The Bible begins "In the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth." Do you remember the Why? Because .... Why?
Because .... Why? ... games you played as a child? The
final answer to Why? which has no "because" is this verse.
Usually this text from Genesis refers to the physical universe
but it also applies to culture in general and politics in
particular. After conquering death (demonstrating his
Lordship over the physical universe) Jesus said in Matthew
28:18-20 "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given
to me." He continued saying "Go into all the world immersing
the cultures of all people groups in my teachings". Kenneth
Gentry explains _The Greatness of the Great Commission_ in his
book by the same name. The Bible is supposed to be the
politician's instruction manual.
The Greatest need in the United States is to once again allow
the Bible to have legal political authority. Judge Roy Moore,
or more specifically Alabama, lost the right to place the 10
Commandments near the State Supreme Court because the
Federal courts said it was illegal. This Federal decision was evil
and wrong. The fact that so few Christian constitutional
lawyers spoke up for state' rights in this case tells me there
is a problem with our Federal Constitution. Article VI,
paragraph 3 needs to be changed to support one and only one
religious oath affirming the authority of the Bible in our
laws. The Christian Triune God and Jesus Christ as earth's
lawful King deserves no less.
A civil government official "is the servant of God, an avenger
who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer" [Romans 13:4].
Paul ties those things that are "wrongdoings" right back to
the 10 Commandments in verse 9. In Peter's research he
mentioned that the Puritan civil law code came closest to
consciously using the Word of God as the civil law standard.
I believe him. The statement in the Declaration of
Independence that all men (people) are created equal comes
directly from New Testament teachings. Except in cases of
crimes worthy of capital punishment the right to life is part
of the God-given rights of all people. Abortion is evil and I
am thankful to God that you fight for the right to life of
humans in the womb as hard as you do. Don't ever give up that
fight. I would encourage you to make the same claims to the
majority in congress as I have made here. Encourage your
liberal peers who desire legalized abortion and who also claim
the authority of the Bible to exegete their position in this
area.
Lying and stealing are evil. If our Constitution says
something, the Federal branch of Government must do what it
says. Article 1 section 8 says to "establish uniform rules
for naturalization". We need to uphold existing legal
immigration law and quit the nonsense talk of naturalizing
those here illegally. The next statement says to establish
uniform bankruptcy laws. The Federal government has no
authority to take over control of "some" private businesses or
to hand out "bailout" money to some private persons or
businesses. This is favoritism and directly against the
Constitution. God says he detests unequal weights and
measures. Our Constitution says the Federal government is
responsible "to coin money, regulate the value thereof,
... and fix the standard of wights and measures". We as a
nation are headed to either hyper inflation or Federal
bankruptcy if current spending patterns continue. The Bible,
in agreement with our founding fathers and the original intent
of the Federal Constitution, don't authorize compulsory
welfare. This is theft and legalized redistribution of money.
This is evil. Instead of considering another huge commitment,
universal health care, the federal government should be
considering how to extricate itself from the $70 trillion
social security, Medicaid, medicare commitments it has
promised! The Federal Reserve has been protected far too
long and needs to be audited.
The nation's voting has gotten to the point of a besieged city
where the food has run out. The 3 last starving survivors
agreed to be democratic about what to eat for their next meal.
The two adults and child voted. The child lost. It is
immoral to saddle our children and those yet unborn with our
debt.
Respectfully submitted,
Harry A. Rockefeller
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Peter Marshall (http://petermarshallministries.com/), the
son of the more famous Peter and Katherine Marshall
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Marshall), is a
speaker and author who addresses the Christian history of the
United States. I heard him speak last night about how
important it is for Christians to be engaged in our culture.
After his talk a question was asked about how to be faithful
to Christ about evangelism but also be engaged in politics and
other aspects of culture. I suggested, as an example, that
maybe training in a biblical political worldview could be
accomplished by crafting letters to congressmen which wed the
Lordship of Christ, biblical authority, and political opinion.
Peter didn't bite. Since I brought up the idea I thought of
writing these letters to my congressmen and to share them with
others.
So, here we go.
son of the more famous Peter and Katherine Marshall
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Marshall), is a
speaker and author who addresses the Christian history of the
United States. I heard him speak last night about how
important it is for Christians to be engaged in our culture.
After his talk a question was asked about how to be faithful
to Christ about evangelism but also be engaged in politics and
other aspects of culture. I suggested, as an example, that
maybe training in a biblical political worldview could be
accomplished by crafting letters to congressmen which wed the
Lordship of Christ, biblical authority, and political opinion.
Peter didn't bite. Since I brought up the idea I thought of
writing these letters to my congressmen and to share them with
others.
So, here we go.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
A while back I read Nancy Pearcey's book Total Truth. My
main concern is to address what she has to say about two
things. One, the idea of no (religious/spiritual) neutrality
and two, what are her views on the religious/spiritual nature
of civil government.
In general I would say she does a very good job with the first
point. As a Francis Shaffer disciple she shows that religious
thought, attitudes, presuppositions, i.e., belief, form our
every actions. She spends many words exposing the myth that
Christianity affects only one of the two spheres of life. She
uses many word couples to define what she means by these two
spheres: mind vs heart, private vs public, personal preference
vs scientific knowledge, values vs facts, sacred vs secular,
revelation vs reason, etc. She acknowledges many belief
systems and identifies what is their tightest held (core)
presupposition and even says "In this sense, we could say that
every alternative to Christianity is a religion." She ties
this into the first point of the; creation, fall, redemption
model; given to us as Christians. In other words, who (or
what) is held as "creator"? What is one's belief in the
"fall"? Who or what is wrong and needs fixing? She reminds
the Christian of our cultural mandate given both to Adam and
again to Noah and finally realized in the Great Commission
(simply because this cultural mandate was never revoked). In
other words, how can I apply "redemption" or attempt to make
culture better?
Taking up a good chunk of the book is a treatment of
Intelligent Design vs (macro) evolution. If you are
interested in this subject at all Nancy's comments alone in
this area are worth your reading of this book. One of the
ramifications of our culture's acceptance of evolution instead
of Divine creation is found in civil law. Nancy says "Holmes
took the idea that the source of law is nothing but evolving
custom. Whereas traditional Western legal philosophy had
based law on an unchanging source (on natural law, derived
ultimately from divine law)." This pragmatic view of law and
customs "inevitably leads to a pluralism of beliefs, all of
them transient and none of them eternally or universally
true." In a sense, this is the Southern Baptist view of
politics. Dr. Richard Land preaches political pluralism as a
good thing for our culture. But that's another book review.
Nancy quotes Denzel in a way that even she approves of a
political pluralistic society. "It became clear to Denzel
that in a pluralistic society, Christians need to master
apologetics ..."
In conclusion of point one let me quote Nancy. "... it is
possible for even a Christian to be controlled by Satan and do
his work. There is no neutral ground in the spiritual battle
between the forces of God and the forces of the devil. If
some area of our lives is not fully submitted in obedience to
God, then in practice we are under the control of Satan in
that area -- giving him the allegiance that belongs to God
alone."
Concerning the second point, what does Christianity or the
Bible have to say about civil government I started out
hopeful. Early in her book on page 34 she writes "I can say
from experience that few hold an explicitly Christian
political philosophy." She went on to quote a political
staffer who also was a committed Christian "I'm politically
conservative, not because I see how they're rooted in the
Bible." She concludes this early paragraph in her book "[The
staffer] knew he should formulate a biblically based
philosophy of government, but he simply didn't know how to
proceed." But where does she go from there?
Nancy says "I suggest that the assumption of autonomous
individualism is a central factor in the breakdown of American
society today." Does she apply this to certain religious or
civil thinking? She says "the priesthood of all believers was
taken to mean religion of the people, by the people, and for
the people." She mentions John LeLand as one of the backers
of individual liberty in both ecclesiastical as well as
political thought. Toward the end of her book Nancy mentions
the common error. Popular evangelicals were sounding the same
note as the early social contract theorists ... who regarded
social structures ... formed by the consent of autonomous
individuals living in a 'state of nature'."
Nancy concludes with "the dilemma is that humans irresistibly
and unavoidably make moral judgments -- and yet nonbibilical
worldviews give no basis for them." So then what about moral
judgments involving civil law and punishment that have no
biblical basis? She danced about this question but never
really attempted to take it on.
In the study guide section of the book she mentions that "back
in the age of state churches, it was Christian dissenters who
framed the case for pluralism and religious liberty. Today,
in the age of state schools, Christians ought to be framing
the case for pluralism and freedom in education as well."
This seemed to contradict what she had written earlier about
individual autonomy being a major plank of the evil two-story
culture theory. This bothered me so much that I asked her
"[you wrote that] 'Christian dissenters who framed the case
for pluralism and religious liberty' Was this 'case' made
using Scriptural exegesis?" She actually replied -- but in a
two-story cultural manner! Is it any wonder that our
Christian politicians who desire to be biblical are continuing
in languish simply not knowing how to proceed?
main concern is to address what she has to say about two
things. One, the idea of no (religious/spiritual) neutrality
and two, what are her views on the religious/spiritual nature
of civil government.
In general I would say she does a very good job with the first
point. As a Francis Shaffer disciple she shows that religious
thought, attitudes, presuppositions, i.e., belief, form our
every actions. She spends many words exposing the myth that
Christianity affects only one of the two spheres of life. She
uses many word couples to define what she means by these two
spheres: mind vs heart, private vs public, personal preference
vs scientific knowledge, values vs facts, sacred vs secular,
revelation vs reason, etc. She acknowledges many belief
systems and identifies what is their tightest held (core)
presupposition and even says "In this sense, we could say that
every alternative to Christianity is a religion." She ties
this into the first point of the; creation, fall, redemption
model; given to us as Christians. In other words, who (or
what) is held as "creator"? What is one's belief in the
"fall"? Who or what is wrong and needs fixing? She reminds
the Christian of our cultural mandate given both to Adam and
again to Noah and finally realized in the Great Commission
(simply because this cultural mandate was never revoked). In
other words, how can I apply "redemption" or attempt to make
culture better?
