Articles on the current administration and politics in general.

COEXIST

/in , , , , , /by

COEXIST. It sounds great and it’s a necessary and healthy thing to get peoples of different faiths to cooperate and to peaceably live alongside with one another and respect each other’s convictions. As an organization, it’s a powerful force for good. But there’s an underlying message being promoted that says every religion is fundamentally the same and we’re all just travelers opting for different paths to a common destination.

That’s not true.

And while those differences don’t have to be processed as justifications to war with one another, it is important to recognize the essence of each religious school of thought, especially in those instances where the creed in question is being used to support acts of violence and terror.

I) We’re All Different

Here’s the thing: Not everybody thinks the same way. Two well read and educated individuals can look at the same issue and come up with two completely different viewpoints. We are all different. Those differences can, and should, create a dynamic where, because we’re working together, our distinctive perspectives can compliment one another and the resulting effort is far more comprehensive and effective than it would be otherwise.

That’s the premise behind the “COEXIST” organization that you can read more about at coexist.org. You’ve probably seen the bumper sticker they publish and it truly is a noble effort. There’s one particular story about how one community, racked by violence as a result of religious differences, came together in the context of a cooperative effort to produce coffee. It’s hard to argue with success, it really is. A neighborhood, that was nothing short of a war zone, has been transformed into a situation where people of different faiths are working side by side and creating a successful product.

II) Slander No One

From a Christian’s perspective, this resonates with Titus 3. The idea is that we’ve got a great Truth that we want to communicate to people and we do that by living lives that draw people in. It says in verse 2 “…to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.”

The process of going from a  spiritual corpse to someone with a spiritual pulse is not going to be facilitated through an argument or the tip of a sword. It’s God Who does that and our role is to be a witness to all that Solution entails and not a mere protester of all that is bad in the world. That’s not to say there isn’t a time to take up arms and defend what is right (Ecc 3:8; Lk 22:36-38; Rom 13:4), but when it comes to championing the gospel, that’s a spiritual war and we’re obligated to use spiritual weapons if we want to be both obedient and effective (2 Cor 10:3-5).

III) Be Vigilant

The fact that it’s a spiritual battle is a cue to be that much more vigilant, as far as popping the hood on spiritual issues and ensuring that what may appear harmless and even noble, doesn’t have a sinister dynamic as its basis. That’s not being overly critical or even pessimistic, rather it’s being wise (Matt 7:15; 1 Pet 5:8). The notion of being able to peaceably coexist with people of other faiths is biblical and therefore entirely appropriate, as seen in Titus 3. But many perceive the “coexist”campaign as an encouragement to process all faiths as fundamentally the same and that’s where you get into things that are not appropriate, let alone logical.

Let’s take a look at that for a minute.

IV) The Symbols of COEXIST

The “C” in COEXIST is the crescent moon that represents Islam. According to islam.about.com, the crescent moon was actually a symbol that had been adopted by the emperor of Constantinople to represent his empire. When the Seljuk Turks conquered the city in 1453, they adopted the city’s existing flag and symbol and, over time, the crescent moon became the symbol of Islam.
The “O” represents “peace.” In 1958, Gerald Holtom designed a symbol that was to be used as part of a march organized for the purpose of promoting nuclear disarmament. The letters “N” and “D,” which stood for “nuclear disarmament,” were superimposed on top of one another in the context of semaphore symbols. Holtom’s design would later be adopted by the anti-war movement and by the end of sixties, the “peace sign” had crossed several cultural and international boundaries and was widely recognized as an icon that stood for the promotion of a non-violent approach to conflict.
The “E” is an artistic embellishment of the letter “e” with the symbols that represent male and female. To the left, the first symbol is the female symbol which is derived from the astrological sign that represents Venus. Below that is the male symbol which, again derives from the astrological community. In this instance, it is the sign for Mars. This element symbolizes cooperation and peace between the sexes.
The “X” is the “Star of David” which represents “Judaism” The “Star of David” is not referenced in the Bible or any authoritative Jewish religious resource. But while its origins are unclear, it has been in use for centuries. Some were not especially keen on it being representative of Israel, let alone the Jewish faith, because of the way its shape has been associated with pagan religions. But its use has become cemented as a result of the things such as the Holocaust when Jews were required by their Nazi counterparts to wear a Star of David that identified them as Jews as well as the Zionist movement that established the design of the Israeli flag to be blue and white with the Star of David positioned in the middle.
The “I” is dotted with a pentagram which represents witchcraft. While the pentagram is used to represent more than just witchcraft (it’s also used as a symbol in Mormonism and the Bahai’ faith), it’s traditionally associated with magic and the occult. The five points of the star represent the five classical elements in Wicca; earth, wind, fire, air and spirit.
The “S” is the “yin-yang” symbol which comes from Chinese Philosophy that states that the universe consists of opposites that interact and compliment one another. This as opposed to the more base perception that says opposites conflict with one another. The symbol itself is difficult to define in terms of its origins in that no one has ever claimed to be the sole author. Still, there is substantial evidence that points to a classical approach to Chinese Philosophy that strove to create visual representations of fundamental patterns that govern the phenomena of the universe. It was this 15th century effort that produced the graphic that we now know as the “yin yang” symbol.
The “T” is the cross of Christ which represents Christianity. Because the cross was recognized as a gruesome form of execution and not the the sort of visual symbol that inspired pleasant thoughts, there was a fair amount of hesitation on the part of early Christians to adopt the crucifix as an icon. But by the second century the symbol of the cross was so associated with followers of Christ that Clement of Alexandria, an early Christian theologian, could use the phrase “the sign of the cross” without fear of ambiguity.

The “O,” the “E” and the “S” are not necessarily religions per se. While Chinese Philosophy does include Buddhism, the “yin-yang” dynamic isn’t really emphasized as something that is central to their doctrine. So, for the most part, those three letters are symbolic of different types of cooperation and coexisting peaceably. Islam, Judaism, Witchcraft and Christianity, however, are religions and when you pop the hood on these three doctrines you have three very different ideologies serving as the foundation for each of these creeds. Getting the followers of these different religious schools of thought to cooperate with one another is one thing, but it’s another thing entirely to suggest that the fundamentals of what they believe are the same.

V) Islam    

 A) Unstable Eternity – the Nature of Allah

What separates these three religions right away is the nature of the “god” that serves as the principle deity. At the core of Islam is the doctrine of tawhid. It is documented in Quran 112:1-4 and basically means that Allah is one. He is one, central god that cannot be known and is completely distinct from all that’s been created. That in and of itself is distinct from Christianity where God is a personal God and desires a personal relationship with His creation (Is 43:1; Rev 3:20).

Allah is just (Quran 4:40) but it’s here where things get a little confusing. While Allah is just and is therefore obligated to punish all sin, he is also forgiving, but his forgiveness is reserved for those who ask (Quran 4:110). On the surface that doesn’t sound so bad, but should you die before you’ve sought forgiveness for all your sins, you have a potential problem on your hands. In addition, Christianity doesn’t simply advocate an increased effort being put forth on the part of the believer in order to avoid wrongful behavior. Instead, God offers His Holy Spirit to teach and to guide (Jn 14:26). You are made new when you accept His gift of Redemption and it is through the Strength He provides that you’re able to think and perform in a manner that’s pleasing to Him (Jn 14:26; 2 Cor 5:17; Phil 2:13)

In short, your status in the eyes of Allah fluctuates according to your behavior. You’re responsible for seeking the grace of Allah. Should you have anything outstanding at the moment of your death, your eternal security is unstable. In addition, your earthly existence is unassisted. It’s not Allah working in and through you, as is the case with a follower of Christ. Rather, it’s you laboring to please Allah according to your own sense of resolve and discipline.      

B) Who is Christ?

A good Muslim is going to discipline himself to be moral by keeping the Quran on his lips and and his behavior in check. It’s entirely up to him, as far as how he appears before Allah. Christianity, on the other hand, is based on God sending His Son to atone for the shortcomings of humanity and making available His Holy Spirit to strengthen an otherwise weak and uninformed resolve (Is 41:10; Jn 14:26; Phil 4:13; 2 Tim 1:7; 1 Jn 4:4).

It’s not so much you working to get to God, rather it’s God pursing you and equipping you with what you need to access Him. This is all represented in the Person and the Ministry of Christ. It is the Identity of Christ that defines Christianity and if any religion claims to be similar than it will follow that their regard for Jesus will be the same. If, on the other hand, they deny Christ as being God Incarnate, than you have all that you need in order to conclude that their doctrine is distinct from a Christian creed (1 Jn 4:3).

Islam regards Jesus as a good Muslim and nothing more. The Qur’an doesn’t record the words of acts of Christ, it simply attempts to assert that Scripture is corrupted by saying that: Jesus was never crucified…

And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. (sura 4:157)

Jesus was / is not the Son of God…

The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. (sura 5:75)

The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (sura 9:30)

The Identity of Christ, as far as Him being the Son of God, is central to the Christian faith and it is the resurrection that Christ Himself identified as proof of Who He was.

He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matt 12:39-41)

H.P. Liddon, an accomplished British theologian who lived during the 19th century said:

Faith in the resurrection is the very keystone of the arch of Christian faith, and, when it is removed, all must inevitably crumble into ruin.1

Should you deny the resurrection, then you’re denying the fact of Christ’s deity and you’re reducing Him to a mere teacher that died a tragic death. By doing so, you categorize yourself under the heading of 1 John 2:22 where the apostle John says:

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.     (1 Jn 2:22)

In other words, you can’t be more at odds with the Christian doctrine than by declaring that Jesus didn’t rise from the grave. It’s not a matter of simply questioning a historical occurrence as much as it’s denouncing His being God Incarnate.

VI) Judaism

While Jews and Christians share a great deal in terms of the Old Testament, the similarities cease after the book of Malachi. The deal breaking issue is the Identity of Jesus as being the Messiah. Jews do not subscribe to the Truth that Christ is the “Anointed One.”

The reasons behind the Jewish platform for not believing in Jesus as the Son of God are varied, but the one thing they conveniently sidestep is the Resurrection of Christ. This is, and always will be, the bottom line as far as whether or not Christ was all that He claimed to be.

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:19-20:

If we hoped in Messiah in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. But now Messiah has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. (1 Cor 15:19-20)

In effect, what he’s saying is that if Christ didn’t rise from the grave, all Christians are pathetically deluded and are clinging to a school of thought that’s more trouble than it’s worth.

Jews and Christians have disagreed since the very beginning, starting with Christ Himself who infuriated the Jewish religions authorities with His claim to be God Incarnate (Jn 10:33). In Acts 4, Peter and John are brought before some of the same authorities that had condemned Christ to death (Annas and Caiaphas [Matt:26:57; John 18:13; | Acts 4:5-6]) and with several threats demanded that they stop speaking about Jesus despite the fact that they themselves could not deny that Jesus had risen from the grave (Acts 4:16).

The resolve of the Hebrew nation continues to this day, as far as insisting that the Messiah has yet to arrive. It’s because of their unwillingness to accept Jesus as the Son of God that they fall under the heading of 1 John 2:22 and their doctrine is totally different from that of the Christian creed where it matters most.

VII) Wicca

Thus far we’ve been able to determine that, despite some harmless sounding similarities, Islam and Judaism differs dramatically from Christianity in that their view of Christ falls short of His being Divine.

The same thing applies with Wicca. While Wicca doesn’t claim to be a religion, it references religious ceremonies in its “13 Principles of Wiccan Belief.” Their ceremonies and rites involve a poly-theistic approach in that there’s not one God, but rather multiple gods.

Portraying them as sinister looking people dressed in black clothing with pointy hats is neither appropriate nor accurate. Their “Rule of Three” encourages the idea of reciprocity. In other words, what you contribute, be it positive or negative, will be returned to you three fold. Hence, being kind and friendly is encouraged.

Where Wicca differs from Christianity is in the way Jesus is marginalized as a great teacher and an extraordinary human being. He is not the “Son of God” and any notion that He represents the only way to God is dismissed as absolutely wrong.

Here again, you see a dramatic fork in the road as far as two religions being revealed as very distinct from one another. While you can compare and contrast the details of Christianity with different religions to the point of mental exhaustion, the bottom line is and always will be, “Who is Jesus?” If the answer to that question is anything other than God Incarnate, you’ve got something that is totally distinct from the Christian doctrine.

VIII) Sanctified Violence?

