Archives for : God’s Law v. Man’s Law

The REAL separation of church and state – Part III

Posted by :webmaster On : March 6, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Constitution, God's Law v. Man's Law, Government, Humanism, Progressivism

We ended Part II with the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as to the importance of interpreting the Constitution according to its plain meaning and intent of the authors. George Washington also wrote of the importance of adhering to the prescribed methods for changing the Constitution.

If, in the opinion of the people…the constitutional powers be at any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; though this in one instance be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”[1] [emphasis added]

Joseph Story was the leading Constitutional scholar of the nineteenth century and in 1833 wrote in Commentaries on the Constitution that the Constitution “…was to be understood in terms of its plain, commonsense meaning” and must not be changed by the caprice of men.

The reader must not expect to find in these pages any novel construction of the Constitution. I have not the ambition to be the author of any new plan of interpreting the theory of the Constitution, or enlarging or narrowing its powers, by ingenious subtleties and learned doubts…”[2]

For 150 years original intent was the courts’ coin of the realm when interpreting the Constitution. But that dramatically changed in 1947. The beginning of that change occurred seventy-seven years earlier when Christopher Columbus Langdell became president of Harvard Law School in 1870 and developed the theory of legal positivism which was adopted and applied by other leading lawyers and jurists that followed him including Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.[3] Since 1947, legal positivism has replaced original intent as the standard for interpreting the Constitution. The essence of the theory is summarized as follows:

1. There are no objective, God-given standards of law, or if there are, they are irrelevant to the modern legal system.

2. Since God is not the author of law, the author of law must be man; in other words, the law is law simply because the highest human authority, the state, has said it is law and is able to back it up by force.

3. Since man and society evolve, therefore law must evolve as well.

4. Judges, through their decisions, guide the evolution of law (Note again: Judges “make law).

5. To study law, get the original sources of law – the decision of judges; hence most law schools today use the “case law” method of teaching law.[4]

The Founding fathers including those who drafted the Constitution held a biblical worldview. In this worldview, eternal truths were revealed to man by God through his creation and His revelation to the ancient Hebrews and first century Christians. In the Christian worldview, the Supreme Being (God) created matter out of nothing and formed the universe. He impressed certain principles upon that matter, laws of nature from which it can never depart. However, man was His special creation and was allowed to choose to follow or depart from those principles as they relate to human nature. Those principles are truths that are intrinsic and timeless, and are essential elements needed to provide a coherent and rational way to live in the world. These truths are called by various names: permanent things, universals, first principles, eternal truths, and norms.[5]

These absolutes became the basis for American law and were expounded upon by men such as William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Law of England. Blackstone wrote:

This law of nature…directed by God Himself…is binding in all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.[6] [emphasis added]

The American Constitution’s biblical origins and the Founders’ unbending devotion to original intent in its interpretation were hindrances to the proponents of legal positivism. In his book The New Freedom, Woodrow Wilson disparaged the Founders’ notions of original intent and argued that progressives should be allowed to apply the Darwinian principle in interpreting the Constitution.

And they [the authors of the Constitution] constructed a government…to display the laws of Nature…The government was to exist and move by virtue of the efficacy of “checks and balances.” The trouble with this theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin…Government is not a body of blind forces; it is a body of men…Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of Life, not of mechanics, it must develop. All that progressives ask or desire is permission—in an era when “development,” “evolution,” “is the scientific word—to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.[7]

Wilson’s profoundly humanistic understanding of man jettison’s the Founders’ concern for the universal wickedness of fallen man and therefore dispenses with the need for those pesky “checks and balances” so important to the Founders. The Darwinian understanding of man is that he basically good and ever progressing. Therefore, as men and society evolve, so must their constitutions and laws.

Not content with a fluid interpretation of the Constitution to meet the needs of an evolving society, there is a new breed of activist judges that have gone beyond legal positivism to legal realism. Such realists are using the legal system to promote their own ends while using positivism as the “basis for denying divine law and/or natural law.” Judicial realism is another name for judicial usurpation of legislative power. Legal realists such as Charles Evans Hughes, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court during most of Franklin Roosevelt’s administration, believe that, “We are under a constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”[8] Put another way, judges don’t just interpret the meaning of the Constitution; they decide what they believe the Constitution ought to say. They become social policy makers who craft decisions based on what they think as opposed the wishes of the people and their elected representatives. Prophetically, Thomas Jefferson warned of such an activist judiciary, “The Constitution… is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”[9]

The basis for liberals’ plea for separation of church and state rest only on eight words taken out of context in 1947, but they are now used to blast any hint of America’s Godly heritage from every facet of American society. Theirs is not a true separation of church and state but creation of an invisible church subservient to the state. However, the history and importance of separation of church and state is far longer and greater than its misapplication to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The separation of the spiritual realm from the secular was instituted by Christ. The separate but complementary roles of church and state were designed and ordained by God. Therefore, the battle is not merely between church and state but just one battle on the far larger battleground of humanism versus Christianity. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the renowned German theologian who was martyred for his stand against Nazism, called humanism “the most severe enemy” that Christianity ever had.[10]

The sad state of American jurisprudence with regard to a real separation of the dual realms of church and state occurred because of two major failures by the Christian church in America. We shall call the first failure an abandonment of the public arena which occurred in the late 1800s and early 1900s with the rise of the “social gospel.” The social gospel movement started within the church but was used by secularists for left-wing social reform. Fearing a gospel of “salvation by works,” many conservative and evangelical churches developed a “ghetto mentality,” backing away from society and burying themselves in prayer, Bible study, converting the lost, and personal morality and holiness.[11] But in doing so, they also became the silent church that also buried its responsibility to be salt and light to the government and culture at large. [See: Matthew 5:13]

The second failure of the church in maintaining the dual realms of church and state we shall label as acceptance. Contemporaneous with the abandonment of the public arena by conservative and evangelical churches in the late 1800s and early 1900s, many mainline churches felt the effects of a loss of cultural authority as secular humanism advanced on the coattails of science and rationalism. In order to retain a measure of cultural authority and acceptance in the face of humanism’s onslaught, mainline Protestant leaders began embracing secular human sciences to lend credibility and cultural relevance to the tenets of their religion.[12] But such acceptance brought compromise of its creedal doctrines which resulted in a profane and powerless church that had lost its saltiness, “…no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men.” [Matthew 5:13b. RSV] And because of the church’s abandonment of society or the compromise of its message, the humanistic worldview reigned supreme and subsequently spread into every facet of culture.

The leaders and many of their bureaucratic subordinates in the institutions of American life now present what appears to be the face of an almost invincible monolithic humanism. In the presence of such a daunting challenge, Christians and others in America may ask how society can return its laws and Constitution to reliance on the original intent of the Founders when the rules for interpreting and enforcing those laws and the Constitution are made up by judges as they see fit to protect and promote their humanistic worldview. Our first priority is to correctly identify our adversary. The Apostle Paul paints a vivid picture of the enemy and his lair. “For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly places.” [Ephesians 6:12. RSV]

Even though it is a spiritual battle in this life and the heavenlies, we are not meant to be mere uninvolved spectators banished to the sidelines by a hostile society. In this earthly life, Christians are His “boots on the ground,” and our marching orders are to actively spread salt and light into all arenas habited by a lost and dying world.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution-The Faith of Our Founding Fathers, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1987), pp. 392-393.
[2] Ibid., p. 393.
[3] Ibid., p. 394
[4] Ibid.
[5] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), p. 392.
[6] William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. 1-Book I & II. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1910) p. 27.
[7] Eidsmoe, p. 390. Quoting: Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom, (New York: 1914), pp. 44-48.
[8] Ibid., pp. 395-397.
[9] David Barton, Original Intent – The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 2008), p. 195.
[10] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), p. 85.
[1] Eidsmoe, p. 407.
[12] Johnson, p. 252.

