Church & State

There are those among us today who appear to believe that the active engagement in politics by Christians, in general, and church leaders, in particular, may well mark the beginning of the end of western civilization as we know it. This attitude, enjoined primarily by the political left of America, the pundits of secularist “virtues,” provokes a tremendous level of irony when one considers the fact that world history tells the story of how Christians actively engaged in politics BEGAN western civilization!

“What kind of country will this be if these radical Christian ‘theocrats’ (or ‘fascists,’ as one writer to the Sioux City Journal once remarked) take over America?!“ Well… look no further than to one of those old history books describing America from 1776 to 1876, and you’ll have your answer. (Use an antique history book, because they’re “pre-revisionist,” but only if you want the truth.) We Christian “fascists” and so-called “theocrats” did a pretty remarkable job. We created the longest living constitution in world-history and the most powerful nation on earth. And we did it all without outlawing non-Christian religions or forcing citizens to worship Jesus at the tip of a sword.

The idea of “separation of church and state,” as it is defined today by liberal educators and their post-modern pupils, would have hindered the original formation of our republic, had such a view existed in the minds of our founders during the middle to late 1700s. Such an idea both existed and prevailed in revolutionary France, however, leading to the eventual death of their constitution, lasting around one year. (Oh, and did I mention that France has had 16 different “secular” constitutions since then? What a legacy the secularists have left the nation of France!) This idea of separation of church and state did NOT prevail in the minds of the American founders. Unbeknownst to many, numerous signers of both the Declaration and the Constitution were ordained Christian ministers with theological degrees. (34% of the signers of the Constitution, to be exact.) A far higher percentage (called a super-majority) identified themselves as fundamentalist “Christians.”

If we make a judgment based upon modern published works arguing against Christian influence in politics, I dare say that there appears to be at least one whole party, and a small portion of the other in America’s two-party system that wouldn’t have dreamed of allowing those 19 men who possessed theological degrees a chance to approach that table, much less handle the ink-dipped quill! What is worse is that a third source of opposition to Christians and politics is emanating from behind the pulpits of some American churches!

That being said, within this writing, I will address this particular subject from three points of origin: Firstly, I will explain the calling of Christianity to chaperon the legal world. Secondly, we will fully disclose the historical truths surrounding much misinformation on the origin of the phrase “separation of church and state” with regard to American history. Lastly, we will deal with the concept of separation from the standpoint of carefully assessed Christian theology. As you will soon see, Christians have many reasons to get directly involved and intervene in a growing disaster that is spinning out of control at every level of American life by our absence.

Section 1) Chaperoning the Legal World

Reason #1: God’s Law is the basis of all proper civil governments of the world, and the Church is the ordained guardian of His law.

The physical, natural laws that govern our universe—those Paul told us to observe in Romans 1:20—are universal, binding, and unchanging for all men at all times. They are expressed with simplicity and wonder in the Decalogue, which is the revealed law of God. The Decalogue was delivered on two stone tablets (tables). The first table of the law given to Moses by God was “vertical” law. It dealt with self-governance. It spoke to man’s private relationship with God. The first four self-governing commands are:

1. Do not worship other gods.

2. Do not worship idols.

3. Do not misuse God’s name.

4. Keep the Sabbath holy.

These are four items of God’s law that fall under the logical jurisdiction of self-government, as they take-on a vertical relationship between man and God. Vertically, with regard to our self-government, instructed by the first table of the law, we are commanded to love God with all our hearts. The first table of the law is described as the duty we owe our God, and it is not within the realm of civil government’s jurisdiction.

In contrast with the first table of the law, horizontally, with regard to civil government, we are commanded by Moses and Jesus Christ to “love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Jesus distinguished this directional division by summarizing the two tables of the law accordingly in Matthew 22:37- 40.) The second table given to Moses was “horizontal” law. It dealt with human-to-human interactions. As we reach the fifth command, what primarily began as a discussion of the vertical relationship between man and God takes on a freshly horizontal feature. In contrast to the first four laws, which we describe as “the duty we owe our God,” the final six commandments are the duty we owe our fellow man.”

The second table of the law instructs our civil government thusly:

1. Honor your father and mother.

2. Do not murder.

3. Do not commit adultery.

4. Do not steal.

5. Do not lie.

6. Do not covet.

The conclusion is simple and understood by children: True religion must honor the first four commandments; good government must honor the last six. Individual souls, from whence all human governments materialize in the universe, must honor all ten. Self-government begets family government, begets church government, begets city government, begets county government, begets state government, begets national government, begets international governance.