Taking up a good chunk of the book is a treatment of
Intelligent Design vs (macro) evolution. If you are
interested in this subject at all Nancy's comments alone in
this area are worth your reading of this book. One of the
ramifications of our culture's acceptance of evolution instead
of Divine creation is found in civil law. Nancy says "Holmes
took the idea that the source of law is nothing but evolving
custom. Whereas traditional Western legal philosophy had
based law on an unchanging source (on natural law, derived
ultimately from divine law)." This pragmatic view of law and
customs "inevitably leads to a pluralism of beliefs, all of
them transient and none of them eternally or universally
true." In a sense, this is the Southern Baptist view of
politics. Dr. Richard Land preaches political pluralism as a
good thing for our culture. But that's another book review.
Nancy quotes Denzel in a way that even she approves of a
political pluralistic society. "It became clear to Denzel
that in a pluralistic society, Christians need to master
apologetics ..."
In conclusion of point one let me quote Nancy. "... it is
possible for even a Christian to be controlled by Satan and do
his work. There is no neutral ground in the spiritual battle
between the forces of God and the forces of the devil. If
some area of our lives is not fully submitted in obedience to
God, then in practice we are under the control of Satan in
that area -- giving him the allegiance that belongs to God
alone."
Concerning the second point, what does Christianity or the
Bible have to say about civil government I started out
hopeful. Early in her book on page 34 she writes "I can say
from experience that few hold an explicitly Christian
political philosophy." She went on to quote a political
staffer who also was a committed Christian "I'm politically
conservative, not because I see how they're rooted in the
Bible." She concludes this early paragraph in her book "[The
staffer] knew he should formulate a biblically based
philosophy of government, but he simply didn't know how to
proceed." But where does she go from there?
Nancy says "I suggest that the assumption of autonomous
individualism is a central factor in the breakdown of American
society today." Does she apply this to certain religious or
civil thinking? She says "the priesthood of all believers was
taken to mean religion of the people, by the people, and for
the people." She mentions John LeLand as one of the backers
of individual liberty in both ecclesiastical as well as
political thought. Toward the end of her book Nancy mentions
the common error. Popular evangelicals were sounding the same
note as the early social contract theorists ... who regarded
social structures ... formed by the consent of autonomous
individuals living in a 'state of nature'."
Nancy concludes with "the dilemma is that humans irresistibly
and unavoidably make moral judgments -- and yet nonbibilical
worldviews give no basis for them." So then what about moral
judgments involving civil law and punishment that have no
biblical basis? She danced about this question but never
really attempted to take it on.
In the study guide section of the book she mentions that "back
in the age of state churches, it was Christian dissenters who
framed the case for pluralism and religious liberty. Today,
in the age of state schools, Christians ought to be framing
the case for pluralism and freedom in education as well."
This seemed to contradict what she had written earlier about
individual autonomy being a major plank of the evil two-story
culture theory. This bothered me so much that I asked her
"[you wrote that] 'Christian dissenters who framed the case
for pluralism and religious liberty' Was this 'case' made
using Scriptural exegesis?" She actually replied -- but in a
two-story cultural manner! Is it any wonder that our
Christian politicians who desire to be biblical are continuing
in languish simply not knowing how to proceed?
Thursday, August 27, 2009
I always find "Imprimis" published by Hillsdale College
intellectually stimulating. The most recent issue _The
Constitution and American Sovereignty_ by Jeremy Rabkin may
be found here: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp.
As the title suggests it dwells on political rightful
authority. Jeremy opens with sovereignty defined loosely as
"a political community without a political superior". From
there he mentions the first scholarly study, _Six Books of
the Republic_ written in the late 16th century by Jean
Bodin. The King of France took on political sovereignty
apart from the papal Roman church. It wasn't a true
separation of church and state because Bodin "insisted on
the monarch's general obligation to respect the law of
nature and the law of God". Jeremy goes on to give Bodin's
thoughts. "His main practical point was that the government
must be strong enough to protect the people's rights, yet
restrained enough not to do more than that." It's
interesting that this is the only function of civil
government mentioned by the apostle Paul in Romans chapter
13. The civil servant, as God's servant, is to distinguish
between good and evil and punish those who practice evil
deeds. Paul didn't address what deeds should be punished by
the State and which should not. This was because he knew
the Old Testament had already covered that ground.
This same concept of "separation of church and State" was
reiterated in our own Declaration of Independence. The
point both Bodin and Our Declaration recognized was that the
King, Congress, State, etc. really didn't have full
political sovereignty. There were limits they must not
cross, which were defined by God Himself. In other words,
only God is the True political sovereign. Jeremy doesn't
quite get to this conclusion. I'm not sure if he didn't
like it or what his reason was for not following this simple
logic.
Jeremy then discusses our Federal Constitution. The United
States is a Federal republic where the rule of law
originates in a written document. Our Constitution is no
exception. As Jeremy reminds us "it describes itself
unambiguously as 'the supreme Law of the Land'". Every one
of the 50 state Constitutions mentions God in some way or
another as the political sovereign but our Federal
Constitution does not. In fact, in Article VI paragraph 3
it is strictly forbidden to require a religious oath of any
federal official. I think this weakness in being definitive
about the Sovereign God caused our Federal Constitution to
loose clout as being the "supreme Law of the Land". Our
Declaration of Independence still rings clear and True about
the just cause of the founders of our country. The
Constitution however is becoming a -- yawn.
Jeremy goes on to mention economic treaties, and national
conglomerates as detracting authority (sovereignty) from our
Constitution. He concludes with Constitutional sovereignty
giving way to "the notion of some hazy international
standard of conduct that everyone in the world can somehow
agree upon and then enforce on strangers". I agree with
Jeremy. Unfortunately this is true but he doesn't address
this built-in weakness of our Constitution, nor does he
mention the most blatant attack on the Constitution's
sovereignty -- the lack of a full-form birth certificate of
our president.
Jeremy concludes his article by mentioning that Bodin "the
first theorist to write about sovereignty understood
witchcraft as a fundamental threat to lawful authority and
so finally to liberty and property and all the other rights
of individuals". Jeremy simply reminded the reader once
again, without saying so, it's a question of submission to
God's sovereignty in all areas of life.
intellectually stimulating. The most recent issue _The
Constitution and American Sovereignty_ by Jeremy Rabkin may
be found here: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp.
As the title suggests it dwells on political rightful
authority. Jeremy opens with sovereignty defined loosely as
"a political community without a political superior". From
there he mentions the first scholarly study, _Six Books of
the Republic_ written in the late 16th century by Jean
Bodin. The King of France took on political sovereignty
apart from the papal Roman church. It wasn't a true
separation of church and state because Bodin "insisted on
the monarch's general obligation to respect the law of
nature and the law of God". Jeremy goes on to give Bodin's
thoughts. "His main practical point was that the government
must be strong enough to protect the people's rights, yet
restrained enough not to do more than that." It's
interesting that this is the only function of civil
government mentioned by the apostle Paul in Romans chapter
13. The civil servant, as God's servant, is to distinguish
between good and evil and punish those who practice evil
deeds. Paul didn't address what deeds should be punished by
the State and which should not. This was because he knew
the Old Testament had already covered that ground.
This same concept of "separation of church and State" was
reiterated in our own Declaration of Independence. The
point both Bodin and Our Declaration recognized was that the
King, Congress, State, etc. really didn't have full
political sovereignty. There were limits they must not
cross, which were defined by God Himself. In other words,
only God is the True political sovereign. Jeremy doesn't
quite get to this conclusion. I'm not sure if he didn't
like it or what his reason was for not following this simple
logic.
Jeremy then discusses our Federal Constitution. The United
States is a Federal republic where the rule of law
originates in a written document. Our Constitution is no
exception. As Jeremy reminds us "it describes itself
unambiguously as 'the supreme Law of the Land'". Every one
of the 50 state Constitutions mentions God in some way or
another as the political sovereign but our Federal
Constitution does not. In fact, in Article VI paragraph 3
it is strictly forbidden to require a religious oath of any
federal official. I think this weakness in being definitive
about the Sovereign God caused our Federal Constitution to
loose clout as being the "supreme Law of the Land". Our
Declaration of Independence still rings clear and True about
the just cause of the founders of our country. The
Constitution however is becoming a -- yawn.
Jeremy goes on to mention economic treaties, and national
conglomerates as detracting authority (sovereignty) from our
Constitution. He concludes with Constitutional sovereignty
giving way to "the notion of some hazy international
standard of conduct that everyone in the world can somehow
agree upon and then enforce on strangers". I agree with
Jeremy. Unfortunately this is true but he doesn't address
this built-in weakness of our Constitution, nor does he
mention the most blatant attack on the Constitution's
sovereignty -- the lack of a full-form birth certificate of
our president.
Jeremy concludes his article by mentioning that Bodin "the
first theorist to write about sovereignty understood
witchcraft as a fundamental threat to lawful authority and
so finally to liberty and property and all the other rights
of individuals". Jeremy simply reminded the reader once
again, without saying so, it's a question of submission to
God's sovereignty in all areas of life.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
What do lawyers mean?
I listened to Herb Titus present two talks today at the
SuperWorldview Conference sponsored by AmericanVision and
other Christian organizations. His talks about how state
governments may successfully circumvent Federal law which is
outside of the Federal constitution's 10th amendment were
presented well. Unfortunately the whole idea of separation of
Church (religion) and State (civil law) is still a confused
mess.
This was evident in the question and answer session tonight.
Two questions were asked about the influence of rival
"religions" on our Christian civil laws in a hope that Herb
would offer how Christians may cope or prevent further erosion
of Christian Constitutional law. Herb Titus attempted to
answer that our government was founded on "The Laws of Nature
and of Nature's God" or was it -- Christianity? He was forced
to define "religion" and simply stated a political (civil)
definition is that it is those "things" that we owed our
Creator which the civil authority had no jurisdiction. But
then what "law" prevents the State from (re)defining religion
any way it wants? What would prevent what some justices are
saying -- that our constitution is a living and changing
document interpreted at the whim of judges? I don't think
either of the two questions were really ever answered.
