AssemblyBoard

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0915montini15.html

i found this article to be an interesting revisit of the pledge of allegiance debate, since it gives the history of the pledge and some perspective on where the wording came from.

if we are going to have separation of church and state, then we shouldn't be forcing nonchristians to say things about god they don't want to, in my opinion. i don't see how you could claim that kids should all say we are "under god" without also saying that christianity is in some ways our state religion. as things stand, its is unconstitutional. frankly i find the whole pledge things pretty spooky anyway. hearing a whole groups of kids reciting allegiance prose in united, drone-like voices gives me goosebumps, and not warm patriotic goosebumps. cold, pricky, 1984 goosebumps! conformism in general rubs me the wrong way. i'm blaming the cult i was raised in.  ::)

brian

Having children recite a pledge in a local county school (with the opportunity to opt out) is not the federal government establishing a religion.  What the founding father's was concerned about was that we would not become like the England they left where there was a Church of England run by the royalty with little or no other alternative choice.  (If you read church history, you will see that until about 300-400 years ago each country pretty much had its own approved church that everyone was a part of.  It is only in the recent few hundred years that the idea of various flavors of churches co-existing in the same country gained acceptance).  The founding father's was not worried about kids reading the Bible or saying things with the word "God" in it.  They didn't want to see the Church of the United States with King George (the one in England, not ours) as the spiritual head.  This is the essence of the establishment clause:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

They were also concerned that the government didn't persecute those who chose alternative faiths.  This is why they also added:  [Congress shall make no law] “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  I feel Newdow is doing more to "prohibit the free exercise" of religious expression by forcing his atheism on the country than any religion being established by the federal government.

The term "separation of church and state" is a misleading and restrictive term that is often used to explain the first amendment, but I don't think it does a very good job because it never was the idea that the public square must be sanitized from all references to religion.  It is more the idea that government and the church must not be the same ruling body.

It seems pretty clear:

The establishment clause means that people cannot be forced to say "under God."  It also, conversely and simultaneously means people cannot be prevented from saying it.

A halfway reasonable person, who might find themselves a judge, should conclude that conducting a flag salute before class is a perfectly fine thing to do, and that children who don't wish to say, "under God," should instead be silently happy that they live in a country that allows freedom.

frank

Folks,

It is clear that Thomas Jefferson, the idea man behind the first amendment, did not see it as complete separation of church and state.

His scheme for the University of Virginia included grants of federal land for religious denominations to establish centers on the campus.

When he was president he made the chambers of the House, Senate, and Supreme Court available for churches to meet in on Sundays, and also ordered the US Army band to play at the services.  Washington D.C. was still being built, so they didn't have buildings yet.

The current understanding of the first amendment as complete separation is the result of a long process of modification of the meaning of the Constitution through lawyering and precedents.

Another area in which this process has taken place is in the definition of "free speech".  Before 1950 no one in his right mind would claim that a lap dance was free speech!  :o 

The problem is that what is established by courts instead of legislation can be swept away by 5 votes of the Supreme Court any day of the week.  That is why the Left is so shrill right now concerning the court appointments.

If judges can turn the Constitution into a "living document", which means that the meaning is divorced from the words, we don't really have a constitution.

Just wait.  One of these days they will rule that the Constitution does not protect private ownership of firearms.

Keep your powder dry.

Thomas Maddux

Interesting that you would bring up the issue of firearms, Tom.

Call me a shrill liberal, but I'm more frightened by a country that repeals the assualt rifle ban than one that takes God out of the pledge of allegiance.

Actually, Elizabeth, you bring up a point that can illustrate what is being talked about here.  Let's supposed that we decided as a nation that the rational that the Founding Father's had to allow for citizens to own guns (and lets for the sake of argument drop the assalt rifle extreme and suppose we are talking about hunting rifles that you can buy at Wal-Mart) is no longer valid.  The correct way to deal with this is to acknowledge that the Constitution does give the right to bear arms and to then proceed with the process to amend the Constitution.  The wrong way is to find within the Constitution an inherit "right to safety" and thus deem gun-ownership unconstitutional.

This is what I find to be the crux of the issue.  If the legislature voted and decided that as a nation, we should allow gay marriages, I would accept the fact that our nation allows gay marriages.  I may not like it, but I would accept it.  What ticks me off is when a judge in Massachusetts "unearths" from John Adam's constitution the right to gay marriage and orders the legislature to make a law! >:(

Further, if abortion came about through the proper legislature - folks debating the issue and voting, then I would at least feel that the laws were reflecting the will of the people.  I wouldn't like it, but I would at least acknowledge that it is the way the vote went fair and square and the special interest groups at least played the game as intended.  But abortion was thrust upon the populous by judges who "discovered" a right to privacy that was never in the minds of the writers of the Constitution.  They read into the Constitution a right that didn't exist.  It's like saying prostitution should be considered moral because the Bible says "For God so loved the world" and therefore everyone has a right to be loved.

When Roberts was questioned whether he would make decisions to "look out for the little guy", he answered brilliantly explaining that he would be in favor of the little guy or the big guy depending on whether or not the constitution favors one or the other.  This is the basic difference:  should the judge read into the text law that would help to correct injustice and problems that he perceives (activist judge) or is his job merely to uphold the written text until the text is changed through a legal means (strict constitutionalist judge)?

Speaking of abortion, a reporter asked President Bush: "What's your stand on Roe vs. Wade"?
The President looked thoughtfully for a moment and replied "I really don't care how the people
of New Orleans evacuate, just so they get out safely".

Yes, Dave, I agree with most of what you said. Note that I wasn't arguing the right to bear arms. I am perturbed with extremism on either side.

We need gun control just as we need abortion control. Joe Citizen shouldn't be able to go to Wal-Mart and purchase a semi-automatic assualt rifle just because it's his "right."In the same way, Jane Citizen shouldn't be able to chose partial-birth abortion because she's excercising her "right."

A good portion of Americans are against federal funding of abortion practices, and I think most reasonable people agree that military-grade weapons shouldn't be available to the general public.

I, too, heard that response from John Roberts. I agree. It's not about the Little Guy or the Big Guy, it's about the rule of law, precedent and the Constitutionality of the issue. In the end, it's very short-sighted to discount the importance of moderation, diplomacy & compromise.

Elizabeth,

You said,

1. Your argument commits what is known as a categorical fallacy.  Buying a gun and getting an abortion are not in the same class of purchases.  Millions of Americans have bought guns, used them in legal ways, and no one has been injured. Almost all gun injuries involve breaking an existing gun control law.  Exceptions would be self defense, and use by law enforcement officials.

