Tag Archives: freedom of religion

Miscellaneous, Miscellaneous Spiritual/Legal Matters

Answer to the question: “What part of the constitution is the basis for outlawing murder?”

Leave a comment

Someone asked, on Avvo, a legal website, the following question:

“What part of the consititution is the basis for outlawing murder? am wondering if a person says they worship allah and allah says to kill gays…what is to prevent them from doing this and saying it is the freedom of their practice of religion?”

Some lawyers replied, including myself. You may view the question and answers at: https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/what-part-of-the-consititution-is-the-basis-for-ou-3079274.html.

My answer was as follows:

“Islam and true Christianity are diametrically opposed. When I say true Christianity, I am speaking of that practiced by true born again believers since the beginning of the church age as recorded in the New Testament. In order to answer your question, I believe I should give you a thumbnail sketch of how American law came to be. It was not founded upon the a religion that combines church and state (Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, etc. or atheism). It came about as a result of a spiritual warfare which raged for many hundreds of years. I would add, without explanation, that sadly, the highest man made law in America, the United States Constitution, was a blend of God’s law and man’s reasoning; I do not have time to explain that in this comment.
–
“After the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts, the Jewish religious leaders, then Rome, then the official ‘church’ of Rome formed when Constantine combined church and state, the Protestant churches establishments which came much later, viciously persecuted (imprisoned, beheaded, drowned, tortured, etc.) those labeled heretics by established churches. 50-150 million of these “heretics” were so murdered. Many of them were authentic born again believers who had formed New Testament churches. This persecution, though less intense, was continued in the American colonies. As a result of that spiritual warfare, the First Amendment to the United States Constitutions was adopted in 1791. To read this whole story, go to https://opbcbibletrust.wordpress.com/god-betrayed….
–
“Under Islam (which combines religion and state), murder of certain people is practiced because the Islamic “holy books” say this is to be done. However, the Bible does not condone the murder of people by others. Of course, civil government (man ruling over man under God) was ordained by God as was capital punishment. God ordained Gentile civil government, and the theocratic government/nation of Israel. I explain this in The Biblical Doctrine of Government. America is a Gentile nation. America chose to honor God (the only God-the God of the Bible) in many ways. One of those ways was to provide that the government punish those who intentionally kill another or others without legal justification. In America, no one has a right to kill anyone else unless justified (self-defense, defense of a third person, etc.).
–
“I understand that some Muslims, including many who now live in America, want to convert the world and actively work to promote that goal. Those Muslims did not come to America to assimilate, but for that reason mentioned in the last sentence. However, this is not a Muslim nation. This is America. I suggest that anyone is free to seek to move to a nation that more closely practices their beliefs and that doing so should be their preferred course of action.”

E. Supreme Court Religion Clause Jurisprudence

The 19th Century Supreme Court Interpretation of “Separation of Church and State”

Leave a comment

Jerald Finney
Copyright © January 14, 2012

Click here to go to links to all Chapters in Section V.

Note. This is a modified edition of Section V, Chapter 2 of God Betrayed. The author makes some controversial statements regarding not only civil court jurisprudence but also some biblical principles. An honest study of the Word of God brought him to his conclusions. He invites anyone to show him where he is wrong as to his biblical pronouncements. If anyone can do so, then he will publicly repent and recant. Likewise, if anyone finds that their presuppositions were wrong, he invites them to repent and recant. How can anyone ever hope to get his individual, family, church, and state government correct without being willing to embrace and promote new light when it comes his way?

The 19th Century Supreme Court Interpretation of “Separation of Church and State”

The religion clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or preventing the free exercise thereof.” What did the authors of this clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States mean? What was meant by “religion” and “the free exercise of religion” or “freedom of religion?” Was the First Amendment intended to create “separation of church and state?” If so, what was meant by “separation of church and state?” Many Christians have addressed this issue, and most of their debating points have been off base, as have the arguments of secularists. This author traced the history of the First Amendment in Section IV of God Betrayed which is reproduced on this website. Historically, the purpose of the First Amendment was to separate church and state (keep the federal government out of church and churches out of civil government—i.e., the meaning was that the church was not to work under, hand and hand with, or over the federal government.).

The Supreme Court, in the nineteenth century, started out reasonably – not historically or biblically – well on this issue; but in the mid-twentieth century, although not yet removing the original meaning of the First Amendment separation of church and state, the Court moved into another area adding a completely perverted twist to the meaning of “separation of church and state,” thereby turning the First Amendment religious clause into a tool that would be used to remove God from any state activity.

The nineteenth Century Court could have done much better had it gone directly to a complete and non-revised history of relevant facts and to the Bible and not to the views of the “Christian” world for its guidelines. In the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court defined “religion,” “the free exercise of religion,” “freedom of religion,” and “separation of church and state” much differently than does our modern Supreme Court. In 1879, the Court wrote in its opinion in Reynolds v. United States:

“The word ‘religion’ is not defined in the constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the [First Amendment to the United States Constitution] was adopted. The precise point of inquiry is, what is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed” (Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 162 (1879))? (Bracketed material added by author.].

According to the Court, “religion” meant “Christianity” and “freedom of religion” meant freedom to practice the one true religion, “Christianity,” or any imposter of the true religion as long as such practice did not violate or conflict with the moral or social laws of Christianity.

The Reynolds Court referred, as did the mid-twentieth century Court (See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S. Ct. 504, 91 L. Ed. 711, 1947 U.S. LEXIS 2959; 168 A.L.R. 1392 (1947)), to an obscure letter written by Thomas Jefferson. Regarding the First Amendment religion clause:

“Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: ‘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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.’ Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order” (Reynolds, 98 U.S. at 164).

According to Jefferson, the laws of government could reach actions, but not opinions. What actions could government reach? He desired that those laws should not reach, but rather should restore, the natural rights of man. And “[man] has no natural right in opposition to his social duties” (Ibid.)?

What is the origin of man’s “natural rights” and his “social duties” which cannot oppose one another? Jefferson signed the Declaration of Independence which stated, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness…. We, therefore, [appeal] to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions” (The Declaration of Independence para. 2, 32 (U.S. 1776)).  The Declaration referred to “the separate but equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them” (Ibid., para. 1).  Thus, according to Jefferson and the other signers of the Declaration of Independence, man’s “natural rights” come from God.