Depending on what resource you reference, Islam is touted as being the fastest growing religion in the USA. Given the Islamic foundation for the acts of terror that have been perpetuated around the world for last three decades, it’s difficult to understand how a creed that is apparently so supportive of violence against “infidels” can resonate so strongly among so many.

A) Is Islam a Peaceful Religion? Yes?

Some will say that Islam is generally a peaceful religion that doesn’t seek to promote violence and they’re correct as long as they restrict their intake of the Quran to specific verses, such as:

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. (sura 2:256)

…and sura 15:94:

Then declare what you are commanded and turn away from the polytheists. (sura 15:94)

B) Is Islam a Peaceful Religion? Not So Much…

The problem is that these verses were written before other texts which, in the minds of some Muslims, nullify their relevance. In other words, the texts you need to revere are the ones that were “revealed” most recently. That being the case, you how have a different approach to violence as seen in verses from the Quran such as:

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. (sura 2:191)

and..

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and Faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. (sura 2:193)

So while some Muslims can accurately say that Islam is a religion of peace, they can only say that if they ignore other verses in the Quran which are passionately embraced as justification for the outrageous acts of terror  perpetuated by organizations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).

These organizations are not having to engage in a series of theological calisthenics in order to arrive at a “holy” foundation upon which to build their zeal and depravity.

C) The Reality of “Abrogation”

Muhammad ash-Shawkani was a respected Islamic cleric who lived from 1759 to 1834 who is considered an authority on Islamic doctrine and law. Among his writings is a book entitled, “Alsaylu Jarar” which states:

Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam or submitting and paying Jiziah (special tax paid only by Christians or Jews) or being killed.   [The verses] about forgiving them are abrogated unanimously by the obligation of fighting in any case. (“Beyond Jihad: Critical Voices from Inside Islam” [p63])

Jihad Against Jews and Crusader
World Islamic Front Statement
February 28, 1998
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.” (click here to view entire text)v

Given that sort of disposition, the directive authored by Osama bin Laden and endorsed by five Islamic caliphates which ordered the killing of all Americans, is not a nonsensical interpretation of Islamic thought. It’s simply a practical application of the Quran.

D) The Violence of Christianity

Some critics will assert that Christianity is just as violent as Islam as demonstrated by the Crusades and the military campaigns of Charlemagne.

Rome was not very accommodating when it came to Christianity prior to February 313 when Emperor Constantine issued the “Edict of Milan” which ordered all of Rome to treat Christians benevolently. Up to that point, Christians were viewed as enemies of the state because of the way their creed directed worship towards God as opposed to Caesar. Under Constantine, that dynamic was eliminated and while it allowed Christians to practice their faith without fear of persecution, it introduced the idea that heads of state were also leaders in the church and were responsible for the spiritual health of their subjects.

1) Wealth and Power Over Truth and Worship

This deteriorated into a situation where an accurate interpretation of Christian doctrine gave way to political agendas and economic strategies. In 392 Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the only “legal” religion. In 785, Charlemagne issued a decree that dealt with the way in which his administration was to handle the conquered Saxons by saying:

If any one of the race of the Saxons hereafter concealed among them shall have wished to hide himself unbaptized, and shall have scorned to come to baptism and shall have wished to remain a pagan, let him be punished by death.2

And then of course, was the Crusades. The thing that’s significant about the Crusades is that while you had knights brandishing shields emblazoned with the symbol of the cross, it’s wrong to assume that their inspiration was nothing other than the liberation of the Holy Land in that it ignores the fact that the Muslims had occupied Jerusalem for almost 400 years prior to the first Crusade.

Consider this: In 638, Omar took Jerusalem from the Jews. It wouldn’t be until 1096 that the Pope would call upon the people of Europe to liberate the Holy Land. If it was the Islamic control of Jerusalem that was the central reason behind the Crusades, then it follows that a military effort would’ve been launched well before Urban II declared that Christ had commanded it. But the Muslims’ control of the Holy Land was never an issue to the Pope until the Seljuk Turks made it clear that they were planning on expanding their influence to include Constantinople. At that point, Alexis I, the emperor of the Byzantine Empire humbled himself before the Pope and offers him the opportunity to assume control over the Greek Orthodox Church (the respective popes of the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Greek Orthodox church had excommunicated each other).3

This was an unprecedented act of submission and demonstrates the sense of urgency Alexis I felt as he looked over the horizon and saw the coming of the Turks. But it was the way they threatened his kingdom and not his worship that drove him to seek help from Rome, and it was Pope Urban’s quest for power that drove him to respond to Alexis’ request for a band of mercenaries with an immense host of  European soldiers.

The Babylonian Talmud

I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to perse all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it is meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

(Fulcher of Chartres recollection of Pope Urban II’s call to arms)

In order to accurately determine what the true Christian disposition is towards combat, it’s not the way Scripture has been abused that needs to be considered as much as it’s Scripture itself. In other words, before you take up arms against an enemy because a church leader states that “Christ commands it,” you need to be able to locate the verse in the Bible that says as much.

The Old Testament contains a number of military campaigns, the most notable being the conquest of the Promised Land and the battles fought by King David. The question on the table is whether or not these scenarios constitute a biblical justification for the way in which certain historical figures have exacted acts of violence on their fellow man. The short answer is “No.” Whether the personality in question is Charlemagne, Pope Urban II, Alexis the First or Emperor Theodosius, the common denominator is a quest for control and power. The wars fought in Scripture were founded on God’s Purpose and were manifestations of His Justice.          

2) The Difference Between a Cause and an Excuse

The land of Canaan was promised to Abraham in Genesis 17:8. The Canaanites were a vile people and engaged in the kind of idolatry that was nothing short of heinous and profoundly offensive in the eyes of God (Dt 18:9-12). It was because of the Canaanites’ outrageous immorality that they were singled out for punishment and it was that verdict that translated to the Israelites being empowered to utterly destroy them (Dt 9:5).

David’s exploits were similar. In his day, it was the Philistines that represented Israel’s most significant threat. The Philistines were descendants of Ham, one of Noah’s three sons who distinguished himself by being especially disgraceful (Gen 9:18-25). Throughout the Philistines’ history, they were enemies of Israel and thus enemies of God. Jeremiah 47 details God’s final interaction with them in the form of total and complete destruction. David’s successes were not merely the triumphs of a military tactitian. Rather, they were the manifestation of God’s Justice facilitated through a man who was humble and courageous enough to be obedient in the face of overwhelming odds (1 Sam 17:45-47; 23:1-6).

2 Samuel 8:6 sums it up best by saying “The Lord gave David victory wherever he went.” The point is that the victories that the Israelites won were not merely military triumphs as much as they were Divine Judgments exacted on those who chose to oppose God. That is the litmus test for truly sanctified violence and unless an individual’s or a nation’s actions can line up with said test, theirs is an enterprise that cannot be categorized as holy let alone right.

And that is the difference between a legitimate cause worth fighting for as opposed to a mere excuse to justify a violent pursuit of a self-serving agenda. So, all that to say, that a proper interpretation of God’s Word does not result in a creed that’s even remotely similar to the Islamic deployment of violence and prejudice. Islam is very distinct in that way and while it is our Christian duty to accommodate those of differing beliefs as articulated in Titus 3, it is just as important to be discerning and recognize what is true as opposed to what is false (1 Chron 12:32; 2 Pet 5:8; 1 Jn 4:1).

IX) Conclusion: The Bottom Line

Coexist? Absolutely! But do so beneath the umbrella of Truth. Otherwise, it’s not coexisting as much as it’s compromising things that cannot and should not be ignored let alone diluted.

1. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Here’s Life Publishers, San Bernardino, CA, 1972 1979, Josh McDowell, p181
2. Munro, Dana Carleton (Trans.) (2004). Selections from the Laws of Charles the Great
3. Williams, Paul (2002), Idiot’s Guide to the Crusades (Kindle DX Version) retrieved from amazon.com

Because of the Constitution, Not in Spite of It

/in , , /by

Ain’t it amazing when you hear people talk about the US as those who have something real to compare it to? Whether by default or design, they are embracing all the freedoms that go along with our spiritual / moral heritage. This is the very thing that the Left wants to retool, believing it to be antiquated and even sinister.

There are some who believe the Constitution to be toxic in that it was written and ratified by a group of men, many of whom were slave owners. What’s ironic about their perspective is that they’re demonizing the very paradigm that gives them the right to be critical.

The Bill of Rights was written by James Madison. On June 8, 1789, he addressed the Congress and insisted that the Constitution would not be complete unless amendments were added that explicitly protected individual rights. These would be the first ten amendments made to the Constitution and among them were the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press.

James Madison was a slave owner. Granted, the irony is obvious. How can a man who views an entire race of human beings as nothing more than pieces of property to be bought and sold not recognize how that view compromises the declared scope of the Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence? But in the end, the quality and durability of the Constitution is not measure by the moral flaws of the men that wrote it. Rather, it’s gauged according to the substance of the document itself.

For those who want to dismiss the Constitution as racist, it’s not just the Bill of Rights they should be considering. It’s also the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments that were made by the Republican party1 in the aftermath of the Civil War – the only war that was fought in the history of our planet that was waged for the sake of eliminating the sin of slavery.

The 13th amendment banned slavery, the 14th amendment defined a citizen as anyone born in the US which overturned an earlier ruling that prohibited Black people from voting, and the 15th amendment was an expansion of the 14th amendment. It prohibited governments from denying US citizens the right to vote based on race, color or past servitude. Like so many on the Left who labor to promote convictions based on a very judiciously selected collection of facts in a way to muffle the truth, is not only flawed, it’s downright belligerent. 360,000 Caucasians died to ensure the end of slavery as well as create the political environment that would allow for the aforementioned amendments.

By condemning the Constitution, they sneer at the very laws that give them the right to mock their government without fear of punishment. It’s this same legal foundation that provides all of us the opportunity to succeed and grow. And none of this came about without the blood and sacrifice of millions of people in the context of wars that were fought to protect those freedoms.

In short, the Oath of Allegiance that an immigrant has to state in order to become a citizen is something they embrace as a privilege. It includes supporting and defending the Constitution. They joyfully swear their allegiance to our country and its laws because they appreciate the profound rights guaranteed by the philosophical and legislative foundation crafted by flawed men, no doubt, but based on Divine Absolutes that prevent the corruption of power from restricting an individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The video clip featured on the right is more than just an inspiring scene of individuals realizing their dream of citizenship in the US. It’s a reminder that we are still a beacon of hope and opportunity for much of the civilized world. And we are that because of the Constitution, not in spite of it.

1. 13th Amendment – James Mitchell Ashley of Ohio (Republican), 14th Amendment – John A Bingham of Ohio (Republican), 15th Amendment – John A Bingham of Ohio (Republican)

Senator Van Hollen and Secretary Rubio

/in , , /by

Senator Van Hollen recently spoke before a committee where he confronted Secretary Rubio and said that he regretted having voted for him for Secretary of State. His comments were insulting, but, at the same time, they reveal the underlying problem that serves as the source for the tension that exists in our society today.

The problem is the way in which you define truth.

If you see yourself as the gauge by which all things are measured, then truth is whatever it is you want to believe in that moment. Should someone disagree with you, they’re not speaking the “truth,” so they can then be logically labeled a “liar.”

If they’re a “liar,” then they’re not merely mistaken, they’re immoral. If that person is a politician, they’re not a leader, they’re a tyrant. And those that support a tyrant aren’t voters, they’re Nazis.

This is the source of all the tension that exists in our society today. It’s not about USAID or Illegal Immigration or the Oval Office. Those are topics, but the tension is the way in which you define truth.

If you are you own bottom line, then you can dismiss the evidence that conclusively proves you to be wrong simply by declaring it to be irrelevant. Not because it’s anything less than conclusive, but simply because it makes you feel uncomfortable.

You have that power because you’ve authorized yourself to replace principles with preferences and reduced every incontrovertible fact to a situation where someone is forcing their beliefs on you.

You don’t want people to be fair, you want people to be quiet. You have to talk over your opponent because you don’t want the audience to hear what you can’t dispute. The great thing about the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is that it can be verified. Your corrupted version can only be allowed.

In this clip, Senator Van Hollen begins by declaring himself a victim. He’s disappointed and feels betrayed. By positioning yourself as someone who’s wounded, you’re able to get people to feel sorry for you which helps distract from the fact that you’re never going to get people to agree with you.