Today, the second table of God’s law forms the basis of all good civil governments of the world. If it is not the officially recognized basis of any particular government in our world, then that government is not good and its evil should be confronted by Christianity until the wrong is righted. Period. It should be understood by obedient men that any attempt to use civic power to enforce the first table of the law is tyrannical and abusive. Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Obedience to tyrants is rebellion to God.

All civic authorities who attempt this demonstrate incredulous arrogance by playing equal with God. Moreover, it is also arrogant for civil authority to refuse to involve themselves with the implementation of the second table of the law. It is a rebellious failure for civil government to attempt to act as if some part of the second table is better suited (in their opinion) to have been placed on the first table of the law. “That is a private matter and not the role of government” is the excuse of rebels. It is a kind of defacto tyranny. It is dereliction of duty—the tyranny of desertion. Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Obedience to tyrants is rebellion to God.

The second table of the law begins by protecting the root of all successful civilizations—marriage. Good government does not pretend to create or authorize marriage. Marriage is outside the purview of mankind, because man is subject to natural laws that pre-exist him. As with the law of gravity, civil government is obliged to recognize marriage’s preeminence in nature, protecting and preserving it from ignorant forces. The public consequences for failing to do so cannot be overstated. Marriage, like gravity, does not need protection. It’s the fools who trifle with both that can bring down an empire. Thus, the first horizontal law of the second table is, “Honor your father and mother” (see Exodus 20:12).

The marriage institution is the God-authorized gift of creative power handed to human beings. It is the power for a male and female to create immortality. Every child created in the intimacy of sexual intercourse is an endless soul that will inevitably live in either heaven or hell for all eternity. The recipients of life granted by this natural law of procreation are told to honor their parents personally and honor the concept of marriage corporately.

The second law of the second tablet of stone extends this logic to the issue of life itself. While the institution of marriage creates life and the recipient of life is told to honor those who granted it to them, the next commandment states, “Thou shalt not kill” (see Exodus 20:13). In these first two commands of the second tablet, the institution that creates life is protected, and life itself is safeguarded. The logic unfolds more with the addition of the third command on this table of the law. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” is charged to the man and wife.

In summary, the child is told to honor the marriage institution. The citizen is told not to murder the life created by the marriage institution. The husband and wife are told to honor one another within the marriage institution. The first three laws that directly apply to the rationale for civil authority’s existence deal with the foundation of civil government, which is family government. Any modern government that exclusively and erringly claims these first three laws of God are “personal issues” and “not the role of civil government” are in rebellion against God’s law. Without healthy and stable family government beneath the upper structures of civil authority, there is no basis for private property.

Children are born with a sin nature and eventually awaken to the corrupt desire to steal from others. If this sin nature is not crushed by family government (good parenting), the civilization that results over time will no longer experience private property. Once the poorly-parented child reaches adulthood, the heightened and inadequately restrained drive of the theft instinct will inevitably institutionalize itself into the act of communal confiscations. The sin nature reaches its pinnacle in the abolishment of privately-owned property, and after the theft, it is repurposed and labeled as “state-owned.” Thus, the tyranny of theft permeates the fabric of all governments where the first three laws of God for government are ignored, abandoned, rejected, or relabeled as “private matters.” The civil government will either protect the sanctity of marriage and the lives it creates or it will eventually be destroyed by institutionalized theft. In modern times, institutionalized theft has many titles: Communism, Statism, Fascism, Socialism, Marxism, Totalitarianism, Globalism, etc. For these reasons (and many more), the second table of Mosaic Law places the issue of private property as the fourth priority of civil government (and not the first). Once civil government is charged with a responsibility to preserve and protect its own foundation of family government, the fourth commandment declares, “Thou shalt not steal” (see Exodus 20:15). The sacred tithe offered voluntarily by the joyous self-disciplined individual soul is essential to extending Christendom (spiritual government) through the economic realm. The economic ramifications of a tithe-funded Christendom remain a direct and necessary threat to excessive forced confiscations of civil authorities (taxes) in competition with and antagonistic toward Christ’s church.