What defined man’s social duties? What was to tell us the meaning of good order? What actions violated social duties and subverted good order? From Reynolds one can certainly conclude that the Mormon religion, the ways of the Asiatic people, and the ways of the African people were not to be the guide America (98 U.S. at 164). Instead, social duties and good order were to be defined by looking at the laws of the northern and western nations of Europe, especially England (Ibid., pp. 164-65). In England the ecclesiastical (church) courts punished polygamy, and presided over testamentary causes and the settlement of the estates of deceased persons (Ibid., p. 165). Marriage was declared to be a “sacred obligation,” and a “civil contract … regulated by law” (Ibid. This last statement of the Court concerning marriage was flawed. Contract law is based upon enlightenment, not biblical, principles. Marriage as defined in the Bible is a covenant between God, man, and woman. Marriage, according to Enlightenment thought, is a contract between two equal people and the state; the state, not God, is alleged to be the controlling party to marriage. The contract clause—Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution—was ultimately used to reconstruct marital law, family law, criminal law, and other areas of the law including relationship of church and state according to enlightenment principles of contract law. See Section VI of God Betrayed which is published in this blog in edited form.).

What did Jefferson mean by “separation between church and state?” The Reynolds Court stated:

“’[T]o suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty. [I]t is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.’ In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what belongs to the church and what to the state” (Ibid., p. 163). [Emphasis mine.]

The Court did not correctly articulate what belongs to a church and what to the state. Sections I through IV of God Betrayed explain the jurisdictions of church and state according to the Word of God. Nonetheless, the court is correct in asserting that church and state have different jurisdictions.

The Court went on to further clarify the intended meaning of the phrase by explaining that “the scope and effect of the [First Amendment religion clause] was to deprive Congress of all legislative power over mere opinion, while leaving Congress free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order” (Ibid., p. 164). The Court referred to Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association as quoted above. They could have reinforced this with the Virginia Act for Religious Liberty, drafted by Jefferson and made law in Virginia in 1786 (quoted on pages 281-282 of God Betrayed which is reproduced on this website in the chapter entitled “To Virginia”), with James Madison’s famous “Memorial and Remonstrance” (quoted on pages 278-279 of God Betrayed and reproduced on this website in the chapter entitled “To Virginia”), and with other historical facts.

Reynolds held that laws criminalizing polygamy did not violate the First Amendment even though the offender practiced polygamy because of his religious beliefs (Ibid.).  The Court said that the act of polygamy violated social duties and subverted good order (Ibid., pp. 164-167). True enough, but still not proper authority to criminalize polygamy, since the Bible made clear that God intends marriage to be under Him only, not under the state.

Mr. Justice Field, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, more clearly explained why, according to the Court, bigamy and polygamy are actions which violate social duties and subvert good order and why laws against bigamy and polygamy are constitutional:

“Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society and receive more general or more deserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community. To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind. If they are crimes, then to teach, advise and counsel their practice is to aid in their commission, and such teaching and counseling are themselves criminal and proper subjects of punishment, as aiding and abetting crime are in all other cases.
     “The term ‘religion’ has reference to one’s views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will. The first amendment to the Constitution, in declaring that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or forbidding the free exercise thereof, was intended to allow every one under the jurisdiction of the United States to entertain such notions respecting his relations to his Maker and the duties they impose as may be approved by his judgment and conscience, and to exhibit his sentiments in such form of worship as he may think proper, not injurious to the equal rights of others, and to prohibit legislation for the support of any religious tenets, or the modes of worship of any sect. The oppressive measures adopted, and the cruelties and punishments inflicted by the governments of Europe for many ages, to compel parties to conform, in their religious beliefs and modes of worship, to the views of the most numerous sect, and the folly of attempting in that way to control the mental operations of persons, and enforce an outward conformity to a prescribed standard, led to the adoption of the amendment in question (The Court failed to point out that the spiritual atrocities were continued in the colonies, in the conflict between the established churches and the dissenters.).  It was never intended or supposed that the amendment could be invoked as a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order and morals of society. With man’s relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by  him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with. However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislation. There have been sects which denied as a part of their religious tenets that there should be any marriage tie, and advocated promiscuous intercourse of the sexes as prompted by the passions of its members. And history discloses the fact that the necessity of human sacrifices, on special occasions, has been a tenet of many sects. Should a sect of either of these kinds ever find its way into this country, swift punishment would follow the carrying into effect of its doctrines, and no heed would be given to the pretense that, as religious beliefs, their supporters could be protected in their exercise by the Constitution of the United States. Probably never before in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried out without hindrance…” (Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 341-43, 345 (1890). In Davis, a man was convicted of a crime under Idaho law and filed a writ of habeas corpus claiming that the law under which he was convicted violated the First Amendment “free exercise of religion” clause. The law prohibited one who belonged to a church organization that holds or teaches bigamy and polygamy as a doctrine of the church from voting or holding office.). [Emphasis mine].
“Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is, nevertheless, in most civilized nations a civil contract [The Court was wrong in pronouncing that marriage is a civil contract. Section VI of God Betrayed deals with the fallacy that marriage is a civil contract. Although polygamy is contrary to the will of God, where does the Bible teach that polygamy should be subject to criminal sanctions?], and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal” (Ibid., pp. 343-344. Although one can argue as to whether the Bible prescribes a criminal penalty for bigamy, it is certain that God’s Word commands one husband with only one wife.).
“Whilst legislation for the establishment of religion is forbidden, and its free exercise permitted, it does not follow that everything which may be so called can be tolerated. Crime is not the less odious because sanctioned by what any particular sect may designate as religion” (Ibid., p. 345).
     “Certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement” (Ibid., citing Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45. The court is right that marriage and family are important to the well-being of a nation. But, as has been pointed out, the God-given goal of a nation should be the glory of God. If the glory of God is the goal, correct marital and familial principles will follow. Nowhere in Scripture can one infer that the civil government has the authority to legislate and enforce laws dealing with marriage and familial relationships. A civil government does have the God-given authority to criminalize sexual sins which include sodomy, fornication, and adultery.).