Every time an abortion is purchased, (as a service), a child dies.

2. Regarding "military grade" semi-automatic assault weapons.  Real assault weapons have been outlawed in the US for about 70 years.  Real assault weapons have a switch which allows them to be fired in either semi-automatic mode or full automatic mode, like machine guns.  They cannot be sold in this country without obtaining special licenses, which in nearly impossible to do.

What the assault weapon ban prohibited was the sale of "look alike" civilian models.  The law was not repealed.  It was signed into law by Pres. Clinton containing a "sunset" clause, that said it would expire after a certain number of years.  It did.

Right after signing the bill Pres. Clinton signed an order allowing the importation of 4 billion dollars of surplus military arms from China.  You could buy the type of gun you are talking about for as cheap as $79.95!  SKS and AK47's were all over the place.  The new law allowed a time period before it took effect, so the Chinese made plenty of dough selling these things here.

People mainly wanted them because hunting ammunition is both much more expensive and much more powerful than the rounds these guns use.  The availability of cheap surplus ammunition was a big factor. Still is.  Plus some guys like to play soldiers.  I suppose its a testosterone thing. 

3. When you say that people "shouldn't" be able to buy military grade weapons, you need to say why they shouldn't.  The usual reasons given are: 1. They don't need them.  But then we don't "need" most of what we buy.  2. They can't be used for hunting.  The second amendment is about military grade weapons, not hunting. Plus they can be used for hunting.

4. Freedom is messy.  You might not like these things, and that is ok.  But a lot of folks do.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Tom,

It's really difficult to respond without being sarcastic. Categorical fallacy? Come on, loosen up a little!

It's odd to me that you can defend ownership of assault rifles and yet condemn abortion.

Abortion & gun ownership are both spoken about in terms of "rights." This was why I was comparing the two.

I happen to condemn both. Both cause death. Oh, no, you might say: Guns don't cause death, people do. Whatever. Let's not parse words, here. The U.S. has the highest rate of gun deaths in the top 36 richest countries of the world. Over 30,000 deaths per yr. Take away the guns (or at least, severely limit their availability to the masses) and you'd have a lot less gun violence. Period.

But instead you have people advocating semi-automatics for hunting? Yeah, I guess you could take your AK-47 out to the woods and mow down an entire HERD of deer!!

But is that really hunting or just plain dangerous stupidity?

Elizabeth---

I hear where you are coming from. But I do have to add that I would bet that a large
majority of gun deaths (and deaths for sure by car accidents) are associated with alcohol
use. So, we could take one step further back and say "Because alcohol is responsible for
inebriating people, and making them lose all common sense and inhibition, let's ban it from
all public use. This should severely cut down on car accidents, and reduce the number of
gun deaths by suicide and accidents from the result of consuming alcohol."

But you know what? Alcohol was actually banned in the United States, and an amendment
was added to the Constitution to put it's illegality into effect. What was the result? Al Capone,
and hundreds of other gangsters came upon the scene in full force to make tons of money
off of this "ban". Crime escalated, and hundreds of people were killed by bootleggers. What
seemed like a "good" thing turned into an open door for evil. Something that was done for
the "common good" by "do-gooders" turned into a very bad thing.

I know "do-gooders" have the common good in mind when they talk about banning guns, but
they are forgetting how history has a habit of repeating itself. Because, as much as people hate
that old coined phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" it really is true. Alcohol in itself
doesn't kill people--and the cars these drunken people get into don't kill  people, it's the people
themselves who are the killers. Far more people die in car accidents than by guns--are the cars
responsible for all of this? Or the drivers?   just my opinion.

--Joe

I condemn abortion because it is immoral.

Abortion is legal because activist judges found a right to abortion in the Constitution.  Even abortion supporting lawyers will usually admit that the legal reasoning is specious.

Gun ownership, of guns suitable for militia, (military) duty was protected in the US Constitution for two reasons:

1. Natural rights theory, which is the ancient idea that men have inherent rights from their creator to defend their lives, loved ones, and communities.
Although the clearest statement of this that most Americans are familiar with is found in the Declaration of Independence, the ideas go back all the way to the ancient Greeks and Romans.  Guns have been the practical means of that defense for the past 300 years or so.

Incidentally, natural rights theory is what people are talking about when they speak of a "right to life" for the unborn. 

2. Europe had just gone through a few centuries of the "divine right of kings."  The kings frequently exercised their "divine" rights by disarming the people, and they wished to prevent such tyrannies here.  So, they wrote gun ownership into the basic law of the nation.

The frequently heard blather that the 2nd Amendment is about state militias keeping guns is rendered absurd in the very wording of the text.  "...the right of the people to keep, (have in their houses), and bear, (carry) arms shall not be abridged."  The argument was never even made until early in the 20th century when wealthy do-gooders decided that the "masses" didn't need firearms. 

We have a lot of gun death here in the US, no doubt about it.  The liberal media constantly repeats this mantra so it has become a "fact" in many people's minds.  In reality, the vast majority of gun death is caused by gang warfare, which in turn has developed from two underlying problems:  1. The lack of effective enforcement of drug laws.  2. The "liberalizing" of law enforcement, so that it is very difficult to deal with criminals.

In Switzerland, assault rifle ownership is very high.  All Swiss men must spend something like 35 years in the army reserves.  BY LAW they must have a real, fully automatic assault rifle and ammunition in their homes!  Yet, gun deaths are extremely low.  Same in Israel, except that they sometimes have to use them against terrorists, so gun deaths are higher.  But not illegal gun deaths.

So, if the presence of assault rifles causes more gun deaths, how can this be the case?

BTW, how many of the robbery and rape victims in New Orleans wish they had had a gun handy?  I'll bet its near 100%.

BTW #2 many people just like to shoot.  Surplus military ammo is cheap.  Hence, a desire for guns that can shoot it.  Good hunting ammunition, is both far more powerful and far more expensive.  Something like $1.00 per round.

When I used to take my family to the mountains to shoot, we would frequently go through 4-500 rounds.  Mostly .22, but some larger stuff.
All my kids are good shots, especially Glory.  She could "walk" a block of wood with a handgun the first time she fired one.

Thomas Maddux

then what do you guys think of something along these lines:

http://www.christiantoday.com/news/america/us.intelligent.design.court.battle.continues.with.disputed.expert.witness.testimony/449.htm

intelligent design doesn't sound as religious as Creationism, but the religious implications are the same. on the other hand there is a certain amount of faith in whatever kids are taught because most of them will just believe it anyway. personally, i would like to see a few different perspectives taught so kids learn whats out there and that even the adults don't have it all figured out. i suppose that would be shamelessly fostering skepticism, but considering the number of times i have been wrong when i was so sure i was right, or seen other people making the same mistake, its hard not to look at a healthy dose of skepticism as a good thing.

