Does a religiously pluralistic civil government weaken prayer?

Confidence in prayer requires three beliefs. One, God has the
authority to grant a request. Two, God agrees that the request
is something He too desires. Three, God actually has heard the
prayer. All three of these ideas are worth investigating. But
let's assume the Bible-believer agrees God has given Christ power
to do anything and everything (Matthew 28:18). Let's also assume
the Bible believer daily confesses any known sin and lives with
the intent to please God and believes God hears him. Thus, the
only question left is this: is the prayer within God's will.

The Old Testament has much to say about the destiny of civil
authority in opposition to God's law. When Israel was suffering
under Pharaoh of Egypt, God responded to their prayers by giving
them self-government under God with Moses as the human leader.
They only asked for relief. They didn't specifically ask for a
civil government change (Exodus 3:7-10). In spite of the ungodly
civil government of Pharaoh their prayers were effective; God
rescued them. Pharaoh and his army were destroyed in the Red
Sea. Abraham prayed for his nephew's city, Sodom. He asked God
to spare it for the sake of the righteous living there. God told
Abraham there were less than 10 righteous people living in the
city of Sodom. Abraham's prayer was outside of God's will and
God consumed the city with fire and brimstone.

What does the New Testament have to say? In 1 Timothy 2:1&2 Paul
tells us to pray for kings and those in authority. Paul unafraid
calls the civil ruler God's servant in Romans 13. Paul as well
as other New Testament believers resorted to only prayer and
teaching because they had no legal role in the pagan Roman
government. However, they understood the Old Testament. For
their own peace the civil government needed to be under God's
Law. However, following Jesus' example these believers wrote
about a soon-coming wrath of God upon the earth. Using the Roman
army God layed waste Jerusalem and totally destroyed the Jewish
temple in 70 AD.

It appears the presence of a non-Christian civil government is
unrelated to prayer being within God's will. However, if the
person praying held to the world-view that God wants civil
government without Christ at its head; this will influence what
the person will pray for. Why waste time praying for a change in
our civil government placing it under God's authority if you
don't believe God desires it? Instead, prayer for God's wrath to
come swiftly would be in order. Indeed, those who believe in a
pre-tribulation rapture and pray for the saint's rapture to take
place are praying for this very thing!

Hal Lindsey believes the prophecy in Scripture about God's
soon-coming wrath isn't fulfilled yet. He puts it this way in
his "Vanished into Thin Air" book. "We live in a world
essentially devoid of hope. Visions of the future as portrayed by
popular books and films include catastrophic events like asteroid
strikes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and plagues. Images of
the future are more often than not eerie, post-apocalyptic scenes
complete with darkened skies over ruined cities presided over by
chaos. Those images are completely in harmony with the
prophecies of the Book of the Revelation for the last days."

I wonder what world-view Hal's grandchildren have? Do they even
plan to have children if they believe their grandfather?

Do you believe the 'world' is doomed? Do you believe the ungodly
civil governments of today are going to take the ship called
'planet earth' down with them? Then you also probably believe
that God wants the United States to maintain a religiously
pluralistic civil government. Effective prayer to change our
nation placing authority back under God (Christ) Himself is
simply - absent. Instead, unanswered prayer asking for Christ's
coming for his own and swift judgment on the rest of the world
fills the void. Thus, prayer is weakened because unanswered
prayer erodes faith in God. Who's prayers are the opposite of
the powerful effective righteous man [James 5:16b]? "He who
doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind.
That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord;
he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does." [James
1:6-8]

As Dr. Gary North would say, eschatology matters.

Fundamentalist Christians place evangelism as a high priority.
But, does a religiously pluralistic civil government hinder
evangelism?

From my previous blog, we already saw that the need for a
savior is diluted by ethical civil law condoning all kinds of
evil behavior. As Jesus told his Pharisee dinner host, tongue
in cheek, "the well are not in need of a physician but only the
sick", so too our society doesn't even know it is "sin sick".

By grace through faith is how God saves. We have already seen
that the true import of 'grace' is also weakened by the huge
welfare programs provided by the state which only cause the
recipient to expect the free lunch.

