Election Blues


Some may feel that all hope for America is lost because the election results did not favor their candidate. Make no mistake—elections will not bring about the kingdom of God through political means. Jesus said to Pilot, “My kingdom is not of this world.” 

We will not “Christianize” America through political force. The state cannot and should not do that. The 200 year old hymn, “Lead On, O King Eternal says, “For not with swords loud clashing, nor roll of stirring drums; with deeds of love and mercy the heavenly kingdom comes.” The hope of the world (and America) is not political force, but the reign of Christ.

It is through our love and evangelism that we invite people into this realm. At the same time, we are called by God to seek and act for the welfare of the place where we live (Jeremiah 29:7). Let's represent the gospel by demonstrating the love of Christ to a desperate and dying world.

Christian Involvement in Politics


Romans 13:4 tells us that government authority exists for our good. But good must be defined by Scripture; otherwise it becomes subjective and will be determined by the majority will. If no one explains what God expects in governing, then government officials will have an excuse to legislate their own morality. Christians as citizens in the state within which God placed them must therefore be actively involved in politics for its own good. 1 Peter 2:14 further explains that government is to punish those who do evil and praise those who do good. Again the question of the definition of good arises. Unless magistrates receive counsel from the religious community, mayors, senators, or presidents will not understand God’s view of good and evil or right and wrong.
Throughout history God has involved His people in advising or warning secular rulers. Daniel told King Nebuchadnezzar, the most powerful ruler on earth at the time: “Therefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you: break off your sins by practicing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed, that there may perhaps be a lengthening of your prosperity” (Daniel 4:27 ESV). Joseph, as Egypt’s second-in-command, often advised Pharaoh. Moses confronted the Pharaoh and demanded freedom for the Israelites. Queen Esther influenced King Ahasuerus and her guardian, Mordecai, became counselor to him.
In the New Testament, John the Baptist confronted officials about morals, even scolding Herod the tetrarch “for Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the evil things that Herod had done” (Luke 3:19). In Acts 24, Paul addresses the Roman governor Felix “about righteousness, self-control, and the coming judgment.” Paul held Felix accountable for his conduct as a public officeholder and wife stealer. It is clear that Paul captured the governor’s attention, for in verse 25, Felix was disturbed and sent Paul away.
            The “God is dead” movement of the 1960’s attempted to make God irrelevant to the culture. Once God is removed from civic life, the remaining two characters - the individual and the state – will be free to determine their own morality. In other words, without Christian involvement in politics, there will be no counterbalance to the government’s declaration of what is best for the people. And what will and has occurred is the redefining of moral conduct. What was the old immorality is now the new politically correct morality. Isaiah 5:20 says, “Woe to those who call good evil and evil good.”

The Christian religion has always been the basis for judging this nation’s beliefs and values. The founding fathers understood a moral government is based in the Judeo-Christian ethic. When values are debated in government, religion is at the core - whether it be Judeo-Christian or Secular Humanism. When the Christian religion is banished from the public sector, then the vacuum created will be filled by paganism and religious secularism.

            Christians are citizens of two kingdoms – the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the state or nation that God has placed them. They have a duty to be involved for the betterment of man and the preaching of the gospel. Ephesians 5:11 exhorts us not to participate in evil, but to expose it. How can evil be exposed if Christians run from involvement in the society in which they live? We are called to be in the world, but not of it; and being in it is to influence it for Christ. In America one of the influences we are given is the vote; and therefore we are to exercise it for righteousness sake. 

Voting According to the Cultural Mandate

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (Gen. 1:27-28)

God created man in His image for His glory to accomplish His purposes upon the earth. If God is involved in His creation, which Scripture affirms, then it is reasonable to think that God is concerned with the politics of man. Arguably, a Christian who is elected to office is to serve according to God's will and purposes as directed by His Word. Christian citizens are to vote in accordance with what resembles the most good, the most right, and the most godly. The problem that arises for Christians is one of discerning God's will in the matter of politics. Christians are citizens of 2 kingdoms - the kingdom of God eternally and the kingdom of God on earth. Wherever God has placed us on earth as a member of a nation's citizenship is not to be taken likely. We have a responsibility to represent our Lord and Savior as best we can within the structure of a nation's polity. Governments are run by people and will answer to the Lord whether they recognize Him as Sovereign or not!

Americans have more freedom than citizens of other nations and therefore have a greater responsibility to participate in the operations of a nation that was inspired by the concept of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." The Cultural Mandate presented in Genesis 1:28 has political implications for Christians in the United States. That mandate, given to human creation, involved expansion, conservation, and administration, which has implications to the citizenry of this nation.