Aren’t all of these issues irrelevant for Christians who know that we are merely “strangers and exiles“ on this earth?  And should any Christian take an oath of office to uphold laws that are in violation to God’s laws? 

Chuck Miller

Well said, Chuck.  My thought is that if we, as citizen-residents of our respective communities, have the opportunity to vote on such issues, or for candidates whose offices will affect such matters, we should vote in favor of the inclusion in public school curriculums of any material that may give students a greater opportunity to learn the truth, both of Creation and of the true role that Christianity has played in human history.  But our faith and allegiance must always be fixed where our true citizenship is, in Christ alone, for He alone can and will deliver the faithful from the ignorant clutches of this present wicked world.

al

Chuck,

The perspective you speak of above was popular among Brethren and related groups, and still is among some.  When I was of that persuasion, I thought like this too.  I did not vote in elections from 1968 to 1980, for example.  But over time, my thoughts about this view began to change.  

A few reasons:

1. Those who advocate this do not seem to have thought out the implications clearly.  What, exactly, is proper behavior for "strangers and pilgrims?"  
If your house catches fire, is it ok to call the fire department?  Or is that excessive involvement in the world system?  

2. It seems to be primarily a negative standard.  You shouldn't vote, you shouldn't serve in the military, you shouldn't be a policeman, you shouldn't this, you shouldn't that...

Just pray, witness, and wait to die.

At one early seminar in Hillcrest Park, a wierdo named Bobby Bible came into a meeting and disrupted it.  He defied GG, so GG had someone call the cops!

I remember thinking, "Bro. G says we shouldn't defend ourselves or become policemen, but when he needs one its ok to call them. You can't defend yourself, but you can use a hire-a-cop to arrest or shoot someone for you!"  In other words, in practice it he was saying it is ok to pay others to do what it would be wrong for you to do.

3. Jesus said, "occupy till I come."  He was speaking of employing our gifts.  What if your gifts are best used in medical research? What if you are good at leading and organizing...in other words, in government?

4. I had kids.  Now I have grandkids.  Jesus is coming soon....and for that matter, has been coming "soon" for the past 150 years at least.  Whole generations have been born, lived, and died while Jesus was coming soon!

I do not know when Jesus is coming.  But I do know that if he doesn't come pretty quick the results of what is going on today will create the world my kids and grandkids will live in, and serve Jesus in.  I love them, and I will do my best to leave them a country and world worth living in.

5. I am grateful for the sacrifices of those who were not willing to be only strangers and pilgrims.  The Christian men who died at Bunker Hill, Gettysburg, Guadalcanal, Normandy, Chosin Reservoir, Pleiku, and Faluja so that we could serve God openly and think and speak freely about Christ.

I will not say that they sinned so that I, my children, and my grandchildren could be free.  The freedom they bought is what produces the $$ that are sent to missionaries around the world today.  

Strangers and pilgrims...true.  This world is not our final home nor the destination of our eternity.  But while we are here, there's work to do.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

lol, tom. true.

i certainly appreciate the people who manifest their faith through good works that actually tangibly manifest themselves in the world we live in. i, for one, am thankful for the environmentalists who helped clean up california's air. when i was a kid, the smog was pretty bad. i also appreciate the people who revive old, historic town-centers, lobby to keep historic buildings, halt over-development of open spaces, volunteer in their children's schools, pick up trash at the beach, head up research development to find a cure for breast cancer, visit the sick in hospitals, organize book drives for local libraries.

per your thoughts on soldiers: although i respect the military as a necessary office of any nation and believe certain wars were necessary evils, i do not feel compelled to support every justification for war such as the illusion that the invasion of iraq was to protect our collective "freedom."

If you would like to read my dissertation on why I believe the United States was founded upon a false premise, I will be glad to send it to you. My e-mail address is chuckmiller888@yahoo.com.

Chuck Miller

Chuck,

Thanks for the offer.  I may take you up on it.  But first a couple of questions: 1. How many pages are we talking about?  2. Do you have an abstract of the dissertation?  If so, why don't you just post that.

Thomas Maddux

So, it would appear that the “more perfect union” was not established on the unity of Christian beliefs, but rather, as inferred in the Declaration of Independence, a union prompted by a consensus of grievances against the British King.

Let me continue with a rather poignant question:

Did God allow for Israel to have other religions in their midst, or did Jesus allow for there to be other religions in His church? 

Absolutely not.   To the contrary, God commanded, “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3)   This does not mean that God intended for there to be a detachment of His people from the rest of the world, but simply that, within the confines of their own assemblies, worship of any other gods.  Let me continue with a rather poignant question:

Did God allow for Israel to have other religions in their midst, or did Jesus allow for there to be other religions in His church? 

Absolutely not.   To the contrary, God commanded, “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3)   This does not mean that God intended for there to be a detachment of His people from the rwas forbidden.  But, since the wording of the First Amendment does allow for such, how could it be construed that this country was founded upon the principles of either Judaism or Christianity? 

And since there was no prohibition against non-believers settling in the colonies, and no assurance that future generations of Christian families would not depart from the faith, how could there be a guarantee that the nation would remain, indefinitely, a “Christian” nation? Therefore it was within the realm of possibility that eventually, unbelievers would become the majority or, at least, a controlling minority?

John Chalfant, author of America: A Call to Greatness," unequivocally states that “it is Christianity upon which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were founded," and his opinion seems to be shared by many Christians today.  However, since there is a conspicuous absence of any mention of Jesus Christ or Christianity in either of these documents, I believe a more accurate statement would be:  “Based upon the language of the Declaration of Independence, it seems that the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States was to acknowledge their belief in a Creator and to establish a government that would reflect that belief -- subsequently, the Legislators based some, but not all, of their laws upon some, but not all, of the Ten Commandments?”   

Notwithstanding the sincerity of intent of the Christian men who played a major part in drafting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, it does not alter the fact that they were naďve and misguided in supposing that they could constitutionally -- as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution -- “form a more perfect union” and “secure the Blessings of Liberty” for themselves and their posterity.  There could be no more perfect union than what they experienced in their fellowship in Christ, and He had given them His perfect government in the establishment of His church.  Through His church, His manifold wisdom was to be revealed to the world (Ephesians 3:10).   Perhaps I should say, through His “properly functioning” church,” since He receives no glory from a body that men have divided and secularized.  Since these men had failed to establish such a union through a Christ-governed church, how could they have expected to accomplish it through a man-governed nation?  Compare the account of the church of the first century believers with the condition of the church today.  We read in the Book of Acts, the following account of the state of that church:

So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.   They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.  Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.
Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.                    Acts 2:41-47

Don’t misunderstand.  There was nothing inherently wrong with this Founding Father’s desire to form such a nation.  They simply erred in failing to recognize that Christ had already established what they were seeking.  No doubt they were blinded by the divisions and the man-made hierarchical structure that pervaded virtually all of Christendom at that time, which bore little resemblance to the united body that Christ intended for it to be.

