Martin Luther and Melanchthon: Strengthening the Church Body

"I had to fight with rabble and devils, for which reason my books are very warlike. I am the rough pioneer who must break the road; but Master Philip comes along softly and gently, sows and waters heartily, since God has richly endowed him with gifts." - Martin Luther

It is uncertain concerning what many people think of the church reformer, Martin Luther. At times, it appears that people hold him up as a saint. Others would suggest that he was a devilishly crude mad man. What cannot be denied, at least as far as the protestant movement is concerned, is that he did a remarkable work for the glory of God.

It is important that believers do not exalt certain gifts inside of the church above others. It has fascinated me that it is quite often the case that those who embrace a simple faith will often demean those who put deeper thought into the matters of God (through science, philosophy, theology, or other intellectual disciplines). Likewise, those who have a very thought-out faith will demean the faith of those who are not as interested in some of the more sophisticated mysteries of the universe and God. Those who contend for the faith are often seen as dividers, while those who live quiet, Christian lives are seen as role models for the church, and stalwarts of the faith.

It seems like only a select number of front line warriors are accepted by their Christian brethren. Most of them are viewed as controversial, and their gifts are viewed as unnecessary in the church. Martin Luther is probably one of the most controversial Christian figures inside of the church since Jesus. He often employed harsh language when battling those who had corrupted sound doctrine of the faith. His number one opponent happened to be the Pope, the leader of the worldwide church at the time. 

Here is one example of the scathing comments that Luther used against the Pope: " What devilish, unchristian thing would you not undertake? You are an extraordinary creature, being neither God nor man. Perhaps you are the devil himself. Even if the Antichrist appears, what greater evil can he do than what you have done and do daily?"(Why the Books of Pope Were Burned from Vol. 31 of Luther's Works).

Luther did not pad his words when he pointed out the evils happening at the highest levels of church leadership. Was it always justified when he spoke brashly? Many people would say "no" and would be right in so doing. Nonetheless, this does not make Luther a reprobate, but an imperfect sinner who was trying to fulfill a very difficult mission assigned to him by God. Luther's counterpart and good friend was Philip Melanchthon. Melanchthon. Melanchthon was renowned for his quiet demeanor, his ability to please people, and his love for the natural world. Looking at Melanchthon's personality, he and Martin Luther would have been the last people you would have picked to be friends. However, they appreciated one another's callings in life and understood that God was using them both uniquely to fulfill a specific task for His glory. Contending for the faith is not a pretty thing at times. We as Christians prefer the peaceful melody of Amazing Grace over the war march nature of The Battle Hymn of the Republic. The reality is that both need to be embraced. Those who put themselves on the front lines will not only face scrutiny by their fellow man, but attacks from the devil, as well.  Martin Luther needed Melanchthon to encourage him to continue his fight against the corrupt teachings being promoted inside of the church. Philip Melanchthon, in return, needed Martin Luther to continue the march onward against the forces of wickedness. Melanchthon could edify those who had been damaged by cruel and unjust doctrines enforced by the politicized church. The Church of God needs to embrace those who are its own. It is true that there may have been better ways to address the evils back in the days of Luther, but, then again, maybe not. www.williamhseng.com

Contradictions in the Bible: Part 1

One of the most common complaints against the Bible is a long list of contradictions, pointed out by skeptics. Chief among these complaints would be how different the God of the Old Testament is from the God of the New Testament.

The God of the Old Testament is perceived to be a God of wrath, blood shed, and judgment. In Genesis, he floods the world and kills everyone and everything with the exception of a boat load of people and animals. He commands very bizarre things, like circumcision of male babies, sacrifice of children, and the killing of entire nations (men, women, and children). Foreign nations that willfully surrendered to the armies of Israel were forced into slavery. The God of the Old Testament seems cruel and irrational.

In the New Testament, a man named Jesus is introduced. It appears that he's against everything the Old Testament God teaches. He says to forgive and to not judge people. He says to be merciful, humble, and righteous. He preaches about a God that deeply loves His people so much that He sent Jesus (His Son) to die for the sins of the world. Upon His death, it was preached that God had made peace with the world. These two Gods seem totally different. What's the deal?