The REAL separation of church and state – Part II

Posted by :webmaster On : February 27, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Constitution, God's Law v. Man's Law, Government, Humanism, Progressivism

1947 was a busy, exhilarating, and optimistic year in America. The final days of World War II ended sixteen months earlier with the defeat of the Japanese Empire. Miracle on 34th Street was playing in the movie houses across the nation, and a solid-state semi-conductor called a transistor was invented in the Bell Laboratories. An unknown object crashed in the desert near Roswell, New Mexico. Thousands of former soldiers and sailors were in their second year of a G.I. Bill-financed college education, and the first Boomer generation children were barely over a year old.

But in 1947, many Americans also sensed an increasing undercurrent of unease and foreboding. The post war euphoria was short-lived as 1947 was the beginning of the four-decade long Cold War with the Soviet Union. The two superpowers were now separated by the “Iron Curtain,” so labeled in March 1946 by Winston Churchill in his famous speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. The West was being challenged by an aggressive Soviet Union and a monolithic block of “satellite” states under soviet domination, eastern European countries formerly under the control of Nazi Germany. The House Un-American Activities Committee held nine days of hearings into alleged communist influence and propaganda within the Hollywood motion picture industry.

Amidst the tumultuous events of 1947 there was also one little-noticed occurrence—a seemingly insignificant ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that would eventually have a monumental impact on the course of religious liberty and freedom of speech for almost seven decades lasting to the present day. Known as Everson v. Board of Education, the case revolved around the authorization by the Ewing Township School Board for reimbursement of parents for fares paid for the transportation by public carrier of children attending public and Catholic schools. The school board made the authorization pursuant to a New Jersey statute authorizing district boards of education to make rules and contracts for the transportation of children to and from schools other than private schools operated for profit. Therefore, parents of children attending not-for-profit Catholic schools qualified for reimbursement under the New Jersey statute.[1]

In a 5-4 opinion, Justice Hugo Black spoke for the majority of the Court in their finding that upheld the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals’ decision which struck down the New Jersey statute:

No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.” Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 98 U. S. 164.

… The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here.[2] [emphasis added]

The particulars of the case were relatively unimportant except to Plaintiff Everson and the citizens of Ewing Township, New Jersey, but the larger ramifications of the decision would spread into almost every facet of American society by overturning one-hundred fifty years of legal precedent, legislative actions, and its citizens’ quiet enjoyment of their religious liberties. The Court’s decision was contrary to the intent of the Founders with regard to the Establishment Clause and the meaning of Jefferson’s metaphor in his January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists.

The Establishment Clause derives its name from the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[3]

The First Amendment protections for religious liberty were extremely important to the citizens of the newly-formed nation. In England, the established state church had been an onerous foe of those whose religious beliefs differed. Facing religious oppression in Europe, the original colonies were primarily founded by those seeking religious liberty. By the 1760s, the colonists had experienced this freedom of religion for almost one-hundred fifty years, but in those final years before the Revolution, they received a rude reminder of former times of religious oppression by one denomination over another when King George III appointed an Anglican bishopric to oversee the religious affairs of Puritan New England—the very reason the Puritans had left their homeland.[4]

At the time of the writing of the Constitution in 1789, although the states encouraged Christianity, no state allowed an exclusive state-sponsored denomination. A dozen years after the drafting of the Bill of Rights which included the First Amendment, rumors still circulated that the new American government would designate a state-authorized denomination. These rumors were so prevalent that the Danbury Baptist Association wrote to President Jefferson about their concern that a particular denomination would be established as the official denomination. It was in this context that Jefferson wrote to the Baptists at Danbury, Connecticut, to assure them that the rumor had no basis in fact. In an attempt to assuage their fears, he said,

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions—I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.[5] [emphasis added]

Jefferson’s belief that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal government’s establishment of a national denomination is confirmed by his letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, a fellow-signor of the Declaration of Independence.

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States…especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe…any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly.[6] [emphasis added]

Jefferson’s metaphor of “a wall of separation” meant only the establishment of one particular denomination as the state-authorized denomination. Also, Jefferson’s wall was intended to be a one-way wall to protect the church from the state and not the other way around. But modern court rulings have perverted the original intent of the Establishment Clause to allow, in their own words, the construction of a “high and impregnable” wall between church and state.

The Supreme Court’s Everson decision divorced the First Amendment from its original intent and “…reinterpreted it without regard to either historical context or previous judicial decisions.”[7] In effect, the Supreme Court took eight words from Jefferson’s letter to the Baptists out of context and used them without support of sound judicial precedent to dramatically diminish religious freedom in the United States. Subsequently, the ruling has been used for additional judicial chicanery by the proponents of a humanistic worldview to systematically and completely remove religion and especially Christianity from all spheres of American public life.

Jefferson would have strenuously objected to the 1947 Supreme Court’s departure from original intent with regard to the First Amendment as can be seen in his admonishment to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson.

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.[8]

James Madison’s regard for the importance of original intent also mirrored Jefferson’s beliefs.

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful, exercise of its powers…What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.[9] [emphasis added]

In 1947, the Supreme Court produced Madison’s dreaded metamorphosis as original intent was dumped for modern invention. As the Establishment Clause has been reconstructed by the Court’s Constitutional revisionists, the illegitimate modern interpretation of Jefferson’s wall of separation produces the same consequences as Churchill’s infamous Iron Curtain—the suppression and ultimate destruction of religious liberty.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] The U.S. Supreme Court, Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, No. 52. Decided February 10, 1947.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/330/1/case.html (accessed February 5, 2015).
[2] Ibid.
[3] The Constitution of the United States of America, (Washington, D. C.: National Archives and Records Administration).
[4] M. Stanton Evans, The Theme is Freedom, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1994), p. 217.
[5] David Barton, Original Intent – The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 2008), pp. 51-52.
[6] Ibid., p. 51.
[7] Ibid., p. 27.
[8] Ibid, p. 28.
[9] Ibid., p. 28.

The REAL separation of church and state – Part I

Posted by :webmaster On : February 20, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Constitution, God's Law v. Man's Law, Government, Humanism, Progressivism

Ask the average American to define the meaning of the oft-repeated phrase of “separation of church and state” and usually you will receive a blank stare. Following a brief pause, they may start giving examples like: “It means we can’t have prayer in schools.” “The government can’t sponsor any event that is connected with a church.” or “The Founders wanted to keep church and faith out of government.” If one follows up with a question as to the origins of “separation of church,” answers will include: “It was invented by Thomas Jefferson.” “It is part of the Declaration of Independence.” “It was established by the Supreme Court.” And a few will identify its source as the U.S. Constitution.

Not only are most Americans substantially ignorant of our nation’s history, they are grossly uninformed about the form and operation of American government. What little understanding of government they have usually originates from listening to the nightly news, political pundits, Hollywood and media celebrities, Internet headlines and sound bites, and an educational system vehemently opposed to the central cultural vision of the Founders. Few concepts within American governance are so important and so misunderstood as that of separation of church and state.

The original Constitution was signed by Congress on September 17, 1787 and subsequently ratified by the states. The Bill of Rights was adopted by Congress on September 26, 1789 and became part of the Constitution when Virginia became the tenth state to ratify the Amendments on December 15, 1791.[1] The First Amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[2]

The Founders were strong proponents of separation of church and state. But the confusion as to its meaning over the last seventy years derives from the modern revisionists’ misrepresentation of the Establishment Clause as opposed to those who argue for the original intent of the Founders that had been observed by custom and the courts for over 150 years.

It is clear from the words and actions of the Founders that the intent of the Establishment Clause was to prohibit government from establishing one denomination as the official or preferred church. Modernists have reinterpreted the Establishment Clause to be a separation clause that effectively purges any hint of religious activity and influence in the public square which has come to mean any of the spheres of American life.