It is perhaps ironic that God himself may be the one to allow
so many to perish without salvation. Most of the 300,000 souls
lost in the tsunami were not Christian. Many of the hurricane
victims were not Christians. God even permits wars to punish
cultures for their disobedience toward Him. The great Israel
civil war recorded in the last chapters of Judges was a result
of the corporate ethical sin of the nation. The description
of the Benjamite town of Gibeah in Judges 19:12-30 mirrors the
description of Sodom in Genesis 19:1-11.

When was the last time you had a conversation about politics,
law, or a state institution? Did the conversation naturally turn
to presenting the gospel? Probably not for most Christians.
Why? Politics, law, and the state institutions are considered
secular topics where religious conversation is unwelcome. Just
two quick examples: 1) the current flap concerning the Air Force
Academy is all about sharing the gospel; and 2) when a lawyer
quoted from Scripture to a jury the judge threw out the case. Is
it any surprise that God's law is forbidden to be used as well as
displayed in our civil courtrooms?

In my city of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, the city council asked for
clergy to open their meetings with prayer. The city's attorney
placed restrictions on the prayer however. It could not
proselytize nor could it discriminate against any religion. This
ruling was so far removed from biblical Christianity I replied
with a letter to the editor. I didn't notice any other letter
printed in the paper on the subject.

We have the same situation in America that Peter and John faced
with the Jewish civil authorities: "Don't preach or teach in the
name of Jesus". Unlike Peter and John, who replied "we must obey
God rather than men" the fundamentalist Christians have obeyed
(secular humanistic) men rather than God.

Does religious pluralistic civil government give God the glory?
In a sense *everything* ultimately gives God the glory. Evil
itself when punished is a form of glory given back to God but
this is not what I am talking about; but rather, does it give God
the credit for anything good that comes out of it.

Is God glorified by our military? Some good acts which borrow
from the Christian world-view may give a faint 'yes', but when
this question is asked in the light of the Bible the answer is a
resounding 'no'. For example, Psalm 44:3-8 says

It was not by their sword that they won the land, nor did
their arm bring them victory; it was your right hand, your
arm, and the light of your face, for you loved them. You are
my King and my God, who decrees victories for Jacob. Through
you we push back our enemies; through your name we trample
our foes. I do not trust in my bow, my sword does not bring
me victory; but you give us victory over our enemies, you put
our adversaries to shame. In God we make our boast all day
long, and we will praise your name forever.

Much of this could apply to the American French and Indian and
Revolutionary Wars. But it is far cry from describing the
current Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

What about the benevolence of our government? Does it glorify
God? When the Tsunami struck last December 26th were any
government funds used in a way that thanked God or gave Him
credit? No. In fact, because much of the devastation was in
Muslim areas U.S. government relief efforts were consciously
sterilized of any negative-Islam voice. Also the idea of grace
was totally washed away by the pressure of worldwide public
opinion that the U.S. government needed to do more. This same
mental attitude was also evident in our own Katrina and Rita
hurricane victims/survivors. Welfare is owed to the
underprivileged. Grace is the great unknown.

Let's take one more example: ethics. In sociology Sola-Scriptura
is applied to both family and church by fundamentalist Christians
but not to our civil government (state). Human relationships and
interaction within the family and church are judged either good
or evil based on the Bible, but not the state. Adultery is
considered sin within the church and family, but fundamentalists
have stopped requiring or even expecting the state to punish this
evil. Why? Most U. S. citizens, who are not fundamentalists,
don't believe adultery is evil. The larger cultural ethic, which
is upheld by the state, has brainwashed even the children of the
fundamentalists. The public school is perhaps one of the more
well known tools in doing this. As a result, there is no need of
a savior because there is no ethical sin to be saved from. The
state and it's institutions do not give God glory.

Is a religious pluralistic civil government of faith?