When Secretary Rubio referenced gang members being deported to El Salvador, Van Hollen did his best to talk over the Secretary insisting that what was being said was “unsubstantiated.” This goes back to the way in which you define truth. If you’re determined to force the world to function according to the way you feel as opposed to what is real, you will refer to anything you don’t want to hear as a lie, or, in this case, “unsubstantiated.”

Same sex marriage, Socialism, Abortion, Illegal Immigration…

These are not controversial issues. The “controversy” is embedded in the way you define you define truth.

To read more about the legal bottom lines that characterize the deportation of Albrego Garcia, click here.

SCiPP (pronounced “Skip!”)

/in , , , /by

SCiPP

It’s difficult not to notice a common thread amongst all of the criticisms leveled at President Trump. Regardless of the subject matter, it seems to come down to one thing that’s far more profound than mere Politics.

It’s the extent to which you’re willing to acknowledge a bottom line that exists independently of the way an individual thinks or feels.

There are two ways in which a person is going to process themselves and the world around them.

They’ll see things either in the context of Standards and Consequences or…

Preferences and Power.

Think of it as “SCiPP” (pronounced as “Skip”).

This simple acrostic captures the tension that exists in our society today, regardless of the topic or the parties involved.

On one hand, you have a standard that functions either as a boundary or a benchmark. It can be a situation where if you cross that line, you’re responsible for your actions and you have to suffer the consequences. Or, it can be a standard of excellence that if you meet or exceed that standard, you’re able to enjoy the benefits.

Standards and Consequences.

On the other hand…

You have a perspective that’s determined to dismiss any concept of having to answer to something other than what you might prefer in that moment. And because you can’t logically defend what you believe and why you believe it without sounding either selfish or foolish, you instead work to secure the power necessary to ensure your preferences  are prioritized above any standard that might otherwise apply.

Preferences and Power.

Again, it doesn’t matter what you’re talking about.

You’re either looking at what’s real or the way you feel.

Standards and Consequences. Preferences and Power.

SCiPP.

Whatever the Topic May Be

Whether the topic is Illegal Immigration, Transgenderism, Abortion, Voter Fraud, the Separation of Church and State, or Militant Islam, the schools of thought that argue back and forth will inevitably fall into one of those two camps.

Standards and Consequences Preferences and Power
Illegal Immigration
National sovereignty is acknowledged and due process is applied accordingly both to those who have no criminal record as well as those who are engaged in criminal activity and / or are categorized as international terrorists. Border security is ignored and any criminal activity that would qualify an illegal immigrant for immediate deportment is overlooked.
Does the Attorney General have the legal authority to deport illegal immigrants engaged in criminal activity?
Transgender
You can’t change the way the human species is designed just because you’re not happy with who you are. I can change who and what I am by changing my pronouns.
Question: Can a person change their gender by changing their pronouns?
Racism
I can’t shoot myself in the foot and then blame all my pain on the person or the principle that told me not to pull the trigger to begin with. As long as I can successfully position myself as a victim, I don’t have to answer any questions or take responsibility for my actions.
Question: Do you base the way a person is evaluated on their color or their conduct?
Abortion
If you have an abortion, your baby doesn’t get a chance to live. It’s not a baby until I decide it is.
Question: If you have an abortion, does your baby get the opportunity to live?
Voter Fraud
Fraud is defined according to the lack of integrity in the way votes are cast. Fraud is defined according to whether or not I win the election.
Question: Is voter fraud defined according to the person being elected or the votes being cast?
Separation of Church and State
The separation of church and state was designed to limit government’s influence on Christianity, not the other way around. I don’t have to pay attention to anything I’m not comfortable with.
Question: What is our national motto?
Militant Islam
You can’t take what doesn’t belong to you. Whether it’s a life or a piece of property, I can take whatever I want.
Question: What’s the difference between a thief and religious zealot if they’re both taking what doesn’t belong to them?

 

In order to have a double standard, you have to have a standard to begin with. This is why it can be so exasperating to talk with someone whose disposition is based on Preferences and Power. There are no standards, only situations.

All the boundaries otherwise established by logic, common sense, the rule of law, and historical truths are now subordinated to the idea that there are no realities apart from what the individual is willing to acknowledge. Evidence to the contrary is dismissed as either unreliable or irrelevant and truth isn’t an objective reality, as much as it’s a matter of opinion.

Facts Don’t Matter

Confronted with this scenario, you can’t hope to successfully champion what’s true simply by enumerating a list of facts.

The only facts they’re willing to acknowledge are those that can be manipulated to reinforce their bias, and their “fact checkers” evaluate what’s being said using only the criteria that translates to their desired conclusion. Nothing is “true,” in the context of being an absolute. There’s only what an individual is willing to acknowledge according to their personal preferences.

Everyone’s capable of ignoring what’s true in favor of what’s preferred. It’s human nature to protect yourself from either getting hurt or even corrected. No one wants to admit they’re wrong. But there’s a difference between someone who’s not convinced and the person who simply wants to be in control.

You can see that distinction in the way a person responds to something that’s being said. The person who wants to be in control can’t defend their perspective without being revealed as both selfish and nonsensical. So, instead of attempting to refute the substance of what’s being said, they assault the character of the one who’s speaking. By casting those they can’t refute as being ignorant villains, they are now perceived as sophisticated victims, and you can’t criticize someone who’s in pain.

This is the signature tactic of the person who sees themselves as their own bottom line. I can’t get you to agree with me, so I get you to feel sorry for me by insisting that the only people who criticize me are either stupid or sinister, and this is how they obtain the power necessary to force society to adopt their insanity all in the name of being “sensitive.”

But you can reveal the flawed nature of their approach by asking the right questions.

Bottom Lines…

33 as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” (Rom 9:33)

Bottom lines – absolute truth – isn’t welcome in the bind of the person who sees themselves as the gauge by which all things are measured. This is why there’s so much animosity in our culture today when it comes to anything that implies a Standard that exists independently of the way a person wants to process themselves and the world around them.

The Right Questions

When you ask a question, you control the conversation. A question requires an answer and a weak response is impossible to conceal. While it may not change the mind of the person you’re talking to, those who are listening are impacted and for that reason you want to always be ready to defend what’s True, not only with the data that reinforces the substance of your platform, but with the questions that can’t be answered apart from acknowledging a reality greater than the manufactured world you prefer.

Every one of the perspectives listed in the “Standards and Consequences” column in the chart above can be stated as a question. That’s what you see documented in the row beneath each issue. By asking the right question, it can be a game changer in the way it compels an answer that must recognize an empirical standard in order for it to make any sense.

Conclusion: These Are Spiritual Contests

Divisions (1 Cor 1:10) and Darkness (2 Cor 4:4) are spiritual contests (Eph 6:12) that aren’t won by reason alone. Wisdom is available (Jas 1:5), but it has to be chosen and it is not an option to the person who refuses to consider anything other than what they want to see.

You can’t convince someone of the truth if they’re philosophically invested in a lie. You’re not challenging their logic as much as you’re challenging their authority to define what’s right according to what they prefer.

But you can nevertheless be effective in the way you champion what’s true by first of all recognizing the way people define truth.

Standards and Consequences vs Preferences and Power.

By identifying their mindset, you can be better prepared to ask the right questions and not just present all the relevant evidence.

 

What is Truth?

/in , , , , , /by

Truth, according to the dictionary, is “that which is in accordance with fact or reality.” But if the world you live in is a manufactured reality where you are the gauge by which all things are measured than all the boundaries that are otherwise established by logic, the rule of law, and even common sense are completely abolished and the only thing that remains is what best promotes the idea that no one can tell you what to do.

Bear in mind, the question isn’t whether or not you have a choice, as much as it’s whether or not you have the authority to redefine the difference between right and wrong. Your “right to be happy” is now the clause you use to justify stripping the concept of Truth of all its original meaning and power and reducing it to nothing more than a word you use to certify yourself as your own absolute.

Listen to the way a Liberal attempts to defend the way they think.

You can’t force your beliefs on me

If there is no fixed point of reference, then the Truth is nothing more than what you want to believe. You can’t point out the flaws in a Liberal’s argument because, in the absence of a standard that exists independently of a way you want to think or behave, there is nothing to correct.

You have no evidence

However irrefutable your proof may be, it can be dismissed simply by declaring it to be either unreliable or irrelevant. Not because of its lacking in substance, but because of the way a Liberal has empowered themselves with the ability to acknowledge only what they want to see.

White Supremacist / Nazi / Right Wing Extremism / Fascist

When a Liberal is confronted with a platform that threatens to reveal both the philosophical and practical dead ends represented by the way they think, they attack the character of the one who is speaking in order to distract from the substance of what’s being said.

Constitutional Crisis / Rule of Law

The law is only as good as the truth and a court is only as good as the law. If the Truth has been drained of all of its meaning and objectivity, than a crime doesn’t have to be committed, it can simply be spoken into existence. And what is illegal can be exonerated simply by changing the way in which it’s evaluated.

You can’t change the way a Liberal thinks in the context of a debate, because there is a philosophical investment represented by the way they process themselves and the world around them. That investment is not something you overcome with an argument. That’s not to suggest you shouldn’t be prepared to defend what you believe, but you want to be aware of the territory that you’re in because there’s more to this than statistics and subject matter experts.

You can always find someone to tell you what you want to hear and a Liberal can rightfully accuse you of being no different than those you would criticize if you come across as someone whose principles are nothing more than personal preferences.

The key is to focus on the authentic definition of Truth.

“…that which is in accordance with fact or reality.”

The Greek word for Truth as it’s used in Scripture is alethia (uh-LEH-thee-uh) which means “…cannot be hidden.”

The Truth can’t be hidden. Regardless of how it either resonates with your preferences or irritates your sensibilities, the Truth simply “is.”

You ask those questions that can only be answered in a way that acknowledges the Truth.

  • If you have an abortion, does your baby get a chance to live?
  • Do you have the right to give away other people’s money?
  • Can you enter the US legally without going through Customs?

That’s the way Christ did it in the New Testament and it’s an effective way of circumventing all the tactics that are otherwise deployed for the sake of keeping the conversation focused on what’s what’s preferred as opposed to what’s True.

It’s not what you think, it’s not how you feel, and it’s not necessarily what you heard.

What’s the Truth?

And before you try to answer that question, how to you define Truth?

Start there and then you’ll have a better idea of who you’re talking to and what’s going to make an impact.

The Star Spangled Banner

/in , , /by

Ft McHenry – guardian of the Baltimore Port

It’s common knowledge that Francis Scott Key wrote the words to the “Star Spangled Banner.” But what might surprise some is the fact that while it’s normally performed in a very stately fashion, the words come from the mind of someone who was outrageously elated and relieved after seeing the flag of United States still flying over Fort McHenry.

It was 1814. Key was on a diplomatic mission in an effort to secure the release of an elderly physician who had been taken prisoner by the British in the aftermath of them having burned Washington D.C.

This was the War of 1812. Despite having won her independence, America was still be harassed by the British and things came to head after Britain refused to honor America’s maritime rights and cut into her trade as part of supporting its war with France.

It was now two years later and while Key was able to successfully negotiate the release of Dr. William Beanes, he was nevertheless detained in part to ensure that anything he and his colleagues might’ve heard pertaining to the attack on Fort McHenry would not get back to the American military.

For 25 hours the British bombarded the Fort. Had they succeeded, they would’ve been able to secure Baltimore’s harbor which was both a thriving port and a strategic location. While Key wasn’t a prisoner of war, he was still under guard which made the outcome of the battle all the more significant given the way both his fate and the future of his country was tied to what would be visible once the early morning sunrise revealed the status of the fort.

Upon seeing the American flag, “…by the dawn’s early light,” Key was thrilled and inspired. The fort had endured, his country was in tact and he would be released two days later after the British departed.

When you consider the words of the Star Spangled Banner in that context, the lyrics resonate as a real celebration. And not just in the context of a fortunate victory, but as a posture of gratitude for the number of times God has been willing to protect and preserve our nation.

You see that in the fourth verse of Key’s composition:

O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

It’s from that stanza that we get our National Motto.

The National Anthem has been performed in a variety of ways. But regardless of the tempo or the style, it’s the words and their meaning that make it a special piece of music. It’s a reminder that we are more than a secular experiment in politics. We’re a government based on the idea that we are made in the image of God and our future is based on His Blessing and His Protection. Provided we keep that in mind, we will continue to be, “…the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

Sanctified Violence

/in , , , /by

In the Old Testament, you’ve got men of renown – warrior kings and fighting prophets that trusted God and defeated their enemies with the Power and Perspective He provided. Battlefield prowess was commended, an individual’s skill with a weapon was applauded.