The final two commandments, “Thou shalt not lie” and “Thou shalt not covet,” are similarly situated as those previously mentioned (see Exodus 20:16–17). These final issues of dishonesty and jealousy are sinful tendencies that will criminally jeopardize the acquisition and maintenance of private property in all civilizations. The logic of their position in the flow of the commandments becomes clear when one considers that adultery cannot be committed without some degree of both lying and covetousness, yet it would be possible to engage in some form of simple dishonesty or jealousy without committing adultery. The cases of the second table of the law rise and fall together and with them the civilizations that choose to obey or ignore God’s unchanging law.

The church of Christ must maintain total independence from lower civil government interference, yet must also guard its God-given interposing authority upon all lower civil governments across the world. Individual Christian citizens understand the proper use of civil authority according to God’s laws, which are fundamentally set forth in the Ten Commandments and referred to in Romans 13. (In short, when civil authorities violate the immutable principles of the Ten Commandments, a true Christian congregation will confront defiance and rebellion against God for the sake of the gospel and the common good.) The respect of civil government is understood within the confines of its respect to the laws of God as prescribed in the Ten Commandments and the moral laws of God. No lesser authority has the power to demand disobedience to a greater authority, and though we follow the scriptures to respect the role of civil government, those roles cease in their validity when such usurps authority to demand things directly against God, scripture, and conscience. It is the duty of all men to obey God’s laws and resist such as seek to corrupt and coerce against them. The church, therefore, has a responsibility to uphold God’s laws and to teach men to obey and honor civil government and respect its authority to the degree that it does not go out of the bounds of God’s laws. The command of scripture to “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake” (1 Peter 2:13) is understood in the light of just law, which is the conscription of divine law upon the rights of any delegated authority to make law. It is also the scriptural duty to obey God rather than man (Acts 4:19, 5:29) within the bounds and edicts of Scripture and moral law. The church, therefore, upholds the commands of Scripture to teach all to “Fear God; honor the king” (1 Peter 2:17), understanding that the second does not usurp the first.

Reason #2: Historical “authorities” in our country are peddling lies.

As a pastor, my life’s work centers upon one of the oldest history books in the world – the Bible. In my field, a growing number of church leaders are distorting historical Bible truths for present-day expedience. I take issue with this form of historical revisionism every time I teach and preach. Not unlike the verbal wresting necessary to expunge “sin” from the Christian faith, there is a brand of blatant deception occurring today in the arena of American history. In politics, modern history professors and political pundits on the left like to play games with American history, particularly the constitution, and I take issue with their “rub-out God” revisionism with the same passion. Why? Because it is NEVER a good thing to distort history for present-day personal expedience. That is a BAD thing! I resent bad things and seek to correct them. That is my nature as a pastor. It’s… what I do for a living.

Reason #3: People believe the historical “authorities” who lie.

The fact that a growing minority of citizens in our nation continue to loudly reveal a landslide of ignorance with regard to the Christian origins of America’ political system also goads me forward in my political endeavors. I (and many other thousands of Christian leaders like me) intend to do my part, however large or small that part may be, to bring America back to her roots. We ministers who participate in the political system are not trying to “take over” America! We’re trying to end a 40-year stand-off between the “America that once was” and a band of deceiving secularist hijackers who wish to hold this country hostage at their whim.

Reason #4: A growing number of elected officials and unelected judges ARE the historically ignorant, secularist hijackers, and they need to be replaced, beginning at the grass-roots level.

What is THEIR agenda? They will force a FEDERALLY ESTABLISHED RELIGION which trumps all other religions in America: the religion of SECULAR HUMANISM. This is the polar opposite of what the correct interpretation of “separation of church and state” meant in the context of Jefferson’s Danbury Baptist letter. (We’ll get into this with more detail in a moment.) And they have and will continue to do it successfully if they can get people like me to shut up and go away. Since we won’t, they’re willing to trash the 1st Amendment in hopes of forcing us to shut up and go away. Has anyone else noticed how often the 1st Amendment is attacked and undermined by the left in this country? In their minds, it’s okay to display a statue of Jesus smeared with elephant dung in the name of “free speech,” but apparently it’s NOT okay for a minister to teach against what his Judeo/Christian religion has called sin for 4000 years (aka homosexuality). Apparently art is protected “speech,” but speech is not protected speech. How about McCain/Feingold legislation – arguably the most unconstitutional law passed in American history? How about the Human Rights Commissions – the “thought-police” who support so-called “hate-crimes” legislation around the globe, elevating behavior to the level of race without the support of responsible science and punishing those who dare to disagree verbally by criminalizing statements of religious conviction or personal opinion? It doesn’t seem difficult to comprehend how damnable this line of legislation is to the first amendment, but some just don’t get it, I suppose. They’ll stay pre-occupied with their own universe until the “Liberal Gestapo” arrives at their local church and serves them papers for a court date. When my comrades in ministry have to defend themselves in court for committing a hate-crime, THEN… maybe then, they’ll re-think their aloof position on getting politically involved in politics as ministers.