Is our U.S. Constitution a Christian document, as one of
Herb's booklet titles suggests, or is it not? We only should
use a constitutional amendment process to change what
is in error. Article VI paragraph 3 is in error. A religious
oath must be required of our Federal officials. We must
hold them accountable to the Bible.
I listened to Herb Titus present two talks today at the
SuperWorldview Conference sponsored by AmericanVision and
other Christian organizations. His talks about how state
governments may successfully circumvent Federal law which is
outside of the Federal constitution's 10th amendment were
presented well. Unfortunately the whole idea of separation of
Church (religion) and State (civil law) is still a confused
mess.
This was evident in the question and answer session tonight.
Two questions were asked about the influence of rival
"religions" on our Christian civil laws in a hope that Herb
would offer how Christians may cope or prevent further erosion
of Christian Constitutional law. Herb Titus attempted to
answer that our government was founded on "The Laws of Nature
and of Nature's God" or was it -- Christianity? He was forced
to define "religion" and simply stated a political (civil)
definition is that it is those "things" that we owed our
Creator which the civil authority had no jurisdiction. But
then what "law" prevents the State from (re)defining religion
any way it wants? What would prevent what some justices are
saying -- that our constitution is a living and changing
document interpreted at the whim of judges? I don't think
either of the two questions were really ever answered.
Is our U.S. Constitution a Christian document, as one of
Herb's booklet titles suggests, or is it not? We only should
use a constitutional amendment process to change what
is in error. Article VI paragraph 3 is in error. A religious
oath must be required of our Federal officials. We must
hold them accountable to the Bible.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Technology changes things, or does it?
I attended http://www.lifechurch.tv on the Internet this
morning with my wife and daughter-in-law. It seemed different
than those Billy-Graham televised sermons of years ago or was
it? The message was the same: the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The thought came to me that maybe, just maybe, the United
States doesn't have to go through a complete meltdown in order
for our culture to once again embrace Spiritual Truth. The
message of Christ, the milk [Hebrews 5:12], is still being
preached whether at lifechurch.tv or by Billy's son Franklin
Graham. However, growth does appear to be missing.
Christians in the United States are babies who "need milk not
solid food".
"Solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers
of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish
good from evil." [Hebrews 5:14] So, is Nationalizing health
care good or evil? What about that macro-economic sticky
question: since the government literally creates currency can
it be guilty of theft? Or other political (State) economic
questions need answers. When is a robin-hood (take from the
rich to give to the poor) policy evil? When is it good? For
what policies?
In just a few days I'll be in the middle of a conference
hearing about "How Christians Will Change the Future". I hope
it won't be just another conference where people attend get
oooohed and aaaaahed during the event but basically remain the
same afterward. I hope it does have a lasting effect. We
sure do need mature Christians to reshape and redirect our
future (culture).
In years past, I would have used a concordance and a paper
Bible to refresh my memory of these quoted Bible verses.
Tonight I just used my Olive Tree Bible and software on my
cell phone. Technology doesn't really change the core values
or issues within a culture it only provides us better tools.
I attended http://www.lifechurch.tv on the Internet this
morning with my wife and daughter-in-law. It seemed different
than those Billy-Graham televised sermons of years ago or was
it? The message was the same: the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The thought came to me that maybe, just maybe, the United
States doesn't have to go through a complete meltdown in order
for our culture to once again embrace Spiritual Truth. The
message of Christ, the milk [Hebrews 5:12], is still being
preached whether at lifechurch.tv or by Billy's son Franklin
Graham. However, growth does appear to be missing.
Christians in the United States are babies who "need milk not
solid food".
"Solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers
of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish
good from evil." [Hebrews 5:14] So, is Nationalizing health
care good or evil? What about that macro-economic sticky
question: since the government literally creates currency can
it be guilty of theft? Or other political (State) economic
questions need answers. When is a robin-hood (take from the
rich to give to the poor) policy evil? When is it good? For
what policies?
In just a few days I'll be in the middle of a conference
hearing about "How Christians Will Change the Future". I hope
it won't be just another conference where people attend get
oooohed and aaaaahed during the event but basically remain the
same afterward. I hope it does have a lasting effect. We
sure do need mature Christians to reshape and redirect our
future (culture).
In years past, I would have used a concordance and a paper
Bible to refresh my memory of these quoted Bible verses.
Tonight I just used my Olive Tree Bible and software on my
cell phone. Technology doesn't really change the core values
or issues within a culture it only provides us better tools.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Is Biblical Macro-Economics an Oxymoron?
Our church holds weekly Men's Bible studies. We usually have
a layman-led _Man in the Mirror_ video-taped lesson taught by
their founder, Patrick Morley. Patrick has been successful
teaching men for over 30 years. As with many similar
organizations, economic lessons have been popular recently.
When applied to individuals and groups the Bible offers much
wisdom: avoid debt, don't cheat, live within less than 80% of
income (don't covet) giving at least 10% back to God and
saving at least 10%. Dave Ramsey has made a fortune teaching
these straight-forward Biblical principles. But, _Man in the
Mirror_ follows the politically-correct secularist view when
it comes to macro-economics. I have heard it time and again.
"We don't live in a Theocracy anymore." "Old Testament
Judicial (national civil) law is invalid."
What biblical exegesis is offered for this opinion?
Seriously, I don't think there is any. A few months back
Patrick found himself on an airplane sitting next to the
U.S. congressman, Ric Keller. Ric asked Patrick for advice on
decisions he needed to make concerning economic stimulus
"bailout" bills he needed to vote on. Patrick, said "I can't
offer any advice at all for you on this." Granted, Patrick
may not be personally knowledgeable with respect to
macro-economics from a biblical perspective but over the 30
years of teaching men on a national scale, certainly he would
know a bank president, CPA, or other financial expert who
consciously wants to place God and the Bible as the authority
in their profession; someone who would or should know the
answer. No, Patrick didn't have a person, book, author, or
web-site to direct Ric toward. He didn't even accept this as
a challenge: what does the Bible say about macro-economics?
Even though no exegesis is offered there is no stopping
unbiblical teaching in this area. In a later lesson, "What
Jesus has to say about the Old Testament", Patrick says "He
[Jesus Christ] fulfills the judicial law with His
resurrection. If you were to look in I Peter 2:9 and 10 you
would find that the church is God's new nation. We don't live
in a theocracy anymore, we live in the church ...." Just a
few questions shows his confusion of church authority with
civil authority. Why is murder a civil crime if we don't live
in a nation anymore but in the church? Did the New Testament
church negate the political governments in their day? I asked
Patrick for clarification or a biblical exegesis of this
opinion since it contradicts the one I have read by Dr. Greg
Bahnsen found in _Theonomy in Christian Ethics_. I encouraged
him to contact a seminary professor who would and could answer
the question. I got the usual cold shoulder - dead silence.
Patrick and others like him, such as Dr. Richard Land of the
Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
(ERLC), think they have the upper hand in terms of numbers.
In _The Divided States of America_ Richard Land identifies the
dominionists (reconstructionists) as the "loony fringe"; those
who actually have a biblical exegesis which shows the Bible
does have something to say about macro-economics. There is a
biblical parallel. That generation of Israelites who left
Egypt for the promised land also thought they had the upper
hand in terms of numbers. Indeed, it was the entire nation of
Israel vs Joshua, Caleb, Moses, and maybe Aaron and Mirium.
God answered the revolting majority by swallowing the leader
of the revolt, Korah, in an earthquake. In 1984, after the
United States had abandoned biblical macro-economics
over 50 years earlier, Dr. Gary North wrote in
_Inherit the Earth -- Biblical Principles of Economics_ "we
are self-consciously firing the opening shot. We are calling
the whole Christian community to join with us in a very
serious debate, just as Luther called them to debate him when
he nailed the 95 theses to the church door, over four and a
half centuries ago. It is through such an exchange of ideas
by those who take the Bible seriously that a nation and a
civilization can be saved." What's the result? In the 25 years
since, not much. Thus, The economic earthquake Gary and
others have predicted for quite some time is about to swallow
us all.
However, not all is lost. God always saves a remnant. See
http://www.thegreatreversal.com/ to find out how the
remnant may instigate "the great reversal".
a layman-led _Man in the Mirror_ video-taped lesson taught by
their founder, Patrick Morley. Patrick has been successful
teaching men for over 30 years. As with many similar
organizations, economic lessons have been popular recently.
When applied to individuals and groups the Bible offers much
wisdom: avoid debt, don't cheat, live within less than 80% of
income (don't covet) giving at least 10% back to God and
saving at least 10%. Dave Ramsey has made a fortune teaching
these straight-forward Biblical principles. But, _Man in the
Mirror_ follows the politically-correct secularist view when
it comes to macro-economics. I have heard it time and again.
"We don't live in a Theocracy anymore." "Old Testament
Judicial (national civil) law is invalid."
What biblical exegesis is offered for this opinion?
Seriously, I don't think there is any. A few months back
Patrick found himself on an airplane sitting next to the
U.S. congressman, Ric Keller. Ric asked Patrick for advice on
decisions he needed to make concerning economic stimulus
"bailout" bills he needed to vote on. Patrick, said "I can't
offer any advice at all for you on this." Granted, Patrick
may not be personally knowledgeable with respect to
macro-economics from a biblical perspective but over the 30
years of teaching men on a national scale, certainly he would
know a bank president, CPA, or other financial expert who
consciously wants to place God and the Bible as the authority
in their profession; someone who would or should know the
answer. No, Patrick didn't have a person, book, author, or
web-site to direct Ric toward. He didn't even accept this as
a challenge: what does the Bible say about macro-economics?