Why bother asking such a question? In most fundamental
Bible-believing circles it is believed that any activity done
without faith is displeasing to God. Without faith [in God] it
is impossible to please God. [Hebrews 11:6a]. Does this include
only what man decides to label as 'spiritual' or does it include
the so-called 'secular' things as well? Romans 14:23 says
whatsoever is not of faith is sin. A closer examination of the
apostle Paul's argument in Romans 14 does reveal a primary work:
building the Kingdom of God as well as secondary work in support
of the primary. Let's assume for the moment that civil
government is put in the same category as eating and drinking.
We may paraphrase Romans 14:17 as "for the kingdom of God is not
a matter of [political philosophy] but of righteousness, peace
and joy in the Holy Spirit." Paul's teaching here is that even
the secondary work, such as eating and drinking which are
necessary to keep the body alive, must be holy. The Bible says
it must be of faith or else it is sin.

God will not grant success to a Christian who attempts to
accomplish the primary goals of the Kingdom of God [Romans 14:17]
by using unholy (without faith) works. In agreement with this
idea, James says that faith without works is dead [James 2:20],
i.e., where their is no faith God is not present. He does not
bless kingdom growth.

A minority of voting citizens within this country have lobbied
for law in support of such unpopular ideas as legalized human
fetus murder and sexual orientation anti-discrimination. This
minority is continuing to push in this area for a complete
cultural acceptance of homosexual "rights". How come this small
minority, has overcome the vast majority who permit themselves to
be called Christian?

God will not be mocked. If we put these two ideas together when
considering the American Christian's influence on politics and
civil law then we have a correlation. Because religious
pluralistic civil government is not of faith, relative to
democratic numbers of Christians, we have been unsuccessful in
the civil realm. For the most part Christians are inactive
politically. Indeed some vote, but very few go beyond that. How
many dialog with elected officials? How many give money to good
candidates? This is why citizens with the self-consistent
opposing political world-view are winning.

Instead of faith in Christ we have placed faith in democracy.
Instead of faith in the Holy Spirit we have placed faith in the
conscience of the voters. Instead of faith in God we have placed
faith in 'We the People'. This is sin.

Does the Bible teach religious pluralism
in civil government?

Religious pluralism means that our civil government can and
should be religiously neutral. Most Christians including most
political conservatives believe this. What is the legal
authority? The answer is best given by quoting from the most
prominent Christian U.S. Constitutional lawyers. John Whitehead
of the Rutherford Institute has said "the United States Supreme
Court has expanded the definition of religion under the first
amendment to include various religions and philosophical systems.
Therefore, the first amendment protects all religions and
religious expression in guaranteeing freedom for all (and rightly
so)." [essay "Fundamental Principles Undergirding the American
Constitution", 1990]

Does this mean belief system only? No. Keith Fornier of the
American Center for Law and Justice also states "Of course, the
government should not endorse one religion over another ... That
is what the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is
designed to prevent." ["Religious Cleansing in the American
Republic", 1993]

In contrast to the religious pluralism view, the Bible states
that the civil servant is God's servant and his function is to
punish evil [Romans 13:4-6]. Furthermore, the definition of evil
is determined by the spiritually mature [Hebrews 5:11-14].
Religious pluralism proponents attempt to force the lie "civil
government is secular not religious" down our throats. This
'god' is not the same 'God' of the Bible. The neutrality
position is illogical.

Why is murder (well, most kinds anyway) illegal? Why is a civil
punishment attached? It's because somebody's law system *must*
be enforced. Suppose it's left up to the "democracy". In a
society of 51% wolves and 49% sheep, what's to prevent them from
taking a vote on what to eat for dinner? From whatever angle you
examine the authority behind civil law there is just one answer:
there is no such thing as neutrality of "religions and
philosophical systems" in civil law.

----

In spite of Romans 13 being perfectly clear about civil authority
being under God's ultimate authority other Scriptures have been
used to defend religious pluralism.

--

"He who is without sin may cast the first stone." Jesus Christ
said this responding to the accusers of a woman caught in
adultery. Most of main-stream Christianity has taken this to
mean Christ taught love and tolerance to all. Since every one is
a sinner, no one may participate in putting to death someone else
for committing a crime. Thus the New Testament says capital
punishment is wrong. Many passages on religious liberty and
freedom from the New Testament seem to agree.