To understand the concept of separation of church and state and why the Founders so valued it, we must look back in history. The idea that a group of people bound by a religious allegiance with its own history, beliefs, and traditions could exist within a society but remain independent of the governing political entity was a concept unknown to the ancients. This radical concept that a distinction must be made between the roles of church and state arose from Christianity at its very birth.[3] It was evident in Christ’s challenged to the politically-connected religious leaders (Pharisees and Herodians) when they attempted to entrap Him with questions as to man’s loyalty to man or God. “Then he said unto them, ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’” [Matthew 22:21a. RSV]

For the next three hundred years the church fathers maintained this separation but endured severe persecution as a consequence. In 313 AD, Roman Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity, but he soon began intruding in church affairs. In 353-356, Hosius, bishop of Cordoba, Spain, reprimanded one of Constantine’s three sons (Emperor Constantius II) for intruding in church affairs by attempting to get Western bishops to oppose Athanasius of Alexandria for supporting those who rejected the Arian heresy. Hosius invoked Christ’s words in Matthew 22:21 which were preceded by a warning to the Emperor. “Intrude not yourself into ecclesiastical affairs…God has put into your hands the [secular] kingdom; to us [bishops] He has entrusted the affairs of His church.”[4]

Because of Constantine’s legalization of Christianity and in spite of the church’s early resistance to government interference, the church began a thousand year period in its history when church and state were intertwined to varying degrees. At the beginning of this period, government attempted to interfere with and bend the church to its will. However by the Middle Ages, it was the church who attempted to bend government to the will of the church. This was a corruption of God’s design for each realm.[5]

Out of the mixing of church and state came abuses such as the Crusades and the Inquisition. In spite of their motives to further His kingdom, the church had violated God’s plan because Christianity is not a religion that can coerce faith for it is a matter of the heart.[6] This intermingling of the spiritual and secular realms corrupted the roles of both church and state. A few men such as John Wycliffe and John Huss in the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries recognized this corruption and called for changes in the church which was in dire need of fundamental reform. They also recognized that such reform would only occur with the recognition that the Bible was the final arbiter of faith and not the church.[7] These early stirrings of reformation exploded in the early sixteenth century when Martin Luther nailed his ninety five theses to the door of the Wittenberg church. The turmoil within the church produced one of the doctrinal pillars of Protestantism–the priesthood of the believer.

Alvin Schmidt presents an excellent summation of Martin Luther’s understanding of the distinct roles of the two realms in the early sixteenth century.

He [Luther] especially criticized the papacy’s role in secular government, seeing it as violating what he called the concept of the two kingdoms (realms). It was the church’s task solely to preach and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ…the government’s task was to keep peace and order in society by restraining and punishing the unlawful. The secular government can only compel people to behave outwardly; it can never make a person’s heart spiritually righteous. Only the preaching of the Gospel (the spiritual realm) can do that. In the spiritual realm the Christian functions as a disciple of Christ; in the secular realm he functions as citizen. Although the two realms are separate, the faithful Christian is active in both because God is active in both. In the spiritual realm he is active in proclaiming the gospel, whereas in the secular kingdom he is active by means of the law and the sword, or government.[8]

The early colonists and their descendants still had fresh memories of the church-state conflagrations that swept Europe in the century prior to their first arrivals on the eastern shore of America. They well understood the need for separation of church and state, but that separation was a freedom of religion and not a freedom from religion as interpreted and imposed by modern Constitutional revisionists. For the colonists and Founders, separation of church and state was an institutional separation and not an influential separation. Institutional separation meant that government has certain roles and duties in which the church must not interfere (keeping peace and order in society by restraining and punishing the unlawful by means of the sword). Yet, the church has every right and duty to influence government. Likewise, the government does not have the right to interfere with the roles and duties of the church (teaching and preaching the gospel and influencing society).

There are numerous documents that attest to the Founders’ sentiments of the right of the church to influence society. Perhaps one of the best examples of the attitude of the Founders was expressed by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (appointed by James Madison, the fourth president and delegate to the Constitutional Convention which speaks volumes about Story’s understanding of the Founders’ meaning and intent with regard to the Constitution and its Amendments). Speaking specifically of the Establishment Clause, Story wrote:

…We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general and especially to Christianity which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution…Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the Amendments to it, the general, if not universal, sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State…An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation (condemnation), if not universal indignation.[9]

To confirm the continuing existence of this strong religious sanction that still held sway over the nation forty years after the Constitutional Convention, we look to the words of Alexis De Tocqueville’s 1835 Democracy in America, one of the most influential political texts ever written about America.

Americans so completely identify the spirit of Christianity with freedom in their minds that it is almost impossible to get them to conceive the one without the other…

In France I had seen the spirit of religion moving in the opposite direction to that of the spirit of freedom. In America, I found them intimately linked together in joint reign over the same land.[10]

Tocqueville went on to say that the peaceful influence exercised by religion over the nation was due to separation of church and state.[11] Unlike the modernists’ separation of church and state, Tocqueville’s separation was a separation of the spheres of power and not a separation of government from ethics and moral guidance supplied by the moral suasion of Christianity and the church.

The Founders did not prohibit but encouraged the church’s influence upon government, and for one hundred fifty years the church played a vital role in helping the state be the state by continually asking if the state’s actions were justified as a legitimate fulfillment of its role. Since 1947, the courts have sided with the modern Constitutional revisionists who deny the church has a right to influence the state and society in the public square. This denial is the subject to be discussed in Part II.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Michael Kammen, ed., The Origins of the American Constitution – A Documentary History, (New York: Penguin Books, 1986), p. xxix.
[2] The Constitution of the United States of America, (Washington, D. C.: National Archives and Records Administration).
[3] Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), pp. 265-266.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., p. 266.
[6] David Barton, Original Intent – The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 2008), p. 86.
[7] B. K. Kuiper, The Church in History, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964), pp. 143-145.
[8] Schmidt, p. 266.
[9] David Barton, The Myth of Separation, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 1989), p. 32.
[10] Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Gerald E. Bevan, Trans., (London, England: Penguin Books, 2003), pp. 343, 345.
[11] Ibid, p. 345.

How we choose to deal with our sin defines our destiny

Posted by :webmaster On : November 7, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, God's Law v. Man's Law, Homosexuality

Bishop Edward J. Slattery, bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Tulsa, recently wrote of the confusion within the Catholic Church regarding its teaching on divorce, cohabitation, and people who experience same-sex attractions (“We are not defined by our sin”). He states that much of this confusion resulted from the Vatican’s October publication of a working paper (Relatio post Disceptationem) of the Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the Family whose purpose was to raise awareness of significant pastoral issues concerning divorce, cohabitation, and homosexuality. The document was designed “…to raise questions and indicate perspectives that will have to be matured.” [1] [emphasis added]

One of Bishop Slattery’s concerns is that much of the confusion results from contemporary commentators and even some in the church who use language that tends to diminish the human person through emphasis on their sinful activity. This is a legitimate concern, and as the bishop states, “…activity should never be confused with identity. The human person always remains greater than what he or she does or experiences.” [2] The Bishop is correct in that the importance of man’s identity is confirmed by the inestimable value God places on man. The tremendous value of man to God is undeniable when one considers that the cost of man’s redemption from his sinful state was the sacrifice of God’s own Son on the cross. Therefore, God does not condemn man nor can the church. But man was given freewill, and with freewill man made choices that are in conflict with God’s commandments and plan for mankind and thereby condemned himself. When this happened, it was called sin and broke the relationship between God and man. It is at this point that man often attempts to justify his activity because of his identity, and the modern church is often a co-conspirator in excusing sinful activity.