As a young man hearing these stories, you couldn’t help but be inspired by these real life champions and their accomplishments. You wanted be like them and be able to defeat your Goliath and stare down the lions in your world.

In the New Testament, you’ve got something quite different. Your principal characters are blue collar workers who quit their jobs to become full time missionaries – most of whom die a martyr’s death, presumably alone and penniless when they meet their end. Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords doesn’t lead a military attack. He submits Himself to a very public and painful execution. And while the significance of His having defeated the power of sin and death can’t be overstated, it can be confusing for an individual who’s trying to understand the way in which the Bible would have a man overcome his enemy.

Does he use a sling and a sword or a kind word and a hot meal?

Does he defeat his enemy with the Strength that God provides or does he love his enemy and turn the other cheek?

The short answer is: Both.

A godly man, at the very least, is a diligent student of Scripture and studies the Bible as a whole, recognizing that all Scripture is god-breathed (2 Tim 2:15). To insist that the New Testament condemns violence of any sort or that the Old Testament is a collection of battlefield sins that God merely tolerated rather than acts of holy heroism that He empowered, is to read into the text dynamics and personal preferences that are simply not there.

This essay was written as way to demonstrate the fact that there is such a thing as “sanctified violence” and this is a part of one’s masculinity that can be embraced as both holy and righteous when it’s being deployed in a manner that promotes and protects His Truth.

I) Introduction

Alvin York was awarded the Medal of Honor for his heroism during the battle during the battle of Chatel-Chehery on October 8, 1918. Initially he hesitated when he received word that he was being drafted into the Army due to his belief that Christians should abstain from warfare and violence. Thankfully, he was convinced otherwise and his efforts at Chatel-Chehery saved the lives of the seven men he led in the engagement as well a the Germans he took prisoner.

His struggle with the Scriptures pertaining to violence bring up an interesting question: Does the Bible command that we are not to ever take up arms against our enemies? Does Scipture say that we are to never fight against those who would do us harm?

Passionate interpretations abound, but those who would insist on a pacifist disposition often leave out the way in which God obviously endorsed and empowered the violence done by the Israelites in the context of various military operations. Here we want to examine the whole of Scripture in an effort to determine what God’s take is on the use of force, not only for the nation contemplating military action, but also for the individual wrestling with the idea of using physical force to stop his opponent.

II) Scripture as a Whole

In Matthew 26:47-68 when Jesus said that those who live by the sword, die by the sword, it’s important to take into consideration Scripture in its entirety and not only bits and pieces to ensure a proper interpretation.

A) God Doesn’t’ Change His Mind

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Num 23:19)

God does not change. Some read the New Testament and insist that God is against any kind of violence and they cite Scriptures like Matthew 26:52-54 as evidence that we are to never take up arms to defend ourselves or to champion that which is right. But there are other Scriptures that point very definitively to God’s endorsement of violence when it is He who is wielding the sword through the capable hands of a godly warrior. And those scenarios must be considered along with verses such as Matthew 26:52-24 in order to properly understand God’s Perspective and direction. For example:

B) Old Testament Examples of God’s Endorsement of Violence

The Conquest of the Promised Land

20 When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. (Josh 6:20-21)

Ai

1 Then the LORD said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land. 2 You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king, except that you may carry off their plunder and livestock for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city.” (Josh 8:1-2)

24When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed all who lived in Ai. 27 But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the LORD had instructed Joshua. (Josh 8:24-27)

Five Amorite Kings

For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. (Josh 11:20)

List of Defeated Kings

Joshua 12 lists all of those kings who were defeated by the Israelites. These victories were accomplished as a result of combat and not diplomacy.

In Psalm 44:3, the Psalmist praises God for His having worked through the hands of the Israelites to secure their military victories…

It was not by their sword that they won the land, nor did their arm bring them victory; it was your right hand, your arm, and the light of your face, for you loved them. (Psalm 44:3)

You see the same kind of sentiment in Psalm 18…

He trains my hands for battle; my arms can bend a bow of bronze. You armed me with strength for battle; you made my adversaries bow at my feet. (Psalm 18:34, 39)

It is God’s Strength and Spirit that is credited for the military victories enjoyed by the Israelites. In addition to the conquest of the Promised Land, you have other examples such as…

Building the Wall

Therefore I stationed some of the people behind the lowest points of the wall at the exposed places, posting them by families, with their swords, spears and bows. (Neh 4:13)

Skilled With a Sling

Among all these soldiers there were seven hundred chosen men who were left-handed, each of whom could sling a stone at a hair and not miss. (Judges 20:16)

Combat Training

These are the nations the LORD left in order to test Israel, since none of these Israelites had fought in any of the wars with Canaan. 2This was to teach the future generations of the Israelites [how to fight in] battle, especially those who had not fought before. (Judges 3:1-2)

David’s defense of the Israelites at Keilah

1When David was told, “Look, the Philistines are fighting against Keilah and are looting the threshing floors,” 2 he inquired of the LORD, saying, “Shall I go and attack these Philistines?” The LORD answered him, “Go, attack the Philistines and save Keilah.” (1 Sam 23:1-2)

Saul commanded by God to attack the Amalekites>

1Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ (1 Sam 15:1-3)

The fact of the matter is, “violence” is like fire. It can be used to cook your food, or it can burn your house down. Violence is defined as either heroism or criminal activity depending on the motive.

C) The New Testament – A Different Dynamic

In the New Testament, you have a different dynamic. Jesus did not come to conquer the Roman government; rather He came to conquer the power of sin. Given the nature of His mission, “violence” was not going to be needed. That does not mean that the kind of violence that God supported and empowered in the Old Testament is now no longer necessary or noble. The fact of the matter is, just like the Character of God didn’t change, neither did the need for “sanctified” violence.

When Jesus told the disciples to put their swords away in Matthew 26:52-24, He was:

  • Ensuring that prophecy would be fulfilled and that His voluntary death and miraculous resurrection would be allowed to proceed.
  • Protecting them. Two swords between 11 apostles was no match for a band of armed soldiers.
  • Setting a precedent. Christianity is to be communicated with gentleness and respect and not at the tip of a sword. He was not issuing a new command to abstain from any kind of violence.

In the New Testament, Christ’s Mission, as has been stated before, was to reconcile man to God and in that vein, would not require or use violence to get the job done.

1) You’re Going to Need a Sword

But while Jesus would not use force to accomplish His Mandate, as God He cannot be anything other than consistent in all things, which includes His previously stated disposition towards sanctified violence. That disposition is revealed in the Old Testament in the context of the various battles that God won through the Israelites. In Luke, you can see it implied when He encourages His disciples to get a sword. He goes as far as to say that if they don’t, have one, to sell their cloak and go buy one.

36-37He said, “This is different. Get ready for trouble. Look to what you’ll need; there are difficult times ahead. Pawn your coat and get a sword. What was written in Scripture, ‘He was lumped in with the criminals,’ gets its final meaning in me. Everything written about me is now coming to a conclusion.” (Luke 22:36-37 [MSG])

The NIV Text Note reads:

buy one An extreme figure of speech used to warn them of the perilous times about to come. They could need defense and protection, as Paul did when he appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:11) as the one who “bears the sword” (Rom 13:4 )

There are several schools of thought reinforced with compelling sounding commentaries that insist that God is a Pacifist and that Jesus was a nice guy who would never think of picking up a sword. The Intervarsity Press has this commentary on the passage in Luke where Jesus refers to swords:

They must now expect that their enemies would be more fierce than they had been, and they would need weapons. At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves. (Lu 22:39-46)

But Jesus said to sell your cloak and go buy a sword if you didn’t have one. He’s referring to a weapon – something tangible that can be purchased. The Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, is not “bought,” as much as it is read and obeyed. The context of Christ’s Words do not allow for an interpretation other than His saying that the disciples would need weapons.

2) Turn the Other Cheek

Another common argument against the use of force would be the way in which Christ’s directions to “turn the other cheek” are interpreted to mean that you respond to an attack by simply giving your attacker yet another opportunity to harm you, perhaps even destroy you. You have the passage in Matthew…

38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (Matt 5:39)

…and in Luke:

27“But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:27-31)

Both passages begin by establishing the context of Jesus’ words by referring to the statute in the law of Moses where the punishment was to fit the crime. Centuries later, additional stipulations had been added making it seemingly correct to counter any indignity or offense to be countered with something in kind. In many ways, Jesus is saying to take the high road. Should someone offend you or insult you, He’s saying to get over it. However, He is not saying to not defend yourself or to never fight. In this passage, He’s referring to an assault on your dignity and not an attack on your person. A slap on the cheek was considered an insult, not a physical attack.

Consider Lamentations 3:30:

30 Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him, and let him be filled with disgrace. (Lam 3:30 [see also 1 Kings 22:24; Is 50:6])

The commentary provided by the InterVarsity Press reinforces the point of a slap in the face was considered an indignity, not an assault:

As in much of Jesus’ teaching, pressing his illustration the wrong way may obscure his point. In fact, this would read Scripture the very way he was warning against: if someone hits us in the nose, or has already struck us on both cheeks, are we finally free to hit back? Jesus gives us a radical example so we will avoid retaliation, not so we will explore the limits of his example (see Tannehill 1975:73). A backhanded blow to the right cheek did not imply shattered teeth (tooth for tooth was a separate statement); it was an insult, the severest public affront to a person’s dignity (Lam 3:30; Jeremias 1963:28 and 1971:239). God’s prophets sometimes suffered such ill-treatment (1 Kings 22:24; Is 50:6). Yet though this was more an affront to honor, a challenge, than a physical injury, ancient societies typically provided legal recourse for this offense within the lex talionis regulations (Pritchard 1955:163, 175; see also Gaius Inst. 3.220). (“Avoid Retribution and Resistance”, IVP Commentary, accessed April, 2 2009)

The bottom line is that this passage has Jesus not changing the Law or issuing a new Divine Perspective on violence, rather He was repairing the damage done that had been done to the Law. “An eye for an eye” had been perverted into something beyond ensuring that the punishment fit the crime, now it was being used to justify getting even, however insignificant the infraction may be. Again, the context this passage, both culturally and theologically, is dealing with attacks on one’s character and pride, not physical abuses.

Two things Christ teaches us here:1. We must not be revengeful (v. 39); I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; —the evil person that is injurious to you. The resisting of any ill attempt upon us, is here as generally and expressly forbidden, as the resisting of the higher powers is (Rom. 13:2); and yet this does not repeal the law of self-preservation, and the care we are to take of our families; we may avoid evil, and may resist it, so far as is necessary to our own security; but we must not render evil for evil, must not bear a grudge, nor avenge ourselves, nor study to be even with those that have treated us unkindly, but we must go beyond them by forgiving them, Prov. 20:22; 24:29; 25:21, 22; Rom. 12:7. (Matthew Henry)

So while turning the other cheek is very much a part of the Christian approach to confrontation, it is not to be confused with the notion that God frowns on defending yourself.

3) Love Your Enemies and Bless Those Who Persecute You

The first part of the Matthew and Luke passages talk about treating your enemy with love and compassion. The Message offers a great paraphrase of the Matthew text:

43-47“You’re familiar with the old written law, ‘Love your friend,’ and its unwritten companion, ‘Hate your enemy.’ I’m challenging that. I’m telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best—the sun to warm and the rain to nourish—to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty. If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal? Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that. 48“In a word, what I’m saying is, Grow up. You’re kingdom subjects. Now live like it. Live out your God-created identity. Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you.” (Matt 5:43-48)

Some will walk away from this passage and take it to mean that you are to never defend yourself or to never take up arms against a warring nation. Again, it’s crucial to consider Scripture as a whole and dispatch a perspective that is comprehensive as opposed to exclusive when attempting to mine the meaning of Christ’s words. First off, this isn’t the first time God has admonished His people to treat their enemies with kindness and consideration.