However, regardless of their desires and their religious convictions, the wording of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution offers no justification for stating that the Founding Fathers were proposing to establish either a Christian nation, a Jewish nation, or a Judeo/Christian nation. For, although it is apparent that they did believe in a Creator - and one may justifiably assume what ideas that might have entailed in their own minds, - nevertheless, the ideas they expressed in these documents were more ideological than they were biblical. There is not a single mention of the name “Jesus Christ” or of “Christianity” in either document.  I’ll elaborate more on that later.  And if you question my reference to their founding a “secular” nation, remember that these men specifically state in the First Amendment to the Constitution that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ……” This seems to be consistent with a Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of secular as “not overtly or specifically religious.”  Even those who argue in support of the concept of a Judeo/Christian nation inadvertently admit as much 

On page 25 of his book America’s Christian Heritage, author Gary DeMar states:

Secularism also goes by the name “humanism.”  Like the secularist, the humanist believes that man and his enterprises are the center of all that is conceived.  The benefits must be to man in the here and now without any concern for what man might encounter beyond the grave.
 
Would it be incorrect to say that DeMar, has given a fairly accurate synopsis of the contents of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States?   An examination of these documents will verify as much.

And although DeMar is a strong proponent for political activism, he makes the following observation concerning the Constitution (page 35):

One theory to explain why the Constitution addresses religion only in an indirect way is because there were different Christian denominations represented at the constitutional convention in Philadelphia: Congregationalist, Episcopalian, Dutch Reformed, Presbyterian, Quaker, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, and Methodist.  “James Madison tells us there was “discord” of religious opinion within the convention,’ which undoubtedly kept theological controversy off the floor.”  Some maintain that the proliferation of religious opinion among the delegates steered the convention away from including specific religious language in the Constitution.       

Tom,

The article is 24 pages long.  I have copied the first 4 pages here in three  posts..

And He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father-- to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.                Revelation 1:6

                                                                                                                   
Much of the debate and dissent between conservative, or so-called, “right wing Christians” and the liberal element of American society stems from the premise put forth by the Christian community - that the United States was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles - the Ten Commandments being the cornerstone of those principles.
In the heat of the controversy, very little, if any, consideration is given to the question of whether such an ambitious endeavor by the Founding Fathers was prompted by their desire to seek to follow the leading of Jesus Christ, or whether it was motivated instead, as more of an angry reaction to the oppressive edicts of King George III.  An investigation into the history of the colonies and the disunity that existed amongst their churches belies the notion that the unifying factor was a mutual devotion to Christ, but rather, it was their disdain for the “tyranny” of the King.  We find this clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence:

The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

Now I doubt that anyone would dispute the fact that many (but not all) of the Founding Fathers were devout Christian men who believed that the welfare of this country and its perpetuation depended upon a continuing faith and trust in Almighty God.  Much of what they said and wrote attest to that fact, and is verified in the research of professors Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman who reviewed almost 15,000 historical writings of the fifty five delegates to the Constitutional Convention. They found that more than a third of the quotes in their writings came directly from the Bible.  Correspondingly, in researching the history of the founding of this country, I find very little evidence that initially, there was any open opposition by the majority of the people to the acceptance of the concept of a Creator God.  Indications are that the relationship of church and state in American society and its politics was readily accepted by the predominantly Christian population, and remained virtually unchallenged until after World War II.  However, for the purposes of this writing, this is of relatively little importance, since I believe that this country was established upon a flawed premise -- that a secular nation could be founded upon what is commonly referred to as “Judeo-Christian principles.  I don’t make this statement frivolously and if it astonishes you, please reserve your judgment until you’ve read the rest of this writing.

Tom,

Sorry, my posts have some glitches in them, (I'm not very adept at maneuvering on th BB) but this will give you a general idea of my premise

Chuck

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 


Scripture teaches that God both raises and brings down kings and nations.  That being the case, the United States is legitimate, even more so than most other nations.

I submit that the US was founed on a true premise, as far as any secular nation goes.  The premise of Liberty does not inhibit true fellowship and unity in Christ in any way, neither does it create it.  It is not the job of states and governments to further the Kingdom of God!  Also, the Gospel is not fettered by governments, but it can be maligned on account of the testimony of those who supposedly preach it.

As to the founders not recognizing that Christ had already established that which they were seeking, I must disagree with the very premise of that statement.  Christ in no way established an earthly nation or kingdom, which was the very thing the founders sought to do. 

Perhaps I need to read your entire dissertation, but from what you posted it seems that you lament the fact that many in the US mistakenly believe it to be a Christian nation, when it is in fact a secular one.  I think the problem here lies more with peoples' mistaken ideas about what the Church is,  and how this leads them to the idea that a secular nation can in any way be Christian.

As a Christian, I have no problem doing an honest days work in a secular nation, whether that be farming, hammering nails, or administrating civil affairs.  On the flipside, as a Christian, I do have a problem doing an honest days' secular work in the Church!  If we confuse the two, all manner of strange ideas and consequences come about.

bystander

Chuck,

You said:

To me it seems that arguing that people were naive and misguided to believe that they could do what everyone knows they did is going to be an uphill struggle. ;)

Who could argue that the Constitution adopted in 1789 did not form "a more perfect union" than that formed by the Articles of Confederation that were written in 1776 and took effect in 1781?  That is what the phrase is referring to, y'know.  Since it is now the oldest written constitution in effect anywhere in the world, it seems to me that it has been pretty successful.

As to their intention of "securing the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity", they seem to have carried that off pretty well too.  I am one of those "posterity" fellows, and I do most certainly enjoy the blessings of liberty.

The founding fathers knew all about the idea that we should have the kingdom of God expressed through the church in charge of the government.  They knew their history far better than most modern Americans.  They knew how this idea had been tested and had failed in the Roman, Byzantine, and Holy Roman Empires.  They also knew about the wars and cruelty the idea had produced all over Europe, and about the oppressive governments of Calvinist Switzerland and Anglican England.  In fact, the Massachussetts delegates knew all about the more recent experiment on these lines conducted in the Massachussetts Bay Colony, and how it had miserably failed.