From a broader perspective, it would appear that much of the confusion in the church world stems from the church’s efforts (both Catholic and Protestant) to be inclusive of people who want to be accepted by the church but also want their sinful lifestyles to be accepted too. To do so they engage in theological contortions to answer questions and give perspective that will bring “maturity” (i.e., acceptance of the sinner and the sin within the church). It is in these efforts that the Bible is ignored even though it is the ultimate source of truth and is exceptionally clear in most cases as to God’s answers and perspective with regard to both sin and the sinner.

An example of this confusion and blurring of lines with regard to sin, the pastoral teaching of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops correctly states that, “God does not love someone any less simply because he or she is homosexual. God’s love is always and everywhere offered to those who are open to receiving it.” [3] However, this truthful teaching is often perverted to mean that love is all that is necessary by those wanting the church to embrace both the sinner and his sin. To do so dismisses the admonitions of Paul to the Romans regarding homosexuality which are clear-cut and still applicable in the twenty-first century. [4] This is but one example of the great caustic of relativism seeping into the church and by which biblical truths are ignored and eroded.

To claim love is all that is necessary is to dismiss the centrality of the cross in the great meta-narrative of the Bible with regard to creation, the fall, and man’s need for redemption. Christ died for the sins of the world to obtain forgiveness for man, and every man has a choice as to whether or not he will accept that forgiveness and follow Christ. To follow Christ is to follow His commandments. But, if love is all that is necessary, then the cross becomes irrelevant, sin is a misnomer, Satan is a myth, and God does not care about how we live our lives.

Bishop Slattery rightly says, “Chastity, after all, pertains not just to our behavior but also to the state of our hearts.” [5] Acceptance of Christ is first a matter of the heart. We can’t clean up our lives before we approach Christ. Every human approaches Christ as a sinner whether he is guilty of adultery, homosexual behavior, fornication, murder, theft, or one of a thousand other sins. I am a sinner saved by grace, the unmerited favor of Christ. I have repented of my sin and have been forgiven. Not only have I repented of past sins, I have turned from my sinful ways. Homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, and any other label the sinner wears can repent, be saved, and fellowship with God for eternity. However, to do so, they cannot stay in their sin. When the sinner accepts Christ he must put away the sin and often this “putting away” can be a difficult and continuing struggle for the new Christian. But it is the struggle to lay down one’s sin coupled with continued repentance which makes the difference, not a continuing indifference to one’s sin.

In 1937, the Confessing Church in Germany was under severe persecution from Nazi rulers and that portion of the German church aligned with Hitler. Brilliant theologian, pastor, and opponent of the Nazi regime, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote a dramatic paper in which he cautioned his fellow pastors in the Confessing Church.

Anyone who turns from his sinful way at the word of proclamation and repents, receives forgiveness. Anyone who perseveres in his sin receives judgment. The church cannot loose the penitent from sin without arresting and binding the impenitent in sin…The promise of grace is not to be squandered; it needs to be protected from the godless. Grace cannot be proclaimed to anyone who does not recognize or distinguish or desire it…The world upon whom grace is thrust as a bargain will grow tired of it, and it will not only trample upon the Holy, but also will tear apart those who force it on them. For its own sake, for the sake of the sinner, and for the sake of the community, the Holy is to be protected from cheap surrender. The Gospel is protected by the preaching of repentance which calls sin sin and declares the sinner guilty…The preaching of grace can only be protected by the preaching of repentance. [6]

Americans are especially averse to pain and suffering, and much of the modern church has that mindset. This is why it is difficult for some in the church to require the often painful “putting away” of sin when it welcomes the sinner into the supposed “big tent” of Christianity under the banner of love. Many in the modern church insist that the problem is not “cheap grace” but “cheap laws.” In other words, love and looking to Christ is all that matters. But grace without repentance is still cheap grace. Writing in his classic work The Cost of Discipleship, Bonhoeffer described this toxin within the church.

Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church…In such a Church the world finds a cheap covering for its sins; no contrition is required, still less any real desire to be delivered from sin…Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner…Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate. [7]

When we approach the cross with a contrite heart, our destiny is defined by how we respond to Christ’s invitation to be a part of His eternal kingdom. A person who willfully continues in his sin cannot be excused for they “…are [not] open to growing in virtue” and their heart remains unconverted. If the church does not make this distinction clear, it is guilty of misleading people as to their eternal destination.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] Edward J. Slattery, Bishop of Tulsa Diocese, “We are not defined by our sin,” Tulsa World, October 18, 2014, A17;
http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/readersforum/bishop-edward-j-slattery-we-are-not-defined-by-our/article_bb6fed60-fa34-581b-951c-5884295d6ffa.html (accessed October 20, 2014).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Gavin Newsom, et.al., Letter to Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, June 10, 2014.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.sfgate.com/file/829/829-ArchbishopLetter.pdf (accessed June 23, 2014).
[4] Romans 1: 18, 24-27. RSV
[5] Slattery, A17.
[6] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), pp. 292-293.
[7] Erwin W. Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God,” (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2010), pp. 117-118.

The synchronization of the American church?

Posted by :webmaster On : October 24, 2014
1

Category: Archives, Christianity, Equality, God's Law v. Man's Law, Government, Homosexuality

“This court has no jurisdiction over me, I am a German,” insisted Herman Goring as he stood with other Nazi war criminals in 1946 before an international military tribunal in Nuremburg, Germany. But Robert Jackson, chief counsel for the United States, responded that “…there was a ‘law above the law’ that stood in judgment of all men in all countries and societies.”[1] These contrasting views of the source of laws by which men should be judged continue to be at the heart of the cultural conflict in America—is the ultimate source of law to be God or man? Modern America and the American church face the same dilemma as faced by Germany and the German church of the 1930s.

We have previously quoted Eric Metaxas with regard to the dramatic changes in German life following the democratic election of Adolf Hitler on January 30, 1933. In less than two months the democratically elected Reichstag (parliament) succumbed to pressure from the Nazi political machine and placed the whole power of the government under Hitler’s control. Thus began a series of radical changes to conform all of German life to Nazi rule. Metaxas’ eloquent assessment of events bears repeating.

With the tools of democracy, democracy was murdered and lawlessness made “legal.” Raw power ruled, and its only real goal was to destroy all other powers besides itself…In the First months of Nazi rule, the speed and scope of what the Nazis intended and had begun executing throughout German society were staggering. Under what was called the Gleichschaltung (synchronization), the country would be thoroughly reordered along National Socialist lines. No one dreamed how quickly and dramatically things would change.[2] (emphasis added)

Herman Goring, the second most powerful man in Germany and founder of the Gestapo, called this dramatic reordering of society merely an “administrative change.”[3] “Everything must now be synchronized under the Fuhrer’s leadership and under the idea of Gleichschaltung—and the church must lead the way.”[4] The synchronization of the church began with a series of regulations and laws that effectively wed the church to the state and compromised the very biblical principles upon which their faith rested. These laws and regulations initially dealt with the “Jewish question” and included restrictions on Jews from serving in professions such as the law, medicine, teaching, literature, the arts, theater, and film. Christians of Jewish blood were also prohibited from serving in the ministry.[5]

Casting aside two millennia of Christian orthodoxy, the majority of the German churches willingly allowed themselves to be synchronized with the prevailing German political and social goals instead of the teachings of Jesus Christ. They wanted a strong state-oriented church, a “positive Christianity” that was “very aggressive in attacking those who didn’t agree with them and generally caused much confusion and division in the church.”[6] Eventually, the German church of the 1930s separated into three groups: the large apostate German Christian church, the Confessing church which initially opposed Hitler but became the silent church of appeasement, and a small but faithful remnant that became the uncompromising and suffering church. We see much the same divisions between churches in twenty-first century America, only the dividing factor is now centered on humanism which Dietrich Bonhoeffer called “the most severe enemy” that Christianity ever had.[7]

Bonhoeffer was a leader in in opposition to the Nazis and the German apostate church. Bonhoeffer preached that the purpose of the state was to make possible law and order as opposed to lawlessness and disorder, and it was the church’s role to “continually ask” whether the state’s actions could be justified as legitimate. But Bonhoeffer also recognized that the state could not only fail by in the provision of law and order but could also harm society with the imposition of “excessive law and order.”[8] Metaxas quotes Bonhoeffer’s indictment of the Nazi regime.