“If you come across your enemy’s stray ox or donkey, you must return it to him. (Ex 23:4)

Do not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. Do not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as an alien in his country. (Dt 23:7)

But while God has said, for example, not to abhor an Edomite, in 1 Chronicles you have David triumphing over 18,000 Edomites:

12 Abishai son of Zeruiah struck down eighteen thousand Edomites in the Valley of Salt. 13 He put garrisons in Edom, and all the Edomites became subject to David. The LORD gave David victory everywhere he went. (1 Chron 18:12-13)

And while God tells the Israelites not to abhor an Egyptian, 2 Samuel relays the exploits of Benaiah:

20 Benaiah son of Jehoiada was a valiant fighter from Kabzeel, who performed great exploits. He struck down two of Moab’s best men. He also went down into a pit on a snowy day and killed a lion. 21 And he struck down a huge Egyptian. Although the Egyptian had a spear in his hand, Benaiah went against him with a club. He snatched the spear from the Egyptian’s hand and killed him with his own spear. 22 Such were the exploits of Benaiah son of Jehoiada; he too was as famous as the three mighty men. (2 Sam 23:20-22)

Benaiah (pronounced bee –NIGH –uh) would be distinctive, not only in his military prowess, but also in the way he supported Solomon’s succession to the throne (1 Kings 1-2) and his ultimately replacing Joab as commander of Israel’s armies (1 Kings 2:35). As has been mentioned before, God works through the swords and shields of his people to do his bidding in the context of sanctified violence. And just like turning the other cheek doesn’t mean that we are allow an intruder to harm our family, loving your enemy and blessing those who persecute you does not negate the appropriate use of force when your enemy is engaged in something that goes beyond insulting rhetoric or offensive gestures. The question then is, “How do you profess to treat your enemy as a ‘child of God’ when you’re actively engaged in killing him?” The same question could be raised in the context of capital punishment: How is mercy being manifested in the execution of a criminal?

The answer lies in two main ideas:

  • Remembering that your enemy is a child of God
  • You treat your enemy humanely. Since we are all made in God’s image, it is then possible to find something good in everyone. That’s at least some of what lies behind God’s command to not abhor an Edomite or an Egyptian. In the instance of the Egyptians, they were the host country of the Israelites for centuries. In the case of the Edomites, they were related (Edom was Esau, brother the Jacob).

However heinous your enemy may be, they are nevertheless a “creation” of God and are therefore entitled to being handled as such. Matthew Henry:

Note, it is the great duty of Christians to love their enemies; we cannot have complacency in one that is openly wicked and profane, nor put a confidence in one that we know to be deceitful; nor are we to love all alike; but we must pay respect to the human nature, and so far honour all men: we must take notice, with pleasure, of that even in our enemies which is amiable and commendable; ingenuousness, good temper, learning, and moral virtue, kindness to others, profession of religion, etc., and love that, though they are our enemies. (commentary on Matthew 5)

As a child of God, a person is deserving of humane treatment. However compelling the temptation may be to make your adversary suffer, you don’t see any trace of Israel exacting tortuous tactics on their enemy, and that is the template that we must follow. Bear in mind, however, that once an enemy had proved themselves to be worthy of death, rarely did you see that enemy spared.

While you don’t see Israel ever torturing their enemy, Israel nevertheless decimated their foes.

They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. (Jos 6:21)

When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those where were in it. Twelve thousand men and women fell that day – all the people of Ai. (Josh 8:24-25)

Then Joshua struck and killed the kings and hung them on five trees, and they were left hanging on the trees until evening…That day Joshua took Makkedah. He put the city and its king to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left not survivors. And he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho. (Josh 10:26, 28)

The Lord also gave that city and it s king into Israel’s hand. The city and everyone in it Joshua put to the sword. He left no survivors there. And he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho. (Josh 10:30)

32 The LORD handed Lachish over to Israel, and Joshua took it on the second day. The city and everyone in it he put to the sword, just as he had done to Libnah. 33 Meanwhile, Horam king of Gezer had come up to help Lachish, but Joshua defeated him and his army—until no survivors were left. 34 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Lachish to Eglon; they took up positions against it and attacked it. 35 They captured it that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish. 36 Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron and attacked it. 37 They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors. Just as at Eglon, they totally destroyed it and everyone in it. 38 Then Joshua and all Israel with him turned around and attacked Debir. 39 They took the city, its king and its villages, and put them to the sword. Everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors. They did to Debir and its king as they had done to Libnah and its king and to Hebron. (Josh 10:32-39)

12 Joshua took all these royal cities and their kings and put them to the sword. He totally destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded. 13 Yet Israel did not burn any of the cities built on their mounds—except Hazor, which Joshua burned. 14 The Israelites carried off for themselves all the plunder and livestock of these cities, but all the people they put to the sword until they completely destroyed them, not sparing anyone that breathed. 15 As the LORD commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and Joshua did it; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD commanded Moses. (Josh 11:12-15)

It should be noted that the battles Israel engaged in were not about the acquisition of wealth and plunder, as much as it was about God’s wrath being poured out on the Canaanites for their idolatry and rebellious acts:

4 After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, “The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.” No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. 5 It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Dt 9:4-5 [see also Dt 7:16; Josh 1:20])

The Canaanites were created by God as were all of the other peoples that He slated for destruction. While His love for them remained constant, so did His sense of Justice. While His Love is represented in His not wanting anyone to perish (2 Pet 3:9), His Justice was made manifest in the guilty being punished. You can see the same dynamic in the New Testament. While God’s Love and Mercy knows no limitations, His Justice remains Perfect and Immutable.

But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish. (2 Pet 2:12)

These men being referred to in 2 Peter are the same people being referred to in chapter 3, as far as God not wanting anyone to perish. But, the man who has willfully turned his back on God and gone on to commit rebellious acts will be punished. The punishment he receives is due to the fact that he chose not to accept God’s Mercy, not because God’s Love do not apply or was withheld. If “loving my enemy” results in a disposition that excuses any and all wrongdoing, that its no longer love. While love keeps no record of wrongs, it does not “delight in evil” (1 Cor 13:6), nor does it attempt to re-define wrongful behavior as a noble act or something that don’t merit punishment. God is love (1 Jn 4:16), but He is also just (Nah 1:3; 2 Thess 1:8-10). Insisting that His Love can somehow be perverted into a disposition that overlooks any and all wrongdoing is to lessen His Just nature and to cheapen His Grace. A.W. Tozer in his book, “That Incredible Christian” says this:

Truth is like a bird; it cannot fly on one wing. Yet we are forever trying to take off with one wing flapping furiously and the other tucked neatly out of sight.

I believe it was Dr. G. Campbell Morgan who said that the whole truth does not lie in “It is written,” but in “It is written” and “Again it is written.” The second text must be placed over against the first to balance it and give it symmetry, just as the right wing must work along with the left to balance the bird and enable it to fly.

Many of the doctrinal divisions among the churches are the result of a blind and stubborn insistence that truth has but one wing. Each side holds tenaciously to one text, refusing grimly to acknowledge the validity of the other. This error is an evil among churches, but it is a real tragedy when it gets into the hearts of individual Christians ad begins to affect their devotional lives.

Lack of balance in the Christian life is often the direct consequence of overemphasis on certain texts, with a corresponding underemphasis on other related ones. For it is not denial only that makes a truth void; failure to emphasize it will in the long run be equally damaging. And this puts us in the odd position of holding a truth theoretically while we make it of no effect by neglecting it in practice. Unused truth become as useless as an unused muscle. (“That Incredible Christian”, A.W. Tozer, p59, Christian Publications,Inc. Harrisburg, PA, 1964)

The same kind of thing is being referred to in the book of Ecclesiastes:

16 Do not be overrighteous, be overwise— why destroy yourself? 17 Do not be overwicked, and do not be a fool— why die before your time? 18 It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. The man who fears God will avoid all extremes. (Ecc 7:16-18)

To “love your enemy” in a way that ignores Justice and accommodates whatever wrongdoing they would exact upon the world around them, is to substitute God’s Love with a human license to engage in any kind of criminal or unethical behavior without fear of punishment. The person who dispatches that kind of love is, as A.W. Tozer described, “…flying on one wing.” It is not either / or, rather it is both / and. To love my enemy the way Jesus commanded and the way which God demonstrated means that I love them as one who has been created in the image of my Heavenly Father and therefore deserving of any and all godly considerations. It also means that when their behavior places them in the category of a criminal or a threat, I take whatever steps are necessary to protect the innocent and ensure the proper dispatch of justice. That approach accommodates the whole of Scripture as opposed to that perspective that emphasizes only a portion of the Bible and ignores the rest.

III) Conclusion – A Balanced Approach

The balanced approach (see Ecc 7:16-18) to all this seems to point to two definitive Truths:

  • Christianity is communicated and proliferated through one’s witness and not one’s weapons.

The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. (2 Cor 10:4)

15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. (1 Peter 3:15-16 [emphasis added])

  • Violence has been and can be used by God to accomplish His Purposes. That being the case, it is wrong to say that all violence is sinful and has no place in a Christian mindset. Championing and defending God’s Agenda is both noble and a manifestation of being obedient to God’s Directions.

In conclusion then, Judges 3:1-2 makes it clear that God placed a premium on making sure that the Israelites knew how to fight. It makes sense given the number of times Israel was called upon to strap on their swords and do battle with the enemies of God. In the New Testament, while Jesus does make it clear that to be reckless and hasty in resolving to remedy any and all disputes with a weapon is foolish (Those who live by the sword, die by the sword [Matt 26:52]), and He encourages believers to respond to insults and offenses by “turning the other cheek,” the context and verbiage of His admonishing the disciples to arm themselves taken along with God’s obvious endorsement of military force in the Old Testament compellingly demonstrates the Truth and Biblical place of “sanctified violence.” Know how to fight, understand and practice the difference between justice and revenge and seek God’s Direction in all things so that however your enemy may confront you, whether with words or weapons, your response is indicative of Who you serve. That’s the difference between the violence that is done out of fear and pride as opposed to the violence that is truly sanctified. For further reading, refer to the links below:

COVID 19 | Q & A

/in , , /by

Below you’ll find a series of questions pertaining to COVID-19. Everything from the vaccine to Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are addressed. Any word that’s in bold, in many cases, is a link that will connect you to the resource upon which that statement is based. Enjoy!

What is COVID-19? Is it something that evolved naturally or was it intentionally manufactured?
It originated in the Wuhan Lab in China and was intentionally manufactured as part of “cause of function” research that was indirectly financed by the NIH headed up by Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Initially, there was an attempt to prevent any “blame” from being assigned to any one particular institution / effort just because of the devastation this has caused. You can’t afford to be reckless in accusing someone of developing a virus that has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. But as it turns out, a recent report revealed that many of the authorities who were asked to conduct a probe as to the origin of COVID-19 had a conflict of interests:

As you may recall, 27 “scientists” sent a letter published in The Lancet in the early days of the pandemic claiming that the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) did not originate in a Wuhan laboratory. It turns out that 26 of these scientists had direct ties to the Chinese laboratory in question, rendering their assertions completely unreliable. (thetruedefender.com)

In addition, the molecular composition of the virus itself isn’t something that happens in nature. It has to be engineered. Among the ways that kind of intentionality surfaces is in the context of something called, “Gain of Function” research and the techniques used in that kind of science are very visible in the context of COVID-19:

Writing in an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Steven Quay and Richard Muller pointed to two key pieces of evidence to support the claim, which has increasingly gained steam after long being derided as little more than speculation.

The first relates to the nature of gain-of-function research, in which microbiologists tweak a virus’ genome to alter its properties, such as making it more transmissible or more lethal.

Of the 36 possible genome pairings that can produce two arginine amino acids in a row — which results in boosting a virus’ lethality — the one most commonly used in gain-of-function research is CGG-CGG, or double CGG, wrote Quay and Muller. (nypost)

They go on to say that “CGG” is used as frequently as it is because it’s the one scientists have the most experience with and produces the required results. COVID-19 has this pairing which is the least favorite combination in the context of nature. This plus other damning information has lead both Quay and Muller to believe that the belief that the Coronavirus was manufactured is the most plausible theory. And while Dr. Fauci has vehemently denied having had anything to do with it, between 2014 and 2019 the NIH gave 3.1 billion dollars for Bat Research. Of those monies, $599,000.00 was allocated by the Ecohealth Alliance to Wuhan who went on to do “Bat Research” which some say qualifies as “Gain of Function” research. That said, one doesn’t need to do a great deal of mental calisthenics to reach the conclusion that Fauci’s fingerprint is on the Coronavirus, as are the other 27 scientists who insisted that the virus had naturally involved.
<

Is it deadly? Is it something to be afraid of?
Yes, it can be lethal. But the vast majority of those who struggle have a suppressed immune system. Consequently, it should not be perceived as a cause for panic given that 98 out of 100 will recover with no side affects.