The idea seems to suffer from two problems:

1. God never told the Church to rule the world.

2. Even if He had done so, there is no unanimity as to exactly what God's will is about many details of law.

BTW, the idea that all we need to do is get the elders together to pray and "seek the mind of the Lord" does not seem to have worked anywhere near as well as the "naive and misguided" ideas of the founders.  I would suggest that those who claim this works should actually demonstrate its validity before taking over the US government.  Bretheren type churches have an absolutely wretched record on this point.  :'(

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Chuck,

I think most people do not claim that the US is a Christian country anymore, except in comparison to countries where the dominant religious beliefs are Buddhist, Communist, Islam, Jewish, etc. There are more Christians here than any other country and have been for some time.

We have already heard that the early unifying factor of the early USA was hatred for the "taxation without representation", and not religious freedom. But to say that that was the only issue that they were interested in is unfair to the large population who came here and thrived under the religious freedom, with their families intact, that they did not have in their mother countries.

One of the issues in Christianity is "sin". The ten commandments tell us what it is and the founding fathers realized this when they pasted the commandments in various places. I don't think you are saying that this was bogus on their part and just a political ploy to appeal to the masses of indigent immigrants who came for religious freedom or the mere well-being of their families? 

There is no true freedom until sin is recognized for what it is. Women and children, although they may be victims, have been protected here unlike in countries who have never known or turned from Christ. It's the goodness of God recognized by these founding fathers.

If our country was to be run like the old testament "church", we would need to kill most of the people who are in prisons now, imprison many who aren't, and leave the rest of them out in the cold.  But I don't think that was Christ's message to the NT Christians. They were told to render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar's, and unto God the things that are God's, signifying that there are two separate things going on here: Church and State.

Is your point that if we say our country is founded on Christian principles that the country would look different? And that it should look like and be run like a church is? Is that really possible? What is the responsibility and how far is the reach of a leader who calls himself a Christian?

I agree with what bystander, and Tom Maddeletor, said but I'm interested in reading your entire paper. Are you arguing words here, trying to prove that the US of A isn't founded on Christian principles, or presenting priniciples that can actually be worked out in a Christian nation?

Would you consider posting something everyday for us to read? We will show interest in your posts by responding the same day in order to keep Tom from deleting them due to lack of interest.  ;D

[Continued from above post to Tom Mattox]

YOU WROTE:  The founding fathers knew all about the idea that we should have the kingdom of God expressed through the church in charge of the government. 

MY RESPONSE:  If they did, in fact, have the idea that we should have the kingdom of God expressed through the church “in charge of the government” - then it wasn’t because they found it in the scriptures,  What they would have found was, God’s government being expressed in and through the church. If the church had been functioning in the manner in which Christ intended,  there would have been no need for men to seek “a more perfect union.“

YOU WROTE:  They knew their history far better than most modern Americans.  They knew how this idea had been tested and had failed in the Roman, Byzantine, and Holy Roman Empires. 

MY RESPONSE:  I’m not sure I understand what “idea” you’re speaking of, Tom, but if you‘re saying that Christians in these empires did seek to establish churches “in charge of the government,“ then I’m not familiar with those instances,   I am familiar with the fact that the Roman Catholic Church was successful in doing so, but Catholicism is not Christianity.   
Yes, there were some Christian churches that tried to function as Christ intended, but were persecuted by both the Catholic and “Christian” churches.

YOU WROTE: They also knew about the wars and cruelty the idea had produced all over Europe, and about the oppressive governments of Calvinist Switzerland and Anglican England. 

MY RESPONSE:  If you’re suggesting that the oppressive governments of Calvinist Switzerland and Anglican England were in any way associated with the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ and of His purpose and intent for His church, then we must be reading different Bibles and different history books, Tom.

YOU WROTE:  In fact, the Massachussetts delegates knew all about the more recent experiment on these lines conducted in the Massachussetts Bay Colony, and how it had miserably failed.

MY RESPONSE:  From what I’ve read, the Massachusetts Bay Colony was as much of a business venture as it was an  “experiment” in Christian Community living.  They went awry when the deviated from scriptural instruction.

YOU WROTE:  The idea seems to suffer from two problems:

1. God never told the Church to rule the world.

2. Even if He had done so, there is no unanimity as to exactly what God's will is about many details of law.

MY RESPONSE:  Amen!  You make a point for my case, Tom.  Since the Founding Fathers couldn’t even agree amongst themselves about what is written in the word of God, why should we expect that they would have been  able to agree upon laws by which to govern themselves?  And no, God never told the church to rule the world, nor did He tell the church to rule any country.

YOU WROTE:  BTW, the idea that all we need to do is get the elders together to pray and "seek the mind of the Lord" does not seem to have worked anywhere near as well as the "naive and misguided" ideas of the founders.  I would suggest that those who claim this works should actually demonstrate its validity before taking over the US government.  Bretheren type churches have an absolutely wretched record on this point. 

MY RESPONSE:  I don’t know where you’re coming from on this, Tom, but it certainly isn’t from anything I said.  I’d be willing to dialogue with you, but when you .pull things out of the air (i.e. “all we need to do……….” and “taking over the US Government“) and imply that I said it, I find it to be careless interchange and not worthy of rebuttal.  Also, I find it somewhat spurious for you to use your responses as a means to vent your obvious disagreement with “Brethren type churches, ” I don’t see where it is profitable or edifying to continue a discussion in this vein.

Incidentally, the house churches in China (and from what I have read, they are “brethren type churches”)  seem to be ”working” and they probably spend more time in one week on their knees praying then most  Christians spend in a year.  I understand that they don’t pray that God will deliver then from their persecution, but that He will give them the strength to endure it.  And incidentally, I hear also that they are praying for their Christian brothers and sisters in the U.S, - and what do you suppose is their prayer for us? - That we too shall come under persecution.   

God bless,

Chuck




_______________________________________________________________________

Tom,

I’ve written my responses to your last post and found it too lengthy to be accepted as one post, so it is in two parts:


YOU WROTE:    Chuck, you said:- Quote: “Notwithstanding the sincerity of intent of the Christian men who played a major part in drafting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, it does not alter the fact that they were naďve and misguided in supposing that they could constitutionally -- as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution -- “form a more perfect union” and “secure the Blessings of Liberty” for themselves and their posterity.  There could be no more perfect union than what they experienced in their fellowship in Christ, and He had given them His perfect government in the establishment of His church.” 
To me it seems that arguing that people were naive and misguided to believe that they could do what everyone knows they did is going to be an uphill struggle.