Even though no exegesis is offered there is no stopping
unbiblical teaching in this area. In a later lesson, "What
Jesus has to say about the Old Testament", Patrick says "He
[Jesus Christ] fulfills the judicial law with His
resurrection. If you were to look in I Peter 2:9 and 10 you
would find that the church is God's new nation. We don't live
in a theocracy anymore, we live in the church ...." Just a
few questions shows his confusion of church authority with
civil authority. Why is murder a civil crime if we don't live
in a nation anymore but in the church? Did the New Testament
church negate the political governments in their day? I asked
Patrick for clarification or a biblical exegesis of this
opinion since it contradicts the one I have read by Dr. Greg
Bahnsen found in _Theonomy in Christian Ethics_. I encouraged
him to contact a seminary professor who would and could answer
the question. I got the usual cold shoulder - dead silence.
Patrick and others like him, such as Dr. Richard Land of the
Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
(ERLC), think they have the upper hand in terms of numbers.
In _The Divided States of America_ Richard Land identifies the
dominionists (reconstructionists) as the "loony fringe"; those
who actually have a biblical exegesis which shows the Bible
does have something to say about macro-economics. There is a
biblical parallel. That generation of Israelites who left
Egypt for the promised land also thought they had the upper
hand in terms of numbers. Indeed, it was the entire nation of
Israel vs Joshua, Caleb, Moses, and maybe Aaron and Mirium.
God answered the revolting majority by swallowing the leader
of the revolt, Korah, in an earthquake. In 1984, after the
United States had abandoned biblical macro-economics
over 50 years earlier, Dr. Gary North wrote in
_Inherit the Earth -- Biblical Principles of Economics_ "we
are self-consciously firing the opening shot. We are calling
the whole Christian community to join with us in a very
serious debate, just as Luther called them to debate him when
he nailed the 95 theses to the church door, over four and a
half centuries ago. It is through such an exchange of ideas
by those who take the Bible seriously that a nation and a
civilization can be saved." What's the result? In the 25 years
since, not much. Thus, The economic earthquake Gary and
others have predicted for quite some time is about to swallow
us all.
However, not all is lost. God always saves a remnant. See
http://www.thegreatreversal.com/ to find out how the
remnant may instigate "the great reversal".
Friday, February 27, 2009
My Oklahoma house representative has proposed a bill to allow a privately funded 10-Commandments granite monument be placed on the state capitol grounds. Even in a red state like Oklahoma it has drawn vocal opposition crying "separation of church and state". The press has been fair in its reporting. No taxpayer money is involved. Representative Dr. Mike Ritze said he wants Oklahomans to be reminded of our historical roots but is their more of a motive? Several have asked that in their letters to our local papers. I wondered too. Here is my letter to our local paper, The Broken Arrow Ledger.
What is it that directs our actions?
If you remember _Braveheart_ and Mel Gibson's character, William Wallace, shouting "FREEDOM" with his last breath as he was tortured to death you get my meaning. What is this inner part, conscience, heart, or sole, of a person which dictates nearly every action he takes? Actions of one rise up in opposition to what is strongly believed evil or at least wrong action in others. As the napkin fell out of Mel's hand, we understood William Wallace's action in opposition to the English because of their rape and murder of not just any innocent victim but his own wife. To William this wasn't just a crime of English people, but a crime of civil English law which said such action was legal. Mel, as director, got his point across. Righteous indignation leading to action opposing civil evil was worth fighting, and yes even dying, for.
Why does House Congressman Dr. Ritze want to place a 10-Commandments monument outside the State Capitol building? I think his intent is fairly presented by our media. But why would he want this reminder of the Christian history of our state and nation so close to civil courtrooms? He freely admits there is no *legal* civil relevance today. Is he out to get a reaction from those who disagree? Is he simply wanting some kind of public debate on this?
I say, let's go. Righteous indignation against this proposed law is deserved. The state (capitol building) needs to remain separated from the church (God's 10 Commandments). History was then. Today is now and now people behave civilly one toward another not because of God's 10 Commandments but because of -- something else.
All is not lost if Ritze's bill becomes law and passes judicial muster. The path will have been cleared. One may propose other granite monuments at no taxpayer expense of one's own version of the 10 Commandments, or whatever else one believes defines (or should define) the civil conscience of a people.
In the process, one may come to believe True Christianity has no reasonable rivals. Perhaps this is Dr. Ritze's real intent?
What is it that directs our actions?
If you remember _Braveheart_ and Mel Gibson's character, William Wallace, shouting "FREEDOM" with his last breath as he was tortured to death you get my meaning. What is this inner part, conscience, heart, or sole, of a person which dictates nearly every action he takes? Actions of one rise up in opposition to what is strongly believed evil or at least wrong action in others. As the napkin fell out of Mel's hand, we understood William Wallace's action in opposition to the English because of their rape and murder of not just any innocent victim but his own wife. To William this wasn't just a crime of English people, but a crime of civil English law which said such action was legal. Mel, as director, got his point across. Righteous indignation leading to action opposing civil evil was worth fighting, and yes even dying, for.
Why does House Congressman Dr. Ritze want to place a 10-Commandments monument outside the State Capitol building? I think his intent is fairly presented by our media. But why would he want this reminder of the Christian history of our state and nation so close to civil courtrooms? He freely admits there is no *legal* civil relevance today. Is he out to get a reaction from those who disagree? Is he simply wanting some kind of public debate on this?
I say, let's go. Righteous indignation against this proposed law is deserved. The state (capitol building) needs to remain separated from the church (God's 10 Commandments). History was then. Today is now and now people behave civilly one toward another not because of God's 10 Commandments but because of -- something else.
All is not lost if Ritze's bill becomes law and passes judicial muster. The path will have been cleared. One may propose other granite monuments at no taxpayer expense of one's own version of the 10 Commandments, or whatever else one believes defines (or should define) the civil conscience of a people.
In the process, one may come to believe True Christianity has no reasonable rivals. Perhaps this is Dr. Ritze's real intent?
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Truth Telling
My wife and I attended the Radio City Rockettes Christmas
Spectacular here in Tulsa December 23rd. It was a good show.
It's been a while since I took advantage of a top-notch
production such as this. It was rather sad that the BOK Center
was less than half full. It was definitely a 'Christmas'
production and not merely a 'holiday' thing. Any doubt that
Christ was the center of Christmas was removed when the Santa
story gave way to Scripture reading, nativity scenes, and the
tunes and lyrics of familiar Christmas Carols such as the last
verse of 'Joy to the World':
He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness,
And wonders of His love,
And wonders of His love,
And wonders, wonders, of His love.
My wife and I have been studying the Bible book of Daniel. The
author of the study series, Beth Moore, relayed the historical
event Daniel foretold about Greece conquering the world. The
most important book to ever be assembled, was done during the
Greek empire: the Septuigent. This was the most common form of
the Old Testament during Christ's lifetime on earth. The
ubiquitous Greek language was important in the spread of the
Gospel since all of the New Testament writers used Greek as the
language for, what were to become, the books of the New
Testament.
Much of the Greek empire ignored the "Most High God". Even
Alexander the Great was cut down in his prime for his sin of
pride. Whether or not the high-kicking Rockettes appealed to
prurient interests the Christmas spectacular was successful in
Truth-telling that night; just as God used the Greek language to
spread His gospel.
My wife and I attended the Radio City Rockettes Christmas
Spectacular here in Tulsa December 23rd. It was a good show.
It's been a while since I took advantage of a top-notch
production such as this. It was rather sad that the BOK Center
was less than half full. It was definitely a 'Christmas'
production and not merely a 'holiday' thing. Any doubt that
Christ was the center of Christmas was removed when the Santa
story gave way to Scripture reading, nativity scenes, and the
tunes and lyrics of familiar Christmas Carols such as the last
verse of 'Joy to the World':
He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness,
And wonders of His love,
And wonders of His love,
And wonders, wonders, of His love.
My wife and I have been studying the Bible book of Daniel. The
author of the study series, Beth Moore, relayed the historical
event Daniel foretold about Greece conquering the world. The
most important book to ever be assembled, was done during the
Greek empire: the Septuigent. This was the most common form of
the Old Testament during Christ's lifetime on earth. The
ubiquitous Greek language was important in the spread of the
Gospel since all of the New Testament writers used Greek as the
language for, what were to become, the books of the New
Testament.
Much of the Greek empire ignored the "Most High God". Even
Alexander the Great was cut down in his prime for his sin of
pride. Whether or not the high-kicking Rockettes appealed to
prurient interests the Christmas spectacular was successful in
Truth-telling that night; just as God used the Greek language to
spread His gospel.
Friday, October 17, 2008
This blog has been inactive for some time. I have had, at times, a lively discussion with others at the Ethics and Religious Liberty web site of the Southern Baptists (http://erlc.com/article/how-do-you-separate-church-and-state) where I've been discussing the idea of putting our Federal government back on the same foundation as our Declaration of Independence as well as most of the 13 State Constitutionss. This foundation, the God of the Bible, is not the same governmental foundation that Southern Baptists are proud of, i.e., American leaders such as Roger Williams and John LeLand. From their own writings these two believed political government was to be secular, not under the authority of the God of the Bible. This discussion had several posters come and go in the over-200 posts. Most simply gave their opinions politely rejecting mine. Truthfully, I don't know what to say anymore. I have shared my opinion and tied it to exegesis of Scripture using citations and materials by Dr. Greg Bahnsen, and Dr. Gary North. I have asked for the Southern Baptist exegesis to justify a secular civil government and all that has been offered was "Harry’s vision of this stuff ignores large swathes of the New Testament and completely misrepresents the Gospel" by the ERLC moderator, Matt.
I keep asking for God's mind in the matter as I pray for Matt and other posters in this situation. The answer seems to be that the lack of love within the body of Christ, which includes submitting to one another as Scripture reveals error, is simply missing. God's Word says the world, non-believer, will be convinced Christians literally are who they say they are from their love one for each other. Maybe the sad state of Christianity in the Western world, including here in the USA, is for this very reason?
Are Southern Baptist political positions as voiced at erlc.com just another special intrest group pushing their opinions? Is it just another type of humanism because the authority of Jesus Christ over politics is denied in spite of the obvious Biblical source for these positions?
I keep asking for God's mind in the matter as I pray for Matt and other posters in this situation. The answer seems to be that the lack of love within the body of Christ, which includes submitting to one another as Scripture reveals error, is simply missing. God's Word says the world, non-believer, will be convinced Christians literally are who they say they are from their love one for each other. Maybe the sad state of Christianity in the Western world, including here in the USA, is for this very reason?