Statistically you have a better chance of dying in a car wreck than you do COVID-19. This is based on a recent report that had the fatality rate between .5 and 1%.

Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) = Deaths / Cases = 23,430 / 1,694,781 = 1.4% (1.4% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have a fatal outcome, while 98.6% recover) (worldometers.info)

The chances of your dying in a car crash is .97%. Bear in mind, too, that 94% of COVID-19 deaths had contributing conditions. A study done in April of last year suggested that up to 50% of the American population had already contracted the virus and recovered from it. In addition, today a combined vaccine and natural immunity yield a staggering immune population, perhaps 75 to 85% of all Americans. The reason our society is prone to see COVID as a sinister threat is because of the way the media has engaged in a non-stop campaign of death tolls and new cases while simultaneously remaining silent on recovery rates and effective therapeutics.

Does it justify economic shutdowns  and cancelling any kind of public event?
Economic Shutdowns are neither practical nor sustainable. In addition, the hypocrisy that’s been demonstrated in targeting “which” events need to be cancelled make it apparent that the bottom line isn’t so much about “medical science” as much as it’s about “political gain.”

First of all, even those who would argue that a shutdown is appropriate, it’s not sustainable. At some point, you have to fund research and you can’t do that without an economy to support it. An article published in April of last year confirms this with an article entitled, “COVID-19 Confirms It: Dems Don’t Understand Economics.”

Democrats seem to think government is the source of wealth, that it can create “high-paying” green jobs out of nothing, provide affordable, health care for all, and finance K-PhD educations. Yet government produces nothing. It can only redistribute what others have made. And there are limits to that practice, another constant Democrats can’t fathom.

In addition to that article underscoring the obvious need for a strong economic foundation to fund research, medicine, food and respirators, you also have this dynamic…

From Sen. Bernie Sanders demanding that a coronavirus vaccine be free for all and that “profiteering” from it cannot be tolerated, to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who said “if everything we do saves just one life, I’ll be happy,” when he ordered the state to shut down, Democrats are demonstrating they don’t know how an economy works. This is as dangerous as it is maddening. (Issues & Insights)

So even if economic shutdowns were appropriate, they can’t be done in perpetuity. At some point, the humanitarian aspects of a strong economy have to be in place – a fact that some of the strongest advocates of masks, vaccines, social distancing and limited crowd capacity refuse to acknowledge. In addition, one can’t help but become both suspicious and cynical when the outcry against public gatherings is vocal and aggressive when the topic is Public Worship but mild when it comes to BLM Riots or Caesar’s Palace.

Are masks effective?
Masks are not effective in preventing a person from contracting the virus. Period.

In a tweet that was later published in boredpanda.com, Leora Horwitz, a doctor and director at the Center for Healthcare Innovation, insisted that typical mask that most believe to be an effective deterrent is actually a very weak if not a totally irrelevant form of protection. Reason being is that in order to protect yourself from a virus, the seal around your mouth and every other open cavity of your body has to be virtually air tight. If you are a carrier, the mask is helpful in that it can contain the dispersion of mucus when you sneeze. Other than that, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, the protection that it offers is minimal and therefore ineffective.

Why are hospitals overrun if there’s a 98% recovery rate?
Hospitals are short staffed and the majority of those who are occupying a bed in a hospital currently are either asymptomatic or have a very mild case of COVID-19.

Two reasons: First of all, you’ve already got a shortage of medical staff to service the overcrowded hospitals. Their ranks are now being reduced even more because of the way nurses are noticing some within the medical community hesitating as to the safety of the vaccines…

While at least one media outlet referred to those medical professionals who refuse to take the vaccines as “unlikely” to be hesitant because of their knowledge and medical training, several nurses interviewed by The Epoch Times said it’s their scientific training that gives them pause.

The nurse in Washington said there’s “a lot of distrust of the vaccine and the media narrative ‘safe and effective.’”

“There are a lot of credible doctors out there,” she said, “and they’re being shunned” by the medical community because they oppose the mRNA shots.

Another registered nurse, in Virginia, said she chose to give notice to her employer rather than be compelled to take the vaccine.

“This is a new type of vaccine—an mRNA vaccine that has never been used on humans before,” she told The Epoch Times on condition of anonymity. “It’s different from any of the other vaccines.”

“I am not against vaccines,” she said. “I encourage people to get vaccines that have been studied for years. I don’t think I’m being hypocritical by saying I’m pro-vaccine, but not pro this vaccine.”

Like Thorpe, the nurse said COVID-19 vaccine mandates will make the shortage of health care workers much worse. (epochtimes)

So, number one, you have a shortage of medical staff. The other piece, though, is that while hospitals are overcrowded, according to a recent study, most of the patients are asymptomatic or have a very nominal case of COVID.

The study found that from March 2020 through early January 2021—before vaccination was widespread, and before the Delta variant had arrived—the proportion of patients with mild or asymptomatic disease was 36 percent. From mid-January through the end of June 2021, however, that number rose to 48 percent. In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease. (theatlantic)

So, you have two factors happening simultaneously: Hospital staff is dwindling and while the hospital population is increasing, it’s ranks are primarily people who have mild symptoms if they have symptoms at all.

Is the Vaccine Safe?
Most have taken it without any major side effects. But as of September 2021, over 12,000 people have died as a result of complications from the vaccine.

The fact that the Pfizer vaccine has been FDA approved suggests a substantial margin of safety. But more than one physician has risked their reputation and their livelihood to say that the evaluations were irresponsible and the end result is anything but conclusive. This comes from “America’s Frontline Doctors…” LOS ANGELES, CA – America’s Frontline Doctors released the following statement today in response to the FDA’s approval of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine:

“AFLDS decries the FDA’s unprecedented and grossly negligent approval of the Pfizer Covid vaccine, years before completion of their phase three trials. The vaccine was authorized for a variant of the virus that has faded from circulation. The current vaccine is known to be an ineffective and “leaky” vaccine (defined as a vaccine that produces stronger variants once in circulation) against the current variant.

“Vaccine efficacy versus the current Delta strain is inferior to safe, effective treatments the doctors of ALFDS are recommending and would never have qualified for Emergency Use Authorization.

“Pfizer unblinded their trial after a few months and gave the product to all, eliminating the placebo arm, making this trial all but useless.

“The vaccine panelists within FDA have numerous financial and other conflicts of interest, and the FDA itself receives industry funding. For example, recent FDA Commissioner Hahn just accepted a job with the financiers of Moderna. This decision also violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that requires open forums.

“This exposes the FDA as a rubber stamp for Big Pharma and the Biden administration. AFLDS is considering filing for a Temporary Restraining Order lawsuit based on the FACA violation.” (America’s Frontline Doctors)

As far as there being documented evidence of people experiencing adverse affects to the vaccine, there is a federal repository that captures that data. However, because it’s an open site, some of the information can be less than trustworthy because different people have different definitions of what constitutes an “adverse affect.” Consequently, critics are quick to criticize it as an unreliable source of information. Still, when you look at Pfizer’s Fact Sheet, that is the site they recommend you go to in order to document your situation. In addition, they provide their own site to document adverse affects. Given the fact that you can hold neither your employer, the FDA or any of the companies that are producing the vaccine accountable for any adverse affects, there’s really very little one can do to compel any kind of legal accountability. Hence, however subjective the resource(s) may be, they nevertheless are one of the few barometers available to measure the side affects of the vaccine and, as of September 3, 2012, the site has recorded over 13,000 people who have died as a result of the vaccine.

Is the Vaccine Effective?
The vaccine doesn’t prevent you from getting the virus, it merely mitigates the symptoms.

The vaccine doesn’t prevent you from getting the disease, nor does it eliminate the possibility of dying as a result of the virus. A recent Pfizer study revealed that after six months of monitoring over 45,000 patients, there were 15 deaths in the vaccinated group and 14 in the unvaccinated group. Overall, it’s much like aspirin alleviates the nagging pain of a headache. This is why you’re still being asked to wear a mask and, in some cases, you’re seeing vaccinated people contract the virus. So, no, the vaccine is not effective, at least as far as eliminating any possibility of getting the virus. Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier has gone as far as to say that the vaccine is actually a detriment and is aiding in producing the variants that we’re having to contend with.

What is Ivermectin and Does Hydroxychloroquine Work?
Ivermectin Won the Nobel Prize in 2015 and it, along with Hydroxychloroquine, are proven medications that help a person recover from COVID-19.

Ivermectin was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2015 for the way it was refactored in a way that helped human beings battle parasitic diseases. Rolling Stone published an article that suggested hospitals were being overrun by individuals who were taking the drug and suffering severe consequences. The story was later retracted, but it nevertheless did what it was intended to do, as far as convincing public opinion that any kind of therapeutic is safe let alone effective. Fact is, there have been a number of studies and several compelling testimonies from doctors and patients both who’ve experienced the efficacy of both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. To minimize them let alone demonize or restrict those who use them as therapeutics is neither responsible let alone healthy. Pfizer and Big Pharma are currently working on a pill to be taken as a preventive measure against COVID. Many of its active ingredients are found in… Ivermectin.

Does President Biden have the authority to mandate vaccines?
No. He cannot mandate a vaccine. The fact that he probably knew that before he addressed the nation begs the question why he would go ahead and say such a thing.

Multiple states are pushing back on what President Biden wants to present as strong leadership in the face of a crisis. The problem is, his administration admitted months ago that the Federal government didn’t have the authority to mandate vaccines let alone masks.

In December of 2020, Biden said that vaccine mandates should not be mandatory. This despite that now some of the same people are insisting that the President is within his jurisdiction, thus mortgaging their credibility along with his. But that was before Afghanistan, the Keystone Pipeline, unhindered illegal immigration and an insane level of spending that inspires a great deal of doubt as to the character and the ability of President Biden to lead, let alone, think. But most are rightfully recognizing it as an unconstitutional effort to mandate a choice that should be left up to the individual.

Jonathan W. Emord is a constitutional law attorney and author of The Authoritarians: Their Assault on Individual Liberty, the Constitution, and Free Enterprise from the 19th Century to the Present (2021). He recently wrote a piece in townhall.com that documented several of the legal pillars that President Biden is attempting to ignore that make his mandate bogus.

Equal Protection Component of the Fifth Amendment.

Federal and non-federal employees who have natural immunity from prior infection may well sue under the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment, arguing that there is no rational basis for them to be coerced into vaccination or weekly testing because they already have a fulsome immunity, equal to or greater than the vaccinated.  

Moreover, they cannot carry the virus to transmit to others.

Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. 

UnderJacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) and Zucht v. King (1922), the authority to compel vaccination is a police power reserved to the states.  There is no comparable power delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, and none that permits the Executive Branch to compel employers to coerce employees into vaccination or weekly testing as a condition of employment.

Separation of Powers Doctrine.  

The President’s vaccine mandate exceeds the power of the Executive under the Constitution.  It invades the exclusive law-making province of the Congress of the United States.  Thus, it violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine.  His mandate is sweeping, not only affecting federal government employees but all companies that employ 100 or more, and all employees of those companies.  It is unprecedented.  For the first time, a President has used executive power to impose a national mandate requiring medical treatment and testing. 

He goes into more detail and the article is a good read. The bottom line is that President Biden had to know before he made his pronouncement that his legal footing was non-existent. The fact that didn’t stop in makes the final question all the more significant…

Is there anyone who benefits from keeping this virus “alive?”
It is a Political and Cultural weapon being used as part of the Liberal “Mickey Hood” approach to manipulating public opinion.