MY RESPONSE:  Not really, Tom, unless you consider “what everyone knows they did” as being your idea of successful.  If you consider this country to be the “more perfect union,” then I won’t argue with you.  I don’t
Personally, I’d rather be like those men and women of faith spoken of in Hebrews 11 of whom the writer said:  “All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own” (Hebrews 11:13)

YOU WROTE:  Who could argue that the Constitution adopted in 1789 did not form "a more perfect union" than that formed by the Articles of Confederation that were written in 1776 and took effect in 1781?  That is what the phrase is referring to, y'know.  Since it is now the oldest written constitution in effect anywhere in the world, it seems to me that it has been pretty successful.

MY RESPONSE: I neither think that the U.S. Constitution is the oldest, nor do I believe it has been “pretty successful.”  World history shows us that man will corrupt any form of government ever conceived.  If, by saying that the U.S. Constitution has been successful, you are implying that it has :

established Justice,
insured domestic Tranquility,
provided for the common defence,
promoted the general Welfare,
and secured the Blessings of Liberty to yourselves and your Posterity

If you consider this as being the state of this country, then you and I are  not on the same page.
There was only one perfect constitution ever written - and it will be enacted in the coming theocratic reign of the King, Christ Jesus.

YOU WROTE:  As to their intention of "securing the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity", they seem to have carried that off pretty well too.  I am one of those "posterity" fellows, and I do most certainly enjoy the blessings of liberty.

MY RESPONSE:  Well Tom, I guess it all depends upon your idea of what constitutes “liberty.”  Christians short-change themselves by seeking everything in the here and now.  But, enjoy it while you can.

[Continued on following post to Tom Mattox]

Chuck,

In reading historical documents the meaning is found by finding out what the authors meant.  With fairly recent history, such as the writing of the Constitution, there are usually plenty of records to help us to do this.  As I taught American History for a number of years, I have some familiarity with the individuals and situation they found themselves in.

They had struggled through the war under the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation, and almost lost the war as a result. After the war the states fell to quarreling among themselves, with some shooting over fishing rights and border disputes. In 1786 the farmers of Massachussetts rebelled against the state government and the Congress had to call on G. Washington to suppress it. The country was deeply in debt, and the Congress could only ask for taxes, it couldn't enforce collection.  There were no federal courts to adjudicate disputes between states.

The delegates met to revise the Articles, then decided to start over with a new document.  The phrase, "a more perfect union" means "more perfect than what we had under the Articles."   You seem to be arguing with the idea that the Constitution was established to form  a perfect union, meaning "perfect in all ways in the eyes of God."

I am not aware that anyone, anywhere, claims that that is what the founders intended to do, or actually did.  In fact, the founders, being Christians, knew all about fallen human nature, and sought limits on Government power because of the tendency of power to corrupt.

What they did try to do was to make the best life they could for themselves and their descendents, and to create an environment where people could flourish.  As to how well they did, I will ask a question I used to ask Leftist/Athiest teachers when they started up their "The United States is evil" mantra.   Can you name a country that, in all of human history, has delivered more freedom and more prosperity to more people than the United States?  So far, no one has ever answered the question.

Chuck,  what you seem to be getting at is the idea that since our country is not the kingdom of God, we should not participate in it.  Is that right?

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

I have an honest question, Chuck.
 
In saying that the founders "erred" you are saying that there was something better that they could have done. Would it be possible to establish on this earth what Christ has already established?

There are Christians who believe that the Christian's calling is to establish Christ's kingdom on earth in a visible way and that this will actually happen before Christ returns. I don't think you believe that in entirety, but it does seem to fit in with your line of thought.

Or are you saying that the founding fathers were seeking in the wrong way what Christ had already established?

Can you give us a little here?

Moonflower2

one thing that seems to be missing from this discussion is the fact that nearly all of the founding fathers (with a few minor exceptions) were wealthy, slave-owning, landholders. the writers of the Constitution stood to profit hugely by the establishment of a strong federal government independent of England. in other words, they had a direct economic interest. which is not bad, per se. but it should be noted that there were definitely groups of people NOT represented in the Constitutional Convention. primarily: women, men without property, indentured servants and of course, slaves.

i just think it's silly to stoke up the fires of Our Great City on a Hill when many of the motivating factors were just plain, old-fashioned "show me the money."

that being said, i do not believe America was founded on a false premise. in fact, i love this beautiful country and thank God for the freedom we enjoy today. i just think we have to be careful about being idealistic/pessimistic on either side.

Bystander,

YOU WROTE:  Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 

Scripture teaches that God both raises and brings down kings and nations.  That being the case, the United States is legitimate, even more so than most other nations.

MY RESPONSE:  I’m not saying that the U. S, isn’t “legitimate.”  What I am saying in my complete dissertation, is that the there is no scriptural basis for Christians to form a government outside of that which Christ instituted when He founded His church.

YOU WROTE:  I submit that the US was founded on a true premise, as far as any secular nation goes.  The premise of Liberty does not inhibit true fellowship and unity in Christ in any way, neither does it create it.  It is not the job of states and governments to further the Kingdom of God!  Also, the Gospel is not fettered by governments, but it can be maligned on account of the testimony of those who supposedly preach it.

MY RESPONSE:  Well said. 

YOU WROTE:  As to the founders not recognizing that Christ had already established that which they were seeking, I must disagree with the very premise of that statement.  Christ in no way established an earthly nation or kingdom, which was the very thing the founders sought to do. 

MY RESPONSE:  Christ’s kingdom was established when He rose from the dead and sat down on His throne in the heavenlies.  We who have received Him as our Savior also receive Him as our King and we are citizens of that kingdom.  We are merely aliens and strangers in whatever country we reside on this earth.  He is coming again in judgement to establish that kingdom on earth.  We eagerly await that day.  That earthly kingdom is expressed (or should be expressed) in the church where He is to govern in absentia (physically) until He returns. 

YOU WROTE:  Perhaps I need to read your entire dissertation, but from what you posted it seems that you lament the fact that many in the US mistakenly believe it to be a Christian nation, when it is in fact a secular one. 

MY RESPONSE:  True, but I lament even more, the fact that Christians believe they can put their trust in men, believers or unbelievers, to bring about change in government and in the world.  Only should the hearts of men turn back to God, would we see any meaningful change .


YOU WROTE:  I think the problem here lies more with peoples' mistaken ideas about what the Church is,  and how this leads them to the idea that a secular nation can in any way be Christian.

RESPONSE:  Amen!

YOU WROTE:  As a Christian, I have no problem doing an honest days work in a secular nation, whether that be farming, hammering nails, or administrating civil affairs.  On the flipside, as a Christian, I do have a problem doing an honest days' secular work in the Church!  If we confuse the two, all manner of strange ideas and consequences come
about.