The deal is that there really is no difference between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. Although it is perceived, by critics, that the God of the Old Testament is cruel, they fail to see that God created man in his own image out of love. Mankind became corrupt through free will, and God began to judge his people. Often times in the Old Testament, God is gracious to his people. He displays this grace through covenants.

From the third chapter of Genesis onward, it is clear that mankind had become corrupt. The corruption of mankind's once innocent nature resulted in murder, war, adultery, lying, stealing, idolatry, and a multitude of other evils that were a direct attack against the righteous God who created all things. In this respect, mankind deserved to be wiped from the face of the planet. However, starting with Noah, a series of promises were made by God to ensure that mankind would be able to have a relationship to the God that created them. The most significant of the promises was sealed through the giving of laws to Moses.

Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Jesus issued commands that could be found in the Old Testament Law. He also became a sacrifice to save mankind. This was God's plan out of his goodness.

The promises that God made to humanity, to conditionally maintain His relationship, are known as covenants. Although there are more than two covenants in the Bible, the Christian Bible is best understood by two: the covenant with Moses and the covenant through Jesus. Jesus taught all of the same things as Moses, but He revealed that He would fulfill the requirements of the law through His death. This was not something that Jesus (or the Apostle Paul) made up, it was something predicted in the Old Testament.

Jeremiah 31:31-32, 34b (a passage found in the Old Testament) reads,

“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, 
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
    and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
    I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
    to lead them out of Egypt...
“For I will forgive their wickedness
    and will remember their sins no more.”

This is the covenant referenced by Jesus at the establishment of communion worship, where He and His disciples ate bread and drank wine together in what would be practiced in memory of His sacrifice. "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you" (Luke 22:20).

In the Gospel of John, we can see the implications of the New Covenant through Jesus: "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). Grace is shown through the forgiveness of sins, and truth is shown through the knowledge of the one true God.

The character of God does not waver from the beginning of the Bible to its end. In fact, there are times in the Old Testament where God is remarkably gracious and loving and times in the New Testament where God exercises judgment (i.e. the book of Revelation). The Old Testament introduces the New Covenant and the New Testament announces the fulfillment of the Old Testament Law through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

www.williamhseng.com

Enlightenment, Revival, and Awakening: Part 2

I think I would be in agreement with people on both sides of the spectrum by saying it would be absurd to assert that people in the Medieval period were better off than people today (at least in the civilized world). Technology, overall, has been good for mankind. But technology is not the measure of human progress nor is reason. Morality and humanitarianism are the measures of human progress and these can only be promoted through religious ideals. What must first happen, before a better civilization can emerge, is revival.

Revival is often misunderstood by people outside and inside the church. It is not a massive evangelistic effort that is focused on winning new converts. Revival happens when the people who belong to the church, as believers in Jesus Christ, become serious about their faith on a corporate level and start doing the things that God has called them to do. In terms of our premise of morality and humanitarianism, revival calls Christians to get right with God and walk in the ways of Jesus. This fulfills the moral and humanitarian requirements to signify if true progress is being made.

Awakening is a result of massive revival. There were two Great Awakenings. The first focused on church-going people as a call to personal holiness and genuine faith in Jesus Christ. The second emphasized winning over the souls of people who were not yet Christians. I contest that in both instances, new converts were actually the focus. In the mid to late 1900s, a far greater number of Americans were attending church. I am sure that some of them were devout Christians, while others were merely going to church out of obligation. Those who were only going out of pure obligation can hardly be considered genuine converts to the Christian faith. Likewise, there appeared to be a spiritual deadness inside of the church prior to the first Awakening. Those who were spiritually dead needed to be awakened, thus the title "The Great Awakening."

Don't get the impression that enlightenment is all about intellectual progress and awakening is only about spiritual/moral progress. Truth be told, reason has been a tool of believers for several millennia; it was a hallmark of genuine faith before Christ, but, even more so, as a result of Christ! Most fields of science have been discovered by believers and have merely been hijacked by enlightened folk. Regarding technology, Christians seek to utilize technology for the good of man, while enlightened folk seem to want to suppress wide use of technology for the good of Mother Earth.

