Chick-fil-A: Miscalculating Ferocity of the Political Left

By Daniel Bobinski

On November 18, 2019, Chick-fil-A announced a corporate decision that I’m sure didn’t come easily. But it did come with a price, and sadly, the price affects more than just the Chick-fil-A Foundation.

Their decision? The Foundation says they want to re-evaluate their giving each year to allow for maximum impact. That, by itself, sound inert. But In their published list of organization that will receive donations in 2019, the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes are not on the list – even though they’ve been regular recipients for years.

I’ve been an executive / management coach for 30 years, and I applaud the need to evaluate decisions to create the biggest bang for your buck. But one of the guiding principles of leadership is you don’t issue a decision without having thought through its ripple effects.

The C-suite at Chick-fil-A is not a group of dummies, but one must now wonder if they’ve truly thought through the ripple effects of their announcement, and its implications for society as a whole.

Pondering Chick-fil-A’s motive

Chick-fil-A’s food is delicious. In fact, consumers of fine chicken have made Chick-fil-A the third largest restaurant chain in the United States. So who in their right mind would be protesting against eating those delicious waffle fries and REAL grilled chicken nuggets? Leftists, that’s who. Specifically, LGBTQWERTY activists who hate the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the Salvation Army because they stand in opposition to the LGBTQWERTY agenda. In fact, in the U.K., LGBTQWERTY activists protested at a Chick-fil-A restaurant so much, the restaurant had to close after being open only one week.

If, with their announcement, executives at Chick-fil-A are trying to get Left-wing organizations to stop staging protests at their stores, they have seriously miscalculated the ferocity of the political Left.

Instead of getting Leftists to back off, Chick-fil-A just trained the political Left that they can keep pushing to get their way. It’s like a kid who’s persistent about wanting a candy bar. “Mom, can I?” “No.” Mom, can I?” “No.” “Mom, can I?” After ten minutes mom gives in: “Here’s your candy bar. Now shut up.”

Except the kid remains quiet only until their next visit to the store, when the kid has learned that if he simply persists long enough, mom gives in. Only this time, this kid wants two candy bars.

The left always continues to push left

If I can state this another way, Chick-fil-A may believe their decision will keep their restaurants from being picketed and protested, but it won’t. It simply sets a precedent for the Left to continue their Leftward push. And, I will guarantee you that the Left’s protests won’t stop until Chick-fil-A is making direct donations to LGBTQWERTY organizations.

Doubt me? Look at singer Ellie Goulding, who is slated to sing at the Dallas Cowboy’s halftime show this coming Thanksgiving. According to an article by Dominck Mastrangelo in the Washington Examiner,

Singer Ellie Goulding is slated to perform at halftime of the Dallas Cowboys Thanksgiving Day football game but has threatened to cancel her performance if the Salvation Army does not make a “solid, committed pledge or donation to the LGBTQ community.”

It should be noted that Goulding backed down when she learned that the Salvation Army does help LGBTQWERTY groups, but her initial demand is telling: Give the Left an inch of wiggle room, and soon they’re trying to push you off the bleachers entirely.

Don’t be fooled by the Left’s lies

Remember when the homosexual segment of our society was pushing for “gay marriage?” We heard them say, “Gay marriage will affect nobody outside of the gays who wish to partake in it.” They repeated that line over and over and over and over (and over some more) until FINALLY the public was onboard. This, combined with the Left finding just the right court case that would make it to the Supreme Court, and voila – the Court makes a law saying “gay marriage” is legal (which, if you understand the Constitution, is not in their charter).

As we now know, the “gay marriage won’t affect anyone who is not gay” mantra was a lie. Step by step, the Left has been forcing society not only to tolerate the gay lifestyle, but approve of it and endorse it.

As just one example, consider the cake decorators in Gresham, Oregon. Courts ordered the bakers to pay $135,000 to a lesbian couple after the couple endured “emotional and mental suffering” when the decorators didn’t want to decorate their cake. Never mind that the cake decorators offered to help the lesbian couple find someone who WOULD decorate their cake. Never mind that the cake decorators didn’t refuse to SELL them a cake. They just didn’t want to apply their artistic skills to decorate it.

No. Today the LGBTQWERTY crowd insists that artists be forced to endorse their lifestyle choice by applying their artistic talent in glorifying “gay marriage.”

“Won’t affect anyone who doesn’t want to partake in it.” Sure.

Bad Precedent

I’m going to be sarcastic here (because I’m never sarcastic anywhere else), but “Thanks, Chick-fil-A.” You just put gasoline in the Left’s weed whacker so they can continue slicing away at the fabric of our society. Your short-sighted actions have emboldened those on the Left to chip away at our freedom of conscience.

You probably believe your announcement will reduce the number of protests at your stores, and in the short term, it may. But history is pretty clear: The Left doesn’t back down. It won’t be long before people will be protesting at your restaurants, demanding you give money to multi-rainbow alphabet organizations whose missions stand in direct opposition of S. Truett Cathy’s life principles. Count on it.

*****

POSTSCRIPT: It took less than 24 hours for the Left to push for Chick-fil-A to move even farther away from their founder’s principles:

# #

Daniel Bobinski, M.Ed. is a certified behavioral analyst, best-selling author, columnist, corporate trainer, and a popular keynote speaker. In addition to working with teams and individuals to help them achieve workplace excellence through improving their emotional intelligence and improving the way they do training, he’s also a veteran and a Christian Libertarian who believes in the principles of free market capitalism while standing firmly against crony capitalism. Daniel writes on both workplace issues and political issues for multiple publications. Reach Daniel through his website, MyWorkplaceExcellence.com and @newbookofdaniel on Twitter.