Are Southern Baptist political positions as voiced at erlc.com just another special intrest group pushing their opinions? Is it just another type of humanism because the authority of Jesus Christ over politics is denied in spite of the obvious Biblical source for these positions?
Sunday, April 06, 2008
I attended the Republican District Convention yesterday. The convention began with a prayer offered in Jesus' name. The enemy hasn't taken all things - yet. Many candidates for delegate to the national republican convention were given time (1-3 minutes) to speak. I remember several stating they were a Christian. This was well and good but really didn't offer much help in itself as to how they would behave as a national delegate. I actually respected the candidates who mentioned they would behave as a delegate according to the "rule of law" better. I don't think I'll soon forget the one candidate who started his speech by holding his Bible up high and saying in a loud voice "I believe in this". I can't say this is not relevant, but what is to prevent 'red flags' from going up in listener's ears? "Does he believe the Bible as *I* do" one might ask? "Would he squash state's rights in an effort to cram his view of biblical ethics down our throats at the federal level" another may ask?
Most Christian clergy don't have a biblical political philosophy. How can we expect their members to have anything better? Yet, there is no avoiding it. Our opponents have a political philosophy and are carrying it out. A Christian must have an exegesis of political philosophy otherwise when Sally Kern says things like she did, who among us Christians have enough biblical understanding to either confirm or deny what she has said?
A fat person may still be healthy and may live to an age where obesity is not a cause of death. Maybe they know it is inherently wrong to be obese and thus set limits over themselves? Maybe the diets they call failures have actually been successes to keep them from becoming an unhealthy obese person? I have seen at least one obese person literally eat themselves to an early grave because they tossed aside doctor's and other's warnings. As a society we would silence ones evil enough to call obesity good, who desire to teach its benefit of 'all the candy a child would want'. The evidence is in the much higher medical costs and mortality rates of the obesity proponents. So it is with sexual fornication and homosexuality in particular.
God goes even further. His law/history book is full of instruction as well as example of what happens to societies who condone this evil behavior.
But, does our society's "rule of law" even permit sodomy, etc. to be enforcible any more?
Most Christian clergy don't have a biblical political philosophy. How can we expect their members to have anything better? Yet, there is no avoiding it. Our opponents have a political philosophy and are carrying it out. A Christian must have an exegesis of political philosophy otherwise when Sally Kern says things like she did, who among us Christians have enough biblical understanding to either confirm or deny what she has said?
A fat person may still be healthy and may live to an age where obesity is not a cause of death. Maybe they know it is inherently wrong to be obese and thus set limits over themselves? Maybe the diets they call failures have actually been successes to keep them from becoming an unhealthy obese person? I have seen at least one obese person literally eat themselves to an early grave because they tossed aside doctor's and other's warnings. As a society we would silence ones evil enough to call obesity good, who desire to teach its benefit of 'all the candy a child would want'. The evidence is in the much higher medical costs and mortality rates of the obesity proponents. So it is with sexual fornication and homosexuality in particular.
God goes even further. His law/history book is full of instruction as well as example of what happens to societies who condone this evil behavior.
But, does our society's "rule of law" even permit sodomy, etc. to be enforcible any more?
Saturday, December 29, 2007
A riddle
In a conclusion of a long discussion with a Christian brother concerning the subject of political moral philosophy I resorted to name-calling. I called him both a pietist and antinomian with regard to this subject. His response: "Why do you insist on applying labels to me that you know I am not familiar with?" How does his response betray both his pietism and his antinomian belief?
Hints: from mirriamwebster.com:
pietism
1 capitalized : a 17th century religious movement originating in Germany in reaction to formalism and intellectualism and stressing Bible study and personal religious experience.
2 a: emphasis on devotional experience and practices b: affectation of devotion
antinomian
1 : one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation.
2 : one who rejects a socially established morality
In a conclusion of a long discussion with a Christian brother concerning the subject of political moral philosophy I resorted to name-calling. I called him both a pietist and antinomian with regard to this subject. His response: "Why do you insist on applying labels to me that you know I am not familiar with?" How does his response betray both his pietism and his antinomian belief?
Hints: from mirriamwebster.com:
pietism
1 capitalized : a 17th century religious movement originating in Germany in reaction to formalism and intellectualism and stressing Bible study and personal religious experience.
2 a: emphasis on devotional experience and practices b: affectation of devotion
antinomian
1 : one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation.
2 : one who rejects a socially established morality
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Jonathan V. Last wrote a column in the opinion section of the November 25th edition of the _Sunday Tulsa World_ newspaper. In "Morality: The only real legal argument" he presents an opinion of why a conservative should abolish the death penalty for most murderers.
I agree that of the three reasons given as to why the United States should or should not have capital punishment the one which applies is the moral issue. Constitutionality, or practicality hold no argument. I also agree with Jonathan that the moral question involves the state taking "divine authority unto itself". His conclusion of this argument is true. "The enactment of capital punishment is something like the establishment of a state religion."
Jonathan does a good job in a short amount of space to narrow the subject down to these valid points. Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist National Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission or Dr. James Dobson would be forced to take a different logical argument than I am about to make because they, in agreement with most of the Christian ethics experts, believe in a non-Christian pluralistic civil government.
Jonathan mentions "justice and mercy are necessarily in conflict" to say "society [should] choose mercy over justice". Where he goes wrong is to hint that justice may simply go away. In a legal system where mercy is encouraged, justice is always served. Well, at least "justice" as defined by humans. Mercy involves voluntary behavior. Where is the "justice" in forcing taxpayers, maybe even close members of the victim's family, to pay the cost of life-time imprisonment for the murderer? Isn't this a perversion of Justice itself, i.e., "the state arrogates divine authority unto itself"? So logic says for the state to either enact or abolish capital punishment is something like the establishment of a state religion. Yes, the state must make moral and ethical decisions. There is no avoiding the fact, it is God-like activity.
The Bible is full of examples discussing capital punishment, and in some cases the murderer is not put to death. Consider King David. He committed adultery with Bathsheba then manipulated things to get her husband murdered. He thought he got away with it until he was confronted by Nathan, a prophet. Israel under King David arguably was the most obedient to the national civil law given in Torah. David knew that if any other person were King he would have been stoned to death. Psalm 51:4 gives David's confession "against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight." David realized that God placed the civil government and civil law and punishment as His vehicle for civil justice. This idea is repeated through the Old Testament where God judges nations, and not just Israel, for not following his standard of Righteousness and Justice. It is also confirmed in the New Testament in Romans 13 where the civil servant is described as God's servant.
Although there may be argument about the mode of capital punishment, stoning vs more modern methods, capital punishment for first degree murder is wholly in line with God's standard of Justice given in the Bible. In fact, wherever our civil government deviates from His Justice, we need to repent and resubmit to Scripture.
I agree that of the three reasons given as to why the United States should or should not have capital punishment the one which applies is the moral issue. Constitutionality, or practicality hold no argument. I also agree with Jonathan that the moral question involves the state taking "divine authority unto itself". His conclusion of this argument is true. "The enactment of capital punishment is something like the establishment of a state religion."
Jonathan does a good job in a short amount of space to narrow the subject down to these valid points. Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist National Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission or Dr. James Dobson would be forced to take a different logical argument than I am about to make because they, in agreement with most of the Christian ethics experts, believe in a non-Christian pluralistic civil government.
Jonathan mentions "justice and mercy are necessarily in conflict" to say "society [should] choose mercy over justice". Where he goes wrong is to hint that justice may simply go away. In a legal system where mercy is encouraged, justice is always served. Well, at least "justice" as defined by humans. Mercy involves voluntary behavior. Where is the "justice" in forcing taxpayers, maybe even close members of the victim's family, to pay the cost of life-time imprisonment for the murderer? Isn't this a perversion of Justice itself, i.e., "the state arrogates divine authority unto itself"? So logic says for the state to either enact or abolish capital punishment is something like the establishment of a state religion. Yes, the state must make moral and ethical decisions. There is no avoiding the fact, it is God-like activity.
The Bible is full of examples discussing capital punishment, and in some cases the murderer is not put to death. Consider King David. He committed adultery with Bathsheba then manipulated things to get her husband murdered. He thought he got away with it until he was confronted by Nathan, a prophet. Israel under King David arguably was the most obedient to the national civil law given in Torah. David knew that if any other person were King he would have been stoned to death. Psalm 51:4 gives David's confession "against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight." David realized that God placed the civil government and civil law and punishment as His vehicle for civil justice. This idea is repeated through the Old Testament where God judges nations, and not just Israel, for not following his standard of Righteousness and Justice. It is also confirmed in the New Testament in Romans 13 where the civil servant is described as God's servant.
Although there may be argument about the mode of capital punishment, stoning vs more modern methods, capital punishment for first degree murder is wholly in line with God's standard of Justice given in the Bible. In fact, wherever our civil government deviates from His Justice, we need to repent and resubmit to Scripture.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Hello Men
If 75% of Americans say they believe Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead but only 25% believe the Bible is without error and useful for discerning good from evil then there are roughly 50% in the middle. When Americans were asked if they would describe themselves as being a "Christian", 75% agreed it fits, but when actions are tested against a biblical worldview less than 5% of Americans line up. There's even a bigger gap here.
Our company allows us Christians to gather at lunch time for a Bible study once a week. The latest chatter was astounding to me. One blurted out "It looks like Hillary is unstoppable". Another said he was leaning toward Gulliani in spite of his bleak pro-life stand, but hoped Fred Thompson would turn into a viable candidate because he had a slightly better pro-life plank. These fellows had already dismissed Mike Huckabee for some reason (not viable?) and dismissed Ron Paul as an unelectable libertarian. One even told me his main source of news is National Public Radio (NPR) and he believed it to be relatively unbiased. What's the point? Just as what a person eats affects a person's growth, health, strength, energy, etc. so it is with information. If we accept information from ungodly sources it will be tainted with non-biblical worldviews which are difficult to discover or filter. As a result thinking will be non-biblical too. Hebrews, in chapter 5 verses 12-14, speaks to this using a similar food analogy. Why not read it?