To summarize what the Court said, the First Amendment religion clause gave us freedom of religion, freedom of conscience (Ibid., p. 342).  It separated church and state. However, when an act violated the criminal laws of the nation, the perpetrator was to be punished even if the act were in conformity with the beliefs of his sect (Ibid., pp. 341-347).  The Court declared that the criminal laws of this nation were founded on alleged “Christian” (not biblical) principles. In other words, the Court incorrectly stated that the United States looked to God for its principles (Ibid.). The Court made this clear although it did not use these exact words. For example, on page 343 of the opinion the Court said, “Probably never before in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried out without hindrance.” Notice that the Court went to the views of the “Christian” world, not to the Word of God to determine the issues addressed. In other words, the Court got its principles from rules made by church-state combinations, not from the Bible. The sect which the Court referred to was the Mormon “church” and the crime designated as a practice of a sect or “religion” was polygamy and bigamy (Ibid., pp. 334-335).  Thus, according to the Court, the First Amendment gave the Mormon “church” the right to exist in America (Ibid., p. 342);  the First Amendment gave those who belonged to the Mormon “church” the right to practice what was designated by their “church” as “religion” (Ibid.); but the First Amendment did not give those who belonged to the Mormon “church” the right to put into practice the duties imposed by their sect when those duties were recognized by the general consent of the Christian world as proper matters for prohibitory legislation (Ibid., p. 343).

The Court spoke of “Maker,” of “acts recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation,” and of “morals of a [nation’s people]” (Ibid. pp. 342-343). As correctly declared by the Court, the United States of America got its guidelines for what was criminal and for what is moral and what is immoral from looking at the “Christian world,” not by looking at the Bible. Thus, although the jurisprudence purported to be Christian, it was polluted to a degree (Ibid. pp. 341-345), since the rules the Court looked at were made by “churches” working with, over, or under the state. As is stated in these teachings, when the holy is combined with the unholy, the unholy always corrupts the holy (the holy never purifies the unholy). Bigamy was practiced by men in Israel as recorded in the Old Testament. However, no law under God in the theocracy of Israel was ever passed to criminalize bigamy. Of course the Bible teaches one man and one wife under God; but nowhere (Old and New Testament) does the Bible teach that either bigamy or polygamy, although sin in God’s eyes, should be criminalized. All crimes are also sins, but not all sins are to be criminalized according to the Word of God.

In Rector, Etc., of Holy Trinity Church: v. United States in 1892, the court stated a somewhat flawed history of Christianity within the United States:

“[The … charters of the original colonies, the Mayflower Compact, governing documents of early colonies, the Declaration of Independence, the constitutions of the various states, and the Constitution of the United States] are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. [They declare that this is a Christian nation]. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Com. 11 Serg & R 394, 400, ‘It was decided that, Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; … not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.’ [The Court was not entirely accurate in its historical assessment.] And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns 290, 294, 295, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as chief justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said: ‘The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order…. The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors.’ And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard’s Ex’rs, 2 How. 127, 198, this court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provision for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: ‘It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.’
“If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. [The laws, business, customs, and society of America, including the Constitution, were not entirely Christian but a blend of Christian and other thought.] Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, ‘In the name of God, amen;’ the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation” (Rector, Etc., of Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 at 471-472, 12 S. Ct. 511 at 516 (1892)). [Emphasis mine. Bracketed sentence added by this author. Christopher Columbus was a Catholic, and regardless of his declarations that his journey to the New World was inspired by God, Catholicism in the part of the New World dominated by that religion has produced entirely different and substantially inferior consequences than those seen in America prior to the denunciation of God by the American government.]

The majority of the justices at that time were Christians or at least men who respected Christianity. However, they obviously were weak spiritually since they relied upon man’s reasoning instead of the Word of God. They handed down opinions which attempted to honor God. Even though the Church of the Holy Trinity, the plaintiff in the case, was a corporation and therefore out of the perfect will of God, the Court still recognized some biblical principles in its decision. Obviously, they did not know and understand the true history of the First Amendment. They were influenced more by the theology of churches which had historically taught and practiced union of church and state than they were by historic Baptist (biblical) theology which had inspired men to stand against church-state establishments in both the Old World and in the American colonies; and consequently to be persecuted for (including being burned at the stake, drowned, drawn and quartered, drowned, buried alive, etc.) for their stand which included a stand for separation of church and state. Sadly, neither no justices (including Supreme Court Justices), nor the lawyers who argued to them, ever expressed the facts about the true foundation of the First Amendment.

The suit in Holy Trinity Church arose because the church, a corporation, hired an Englishman to serve as pastor. A federal law made it unlawful for “any person, company, partnership, or corporation” to bring in an immigrant into the United States “under contract or agreement” “to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States, its Territories, or the District of Columbia” (Ibid., p. 458, 12 S. Ct. at 511).

The Court noted that “a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers” and that “[t]he reason of the law in such cases should prevail over its letter” (Ibid., p. 459, 461, 12 S. Ct. at 512). The Court then stated, in examining the intent of the legislature in making the law:

“Obviously the thought expressed in this reaches only to the work of the manual laborer, as distinguished from that of the professional man. No one reading such a title would suppose that Congress had in its mind any purpose of staying the coming into this country of ministers of the gospel, or, indeed, of any class whose toil is that of the brain. The common understanding of the terms labor and laborers does not include preaching and preachers; and it is to be assumed that words and phrases are used in their ordinary meaning. So whatever of light is thrown upon the statute by the language of the title indicates an exclusion from its penal provisions of all contracts for the employment of ministers, rectors and pastors” (Ibid., p. 463, 12 S. Ct. at 513).

The Court further examined the intent of the statute, then stated:

“But beyond all these matters no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true” (Ibid., p. 465, 12 S. Ct. at 514).

From there, the Court proceeded to give a flawed history of the nation concluding that this is a Christian nation.

Many of the quotations in Holy Trinity Church use the word “religion” in referring to Christianity. The opinion traces the Christian heritage of America, although the Court failed to point out the theological conflict that resulted in the First Amendment (Ibid., pp. 465-470, 12 S. Ct. at 514-516).  Christianity and religion were synonymous to the majority of Americans, including the majority on the Supreme Court. This had been so universally accepted as truth that the courts had seldom addressed it (Ibid., p. 470, 12 S. Ct. at 516)!

From God’s perspective as reflected in His Word, the reasoning in even these nineteenth century opinions was flawed. For example, the Court referred to Jefferson’s obscure letter to the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, Jefferson used deistic terms and enlightenment reasoning. He referred to “restoring man to all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties.” The Court referred to “the laws of all civilized and Christian countries” and not to the Bible or to God and His principles. The history given was definitely modified and revised to a degree. Although the reasoning was far better overall than that of the Court in the mid-twentieth century and thereafter—which would successfully attempt to remove God from all public affairs—it was still a compromise in God’s eyes. The holy had been mixed with the unholy, and the holy was thereby corrupted and on its way out.

A time would come during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries when the majority on the Court, and the majority of Americans, were not born-again Christians. When that happened, the failure of the Constitution to declare the sovereignty of God and the proper goal for the nation–the glory of God—and the inclusion of enlightenment principles in the Constitution (and the Declaration of Independence) would make the undermining of Christian values and the removal of the nation from “under God” much easier.