I didn’t trade-in my 1st Amendment rights for ordination papers, and I can only hope to embolden my peers. I am fed up with radical secularism in America and hope that my fellow ministers will remember Gideon: drink your water, keep your eyes peeled, OR BE DISQUALIFIED!

Section 2) The Origin of “Separation of Church and State” in American History

Indeed, many Americans are ignorant of that amazing fact – that 34% of the signers of the Constitution had degrees in Christian theology. In addition, many Americans fail to understand that the following information has been, more or less, erased from modern-day public school history books.

Bible literacy among the crafters and signers of the Constitution was, and remains to be, chiefly responsible for the formation of both the Declaration and the Constitution of the United States. This is evidenced by the following often ignored facts:

1 – The “Separation of Powers,” segregating the mostly independent authority of our three distinct branches of government, was an idea that came directly from Jeremiah 17:9.

2 – The concept to create “three branches of government” came directly from Isaiah 33:22

3 – The practice of honoring the most valuable organizations in our society by granting such with exemption from taxation (tax exemption for churches) finds its origin in the command of Ezra 7:24.

4 – The foundation for America’s compassionate immigration law, described in Article 1, Section 8, came from Leviticus 19:34.

5 – The eligibility for president, described in Article 12, Section 1, came from Deuteronomy 17:15.

6 – The number of witnesses required in a capital punishment case, located in Article 3, Section 3, came from Deuteronomy 17:6.

7 – The general syntax of Article 3 possesses the identical structure found in the language of Ezekiel 18:20.

The inspiration of the Holy Bible and its profound influence upon the minds of the founders of America is documented and acknowledged by all legitimate political science professors and historians. It is the work of the deceiving and shameless school book revisionists (with a left-leaning political ax to grind), who corrupt the accurate records of our rich spiritual history as a nation.

Consider further that congress enjoyed church under the capitol dome for many years in our early history. I’ll never forget standing beneath that same capitol dome in Washington, D.C. and hearing my tour-guide, holding an extremely rare copy of the Aitken Bible in his hand, state: “On January 21, 1781, Robert Aitken presented a petition to Congress offering to print ‘a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools.’ Congress responded to that request by authorizing the first American printing of the Holy Bible. ‘Approved and recommended by the Congress of the United States of America in 1782’ was printed upon its front pages once it was completed.”

Bear in mind that the Declaration of Independence might as well have been a work of plagiarism copied from the book, “Two Treatises on Government,” written by Christian theologian, John Locke, as a book of doctrinal apologetics. A book, arguing correctly interpreted scriptures against the heretical “divine right of kings” doctrines of England, a book which quoted the Bible more than 1,400 times.

“If it’s true that the framers didn’t intend for America to be a secular state”, they protest, “then why doesn’t the constitution say the word ‘Jesus’ somewhere in its paragraphs?” I could easily respond to that question with a question of my own: If it’s true that the framers intended for America to be a secular state, then why doesn’t the constitution say the word “secular” as do the French constitutions? (Checkmate!) In addition, there’s a simple answer to a very simple question: “The Constitution doesn’t say the word ‘Jesus’ within its paragraphs for the same reason that the word ‘Jesus’ is not found printed on the blueprints of my new church facility, presently under construction, on the east side of Sioux City.”

For a more complex and detailed answer to that simple question: One of the chief reasons that direct references to Jesus Christ or the Christian religion, in particular, were not placed in the constitution, was because the founders, particularly Thomas Jefferson, sought for the States to maintain the power to establish the place of religion within their own State constitutions. He made that very clear in 1805, as he delivered his second inaugural address, expressing that the free exercise of religion was “independent” of federal jurisdiction.

