team being developed to minister with me. And please, if you feel so led, keep the outreach in your prayers. I expect to face violence and a huge pushback from the campus at large.
There is an unfortunate reluctance among many Christians to use the volatile issue of abortion as a springboard for the Gospel.
They think “mixing” abortion and the Gospel is distracting to the Gospel message, believing that any other topic which doesn’t directly address the Bible is ungodly and/or distracting.
Though I understand such concerns, I could not disagree more because I have used the topic of abortion innumerable times to realize such concerns are blown out of proportion. In fact, not using a hot-button topic like abortion is throwing away a perfectly legitimate subject to help draw large crowds with the end result of weaving a biblical message into the conversation.
Though the abortion issue can cause intense and even violent reactions in people, handled correctly with a great amount of wisdom, it can be used to great effectiveness in drawing an interested crowd that can then be turned into an opportunity of bringing a biblical message into the conversation.
This is easier said than done, of course, but in the video below, I give one example of how I was able to do this on the campus of the University of AZ:
Remember Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the infamous late-term Pennsylvania abortion doctor found guilty of murdering three infants born alive, now serving life imprisonment without the possibility of parole?
There is a new movie coming out detailing this gruesome, horrific story. Filmmaker Ann McElhinney gives a moving interview detailing the history and reasons for why she decided to bring this tragedy to the world. Fast forward to 7:00 to get to her story:
Unfortunately, this macabre story received little coverage in the mainstream news. This is understandable because the majority of the mainstream news is pro-death and view “abortion on demand with no restrictions whatsoever” to be a sacred, inalienable right.
But the case of Gosnell exposes abortion for what it actually is: the outright murdering of pre-born children and the extent that pro-death enthusiasts in government will go to keep this barbaric practice going, unfettered by governmental oversight and regulations.
I have been a pro-life activist for almost 40 years. One truth this activism has shown me is the deceptive nature of the abortion argument used by pro-choice advocates.
You will never see a pro-choice cheerleader on a college or university campus, whether that person be a student, professor, or Planned Parenthood representative, showing pictures of aborted babies. It does not happen.
Why? To ask the question is to answer it: they refuse to show such pictures because it is prima facie evidence that abortion is the dismemberment, decapitation and disemboweling of yet unborn infants.
Reader, are you pro-choice? Have you seen photographs and/or video of aborted babies? If not, allow me to recommend you visit this site:
Do your research on this important topic. Another excellent resource is “Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR).” There are many pro-life groups where you can find all the information you need to educate yourself on the horrors of abortion.
And I encourage you to watch the film “Gosnell” when it hits theaters on October 12, 2018. Here is the link for the premier and the movie website:
That Senator Grassley allowed these interruptions to occur and highjack the meeting was the first disgrace, but I don’t wish to spend my time on this. What I want to point out is the misbehavior of the Democrats who were responsible for the disruption.
It is not disputed that Democrats are the party of the left and a bastion of LGBTQ “rights” and their deviant agendas. If there is one main reason why Democrats despise Trump, I believe it is because they see him as a threat to LGBTQ “rights” and the astonishing advancements they enjoyed under the corrupt presidency of Obama.
But there is a far more insidious side to the “resistant tactics” that Democrats have so effectively employed in thwarting the populist agenda American voters demanded when they swept Trump into office in his unprecedented win: the fascist character of their tactics.
One of the hallmarks of the United States since its founding was the desire to discuss divisive issues in venues of respect and tolerance, epitomized through the First Amendment. This ideal is nicely captured in the University of Chicago’s statement on free speech, commonly referred to as the “Chicago Statement.” Some parts read:
“…the ideas of different members of the University community will often and quite naturally conflict. But it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the University greatly values civility, and although all members of the University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.
“…Although members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. To this end, the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.”
The document can be found here and is well worth reading:
The danger which many Democrats pose to this nation is their desire to stifle and silence—even punish—speech and ideas that go against their core values: abortion, same-sex “marriage,” LGBTQ “rights,” etc. All of their noble talk of “tolerance” and “inclusion” is nothing more than hypocrisy clothed in lofty ideals that they themselves despise: for Democrats, tolerance is demanded from everyone for their agenda but is never reciprocated. For proof of this, look no further than the case of Jack Phillips, the Christian baker who refused to bake a same-sex wedding cake for a gay couple.
The immediate interruption by Democrat Kamala Harris, followed by further disruptions from her colleagues and screams from the audience, is further proof of their hatred for the concept of civil, respectful government conducted in an atmosphere of mutual give and take, reasoned debate, and civil discourse.
This disrespectful behavior is simply the scales seen on the dark underbelly of the fascist beast that lurks and lies at the foundation of the “deep state” that rules much of both the state and federal governments. Their childish antics are simply the tip of the iceberg of a belief system that is far uglier and dangerous than what we see in this fiasco.
A little known and rarely discussed fact concerns the roots of the Nazi party. Many have no idea the role that homosexuals played in the founding of Hitler’s Third Reich.