Forgiveness: A Powerful Gift

By Daniel Bobinski

The holiday season is upon us. It’s that time of year when families and friends tend to gather to share meals and exchange gifts. And, in addition to bringing gifts to these gatherings, many of us also bring baggage. Let’s face it. The people we love the most can sometimes be the people who have hurt us the most.

If you were raised in a loving and nurturing home, consider yourself blessed. If every friend you’ve ever had has been only kind to you, then that, too, would be a wonderful blessing. But not everybody has that.

Perhaps you’ve heard it said that when you don’t forgive somebody, it affects you a lot more than it affects them. I’m here to tell you there’s a lot of truth in that statement.

My mother passed on a little over 10 years ago. Obviously, she loved me, but she didn’t always know how to show it. I doubt she truly understood me, and she often referred to me as stupid. Later in her life she became very controlling and even vengeful.

I’m not saying this to air my family’s laundry, I just want to set the stage and say that after decades of increasing verbal and emotional abuse that continued after all the physical abuse she dished out during my childhood, I decided to draw a boundary and limit our communications.

Unfortunately, a problem remained. Every time someone called me, “Daniel,” I would instantly correct them and say, “My name is Dan.” Sometimes I was almost rude about it. I didn’t know why, but I genuinely disdained the name Daniel, even though all my official documents such as airline tickets and mortgage papers required it.

I remember getting into a small verbal tug-of-war with a mortgage lender because I wouldn’t sign their paperwork with, “Daniel Bobinski.” And then there was the time I was opening a bank account and the branch manager was reading my name out loud off my driver’s license. Even I was surprised at how high her eyebrows went up after I gritted my teeth and said, “my name is Dan.” When she asked what my mother’s maiden name was, I got even more tense.

It wasn’t too long after that that I realized the source of my frustration was baggage from my relationship with my mother. Every time she was upset with me, she would grit her teeth and say, “Daniel,” in a demeaning voice.

That awareness rolled through my head for a few years, but the emotional pain was still too deep to deal with it. I didn’t feel safe letting down my protective boundary.

Then something strange happened. Within a week’s time, two friends commented independently that I got tense whenever the subject of my mother came up. These friends didn’t know each other, but both suggested the exact same thing: “I think you need to forgive your mother.”

After hearing this suggestion twice in one week – both times coming from good friends – I realized there was truth in their words. The thing is, I didn’t want to forgive my mother – she had hurt me a lot. But, I had been carrying that pain around for decades and it wasn’t going away, so I decided my friends were right.

During an evening later that week, I got down on my knees in front of the fireplace in my home. I didn’t know where to start, so I just asked God to help me forgive her. I searched my heart and released forgiveness toward my mother.

It was a long evening. I think I spent several hours on that rug, asking for a change of heart. Afterwards, nothing really felt different. There were no fluttering angels and no great “a-ha’s.” I simply went to bed.

Then, two days later, somebody called me “Daniel,” and I noticed that I didn’t flinch. I was surprised that I didn’t grit my teeth and didn’t correct the person. Then, the day after that, somebody else called me Daniel, and it actually sounded good.

Before long, I was introducing myself to people as Daniel, and correcting them (politely) if they called me “Dan.”

Although I never reconnected with my mother (she had passed away), I’m confident that my act of forgiving healed my heart.

Whenever I share this story with others, they often say it’s a powerful testimony about how freeing forgiveness can be. And so, I thought that by sharing it here during the holidays, it might give readers a glimmer of hope and a gentle nudge. I’m guessing there’s someone you’ll see this holiday season that has caused pain in your past. Pain that you might have quietly stashed away, or pain that might be gnawing at you – even eating you up – on the inside.

I’m here to say there’s freedom in forgiveness. Who knows? It might be the best gift that you give – and receive – this holiday season.

# #

Daniel Bobinski, M.Ed. is a certified behavioral analyst, best-selling author, columnist, corporate trainer, and a popular speaker at conferences and retreats. In addition to working with teams and individuals to help them achieve workplace excellence through improving their emotional intelligence and improving the way they do training, he’s also a veteran and a Christian Libertarian who believes in the principles of free market capitalism while standing firmly against crony capitalism. Daniel writes on both workplace issues and political issues for multiple publications. Reach Daniel through his website, MyWorkplaceExcellence.com, or @newbookofdaniel on Twitter.

These days, can one be both Christian AND Democrat?

By Daniel Bobinski

If you’ve been around politics for any length of time, you’ve probably heard the term, “value voter.” Most people think of value voters as conservatives, and that view is reinforced by the fact that the Family Research Council hosts a Value Voter’s summit each year. The summit is attended by social conservatives who prefer to differentiate themselves from the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC).

But guess what? ALL voters are value voters. Why? Because ALL political positions represent a set of values.

The question for any voter is, “Who’s values will I vote for?”

If you like the idea of taking from people who “have” and giving to people who “have not,” your values will probably lead you to check the box for Socialist candidates and policies, because that’s what Socialists value.

If you value total freedom from government bureaucracy so you can live your life the way you want without restriction, then you’ll probably check the box for Libertarian candidates and policies, because that’s what Libertarians value.

In the United States, the two biggest “value” teams are Democrats and Republicans. The formation of parties emerged simply because of people coming together over similar values.

At a quick glance, the 2016 “D” and “R” party platforms showed distinct differences in values, some of which were highlighted by NJ.com. To sum up just a few:

1) Democrats value “choice,” and believe abortion should be legal; Republicans value “life,” and believe abortion should be illegal.

2) Democrats value same sex marriage; Republicans believe marriage should be between one man and one woman.

3) Democrats believe people should be able to cross the United States’ border at will; Republicans believe people who enter the country illegally should be deported.

That’s just three of the 10 differences that NJ.com listed, but you get the point. If you value one perspective over the other, you tend to vote for the party that best represents your values – thus making EVERYONE a value voter.