John Leland: Colonial Baptist Preacher and Patriot

ON SABBATICAL LAWS

Leave a comment

An essay on pages 440-446 of The Writings of John Leland
Edited by L.F. Greene, ARNO PRESS & THE NEW YOUR TIMES, New  York, 1969,
Reprinted 2010 by Local Church Bible Publishers, www.LocalChurchBiblePublishers.com

The Mosaic institution, which formed the tribes into a theocracy, was very different from the government of any other nation, and from the government of Gospel churches.

The Israelites had no legislature, but received their laws from Jehovah; they had no executive, God was their king. Judges they had, but no salaries provided for them; of course their civil list did not cost them a cent per annum.

Exclusive of their “divers washings and carnal ordinances,” which were typical of good things, they had many laws to regulate   them as a body politic, peculiarly adapted to their circumstances, and binding on no other nation. Their laws for trying jealousy by bitter water; for deciding the cause between the man-slayer and avenger of blood, at the gates of the cities of refuge; against taking usury; to oblige a man to marry the widow of his deceased brother; to release the lands at the jubilee, etc., no other nation has seen cause to adopt, nor felt themselves bound to obey. The incompleteness of the political part of the Mosaic code to govern other nations by, requires no other proof, but just to observe, that the people were forbidden to have commerce with other nations, of course had no commercial laws. Any laws, therefore, which the Jews had to enforce the observance of the Sabbath, or punish the Sabbath-breaker, give no grounds to Christians to exercise like force. The king of Israel gave that people their laws and orders, but Christ has given laws for the regulation of Christianity. Now, if there be any account in the New Testament, that Jesus called upon the rulers of state, to   make and enforce laws, to oblige the people to keep the first day of the week holy, and fine or punish them if they did not; such an account would be direct in point, but such an account we have not.

It has been noticed, in a foregoing page, that the evidence was so clear, that the first Christians assembled in course on the first day of the week, that it hardly admitted of a doubt, and the evidence is about as clear, that it was done voluntarily, as a matter of prudence, without any divine command; hence a disregard of the day was not esteemed a matter of offense. In Galatians, iv., 10, 11, Paul reproves the Galatians for observing days, months, times and years, as the Jews did; for Jewish times, no doubt, are intended. But in Romans, xiv., 5, a day is spoken of, which some regarded, and some regarded not, but none of them were reproved by Paul. It is probable the day here spoken of was the Lord’s day, for if it had been a ceremonial day of the Jews, he would have reproved them for regarding it, as he did the Galatians; but, in the case before us, a regard, or disregard to the day, was not to be a cause of judging and setting at nought a brother, whom the Lord accepted. If, then, a disregard to the Lord’s day was not censurable by the church, can we possibly suppose that it ought to be punished by the state?

For the first eighteen centuries of time, there was no government among men but patriarchal, which took its rise in nature. Next, a more extensive government was formed, by mutual agreement, (Genesis xi., 3, 4,) but, by the address of an ambitious hunter, the government was soon turned into a kingdom. The government of the tribes of Israel was a theocracy (from Theos, God,) because they received all their laws from God. The government of the Christian church is from heaven, and not from men.

Among the nations of the world in general, that government which does not rise in compact, is usurpation and tyranny. When men associate, it is for specific purposes, viz., to protect life, liberty and property, and not to prepare them for heaven. Souls and conscience are inalienable. The gracious an ungracious, all belong to the body politic, and are equally eligible to posts of authority. The work of the legislature is to make laws for the security of life, liberty and property, and leave religion to the consciences of individuals. If the sacred code, in the New Testament, is not sufficient to govern Christians in all their religious affairs, either the wisdom of goodness of Christ is deficient.

Much confusion arises in government, when sins and crimes are blended together. Every state crime is a moral evil or sin, (provided the laws of state are legitimate,) but every sin is not a crime to be punished by law. Malice, guile, hypocrisy, envy, pride, impenitence, unbelief, etc., are sins, but not crimes. Suppose, then, that a disregard of the first day of the week is a sin as flagrant as enmity, bigotry or ill-will, yet it is not a crime to be punished by law; for I would here request an instance where Jesus, or the inspired apostles, ever called on the civil rulers to punish Sabbath breakers, or those who disregarded the first day of the week. If there is such an instance, let it be pointed to; but, if not, let clamor cease. When God, by Moses, gave law to the tribes, they had no king, nor any thing that looked like one, but the Almighty, knowing what would take place about four hundred and fifty years afterwards, gave them the character and administration of a king: (Deuteronomy xvii., 14, 20).

When Christianity was first set up in the world, it was small. The power of making laws was in the hands of the enemies of Christianity. Laws to guard the Christian religion could not have been expected, but Christ knew what would come. He knew that about three hundred years thereafter Christianity would rise triumph and; why did he not then give some precept, at least some small thing, that when Christianity should become so general, that then the rulers of state should make laws to establish Christianity, and force the observance of the first day of the week? We look in vain to find any thing like it in the New Testament, and it is generally confessed, that when the event did take place—when Constantine the Great established Christianity in the empire, and forced an observance of the first day of the week, Christianity was disrobed of her virgin beauty, and prostituted to the unhallowed principle of state policy, where it has remained in a criminal commerce until the present moment.

Men of little reading, and less thought, conclude, that if there is no law of state to force the observance of the Sabbath, (for so they name the first day of the week,) it would entirely run out, and not be regarded at all. Why did it not then run out in the three first centuries? How came it to be regarded all that time as purely as it has ever been since? There were no sabbatical laws during that period. Why has it not run out in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York? They have no holy laws in those states, and yet the Sabbath, so called, is not run out, but meeting-houses and public worship in those states are not inferior to those of New England. Those states abound with Quakers, who never thank a legislature for making religious laws, and yet they keep the first day of the week as regularly as the Presbyterians, and the fifth day of the week beside.

The Jews, and some of the Christians, would keep the seventh day—most of the Christians would keep Sunday—the Turks would hallow Friday—infidels no day. Shall that sect, which is most numerous and ambitious, direct the scepter of government to interpose, and force all to submit to one standard, and fine, punish and burn non-conformists? Such has been the course of things, it must be confessed, but does not human nature shudder at the thought, and the spirit of Christianity flee from the sight! Let each sect enjoy their own rights and freedom, in respect of the God whom they wish to adore, the days on which they would pay that adoration, and the modes of performing it. If one sect has the liberty of worshipping whom, when and as they please, why should that sect wish to force other sects to worship whom, when and as they would not?