As to Expansion
God, blessing man, said to "be fruitful and multiply" in order to fill the earth. Fruitfulness, which modifies the word "multiplication," implies purposeful growth, which in the context of verse 27 means to mature in the image of God. Being fruitful is having children for the purpose of nurturing and equipping them for the work of God in subduing the earth according to His will. In fact, God made husbands and wives to be one in flesh and spirit in order to produce godly offspring (Mal. 2:15). When Jesus commanded His disciples to go and make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19), He was commissioning them and us to fulfill part of the cultural mandate by being fruitful and multiply. 

Concerning politics - we are to vote for the candidate whose policies make it easier to have godly offspring. When neither candidate seems to fit the premise, Christians still have a duty to mitigate, i.e. to vote for the  candidate that makes it easier to be fruitful for Christ.

As to Conservation
The extent or result of expansion is to execute the second part of the mandate, which is to subdue the earth by conserving and protecting the resources of it for the sake and glory of God. Subduing the earth connotes dominating the environment for good. The word for "subdue" in the Hebrew is kabash, which implies subjection or bringing something under bondage or the application of force. Growing up, I heard my dad say on a number of occasions that he needed to put the kabash on it. What he meant was taking control and stopping whatever was occurring or putting a lid on undesirable conversation. 

The earth, which is the Lord's, has been given to man for the purpose of bringing it under man's control. This is a major responsibility, which means that mankind is to subject the earth, the environment, and nature to the rule and purposes of God. So, conserving the environment and protecting the interests of God's creation to include man, must be in balance. Christians are to care for God's creation because it actually belongs to the Lord. In other words, we possess the earth as God's trustees and have a fiduciary responsibility for preserving what is the Lord's.

Does this mean we must be green? In a sense – yes! But not to the extent of hoarding or not using the resources God has provided. Why is there oil or coal, for instance? For the use of man who can mine and drill, but with common sense and protection of the environment as best he can. Use of green energy is also okay, but not to the detriment of other resources provided by God – because the earth is the Lord’s and all there is in it! If subdue has the idea of force, then governments must be involved for regulation purposes. Yet, governments still answer to God.  They are subservient to God whether they realize it or not. And regulation of the earth’s resources must be for the betterment of all the people, not the privileged few.

Of course, politicians usually mess things up. As part of government, God’s citizens have a duty to be involved and vote for the candidate that would best represent God’s purposes for the earth whether they realize it or not. We are not to vote for what the candidate will do for us, but for the candidate whose programs are more in line with subduing the earth according to God’s purposes.The eighteenth-century Scottish historian Alexander Tytler allegedly commented: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.” We are not to vote for the candidate that will give us the most benefits, but for the candidate most in line with helping the common good according to the purposes of God.

Our nations was founded as a republic – rule by law (God’s Law) – not a democracy – rule by man; hence, the majority. In God’s eyes there is no democracy, for he rules as benign dictator.  Christ died to set us free to do God’s will, not our own. What happens when the candidates clashsay one is for “life” and the other “for conservation.” Life always triumphs, for God is the Giver and Taker of Life – not man. Besides, “the right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” found in the Declaration of Independence was a phrase used to exemplify the "inalienable rights" with which all human beings are endowed by their Creator. “Life” was first and foremost, for without this right there is no liberty and no pursuit of happiness.

When life takes a back seat to conservation, then animals and earth will become more important than human life. If no candidate is for “life,” then choose the one that best represents “Liberty” and freedom, for without freedom (that perfectly comes in Christ), there will be no happiness. God mandates our expansion over the earth in order to provide conservation of His possession for the purpose of having administration of the earth.

As to Administration
We care for the earth (and the United States) in order to rule it in God’s name. God said in Gen. 1:28 to have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earthA consequence of man being created in the image of God is dominion over the lower creatures of the earth; and having dominion is to rule  responsibility. We are to govern the inferior creatures of the earth as God's viceroy. Since the animals are not capable of fearing and serving the Lord, God has appointed them to serve under the administration of man. This tells us that man is more important than animals. Then what about the animal rights people?  We do have a responsibility of caring for animals, but not of preservation over the rights of man. Having dominion is delegated supremacy over all the creatures of the earth, but it is man who is created in God’s image to represent Him as governor over these creatures.

In 2007, federal judge Oliver Wanger imposed limits on the amount of water pumped from the San Joachin-Sacramento River delta to farms in California's Central Valley in order to protect a two-inch endangered fish called the Delta Smelt. As a result, several hundred thousand acres of farmland on the west side of the Central Valley now lie desolate, and many thousands of jobs have been lost. In the city of Mendota the unemployment rate exceeds 40%. If God’s cultural mandate was applied, then men and their livelihood would trump a fish. Yet in the Environmental Protection Agency are people who seek to promote animals and plants to equal standing among the human race. God who created all things – human and otherwise –was perfect in wisdom when he crafted existence and fashioned man as the highest order of life to rule over the fish and animals.