Like all quasi secular to full blown secular movements, the Enlightenment started off beautifully, but has produced some disgusting fruit. Revival and Awakening have been the counter forces that have called people back to a reasonable standard of morality and humanitarianism. Enlightenment, through secular reasoning, has determined that we need to be the friend of Mother Earth above all else. Those who have been Awakened, on the other hand, have determined that humanity is the most valuable being on the physical planet and that Father God is the one whom we should seek to please.

www.williamhseng.com

Man Murders Muslims in London

Yesterday, a 47 year old white man drove a van into a crowd of Muslims gathered at a Mosque to pray. They were fulfilling their duties during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. It is suspected that the man is a right wing extremist, and it is being investigated concerning whether or not his action could be considered an act of terror. The people of Great Britain, "conservatives" and liberals, are rushing to microphones, TV cameras, and social media (no doubt) to condemn this act of violence.

I condemn all wicked acts carried out. However, I must point out the extreme hypocrisy in the mainstream media affiliated with this act of violence. Whenever there is an act of violence carried out by a Muslim extremist (in America, Great Britain, France, or otherwise) the government and the media immediately come out with a statement to downplay the act of terrorism. They state that they do not have enough information, and they do not want to jump to any conclusions too soon.  After it is learned that an Islamic terrorist is involved, the media and the government continuously caution the public from speaking out against Muslim extremists. Even though the Radical Islamist groups (terrorist organizations) support all of these attacks, the response from the media and the government is that, "We cannot find any link that might suggest that these attacks are part of a coordinated effort." Terrorism is defined through a movement, and this is definitely a movement to eradicate all of the non-Muslims in Europe. They declare their allegiance to Allah and to Radical Islamist terror.

What is more disturbing is that we are told, time and time again that we need to understand why these Muslim extremists are committing such crimes. After they commit another act of terror, we are to be sympathetic. Who in their right mind would be sympathetic to a group of people that is together solely for the purpose of stabbing, and shooting, and bombing people who do not ascribe to the same values? When an Islamic Extremist strikes and kills innocent people in our streets, we are supposed to believe that this is retaliatory action, even though they pledge allegiance to Allah. We strike the Middle East in an effort to get the governments to stop slaughtering their own people. The Western world must continue to fight against these groups of people.

Concerning this man yesterday that ran over innocent Muslims, his situation is not being approached with caution. Every group that could possibly exploit this story for their own gain are already ascribing motifs to this man's action. He claimed that he wants to "kill all Muslims."

Europe has experienced numerous Islamic terror attacks the past few months. Muslim extremists have ended many innocent lives by running people over vans, stabbing them in the streets, decapitating priests, detonating bombs, shooting people, and committing all kinds of violent acts in the name of Allah. The Muslim extremists have been brutal, disgusting, and completely savage.

Could it be that this man, yesterday, was tired of the media and the government ignoring all of these acts of violence? This problem in Europe is too big to fight for one person alone, and it seems that the governments in Europe are far from beginning the fight. The fight begins with addressing that there is a connection between these inhumane acts.

Why are we saying that this man is a far-right extremist? Why are we saying he has possible connections to Nazis? For anyone unaware, the Nazi party is a left leaning progressive movement. Concerning far-right extremism, that is normally affiliated with religious groups, not terror organizations. What religious groups, outside of Islam, have a significant presence in Great Britain? Last I knew, Christianity was on its way out the door. This "act of terror" is likely just a lone wolf.

This man should be held accountable for the evil deed he committed just yesterday. Nonetheless, the British government, as well as the media, should take this as a call to action. Not against far-right extremism, but as a call for them to protect their own people. This man was clearly troubled that no one was doing anything to stop the spread of radical Islamic extremism, and he had enough. As a result, he took out his anger against a crowd of innocent Muslims. He, indeed, needs held accountable for his actions. But, if the British government, as well as other European governments, don't get their act together to duly condemn Islamic terror attacks, people are going to rise up. God help us all.

Enlightenment, Revival, and Awakening: Part 1

Has enlightenment ever truly accomplished anything meaningful? Seriously. I know that people often point to the period known as the Enlightenment as a time where we put aside our childish and superstitious ways to pursue a more reasonable worldview. Well, I question that assertion. For one, the Medieval period was not as bad as it was claimed to be. However, even if it was, the Enlightenment has not produced fruit that is much better, if at all better, than the Great Awakening, let alone Medieval Times. Thus, the Western world needs another Great Awakening, as it puts aside the so-called fruits of enlightenment.