Legal force is not the armor with which the Captain of our salvation clothes the soldiers of the cross. An honest appeal to the reasons and judgments of men, is all the force that Christians should use to induce others to believe in and worship God as they themselves do. All the punishment that pious Christians inflict on the irreligious, is pity, forgiveness, and prayer, unless the irreligious man breaks out into overt acts, in which case he is to be punished according to his crime. If labor or amusements, on the first day of the week, may be considered as the foulest sins, yet they were no crimes to be punished by law, for the first three hundred years after Christi, nor are they, at this time, crimes in several of the states in our country, and, if laws were fixed as they should be, they would not be crimes any where. If those who keep the first day of the week, in remembrance of the resurrection of Christ, believe themselves to be right, (as they have cause to,*) let them “beseech others, by the mercies of God, to present their bodies a living sacrifice to God, which is a reasonable service,” (Romans, xii, 1,) and not make use of legal force to do it, which will only prejudice others against the day and against themselves.

Where Jews (of which there are eight millions in existence) and seventhdayrian Christians reside, they must either sacrifice conscience, or lose a day in each week. The majority of Christians in our country keep the first day of the week; but if there was a majority who kept the seventh day, and should oblige all others to regard the day, would those who now make the law and plead for its utility, bear the privation of one-seventh part of their labor, or change their day? If they did the first, they would justly complain of partial oppression—if the last, discover the rottenness of their consciences.

It has been observed before, that government should guarantee the rights of conscience to all; consequently if an individual or an assembly should be interrupted by assault, on Sunday, Monday, or any other day or night, either at the meeting-house, a private house, market, field or grove, where he or they should be conscientiously paying devotion to God, the law ought to be open, as it is, to punish the assailants, as disturbers of the peace; for the design of the law is, to punish him who works ill to his neighbor. This law is sufficient for all, every day of the week. It is no assault upon one man’s right for another to refuse to unite with him in his devotion. Those who keep the first day of the week, will work in their fields and travel roads, where Jews assemble in their synagogues, and sevendayrians meet in their meeting-houses on Saturday, and never suspect that they are interrupting them in their worship; why, then, should it be looked upon an interruption for sevendayrians, or those who regard no day, to work in the field or drive their team in the road upon the first day? Yet, in many places, tything-men, or wardens, are chosen as legal officers to prevent labor and recreation on the first day of the week. When I see men turn their backs upon public worship, and pursue their labor or recreation in preference to the service of God, either on Sunday or on any other day, my heart beats in poetic strains,

                         “O might they at last, with sorrow return,
The pleasures to taste, for which they were born,
The Saviour receiving, the happiness prove
The joy of believing, the heaven of love.”

Or breaks out in the language of the Hebrew prophet, “Oh that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end!” Or vents itself in the words of Paul, “I pray you in Christ’s stead, be you reconciled to God.”

But when I see a man with the insignia of his office, arrest a fellow-man for non-attendance on worship, or labor or amusement on Sunday, it strains every fibre of my soul. Who that ever read the New Testament, which describes the meekness, patience, forbearance and sufferings of the first Christians, would ever have expected to see those who call themselves Christians, avail themselves of such weapons to suppress vice and support Christian morality? The spirit seems to be the same that influenced Peter to draw his sword and cut off the ear of one who did not reverence Christ; or, like that which stimulated James and John to command fire to come down from heaven and consume those who would not receive the blessed Saviour. The first was ordered to put up his sword; and the last were rebuked, with “ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.” It reminds me on an instance which took place with one of Burgoyne’s men, who professed to be a zealous Christian. The man, hearing an American speak irreverently of religion, exclaimed, “How I hate him—I will kill him, because he does not love my blessed Jesus.” About two centuries past, the spirit of witchcraft and witchburning ran through a considerable part of the world, like a raging plague. The rulers used to reason thus: “God will burn wizards and witches in the next world, and we who are God’s representatives, must burn them in this world.” But is is though that the following reasoning would have been better: “God is merciful to the poor, deluded creatures, and lets them live, and we will imitate him.” So in regard to those improperly called Sabbath breakers. If they commit overt acts—if they assault the life, liberty or property of any man, let them be punished by law. But if their only error is not worshipping where, when, and as you do, your only weapon is fair reasoning with them. If God lets them live, though in disregard of Sunday solemnities, let not man kill them.

But how must a tything-man feel? The day he conceives to be holy: no civil or economical business must be done on the sacred day; devotion must employ his time and his thoughts; and yet his office is civil; he receives his authority from the acts of the legislature, and not from the acts of the apostles, and his oath obliges him to profane the day which he conceives to be holy, by performing civil actions, for he has no authority to officiate, except on the time which is holy. When he rises on Sunday morning, instead of having his mind disentangled from earthly things, he is watching the fields and the roads; when going to meeting, instead of watching to prepare his heart for the solemnities of the day, he is watching how others behave; when at meeting, his eyes and his ears, which should be open alone to God, and to his word, are constantly looking and harking to prevent the errors of others. And thus, by law, he is obliged to do evil that good may come. However others may seek to regulate religious societies by law and by force, to me a man cannot give greater evidence that he is ignorant of the precepts and destitute of the spirit of Christianity, than by calling the aid of the civil arm to legalize religious days and modes, and punish those who will not submit.

I shall close this part of the subject, with a few reflections on some late events. When the British, (who are called the bulwark of religion,) landed near Saybrook, it was Sunday. The good people of Connecticut would not assemble to drive them off, because it was holy time, until the enemy had burnt the shipping at Pettipague. The God whom they served did not protect them from the depredations of the old “Bulwark.” But on Lake Champlain, the “Bulwark” attacked McDonough on Sunday. McDonough solemnly prayed for success, and then fought with astonishing bravery. The signal victory which he obtained over the “Bulwark,” together with what was achieved by the land forces, under General Macomb, have met with the thanks and rewards of more states than one. I have not yet heard, however, whether the pious apathy of Connecticut, or the profane heroism of the northern fleet and army, meets with the most applause from those who conceive Sunday to be holy time. It is highly probable, however, that there were no tything-men aboard McDonough’s fleet.