And if on the other hand, the state is creating an atmosphere of “excessive law and order,” it’s the job of the church to draw the state’s attention to that too. If the state is creating “excessive law and order,” then “the state develops its power to such an extent that it deprives Christian preaching and Christian faith…of their rights.” Bonhoeffer called this a “grotesque situation.” “The church,” he said, “must reject this encroachment of the order of the state precisely because of its better knowledge of the state and of the limitations of its action. The state which endangers the Christian proclamation negates itself.”[9]

An excess of law and order makes it difficult if not impossible for the church to question the state regarding the legitimacy of its actions. By questioning the state’s excessive laws and order imposed on its citizens, the church may violate the very laws to which it objects. The inability of the church to question the state with regard to its actions is particularly relevant to the twenty-first century American church which finds itself at the same point of decision as faced by the German Church in 1933. Here we return to our initial observation that essence of the modern struggle in America is to determine whether man’s law supersedes God’s law. Put another way, is man’s law above God’s law as implied by Herman Goring and much of the humanistic leadership in American society? Two immediate examples expose the seriousness and immediacy of the challenge to the church.

Annise Parker is the left-leaning and openly gay mayor of Houston, Texas, America’s fourth largest City. In May she imposed the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance which prohibits businesses from discriminating against gay and transgender residents. The ordinance became known as the “bathroom bill” because one of the provisions allows transgender individuals to use either a male or female public restroom facility. Opposition to the ordinance began growing during the summer as pastors and various religious leaders gathered signatures for a referendum to be placed on the November ballot which would repeal the ordinance if passed. To prevent the referendum, the city attorney subsequently rejected thousands of signatures he believed did not qualify.[10]

Under the guidance of the mayor and city attorney, both still smarting from the significant efforts of the religious community to repeal the human rights ordinance, five pastors were subpoenaed and ordered to turn over to their sermons, text messages, photographs, electronic files, calendars, and emails and virtually all communication with members of their congregations on topics such as homosexuality and gender identity. The pastors face fines and possible incarceration if they fail to do so. The obvious goal of the mayor and city attorney is intimidation. However, one pastor responded, “We’re not intimidated at all. We’re not going to yield our First Amendment rights—even if it ends in fines, confinement, or both.”[11] With opposition growing to the mayor’s effort to silence the church, Houston City Attorney Feldman remained unfazed and warned the pastors that, “The fact that you happen to be a pastor and you happen to be at a church doesn’t provide you with protection.”[12] But Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott had a different interpretation for Feldman contained in an official letter to the city, “Whether you intend it to be so or not, your action is a direct assault on the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment. The people of Houston and their religious leaders must be absolutely secure in the knowledge that their religious affairs are beyond the reach of the government. Nothing short of an immediate reversal by your office will provide that security.”[13] [emphasis added]

Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, is a lot smaller (about 46,000) and a long way from America’s fourth largest city. But for the liberals and other advocates of the homosexual agenda, no place is too small to be overlooked when rooting out any perceived violation of human rights. Ministers Don and Evelyn Knapp who have been marrying couples for twenty-five years at their Hitching Post Wedding Chapel recently discovered this when the city told them that they would go straight to jail if they refused to “marry” same-sex couples (180 days in jail and fines up to $1,000 per day for every day the ministers refuse to perform the ceremony). Unlike the Colorado cake baker’s business, the Knapp’s chapel is a religious corporation. But this makes little difference to the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender mafia as they trample religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment under the guise of achieving their perverted definition of human rights.[14]

Albert Einstein was exiled from Germany because he was a Jew. Although he did not believe in a personal God, he was not an atheist. He described himself as somewhere between an agnostic and belief in a pantheistic god in which nature is the totality of everything and is identical with divinity. Yet, even though he was not a believer in Christianity, the suffering church had a profound impact on his life.

Being a lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came I looked to the universities to defend it…the universities took refuge in silence. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers…but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few weeks. I then addressed myself to the authors…They are, in turn, very dumb. Only the church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.[15]

As it was for the German church in 1933, it is decision time for the American church of today. We must ask ourselves: At what point do we have to become lawbreakers rather than betray our faith? The Houston pastors have given their answer.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Erwin W. Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2010), pp. 60-61.
[2] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), pp. 149-150.
[3] Ibid., p. 157.
[4] Ibid., p 176.
[5] Ibid., pp. 150-151, 156-157, 160.
[6] Ibid., p. 151.
[7] Ibid., p. 85.
[8] Ibid., pp. 153-154.
[9] Ibid., p. 153.
[10] Josh Sanburn, “Houston Pastors Outraged After City Subpoenas Sermons Over Transgender Bill,” Time, October 17, 2014.
http://time.com/3514166/houston-pastors-sermons-subpoenaed/ (accessed October 21, 2014).
[11] Tony Perkins, “Houstunned: Pastors Vow to Fight Mayor’s Sermon Grab,” Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, October 15, 2014. http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/houstunned-pastors-vow-to-fight-mayors-sermon-grab (accessed October 21, 2014).
[12] Tony Perkins, “A Subpoena for Your Thoughts…”, Tony Perkins Washington Update, October 17, 2014. http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/a-subpoena-for-your-thoughts (accessed October 21, 2014).
[13] Tony Perkins, “Pulpit Friction: Texas Leaders Rally to Pastors’ Defense,” Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, October 16, 2014. http://www.frcblog.com/2014/10/pulpit-friction-tx-leaders-rally-pastors-defense/ (accessed October 21, 2014).
[14] Tony Perkins, “Natural Marriage in Idaho: Give it Arrest,” Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, October 20, 2014.
http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/natural-marriage-in-idaho-give-it-arrest (accessed October 21, 2014).
[15] Lutzer, p. 89-90.

The end of sustainable government

Posted by :webmaster On : August 15, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Constitution, God's Law v. Man's Law, Government

America has been a wildly successful country because of its sustainable government, and we can thank our founders for making that possible. However, the Obama presidency has done more to damage that sustainability than any administration in the nation’s history.

All governments are systems of ruling or controlling, and every system of government has a source of power. Every government’s source of power may be visualized as being at some point on a continuum of power. At one end of the continuum is anarchy at which there is no law, no order, and no systematic control and quickly slides into some form of tyranny. Tyranny resides at the other end of the continuum and imposes too much control and results in loss of freedom, oppression, and eventual slavery. Under the one system there is no law; under the other is the ruler’s law. What the Founders’ desired was a people’s law with “…enough government to maintain security, justice, and good order, but not enough government to abuse the people.”[1]

People’s law resides at the center of the continuum between anarchy and ruler’s law. How is this achieved? The Founders began their task with an understanding of the tendency of governments and cultures throughout history to swing from one extreme (tyranny) to the other (anarchy) and back. The Founders also recognized the difficulties of sustaining a government based on the people’s law because of the inherently corrupt nature of mankind.

In creating a government that was sustainable, the Founders recognized the inherent fallibility of any system of government based solely on law designed and guided by corrupt human nature that ultimately devolves into a succession of governments of tyrants or roiling mobs. To address the tendency of governments to fluctuate between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy, the Founders formed a government based on constitutionalism. A constitution designed by the people to reflect the people’s law marks the boundaries or limits of power delegated to the rulers of government. Because the Founders recognized the truth of the fallen nature of man, the American Constitution included a system of checks and balances known as the separation of powers.