Why am I writing this? Because as a strong believer in the Judeo-Christian ethic, I was rather shocked at the recent “Resolution Regarding the Religiously Unaffiliated Demographic,” promulgated by the Democratic National Committee. The document openly states that “nonreligious Americans … have the potential to deliver millions more votes for Democrats in 2020,” As stated plainly in the document, the DNC plans to increase voter turnout for Democrats by appealing more to “religiously unaffiliated” people.

Am I shocked that the DNC would take this direction? No. I’m shocked because I know people who say they are Christians and yet always vote Democratic without caring what position the Democrats take.

The Bible is pretty clear that murder is wrong, and yet the Democratic party pushes for and approves laws that let mothers kill their babies AFTER the babies are born. How does a Democrat-voting Christian reconcile that?

The Bible is pretty clear that homosexuality is an abomination to God, yet the Democratic party pushes for and backs same-sex marriage. How does a Democrat-voting Christian reconcile that?

If anyone examines the list of Democratic “values,” they’ll find most of them run counter to Judeo-Christian values.

Yes, I know some will take issue with me on this, but I also know such people often subscribe to “Kingdom Now” theology. This is the belief that Jesus was a Socialist – but “not in Socialism’s purest form,” as some Kingdom Now theologians say.

Here’s their error: Kingdom Now Theology adherents believe that Christ’s teachings for how individuals should behave also applies to how governments should operate. In other words, when Jesus says, “Help the poor,” Kingdom Theology proponents believe this also means government should take from people who aren’t poor and give to people who are poor.

This is bad exegesis – a poor analysis and explanation of the text. I don’t want to turn this post into a strictly theological debate, but allow me to clarify how the Bible conveys different instructions to individuals & families than it does to the Church and the State.

Individuals and families: Individuals and the family were created first, and families form the core of society. The Bible provides plenty of instructions for individuals and families.

The Church: Whether a synagogue or a church, a corporate body of believers exists, in part, to do for families what families cannot do for themselves. When people are in need, the Church (or synagogue) is instructed to reach out and help.

The State: The state exists to protect the church and the family. That which the Church cannot or should not do, the State is supposed to do. In the United States, the primary responsibilities for the State are fulfilled in things like coining money and running the military.

I’ll save for another post how the State has taken over many of the church’s responsibility because the Church has dropped the ball. My point in writing this post is merely to say that if a person claims the label of “Christian” but votes Democratic, they are voting against the Biblical worldview.

Therefore, if you or someone you know claim both the Christian and Democrat labels, perhaps a compare and contrast of the Democratic platform with God’s instructions for a) individuals & families, b) the Church, and c) the State would be enlightening.

It might feel good to vote to make everyone with money give it so it can be redistributed to those who “have not,” but that practice clearly violates free will! It also removes the ability to be blessed by the instruction for INDIVIDUALS found in 2 Corinthians 9:7 …

“Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”

We can’t be blessed if we’re giving under compulsion and threatened with jail time by the IRS. Besides, in case you haven’t noticed, the government isn’t the most efficient at handling funds. Layers and layers of bureaucracy means layers and layers of dollars going to government employee salaries … and government employee benefits. Hardly an efficient use of funds to help those in need.

Church – are you listening?

Believers – are you listening?

Clearly, the United States government is a Republic, not a theocracy. But if you claim the label Christian – and are an adherent to the Judeo-Christian worldview – then casting a vote for any person or policy that runs counter a Biblical worldview simply does not make sense.

As stated by the central character in the Scriptures, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” If you’re going to claim the label, “Christian,” it would make sense to vote for values associated with that worldview, not values that merely sound good on the surface, but, in reality, run counter to God’s order of things.

FOOTNOTE: Decades ago the Democrat’s platform was not antithetical to a Biblical worldview. I believe things are different today. These days, I think people who claim the labels of both “Christian” and “Democrat” need to decide whom they will serve.

# #

Woman of privilege wants to ban white male authors

By Daniel Bobinski

A young female writer believes that women and minorities are not represented enough in high school reading curricula. Her solution? “It’s time to banish the Western Canon.” How? By having our nation’s high schools refrain from teaching novels written by white men.

Dana Schwartz has a new book out on the subject. At first, I thought she had a point when she tweeted, “High school students should stop reading Ernest Hemingway for, oh let’s say 15 years.”

I happen to agree with Schwartz on that point. I’ll catch flak from some readers for sure, but I’m not particularly a fan of writers like Hemingway, whose writing is downright depressing. For example, the theme of “The Old Man and The Sea” conveys a message that life is futile, that striving for success will bring failure, and therefore life has no purpose. Who the hell needs that kind of message in high school?

But only one minute later Schwartz tweeted, “You know what, screw it: no novels by white men in high schools for the next 20 years.”

Ban all white male authors? Perhaps Schwartz has a deeper purpose here, and I suggest that she openly stated it when she wrote, “We need to kill the western canon.”

Why is it Schwartz wants to do away with the “western canon?” Could it be she dislikes western culture? Perhaps she suffering from white guilt? After all, Ms. Schwartz herself is a woman of privilege. How many 26-year-olds do you know who grew up in a 91 percent white, wealthy Chicago suburb, interned with both Conan O’Brien and Stephen Colbert, wrote for the New York Observer, and hosted a No. 1 ranked podcast?

Maybe she feels guilty for having white skin and being so successful at a young age.

It’s also possible Schwartz wants to eliminate the western canon because she’s sympathetic to the Marxist worldview. If so, her divisiveness make sense, because pitting people against each other is exactly what Marx advocated. I’m not saying Schwartz is a Marxist or a Socialist, but her advocacy is what one typically sees from people who hold those worldviews.