If 75% of Americans say they believe Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead but only 25% believe the Bible is without error and useful for discerning good from evil then there are roughly 50% in the middle. When Americans were asked if they would describe themselves as being a "Christian", 75% agreed it fits, but when actions are tested against a biblical worldview less than 5% of Americans line up. There's even a bigger gap here.
Our company allows us Christians to gather at lunch time for a Bible study once a week. The latest chatter was astounding to me. One blurted out "It looks like Hillary is unstoppable". Another said he was leaning toward Gulliani in spite of his bleak pro-life stand, but hoped Fred Thompson would turn into a viable candidate because he had a slightly better pro-life plank. These fellows had already dismissed Mike Huckabee for some reason (not viable?) and dismissed Ron Paul as an unelectable libertarian. One even told me his main source of news is National Public Radio (NPR) and he believed it to be relatively unbiased. What's the point? Just as what a person eats affects a person's growth, health, strength, energy, etc. so it is with information. If we accept information from ungodly sources it will be tainted with non-biblical worldviews which are difficult to discover or filter. As a result thinking will be non-biblical too. Hebrews, in chapter 5 verses 12-14, speaks to this using a similar food analogy. Why not read it?
Monday, July 23, 2007
Paul K. Blair wrote an essay on Article VI of the
U.S. Constitution titled _Original Intent?_. It may be found
here: http://www.reclaimoklahoma.org/OriginalIntentContents.htm.
Since he draws a different conclusion from what I believe the
facts - of today - present I shall address some of these facts
here.
I don't dispute that the US was a Christian nation in the past.
In many respects it still is a Christian nation. I also don't
dispute that there are some judges and Constitutional lawyers who
agree with Paul about the Christian (biblical) legal tenants still
continuing with legal force in our nation. Herb Titus is one.
In Paul's introduction he does recognize that Islam doesn't mix
with Christianity even in the subject of civil government. I
give him credit for that. I shudder to think of what worldview a
"Christian" legislator has who says a civil pledge on a Koran has
it's legal place in the United States and has absolutely no plans
to change this legality! Thus, at least Paul has taken the first
step and admits that there is no religious philosophical
neutrality in government.
Paul says the meaning of the word "religion" has changed.
"Religion" to Paul today means any god-believing religion as well
as atheistic and various humanist philosophies. I agree.
However, when James Madison wrote the constitution stating "No
religious oath shall be required" Paul claims "religious" meant
religious sect or denomination [of the Christian faith].
However, John Leland, a contemporary of James Madison, pressed
him hard to add amendment 1 to the constitution. When James
Madison agreed John Leland rejoiced that it would be possible for
a "Pagan, Turk, Jew or Christian" to be eligible for any post or
office in the government. [The Writings of John Leland,
ed. L.F.Greene. New York: Arno Press, 1969, p.191.] The meaning
of "religion" was obvious to Leland and apparently also Madison,
the author of the document.
Does the Bible hold any authoritative jurisdiction in our civil
government today? A look at the two recent
10-Commandment-public-display Supreme Court cases will give an
answer. In both cases the defenders of public display argued
that the history of the 10-Commandments should be enough to
permit public displays to stand. The court made a distinction by
agreeing with these defendants in the Texas case permitting that
display to remain publicly displayed. Having God's Commandments
displayed inside a courtroom in Pennsylvania was a different
matter. The U.S. Supreme Court ordered them removed.
Paul concludes his essay with a discussion about the Islamic
threat to our nation and proposes several ideas to overcome this
threat. Instead, I believe we need to answer this threat the way
the Bible teaches. Bible believing Christians who know civil
government must be placed under God's authority need to first
repent. Then get with God's program by pushing for passage of a
U.S. Constitutional amendment placing the Bible as the civil
backbone of our federal government. In the process of teaching
what Jesus has said "All authority in heaven and on earth has
been given unto me" ample opportunity to present the gospel will
surface. The Holy Spirit will do His job of drawing in all of
God's elect. Then II Chronicles 7:14's blessing will fall once
again on our nation.
U.S. Constitution titled _Original Intent?_. It may be found
here: http://www.reclaimoklahoma.org/OriginalIntentContents.htm.
Since he draws a different conclusion from what I believe the
facts - of today - present I shall address some of these facts
here.
I don't dispute that the US was a Christian nation in the past.
In many respects it still is a Christian nation. I also don't
dispute that there are some judges and Constitutional lawyers who
agree with Paul about the Christian (biblical) legal tenants still
continuing with legal force in our nation. Herb Titus is one.
In Paul's introduction he does recognize that Islam doesn't mix
with Christianity even in the subject of civil government. I
give him credit for that. I shudder to think of what worldview a
"Christian" legislator has who says a civil pledge on a Koran has
it's legal place in the United States and has absolutely no plans
to change this legality! Thus, at least Paul has taken the first
step and admits that there is no religious philosophical
neutrality in government.
Paul says the meaning of the word "religion" has changed.
"Religion" to Paul today means any god-believing religion as well
as atheistic and various humanist philosophies. I agree.
However, when James Madison wrote the constitution stating "No
religious oath shall be required" Paul claims "religious" meant
religious sect or denomination [of the Christian faith].
However, John Leland, a contemporary of James Madison, pressed
him hard to add amendment 1 to the constitution. When James
Madison agreed John Leland rejoiced that it would be possible for
a "Pagan, Turk, Jew or Christian" to be eligible for any post or
office in the government. [The Writings of John Leland,
ed. L.F.Greene. New York: Arno Press, 1969, p.191.] The meaning
of "religion" was obvious to Leland and apparently also Madison,
the author of the document.
Does the Bible hold any authoritative jurisdiction in our civil
government today? A look at the two recent
10-Commandment-public-display Supreme Court cases will give an
answer. In both cases the defenders of public display argued
that the history of the 10-Commandments should be enough to
permit public displays to stand. The court made a distinction by
agreeing with these defendants in the Texas case permitting that
display to remain publicly displayed. Having God's Commandments
displayed inside a courtroom in Pennsylvania was a different
matter. The U.S. Supreme Court ordered them removed.
Paul concludes his essay with a discussion about the Islamic
threat to our nation and proposes several ideas to overcome this
threat. Instead, I believe we need to answer this threat the way
the Bible teaches. Bible believing Christians who know civil
government must be placed under God's authority need to first
repent. Then get with God's program by pushing for passage of a
U.S. Constitutional amendment placing the Bible as the civil
backbone of our federal government. In the process of teaching
what Jesus has said "All authority in heaven and on earth has
been given unto me" ample opportunity to present the gospel will
surface. The Holy Spirit will do His job of drawing in all of
God's elect. Then II Chronicles 7:14's blessing will fall once
again on our nation.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Salvation starts a person on the road to heaven.
After salvation, sanctification, the process of
becoming holy or set apart for God's use, should
consume our remaining physical life-time. When I
think of my past, perhaps one of the biggest earliest
milestones I remember was my desire to raise my sons
under God. Since my own earthly father had died
years before I had had a bumpy road recognizing and
accepting my heavenly Father in every way as simply
"my father". I can recall that prayer over 25 years
ago when I asked my heavenly Father for help; for
instructions in child rearing. I reminded Him of his
promise "I will be a father to the fatherless".
In my sprit He answered: the instructions are in the
Bible. He also instructed me that my sons would see
and develop an understanding of Him in proportion to
my own heavenly Father/son example. This task had not
just become a righteous responsibility but had become
my calling for the next 20 years or so. Was I a perfect
father? no. For example, I knew that when my action
was motivated by evil I needed to quickly confess and
ask for forgiveness, and yes even from my own sons.
I wanted to become "mature ... [one of those] who have
their powers of discernment trained by constant practice
to distinguish good from evil" [Hebrews 5:14].
Monday, April 16, 2007
Why Vote?
About 15 years ago I prayed regularly and enjoyed reading the
Bible. I thought I was a good husband and father. I was
satisfied with my sanctification process but God was about to
replace my comfort with some thorns. Suddenly, I found that the
public schools began sex education for my 5th grade son.
I had learned from the Bible that education was my responsibility
and the kind of sex education the government would teach my
son would at worst be contradictory to my own teaching and at
best be sterilized of any biblical truths. When I asked why this
was happening I got the usual runaround: "My hands are tied,
in order to get [state/federal] money some bureaucrat you can't
get to talk to right now decided this had to be done." The
answer was a political one and it bothered me.
A fellow believer at my work helped me get started in political
research. He was shocked to find out that I only voted during
presidential elections. I knew little or nothing about the other
candidates or issues. He never accused me of sin but asked me to
consider taking the role of voting seriously. God brought
several verses to mind which worked conviction followed by
confession of sin, and a new desire to do my Lord's will in this
area.
Luke 20:25 told me to give to our government those things which
it demanded, and to God those things that He demands. That this
command went beyond taxes to include my vote, however, were due
to other Scriptures. Romans 13:4 and 13:6 state 3 times that the
civil servant is God's servant. The realization that the
U.S. government was not set up like the old Roman (Emperor)
monarchy sunk in. Christians designed our civil governments with
its citizens as the human civil authority (via the vote) under
God. I, Harry Rockefeller, am a civil servant here in the U.S.A.
To whom God has given much, much is required. To him that knows
to do good and doesn't do it sins. I could no longer neglect
voting with a clear conscience.
About 15 years ago I prayed regularly and enjoyed reading the
Bible. I thought I was a good husband and father. I was
satisfied with my sanctification process but God was about to
replace my comfort with some thorns. Suddenly, I found that the
public schools began sex education for my 5th grade son.
I had learned from the Bible that education was my responsibility
and the kind of sex education the government would teach my
son would at worst be contradictory to my own teaching and at
best be sterilized of any biblical truths. When I asked why this
was happening I got the usual runaround: "My hands are tied,
in order to get [state/federal] money some bureaucrat you can't
get to talk to right now decided this had to be done." The
answer was a political one and it bothered me.