By the late nineteenth century the tentacles of humanism would spread into American jurisprudence and began to undermine the biblical foundations of the law that had been laid by the Founders and threatened the restraining force of the Constitution. The new theory of law was based on relativism and introduced by Harvard Law School Dean Christopher Langdell in the 1870s. The major tenets of the progressivists’ theory of law are:

There are no objective, God-given standards of law, or if there are, they are irrelevant to the modern legal system.

Since God is not the author of law, the author of law must be man; in other words, the law is law simply because the highest human authority, the state, has said it is law and is able to back it up.

Since man and society evolve, therefore law must evolve as well.

Judges, through their decisions, guide the evolution of law.

To study law, get the original sources of law – the decision of judges.[2]

In his incisive indictment of progressivism in American jurisprudence, Bradley C. S. Watson states that “…such jurisprudence is destined to be destructive to any and all claims of moral truth…not only hostile to the liberal constitutionalism of the American Founders, but to any moral-political philosophy that allows for the possibility of a truth that is not time-bound.”[3]

Watson believes that there are two fundamental facts that mark the founding of America and subsequently the design of the Constitution. One was creedal and one was cultural. First, the Founders had a creedal “…understanding of natural rights, which were held not to be culturally derived or time-bound or subject to infinite incremental growth, but applicable to all men everywhere and final.” [emphasis added] In other words, there were eternal truths which transcended man and his time on this earth and were inviolable. Second, the Founders believed that American culture resulted from inherited or customary understandings that reflected the application or working out of the principles of timeless truths in daily life. The Founders’ creedal and the cultural beliefs were not in conflict but expressions of the same truth, and both rested firmly on the foundation of the Judeo-Christian faith and its eternal truths.[4] These two facts regarding the founding of America stand in stark contrast to progressivism’s faulty assumptions of the evolutionary nature of the Constitution and laws.

Because of the nature of the duties of the judiciary, Progressivists’ damage to the separation of powers under the Constitution has occurred primarily within that branch of government. But the brazen overreach of the Obama administration through disregard of Constitutional limits on executive powers may be unparalleled in American history. In addition to scorning the rebukes by the Supreme Court for his un-Constitutional executive actions, the President has violated his Constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws by selective enforcement and/or changes to laws enacted by Congress. Additionally, the administration has regularly circumvented the powers of the legislative branch through the issuance of illegitimate executive orders to accomplish what Congress would not approve.

Such is the seriousness and extent of the abuse of power of the executive branch that on July, 16, 2014, Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, appeared before the Committee on Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives to discuss litigation for actions by the President inconsistent with his duties under the Constitution. In his prepared remarks, Turley stated:

The President’s pledge to effectively govern alone is alarming but what is most alarming is his ability to fulfill that pledge. When a president can govern alone, he can become a government unto himself, which is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in the establishment of our tripartite system of government. In perhaps the saddest reflection of our divisive times, many of our citizens and Members are now embracing the very model of a dominant executive that the Framers fought to excise from our country almost 250 years ago.[5]

Sustainable government requires adherence to Constitutional limitations of power and the recognition of and adherence to timeless fixed moral and political truths from which there can be no departure. However, because of the ascendance of the humanistic worldview, there is an assault on these principles necessary to sustain government. In American jurisprudence this assault is a result of judicial activism that changes or creates laws or goes against precedent rather than just applying or interpreting laws. The more recent assault on the Constitution by the executive branch is evident in the maneuverings of a president seemingly bent on one-man rule based on man’s law disconnected from eternal truths.

As a result of these onslaughts, the hard-won people’s law of the Founders is endangered, and the end of our once sustainable American government is at hand. It is time for the states, Congress, and the American people to reign in the judicial and executive branches of government and return to the Constitutional balanced of powers as Madison and the delegates to the Constitutional Convention intended.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] W. Cleon Skousen, The 5000 Year Leap, (www.nccs.net: National Center for Constitutional Studies, 1981), pp. 10, 19.
[2] David Barton, Original Intent, 5th Edition, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuider Press, 2008), pp. 233-234.
[3] Bradley C. S. Watson, Living Constitution, Dying Faith, (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2009), p. xvi.
[4] Ibid., pp. 23-14.
[5] Jonathan Turley, “Authorization to Initiate Action for Litigation for Actions by the President Inconsistent with His Duties under the Constitution of the United States,” Committee on Rules, U.S. House of Representatives, July 16, 2014. http://docs.house.gov/meetings/RU/RU00/20140716/102507/HMTG-113-RU00-Wstate-TurleyJ-20140716.pdf (accessed August 11, 2014).

This was done by ordinary people – Part IV

Posted by :webmaster On : June 20, 2014
0

Category: America, Archives, Christianity, God's Law v. Man's Law, Government

The role government and the role of the church as it relates to government

Dietrich Bonhoeffer went to his death on a Nazi gallows in 1945 with a very definite understanding of the role of the church in society, and his death was the eventual outcome of his living that understanding. God ordained the establishment of government for the preservation of order and the establishment of laws that define that order. The church has no right to interfere with the actions of the state in purely political matters. That said, Bonhoeffer also firmly believed the church plays a vital role in helping the state be the state by continually asking if the state’s actions can be justified as a legitimate fulfillment of its role. In other words, do the actions of the state lead to law and order and not to lawlessness and disorder? Where the state fails, it is the role of the church to draw the state’s attention to its failures. Likewise, if the state creates an atmosphere of “excessive law and order,” the church must also remind the state of its proper role. Excessive law and order becomes evident when the state’s power develops “…to such an extent that it deprives Christian preaching and Christian faith…of their rights.”[1]

Bonhoeffer demonstrated his belief of limits on state authority in his arguments to the German Lutheran church (effectively the state church) against its acceptance of the Nazi Aryan paragraph in the synchronization of all German life in accordance with Nazi dictates. The Aryan paragraph served as the basis for many laws that denied Jews their rights as German citizens.

But Bonhoeffer’s arguments regarding the German government’s treatment of the Jews really framed the larger question of “what is the church?” In other words, from where does the church receive its authority? Is it an instrument of the state and therefore subject to the state or is it apart from the state? If it is apart from the state, then what does the church do when the state oversteps the boundaries of its legitimate authority?[2]

Actions of the church with regard to government

Bonhoeffer listed three actions the church should take regarding the state. The first has been described—the church must question the state with regard to its actions and whether its actions can be justified as a legitimate concern of the state. Second, the church must “…aid victims of state action in its ordering of society…even if they (the victims) do not belong to the Christian community.” Bonhoeffer did not stop there but said a third step may be necessary. The church must “…not just bandage the victims under the wheel…but a stick must be jammed into the spokes of the wheel to stop the vehicle. It is sometimes not enough to help those crushed by the evil actions of a state; at some point the church must directly take action against the state to stop it from perpetrating evil.” But Bonhoeffer’s stick in the spokes of the wheel of state is justified only if the church’s very existence is threatened by the state and the state is no longer a state as designed by God.[3]

In Part III we identified three groups of churches in Nazi Germany of the 1930s: the apostate German Christian church, the Confessing church which became the silent church of appeasement, and a faithful remnant that became the suffering church. The great majority of German churches during the Nazi era subordinated themselves to the Nazi state, did not speak out against Nazi tyranny, and did not aid the victims crushed by the wheel of state.

We also drew disturbing parallels between the German church of the 1930s and the American church of the twenty-first century. Christianity and its values are under full-scale attack in America. The church must decide what it will or will not do in response to that attack. Some will choose to do nothing and as justification point to Paul’s letter to the Romans with regard to a Christian’s conduct in relation to the state.

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. [Romans 13:1-5. RSV]

But to do nothing is a misinterpretation of Paul’s message. Paul is not saying that we should be obedient to government regardless of what it does. It is nonsensical to claim that all rulers are legitimate authorities who must be mindlessly obeyed because of a misunderstanding of the meaning of Romans 13:1-5.