I understand Schwartz’s desire to acknowledge “minority” writers, but if she happens to believe the (misguided) phrase of “strength through diversity,” she would also value white male authors, not just wipe them off the academic calendar for the next two decades.

As a catalyst for her cause, Schwartz laments the late Yale professor Harold Bloom’s list of the most influential literary figures in the western world. She says, “Of the twenty-six writers, only four are women, all white. Only two of the writers are Latin American. None are black.”

Trust me, I agree with Schwartz that Bloom’s list is pathetic, but I hardly think Bloom spoke for the entire western world. Also, to say no white male authors should be read in high school is not exactly a mature solution.

Just like I have my own view that Hemingway wrote depressing tripe, everyone has their own view of what constitutes good writing. If Schwartz thinks high school reading curricula needs more diversity to represent different authors’ gender and skin color, perhaps she could start a list of her own and market it to schools.

Schwartz’s current solution does not address quality, nor does it acknowledge percentages of books sold. It reminds me of the politically correct Firefighter’s memorial erected after the events of September 11, 2001. If you recall, photographer Thomas Franklin took a photo of three firefighters raising a US flag pulled from the rubble, and the photo went viral. Subsequently, a 19-foot bronze statue was erected to duplicate that photo. But there was a glitch. Although the three men in the photo were white, the statue had a white man, a black man, and a Hispanic man.

In the year 2000, New York’s population was 26.6 percent black and 27 percent Hispanic. But facts are facts – the three men who hoisted the flag were white.

According to reports, on Sept. 11, 2001, the NY fire department had 11,495 firefighters, of which only 2.7 percent were black and 3.2 percent were Hispanic. Bending facts of who hoisted the flag merely to show diversity represented a false narrative, and intellectually honest people pushed back.

People should similarly reject Schwartz’s opinion here, too.

It’s also a fair bet that Schwartz is being controversial to sell books. Thankfully, she didn’t take the Mark Manson shock approach of putting the word f*** in her title, but she’s still using controversy to sell books.

I get that Dana Schwartz wants American teens reading books from a more diverse list of authors, but a better solution would be if she created a list of quality books by authors showing more of the diversity she would like – but based on actual quality, not just diversity.

That’s’ not racist, and it’s not sexist. It’s just a fair, objective solution.

With a true sense of fairness, Schwartz should compete in the marketplace of ideas. She could even use her privilege to publish and promote her own list of books that are worthy based on their merit – all while avoiding white guilt and sexism as her selling points.

# #

Women in the Church: Part 2

By Daniel Bobinski

Before you read this, I strongly recommend you read Part 1 first. This post serves as the conclusion to where I left off.

In my previous post I outlined how men and women were in perfect relationship prior to “the fall.” Then I spelled out the effects of sin on the roles and relationship of men and women. I wrapped up by discussing the perspectives of people like John MacArthur and Matt Slick, who believe that women are to remain subordinate to men, and why I think their perspective is pharisaical.

Women in Leadership

It doesn’t take long to find Biblical accounts of women in leadership. In response to the John MacArthurs and Matt Slicks of the world, who say it’s not Biblical for women to be leadership, I say, “If God did not want women in leadership roles, please explain Deborah in the Book of Judges.” Why would God raise up a woman? Was it because there were no men fit for the role? You’d think that if God could raise up a Deborah, he could have just as easily raised up a Darrin or a Douglas or a Dominick.

Then there’s Huldah in the Book of 2 Kings. If God was so against women being in positions of leadership, why was Huldah consulted about the Book of the Law when both Jeremiah and Zephaniah were prophets who were active in Jerusalem while Huldah was being consulted? Three times she stated, “This is what the LORD says,” in her own prophesy, and King Josiah put reforms in place based on the Word spoken through Huldah. Why not skip Huldah and go to the male prophets?

Let’s not forget Junia (*see footnote, below). If God – and Paul – did not want women in leadership, then why does Paul mention Junia as an apostle in Romans 16:7 “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” The Greek word translated to be “of note” is the word, episēmos (ἐπίσημος), or “having a mark on it, marked, stamped, coined.” In other words, Paul tells us they were marked as apostles.

Let’s also remember what the Apostle Peter said on the day of Pentecost, quoting from the Book of Joel:

And it will be in the last days,” says God, “that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy; your youth will see visions and your seniors will dream dreams. Even on both my male servants and on my female servants, in those days, I will pour out my Spirit and they will prophesy. (Acts 2:17-18) [emphasis added]

Sorry John MacArthur. Sorry Matt Slick. And sorry to the thousands of other male preachers who get up on Sunday mornings and place heavy burdens on the shoulders of women to not exercise the gifts God gave them.

I’m not buying what you’re selling.

Of the 40 authors of the 66 books in the Bible, only one restricts women in ministry. And for that one who does, he does it only in several of his letters, and each of those specific letters were addressing specific problems.

If you are a prophesy buff, and believe, as I do, that the New Testament letters to the churches correlate to the letters of Jesus to the churches (which He gives in the book of Revelation), then there may be a much deeper reason for Paul writes what he does to Corinth and Ephesus. But that’s a topic for a completely different post. Or, more probably, a future book. So for now, let me take a moment to review the cultural situation in Ephesus at the time Paul wrote his letter to the Ephesians.

Problems in Ephesus

In Jewish culture, women were to have their heads covered and sit separately from men in the synagogue. But as you’ll recall from my previous post, once people were saved from their sins, they were no longer under obligation from the law. In other words, once saved, women no longer needed to have their heads covered. And so, in exercising their new-found freedoms, many women took off their coverings!