COVID-19 allowed for a more prolific use of Absentee Ballots and facilitated the self-inflicted destruction of our nation’s economy – a gesture that we’re now realizing had little to no effect  It has politicized medicine and enhanced the size of our population that knows it makes more money staying at home and collecting a government subsidy than it does applying for a job. In short, it’s the party that stands to gain the most by keeping COVID-19 a crisis in the mind of the everyday citizen because of the way it can be used to distract and manipulate the consciousness of a free people. I won’t tell you which party, just do the math. The previously cited article by Jonathan Emord offers this perspective in terms of the current, “emergency…”

  • First, most affected by the mandate are either in a low-risk category (are young and healthy workers) or have had the virus and, thus, have a fulsome immunity.
  • Second, there are many who pose no risk of transmission because they work remotely from home.  Indeed, remote work is an accommodation employers could provide in many instances and thereby avoid the very risks the mandate is supposed to guard against.
  • Third, there are far fewer deaths presently than at the peak of the pandemic in December 2020. Infections appear to be plateauing, the pandemic waning.
  • Fourth, the government misrepresents the extent of actual immunity in the overall population (the addition of those vaccinated and those who have natural immunity).  Indeed, the Biden Administration won’t acknowledge natural immunity as a factor.  Combined vaccine and natural immunity yield a staggering immune population, perhaps 75 to 85% of all Americans.
  • Fifth, no serious investment or promotion of numerous very effective therapeutics has been made that could reduce help hospitalizations and hasten recovery, such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

Not only is it time to get back to work, it’s time to get back who and what we are as a nation. We are no longer restricted to a lone congregation of health “experts” when it comes to the way we perceive COVID-19 – what it is, who’s responsible and how we should react.

It’s time to get back to work!

The Black Robe Regiment

/in , , , /by

Peter Oliver was a lawyer and by the time of the Revolution had risen to the position of chief justice of the Superior Court in Massachusetts. He was incredibly wealthy and served in a variety of community and church positions and was fiercely loyal to the crown.

His perspective on the Revolutionary War was that of a Tory. Unlike the way in which most historians present John Adams and other such Patriots as noble statesmen, Oliver saw them as deluded troublemakers.

Not long after Cornwallis’ surrender, Oliver published a book entitled, “Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion: A Tory View.” What makes his perspective valuable is that he has nothing to gain by glamorizing or exaggerating any one aspect of the American effort to win their independence, in that he views all of it as a form of sedition.

At one point, he sets aside an entire section of his text to describe the “Black Regiment.”

He begins by saying…

It may not be amiss, now, to reconnoitre Mr. Qtis’s black Regiment, the dissenting Clergy, who took so active a Part in the Rebellion.1

He elaborates on the “dissenting clergy” as flawed ministers, who according to Oliver, were ordained only because of a grave mistake having been made by the Governors of the Church of England. He identifies several men of the cloth including Jonas Clark, Dr. Charles Chaucy and others as being, not only members of the Regiment, but also extremely influential. He references two annual conferences that hosted pastors from all of the state and it was there that the “Black Regiment” was able to exert a substantial amount of influence in the name of rebellion and evil.

In this Town was an annual Convention of the Clergy of the Province, the Day after the Election of his Majestys Charter Council; and at those Meetings were settled the religious Affairs of the Province; & as the Boston Clergy were esteemed by the others as an Order of Deities, so they were greatly influenced by them. There was also another annual Meeting of the Clergy at Cambridge, on the Commencement for graduating the Scholars of Harvard College*, at these two Conventions, if much Good was effectuated, so there was much Evil. And some of the Boston Clergy, as they were capable of the Latter, so they missed no Opportunities of accomplishing their Purposes. Among those who were most distinguished of the Boston Clergy were Dr. Charles Chauncy, Dr. Jonathan Mayhew & Dr. Samuel Cooper?* & they distinguished theirselves in encouraging Seditions & Riots, until those lesser Offences were absorbed in Rebellion.2

You see Oliver’s “concern” reiterated on multiple occasions and in different ways.

For example, John Leach was imprisoned for sending to Patriot forces information pertaining to the disposition of British troops. He recorded some of his experiences while in prison in a Journal that’s preserved in the “New England Historical and Genealogical Register for the Year 1865.”On June 30, he talks about a comment made by one of his British jailers…

June 30, 1775. Friday, Continued in the same confinement; and Saturday, Major harry Rooke took a Book of Religion from Mr Joseph Otis, the Gaol keeper, who told him the Book belonged to some of the Charlestown prisoners, taken at Bunker\’s Hill fight, and was given them by a Clergyman of the Town. He carried it to show General Gage, and then brought back, and said, “It is your G–d Damned Religion of this Country that ruins this Country; Damn your Religion.” I would only add this remark, that this Pious officer holds his commission by a Sacramental Injuection, from his most Sacred Majesty King George the 3d.3

You can also see the prominence of Christianity and even how certain denominations were regarded with a special sense of disdain by the British when you consider the diary of Thomas Hutchinson.

Thomas Hutchinson was the Governor over Massachusetts appointed by King George. He recorded a conversation he had with the monarch in July of 1774.

This would’ve been in the aftermath of “The Coercive (Intolerable) Acts of 1774” that were enacted as punishment for the Boston Tea Party. These were incendiary moves on the part on the part of King George that would result in galvanizing the colonies even further in their resolve to separate from England.

Among the things represented in the new legislation was the replacement of the Massachusetts Council with officials appointed by the crown rather than it being an elected body. You can hear King George questioning the way in which this new group of leaders was being received in the conversation he was having with his Governor.

He begins by asking what sort of doctrine is being preached in the colonies…

King George: I have heard, Mr H., that your ministers preach that, for the sake of promoting liberty or the public good, say immorality or less evil may be tolerated?
Hutchinson: I don’t know, sir, that such doctrine has ever been preached from the pulpit; but I have no doubt that it has been publicly asserted by some of the heads of the party who call themselves sober men, that the good of the public is above all other considerations, and that truth may be dispensed with, and immorality is excusable, when this great good can be obtained by other means.
King George: That’s a strange doctrine, indeed. Pray, Mr H., what is your opinion of the effect from the new regulation of the Council? Will it be agreeeable to the people and will the new appointed Councillors take the trust upon them?
Hutchinson: I have not, may it please your Majesty, been able to inform myself who they are. I came to town late last evening, and have seen nobody. I think much will depend upon the choice that has been made.
❶ King George: Enquiry was made and pains taken that the most suitable persons should be appointed.
❷ Hutchinson: The body of the people are Dissenters from the Church of England; what are Congregationalists. If the Council shall have been generally selected from the Episcopalians, it will make the change more disagreeable.
❸ King George: Why are they not Presbyterians?
❹ Hutchinson: There are a very few churches which call themselves Presbyterians, and form themselves voluntarily into a Presbytery without any aid from the civil government, which the Presbyterian Church of Scotland enjoys.
Lord Dunmore: The Dissenters in England at this day are scarce any of them Presbyterians, but like those in New England, Congregationalist, or rather Independents.
King George: Pray, what were your ancestors, Mr. H.?
Hutchinson: In general, sir, Dissenters.
King George: Where do you attend?
Hutchinson: With both, sir. Sometimes at your Majesty’s chapel, but more generally at a Congregational church, which has a very worthy minister, a friend to government, who constantly prays for your Majesty, and all in authority under you.
King George: What is his name?
Hutchinson: Doctor Pemberton.
King George: I have heard of Doctor Pemberton that he is a very good man. Who is minister at the chapel?
❺ Hutchinson: The Rector is Dr. Caner, a very worthy man also, who frequently inclulates upon his hearers due subjection to the government and condemns the riotous violent opposition to it; and besides the prayers in the Liturgy, generally in a short prayer before the sermon, expressly prays for your Majesty, and for the Chief Ruler in the Province. 4

❶ Here is where King George is inquiring about the Massachusetts Council that used to be an elected body that has now been replaced with people who’ve been appointed by the crown.

❷ The “Dissenters from the Church of England,” in this context, refers to the Congregationalists who were loyal to the crown and had not repudiated the Church of England. These were the posterity of the early Pilgrims who had settled in the New World in the early seventeenth century.Lead by William Bradford in 1620, the Pilgrims, also called “Separatists,” were resolved to worship in a manner consistent with the Scriptures as opposed to the institutionalized church created by Henry VIII in order to secure a divorce the Pope was unwilling to grant him.

The Puritans were similar to the Separatists, but instead of wanting to break completely from the Church of England, they wanted to merely purify it. They arrived in the New World in 1630 and established the Massachusetts Bay Colony just south of Plymouth Rock.By the 18th century, the Puritans and the Pilgrims had combined to form the Congregationalists. But while they were now functioning under one denominational heading, you still had two distinct groups that were defined by their allegiance to the king.Published in 1907, “The Loyalists of Massachusetts and the Other Side of the Revolution,” written by James H. Stark, references this dynamic.

The characteristics of the separate and independent governments of these two classes of Puritans were widely different. The one was tolerant, non-persecuting, and loyal to the King, during the whole period of its seventy years\’ existence; the other was an intolerant persecutor of all religionists who did not adopt its worship, and disloyal, from the beginning, to the government from which it held its Charter, and sedulously sowed and cultivated the seeds of disaffection and hostility to the Royal government until they grew and ripened into the harvest of the American Revolution.5

This is, perhaps, one of the reasons why King George and his Governor could feel somewhat confident that they were drawing from an amicable group of people by defaulting to a specific “type” of Congregationalist. Doctrinally, they were not altogether consistent with the Anglican church, but they were at least somewhat sympathetic to their English Sovereign.

As far as Hutchinson’s reference to the Episcopalians, while they did not formally organize until 1780, during the period leading up to the Revolutionary War, they were considered the American version of the Church of England. While there were exceptions, an Episcopalian’s loyalty to the crown was more pronounced then their Congregationalist counterpart and certainly more  intense than what you saw in the various sects that sprung up in the aftermath of the Great Awakening. You see this in the way many Episcopalians felt obliged to flee America after the Revolutionary War, including the Episcopalian minister referenced by Hutchinson in his conversation with King George.

In 1662, the Common Book of Prayer was revised to include a mandate for all ministers to be ordained according to an Episcopal format and to “declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the text.”

The fact that Hutchinson states that staffing the new Massachusetts Council with Episcopalians would’ve been “more disagreeable,” is indicative of the way ardent Patriots viewed Episcopalians with suspicion. Hence the choice of those coming from the Congregationalist group would be a more strategic option.

❸ To understand King George’s comment, you have to go back to the sixteenth century and look at the way in which the crown had exacted legislation that compelled a uniform approach to Christ that ultimately violated the Word of God.

Act of Uniformity

In 1558, Queen Elizabeth, as part of trying to eliminate the tensions between Catholicism and the Protestant mindset, she introduced legislation that dictated the way in which people were to pray and worship. It was called, “The Act of Uniformity” and it included a revised “Book of Common Prayer” which outlined how services were to be conducted as well as the verbiage of the prayers that were to be said everyday (click here to see the prayer that was to be repeated every morning). In addition, it made it a punishable offense to not attend Anglican services once a week.

In 1662, it was revised to include a mandate for all ministers to be ordained according to an Episcopal format and to “declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the text” (see sidebar). This resulted in over 2,000 ministers being ejected from their pastorate in what was called, “The Great Ejection. Many of those that were forcibly displaced were Presbyterians who made their way to the New World.

Thoroughly Protestant

While the Church of England represents a hybrid combination of both Protestant and Catholic doctrines, Presbyterians, on the hand, are thoroughly Protestant. From the perspective of the monarchy, they were positively toxic in part because of the way in which they recognized how the church was being manipulated by various sovereigns to perpetuate their power.

Elizabeth not unreasonably believed that the maintenance of the Episcopacy was necessary to the continuance of Royalty. She knew that the church of Geneva, which the Puritans declared to be their model, was not only essentially republican, but could not be perfectly established except in a republic...6

The Church of Geneva was founded in 1536 during the Protestant Reformation. It represented the central location of Protestant thought. As a Presbyterian, while you were not Puritanical in your doctrine, you nevertheless shared with some of your Puritan counterparts an unwillingness to allow a monarch to dictate your conscience in the way you worshipped, how you were to set up your church leadership or the way you ministered to others.

And while the Presbyterian denomination is a separate group of believers who subscribe to a particular set of doctrines, including, in some circles, a Calvinistic approach to predestination, in many instances when you hear an 18th century Englishman refer to a “Presbyterian,” it was a reference to anyone who recognized the discrepancy between engaging your faith according to a biblically based paradigm as opposed to a government imposed infrastructure.

This is where much of the real tension surfaced.

Church Government

In addition to the fact that all men are created equal (Gen1:26; Prov 2:22; Gal 3:28) thus invalidating the Divine Right of Kings, a large part of the Presbyterian doctrine pertained to church government. Churches were to be governed by elected elders not Anglican Bishops. By attempting to impose a crown appointed hierarchy to rule over the spiritual affairs of a Presbyterian who believed that leadership should be based on a biblically founded approach, England violated an Absolute documented in Scripture. As a result, Presbyterians were only too willing to oppose the established order and because of the presence they commanded in New England, the Revolution was often referred to as something inspired by a Presbyterian perspective.