So how do we resolve the dilemma of whether we are to obey a specific ruler (government) or not? The issue revolves around whether or not a government is one that receives its authority from God. Christians must be subject to governing authorities if the authority is instituted by God, but Christians are not required to submit to those rulers whose authority is not instituted by God and therefore is illegitimate. The distinction becomes apparent from Paul’s words when he says that rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad conduct. But we know that many rulers in this world are a terror to good conduct and therefore do not fall within Paul’s description of a government that receives its authority from God.

The church and bad government

Even where there is a bad government, Christians must be subject to governing authorities to a point. Christians are required to be subject to government laws and regulations even when they disagree with them. However, when those laws and regulations require Christians to compromise or disobey biblical commands with regard to one’s personal life or the lives over which they have been given charge, the Christian must be obedient to God’s word and not government authority. Two current examples come to mind which give meaning to this distinction. The Christian owners of Hobby Lobby have refused to provide health insurance to their employees under the Affordable Care Act because of the requirement for the inclusion of abortion services. A Christian Colorado baker refused to make a cake for a homosexual couple’s wedding. Both are laws which conflict with what it means to be a Christian who is obedient to the word of God. Christians must still be subject to the governing authorities except when their obedience conflicts with the higher laws of God.

The church and illegitimate government

There is a step beyond bad government when a government’s authority becomes illegitimate because it no longer fulfills its role in providing order and has become lawless and disorderly. Therefore, Christians must be careful to distinguish between bad government and illegitimate authorities not ordained by God. We must also realize that bad governments, through a succession of actions upon which evil is piled upon evil, will at some point forfeit their legitimacy as God withdraws His authority. At that point the ignored warnings and admonishments of the church to a state rushing head-long into lawlessness and disorder must be exchanged for sticks to be thrust into the spokes of the wheel of that illegitimate government. However, Bonhoeffer cautioned that casting sticks into the spokes of the wheel of state is justified only if the church’s very existence is threatened and the state is no longer a state upon which God’s authority rests.

The very existence of the American church is being threatened by excessive laws and the heavy hand of the government as it attempts to drive Christianity from the cultural and institutional landscape of America. The church and Christians must continue to admonish the state as to its over-reach and a possible loss of legitimacy. As the American government deprives its citizenry of their rights regarding Christian preaching and Christian faith, society will continue to slide into a cultural swamp devoid of any hint of morality. There may come a point at which God will lift His authority as the government fails to fulfill its proper role. At such a time the church must be ready with sticks to thrust into the spokes of the wheel of a lawless and chaotic government.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), p. 153.
[2] Ibid., pp. 152-153.
[3] Ibid., pp. 153-154.

This was done by ordinary people – Part I

Posted by :webmaster On : May 30, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, God's Law v. Man's Law, Government

The end-product of the Holocaust lay in the gas chambers and ashes of the crematoria within the German death camps spread across Europe in 1945. But the beginning of the Holocaust was much more subtle and seemingly innocuous except to the Jew and others on the wrong side of the German cultural and political wars of the 1930s. In his biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian and spy, Eric Metaxas described the events that led to the Holocaust.

On January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler became the democratically elected chancellor of Germany. On February 27, the Nazis set afire the building that housed the democratically elected Reichstag and blamed it on the Communists. That same day Hitler pressured the highly respected Field Marshall Hindenburg to sign the Reichstag Fire Edict which suspended certain sections of the German constitution and allowed restrictions on personal liberty, free expressions of opinion, rights of assembly and association; violations of privacy of communications (postal, telegraphic, and telephonic); warrants for searches of homes; and confiscations of and restrictions on private property. [1]

Following the Reichstag Fire Edict, Nazi storm troopers began immediately to arrest, imprison, torture, and kill their opponents. On March 23rd the Reichstag bowed to Nazi pressure and approved the Enabling Act which placed the whole power of the government under Hitler’s control.

With the tools of democracy, democracy was murdered and lawlessness made “legal.” Raw power ruled, and its only real goal was to destroy all other powers besides itself…
In the First months of Nazi rule, the speed and scope of what the Nazis intended and had begun executing throughout German society were staggering. Under what was called the Gleichschaltung (synchronization), the country would be thoroughly reordered along National Socialist lines. (emphasis added) No one dreamed how quickly and dramatically things would change. [2]

Hermann Goring described this reordering of society as mainly an “administrative” change. An understanding of what this “reordering” meant for the Jews would come swiftly.

• April 1 – Boycott of Jewish stores across Germany. The reason given was to stop the international press supposedly controlled by the Jews from printing lies about the Nazis.
• April 7 – Removal and prohibition of anyone of Jewish descent from holding civil service jobs. Government employees must be of Aryan stock. (Enabling Act – Aryan Paragraph.)
• April 22 – Jews were not allowed to serve as patent lawyers. Jewish doctors were prohibited from working in hospitals with state-run insurance.
• April 25 – Strict limits on the number of Jewish children that could attend public schools.
• May 6 – Laws expanded to include all honorary university professors, lecturers, and notaries.
• June – Jewish dentists and dental technicians were prohibited from working with state-run insurance institutions.
• Fall – Laws restricting non-Aryans expanded to include spouses of non-Aryans.
• September 29 – Jews banned from all entertainment and cultural activities including literature, the arts, theater, and film.
• October – Jews expelled from journalism when all newspapers were placed under Nazi control. [3]

It was another spring twelve years later that World War II ended in Europe and the gates of the death camps would swing open to reveal to the world the real meaning of Goring’s “administrative” change. The pogroms of medieval Europe and Tsarist Russia had been reincarnated and perfected in one of the most advanced societies of the early twentieth century. Germany’s organized destruction of helpless people has few equals in the history of mankind. With scientific precision coupled with administrative order, the Nazis murdered eleven million people including between five and six million Jews in the gas-chambers and crematoria of the death camps, through shootings in other parts of Europe, and by overwork and starvation. In 1901, 75% of the world’s Jews lived in Eastern Europe. A century later one-half of all Jews live in English speaking countries and 30% live in Israel. Germany’s “final solution” to the Jewish problem changed forever the map of Jewish life in Europe. [4]

The momentary euphoria, goodwill, and hopes for a more cooperative order at the end of World War II quickly melted away as the realities of the war exposed the heart of mankind and his capacity for evil. J. N. Roberts summarized the post-war search for answers as to the “why” of Nazi Germany.

In many ways, Germany had been one of the most progressive countries in Europe; the embodiment of much that was best in its civilization. That Germany should fall prey to collective derangement on this scale suggested that something had been wrong at the root of that civilization itself. The crimes of the Nazis had been carried out not in a fit of barbaric intoxication with conquest, but in a systematic, scientific controlled, bureaucratic (though often inefficient) way, about which there was little that was irrational except the appalling end which it sought. [5] (emphasis added)

The post-war world remained puzzled at Germany’s “collective derangement” given its veneer of rationality and scientific and cultural progress. But along with Germany, much of the world also worshiped the same gods of rationalism, science, materialism, secularism, and progress. Man was assumed to be basically good, but the realities of the war removed humanism’s mask of goodness to reveal the face of evil. The answer to the “why” of Nazi Germany was evil, that something that had been wrong at the root of civilization itself and which Roberts sought to identify. Evil was the source of the collective derangement, and it also resides in the heart of every man.

With few exceptions, the Nazis and their collaborators were not mere madmen as one would suppose. Rather, the whole story of the Holocaust can be summed up in one sentence. “This was done by ordinary people.” [6] Those words by Ravi Zacharias cut to the heart of the source of evil for it reveals the inescapable conclusion that there is an indelible stain upon the soul of man. In his Gospel account, Mark described the diseased heart of man.