The public assembling of Christians for religious worship, is certainly appointed in the New Testament by precept, and abundantly by example. And, as has been noticed, the evidence is nearly conclusive, that the first Christians generally assembled on the first day of the week, not with a view that it was of moral obligation—not in obedience to the fourth command of the Decalogue, which enjoined the observance and rest of the seventh day—nor in obedience to any command given them by Christ, but voluntarily, as a prudential thing, to perpetuate the event of Christ’s resurrection. Their public assembling, however, was not confined to the first day of the week, but daily, in the temple and other places, both day and night, as opportunity served, they assembled for Christian worship. There were some among them, who did not discover any advantages in their assembling on the first day more than on any other day, and, as the day was not divinely appointed, those who regarded it, did not judge and set at nought those who regarded it not, but left every man to be fully persuaded in his own mind.

________________________

SUMMARY

1. God, for once, rested on the seventh day.

2. No proof that God commanded men to rest on the seventh day during the patriarchal age.

3. About two thousand four hundred years after creation, the holy Sabbath was enjoined on the tribes of Israel.

4. The fourth commandment was not moral, but absolute.

5 The Sabbath was not a day of public worship, but of rest.

6. After the return of the Jews from Babylon, of their own accord they built synagogues, and assembled in them every Sabbath, to read and hear the law of Moses and the prophets, for which they had no command, and received no reproof.

7. The Gentiles were never reproved for Sabbath-breaking.

8. The first day of the week was never appointed by Christ, to be kept different from other days.

9. Proof, nearly conclusive, that the first Christians paid particular attention to the first day of the week; those who did not regard the day, were not judged and set at nought by those who regarded it.

10. The observance of the first day of the week, perpetuates the resurrection of Christ.

11. The appointment of religious days, no article of legislation.

12. The observance of the first day of the week was never enforced by law until the reign of Constantine, in the beginning of the fourth century.

13. Tythin-men are obliged, by their oaths, to profane the time which they conceive to be holy.

14. The public assembling of Christians for religious worship, enjoined by New Testament precept, and abundant examples.

Audio Teaching: "Separation of Church and State"

History of the First Amendment

Leave a comment

Jerald Finney
© October, 2009

Do you know the history of how America got her First Amendment which gives Americans freedom of religion, press, speech, assembly, and the right to petition their government for a redress of grievances? If not, you can learn that history by listening to the following audio teachings. You can learn what happened in the colonies between the time of the arrival of the Pilgrims, Puritans, and others that led to the ratification of the First Amendment. You will learn what Baptists as opposed to Protestants such as the Pilgrims, Puritans, and Anglicans believed about the issue of separation of church and state. You will learn of the theological warfare that went on in the colonies that led to the First Amendment. Every American, and especially every Christian, should know this history.

This blog is made up of the edited radio broadcasts of Jerald Finney which follow the outline of Section IV of God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application (Ordering information on this and other books is on the “Books” page of churchandstatelaw.com). The broadcasts are an edited version of God Betrayed.

To play, just click the link. To download, right click link and then left click “Save link as.”

I. Introduction to “History of the First Amendment” Introduction (20 min. 44. sec).

II. The Light Begins to shine The Light Begins to Shine (22 min. 26 sec. Includes introductory song, remarks, and prayer).

III. The Pilgrims and Puritans in Massachusetts  (62 min.).

IV. The Baptists in Rhode Island (63 min. 14 sec.).

V. The Separates and the Baptists in New England (45 min. 42 sec.).

VI. From New England to the South (14 min. 36 sec.).

VII. To Virginia (70 min. 6 sec.).

VIII. To the new nation (10 min. 43 sec.).

IX. Conclusion of “The History of the First Amendment” (3 min. 17 sec.).

End

For His Glory,
Jerald Finney
Christian and practicing attorney

Audio Teaching: "Separation of Church and State"

Supreme Court Religion Clause Jurisprudence

Leave a comment

Jerald Finney
© October, 2009

Do you know how the Supreme Court has gone about removing God from practically all civil government matters? Don’t feel bad if you don’t know the answer to that question because most Christians in America have not had time to do the intense study required to understand this issue. If you are interested in knowing the answer, the following audio teaching will give you a basic understanding of the history of Supreme Court religion clause jurisprudence.

To play, just click the link. To download, right click link and then left click “Save link as.”

Supreme Court religion clause jurisprudence (Abbreviated audio lecture)(Opening song and prayer are 4 min. 41 sec. and the total length of the audio is 34 min. 20 sec.): Supreme Court Religion Clause Jurisprudence

Even though the Supreme Court has used the religion clause and the term “separation of church and state” to remove God and create a pluralistic nation, the Court still recognizes the original meaning of the clause. Churches can still choose to operate under God only and be in line with the First Amendment and the Supreme Court interpretation of the Amendment. In other words, churches can, without violating man’s law and/or being persecuted, choose not to become legal entities such incorporate, become corporations sole or unincorporated associations and get the 501(c)(3) tax exemption. In other words, they can choose to remain “First Amendment” churches organized according to the principles of the New Testament without being persecuted.

Should you desire a more in depth study of this issue, the complete written studies are now posted on this website at The Supreme Court Reinterprets the First Amendment and Removes God (from practically all civil government matters). Or you may go to Order information, free PDF, and free online version page for books by Jerald Finney for access to all books by Jerald Finney including God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application. The complete study is in Section V of that book.

For His Glory,
Jerald Finney
Christian and practicing attorney

Miscellaneous

An answer to an article entitled “Dechristianizing America Rampage: Part Four”

Leave a comment

Jerald Finney
Copyright © September, 2009

Let me preface this article by saying that I believe God desires America and every Gentile nation to operate under Him and His principles (I explain this fully in the book mentioned below). In order for a nation to so operate, she must be led by knowledgeable, active Christians who walk in the Spirit according to wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. Most Christians in America have not so walked. As a result, our individuals, families, and then churches fell, followed by our nation.

The steps in the downfall of any nation are religious apostasy, moral awfulness, and political anarchy. America is well into the third stage. The blame belongs to pastors, Christians, and churches, not to the lost. The lost cannot get things right. Likewise, carnal, baby, or misled Christians cannot get things right.

As many of you know, I have many times forwarded the Wake-Up Herald because of the tremendous insights or information imparted therein.   However, I take strong issue with much of what is in this issue of the Wake-Up Herald (see below). Men like R. J. Rushdooney, Gary Demar, Gary North and other “dominion theologists” have led American Christians down the wrong path for many years.

Since American Christians have followed and promoted lies for many years, America has gone downhill. However, and more importantly, American churches have sunk deeper into heresy, many into apostasy, with each passing year. An army of Christians, following incorrect biblical teachings such as those of Rushdooney, have led the way. They have fought to bring America back to God, but they have fought without true knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. I believe that Satan is very pleased with the efforts of the vast majority of Christians in America.