This is not a condemnation of the period that we know as the Enlightenment. Britannica.com sums up the fruit of the Enlightenment as, "the belief that human history is a record of general progress." In a general sense, this is correct. Mankind has made remarkable improvements in terms of technology, government, and even humanitarian outreach. This only makes sense as this was a time in history when the belief was popularized that mankind was inherently good and should seek the greatest good.

The fruit of Enlightenment, however, has ultimately manifested in the idea that mankind is its own worst enemy. It justified the ideology of secular humanism; that God does not exist and that mankind is the ruler of its own destiny. At first, this sounded great, as remnants of a theistic worldview lingered within its movement. As the enlightened individuals started to realize that their movement eliminated the necessity for God, all of a sudden the world became a giant free-for-all or survival of the fittest. Evolutionary thought dominated the secular community and all of a sudden the progress which had been made became the bane of society.

Evolutionists will ask creationists, "How can you refuse to believe in evolution and yet still use a smart phone, a computer, or even a toaster?" Aside from the false premise of this question (that evolution is the basis for all modern thought, thus all technological achievements), the evolutionists are the ones who seek to destroy the very industries that make such technology possible. This sounds absurd, but its true. 

You see, these enlightened individuals are the same people who are decrying fossil fuels, nuclear power, and even the procreation of human life in the name of Mother Earth. They believe that pollution, mostly in the form of carbon emissions, is quickly leading the environment into a global catastrophe that could destroy a significant portion of life. Essentially, they believe that the technologies they have created have made life so good and so prosperous that life will, ironically, not be sustainable in a few decades of time due to the ramifications of overpopulation. This being the case, was not the Medieval period ultimately more ideal according to the standards of these enlightened folk?

Stay tuned for Part 2 of Enlightenment, Revival, and Awakening...

What Love is Not

"If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing." ~ 1 Corinthians 13:1-3

What follows this statement in verses 4-7 is a description of what love is. What I am about to write is in no way disregarding the authors words following what I have cited above. Last night, as I worked at my new job, I was reflecting on what loving God means. Jesus puts it very clear in the Gospel of John, "If you love me, keep my commands...Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. (14:15 & 21). There is no meaningful love for God outside of obedience.

We fool ourselves by substituting the love God commands us toward with the love that the world promotes. The world does not know love. Worldly love is more like well wishing or high thoughts towards someone. It is manifest in words, at best, but more likely just in our thoughts and attitudes towards people. This is not bad, but it is hardly the type of love that God has called us towards.

As stated in the verse above, we also fool ourselves by thinking that exercising spiritual gifts is how we love God. It uses several examples to show people that they need to be careful not to confuse spiritual power with love for God. It mentions tongues, prophecy, miracles, giving, and suffering as false examples of the love of God.

Some people in the church hold their ability to perform miracles in high regard. However, performing miracles does not necessarily even validate genuine faith. There will be people that perform miracles, and Jesus will say to them "Get away from me you evil doer. I never knew you." It is not the miracle, it is the faith in Jesus Christ that saves us.

Love is not measured by our positive thoughts towards someone, and it is not measured by our ability to perform miracles. Love is measured by our obedience towards God.

Bible and Science: False Premise Old Earth

After their first year of college, an overwhelming majority of Christian youths give up their faith in favor of an atheistic worldview built upon the foundation of evolution. Granted this reality, it is reasonable for evolutionists to claim that the belief in evolution is not based off of presuppositions, but scientific proof that is irrefutable. After all, the presupposition of the believer is that God exists. The presupposition of the non-believer is that there is no God. Thus, if your presupposition can only be swayed based on strong evidence to the contrary, clearly the secular concept of evolution is the only premise that holds up against scientific scrutiny. But, consider the possibility that the premise of the atheist is not that God doesn’t exist. What if there is another factor that makes the theory of evolution appealing and atheism the likely conclusion that both believers and non-believers hold in common? I contest, this X factor exists and it is nothing less than the presupposition that the earth is billions of years old.