But what is the context of the woman-caught-in-adultery story?
The civil government was in subjection to Roman authority. In
particular, only the Romans had civil authority to carry out
capital punishment. Only a year or two later, during Jesus'
Jewish trial, Herod's court insisted on bringing Jesus to Pilate
and having Pilate sentence Jesus to death. They did not have the
authority. However, in early Israel, Moses, via God's civil law
system as recorded in Scripture, commanded the people to stone
adulterers. The accusers expected to put Jesus into a no-win
situation. If he said yes to Mosaic law and condoned a stoning
of the woman he would be in trouble with the Roman authorities.
If he said no then he was going against Moses and God's law.
Jesus bypassed the corporate (civil) punishment question
temporarily by making it personal. "He who is without sin may
cast the first stone." Since everyone but Jesus was a sinner,
they all eventually left. Jesus then said "Neither do I condemn
you. Go and sin no more." Jesus had personal authority because
he was sinless. He permitted her to live but under the
understanding she no longer committed adultery. Now, back to the
question of corporate (civil) punishment for adultery. The Jews
had lost their authority over capital punishment because of their
corporate (national) sins. I believe the wiser of the woman's
accusers had already figured this out.

Plain logic would also lead to a similar conclusion of this
story. If Jesus taught love and tolerance to all, was it wrong
for our government to punish Terry Nichols and Timothy McVey for
their over-300 murders when they blew up the Murray building in
Oklahoma City? Of course not. It's the government's function to
carry the "sword" as seen in Romans 13.

--

Matthew 7:1 says "Do not judge or you too will be judged". On
it's face this also appeals to love and tolerance to all. Jesus
had also equated mere glances at a woman to adultery. So, if
someone finds fault in another they are exposing their own selves
to be judged to Jesus' stricter standard. A mere glance at a
woman with lust is worthy of the adultery punishment - death.
It's best to simply assume the best in everyone.

But what is the context? In verse 3 Jesus continues with
recognizing fault in someone else as debris caught in one's eye.
He concludes the thought in verse 5 by saying first deal with
your own faults (take the plank out of your own eye) so that you
may assist someone else to overcome their fault (help remove the
speck from your brother's eye). So, in context Jesus actually
encourages us to do all we can to see that we (first) and others
(next) live righteously (not in sin).

--

"My kingdom is not of this world" [John 18:36] meant that
Christ's kingdom was a spiritual kingdom and not physical.

This interpretation simply doesn't stand up next to other
biblical passages. Jesus also said to Pilate that the Father has
the authority to place anyone He so chooses in any position of
authority [John 19:11]. Romans 13 has already been given in
support of the civil authority being under God's authority.
Psalm 2 is the most often quoted Old Testament passage in the New
Testament. The "Son" is an obvious reference to Jesus Christ.
Matthew 28:18 states Jesus was given all earthly authority. No
exception for civil authority is mentioned. Even those who
believe Jesus' kingdom was not a physical one then actually
reverse their position when it comes to the last days. Most
believe that in the millennium Christ will wield civil authority
[Revelation 20:4-9]. We can also reach back into history and if
we assume Christ *did* want a pluralistic civil government then
was the Mayflower Compact wrong because it specifically set up a
Christian civil government? Were the charters of the majority of
our original 13 colonies wrong to require religious oaths to hold
civil office?

--

Render unto Caesar what belongs to him and to God what is his
[Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25]. This supports the idea
of two separate kingdoms. If Jesus condoned the pagan Roman
civil authority over him he obviously recognizes that the
spiritual authority, God, is different from the pagan physical
authority, Rome.

History teaches that Rome exempt the Jews from being forced to
worship the Caesars. This is because the Jews, rightfully so,
recognized this civil law contrary to their Sovereign's will.
This second commandment was not simply outside the jurisdiction
of the civil government. In fact, God specifically forbid any
thing or any one from receiving worship other than himself. The
inscription of Caesar on the coin meant that the money system
belonged to Rome. Pay taxes. This is Rome's law. Jesus
implicitly was telling each person, since they were created in
the image of God, that God required their worship. I believe
Jesus would have never bowed to a Caesar in spite of any civil
law Rome made. What about you? Rome was not free to determine
if Caesar worship was ok or not. God had already said it was not
many times.