The leaders of the movement – as well as many of the followers – for the most part, have been following the lie that the church and state working together will bring peace and unity to America and to the earth and thereby will usher in the kingdom of heaven to the earth. Of course, most of those Christians who have been working for this goal have no idea of what they are doing – they are just doing because they truly want to serve God. Sadly, they have not put on the whole armor of God and they are working in the flesh rather than in the Spirit with knowledge, wisdom, and understanding.

R.J. Rushdooney as with all dominion theologists, has incorrectly divided Scripture concerning the issues of church and state or civil government. I have covered the biblical teachings on government, church, and separation of church and state as well as the American application thereof, in God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles  and the American Application. That book, and others I and others have written, may be ordered from the “Books” page of churchandstatelaw.com. Just as one cannot understand Rushdooney’s statements without a complete understanding of his church-state theology, I cannot counter Rushdooney’s absurd statements quoted below in a short article, but the truth is presented in God Betrayed and also on a radio broadcast (with less detail than the book) I am now doing (see the next paragraph).

I have also prepared broadcasts that follow the outline of God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles  and the American Application. Those may be listened to by going to the “Audio Series on God Betrayed” page of this website. These broadcasts systematically analyze the subject of “Separation of church and state: the biblical principles and the American application.” Section IV of the series gives the true history of the First Amendment, not the inaccurate history presented by dominion theologists and blindly followed by many premillennialists and others. I give hard facts that cannot be denied; facts that most Christians have never read or heard.

Despite Jesus’ urging, the Pharisees and Sadducees refused to look at the evidence – including the historical evidence, facts, and history – in the Scriptures that would have proven to them that Jesus was the Messiah. Most modern day “Bible believing Christians” likewise have their eyes closed to true biblical teaching (concerning history, law, and theology), as well as the application of those and also history, law, and the application of Bible teaching in America.

Before we can get America straightened out, Christians must get their churches straightened out in every way. In order to straighten our churches out, individual Christians, families, and churches themselves must begin to walk in the Spirit according to knowledge, wisdom, and understanding  in all the principles in the Word of God. One cannot hope to get America straightened out without first getting themselves, their families, and their churches in line with the Word of God.

God has called me to the ministry of helping churches who love the Lord and want to to please Him by operating according to New Testament principles instead of according to the principles for the Jewish religion laid out in the Old Testament. Most American churches have chosen to dishonor God by becoming state religious organizations through incorporation, corporation sole, unincorporated association, 501c3, etc. Many of those who have tried to honor God in this area are dishonoring Him in other ways. Ignorance (many times wilful), fear, pride, and greed dominate most of our Bible-believing churches.

I am involved with this issue because God called me into this ministry. I could be living a much quieter and materially richer life if I discarded the knowledge, understanding, and wisdom God has revealed to me through intense study over the last few years. However, such a life would not be peaceful since I would be refusing to serve my Savior according to His leading.

If those of you who have been following the same lies I followed for many years choose to continue in your futile efforts to return to the status of a nation under God, keep working. Churches, as they continue to operate in a manner displeasing to our Lord, will continue to sink deeper into heresy and apostasy, the number of people saved as a percentage will continue to decrease, churches will continue to become more dead spiritually, and America will continue to decline as it has for many years in spite of all the efforts of well-meaning “Christians.”

The following verse, although directly addressing the Jews, applies (although not perhaps to their salvation):  “For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge” Romans 10:2.

After we as Christians get ourselves and our churches straightened out, then maybe we can make a difference in America; that is, if it is not too late for America.

END

From: “Herbap@aol.com” <Herbap@aol.com>
To: Herbap@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2009 11:08:35 AM
Subject: Dechristianizing America – Part Four — The Wake-Up Herald

The Wake-Up Herald

And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. Romans 13:11-14

________________________________________________________________

Robert McCurry, Editor & Publisher
September 1, 2009

______________________________________________________________________

Dechristianizing America Rampage
Part Four

De`chris´tian`ize v. t. To turn from, or divest of, Christianity.
ram·page (rmpj) n: A course of violent, frenzied behavior or action.

“I am asking you to play your part, … to join in remaking this nation.” –Barack Obama In a Jan. 19, 2009, pre-inaugural speech. The Irish Examiner.com

Funny, isn’t it? If Christians talk about reconstructing America , putting all things under Christ, or exercising dominion, the media pundits panic and you hear all sorts of hysteria about “theocracy” and “Christian Taliban.” But when God-rejecting leftists talk about “remaking America,” and actually set about doing it—well, then it’s only “hope and change.”

The totalitarian reconstruction of America proceeds at a dizzying pace. It is, in Robert Knight’s words, “the rapid, brick-by-brick installation of a radical government-directed social order that will have dangerous implications now and for generations to come”. And, “Before our very eyes we are seeing government become Provider, Judge, and Possessor of All Authority. In short, government is becoming a secular god to which all will be called to kneel—or face sanctions”.

Robert Knight, Fighting for America ’s Soul: How Sweeping Change Threatens Our Nation, pp 9, 10.

“Tyranny … was in its origin secularism, a rule founded on man-made laws,” R. J. Rushdoony wrote. “This secularism is the religion of humanity, the most oppressive, dangerous, and persecuting of all cults, because it has no law beyond itself as a check to its lust for power.” ~The Nature of the American System ( Vallecito , CA : Ross House Books, 2001 ed.), 73.

Yes, we are talking about tyranny—an unprecedented, all-fronts campaign to transform the United States from a constitutional republic of free men and women into a socialist anthill controlled by an all-powerful, all-intrusive federal government. This has been in the works for a long time; but since the inauguration of Barack Obama, it has been raised to a whole new level of intensity. Robert Knight, Ibid

The Basic Problem

“What then is the basic problem? Not only is every Church a religious institution, but every state or social order is a religious establishment. Every state is a law order, and every law order represents an enacted morality, with procedures for the enforcement of that morality. Every morality represents a form of theological order, i.e., is an aspect and expression of religion. The church thus is not the only religious institution; the state is also a religious institution….The real issue is not between church and state, but is simply this; the state as a religious establishment has progressively disestablished Christianity as its law foundation, and, while professing neutrality, has in fact established humanism as the religion of the state.

When the religion of a people changes, its laws inevitably reflect that change and conform themselves to the new faith and the new morality. There has been deception on the part of the courts, by their profession of religious neutrality, as they have substituted one religion for another, humanism for Christianity. The basic reason, however, has been the theological collapse of the churches, and this has been true of all of them….This theological collapse led to the untenable belief in religious neutralism and to the surrender of Christian schools for statist education.