Remember, Thomas Jefferson was the first Anti-Federalist president in America, and those of his persuasion wished the States to maintain greater strength than the federal government. Therefore, they believed that one method of weakening federal power could be achieved by allowing only the States to have the power to endorse and encourage the public expression of religion. Unlike today, the people of the founding era understood that “self government” (the inalienable right of individual persons) existed as the highest and most authoritative form of government on earth. Therefore, state and federal government existed by the permission of the individual. Government did not grant men rights. Oh contraire, men granted government its rights, and only God Himself (spiritual government) granted men the power to grant civil government its rights and restrictions. Self government (second only to God Himself) was supreme, family government next, then local and state governments, and last and least of them all, the federal government.

This prevailing thought on government was the rationale for the Declaration of Independence, and the book Two Treatises on Government, from which the Declaration came – the reverse of English thought and the nemesis of the British doctrine called the “Divine Right of Kings”. This predominant colonial paradigm was the basis for Revolutionary War!

Such comprehension of the proper role of government is very rare in modern America, indeed, as evidenced by the ever-increasing clamoring of the masses for more and more entitlement programs. Could it be that a growing number of Americans wish to be “breast-fed” and “nourished” by the federal and state government because of the decline of traditional family values – resulting in record-breaking rates of fatherless children? I’m not sure, but I think some psychologist somewhere out there in academia-land ought to see if there isn’t a verifiable correlation between unwed mothers and the growth of socialism in America. Indeed, it appears to me that many Americans have traded the “founding fathers” for a subconsciously preferred group of imaginary “founding mothers.” The colonial era saw the role of the government and individual responsibility in a completely different light than those who espouse the doctrines of, say, a Hillary Clinton today.

If one were to read many of the original State constitutions, before federal courts ignored Jefferson’s interpretation of the first amendment and removed the original texts that, once upon a time, endorsed the public expression of faith, not only would most be amazed at the overtly Christian wording, they would witness the framers’ original intent for the first amendment in action! The states were allowed to apply religious tests for public officeholders, whereas the federal government was restricted and afforded no such control. Certainly, the existence of religious tests on a state level, make it exceptionally difficult to argue that the framers intended to create a secular/godless government.

So then, if the phrase “separation of church and state” isn’t in the Constitution, where did the phrase come from?

In a private letter sent to Thomas Jefferson, the Danbury Baptists explained their concerns about the Constitution’s apparent suggestion that human government, created and operated by flawed human beings, had the power to grant self-governed men religious freedom. In their view, only God Himself could grant such birth-right freedoms. Thomas Jefferson responded by reassuring them that the language offered in the first amendment would not allow a federalized BRAND of Christianity to usurp any other BRAND of Christianity as had been experienced by the pilgrims from England. In addition, neither he as president, nor the language of the Constitution (as the basis of law), would allow, through the existence of a federal DENOMINATION, human government to hinder, restrict, impede, or control the “free exercise of religion” in the United States.

In short, in his correspondence to the Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that he agreed with them… God Himself (spiritual government) granted men the right to worship, not human government. Therefore, human government, particularly the federal government, should be restricted from hindering free men who wished to worship, so long as their form of worship did not physically harm other members of a community. The anti-federalist Baptists agreed with their anti-federalist president! Human government reserved the right to stop any religious practice which physically harmed or endangered other human beings. This correspondence between the Baptists and their beloved president was, basically, a very reasonable and intelligent discussion… one group of anti-federalists communicating with another anti-federalist. Any man of average intelligence could read their correspondence and understand the context. It is very clear that the Supreme Court of 1947 willfully misapplied Jefferson’s words out of their context – a shame to that court that has lasted to this day.

Notice for a moment the certain inescapable irony of this letter…A CHURCH group writing to their president about their DENOMINATION’S well-known stance on a hot political issue of their day – federalism! Why, the very idea that a CHURCH might publish their POLITICAL views! Today, such an article would enrage the left beyond imagination! And in the name of WHOM would they be enraged? None other than their beloved and so-called “deist,” Thomas Jefferson!

The fantastic neglect of historical truth in our country is beyond comprehension. I am left to conclude that such prevailing ignorance in our times is the direct result of something sinisterly spiritual.

During THAT discussion with the Baptist anti-federalists, and in THAT context, Jefferson used the phrase “separation of church and state” to describe a wall of protection from federally established DENOMINATIONS or any other similar desire of the federal government to control either public or private religious expression.

As historian David Barton wrote in an article entitled Separation of Church and State, “Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination – a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow–signer of the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Rush:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly.” (See Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800.)

