Quite often one of the actions undertaken by those who oppose a specific group is to accuse those individuals maliciously. For example, in 1 Kings 18:17, Scripture records King Ahab calling the prophet Elijah the “troubler of Israel.” It was not Elijah who was causing the turmoil for God’s people, but Ahab and all those practicing idolatry. What is seen in this case is not only a false accusation being levied, but also the reality that Ahab accused Elijah of being in reality what he was himself. Ahab was the troubler yet he wanted to place that label upon the prophet of God. Elijah makes this fact very clear when he proclaims that he is not the troubler of Israel, rather the king and his ancestry had troubled the nation via their abandonment of God and His commands (1 Kings 18:18).
Many individuals in the modern era believe themselves to be in the role of judge and jury upon God through their rejection of Christianity by condemning God’s moral standards. Old Testament passages are ripped out of their context and claimed to exhibit reprehensible ethical dictates. Critics will often point to the accounts of the Israelites being commanded to conquer wicked nations as an illustration of what they believe to be horrific morality at play. At other points, those levying their assault against Christianity attempt to show how it is out of step with modern morality. Because Christians, based upon God’s Word, do not accept the LGBTQ+ agenda, then Scripture is often labeled as outdated with current moral standards. Many who have bought into the positions of theological liberalism or atheistic secularism label the Bible as being full of hate speech and immoral counsel.
vely against the enemy with great clarity. However, many of the men who years ago we would have thought to be the first to the fray are, at the very least, still deciding which side to join or are outright pulling for the opposing camp. Few would disagree that our era is not characterized by peace. Rather, we understand it is a war between two different sides fighting for two very distinct visions of the future.