Evangelicals, USAID, and a Pile of Dead Foreskins

Telling friend from foe has never been easier. Look for the evangelical leaders taking the cash.

Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines” (1 Samuel 18:25).

The story of Saul and his foreskins is a strange one in Scripture. It wasn’t uncommon to require a dowry in exchange for your daughter’s hand in marriage, and the price was dictated by the father. But when King Saul Indian-gave his daughter, Merab, to David and she wound up betrothed instead to a Meholathite, David was to receive Saul’s daughter Michal as a consolation prize.

The price for Michal, and by it, becoming an extended member of the king’s household, was 100 Philistine foreskins. This seems odd, but part of Saul’s reasoning is betrayed in the account, “Let not mine hand be upon him, but let the hand of the Philistines be upon him.”

Thinking it a Herculean task, Saul demanded that David slaughter 100 Philistines. In the attempt, Saul thought, David would die and considering Saul was jealous of him, this would have been a good thing.

But why the foreskins? Why not scalps? Why not heads on a platter (other than that David had already done that with Goliath)?

The answer seems to have been that Saul distrusted David. It was probably projection, but Saul thought David might have an easier time killing his own countrymen. No doubt, it would have been easier to catch 100 Israelites by surprise than to defeat an army of Philistines fighting as though their foreskins depended on it.

But when it was done, David had brought to Saul 200 foreskins. And man…that’s a lot of used foreskins.

WHO ARE THE ENEMY?

The easiest way to decipher a Jewish man from a Philistine was foreskin, although it wasn’t the most obvious. This part of the body was, after all, typically covered up. But once it had been exposed, it left no doubt. These were definitely the enemy.

Most of the work of Christian Polemics from about 2012 onward was the task of distinguishing between God’s legit servants and those who only wore evangelicalism like a skin suit, wolves wearing sheep’s clothing. One of my favorite quotations at Pulpit & Pen and later Protestia was from John Knox, “I must smoke out the devil’s foxes from their holes.”

Of course, the Scripture tells us this is necessary precisely because most of the devil’s best servants call themselves Christians. And many work for Christian institutions. The Bible couldn’t be clearer about this threat.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves (Matthew 7:15).

Indeed, these types of hooligans actually sneak into the church like Tom Cruise dropped from the ceiling by parachute chord in Mission Impossible, and literally spy out the church to ascertain its weaknesses. Once ascertained, they capitalize on those weaknesses.

And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage (Galatians 2:4).

And usually they start by leading captive weak women (2 Timothy 3:6), followed by weak and effeminate men. But eventually, these marauders will climb their way to the top of the hill and declare themselves king of it, taking for themselves high-powered roles in denominational or evangelical institutional life. And this is the M.O. (mission objective) of liberals.

J. Gresham Machen pointed this out in Liberalism vs Christianity. Machen wrote, “[Subversive liberals] seek a place in the ministry that they may teach what is directly contrary to the Confession of Faith to which they subscribe.” And according to Machen, who wrote his book in 1923, liberals can’t build institutions; they can only steal them. They take after their father, the devil, who can’t create; he can only thieve.

Over the years at Pulpit & Pen and Protestia, we pointed out a bevy of evangelical leaders who we claimed from supporting evidence that they were not evangelical at all. Masquerading as conservatives, these wolves in sheep’s clothing came into the church, and set about to make the church less conservative by their influence. They were essentially Cominterns (a term referring to the subversive infiltrators of American democracy but were secretly members of Communist International), but of the evangelical variety.

These names included Russell Moore, Ed Stetzer, Beth Moore, Thom Rainer, David Platt, Thabiti Anyabwile, Dwight McKissic, Rick Warren, and so many more who - over time - all demonstrated that they were not who they advertised themselves to be. And almost all were eventually squeezed out of the Southern Baptist Convention as their ruse was eventually revealed.

Others, like Tim Keller, were able to pass from the mortal coil while still having the masses convinced they were one of us, but not even Keller will escape a fair estimation of history. He will, like all the rest, be posthumously convicted of working for the other team.

The accusation from us was clear; many leaders in evangelicalism were political actors, pushing a political and unbiblical narrative, and they sought to move their institutions - like the ERLC, Gospel Coalition, and the Southern Baptist Convention (as a whole) to the left.

To demonstrate this, we revealed the Dark Money flow from the political shadows into evangelicalism. I demonstrated, for example, that James Riady - the disgraced Clinton financier who had been convicted of 34 felonies and banned from the U.S. by the State Department for trying to influence our elections with foreign cash - had found Westminster Philadelphia, The Gospel Coalition, and Ligon Duncan as eager recipients of his far-left patronage. We wrote extensively on George Soros funding Russell Moore’s Evangelical Immigration Table, and went toe-to-toe with his lackeys in the SBC who insisted that we were breaking the 9th Commandment for what amounted to factual claims.

And what work we left undone, Megan Basham largely finished in her book, Shepherd’s for Sale. It has become undeniable that leftists have purchased a large segment of evangelical influencers to steer evangelicalism leftward. But then…God raised up Trump (a second time).

TRUMP, BEARER OF A FLASHLIGHT AND CAN OF RAID

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been an instrument for American foreign policy, extending aid supposedly to promote economic development, health, democracy, and humanitarian aid across the globe. However, recent revelations have spotlighted a more controversial aspect of its operations: the use of religious charities to push agendas associated with leftist ideologies.

USAID has a history of working with faith-based organizations, recognizing their pivotal role in community development, especially in regions where religious institutions are deeply integrated into daily life. Organizations like Catholic Relief Services and World Vision have been among the beneficiaries, receiving significant financial support. However, the nature of this partnership has come under scrutiny for potentially serving as a conduit for political ideology rather than purely humanitarian aid.

USAID's funding has often dovetailed with initiatives of organizations like George Soros' Open Society Foundations, known for promoting progressive causes. According to reports, under previous administrations, USAID funding was used to support programs that align with "woke ideology," including efforts in equity, inclusion, and climate change initiatives.

But news reports in recent days shows that USAID was used to impose conditions on Christian churches in Central and South America, as well as in Africa, in exchange for support. This included promoting certain social issues that align with leftist ideologies, like gender equality and LGBTQ rights.

USAID's Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships claimed to strengthen work with faith-based organizations, but in fact, this was a strategy to influence or leverage religious communities for broader social change that aligns with progressive politics. And it turns out, there were no shortage of evangelical and Christian organizations that were happy to take the cash in exchange for betraying their Savior (reports that USAID paid in 20-piece units of silver are unverified).

The intersection of USAID funding with religious entities also brings up legal questions under the First Amendment, particularly regarding the separation of church and state. Oddly enough, when seeing the evangelicals who’ve been secretly taking USAID money under the table, it appears those shouting the loudest about ‘the separation of church and state’ have been the ones working on behalf of the government as social engineering proxies.

THE LIST OF JUDAS PRIESTS

Thanks to Donald Trump’s moratorium on USAID, and the prying open of their coffers thanks to Elon Musk, it’s become apparent exactly how many Christian organizations are on the secret government dole.

Thanks for reading Insight to Incite. If you appreciate my work, please consider an $8 a month or $80 a year subscription to access exclusive content (like the rest of this article). If you don’t want a subscription, consider a one-time gift of your choosing by clicking the link below.