What is laughable is that most of the animal rights people as well as the green earth promoters are Darwinists! Yet, Darwin believed in the survival of the fittest. Well, man is the fittest. When animal rights people place animals above the dignity of man, they are contradicting their own belief in evolutionary survival by the fittest.



Concerning politics – we, as Christians, have a biblical responsibility to know the issues. We should not vote for those who place animal life above human life or human rights. Yes, we are to care for the creatures of the earth, but in proper priority. When we say a smelt has more rights than an unborn baby, something is drastically wrong with our culture of politicsChrist and His righteousness is the standard by which to cast votes.

There was a time when most Americans respected the Bible and quoted it with authority. In 1963, according to Gallup, 65% believed the Bible literally; today the number is only 32%. There was a time when most Americans accepted absolute standards. They might disagree on what those absolutes were, but they knew that some things were really right or really wrong. Today 70% reject moral absolutes and promote their own ideas of self-autonomy.

There is a Culture War and it is primarily over who influences the definition of reality. Defining the distinctiveness of our world-view is at stake, and it is part of the political war that is raging today in America. Christians must take serious the cultural mandate, part of which is participating in government in order to rule over the creatures of the earth.  We participate by our vote, which may hopefully tame wild and foolish politicians! The principles by which we cast votes are as follows:

(1) Vote for person who makes it easier for the gospel to spread (for God said be fruitful and multiply);
(2) Vote for the person who promotes proper conservation of all resources (for God said to subdue the earth);
(3) Vote for the person who puts human rights above animal rights (for God said to have dominion over the animals).

When principles collide, remember:
(1) Life trumps conservation (for God is the Giver and Taker of life);
(2) Rights of humans trump those of animals (for God gave man dominion of the creatures of earth);
(2) Liberty trumps stifling regulations (for God is the Author of freedom and without freedom, there is no pursuit of happiness).




Intolerant Theological Liberals


Dr. Jamal-Dominique Hopkins, a Fuller Seminary graduate, who earned a PhD in Biblical Studies from the University of Manchester (United Kingdom) and who has distinguished himself in his research, writing and lecturing on the Dead Sea Scrolls, was summarily fired from his faculty position at the Interdenominational Theological Center (ITC) in Atlanta. The administrative action came after he filed a grievance according to school policy upon learning that some of his students’ grades were changed by the administration. He had discovered that eight students with low grades were specifically chosen and interviewed by the administration about his teaching methods and style. They then changed Ds and Fs to Cs, with one F student receiving an A-.  Dr. Hopkins was the target of Rev. Margaret Aymer, ITC’s chair of the Bible Department and a high profile Presbyterian Church (USA) leader known for bellicose orations touting “justice,” “human rights,” “inclusivism,” and “academic freedom.” 


Aymer succeeded in having her colleague fired because she disliked his evangelical positions and more specifically because he was in a room where a student was given a book of which she did not approve. The controversial book was one of a number of books brought into a Bible study gathering of Dr. Hopkins by his guest speaker, Dr. Alice Brown-Collins, a regional director of the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship’s Black Campus Ministries. She encouraged the students to take, free of charge, any of the materials that they might find useful to them. The book that Aymer particularly detested was The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics by scholar Robert A.J. Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. She charged that the book is “homophobic literature” and that her colleague, Associate Professor Hopkins, tacitly approved of the book by being present when another person in the room shared it with one of his students.

Aymer, the darling of the PCUSA establishment was the keynote speaker at the national convention of the liberal Covenant Network of Presbyterians. In her speech she claimed with vigorous rhetoric that the New Testament had little to say on the subject of sex and sexuality. Interestingly enough and contrary to Aymer’s polemic, Gagnon’s book demonstrates that the New Testaments does speak to these issues. Aymer was also a member of the PCUSA General Assembly’s special committee on marriage that recommended to the 2011 Assembly to redefine marriage to encompass more inclusive pairing.