Unfortunately, there was a unique situation in Ephesus. Secular women held significant roles in the many cults of the area. For example, in the cult of Artemis, women were high priestesses, and free-wheeling sex among the cult members was common. When women from these cults began hearing of meetings of “The Way” (followers of Jesus) and started attending those meetings, you can image their propensity to strive for positions of leadership – which they were accustomed to doing. Yes, in addition to a cavalier attitude toward sex, they also brought the false teaching of Gnosticism and other pagan beliefs.

Paul knew full well what was going on, and with his stern letter, he attempted to nip that problem in the bud. I could take the space to explain more of the details, but I think you get it. Paul wrote a specific prescription for a specific church that was suffering from a specific illness.

The danger of mixing prescriptions

Let’s consider what happened in Ephesus, but in a modern setting. Let’s say we have “church A” in one town, and” church B” in another. Almost everyone in church A comes down with a strange disease that causes skin problems. An itinerant preacher who is also a doctor comes through the town in which church A is situated, and after he diagnoses their problem, he writes them a prescription that will rid them of their problem. He is careful to put the prescription in writing so it can be read from the pulpit.

Later, when someone from church A travels to church B and tells them of all the cool things the itinerant preacher taught, he also reads the preacher’s letter from the pulpit at church B. Because everyone thinks so highly of the preacher, they, too start taking the prescription he gave for church A, even though the preacher did not prescribe it for church B – and nobody at church B had any of the symptoms!

Thus is the issue of women in the church. Throughout the Old and New Testaments, we see women in positions of leadership and teaching. Nobody squawks. But Paul, when trying to resolve real problems at specific churches, write to prescribe solutions, suddenly people like MacArthur and Slick thousands of insecure, misogynistic preaches before them apply that prescription to all churches.

The freedom to not exercise freedoms

All that said, allow me to point out Paul’s caveat. The Apostle Paul puts restrictions in place because of the culture that’s in place. In other words, Paul is saying, “I know you have freedoms – but with that freedom comes the freedom to not exercise your freedom. Especially if exercising your freedom will cause someone to stumble in their faith.”

In other words, “Ladies, I know you have freedom to not cover your heads and to teach. I know you are also free to wear your hair down, and because you are free in Christ, God will not be dishonored by any of it. But because there’s a cultural problem at your church, it will be better for the body of believers if you choose to give up that freedom and keep your head covered. Also, let the men do their thing. You can keep quiet, and the Artemis priestesses will follow suit. This is a way to bring order back to your fellowship.”

Bottom line, it’s cultural, folks. All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial (1 Corinthians 10:23).

So yes, ladies can wear short shorts and diving necklines if they want. If one is in Christ, there is no law against such things. But what would be the purpose for making those choices? Are such choices beneficial for the edification of the Body? Do they bring honor to God? Or, would those choices merely be selfish and/or self-satisfying?

To wrap up, although this and my previous post on this subject are long, they’re also short. Each topic I mention in these posts warrants at least a chapter or two of exploration. Maybe even a book or two or three for each sub-topic. I boiled this down as far as I could because I believe bad teaching needs to be called out.

Women – do not let insecure men who have the appearance of Godliness but deny God’s power tell you that you must be quiet. At the same time, do not strive to be in control. In the Kingdom of God, men and women are a team. We are all co-equal servants of God. I refer you to Galatians 3:26-29 (Paul writing):

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Woe to the Pharisees

When John MacArthur, Matt Slick, and so many others are placing heavy yokes on women, proclaiming women must ignore the callings God has placed on their lives, I must call out that teaching as Pharisaical.

To all women who have placed their faith the fact that the blood of Jesus washes away their sin – ignore John MacArthur. Ignore Matt Slick. Ignore anyone who teaches those heavy burdens of guilt and shame for wanting to follow God’s calling on your life. You are not subject to, nor are you the property of any man; you are equal with men at the foot of the cross.

Bottom line, the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. As I advise any man, I also advise you – it is not necessary nor profitable to flaunt your freedoms in the face of any culture. But it IS profitable to act on your calling appropriately so that as many people as possible can experience the unmeasurable and infinite love of God and live with Him for eternity. His yoke is easy. His burden is light. Run with it.

**FOOTNOTE: Some people argue that Junia is misspelled, and should be Junias, to indicate a man, not a woman. Read an excellent dissection of that argument here, showing Junia was, in fact, female.

# #

Daniel Bobinski, M.Ed. is a certified behavioral analyst, best-selling author, columnist, corporate trainer, and a popular speaker at conferences and retreats. In addition to working with teams and individuals to help them achieve workplace excellence through improving their emotional intelligence and improving the way they do training, he’s also a veteran and a Christian Libertarian who believes in the principles of free market capitalism while standing firmly against crony capitalism. In addition to this blog, Daniel writes on both workplace issues and political issues for multiple publications. Reach Daniel through his website, MyWorkplaceExcellence.com

Why I don’t feel sorry for Katie Hill

By Daniel Bobinski

Have you seen the Katie Hill resignation video?

Katie Hill, the disgraced Congresswoman who has resigned, would like us to feel sorry for her. She would like us to believe that it was a “coordinated campaign from the right-wing media” and “the brutality of hateful political operatives” that forced her to resign. She also blames her abusive husband for exposing her behaviors through “revenge porn.”

Those first reasons I’ll take issue with, but I’ll buy that last one.

Then Ms. Hill tells us that the coordinated campaign carried out the by right wing media and Republican opponents that enabled and perpetuated her husband’s abuse is also is why she had to resign. She says she’s going to hold them accountable.

She might be able to hold her husband accountable, but hold the media and her Republican opponents accountable? I’m curious how she will do that.

On the upside, Katie Hill is at least self-aware enough to state she’s an imperfect woman. And thankfully, she’s aware that big corporations and special interests govern our politics.

Then Ms. Hill says her new fight will be to make sure no one else has to live through what she just experienced. She says some call it electronic assault, others call it digital exploitation, and still others call it revenge porn.