In this blog, I introduce my reader’s to the ground breaking book, “The Pink Swastika,” which goes into great detail about the founding of the Nazi Party. The details are nothing short of astonishing.
We see similar tactics even now occurring in the Democratic Party and the role they and leftist progressives play on our university and college campuses. There is a direct correlation between the crumbling of our First Amendment rights in this country and the one party sworn to advance and uphold the perverse LGBTQ agenda.
And if anyone thinks it is bad now, we have seen nothing yet. Wait until the Dems regain the presidency and control of the federal government; it is certain to happen and the darkness already suffocating this once great nation will tighten its death grip and we may breathe our last.
Something unusual and unexpected just happened to me:
I was dropping off an order for a customer at a nearby UPS store. Placing the package on the scale, I waited while the UPS employee, a young woman, gave me my receipt.
After she hands it to me and I’m about to turn to leave, a cherub faced, curly haired two year old little boy comes racing out of the back. He rushes up to me with his arms outstretched, wanting a hug.
I was dumbfounded, completely taken by surprise. I thought, “He must think I’m someone else” as I stood there, motionless, feeling a bit embarrassed by the whole scene. He stayed in front of me, his arms still out for his hug.
Realizing the woman who just handed me my receipt was his mom, I said to her, “Very friendly!” and reached down and gave the boy a hug.
Now, I’m a man, and situations like this leave men a bit uncomfortable, especially in a scenario like this one. I did not know the mom or her son, and because the situation just sprang up out of nowhere, I was not prepared for it.
As I jumped into my truck after exiting the store, I was moved by what this precious little boy did. I have three daughters, all long grown and separated by time and unfortunate circumstances; I can’t remember the last time I was hugged like that by a small, innocent child.
When I arrived home, I called that UPS store to thank the mom and share with her how touched I was by her son’s spontaneous, selfless act. She said she was worried about my reaction, but when I explained how moved and thankful I was, she expressed relief, gratitude and joy that her son could be the means of brightening someone’s day.
I thank the Lord for that curly haired little boy who gave me such an unexpected gift this morning that touched my soul and warmed my heart. With all the hatred, anger, suspicion and division that we face in this country seemingly every day, this random and “out of the blue” interaction with an innocent child was wonderful.
I’ve been fascinated by WW2 for decades and heard that Hitler instituted a “gay holocaust” against countless homosexuals.
Upon closer examination, this is a myth.
Like much of gay revisionism that seeks to perpetually cast homosexuals as helpless victims continually in need of protection, the carefully choreographed legend that homosexuals were special targets of Nazi brutality dissipates under careful scholarship.
In fact, contrary to the prevailing narrative that the ranks of the Nazi’s were dominated by “men’s men” (masculine, manly, straight, the Clint Eastwood type as portrayed in his movies), many of Hitler’s henchmen—and this applies to Hitler himself—were sodomites.
I’m not saying these soldiers lacked bravery or were not formidable foes on the battlefield; for the most part, they were loyal, accomplished men of war whose commitment to Germany and exploits on the battlefield were exemplary in many instances.
But many of them were also cruel and sadistic, modern barbarians who were responsible for some of the most heinous crimes against humanity known in the history of mankind.
Few people are aware that the Nazi party was founded primarily by active homosexuals; it is disputed whether or not Hitler himself was a practicing homosexual, especially during the time before he rose to power in Germany.
That both Hitler and many in his Nazi party were homosexuals is not a fact members of the LGBTQ community desire to have promulgated; such facts do not bode well for their agenda of normalizing—even glorifying—the nefarious “sin against nature” from sea to shining sea in the United States.
For those interested in this topic, I will include a link to the excellent book, “The Pink Swastika” by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Here is a link to a website where you can download much of the book—the 4th edition—for free.
Here is the chapter which debunks the myth that homosexuals were murdered/incarcerated/tortured en masse in death camps.
A well researched book as explosive as this will have its share of critics; facts presented here throws cold water on the false narratives constantly pushed by the LGBTQ revisionists seeking to normalize sexual deviancy.
Those familiar with the tactics of the LGBTQ movement to discredit, ridicule, defame and spread falsehoods against anyone brave enough to publicly expose their immoral agenda should be aware that their tried and proven smear tactics have gone into overdrive to discredit the “Pink Swastika.”
“The book, in which the authors argue that homosexuality in the Nazi Party contributed to the extreme militarism of Nazi Germany, has been widely debunked and drawn extensive criticism from historians.”
Interestingly, the reference that Wikipedia uses to support this allegation is from an article in the apparently pro-gay news outlet called “Boston Magazine.” This article then references another article from the Advocate, a well known cheerleader for all things gay—hardly a non-biased source—that supposedly “thoroughly debunked” Lively and Abrams book.