Bystander

MY RESPONSE:  I’m not sure I understand exactly what you mean by “doing an honest day’s secular work in the church,” but I certainly agree with you about doing work in a secular nation.  Being a Christian does not preclude my working and prospering while obeying the laws of whatever country in which I reside - except any which would violate my conscience before God.  Nor does it negate any right to enjoy the liberties and privileges which that country affords me as one of its citizens.  We are in the world, but not of it, and as such, we are to live differently than the unbeliever, yet always reaching out to them to invite them into the joy of citizenship in the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.  And our message to those who are already citizens should be:  “Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand!”

God bless,

Chuck

what I mean is by "secular work," would be along the lines of administering fundraising for a political campaign, or something along those lines.

Chuck,

I think I see what you are saying now.  (correct me if I still don't get it)  You said:

Regarding our status as aliens and strangers.  It seems to me that you have a very different understanding of this phrase than most Christians I have ever heard discussing it.  Most folks see this as teaching that we do not settle our final hope on this world or the things in it.  We live in the world and, as the church which is His body, express the kingdom of God through our lives and labors.  Most, however, don't see this as a prohibition on participating in the national communities in which we live.  His kingdom is, after all, not of this world.

If Christians refuse to participate in Government, for example, that means that no godly influence will be brought to bear on the society at large.  I can't say that I see that as a very good idea.  Christians were deeply involved in the abolition of slavery, and the outlawing of prostitution, drugs, and pornography.  As Christians have lost influence in our society in recent decades, some of these evils have are being permitted again.  

In the state I live in, we have the initiative process.  We can amend the state constitution by petitions leading to a state wide ballot.  What should we do if a ballot measure lowers the age of consent for sexual relations to 8 years old?  (This has actually been publicly advocated!)  Should Christians just sit on their hands and do nothing?  Just let the perverts get their hands on little kids?  Or should we organize the votes to defeat it?

I may be wrong, but somewhere I heard that you spend time in Costa Rica.  Do you have a U.S. passport?  If you do, how does that fit in with your ideas on what it means to be a "pilgrim and exile?"

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[comntinued from above]

YOU WROTE:  They were told to render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar's, and unto God the things that are God's, signifying that there are two separate things going on here: Church and State.
Is your point that if we say our country is founded on Christian principles that the country would look different? And that it should look like and be run like a church is? Is that really possible? What is the responsibility and how far is the reach of a leader who calls himself a Christian?

MY RESPONSE:  My point is that we have not been instructed to “run” any country.  We have been instructed as to how we are to conduct ourselves in the church.  One such instruction is that there are to be no divisions in His body (1 Cor 1:10),  yet we find that there are over 1000 denominations in this country.  If we believers haven’t learned how to live in unity in the church, why would we expect that we would to be able to form “a more perfect union” with unbelievers?
Since Jesus said that we are not to make vows (Mat 5:33-37) how can a Christian take an oath of office to defend laws that are contrary to Jesus’ command?

YOU WROTE:  I agree with what bystander, and Tom Maddeletor, said but I'm interested in reading your entire paper. Are you arguing words here, trying to prove that the US of A isn't founded on Christian principles, or presenting priniciples that can actually be worked out in a Christian nation?

MY RESPONSE:  Both.  But these principles, like Christ’s kingdom, transcend national borders. They apply wherever we reside and don’t change when we cross borders.  They are probably “worked out” more scriptural in China and in other countries where the church has to operate secretly because of persecution.  But don‘t feel sorry for them, envy them, for their reward in heaven is great. 

YOU WROTE:  Would you consider posting something everyday for us to read? We will show interest in your posts by responding the same day in order to keep Tom from deleting them due to lack of interest.

MY RESPONSE:  I am not a prolific writer and try to limit myself to writing to when the Lord gives me a burden to do so.  I'll gladly respond to any post directed to me, or answer any questions, but even now I have several posts to which I haven’t yet responded.  I will be responding to Elizabeth, Tom and Bystander as I have time in the next couple of days.  I appreciate good Christian dialogue and find that it either strengthens my convictions or causes me to change them.

In His service,   Chuck

Moonflower,

YOU WROTE:  Chuck, I think most people do not claim that the US is a Christian country anymore, except in comparison to countries where the dominant religious beliefs are Buddhist, Communist, Islam, Jewish, etc. There are more Christians here than any other country and have been for some time.

MY RESPONSE:  The word “Christian”  seems to have lost its true meaning even amongst “Evangelicals.”  This became obvious in the late 1990’s when a group of Evangelicals corroborated with a group of prominent Catholics in publishing  a document  “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” and a couple of years later they followed up with “The God of Salvation.” Both documents were written in an attempt to unite Catholics and Evangelicals in a socio/spiritual alliance to address social and political problems. The distinctive feature that these documents revealed was that these Evangelicals accepted Catholicism as a Christian church.  In many polls today, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are counted among Christians. 

YOU WROTE:  We have already heard that the early unifying factor of the early USA was hatred for the "taxation without representation", and not religious freedom. But to say that that was the only issue that they were interested in is unfair to the large population who came here and thrived under the religious freedom, with their families intact, that they did not have in their mother countries.

MY RESPONSE:  You are correct and I don’t mean to imply that there were not those who came for that reason.  But my point is, that there was no need for them to try to establish either a secular or a religious government. 

YOU WROTE:  One of the issues in Christianity is "sin". The ten commandments tell us what it is and the founding fathers realized this when they pasted the commandments in various places. I don't think you are saying that this was bogus on their part and just a political ploy to appeal to the masses of indigent immigrants who came for religious freedom or the mere well-being of their families? 

MY RESPONSE: You are correct; that is not what I’m saying.  We are instructed to be ambassadors for Christ.   That means that we are to represent Christ in the environment in which we abide, our neighborhood, our job, our city, etc…We are to take our instruction about how to be ambassadors for Christ from the word.  Many Christians disregard that instruction and do whatever they think is expedient without regard for the purpose and intent of the one whom they claim to be serving.  That is not the role of an ambassador.


YOU WROTE:  There is no true freedom until sin is recognized for what it is. Women and children, although they may be victims, have been protected here unlike in countries who have never known or turned from Christ. It's the goodness of God recognized by these founding fathers.

MY RESPONSE: Better yet, there  is no "true" freedom, except as found in Christ.   
I’m  not implying that nothing good came out of the founding of this country.  What I am saying is that our allegiance to Christ must supercede our allegiance to any country.  We can’t serve two masters.  Those who place themselves under oath to uphold and enforce laws that oppose God’s laws will eventually be forced to choose between the two.   It is foolhardy to place oneself in that position.