A fellow believer at my work helped me get started in political
research. He was shocked to find out that I only voted during
presidential elections. I knew little or nothing about the other
candidates or issues. He never accused me of sin but asked me to
consider taking the role of voting seriously. God brought
several verses to mind which worked conviction followed by
confession of sin, and a new desire to do my Lord's will in this
area.
Luke 20:25 told me to give to our government those things which
it demanded, and to God those things that He demands. That this
command went beyond taxes to include my vote, however, were due
to other Scriptures. Romans 13:4 and 13:6 state 3 times that the
civil servant is God's servant. The realization that the
U.S. government was not set up like the old Roman (Emperor)
monarchy sunk in. Christians designed our civil governments with
its citizens as the human civil authority (via the vote) under
God. I, Harry Rockefeller, am a civil servant here in the U.S.A.
To whom God has given much, much is required. To him that knows
to do good and doesn't do it sins. I could no longer neglect
voting with a clear conscience.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
What hinders Baptists from accepting God's Law over civil
government?
There are several arguments put forward in support of a humanist
(pluralistic) civil government.
1) The eight "Baptist Distinctives" point 2 is "Autonomy of the
Local Church". "All human authority for governing the local
church resides within the local church itself." Of course this
is speaking of ecclesiastical authority, but I tend to believe
Baptist clergy everywhere sticks the proverbial stork's head in
the sand when it comes to civil human authority being relevant
and unavoidable for governing the local church. The institution
of marriage is right now in the cross-hairs. For how long may
same-sex marriage ceremonies be "outlawed" in our tax-exempt
conservative churches? Only recently Catholic adoption agencies
in Massachusetts have closed their doors to prevent civil courts
from usurping their autonomy. If Baptists don't pull their heads
out of the sand it will get pulled out for them.
2) "Baptist Distinctive" point 5 is "Individual Soul Liberty".
They draw this point using New Testament Scriptures: Romans 14:5,
12; 2 Corinthians 4:2; and Titus 1:9. However, even the Baptist
scholars admitted this came as a result of how Baptists read the
Bible. They shunned the Kingly authority of ancient Israel of
the Old Testament and spent almost all their time interpreting
the New Testament. The opportunity to engage their Christian
brothers who were in the majority in the early colonial days
concerning civil vs ecclesiastical authority were mostly
squandered. As the result, an idea of near-universal acceptance,
liberty of thought or belief, was never developed in contrast to
religious behavior punishable by civil authorities.
3) "Separation of Church and State" is the final (point 8) of
"Baptist Distinctives". Neither should control the other is the
main theme. But, as is mentioned in point 1 the simple statement
has many exceptions. Baptists attempted to develop a spiritual
kingdom separate and distinct from a physical (civil
governmental) kingdom. Richard Overton in 1615 argued that
"Christ allowed full power and authority to his church ... to
choose persons to bear office in the church." The argument is
obviously over church government, but this nearly always gets
juxtaposition-ed against civil authority!
4) One cannot win converts within a civil government with an
established religion. This is a myth. It's true that civil
governmental authority cannot (by force) win converts, but this
is not the same statement as above. The Roman emperor,
Constantine, used civil authority to force "Christian
conversions" among the conquered barbarian territories. This was
wrong and evil. But, in light of the evil acts of secular or
atheistic civil governments such as Stalin's or Hitler's, etc.,
is Christianity really the problem here? See my earlier blogs on
how a pluralistic civil government hinders Christianity and
evangelism in particular.
5) A persistent belief in the myth: civil government can be
religiously neutral. In _Separation no Myth_ Jim Spivey says
"When the civil authority formally endorses one religion as the
cultural norm for the nation it inevitably favors one sect over
all others. Because this causes religious groups to compete for
political favors, it engenders civil strife harmful to both the
state and the nation." Let's restate this in the context of year
2006. "When the civil authority formally endorses humanism as
the cultural norm for the nation it inevitably favors one kind
[perhaps secular?] over all others. Because this causes other
humanist and religious groups to compete for political favors, it
engenders civil strife harmful to both the state and the nation."
What's the difference?
government?
There are several arguments put forward in support of a humanist
(pluralistic) civil government.
1) The eight "Baptist Distinctives" point 2 is "Autonomy of the
Local Church". "All human authority for governing the local
church resides within the local church itself." Of course this
is speaking of ecclesiastical authority, but I tend to believe
Baptist clergy everywhere sticks the proverbial stork's head in
the sand when it comes to civil human authority being relevant
and unavoidable for governing the local church. The institution
of marriage is right now in the cross-hairs. For how long may
same-sex marriage ceremonies be "outlawed" in our tax-exempt
conservative churches? Only recently Catholic adoption agencies
in Massachusetts have closed their doors to prevent civil courts
from usurping their autonomy. If Baptists don't pull their heads
out of the sand it will get pulled out for them.
2) "Baptist Distinctive" point 5 is "Individual Soul Liberty".
They draw this point using New Testament Scriptures: Romans 14:5,
12; 2 Corinthians 4:2; and Titus 1:9. However, even the Baptist
scholars admitted this came as a result of how Baptists read the
Bible. They shunned the Kingly authority of ancient Israel of
the Old Testament and spent almost all their time interpreting
the New Testament. The opportunity to engage their Christian
brothers who were in the majority in the early colonial days
concerning civil vs ecclesiastical authority were mostly
squandered. As the result, an idea of near-universal acceptance,
liberty of thought or belief, was never developed in contrast to
religious behavior punishable by civil authorities.
3) "Separation of Church and State" is the final (point 8) of
"Baptist Distinctives". Neither should control the other is the
main theme. But, as is mentioned in point 1 the simple statement
has many exceptions. Baptists attempted to develop a spiritual
kingdom separate and distinct from a physical (civil
governmental) kingdom. Richard Overton in 1615 argued that
"Christ allowed full power and authority to his church ... to
choose persons to bear office in the church." The argument is
obviously over church government, but this nearly always gets
juxtaposition-ed against civil authority!
4) One cannot win converts within a civil government with an
established religion. This is a myth. It's true that civil
governmental authority cannot (by force) win converts, but this
is not the same statement as above. The Roman emperor,
Constantine, used civil authority to force "Christian
conversions" among the conquered barbarian territories. This was
wrong and evil. But, in light of the evil acts of secular or
atheistic civil governments such as Stalin's or Hitler's, etc.,
is Christianity really the problem here? See my earlier blogs on
how a pluralistic civil government hinders Christianity and
evangelism in particular.
5) A persistent belief in the myth: civil government can be
religiously neutral. In _Separation no Myth_ Jim Spivey says
"When the civil authority formally endorses one religion as the
cultural norm for the nation it inevitably favors one sect over
all others. Because this causes religious groups to compete for
political favors, it engenders civil strife harmful to both the
state and the nation." Let's restate this in the context of year
2006. "When the civil authority formally endorses humanism as
the cultural norm for the nation it inevitably favors one kind
[perhaps secular?] over all others. Because this causes other
humanist and religious groups to compete for political favors, it
engenders civil strife harmful to both the state and the nation."
What's the difference?
Monday, October 02, 2006
Baptists Ethics and Religious Liberty
The apostle Paul is nearing the end of his ministry. He knows
how important it is to instruct his successor to carry on the
Great Commission of Jesus Christ. Because there are many
conflicting ideas Paul knows he needs to command his successor to
discern ideas of human origin from the eternal Godly ideas. Thus
he writes in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is breathed out by God
and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for
training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent,
equipped for every good work." Paul goes on instructing Timothy
to "reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and
teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure
sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for
themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn
away from listening to the truth and wander off into
myths. [4:2b-4]"
Both Paul and Timothy must have been thinking about what the
perfect teacher, Jesus Christ, said about false teaching:
"whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to
sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone
fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the
sea [Matt 18:6]". Obviously, since Paul and Timothy are mere
fallible men "complete patience" includes to humble themselves
and be willing to revise their own teaching when it is not in
harmony with Scripture. So it is with me. If any reader, as a
believer in Christ, believes I am in error here please instruct
me. All I ask is that you too exercise "complete patience".
The Baptist Faith and Message recognizes a separation of church
and State authority but for the wrong reason. Where this plank
strays from the truth is in how it distances state (civil)
authority from God's authority. Another way to express this
mistake is to say the BF&M confuses ecclesiastical authority with
God's authority. As a result if any sampling of Baptists were
asked if God's authority includes being over the civil government
you would probably get a solid yes, a solid no and everything
else in between.
A friend at my church finally gave me something which goes into
more detail about Baptist thinking in this area.
Walter B. Shurden wrote _How We Got That Way: Baptists on
Religious Liberty and Separation of Church and State_, for the
Sixtieth Celebration of the Baptist Joint Committee 8 October
1996. Much of what he quotes below are from Glen Stassen's essay
"The Christian Origin of Human Rights".
... Overton has a mock trial for Mr. Persecution. The trial
ends with a concluding statement from Justice Reason. Not
Justice Bible, mind you, or Justice Theology, or Justice
Christ, but Justice Reason! Justice Reason, in his
conclusion, says that Mr. Persecution threatens "the general
and equal rights and liberties of the common people... their
native and just liberties in general". Baptists
distinguished religious liberty and religious freedom as
belonging to all persons as persons and not to Christianity
or to people of a particular brand of Christianity. ... "The
ethic of human rights can be a universal ethic, not because
its source is a common philosophy believed by all people but
because its intention and application affirm the rights of
all persons."
The context doesn't imply that Justice Reason is a subset of
Justice Bible. The context demands that Justice Reason be
outside of Christianity itself. The Baptists have embraced false
teaching, a myth of human origin, here. For example, what does
Justice Reason say is the proper approach to abortion? Is the
live human fetus a member of "all persons"? Does the would-be
Mother's rights outweigh the human fetus' right to life? May the
Bible be used to answer such ethical questions? Baptists say no.
Baptists omit God as the originator (and thus the Bible as final
authority) of human rights because they insist on combining
liberty of belief in this mix. Who would argue against religious
liberty and freedom (at least in terms of belief) for all
persons? Even I accept that point because these two ideas are
independent.