For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man. [Mark 7:21-23. RSV]

Christians call the root of this evil original sin. It is the evil that is found within the soul of every human being that ever lived. But in the great meta-narrative of the Bible, we learn of the way for fallen man to be cleansed of that evil and mend his broken relationship with God. We find the answer in John’s Gospel: “For God so loved the world that he gave His only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” [John 3:16. RSV]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), pp. 145, 148-149.
[2] Ibid., pp. 149-150
[3] Ibid., pp. 150-151, 156-157, 160.
[4] J. M. Roberts, The New History of the World, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 954, 1150.
[5] Ibid., p. 964.
[6] Ravi Zacharias, “God, Evil, and Suffering,” Foundations of Apologetics, Vol. 10, DVD Video, (Norcross, Georgia: Ravi Zacharias Ministries International, 2007).

Is God Out of Touch with Mainstream Views?

Posted by :webmaster On : April 25, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, God's Law v. Man's Law, Homosexuality, Truth

For many in the media establishment, Easter is a great time to talk about religion, but for ABC News Easter was an opportunity to showcase the perceived decline of evangelical influence in America. One of the reasons given was Christianity’s supposed intolerance with regard to homosexuality and same-sex marriage in America. Reverend Franklin Graham, president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and son of its founder, and Cokie Roberts of ABC News were among guests on ABC’s “This Week” panel whose topic was “Are Evangelicals Out of Touch with Mainstream Views?”[1]

In response to a question from panel moderator Martha Raddatz of ABC News, Graham reiterated his strong opposition to same-sex marriage. Graham assured the audience that any gay person can go to heaven if they will repent. However, he stated that gays, like others in adultery or some other type of sin, cannot stay in their sin and be accepted by God. He said, “Franklin Graham is a sinner, and I’m no better than a gay person. I’m a sinner, but I’ve been forgiven, and I’ve turned from my sins. For any person that’s willing to repent in turn, God will forgive.”

Ms. Raddatz responded that Graham’s view appeared to be at odds with dramatic changes in the attitudes of many Americans as reflected by various polls. She pointed to a recent ABC poll that indicated 59 percent of Americans now approve of same-sex marriage and 61 percent approve of gay adoption. For those under age 30, 75 percent approve of same-sex marriage including 43 percent of evangelicals under 30.

ABC News’ Cokie Roberts suggested reasons for this change in the attitudes of Americans regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

The reason the numbers have changed so fast and so dramatically on this question of gay marriage is because everybody in America now has experience with someone who is gay. People have come out of the closet and said, ‘I am your brother. I am your sister. I am your cousin. I am your friend.’ And then they have seen these families raising children and see these loving families.[2]

Ms. Roberts’ comments and Ms. Raddatz’s recitation of the results of recent polls imply that evangelicals are wasting political capital through their opposition to gay marriage because they are out of touch with mainstream views. Ms. Raddatz’s poll numbers reflect the results of just one of the battles in the continuing secularization of America over the last 75 years. However, I strongly disagree with Ms. Roberts’ assertion that Americans’ change in attitude regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage is because Americans have come to understand and respect homosexuals and the rightness of allowing same-sex marriage. To the contrary, the change of attitudes are the result of a three-generation slide into post-Christian and post-modern worldviews in which a large number of Americans have abandoned Christianity as the standard of truth and morality and have embraced a relativistic view of truth in which the barometer of right and wrong always points in the direction of popular opinion.

The assumptive language posed in “Are Evangelicals Out of Touch with the Mainstream Views” implies the highest importance to which ABC News attaches to being in touch with mainstream views and therefore being politically relevant. Of course ABC News is an entity that feeds on ratings and therefore must seek the mainstream and determine how to be in the middle of it.

It would be interesting to hear Raddatz’ and Roberts’ response to the following question. If evangelicals are deemed to be out of touch with mainstream views, by inference could they not also say that God is out of touch with mainstream views? Of course, this is a rhetorical question, and the answer must be found in either the opinions of man or God’s word. To illustrate, we look to the biblical truth with regard to God’s condemnation of homosexuality.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth…Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own person the due penalty for their error. (emphasis added) [Romans 1: 18, 24-27. RSV]

Based on God’s view of homosexuality, it would seem that Roberts and Raddatz must also label God as being out of touch with mainstream views. But God doesn’t have a view. He is God, the great I AM, and Creator of the universe including the laws of nature and laws of human nature. God is truth, and how feeble are man’s attempts to distort that truth revealed in His creation, the biblical revelation, and His image stamped on His special creation called man.

ABC News and much of secular media continue chipping away at the Christian principles upon which the nation was founded. Thirty-five years ago Malcolm Muggeridge identified the source of the attack on Western civilization (Christendom).

Previous civilizations have been overthrown from without by the barbarian hordes. Christendom has dreamed up its own dissolution in the minds of its own intellectual elite. Our barbarians are home products, indoctrinated at the public expense, urged on by the media systematically stage by stage, diminishing Christendom, depreciating and deprecating all its values.[3] (emphasis added)

Rather than reinforcing Christian principles, morals, and manners upon which the nation was founded, the humanistic worldview of modern mass media molds public opinion by setting the agenda and influencing what people think about. From such manipulation has come a cultural shift as mass media’s humanistic worldview has ascended while the Christian worldview is marginalized and demeaned through substantial and constant attack.[4]

So what should the evangelical do in the face of a rising tide of secular humanism in America? We take our instruction from the Apostle Paul’s exhortations to Timothy.

…preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in 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 and wander into myths. As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. (emphasis added) [2 Timothy 4: 2-5. RSV]

In other words, evangelicals must evangelize whether they are in the mainstream or in the marginalized minority.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Mary Alice Parks, “This Week Panel: Are Evangelicals Out of Touch With Mainstream Views?” ABC News, April 20, 2014. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/04/this-week-panel-are-evangelicals-out-of-touch-with-mainstream-views/ (accessed April 20, 2014).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), p. 17.

[4] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods-Humanism and Christianity-The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), p. 374.

Reliance on God’s Law – Utopia or a Dangerous Thing?

Posted by :webmaster On : March 25, 2013
2

Category: Archives, God's Law v. Man's Law

On February 22, 1756, John Adams wrote in his diary his thoughts regarding the Bible as a law book. This diary entry was written about twenty years before the Declaration of Independence and about forty years before Adams became the second President of the United States.

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God…What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be. (emphasis added) [Diary entry quoted by: William J. Federer, America’s God and Country – Encyclopedia of Quotations, (Coppell, Texas: FAME Publishing, Inc., 1996), p. 7]

While a senator, President Barak Obama gave a speech in 2006 titled “Our Future and Vision for America.”

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values….I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will…Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing… (emphasis added)

It is evident that the anchor for Adams’ law was the objective truths or absolutes found in the Bible and called by various names: permanent things, universals, first principles, eternal truths, and norms. However, the anchor for President Obama’s policy making is man’s law. Man’s law is based on the humanists’ belief that all social constructions are culturally relative as they are shaped by class, gender, and ethnicity. Thus, there can be no universal truths because all viewpoints, lifestyles, and beliefs are equally valid. As a result, no man or group can claim to be infallible with regard to truth and virtue. Rather, truth is produced by the free give and take of competing claims and opinions—that is, truth can be manufactured. In the modern vernacular, Obama’s truths are anchored in moral relativism which denies the existence of an objective moral order and objective truth. Under man’s law fashioned upon a rudderless moral relativism, there can be no room for finding objective truth or judging something based on the concept of right or wrong.

Unlike our Founders it is apparent that President Obama and many of our modern-day leaders see our promise in being a secular nation and, more specifically, a secular nation that is not a Christian nation.

However, the Founders were religion specific—and the basis for their religion was the God of the ancient Hebrews and first century Christians as recorded in the Bible. It was those biblical values that the Founders would not compromise, and it was those values that became the central cultural vision of the United States.

Larry G. Johnson