The first assumption by most Christian apologists is that the presupposition that sways people toward disbelief is something more like evolution. I contest that most Christians used to be taught that the theory of evolution was incompatible with the teachings of the Bible. Saying that things naturally evolved from a non-living state into complex organisms completely eliminates the necessity of God, in most people’s minds. If not, it at least discredits the possibility of a literal Biblical Creation. Young people are normally the ones who are swayed toward disbelief, through the teaching of evolution, but not exclusive to the idea that the world is billions of years old.

From the earliest days of my memory, I remember learning from a variety of sources that the earth was billions of years old. In all of my years in public school I was never even exposed to Young Earth Creationism, be it in the church, on television, or in the classroom. It was my freshman year of high school when I was first exposed to the notion that some people believed that the world was no more than 10,000 years old. And the way it was presented to me was from my biology teacher.

He was talking about the theory of evolution and wanted his students to be clear that it does not necessarily teach that there is no God. But, he asserted, the belief in God is not scientific. And there are groups out there who believe that they can prove that the belief in God is scientific.  These people, he told us, are creationists. Creationism, he dictated, is not science. If you needed any proof that creationism was not science, creationists believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

After hearing him say that, my conclusion was, “He’s right. Creationism cannot be science because it is a proven fact that the earth is billions of years old.” To suggest that the world is any younger than billions of years means you are not intelligent and possibly crazy. Even worse, it could mean that you are a science denier. Why?

The central doctrine to Institutionalized Science is evolution and evolution cannot happen aside from billions of years. The likelihood of anything evolving in a godless universe are practically zero. The logic of evolutionists acknowledges that the odds are nearly non-existent, but that that there is a slim chance. Given a really really long span of time, something will evolve.

For me, what saved my belief in God was that I 1) recognized that the evolutionary origins of the cosmos were purely speculative and 2) I saw no reason why the six day creation account in the Bible should be deemed false, figurative, or anything less than literal. I reasoned that if the God of the Bible were real and that He could create the universe using evolutionary processes (that take billions of years), could He not have created the universe in six literal days as the Bible says? If God is all powerful, can He not do immense things that humans cannot comprehend as being possible? If so, why would we render the likelihood of a literal six day creation account impossible?

The answer to this last question is nothing less than, “science teaches us that it took longer.” That is faulty reasoning. The conclusions of science are purely speculative based on assumptions (some rooted in observation, others that are not). Modern science assumes that natural processes are responsible for the universe as it currently exists. If I choose to believe in an all powerful God, why would I not choose also to believe His inspired Word (the Bible)? God reveals that He created the universe in six days in Genesis chapter one. As a believer in Jesus Christ, as Lord and Savior, I find no other option for the believer than to accept God's Word as it is written and to accept a literal six day Creation Account. For me, what I found more difficult, was to come to terms with the Young Earth model of creation.

With two decades worth of indoctrination, telling me that the universe was billions of years old, my old presuppositions did not die easily. I don’t even remember the exact reason I abandoned the Old Earth model, but I think it had to do with the historic nature of dinosaurs in the form of dragons. Because of my former beliefs, I understand why people think Young Earth Creationists are crazy. I also know that the reasons they won’t lend an ear to creationists are pride, arrogance, and ignorance. I know this because THAT was me.

www.williamhseng.com

Velociraptor: Not a 6 Foot Turkey

Have you ever heard of the cassowary? It is an enormous bird that lives in New Guinea. It is a remarkable bird with a feathery coat, scaley legs, and a blue head with a thick bill-like crest on top. The cassowary can run up to 30 miles an hour and is only smaller than the ostrich in the bird kingdom. Some would say that looking at this bird is like getting a glimpse of its ancient ancestors, the dinosaurs.

One educational video I watched about this bird portrayed a man visiting one of these birds in an up close encounter. It was a supervised visit, because these birds can be hostile towards people and could deliver a deadly blow with one of its powerful legs. The crest upon its head is reminiscent of some dinosaur species. As the host of this program described, it bobs its head up and down like the velociraptors from Jurassic Park. Think about that statement for a moment. Does a cassowary move like the velociraptors from Juraasic Park or did the velicraptors from this movie move like a cassowary?