From the day the Danbury Baptist letter was written in 1801, and for the next one hundred forty-six years, Americans freely worshipped as a Christian nation founded upon Christian principles, both privately and PUBLICLY, without any unauthorized federal interference. Ministers in many Christian CHURCHES preached sermons with direct POLITICAL ramifications on a regular basis as a matter of moral obligation. Likewise, the name of Jesus Christ was celebrated and invoked in countless acts of the state, as well as in official and non-official political gatherings across the nation. This practice was considered the “norm” in THIS country among Americans, all the while adhering to Jefferson’s idea of the 1st Amendment. (And America, though far from perfect, was, in many ways, a better country then, than it is today.)

Then insert the judicial activism of the Supreme Court in Emerson vs. Board of Education – 1947. Suddenly, the phrase “separation of church and state” is willfully pulled from its context. Since that day, the misuse of Jefferson’s language to the Danbury Baptists has been repeated so many times by the media and other cronies of the liberal left, that many, if not most Americans believe it is written somewhere in the Constitution! Also, the “consensus of scholarly opinion” suggests that Jefferson intended to ensure that

“no form of public expression of religion be allowed in the United States of America… therefore, we can have no prayer in schools, no monuments of a religious nature in our public buildings, no crosses in our publicly funded graveyards, no “under God” in our pledge, and absolutely no “political speech” in our pulpits! Why – the very idea of a pastor speaking to a political issue might end life as we know it on planet earth – ruining this great deist nation founded upon secularism!”

Yet churches were not actually stripped of their 1st Amendment rights until seven years later, in 1954, by an appropriations rider designed to shift public policy against religious institutions. Basically, the rider stated that the government would only recognize the valuable contributions of religious organizations (through tax exemptions enjoyed by houses of worship for the previous 178 years) IF they gave up their constitutional right to free speech in the pulpit.

Since that time, the draconian Internal Revenue Service has been used as a “1st Amendment Gestapo” (albeit a distorted and misinterpreted 1st Amendment) of sorts, to squelch non-profit organizations from certain forms of political activity. And yet, some unapprised members of the liberal media, like Mr. Richard Cohen, of the Washington Post, imply with their publications almost as naturally as they breathe, that this was the original intent of our founders. They lie.

Were it not for the Christian Bible, the Christian religion, and 19 ordained members of the clergy who signed the American Constitution – America would not exist, at least not in the form of the America we know today. The United States of America possesses the longest lasting constitution in world history, and a new world record of constitutional longevity is set every 4th of July.

Reason #5: More importantly, without modern-day Christians who are willing to remain politically active, America will inevitably be destroyed from the internal depravity and hedonism glorified by our present pop-culture and practiced by many of our elected and unelected government officials.

This brand of depravity and hedonism could not be spawned were it not for the unpleasant influence of the secular-humanist religion – a doctrine taught daily in America’s secularist churches…the public schools.

In short, pop-culture has traded the intelligence and wisdom of the Bible for the theology of Gene Roddenberry (for all the “non-geeks” out there, he was the creator of… Star Trek). If that is what some Americans wish to do… well then… that is their prerogative, and they may continue on their lemming march toward that inevitable casket that all men must face.

Section 3) Final Thoughts

Out of the 55 men who took part in the creation and signing of the Constitution (19 of which were ordained Christian clergy with degrees in theology), only a doubtful handful may have been deists. (Thomas Jefferson was certainly no candidate for such a title.) Even then, such information on a few of those four or five particular individuals “proving” deism is difficult to substantiate. And yet, even those men who supposedly comprised a small minority of the whole 55, who are accused of deism (like Franklin), recognized the moral and intellectual authority of the Holy Bible and maintained a profound respect for its tenets. We have their personal records, public statements, and journal entries to prove it.

Jesus was the ultimate peacemaker. Among other things, He promised to return and put an end to the corruption found in human governments. In Revelation 2:27, Jesus sent a message to the church of Thyatira. In that message He quoted the ancient writ of Psalm 2:9 and said, more or less, “I will personally rule the nations with a rod of iron!” Then, at the very end of the Good Book, we read the prophetic description of His making good on that promise. (See Revelation 19:15).

Some offer the tired old argument that “Christ did not approve of involvement in political matters.” This is based upon the conjecture that Jesus “did not engage the political world” during His 3 and ½ year ministry. (Never mind the historical fact that His life and ministry have managed to maintain an unprecedented impact upon the political world for the last 2000 years… and still counting.)