Aymer objected not only to Gagnon’s book, but to the presence of Intervarsity Christian Fellowship on ITC’s campus. She disagrees with evangelicals and has no fondness for Intervarsity, a campus group she has detested since she was a student because the organization takes stands contrary to her principles, which are now evidently the ethics of ITC. Aymer’s theological liberalism and intolerance to conservative theology is indicative of the drift of the PCUSA denomination. No longer does the Bible play a preeminent part in their teaching, counseling, and exhortation. Rather, cultural issues and personal rhetoric are more important than the question, “What does God say?” Polemical diatribe is now more important that proclamation of truth. This is what happens when men exchange truth for a lie (Romans 1:25) and redefine the old immorality as the new morality. Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,  who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Isa. 5:20 ESV

Colonial Submission and Resistance to Higher Powers

Jonathan Mayhew of Massachusetts on January 30, 1750 published a sermon called: Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers with Some Reflections on the Resistance Made to King Charles I. The American colonies were abuzz with discord and debate against mother England for her oppressive rule. Mayhew's sermon text was taken from Romans 13:1, in which he said, “It is the duty of Christian magistrates to inform themselves what it is which their religion teaches concerning the nature and design of their office. And it is equally the duty of all Christian people to inform themselves what it is which their religion teaches concerning that subjection which they owe to the higher powers.”
In expounding the passage, he continued, “Since, therefore, magistracy is the ordinance of God, and since rulers are by their office benefactors to society, by discouraging what is bad and encouraging what is good, and so preserving peace and order amongst men, it is evident that ye ought to pay a willing subjection to them…Ye are under an indispensable obligation, as Christians, to honor their office, and to submit to them in the execution of it…And here is a plain reason also why ye should pay tribute to them, - for they are God’s ministers, exalted above the common level of mankind, - not that they may indulge themselves in softness and luxury, and be entitled to the servile homage of their fellow-men, but that they may execute an office no less laborious than honorable, and attend continually upon the public welfare.”
Mayhew, a Tory, went on to stress that civil disobedience to appointed rulers was not merely a political sin, but a heinous offense against God and religion. Obedience was required under all forms of government, which has been instituted for the good of society. The question Mayhew then asked was this, “To what extent is that subjection.”  Some have said disobedience is authorized under certain conditions, such as great oppression when humble remonstrance fails to have beneficial effect; and when the public welfare cannot be otherwise provided for and secured because of tyranny.  Others have said that Scripture in general and the Romans 13 passage in particular makes all resistance to princes a crime.
Colonial America at the time had debates over the meaning of Romans 13. The “argument by comparison” that some colonials presented in order to prove that blind obedience to government statutes and sovereign rule is not biblical stated the following reasons:
(1)    If Scripture commands children, wives, servants to obey, it is not in total submission, but in accordance with the principles of God.  Obedience is never blind, but in concurrence with the Word of God.
(2)    Servants are told to render good service to the Lord, and not to men (Eph. 6:7) and masters are to do likewise and to give up threatening their servants (Eph. 6:9). Civil magistrates and kings are masters and are to rule for the Lord, especially if they claim Christianity. Violating scriptural principles leaves them open to correction.
(3)    The apostle Paul never intended to teach children, servants, and wives to blindly submit in all cases.  Although Eph. 5:24 tells wives to submit in everything, Paul did not intend for them to break commandments in so submitting. If this argument could be made in the case of family authority, then it should also apply in the case of governmental authority.
Mayhew also commented on absolute statements, “The use of absolute expressions is no proof that obedience to civil rulers is in all cases a duty, or resistance in all cases a sin.  I should not have thought it worthwhile to take any notice at all of this argument, had it not been much insisted upon by some of the advocates for passive obedience and non-resistance; for it is in itself perfectly trifling, and rendered considerable only by the stress that has been laid up it for want of better.”
Other colonials offered what was called an “argument in opposition” to complete subjection to the British authorities. They qualified the directive of Peter to submit to every ordinance (1 Peter 2:13) by saying that if the statement was an unequivocal decree, then the same could be said of wives submitting to their husbands in everything (Eph. 5:24). Submission, however, is qualified by submitting as to the Lord. Peter in the next verse says that the reason governors are sent by the king is for punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right (1 Peter 2:14).  This qualification puts a restriction on “every ordinance.”  Submission must be consistent with the ordinances of God.  Obedience and non-resistance therefore is not an absolute duty of a citizen.
The rulers of whom Peter speaks are rulers whose laws and enactments benefit society. They deserve the complete submission of the people. Therefore, Peter says to act as freemen, and not to use freedom to cover evil. Freedom suggests that the people live under a beneficent ruler who has the common good in mind. Mayhew compared a worthless preacher to a worthless magistrate.  “Suppose,” he says, “that the preacher doesn’t do anything, but demands thousands per annum, should he not be told plainly that he is low-esteemed and will not be given the just reward of a faithful minister of the gospel? Should he not be removed?  In like fashion, a civil magistrate who performs counter to the design of his office in that he is injuring and oppressing his subjects when he should be defending their rights and doing them good should not be honored, obeyed, and rewarded.”  He then confirmed that Paul’s exhortation to submit to leaders was “built wholly upon the supposition that they do, in fact, perform the duty of rulers.”
Mayhew reasoned that it was blasphemy to call tyrants the ministers of God.  Whether they know it or not, they are appointed to their position by God and therefore rule under His hands.  God may use magistrates as an instrument of judgment, but to say that the evil ones sit as God’s ruler for evil is to say God is the creator of evil. “Rulers have no authority to do mischief,” he declared. If rulers do evil, they are serving the devil and not pleasing God.  To interpret Paul as saying that resisting authority opposes the ordinance of God, bringing condemnation on oneself (Rom. 13:2) was akin to saying that serving the Devil is what God wants when the rulers are evil.
Mayhew asked, “Is resisting those who resist God’s will the same thing with resisting God?”  The qualification comes in verse 3 of Romans 13 in which Paul says that “rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.”  The inference is that the rulers are fair and just and are serving the common good, thereby serving God. Verse 4 says that the magistrate is a minister of God for good.  If he is doing evil, he is not God’s minister, but Satan’s.  God may still be sovereign and in control, but a distinction must be made between the evil ruler pleasing Satan and the good ruler pleasing God.  To submit to evil would be serving Satan.  So submission is not absolute, but rather conditional. Submission is first to the Lord and secondarily to those appointed as our rulers.
Much of the American pulpit prior to the American Revolution was known as the "Black Regiment" because while draped in black, they preached their congregations to resist the tyranny of King George. They were a formidable cadre of  men preparing their sheep for the struggle that lay ahead.

