Special Edition: Last Friday, I said I thought the use by evangelicals of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Free Exercise Clause emphasis on “religious acts” to mean protection for certain for civil conduct “diminishes the glory of Christ respecting what Christ accomplished on the Cross.” The following quotations from one of the leading Puritans on the dominion of sin and Christian liberty will be helpful preparation for this Friday's explanation of what I previously said.

What is the relationship between the protestant understanding of the doctrine of original sin and the purpose of First Amendment’s Free Exercise of Religion Clause? The U.S. Supreme Court's failure to consider that doctrine has made its interpretation of that clause wrong. But I believe its interpretation and evangelical reliance on it for protecting civil conduct demeans the gospel. It was for good reason that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story warned "the future experience of Christendom" would be determined by the duties assigned to our nation's churches by the Free Exercise Clause.

I offer the following brief explanation of Romans 7:20-21 by John Owen from 1667 that I hope provides a better understanding of the effect we can expect the “dominion of sin” to have on our political endeavors and will lead to a better understanding of tomorrow’s important episode about the true purpose of First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.

Why are large numbers of people in Minneapolis, many educated, choosing to do things that to many of us just don’t make sense? Is Christ, the prophet to His Church, revealing something to His people? If so, what is it? Is the answer something more than "Sinners sin"? I think so. It may be controversial, but I think it affects the "strategy" we need going forward?

In this 4 minute special edition, find out why Richard Dawkins, the atheistic evolutionary biologist, and a strict Calvinist, J. Gresham Mechen, agree on one thing: Certain Christians have abandoned Christianity. It shows up in how we approach the transgender issue in law and public policy.

Today I discuss how a heresy I unwittingly embraced affected what I thought my 30 year engagement in law and politics could accomplish. Do you think my description of that heresy and its application is dominate among evangelicals and Roman Catholics? I do, and explain why.

Our society and law have progressed from prohibiting access to contraceptives in 1879 to a Supreme Court argument this week about human sexuality to U.S. Senator Josh Hawley asking a Doctor if a man can get pregnant. Why has this "evolution" occurred and gone in only one direction? And why don't we ask "Why" questions anymore? It's all of one piece. Something fundamental may be missing in our thinking. [My reference to Kansas should be Nebraska]

Today I explain the dirty trick the U.S. Supreme Court played on the states to foist on them a new understanding of human meaning, a new anthropology. You will see how the Court degraded the high view of marriage expressed by a Massachusetts statute dating from 1879 to the constitutional protection of fornication in 7 years, from 1965 to 1972!

This special episode is for those who want to dig a bit deeper into "understanding the times" that I explained earlier this week using SCOTUSs decision in Eisenstadt v. Baird. Two short audio clips of TN Senator Marsha Blackburn's interrogation of then judge Ketanji Brown-Jackson and my explanation of them demonstrate the cosmological merry-go-round of metaphysical nihilism we are on. Understand the cosmology she is writing into our law.

Today, I explain how the United States Supreme Court came to understand the word “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the changes in society's understanding of the cosmos that influenced it. Understanding the evolution of that word is critical to everyone who wants to understand our times and know better how to “walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time” (Colossians 4:5 KJV). "Sons of Issachar" should not miss this one.