The first thing I would point out in answer to this debate, is that, well, He was only here for 3 and ½ years. (Just imagine what might have occurred to the political world had He stayed longer! Well, actually, there’s no need to imagine it – just read the Book of Revelation!)

The second is that He clearly DID elucidate His plans to return at a later time and clean things up on this little orb we call earth. (See the previous three paragraphs).

The third item I would bring to the attention of the political pacifists is that the implementation of Jesus’ teachings in our modern day requires American Christians, in particular, to participate in the American republic by raising a standard of righteousness where it has been lost. Jesus said in Mark 12:17, “…Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s…” The interesting thing to realize is that our constitutional republic asks for far more than taxes; America asks for your participation.

Christians have a moral mandate, as representatives of the heavenly kingdom, to influence, mold, and shape our society. Of course, this is best done by reaching the lost with the news of the Gospel, but this should not cause us to shirk the very practical opportunity for shaping our world by either voting for those who best represent Christian values, or running for elected office ourselves. The two acts of preaching to the lost and influencing societal politics are not competitive, but complementary – they are scriptural acts of biblical peacemaking!

The fourth item I would discuss in this debate on Christ’s supposed “lack of political engagement” comes in the form of a series of questions:

How many times in the Bible can we read of the prophets of old speaking the counsel of God into the ears of kings? Answer: Too numerous to list!

How many times did John the Baptist, Peter, the Apostle Paul, and yes, even Jesus, come before the lawmakers of their day and declare the truth of God? Answer: Many!

Ladies and gentlemen, if Jesus did not care about influencing the political arena when He walked the earth like I’ve heard some preachers claim, then why did He promise His followers that He would return someday TO ERADICATE EVIL GOVERNMENTS AND SET UP HIS OWN KINGDOM OF PEACE?

If Jesus did not believe there was value in the influence of righteous men upon human politics, then why didn’t He rebuke John the Baptist saying,

“John! Listen, cousin! If you don’t start focusing on the spiritual aspect of faith in God, and leave Herod, tax collectors, and military officials alone, you’re liable to lose your head! Can you hear me, John? Just preach about love and forgiveness! Don’t insult these people with the message of righteousness and repentance! Father God put them there to do His sovereign will, John. Just obey Herod, pay your taxes, turn your head when you see soldiers abusing their authority, and stick to preaching your kingdom sermons. You do a great job with baptisms, too. John, there are a lot of things that you could do to keep yourself out of trouble here! Choose your battles, cousin!”

Jesus didn’t say any of those silly things, did He? No. In fact, upon hearing the news of his death, Jesus eulogized John by saying, “He was a burning and shining light, and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.” (See John 5:35.) On another occasion, Jesus proclaimed of this man whose doctrine and manner of life upset the politics of the entire southern lands of Palestine, “Verily I say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist…”(See Matthew 11:11.)

The scriptures teach that when a child is not punished appropriately in the home, the entire family will be defiled. (See 1 Samuel 3:13 and Proverbs 13:24.) The scriptures teach that when a church member, fallen into sin, is not confronted appropriately in the local church, that entire church group is defiled, for Paul warned, “A little yeast affects the whole bowl of dough!” (See 1 Corinthians 5:6-12 and Galatians 5:9.) Finally, the scriptures teach us that when a criminal is not punished appropriately by civil government, the entire state is defiled. (See Numbers 35:30-33.)

On the other hand, when a father learns what the Bible says with regard to rearing children and begins to apply it, it brings unprecedented stability and peace upon the whole family. When a pastor learns what the Bible says with regard to shepherding the local church and begins to apply it, it brings unprecedented stability and peace upon the entire flock. When a municipal government learns what the Bible says with regard to governance of the people and begins to apply it, it brings extraordinary stability and peace to the state and nation.

The big question is: How is civil government going to operate in a righteous way if righteous men and women continue to abdicate their moral responsibility to serve the realm of politics? The answer? Peacemakers! Charles Finney – a famous American minister and revivalist of the Second Great Awakening – stated:

“The Church must take right ground in regard to politics… The time has come that Christians must vote for honest men, and take consistent ground in politics or the Lord will curse them…God cannot sustain this free and blessed country, which we love and pray for, unless the Church will take right ground. Politics are part of a religion in such a country as this, and Christians must do their duty to the country as a part of their duty to God… [God] will bless or curse this nation, according to the course [Christians] take [in politics].”

“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the [mature] children of God.” -Jesus Christ