The first time Jerusalem along with the temple (God's temporary
dwelling place) was destroyed by King Nebuchadnezzar God made
sure that the vassal kingdoms of the world knew that He was still
in control [Daniel 4:32]. Isaiah 10:12-19 gives an account of
how God punished Assyria for similar cause. This is a
reoccurring theme throughout Scripture. There are many more
references. The fact that ungodly kingdoms are successful for
awhile does not alter God's sovereign authority [Daniel 11:36].

This is not to say we can or need to set up a Theocracy which
claims civil authority is over every other authority. The Bible
does recognize a division (separation) of power among a few human
institutions. These are 1) individual, 2) family, 3) church, and
4) civil. Christians may always hold differences of opinion
about where these touch or overlap one another. But if we claim
to believe the Bible, Sola Scriptura, we should at least confess
the answers are given in the Bible.

--

"When the Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do instinctively the
things of the Law they show the work of the Law written in their
hearts, their conscience bearing witness" [Romans 2:14-15]. Some
say this passage condones religious pluralism within civil
government since everyone, not just Christians, have a conscience
to guide them. Some believe this supports a "Law of Nature and
of Nature's god", which is best expressed in the Declaration of
Independence.

But, more importantly, what does a proper exegesis teach? The
theme begins in Romans 1:18. Godlessness and wickedness of men
suppress the truth by their wickedness. Their thinking becomes
futile and God then darkens their foolish hearts [v.21]. God
gave them over to their sinful desires [v.24] to depraved minds
[v.28] which approve of those who do likewise [v.32]. However,
God's kindness [Ch.2 v.4] prods both the Jew, the one with the
law [v.13] as well as the gentile, the one outside of the law
[vs. 14&15] to persist in doing good [v.7]. Therefore one cannot
rely on conscience because with incorrigible actions the truth is
sealed up by a dominant rival world-view (kingdom). In other
words this kind of person is in a conspiracy against God the true
Sovereign authority [Colossians 2:8]. The Bible is given for
reproof, correction and instruction in right living for every
good work [II Timothy 3:16&17], even those in civil authority.

--

When the political kingdom of man refuses subordination to Jesus
Christ, it becomes a rival religion: a religion of humanity. See
Rousas J. Rushdoony "The Nature of the American System".

What Caused Hurricane Katrina?

Anyone who takes the Bible seriously knows God is in control of the
weather. He also is in control of sickness and disease. God is able to
raise up and bring down nations. See for example Deut. chapter 28.

Just as an obese person is more susceptible to disease and sickness,
we may get distracted by asking if we caused our own unusual climatic
conditions by selfish energy consumption contributing to global
warming. I don't know. But I do know this is only a subset of the
real question: is America obeying God's law, which includes civil law?

There is little argument about our past.

Displays like the Ten Commandments tell a critically important part
of America's history ... They make it clear that America is not like
other nations. Much of our legal system was deliberately established
on principles derived directly from the Bible. In fact, 12 of the
original 13 colonies incorporated the entire Ten Commandments into
their civil and criminal laws. [Alan Sears, president of the
conservative Christian Alliance Defense Fund]

But what about our present?

Atheists are offended when the Ten Commandments are displayed anywhere
but especially in or near courtrooms. They know that the Commandments
include a fear of God as the source for civil authority. This goes
against their own world-view: usually secular humanism. Alan Sears
asks for donations pretending to desire biblical law, but knowing full
well that since the mid 20th century the American civil governments
were "baptized" as "secular". Alan dares *not* to make the claim in a
courtroom that our present civil authority is the same as what it was
in the past because he knows it isn't!

Our Christian Constitutional lawyers are arguing that displays of
Ten-Commandment monuments have historical relevance rather than having
any legal authority. They do not want to return to our nation's past
where the Bible was legally connected to civil and criminal law, in
effect, telling the nation it is ok to not fear the Lord in our civil
courtrooms. Accordingly, people live undisciplined selfish
lifestyles. The law of the book of Judges is now relevant. "Everyone
did what was right in his own eyes."