“Since we first published this exhaustively documented history book in 1995 we’ve challenged all critics to debate the facts in any neutral unedited forum but never had a single taker. And in 23 years of fake news coverage of the book, not a single liberal ‘journalist’ has ever accepted our challenge to actually fact-check it point by point and report their findings to the public.”
What comes from this back and forth debate on whether or not the “Pink Swastika” is “fake history” or not is to read it yourself, check out its abundant references, and make your own decision.
Imagine for a moment that you lived, like Lot and his family, in ancient Sodom (Genesis 19). Unbeknownst to you, in five days your town would be reduced to a burning, sulfurous and uninhabitable ash heap.
Would it please God if you were to spend your last few days sharing Jesus with your fellow townsmen? Would your efforts at evangelizing these violent homosexuals be biblical?
I believe most Christians reading this post might be outraged that I would ask questions they consider bordering on blasphemy. After all, they might reason, does not God command us to share the Gospel with every creature on Earth (Mark 16:15)?
At one time I would have agreed with those holding to the position that God wants us to share the Gospel with every single human on Earth.
I don’t believe that any longer.
What changed my mind? Matthew 7:6: “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.” (ESV)
Though I had read this verse many times over the decades that I have been a Christian and sharing the Gospel with whoever I could, it was not until I listened to a sermon by Rolfe Barnard several years ago that my mind was changed.
Barnard died in 1969. I have listened to many of his sermons online. The one that changed my thinking is here. And there is one particular story Barnard tells in this sermon that perhaps did more than anything to shape and mold the way I think today. It starts at 48:22 and goes to about 55:00.
I believe this is a “must listen to” sermon for everyone active in a soul-winning and evangelistic ministry. It will change your thinking if you are open to its message. But be prepared to be challenged in ways you might not expect.
Barnard can be difficult to listen to because he has an unfortunate quirk in his preaching: he often shouts, occasionally producing ear-splitting screams that might puncture your eardrums if you are wearing headphones.
Outside of this annoying defeat, I have learned much from this old saint and have been blessed by his teachings. Do I agree with everything Barnard teaches? No, but you don’t have to agree with everything someone teaches; he has more gold than chaff.
Believing as Barnard does is a revolutionary and seismic shift in the belief system of your typical Evangelical believer.
Which brings me back to the title of this post: “Should we share the Gospel at ‘Gay Pride’ parades?” I say “no.”
There are several reasons why I don’t believe we should share the gospel at LGBTQ events.
First, it is critical how you view the Gospel. Do you see it as a precious gem, something so infinitely fine and valuable that you would not dream of casting such a jewel into the muddy, filthy and disgusting mire of a pigsty?
Perhaps you are offended by my comparing a gay pride parade to a pigsty, but for anyone who has either attended your typical pride parade or seen pictures of what happens there, the reference is accurate.
I need to define what I mean by “sharing the Gospel.” In a nutshell, this is offering Jesus as follows:
“Friends, the Bible tells us that ‘God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.’
“The Bible also tells us that there is none righteous, not even one, that all of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
“We are all sinners in the eyes of God, but because of what Jesus did on the cross two thousand years ago, shedding His holy and innocent blood for you and I, we can be forgiven and receive the gift of eternal life.
“Come to Jesus, friends! He will give you new life, come into your heart and make it clean, wiping away all of your sins.”
I know there is infinitely more to the Gospel than this, but I’m trying to be brief. When we “preach the Gospel,” we are offering to sinners the the path of forgiveness through the shed blood of our Lord. And this is the message I believe we should not offer to unrepentant sodomites proudly parading themselves in their lusts and debauchery at your typical gay pride event.
Have you been to gay pride events or watched videos on Youtube about them? Have you seen two men or two women french kiss each other and/or engage in other types of lewd behavior? Or heard the hateful, vile and blasphemous language and curses out of their mouths against the very Jesus you are offering to them?
What did Jesus do when the people in a particular town asked Him to leave (Mark 5:1-20)? Did He stay, against their clearly stated wishes, because He knew they needed to receive the very message they had no interest in hearing? Why do we think we know better than what the Lord does?
When we do this, we are casting the precious pearl of the Gospel before the feet of pigs. This is in direct opposition to the clear commandment of Jesus not to do this, as Barnard so eloquently and forcibly presents in his convicting sermon.
You have heard, no doubt, this saying: “Law to the proud, grace to the humble.” If anything, those who feel led and compelled to preach at gay pride events should be giving these proud sinners the law and not the gospel. To share anything else except the fact that their horrific sin is leading them straight to hell and judgment is, in my opinion, doing the exact opposite of Matthew 7:6. And we will be held personally accountable for this disobedience.
But back to living in Sodom five days before the Lord rained fire and brimstone upon its inhabitants. Can you imagine what that wicked town must have looked like? A San Francisco Gay Pride event at its worst, but on steroids times a factor of 100.
Those people despised the God of the Bible, reveling in their wickedness and sexual perversion. No doubt Lot tried to tell these vile sodomites about the God he worshipped, but they were not interested in the least in his message.