Federalism


The word “federalism comes from the Latin “foedus” meaning covenant, compact, or treaty.  One of the arguments that the United States was a Christian nation comes from the concept of federalism being derived from the teaching of Scripture. Heavily influenced by John Knox and his Book of Order, America may have been founded under the principles of “covenant” with the God of the Universe. It was to be a government by representation as indicated in Deuteronomy 1:13. Here, Moses reminded the Israelites of choosing wise and discerning men to represent them. The government of the United States would be a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Without wise and discerning men to represent us, we will become as bait for the wolves. In fact, Thomas Jefferson once said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." In other words, an ignorant people have never be free.
The three divisions of government sound very similar to Isaiah 33:22, which describes God as a judge, lawgiver, and king.  Hence, the judiciary, the congress, and the executive branch of government reflect various aspects of the character of God. The Scottish Covenanters had a great influence in the founding of American government. Part of it came through the teaching of John Witherspoon who was President of Princeton during the Revolutionary War period of America. He influenced two thirds of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and many others who became part of the integral founding and ruling of Colonial America to include James Madison, a Virginian sent to Princeton to be educated under Witherspoon.
The dual nature of government in obeying God and magistrates was a Covenanter principle. The principle was derived from Matthew 22:38-40 in which Jesus said that the foremost commandment is to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind; and to love your neighbor as yourself.  Since Jesus was King over all peoples and nations, subjects answered to Him. Obedience was to God and the men that were appointed by God to run the nation (Rom. 13:1ff). The idea of Church and State coexisting for mutual benefit was derived from the Covenanter principle known as the “Mediatorial Kingship of Jesus Christ.” It could be diagrammed as follows:

                                          CHRIST
                                                         (over)
                                   CHURCH      (and)         STATE
                                                         (over)
                                                      PEOPLE

God in Christ is the ruler of all nations (Psalm 47:8). Christ does not cease to rule over the state because governments fail to recognize Him.  He is the King of the Universe and laughs at unbelieving nations, holding them in derision (Psalm 59:8). The State exists because of Him who is no respecter of nations (Isa. 40:17), but He does rule over them; and those who are magistrates have an obligation to rule under Him according to His dictates, which are found only in Scripture (Rom. 13:1ff). The State therefore exists to rule for the common good and to protect the Church and its teachings about Christ and religion. The Church exists to teach the State how to rule for the common good in accordance with the principles of Scripture. The Church is charged by Christ to teach the values and morality of the Christian religion and the State is to protect the right to do so. Civil government therefore is a divine institution and is subject to the law and authority of Christ.  Nations claiming to be Christian have by covenant declared so.  Christ has authority over nations, governors, and legislatures, and it is their duty to serve and obey Him.  Ignorance of the Word is no excuse.
It is sad that our own United States no longer recognizes Him who is King over all nations. We may pay a price for relegating the Lord of the Universe to a position of scorn and disparagement. A lion has gone up from his thicket, a destroyer of nations has set out; he has gone out from his place to make your land a waste; your cities will be ruins without inhabitant (Jer. 4:7 ESV).