Clearly, the veliciraptors, from the movie, moved like a cassowary. The creators of Jurassic Park, in trying to figure out how a velociraptor moves, took the assumption that dinosaurs evolved into birds and observed birds to figure out how some of the dinosaurs may have moved. Unfortunately, this is where we have arrived with paleontology. We assume that everything has undergone evolution. Thus, it is reasonable to say that this bird moves like a velociraptor.

How did velociraptors move? That is a difficult question to answer. Nobody has ever observed a velociraptor in motion; thus, it is impossible to know exactly how it moved. The problem is that pop culture has forged an image of how various dinosaurs moved. For instance, people believe that the triceratops moved like an ox, tyrannosaurus rex moved like a large bird, the large long necked dinosaurs moved like elephants. These assumptions are virtually unquestioned today.

In addition, evolutionists are presupposing that dinosaurs had feathers. This assumption brings people to believe that birds move like dinosaurs, when, in reality, we just portray dinosaurs moving like birds. The only sources of information that scientists have concerning dinosaurs in motion is their footprints, postures, and other fossilized tracks that have been uncovered. Scientists can also study
creatures that most resemble them in today's world. Today, the closest creatures we have to dinosaurs are other reptiles.

Let's stop passing along the fairy tale stories (in educational material) to our kids, when the stories reflect nothing more than our imagination.

Global Elitists Propagate Terrorism

*Propagate means to spread, to promote, and to cultivate, according to Google.com.

A sad reality is being exposed through the frequency of terror attacks in today's world: the global elite of the world do not care a bit about the average citizen.

The reasonable response to a terror attack would be to take measures to defeat those who make threats of terror so that they are not successful in carrying out their wishes. The global elite, on the other hand, have decided to normalize terror. After a terror incident in London, Mayor Sadiq Khan told the public that there is nothing to be concerned about. President Donald Trump issued a Tweet criticizing the statement by pointing out facts. With at least 7 people dead and 48 injured, how can a public servant expect his constituency to not be concerned?

Khan's solution is to increase the police presence in London, and that's not a bad start. Nonetheless, it appears that he is looking at this as an isolated incident. He's treating it as though it is Chicago and the issue is that there are warring gangs. That is not the case. An extremist segment of a prominent religious organization has declared war on Western civilization. In Europe there have already been multiple terror attacks this month alone. With the accumulation of all of the attacks and with their frequency, there is only one conclusion: these are not isolated incidents. It is all part of the declared plan to destroy the Western way of life. This is terrorism and the terrorists will not discriminate in choosing their victims.

Take France, as a more troubling example. Instead of upping their efforts to combat terror on any level, they have chosen to impose a tax upon its citizens so that after terror attacks happen, the families of the victims can be duly compensated. So it is a terror tax. Somehow, the politicians in France think that financial compensation is a reasonable way to handle the lose of loved ones.

Or what about Germany? Despite clear evidence that terrorist organizations were plotting to infiltrate refugee programs in Europe and America, Chancellor Merkel declared that Germany would increase their intake of refugees. Certain politicians in America proposed the same thing and were fortunately denied.

The only globally recognized official, at this point, that seems to understand the devastation of Islamic terrorism around the world is none other than President Trump! After each terrrorist incident, he expresses his deep sorrow and condolences towards those affected by the incidents and then vows to combat Islamic terrorism. Despite his reputation for being harsh against Muslims, he issued a counter strike against Syria for killing its own civilians with toxic gas. A CNN news anchor asked a Syrian refugee, who was settled in Germany, what he thought about President Trump's action and the refugee praised Trump for being the only one in the world who cared about the injustice happening in Syria. Furthermore, the refugee then stated that refugees did not want to be relocated in other countries, but wanted to return to their homes. He concluded that actions, such as Trump's strike against Syrian military targets, were the type of actions that were needed in order to bring refugees back to their home countries.

So, are the global elitists (as described in England, France, and Germany) just stupid? Probably, but it is not pure stupidity that drives their decision making. We can only speculate their goals, based on their elitist mentalities.

For the average person, we know that A + B = C. We know that terrorists + terrorists being let in to a civilized society = more terror attacks. If "C" is the most undesirable result, why do the elites not change "B?" Why do the elites keep letting more terrorists into their countries?? It obviously is not for the well-being of their people.