Says Ms. Hill, it’s “one of the worst things we can do to our sisters and our daughters.”

I would add that “our brothers and sons” are also victims of revenge porn, and no doubt it’s just as devastating for them.

Katie Hill says she’s hurt. And she’s angry. She also says, “I never claimed to be perfect. But I never thought my imperfections would be weaponized and used to destroy me and the community I’ve loved for my entire life.”

Allow me a few more thoughts.

According to a House rule established with a bi-partisan effort for House members, sexual relationships between lawmakers and staffers are forbidden. And yet, Katie Hill was having a sexual relationship with a staffer. She argued it was consensual, but House rules don’t give allowance for that. Here are the applicable sections from House ethics rules and House Resolution 274

SECTION 6. SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HOUSE MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES AND UNWELCOME SEXUAL ADVANCES AS VIOLATION OF HOUSE CODE OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT.

18.(a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not engage in a sexual relationship with any employee of the House who works under the supervision of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, or who is an employee of a committee on which the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner serves.

Lest Ms. Hill think this was a Republican effort to kill her career, it should be noted that when the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 was amended in 2018 by House Resolution 274, the Washington Post didn’t quote any Republicans. They quoted Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) as saying, “Thanks to the #MeToo movement, the American public has made it clear that they have had enough. They expect Congress to lead, and for once we are.”

And Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was quoted as saying, “With this bill we are shining a blazing light on the scourge of workplace abuse, which has been allowed to fester in the shadows for too long.”

Also, in addition to Ms. Hill violating Section 18.(a) of the House ethics rules, we also have photographic evidence of Katie Hill with a bong in her hand. Now, in her defense, we don’t have any video of Katie Hill actually inhaling from that bong, and if the photo was taken in California, she might be in the clear. That said, we don’t know exactly what substance was in the bong. Either way, the photo of a Congressional representative holding a bong doesn’t exactly look good on a resume.

So, to all of this, I say, “No. I don’t feel sorry for Katie Hill.” Regardless of how the behaviors were exposed, Ms. Hill engaged in those behaviors and she expresses no remorse. Perhaps the real catalyst for her anger is the fact she got caught.

The ethics committee had announced it was opening an investigation on her conduct. The evidence against her was clear, and Katie Hill had already admitted her behavior. Who knows what her punishment might have been, but Ms. Hill decided to resign rather than deal with the punishment, stating in her video that she did not want anything to distract from the “Constitutional crisis we’re faced with.”

I would offer that the actual Constitutional crisis is the impeachment farce and the treasonous behavior of certain players from the previous administration, but I’m sure Katie had something else in mind.

Sadly, I would venture to say that what happened to Katie Hill could probably happen to a fair percentage of other Congressional representatives. But I wouldn’t feel sorry for them, either. All choices have consequences, and if people choose unwisely, they often have consequences they don’t like.

Because President Trump is actively working to drain the swamp, perhaps fear of getting called out on bad behaviors is why we’re seeing so many Congressional representatives say they’re not running for re-election. No accusations here, but the thoughts do cross my mind.

By the way, I should state that Katie Hill playing the victim card is what prompted me to write this piece. She clearly avoids saying she violated House rules and instead vomits out the standard “I’m a victim of a Right-wing smear” story that fewer and fewer thinking adults believe anymore. If Ms. Hill had been intellectually honest and simply said, “I messed up – I’m sorry,” I might have felt sorry for her. But she didn’t, so I don’t.

In closing, I have one more thought.

When Katie Hill says, “I never claimed to be perfect. But I never thought my imperfections would be weaponized and used to destroy me and the community I’ve loved for my entire life,” do you think she might possibly consider that Donald Trump has had the same thoughts?

Katie Hill has been feeling this way for about a week. Perhaps – just perhaps – Ms. Hill might now have just a hint of empathy for what the President has been going through since he took office.

# #

Women in the Church: Part 1

What so many people miss

By Daniel Bobinski

Women, take heart! If you’re female, you’re going to like this. If you’re male, please continue reading, because you might see something you haven’t seen before. And if you’re a militant atheist, then this post probably won’t interest you in the slightest – no worries.

Facts are facts: Human beings are insecure, and insecurity is born from the emotion of “fear.” From birth, we have fears. Fear of abandonment, fear of starving, fear of _ you name it _. Do these insecurities come from God? Hardly. If you’ve read the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis, you know that fear didn’t enter mankind’s nature until AFTER the fall.

Gen 3:9-10 – But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?” He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

That’s the first mention of fear in the Bible. I don’t care who you are or where you’re from – because of the hereditary nature of sin, you have felt insecure about different things in your life. If you’re so brash as to think or say otherwise, you’re deceiving yourself. I’ve met a few people who claim to have no fears at all. Sadly, there’s not a lot of love coming from them. A lot of arrogance, but not much love.

I’ll come back to fears and insecurities later. In the meantime, we’re looking at the Biblical roles and relationships between men and women. So, let’s look at some things that happened prior to – and after – the event known as, “the fall.”

Before “the Fall”

Prior to man and woman choosing to eat from the tree God said not to eat of, they were in a perfect environment and had a perfect relationship. Said another way, man and woman operated as a team. We read that God created woman to be a suitable helper to the man, but you know what we don’t see? We don’t see where the man was lording himself over the woman. He didn’t even give her a specific name. He was man, and he called her woman, because he viewed her as a part of himself.

Gen 2:23 – She shall be called “woman,” because she was taken out of man.

It wasn’t until the two of them brought sin into the world through disobeying God that things changed.

Let me repeat that: It wasn’t until sin entered the world that things changed.