What about our future?

II Chronicals 7:14 gives US hope. It also tells us who to blame for
our country's misfortune. The blame for Katrina falls on those who
wear the "Christian" label but choose not to obey Him. If Christians
do not do what that verse says, then the negative sanctions given in
Deuteronomy 28 are sure to continue upon Katrina's heels. Are you
willing to let "America the Ugly" take over without a change of heart?

America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!
[America the Beautiful]

The bombs in London made me think back to our own 9-11 experience.

Building the World Trade Center twin towers began in the 1960's.
Some have said it was a 'Rockefeller' idea since David was
president of Chase Manhattan bank and his brother Nelson was New
York State governor at the time. Even though I share the same last
name I'm glad I had no part in this decision. However, since I
lived on Long Island I visited New York City many times. I would
say I had been in the World Trade Center a dozen or more times
since the early 70's when it opened. My thoughts about it were
always the same. It was an offense to God.

I'm not defending Allah. I'm simply voicing an emotion: something
inside me revolted against the human economic monuments called the
twin WTC towers.

It was a violation of at least the first two commandments: You
shall have no other gods before me, and you shall not make unto
yourself any graven image. "The twin towers of the World Trade
Center were more than just buildings. They were proof of New
York's belief in itself."
(http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0903568.html) Quotes such
as this were common. These towers also made me think of the first
construction project ever recorded: the Tower of Babel. In Genesis
11:4 we read that the builders said "Come, let us build ourselves a
city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make
a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the
whole earth". Even non-bible scholars know what happened. God
didn't like it so they (notice the use of a trinitarian plural in
verse 7) confused their languages and scattered them over the face
of the earth.

The most practiced world-view by United States citizens by the
1970's was no longer biblical Christianity but secular humanism.
The World - Trade - Center embodied both humanism - a collective
human false-wisdom without God, and secularism - an emphasis on
monetary wealth and everything it can buy. The years and then
decades went by. I always wondered if God wouldn't intervene to
bring the edifice down before it's normal building "lifespan".

But God is patient. He often gives warnings as well as time.

God permitted a truck-bomb explosion to cause the destruction of
the towers. It was unsuccessful in bringing the towers down. The
light reality of what happened masked the awful reality of the
bomber's intentions. Most Americans quickly forgot about it and
thus it didn't bring about the needed repentance.

Then came September 11th, 2001. The first two targets, the towers,
were destroyed. The third was a symbol of America's military
might, the pentagon. I don't know what the fourth target would
have been. I do believe many within the United States had begun to
repent by this time. I believe God was hearing true prayers for
perhaps the first time coming from many.

Passengers on board the fourth hijacked aircraft had heard about
the fate of the other three airplanes via their cell phones. One
Christian young man, Todd Beamer, led other able-bodied passengers
in a bold plan. He ended by reciting the Lord's prayer. "May your
will be done on earth as it is in heaven" were part of that prayer.
Afterward his last words heard over the cell phone were "Let's
roll." It's as if God said "yes, I hear the prayers of many.
Three planes and three targets is enough for now. Perhaps the
United States will repent." The fourth plane fell taking all souls
aboard with it but no fourth hijacker target fell that day. The
hijackers were not granted complete success.

The message to the organization(s) sponsoring the hijackers was one
of sovereignty. Judah had been overthrown. Jerusalem, including
the great temple, had been defeated by the army of Nebuchadnezzar.
This wasn't because their god(s) were more powerful than Judah's,
but rather because of Judah's disobedience. This message was so
important that God deals directly with King Nebuchadnezzar as well
as three successors. Daniel records the events. Chapter 5 verse
21 sums up Daniel's message well. King Nebuchadnezzar lived as an
animal "until he acknowledged that the Most High God is sovereign
over the kingdoms of men and sets over them anyone he wishes".