Religious Influence in the Early History of our Nation

If the atheists and progressives had their way, God would be eliminated from all facets of life. However, they are content to have God eliminated from the public forum. These same people quote the Constitution, pointing out that there is complete separation of Church and State. This is the law of the land since Hugo Black’s decision in the Case of Everson vs. The Board of Education in 1947. We may argue the rationale behind the decision, but we will become mired in polemics. The Law of the Land is anything the  Supreme Court adjudicates it to be. But was that the intent of the Founding Fathers? Did they want God completely out of government? History says they did not!
God was not to be removed from the daily operation of government. Prayer was a constant activity during the Continental Congress. The Constitution, itself, implicitly regards Sunday as a day of rest by excluding Sunday from the days to be counted in the period that the President has to veto a Congressional bill.  And by common consent, Thanksgiving and Christmas are recognized holidays although they are under attack in our post Christian culture.
Christian mottoes on coins, currency, public buildings, and monuments were also accepted.  “In God We Trust” is stamped on all our coins and is etched over the south entrance to the Senate Chamber in the U.S. Capitol.  Over the west entrance is engraved “Annuit Coeptis” meaning that God has favored our undertakings. Judicial oaths ended with, “So help me, God.” Court decisions also pronounced the place of God in the early growth of our nation.
In People v. Ruggles, an 1811 Supreme Ct. of New York decision, Ruggles was indicted for calling Christ a bastard and his mother a whore.  He was fined $500 and served a 3 month imprisonment term.  Part of the prosecutors argument was that while the Constitution of the State of New York preserved the right of conscience and has allowed for the free discussion of religion, it has nevertheless left the principal engrafted in our common law that Christianity is part of the laws of the State, untouched and unimpaired.  Justice James Kent said that, “Nothing could be more offensive to the virtuous part of the community, or more injurious to the tender morals of the young, that to declare such profanity lawful…We are a Christian people and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions].”  Basically he said that cursing Christ is cursing the State of New York.
In Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, an 1824 Pennsylvania case, Abner Updegraph on the December 12, 1821, with intent to scandalize, vilified the Christian religion by saying, “That the Holy Scriptures were a mere fable: that they were a contradiction, and that although they contained a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies.”  He was found guilty of blaspheming and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld it.
In Vidal v. Girard’s Executors (1844) the U.S. Supreme Ct. stated that Christianity was not to be openly and maliciously denigrated. Stephen Girard, a native of France, died in 1831 leaving $7 million dollars to the city of Philadelphia to construct an orphanage and college where the “purest principles of morality” are to be instilled.  He also stipulated that no clergyman or missionary shall ever hold any positions in the college nor were they allowed on campus as visitors.  Although the plan of education was anti-Christian and repugnant to law, the court ruled in favor of the city keeping the money, for it said that lay people could teach religion, outside of which there were no purer form of morality.  Justice Joseph Story in his opinion for the Supreme Court said, “Christianity…is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against…It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider the establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of…Deism, or any other form of infidelity.  Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country.” 
In Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) an immigration law was interpreted to an absurd degree by the U.S. Attorney’s office to accuse the church of hiring a foreigner as pastor.  The Supreme Court ruled that “No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people…This is a Christian nation.” The reasoning in this case cited the above three cases.
In Davis v. Beason (1889) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against bigamy and polygamy among Mormons. Justice Stephen Field (a Lincoln appointee who also sat for the Holy Trinity Case) delivered the Court’s ruling by saying, “Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries….” By commenting so, he virtually declared that America was a Christian nation. Such a declaration was also made in U.S. v. Macintosh (1931) in which the reasoning said, “We are a Christian people.”
Other Early Supreme Court Justices made statements and rendered opinions supporting the notion that the United States was a Christian nation. Note the following:
(1)    John Jay (the First Chief Justice) said, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
(2)    James Wilson (signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) articulated that “Christianity is part of the common-law.”
(3)    Joseph Story (in his Commentaries on the Constitution) noted, “Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the Amendments to it…the general, if not the 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, if not universal indignation.”  He also said, “It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape.”
(4)    John Marshall (served on the Supreme Court for 34 years. As a captain, he also fought during the Revolutionary War, serving with Washington at Valley Forge. Later in life, while staying at a road side tavern, he politely listened to arguments for and against the Christian religion by younger men from 6:00PM to 11:00PM.  Finally one of them turned to Marshall and said, “Well, my old gentleman, what think you of these things?”  Marshall then proceeded to talk for an hour answering “every argument urged against” the teachings of Jesus.  The listeners were captivated by his eloquence and energy.  Some thought him a preacher and were astonished to find out he was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Love the One You Hate