After “the Fall”

Yes, things changed because of sin, and God himself announced the change. Speaking to the woman, God said:

Gen 3:16 (God speaking): “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.

Take note, because this is important: It was AFTER sin entered the world that God stated man would rule over women. That was not the original design! Interestingly, man willfully jumped at the opportunity to take dominion over the woman. Remember that in Genesis chapter 2, the man named all the creatures of the earth but didn’t give a specific name to the woman? It was after he took dominion over her that he named her, “Eve.”

Gen 3:20 – Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

Okay, if you’re female and reading this, you might be saying, “I thought you said I was going to like this.” Well, here’s what you’re waiting for.

The Kingdom of God

About 4,000 years after “the Fall,” Jesus came to earth saying the Kingdom of God was now available. Or, we could say, “available again.”

Matthew 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Mark 1:15 (Jesus talking) “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

There is so much to unpack in these verses! We could spend oodles of time defining “the kingdom of God,” and the phrases, “at hand,” and “the Gospel.” All those definitions factor into my perspective on what I’m about to say, but for the sake of efficiency, I’m just going to say it.

When one believes:
A) that Jesus was God in the flesh (See John 1:1-14), and
B) that by allowing himself to be sacrificed on the cross, Jesus absorbed all of God’s wrath toward mankind, then
C) you are freed from sin.

Jesus told us to repent. The Greek word is metanoeō (μετανοέω), which means to change one’s mind. In other words, if we change our worldly thinking and align it with God’s perspective, and openly confess that God’s way is the truth (Romans 10:9), then we get eternal life with God. The Gospel is really that simple! If you truly believe these things, God gives you a new nature. For several of many references on this, Romans chapter 6 is a great starting point.

Romans 6:3 “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?”

Romans 6:4 “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”

Romans 6:6 “We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.”

Romans 6:7 “For one who has died has been set free from sin.”

Romans 6:8 “Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.”

Romans 6:11 “So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.”

Romans 6:14 “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.”

Re-read that last one: Sin will have no dominion over you. And if you catch the theme in all these verses, the Apostle Paul is explaining in practical terms what Jesus told us: “My yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:30).

Sin has no dominion for those who believe

Simply stated: if you are a believer in the redemptive work of Christ, you are free from sin. Man or woman, Jew or Gentile, it doesn’t matter. Jesus has made your yoke easy. He removed the burden of sin from you. You no longer need to carry it.

Now, some insecure men won’t want to hear what I’m about to say, but tough.

I firmly believe that the ground at the foot of the cross is level. The ground a man stands on is not higher than a woman’s. When a man’s sin is washed away by his faith in the blood of Jesus, he no longer should be lording himself over anyone. The kingdom of God is restored and given to ALL who are washed clean by Jesus’ blood, men and women alike.

What about Ephesians 5:22?

Yes, I’ve read Ephesians 5:22, which says, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” But I also read Ephesians 5:25, which says, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”

You can’t have intellectual honesty if you want verse 22 to be enacted by not verse 25.

We’ve already covered that Christ gave himself up to death to give life to his bride (what we call, “the church”). Apply that to Ephesians 5:25, and we see men need to die to self to give life to their brides.

Are men supposed to lord positional power over women? In the sinful ways of the world with Christ, men try to do it all the time. But if you’re baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth who came in the flesh, this practice is cancelled.

By the way, if we look at Ephesians 5:22 and 25, who has the greater responsibility? I dare say – it’s the man. Once redeemed by the blood of Christ, men have zero authority to lord themselves over women. As it was before the fall, once we are restored to the kingdom of God, men and women are restored to being team players.

What about 1 Timothy 2:12?

Another common verse cited in this “debate” about the roles of men and women in the church, and one that people like John MacArthur and Matt Slick (founder of CARM) cling to, is 1 Timothy 2:12 (The Apostle Paul speaking): “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet.”

If you want to read a textual breakdown from Matt Slick’s perspective, here it is. On the surface he makes sense (but I’ll get to that later). And let’s face it, both MacArthur and Slick have domineering, bold personalities, so, if you hear them on the radio, they sound convincing. But, as I alluded to earlier, I find both men long on arrogance and short on love. Therefore, I find them to be more like legalistic pharisees.

Said another way, it’s hard to take MacArthur and Slick seriously when the greatest commandments are to love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, strength and soul, and love our neighbors as ourselves, yet they can’t seem to align themselves with that teaching to make agape love the foremost driver of their lives. Instead, they lecture us like Pharisees, definitively outlining their letter-of-the-law views on their perceived parameters of salvation (even though their take on those verses might be off).

Sorry, guys. I believe what the full scope of Scripture says, summed up by what Jesus said: His yoke is easy and his burden is light.

A form of Godliness, but denying its power

To the point of this post, I believe people like MacArthur and Slick take too narrow a view when it comes to the Biblical role of women. They focus only the passages in which Paul says “no” to women in leadership or teaching roles, and they ignore the places in Scripture in which women are in positions of authority and/or teaching. It’s a convenient position to take when one appears to be insecure about having a vibrant relationship with the Living God. AKA, having a form of Godliness but denying the power thereof (2 Timothy 3:5)

With a little review, it becomes clear that Paul’s admonitions against women in leadership were written in only three places and to only two churches (Corinth and Ephesus). And, when one considers the culture in place in those specific towns, Paul writes these admonitions with good reason.

Let me be clear: I do not believe those admonitions apply across the board to the entire bride of Christ. I believe they were written in the letters to those churches for very specific reasons.

In Part 2 on this subject I will review Paul’s admonitions, along with some interesting background about those towns you may not have known. And women – stand by for some very encouraging news.