As a result humanism became the established religion of state and school, and, by infiltration, of the churches as well….Christianity is quite logically progressively excluded from state, school, and church and has a weak and scarcely tenable position in modern life. It (Christianity) probably lacks extensive and organized persecution in most countries because orthodox Christianity has become progressively weaker and less and less relevant.”

R. J. Rushdoony, Christianity & The State – pg.7-8

Anti-Christian Worldview

It is a worldview that is anti-Christian to the core. “When man, instead of God, becomes the measure of all things,” Knight says, “man will be worshipped at the same time as human life is cheapened … other human beings, such as unborn babies, can be seen as impediments to personal happiness.”

If there is no God, no judgment, no life after death, there remains only the here and now, with each one of us in existential isolation; and whatever you’re going to get, you’d better get it now. But ultimately the only ones who profit are the rulers of the state.

“The reason government wants to control health care,” Knight explains, “is that the government would assume literally the power of life and death over American families. Just the threat of withholding medical care is enough for many people to surrender other freedoms to the government. Such a system also reinforces the idea that government is God.”

Irrelevant Churches

America’s Christian heritage is both rich and deep. What most historians and educators refuse to acknowledge, our forebears understood clearly: it was mostly Christians and churches that formed and shaped the new land that became known as the United States of America .

For example, when discussing the brave exploits of the passengers on board the Mayflower, people seem to have forgotten that the voyage was mostly the endeavor of a single church congregation. And don’t forget that it was Pastor Jonas Clark’s male congregants who withstood British troops at Lexington and fired the very first of the shots heard ’round the world. The famous French historian, Alexis De Tocqueville, credited the pulpits and churches of Colonial America with inspiring America ‘s successful War for Independence and subsequent prosperity much more than its institutions of learning, halls of Congress, or industries of invention. From the very beginning, America ‘s Christians and pastors were intricately involved in the establishment and building of this republic.

It is no hyperbole to say that without the influence, sacrifice, dedication, blood, sweat, and tears of America ‘s early Christians, this country would not exist.

But what do we see today? We see pastors and church congregations who are, for the most part, totally ignorant of their own heritage and history. They have little or no understanding of the principles of Natural Law–something America ‘s founders knew almost by second nature (no pun intended). They seem to know next to nothing of the Biblical principles of liberty and government. All they seem to be able to do is regurgitate some mindless interpretation of Romans 13–an interpretation that could have been written by King George III or even Adolf Hitler.

Read my column regarding Romans 13.

Ignoring the great examples and exhortations of both Testaments, today’s Christians seem to have lazily latched onto a modern-day “divine right of kings” philosophy, through which they have become the pathetic slaves of arrogant and pompous political wolves dressed (barely) in the sheepskins of legitimacy.

Where are America ‘s watchmen on the wall? Where are the great stories of courage and commitment demonstrated by America ‘s founders that once emanated from church pulpits? How is it that today’s Christians know more about sports celebrities than they do America ‘s heroes? How is it that these lying, conniving, con artists called politicians can sucker church members as easily as they do the un-churched? How is it that Christians do not seem to recognize the devilish doctrines of socialism, fascism, elitism, or globalism for what they are? How can they be so easily manipulated? How is it that these corrupt politicians–who vote to kill unborn babies, merge America into internationalist and global entities, strip Americans of their God-given natural right of self defense, promote homosexual marriage, or allow America to lose its identity, culture, and heritage through unbridled illegal immigration–remain in “good standing” with any number of supposed “Christian” churches?

Even though there are more churches in America than anywhere else in the world, the pastors and Christians of this country have, for the most part, become completely irrelevant to preserving “the blessings of liberty”–or even fundamental Biblical principles, for that matter.

Churches used to be respected as lighthouses in communities: places free from the jaundiced juxtaposition of political correctness and avarice. Today’s churches are filled with both. Where once churches stood as guardians of truth, they have now become progenitors of error. Where once preachers stood in the similitude of Elijah and John the Baptist, they now grovel in the image of Joel Osteen and Rick Warren. Sunday Schools were once bastions of Bible teaching; today they are glorified coffee shops and playgrounds. The modern Christian home cannot even disciple its own children: how can it then be expected to “make disciples of all nations”?

I repeat, the modern American church has, for the most part, become irrelevant.

It is little wonder that more and more people are losing interest in the organized church. Instead of finding Christian love and kindness, they find the same kind of gossip, slander, petty bickering, favoritism, and selfishness that they might find at any office water cooler. Instead of hearing a prophet of God declare the Word of God, they hear a milquetoast minister meekly musing the latest self-help book.

The complete irrelevance of today’s organized church in America to the preservation of Christian liberty and constitutional government is especially disconcerting to those of us who still have freedom’s fire burning in our souls. Where do we go for respite and instruction?

I tell you the truth: there are hundreds of thousands of patriotic, freedom-minded Christians all over America who have had it “up to here” with these spineless social clubs called churches! They are tired of petrified pastors groveling before corrupt politicians and businessmen. They hunger for truth, and they are not finding it in most organized churches.

These people are not looking to be entertained or pampered. They do not care about social standing or making “business contacts.” They don’t care which church has the “most exciting” youth program, or how many softball teams it has. They want a church where the pastor isn’t afraid to speak truth to power and take a stand for liberty. And, unfortunately, such churches are getting harder and harder to find.

In fact, I submit that the true church is not “emerging”; it is “submerging.” As in totalitarian regimes all over the world, where there are basically two types of churches: the organized State-approved church, where people who worship the State go to put on a religious show; and the underground church, where real Christians go to worship God with honest, like minded believers.

The “underground” church in America is not totally underground–yet. But the schism is taking place rapidly.

Chuck Baldwin , August 25, 2009, Covenant News

“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” Prov 29:2

Wake-up, Pastors! Wake-Up, Christians!

______________________________________________

The Wake-Up Herald is published by Robert McCurry. The publication is designed to exalt the true God of the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ, and inform, inspire, and challenge its readers regarding biblical truth and real-life issues. The contents are the sole responsibility of Robert McCurry and do not represent or speak for or on behalf of any other person or group. There is no subscription charge. The publication is a ministry of faith and dependent on the contributions of its readers. Contributions are not tax-deductible. Send all correspondence to: Robert McCurry, 605 Moore Rd   Newnan , GA 30263 or herbap@aol.com Remove? Send reply with “remove” in Subject line.