           “Forgive and forget; that’s the Christian way!” Don’t you hate this reminder? Forgive and forget? No way! Revenge is sweeter. “Don’t get mad; get even!” That sounds better to the sinner’s ear. Harboring hatred appeases for the moment, for our mind acts out our vengeance. We imaginatively slay the person, think ill of him, and wish bad to befall him. Yet, we are Christians and a mark of a disciple of Jesus is forgiveness, for the Savior did say in Matthew 5:44, “Love your enemies and pray for them that persecute you.” Forgiving the dastardly is proof that we are sons of God, for only true believers can really love the one they hate (Matt. 5:45-46). Furthermore, Jesus said that if we harbor anger in our hearts toward our brother, we have basically murdered him and are guilty before the court (Matt. 521-22).
            When conflict arises in churches, sin increases and leaders either add to the problem or become soothing balm in healing the hurt. Hatred of those that cause the conflict will only stir up more strife, but loving them will cover their sins and ease the controversy (Prov. 10:12). In such situations, leaders must be strong, yet humble; steadfast, yet understanding; and decisive, yet loving. If they the shepherds have sinned, then they must model what confession and forgiveness look like, for the sheep (i.e., true believers) will follow their lead and seek reconciliation with others. Those who fail to admit their sin and who harbor an unforgiving attitude will in all likelihood leave the church and retain their bitterness.
            I once served a church that had a major split over worship and direction of the church. The senior pastor resigned, but many of his supporters remained in the church, causing disquiet among the elders. After preaching a number of sermons on forgiveness and leaving the past behind, I asked the congregation during the confession time of the service to bow their heads, close their eyes, and raise their hands if they had transgressed God’s law by sinning in any of the ways I described. I then mentioned a litany of sins that broke fellowship and strained relationships with one another. Just about every hand went up. I then asked them to lower their hands, keep their eyes closed, and confess their sins silently before the Lord, asking for His forgiveness and the power to forgive others that have hurt them. With eyes open I had them look around the sanctuary. If they saw anyone in the congregation with whom they had strained relationships and about whom they just prayed to forgive, then they were leave their seats and approach the person or persons that they had sinned against in their minds or held bitterness towards in their hearts and ask the person’s forgiveness.
            The Lord’s Spirit was moving in that church and people stood up and approached those they harbored bitterness toward. I heard the buzz of confession and the sobbing of joy as the Lord brought peace and unity to a torn congregation. I kept an eye, however, on two key families that were centrally embroiled in the conflict. They remained in their seats and were shocked when a number of people approached them, asking forgiveness for the bitterness they had carried toward them. Their hearts, however, remained hardened, for they refused to surrender their self-righteous attitude, thereby locking themselves in the darkness of unforgiveness.
Lewis Smedes (1921-2002), former professor of Fuller Theological Seminary once said, “When you forgive a person who wronged you, you set a prisoner free, and then you discover that the prisoner you set free is you.”[1] How right he is! Without forgiving the person who has seriously offended us or harmed our family, we allow the bile of bitterness to eat us up. And when we are bitter, that acid is not hurting the one we are angry at, it is hurting us. Freedom is in forgiving; bondage remains for the impenitent.

[1] Lewis Smedes, "Five Things Everyone Should Know about Forgiving," 30 Good Minutes (Program #4101 - First air date October 5, 1997), Chicago Sunday Evening Club http://www.csec.org/csec/sermon/smedes_4101.htm (Accessed January 22, 2011).

Dead Churches Fear Change


             Within churches looking for new pastors are leaders who fear change because it represents insecurity to them. They don’t know what type of relationship they will have with the new pastor and they certainly don’t want to lose their influence and position of authority in the congregation. Fear is an emotion that causes people to hide from or avoid their problems. It is a core issue in human beings that has plagued man since Adam hid from God. In answer to the Lord’s question, “Where are you?” Adam replied by saying that he became afraid at the sound of God because he was naked and so hid himself (Gen. 3:9-10) Fear causes us to retreat and circumvent issues that should be dealt with. And mausoleum (i.e. dead or dying) churches certainly have many issues confronting them; but they must “wake up” from their deadness and refusal to change!
            As a transitional pastor, I have had elders warn me not to make any changes because change would be viewed as condescending to the prior pastor whom they loved dearly. This was not the prior pastor’s view; only those who devoted themselves to his vision and ministry style. Just tweaking an order of service was tampering with the ‘holy grail.’ The retired pastor didn’t mind his replacement changing things; so why should the elders feel so insecure? They were weak leaders who did not prepare themselves or their congregation for change. They were content living in a mausoleum and thought the sheep felt the same way.
            Fear of change is a definite symptom of weak and failed leadership. What makes matters worse is leadership being possessive of a church that really belongs to Christ! “It’s been this way for a long time and we like it this way. We want no changes to our church.” Such attitudes keep the church encrypted; and the only new comers that stay after one visit are other dead people who are comfortable hanging around a cemetery.