Apparently, to a Baptist it must be thoroughly impossible for
religious liberty and freedom to truly have Biblical roots and
include religious liberty and freedom for all persons. According
to Baptists Justice Reason demands "pluralism" in civil
government which is by definition the absence of any officially
sanctioned religion. The opposite of pluralism must then be
government with an officially sanctioned religion. But does this
require entanglement of church and state? Jim Spivey in
_Separation No Myth_ gives a chart in which only Christian
Reconstruction opposes pluralism but without church state
entanglements. Jim Spivey calls this a "theocratic" form of
government. To me this sounds exciting, biblical, desirable.
Why are Baptists opposed to this form of government?
The apostle Paul is nearing the end of his ministry. He knows
how important it is to instruct his successor to carry on the
Great Commission of Jesus Christ. Because there are many
conflicting ideas Paul knows he needs to command his successor to
discern ideas of human origin from the eternal Godly ideas. Thus
he writes in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is breathed out by God
and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for
training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent,
equipped for every good work." Paul goes on instructing Timothy
to "reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and
teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure
sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for
themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn
away from listening to the truth and wander off into
myths. [4:2b-4]"
Both Paul and Timothy must have been thinking about what the
perfect teacher, Jesus Christ, said about false teaching:
"whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to
sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone
fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the
sea [Matt 18:6]". Obviously, since Paul and Timothy are mere
fallible men "complete patience" includes to humble themselves
and be willing to revise their own teaching when it is not in
harmony with Scripture. So it is with me. If any reader, as a
believer in Christ, believes I am in error here please instruct
me. All I ask is that you too exercise "complete patience".
The Baptist Faith and Message recognizes a separation of church
and State authority but for the wrong reason. Where this plank
strays from the truth is in how it distances state (civil)
authority from God's authority. Another way to express this
mistake is to say the BF&M confuses ecclesiastical authority with
God's authority. As a result if any sampling of Baptists were
asked if God's authority includes being over the civil government
you would probably get a solid yes, a solid no and everything
else in between.
A friend at my church finally gave me something which goes into
more detail about Baptist thinking in this area.
Walter B. Shurden wrote _How We Got That Way: Baptists on
Religious Liberty and Separation of Church and State_, for the
Sixtieth Celebration of the Baptist Joint Committee 8 October
1996. Much of what he quotes below are from Glen Stassen's essay
"The Christian Origin of Human Rights".
... Overton has a mock trial for Mr. Persecution. The trial
ends with a concluding statement from Justice Reason. Not
Justice Bible, mind you, or Justice Theology, or Justice
Christ, but Justice Reason! Justice Reason, in his
conclusion, says that Mr. Persecution threatens "the general
and equal rights and liberties of the common people... their
native and just liberties in general". Baptists
distinguished religious liberty and religious freedom as
belonging to all persons as persons and not to Christianity
or to people of a particular brand of Christianity. ... "The
ethic of human rights can be a universal ethic, not because
its source is a common philosophy believed by all people but
because its intention and application affirm the rights of
all persons."
The context doesn't imply that Justice Reason is a subset of
Justice Bible. The context demands that Justice Reason be
outside of Christianity itself. The Baptists have embraced false
teaching, a myth of human origin, here. For example, what does
Justice Reason say is the proper approach to abortion? Is the
live human fetus a member of "all persons"? Does the would-be
Mother's rights outweigh the human fetus' right to life? May the
Bible be used to answer such ethical questions? Baptists say no.
Baptists omit God as the originator (and thus the Bible as final
authority) of human rights because they insist on combining
liberty of belief in this mix. Who would argue against religious
liberty and freedom (at least in terms of belief) for all
persons? Even I accept that point because these two ideas are
independent.
Apparently, to a Baptist it must be thoroughly impossible for
religious liberty and freedom to truly have Biblical roots and
include religious liberty and freedom for all persons. According
to Baptists Justice Reason demands "pluralism" in civil
government which is by definition the absence of any officially
sanctioned religion. The opposite of pluralism must then be
government with an officially sanctioned religion. But does this
require entanglement of church and state? Jim Spivey in
_Separation No Myth_ gives a chart in which only Christian
Reconstruction opposes pluralism but without church state
entanglements. Jim Spivey calls this a "theocratic" form of
government. To me this sounds exciting, biblical, desirable.
Why are Baptists opposed to this form of government?
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Herb Titus wrote _The Constitution of the United States A
Christian Document_. He defends this point well in chapter two
where he discusses the Subscription Clause. However, in chapter
three, Mr. Titus falters. He fails to recognize the difference
between a religious oath either affirming or denying one's
personal belief, which I too believe is anti-Biblical but more
about that later, from a religious oath binding one's political
duty to righteousness. What I mean by this is that a politician
is duty bound to not lie, be honest, don't steal, obey the law,
etc. For example, the U.S. Constitution in amendment 10
prohibits Congress from anything not mentioned within the
Constitution. Thus, when Congress legislates in those prohibited
areas it is stealing authority from either a lower government or
the people. This *is* just as much a religious act as the
personal belief system upon which it is founded.
I don't work for a Christian company. There is no religious oath
I had to take as an employee. However, I had to agree to a code
of ethics. I had to agree that I would not steal intellectual
(or any other) property for example. This moral contractual
obligation I have with my secular company is still religious in
nature. There is a definition of theft, and private (corporate)
property. Some may think this example vindicates the
no-religious-oath test for a federal official. I think not. If
I and my company ever have a disagreement over this employment
contract it may result in the most formal of legal resolutions
called a civil lawsuit in which case the laws of the State of
Oklahoma are to apply. If it is appealed then perhaps the laws
of the United States would supersede Oklahoma law. The
U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Since elected
officials are not required to take a religious oath then the
definitions of property, theft, law, etc. are sitting in the seas
of human (post-modernism now) whim.
Herb quotes Thomas Jefferson "Well aware that Almighty God
created the mind free" civil rulers should not be required to
"profess or renounce this or that religious opinion". Herb also
quotes Oliver Ellsworth and Isaac Backus. All three of these men
knew God Himself as the source of liberty, but made the same
mistake Herb has done. By the no-oath-test clause the drafters
of our Constitution ruled out any other legal authority. It is
simply a we-the-people opinion. This is what the majority of
federal judges believe today.
Herb closes this section saying "the justification for religious
tests followed from the claim that the State had jurisdiction
over the affairs of the church. Once that jurisdiction was
denied to the State, then the purpose of religious tests could no
longer be sustained." This sounds good; a separation of civil
and ecclesiastical authority, but is it correct? Herb also
mentions that the majority of the oaths were not specific to the
denomination favored by the State. Many states had generic
religious oath tests. Why would an ecclesiastical oath be
generic? Herb goes on "the ban was dictated by Biblical law that
one's personal faith in God was not a legitimate object of civil
government, and hence, not to be defined or to be otherwise
governed by it." Ok then, why not an oath professing the
Divinity of both Old and New Testaments? Nope, not allowed.
Herb concludes this chapter with "The Constitution sought to
establish a Christian civil order, one in which the jurisdiction
and powers of the civil government would be limited in accordance
with the laws of God." The only response is that Herb's
conclusion is both illogical and incorrect.
Christian Document_. He defends this point well in chapter two
where he discusses the Subscription Clause. However, in chapter
three, Mr. Titus falters. He fails to recognize the difference
between a religious oath either affirming or denying one's
personal belief, which I too believe is anti-Biblical but more
about that later, from a religious oath binding one's political
duty to righteousness. What I mean by this is that a politician
is duty bound to not lie, be honest, don't steal, obey the law,
etc. For example, the U.S. Constitution in amendment 10
prohibits Congress from anything not mentioned within the
Constitution. Thus, when Congress legislates in those prohibited
areas it is stealing authority from either a lower government or
the people. This *is* just as much a religious act as the
personal belief system upon which it is founded.
I don't work for a Christian company. There is no religious oath
I had to take as an employee. However, I had to agree to a code
of ethics. I had to agree that I would not steal intellectual
(or any other) property for example. This moral contractual
obligation I have with my secular company is still religious in
nature. There is a definition of theft, and private (corporate)
property. Some may think this example vindicates the
no-religious-oath test for a federal official. I think not. If
I and my company ever have a disagreement over this employment
contract it may result in the most formal of legal resolutions
called a civil lawsuit in which case the laws of the State of
Oklahoma are to apply. If it is appealed then perhaps the laws
of the United States would supersede Oklahoma law. The
U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Since elected
officials are not required to take a religious oath then the
definitions of property, theft, law, etc. are sitting in the seas
of human (post-modernism now) whim.
Herb quotes Thomas Jefferson "Well aware that Almighty God
created the mind free" civil rulers should not be required to
"profess or renounce this or that religious opinion". Herb also
quotes Oliver Ellsworth and Isaac Backus. All three of these men
knew God Himself as the source of liberty, but made the same
mistake Herb has done. By the no-oath-test clause the drafters
of our Constitution ruled out any other legal authority. It is
simply a we-the-people opinion. This is what the majority of
federal judges believe today.
Herb closes this section saying "the justification for religious
tests followed from the claim that the State had jurisdiction
over the affairs of the church. Once that jurisdiction was
denied to the State, then the purpose of religious tests could no
longer be sustained." This sounds good; a separation of civil
and ecclesiastical authority, but is it correct? Herb also
mentions that the majority of the oaths were not specific to the
denomination favored by the State. Many states had generic
religious oath tests. Why would an ecclesiastical oath be
generic? Herb goes on "the ban was dictated by Biblical law that
one's personal faith in God was not a legitimate object of civil
government, and hence, not to be defined or to be otherwise
governed by it." Ok then, why not an oath professing the
Divinity of both Old and New Testaments? Nope, not allowed.
Herb concludes this chapter with "The Constitution sought to
establish a Christian civil order, one in which the jurisdiction
and powers of the civil government would be limited in accordance
with the laws of God." The only response is that Herb's
conclusion is both illogical and incorrect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)