Chief Instigators

You see this dynamic reflected in a pamphlet written by Joseph Galloway, who was a former speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly. He opposed the Revolution and fled to England. He believed that the Revolution was a religious quarrel instigated by Congregationalists and Presbyterians…

But they did not stop there: The principal matter recommended by the faction in New England, was a union of the congregational and presbyterian interests throughout the Colonies…Thus the Presbyterians in the southern colonies, who, while unconnected in their several congregations, were of little significance, were raised into weight and consequence; and a dangerous combination of men, whose principles of religion and polity were equally averse to those of the established Church and Government, was formed.7

Dr. Albert S. Bolles in his history of the Province and State of Pennsylvania from 1609 to 1790 reinforces that by elaborating on the enemy’s regard for Presbyterian clergy…

English Translation: “In this building formerly York Hotel on September 3, 1783 David Hartley, on behalf of the King of England, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, John Adams, on behalf of the United States of America, signed the Final Treaty of Peace recognizing the independence of the United States.”

To the Presbyterian clergy the enemy felt an especial anitpathy. There were accounted the ringleaders of the rebellion. For them there was often not so much safety in their own dwellings as in the camp. When their people were scattered, or if it was no longer safe to reside among them, the only atlernative was to flee or join the army, and this alternative was often presented. Not unfrequently the duty of the chaplain or the pastor exposed him to dangers as great as those which the common soldier was called to meet. There was risk of person, sometimes capture, and sometimes loss of life.8

David Hartley was Britain\’s Minister Plenipotentiary. He had full diplomatic powers and represented the crown when he signed the Treaty of Paris with John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and several others in 1783. Hartley and Franklin were good friends and Hartley frequently spoke against the Revolution in Parliment. After Cornwallis\’ surrender at Yorktown, it was Hartley and Franklin that composed the Treaty of Paris.On February 3rd, 1779, Franklin responded to Hartley who had written a letter proposing that the United States end their alliance with France. At one point, he says:

The long, Steady, & kind regard you have shown for the Welfare of America, by the whole Tenour of your Conduct in Parliament, satisfies me, that this Proposition never took its Rise with you, but has been suggested from some other Quarter; and that your Excess of humanity, your Love of Peace, & your fears for us that the Destruction we are threatened with, will certainly be effected, have thrown a Mist before your Eyes, which hindred you from seeing the Malignity, and Mischief of it.— We know that your King hates whigs and Presbyterians; that he thirsts for our Blood; of which he has already drank large Draughts; that his servile imprincipled Ministers are ready to execute the wickedest of his Orders, and his venal Parliament equally ready to vote them just.9

Franklin doesn’t attempt any restraint or indulgence in describing King George or those members of Parliament who viewed America with disdain. The fact that he begins his description with the way in which King George hated Presbyterians demonstrates the way in which the monarchy associated the Revolution with a Christian perspective.

At the Highest Levels of Government

Members of Parliament were being informed from a variety of sources as to the nature of the American rebellion being founded on a religious premise.

Andrew Hamond was a captain in the British Navy. In a letter dated August 5, 1776, to Hans Stanley, a British Diplomat who sat in the House of Commons, he mentions that while there are some within the colonies who are loyal to the crown, there are nevertheless deep religious convictions running thoughout that, in some cases, are thoroughly determined to gain their independence:

It seems that they have long had divisions among them on religious accounts, and the Churchmen are clearly of opinion that it is the Presbyterians that have brought about this revolt, and aim at getting the government of America into their hands. 10

William Jones of Nayland was a distinguished theologian and a prolific writer. In 1776 he wrote an essay entitled, “An Address to the British Government on a Subject of Present Concern, 1776” in which he addresses what he believes to be the principle driving force of the American Revolution:

And having nothing now to oppose but the Hanover family on the throne, they have at last taken up arms against that, and will carry on a war against the authority, the commerce, and the honour of this country, as long as they have the means of rebellion in their hands; for this has been a Presbyterian war from the beginning as certainly as that in 1641; and accordingly the first firing against that King’s troops was from a Masschusset meeting-house. 11

The Presbyterian was considered to be one of the chief instigators of the War for Independence, hence King George\’s comment to Hutchinson when he was asking if the Congregationalists being considered were of the Presbyterian stripe.

❹ The Presbyterian Church was started by John Knox in Scotland. It’s presence in the vocabulary being used by those in Parliament wasn’t so much a reference to doctrine as much as it was a referral to the way in which a biblically based argument was being used by “Presbyterians” to justify severing ties with England.

You see this explained by John Adams in a letter he wrote to Hezekiah Niles, who was the editor and publisher of the Niles’ Weekly Register from 1811-1836 and before that was the editor of the Baltimore Evening Post.

In his letter, Adams refers to Dr. Jonathan Mayhew who was one of the earliest ministers to object to the idea that it was a Christian’s duty to suffer beneath the administration of a tyrant. Rather, according to Mayhew, it was the Christian’s obligation to resist (“Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p39).

In addition to being an articulate speaker, Mayhew was also a prolific writer. At one point, he wrote a lengthy exposition entitled, “Conduct of the Society for Propagating the Gospels in Foreign Parts.” This was a rebuke directed towards the Church of England, who, under the auspices of witnessing to unchurched peoples, were using their charter to enforce an Anglican approach to one’s relationship with Christ and church government.

This was, again, an extension of the “Act of Uniformity” referenced earlier. Because it struck at the way in which the Church was to be set up according to a biblical model as opposed to a state sanctioned hierarch, the “Presbyterian” dynamic was considered by the Church of England to be a problem that needed to be rooted out.

Mayhew’s addresses this in Section XIV which is entitled, “That the Society have long had a formal design to root out Presbyterianism, &c. and to establishing both Episcopacy and Bishops in the colonies: In pursuance of which favorite project, they have in a great measure neglected the important ends of their institution.”

However this may or may not resonate as a serious issue in the mind of a 21st century layperson, in the eighteenth century when Christianity was more than just a token tradition, it had monumental ramifications which Adams explains…

Rev Henry Caner

He was a devoted Loyalist, and when it was evident he could no longer be useful in Boston, he went with the British troops to Halifax. In one of the record books of King’s Chapel, Dr. Caner made the following entry:

“An unnatural rebellion of the colonies against his Majesty’s government obliged the loyal part of his subjects to evacuate their dwellings and substance and take refuge in Halifax, London and elsewhere;[348] by which means the public worship at King’s Chapel became suspended, and it is likely to remain so until it shall please God, in the course of his providence, to change the hearts of the rebels, or give success to his Majesty’s arms for suppressing the rebellion.

Two boxes of church plate and a silver christening basin were left in the hands of the Rev. Dr. Breynton at Halifax, to be delivered to me or my order, agreeable to his note receipt in my hands.”

After being a rector in Boston for twenty-eight years this aged clergyman was driven from his home and native land. Dr. Caner’s escape from Boston is thus described by himself in a letter dated Halifax, May 10, 1776:

“As to the clergy of Boston, indeed they have for eleven months past been exposed to difficulty and distress in every shape; and as to myself, having determined to maintain my post as long as possible, I continued to officiate to the small remains of my parishioners, though without support, till the 10th of March, when I suddenly and unexpectedly received notice that the King’s troops would immediately evacuate the town. It is not easy to paint the distress and confusion of the inhabitants on the occasion. I had but six or seven hours allowed to prepare for this measure, being obliged to embark the same day for Halifax, where we arrived the first of April. This sudden movement prevented me from saving my books, furniture, or any part of my interest, except bedding, wearing apparel, and a little provision for my small family during the passage…” (The Loyalists of Massachusetts

If any Gentleman Supposes this Controversy to be nothing to the present purpose, he is grossly mistaken. It Spread an Universal Alarm against the Authority of Parliament. It excited a general and just Apprehension that Bishops and Diocesses and Churches, and Priests and Tythes, were to be imposed upon Us by Parliament. It was known that neither King nor Ministry nor Archbishops could appoint Bishops in America without an Act of Parliament; and if Parliament could Tax Us they could establish the Church of England with all its Creeds, Articles, Tests, Ceremonies and Tythes, and prohibit all other Churches as Conventicles and Sepism Shops.12

What Adams is saying is that the Revolution was more than just an agitated populace wanting a more just representation in Parliament. The Church of England was using its politically based essence to impose the authority of English Rule on all things pertaining to church and beyond. In addition, it insisted than any other denomination was unlawful (Conventicles) and sick (Sepism Shops). And this included Presbyterians.

❺ Dr Henry Caner represents a great illustration of how certain Episcopalians were considered Tories because of their commitment to the Church of England. Like many of his Episcopal contemporaries, Caner felt compelled to leave the country and flee to England in order to avoid any fallout from having remained loyal to the crown (see sidebar). (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/39316/39316-h/39316-h.htm#Footnote_70_70)

The bottom line is that “religion,” specifically Christianity, was not only the philosophical foundation upon which our Founders based their justification for separating from England, it was also the way in which a flawed approach to Scripture was being used by the Church of England to enforce a political agenda.

It was the American clergy during this time – the “Black Robe Regiment” – that placed these Realities before their engaged congregations and in so doing provided the needed resolve, endurance and courage to stand up against tyranny and defeat what was a fundamentally flawed approach to government.

1. “Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion: A Tory View”, Internet Archive, https://archive.org/stream/originandprogres011156mbp/originandprogres011156mbp_djvu.txt, accessed April 12, 2023
2. Ibid
3. “The New England Historical and Genealogical Register for the Year 1865“, David Clapp and Son, Boston, MS, 1865,  “A Journal Kept by John Leach, During His Confinement by the British, In Boston Gaol, in 1775″p 256
4. “The Diary and Letters of His Excellency Thomas Hutchinson: Captain-General and Governor in Chief of His Late Majesty\’s Province of Massachusetts Bay in North America”, S. Low, Marston, Searle and Rivington, London, England, 1883-1886, p167-169
5. “The Loyalists of Massachusetts and the Other Side of the Revolution“, James H. Stark, W. B. Clarke Co, Boston, MA., 1807, p8
6. “Romantic Biography of the Age of Elizabeth: Or, Sketches of Life From the Bye-Ways of History“, Benedictine Brethren of Glendalogh, edited by William Cooke Taylor, LL.D. ETC, Richard Bentley, New Burlington Street, London, England, 1842,  p82
7. “Historical and Political Reflections on the Rise and Progress of the American Rebellion”, Page 54. Joseph Galloway, London: G. Wilkie, 1780. Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (81)
8. “Pennsylvania Province and State: A History from 1609 to 1790“, Albert S. Bolles, Ph.D., LL.D, John Wanamaker, Philadelphia, PA and New York, NY, 1899, p417
9. “The Papers of Benjamin Franklin”, “Letter in Answer to the Proposition of quitting the Alliance of France”,  Vol 28 https://franklinpapers.org/framedVolumes.jsp, accessed April 14, 2023
10. “Naval Documents of the American Revolution“, Volume VI, edited by William James Morgan, Naval History Division, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., 1972, p 68
11. “An Address to the British Government on a Subject of Present Concern, 1776,” The Theological, Philosophical and Miscellaneous Works of the Rev. William Jones, 12 vols. (London, 1801), Vol. 12, p 356
12. “From John Adams to Hezekiah Niles, 13 February 1818”, “National Archives, Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6854, accessed April 22, 2023

Twenty Five Inconvenient Realities

/in , , /by

The Separation of Church and State is a phrase often used by people who want to insist that Christianity had no real role in our nation’s founding – certainly nothing that had any significant influence on those that articulated our cause, created our Constitution and fought the battles that culminated in the surrender of Great Britain.

You see this in comments like what you see below from the “Freedom From Religion” website:

The Christian Right is trying to rewrite the history of the United States, as part of their campaign to force their religion on others who ask merely to be left alone. According to this Orwellian revision, the Founding Fathers of this country were pious Christians who wanted the United States to be a Christian nation, with laws that favored Christians and Christianity.

Not true! The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New Testaments.

You have to be very selective in the information you use to validate such a statement. At the same time, you have to be willfully oblivious to the specific references to God and Christ that punctuate the relevant events and documentation that established the United States.

Below is a brief yet potent list: Read more