Change is good
            For many leaders, change is frightening because it represents the unknown – something they can’t control. Whenever there is conflict in a church and a pastor has resigned or been forced to leave, change in vision and ministry direction is inevitable. There is no avoiding it! Change also represents the loss of something dear to us whether it is our job, a loved one, our health, our traditions, our pastor, our comfort, or our stability.
            From the beginning in the Garden of Eden to the culmination of Scripture in Revelation God has ordained change. Why then do we fight against it, demanding our own wills, and desiring the status quo? Change is what the Lord uses to grow us spiritually, to help us understand him more fully, and to prepare us for the final and perfect change when at the last trumpet, the dead will be raised and transformed into the imperishable (1 Cor. 15:52-53). Since change is part of God’s decretive will, it must be good.
            Conflict and transition in a church may be forced change, but is to be seen as occurring within God’s providence. And if God is at work in us willing and working his good pleasure (Phil. 2:13), which is always for our best, then change must also be good for God’s people (Ps. 73:1). Understanding this assures us that all things will work together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose (Rom. 8:28), even the bad things that may have happened because of church conflict. Leaders therefore are admonished “to wake up” to the fact that change is good because it comes from God.

The Mausoleum Church


            Where did the phrase, “dead as a door nail” originate? In 1590 William Shakespeare used the term in his play about Henry VI.[1]  The character John Cade said, "...and if I do not leave you all as dead as a door-nail, I pray God I may never eat grass more." In 1843 Dickens used the expression to describe Scrooge’s old partner Marley as being dead as a doornail.
In Medieval days when doors were built using only wood boards and hand forged nails, the spike fasteners were long enough to dead nail the vertical wooden panels and horizontal stretcher boards securely together. This was done by pounding the protruding point of the nail over and down into the wood. A nail bent in this fashion was not easily pulled out and therefore dead for future use; thus the expression – “dead as a doornail.”
            The Mausoleum Church is “dead as a doornail.” It may as well post a sign on the door that reads “Closed due to Death.” There may be parishioners inside, but they have no life in them. The church building may be architecturally attractive, but it serves more as a tomb for those who have lost the Spirit and trampled afoot the truth of Scriptures. What these churches have become are good-looking sepulchers. The people that occupy the tombs are nothing more than zombies, thinking they are alive, but in actuality are dead. They are the church of lost hope because they forgot the purpose of their existence, which is to reach the culture with the gospel of Christ.

Church at Sardis
The Church at Sardis in Revelation 3 was dead as a doornail. It protruded into the community, but was bent over dead. The Lord addressed the church, “I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead (Rev. 3:1). The worse thing that could be said to a church is: “You have the reputation of being alive, of being a great church, but in actuality, you are dead.”  What makes a dead church? Failed leadership! Leaders frequently fool themselves into thinking their church is vibrant when in actuality it is much like the Church at Sardis.
Churches become dead because leaders sleep on duty. They are called to be watchmen and shepherds; but when they fail to be vigilant in keeping the church alive for the sake of Christ, the people become lethargic, set in their ways, and centered on self and not on the gospel reaching their community. When leaders snooze, their spiritual muscles atrophy. Like muscular dystrophy (MD), a physical disease of progressive weakening of the body’s skeletal muscles, spiritual dystrophy is the progressive decay and weakening of the muscles of scriptural truth. The church becomes a mausoleum in the community, for spiritual growth ceases and deadness takes over. It is difficult to maintain the power of godliness when a universal deadness and declension prevails.
When the spirit decays within, our outward devotion becomes merely form without substance. We look good on the outside, but inwardly we are rotten. Poor leadership causing dead churches was affirmed by Jesus when he accused Pharisees of being whitewashed tombs (Matt. 23:27) – all dressed up and looking good on the outer surface; but full of corruption, decay, and deadness on the inside. When the spirituality of leadership degenerates, the church reflects the atrophy in becoming ingrown and gospel irrelevant to the community.
Christ exhorted the Church at Sardis to wake up and strengthen the things that remain (Rev. 3:2). Evidently, there was some breath left, which needed resuscitation. But are leaders willing to do CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation)?  In other words, are they willing to make the changes necessary to resuscitate life into a dying church and inject gospel truth into their local ministries?


[1] Act 5, Sc.10, l. 40-1