# #

Daniel Bobinski, M.Ed. is a certified behavioral analyst, best-selling author, columnist, corporate trainer, and a popular speaker at conferences and retreats. In addition to working with teams and individuals to help them achieve workplace excellence through improving their emotional intelligence and improving the way they do training, he’s also a veteran and a Christian Libertarian who believes in the principles of free market capitalism while standing firmly against crony capitalism. In addition to this blog, Daniel writes on both workplace issues and political issues for multiple publications. Reach Daniel through his website, MyWorkplaceExcellence.com

Thus, it begins.

First you’re born.
Then you have choices.

First you’re born. Then you have choices.
— Daniel Bobinski

It’s said that many good fiction stories start with, “Once up a time.” Those are words to start a fiction story. Sorry, I’m not really into fiction. My wife and daughter LOVE fiction, but my view is this:

Life already has enough real twists, turns, and troubles, why should I spend my time reading about fake ones?

Okay, actually, I do read fiction from time to time, and I also enjoy a good movie. But mostly I read (and write) about real-life issues. And that’s what this blog is about. Real. Life. Issues. And real life issues almost always involve choices.

This blog is about choices I’ve made. It will offer my perspective in nine different facets of life, and I think the way I structure these facets may be of help to you. No, I’m not suggesting you adopt all the same choices I’ve made, but many of my clients love the way I created nine different facets for how to view and organize one’s life. I’ll identify those nine facets in a moment.

A grass farmer?

You may have noticed the subtitle for this blog is, “Perspectives of a libertarian grass farmer.” I’m sure some see that phrase and think, “Wow, a libertarian grass farmer – he must grow marijuana.” Sorry, I don’t farm that kind of grass. I’m one of those guys who has chosen to live in a subdivision, and where I live the grass is green nine or ten months out of the year. Often it’s green all year round. In fact, the above photo was taken a few years ago during the first week of December.

Why do I call myself a grass farmer? Well, living where I’ve chosen to live (in a subdivision), I’m somewhat obligated to keep a green, lush lawn. Of course, that involves fertilizing, watering, weeding, and yes, mowing. Like a good farmer, once a week each spring, summer, and fall I harvest the grass — but only to dump it into a compost bin.

Seems kind of silly, doesn’t it? In many ways, maintaining my lawn seems kind of pointless. There’s no monetary reward for this effort, and I’m not able to use any of my crop to feed my family. It mostly just looks good. But since before the days of George Washington, society has placed a certain status on having a manicured lawn. Back in those days, lawns were for the wealthy. Nowadays, in most every city in America, lawns are pretty much expected.

And this is an analogy for my blog. So often we make choices in life based on what we think we want, but with those choices come certain expectations. Sometimes we know what those expectations will be, sometimes we don’t. Still, if we make certain choices, we are usually obligated to do ancillary things that aren’t always fun and entertaining. This is part of life. Thus, I am a grass farmer.

A libertarian?

I’m also more than a grass farmer. Everyone knows about Republicans and Democrats. Of course, the Legacy media tends to put everything on a Right v. Left perspective, and we’ll talk more about the two ends of that spectrum in future posts. But I’ll tip my hand now to say that our two-party system is rather one-dimensional. If we look at a bigger picture, we can move beyond Right / Left thinking and see a few more dimensions. Libertarians fall into one of those dimensions.

As a cursory overview, the founders of the United States were, by and large, libertarians. To quote from the American Heritage dictionary, a libertarian is:

One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
One who believes in free will.

At one time in my life I chose to be on the Left of the given spectrum, and later I chose to be on the Right. But there came a time when I realized we were not created to be serfs for anyone. I went looking for something different, and realized that in my heart, I was a libertarian.

Before I proceed, I feel I must qualify the libertarian paradigm. First, being libertarian doesn’t mean you’re a moderate. It’s more about having freedom. Second, you can have “progressive” libertarians and “conservative” libertarians. Because I’ve chosen to be a Christian, I also choose — nay, I am compelled — to be more on the conservative side of the libertarian realm. However, you will find I hold some views that many Christians might take issue with.

As I explain those views in future posts, I will also explain why I think they align with Scripture.

The nine facets of life

To manage my life in balance way, I have identified nine different facets, or categories, for life. Does everything fit inside these categories? No. Sometimes I have to squeeze stuff in sideways. But for the most part, these nine categories make my life much easier to manage. They’re even easy to memorize because they’re in alphabetical order. The nine categories are:

Faith – The spiritual side of us
Family and Friends – Self explanatory
Finances – How we manage money, how we invest money, and how we spend money, etc.
Fitness – Our mental, physical, and emotional health (including our diet)
Formations – How and what we learn and our efforts to improve our understanding of things. It can be formal learning such as school, or informal learning, such as gleaning information from YouTube.
Forte – Whatever we do most during the week. If you’re an employee or business owner, that’s your forte. If you’re a full-time student, that’s your forte. If you’re a stay-at-home mom, that’s your forte.
Fortress – Regardless of whether we rent a room from someone, live in an apartment, a condo, a mobile home or tiny home, a typical suburban home, or a sprawling mansion, your “fortress” is where you live.
Foundations – This facet has to do with our community, which includes home owner associations, service groups such as Kiwanis or Rotary, and also governments, both local and national.
Fun – As the saying goes, all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. This facet includes vacations, sports, or anything else you do for entertainment.

My blog posts will bounce from facet to facet. There will be no rhyme or reason to their order. If I feel like writing on Forte one day and Fun the next, that’s what I will do.

In other words, whatever I choose to write about, I’ll write about — because life is a series of choices. First you’re born. Then you have choices.

Thanks for choosing to read this blog. Hopefully you’ll get useful insights for living your life. Just know that I will be forthright with you. It won’t be fiction; it will be true. And hopefully, it will be useful. That said, what you choose to do with it will be up to you.

First you’re born.Then you have choices.

First you’re born.
Then you have choices.