There is a war going on. The hijackers were willing to die for a
cause but so were those passengers who overtook the hijackers.
Undoubtedly, there were souls on board not willing to die but who
were casualties nonetheless in this war. Christ calls all who want
to respond to him to count the true cost "take up your cross daily
and follow me." For at least the remaining year of 2001 many
Christians became more serious about their faith. They began
*practicing* Christianity instead of just accepting the label. I
pray and act so that more repentance and obedience may come but
without the hard lesson of 9-11. Will you join me?

My pastor wants to influence his church members to do the right
things, including within civil government. This past July 3rd gave
him an opportunity to address national concerns from the pulpit. His
application of theology to what a United States citizen is to do,
however, is flawed. I want to be submissive to my pastor in this but
he has seldom welcomed any discussion of theology and politics with
me.

He addressed the recent Supreme Court decisions on the issues of
property rights and the 10-Commandments displays. He claims the
10-Commandments doesn't "establish a religion". He said there is no
'10-Commandments' church and used other similar argument. He simply
doesn't understand that certain 10-Commandment displays disestablish
an atheist's political philosophy. It certainly goes against their
world-view (religion).

He encouraged our members to pray and take other responsible action
including reading about the Christian history of the United States,
sending email, calling, and writing letters. Last October he strongly
called the members to vote. He is good about that.

He also hit the nail on the head concerning who we should vote for.
We need to vote for people of strong good (moral) character. For a
bit more 'punch' Scripture references should have been used within the
context he was desiring: U. S. citizens selection of civil servants.
Moses selected leaders based on character (Exodus 18:21). Paul also
instructed churches on how to select leaders (I Timothy 3:1-12).

He next encouraged us to resist ritualistic activity. In true Roger
Williams form he avoided telling anyone they are 'sinning' in the
civil choices they make. Nor does he want to say the Bible endorses
any specific civil action. Truthfully, I didn't follow this part of
his message. It seemed he was undermining his otherwise good message.
It just didn't make sense.

His conclusion was based on the familiar Scripture from 2 Chronicals
7:14 "If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves
and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will
hear from heaven and will forgive their sin, and will heal their
land." Meaningful governmental change is always done from bottom up.
We can even say revolutions begin the same way - one person at a time.
No Constitutional amendment or Supreme Court justice mix will fix the
National moral problems we face. People must come to grips with a
Truth "it is appointed unto man once to die, then after that - the
Judgment". I'll just add my AMEN too.

Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near.
Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him
turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for
he will freely pardon. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways," declares the Lord. As the heavens are
higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my
thoughts than your thoughts. [Isaiah 55:6-9]

I used to cite this Bible reference along with this one liner: "We all
have our opinions but Truth is not debatable." on my early Internet
signature.

I have to thank George Grant, http://www.kingsmeadow.com/blogger.html
for giving me the push to begin this blog. I wanted to respond to a couple
of his entries but he only permitted registered bloggers to do so.
So, I registered.

What's your world-view? I'll try to explain mine here. In case you
haven't already guessed, it hangs a whole lot on the creative Word of
God. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the
Word was God.

Supreme Court shows individual's worldviews

Considering recent U.S. Supreme Court 10-Commandments decisions and some relevant
conservative Christian thinking:

Gary North, in _Political Polytheism_, says the Constitution from the beginning had already endorsed an "Atheist Regime". The proof he points to is Article VI paragraph 3, the "no religious oath test". This requirement along with a required 'oath' to uphold the Constitution leaves no authority remaining as sovereign except "We the people". It's just taken the courts this long to enforce the text of the Constitution. Gary DeMar says not so. In _God and Government_, Vol 1, he says it's not yet an Atheist Regime because we still have "in the year of our Lord" in the text of the Constitution. The late Greg Bahnsen would examine these thoughts logically. Whether North is right or not is of no significance. It's the current amended Constitution which is relevant. If DeMar is right then it should be a trivial exercise to simply impeach those judges who rule contrary to the Constitution. It's not going to happen. DeMar is incorrect. The United States is under an Atheist Regime. The currently amended Constitution endorses an Atheist Regime. How can this situation be fixed?
The United States needs a new Constitutional amendment replacing article VI paragraph 3 with something much like the original Delaware Charter had: an oath confessing belief in the "Divinity of both the Old and New Testaments".