YOU WROTE:  If our country was to be run like the old testament "church", we would need to kill most of the people who are in prisons now, imprison many who aren't, and leave the rest of them out in the cold.  But I don't think that was Christ's message to the NT Christians.

MY RESPONSE:  Nor do I.  Have you ever noticed that there are no provisions for “prisons” in Mosaic or Davidic Law ?  The most severe punishment was death.  The next most severe was to be “cast out.”   The most severe discipline in the church is to be “cast out.”   And in the church there is no provision for a death penalty.   Also, we are told that we are not to judge those outside the church (1 Cor  5:12-13). 

[continued below]

[continued from above]

YOU WROTE:  In the state I live in, we have the initiative process.  We can amend the state constitution by petitions leading to a state wide ballot.  What should we do if a ballot measure lowers the age of consent for sexual relations to 8 years old?  (This has actually been publicly advocated!)  Should Christians just sit on their hands and do nothing?  Just let the perverts get their hands on little kids?  Or should we organize the votes to defeat it?

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

MY RESPONSE:  I believe there are several things we have to consider in regard to the laws of the country in which we live. 

Is this a bad law for the community in which I live?
Am I obligated to obey this law?
Will it violate my conscience before God if I obey this law?

Let’s take a look at Roe v Wade in this prospective.
Certainly, I believe it is a bad law for the country, so, I will speak out against it.   But this law is not imposed upon us, so no one is forced to have an abortion - just as I am not forced to look at pornography on the internet, or go to “R” rated movies.
In some Asian countries, there is a different situation in regard to bearing children.  Parents are forbidden , or discouraged from having more than one child, or they may even be forced to abort a second pregnancy.  In such cases,  a Christian should refuse to obey such a law, even if it means being ostracized or even imprisoned.  This has happened in Mainland China.

I believe we have a God-given right to appeal or petition against bad laws, or ones which would force me to violate my conscience before God if I were to obey them.

If our appeal is denied, we have to consider whether it will personally effect my walk with the Lord.  And remember, Tom, we’re told that we are not to judge those “outside the church.” (1 Cor 12-13).  So, if a mother wants to abort her child, I would certainly try to dissuade her.   But once she has done so, I am to treat her as I would any other believer who needs Jesus Christ as their Redeemer. 

So, in the case of the petition concerning the amendment you mentioned, Tom, I would apply the same principles. 

I was struck by the number of Christians who protested about the Janet Jackson incident at the Super Bowl half-time entertainment show last year.  My question is “Why would a Christian have been watching such the show to begin with, when it was obviously a degrading exhibition from the very beginning.  And I don’t think it was necessary or wise for Christians to express their outrage.  We very often come across as “bible thumping” do-gooders who want to impose our morality upon everyone else. I am glad to be able to say that I didn’t watch any of it. 

God bless, 

Chuck

Tom, 

YOU WROTE: Chuck, I think I see what you are saying now.  (correct me if I still don't get it)  You said:
“Christ’s kingdom was established when He rose from the dead and sat down on His throne in the heavenlies.  We who have received Him as our Savior also receive Him as our King and we are citizens of that kingdom.  We are merely aliens and strangers in whatever country we reside on this earth.  He is coming again in judgement to establish that kingdom on earth.  We eagerly await that day.  That earthly kingdom is expressed (or should be expressed) in the church where He is to govern in absentia (physically) until He returns “
YOU CONTINUE:  Chuck, regarding our status as aliens and strangers.  It seems to me that you have a very different understanding of this phrase than most Christians I have ever heard discussing it.  Most folks see this as teaching that we do not settle our final hope on this world or the things in it.  We live in the world and, as the church which is His body, express the kingdom of God through our lives and labors.  Most, however, don't see this as a prohibition on participating in the national communities in which we live.  His kingdom is, after all, not of this world.]

MY RESPONSE:  Neither do I see our status as aliens and strangers as prohibiting us from participating in the communities in which we live.  We are told that we are ambassadors -  not monks or hermits. But, I don’t believe we can ignore Jesus command about making vows ( Matt 5:33-37) and James reiteration of that command (James 5:12).  Therefore I don’t believe that a Christian should run for, or accept an appointment to any office whereby he/she would have to take an oath (or affirm) that he/she would have to uphold or enforce laws which are in opposition to God’s laws. We cannot serve two masters, for we will inevitably be confronted with having to make a choice as to which one we are going to obey.
An ambassador is appointed to convey the will and policies of the one whom he serves. When he chooses to ignore that instruction, and act in a manner that he decides is more expedient for accomplishing his boss’s purposes, then, he is not fit to serve.

YOU WROTE:  If Christians refuse to participate in Government, for example, that means that no godly influence will be brought to bear on the society at large.  I can't say that I see that as a very good idea.  Christians were deeply involved in the abolition of slavery, and the outlawing of prostitution, drugs, and pornography.  As Christians have lost influence in our society in recent decades, some of these evils have are being permitted again. 

MY RESPONSE:  I believe our “godly influence” should come from living lives that individually and corporately express the principles set forth in the word.  A good example of a properly functioning church is found in Acts 2:43-47 and Acts 4:32-35.  This is the type of unity that should be seen in the church today, but instead, we have Christ’s church divided into over a thousand denominations. We have lost our influence in our society because there is very little to distinguish between ourselves and themselves.  Divorce, adultery, rebellious children, etc, etc, etc are just as common amongst Christians as amongst unbelievers. 
What “godly influence “ is effected, for instance, when Christians vociferously demonstrate in front of a courthouse to protest the removal of a monument of the Ten Commandments?   Consider the “godly influence” that Betsy Ten Boom had upon her fellow prisoners and even the cruel guards in a Nazi concentration Camp.  Consider the ”godly  influence” that a young girl in a school in Columbine, Colorado had upon her classmates and a watching world, and was shot because she refused to deny her God.

[continue below]

There is no oath a Christian can take that is more binding that saying, "Yes." Unless I am mistaken, when we say yes to something, we are expected to faithfully perform what we said we would do, barring unforseen/extraordinary circumstances.  I don't see how holding office is any different than agreeing to help a friend paint a house in that sense. 

For example, if I were mayor, I could administrate the cities business fairly, faithfully, and with energy and good will.  There would be no problem at all doing this, unless I was asked to participate is some shady business, in which case I would merely refuse.  I might also choose to committ political suicide(or not) by voting against having Mardi Gras, or a Gay Pride event.

On the other hand, if I tell a friend "yes" regarding painting his house, only to find out that he is selling drugs out of the house, I am not bound to perform my vow, at least in my mind.

That brings up the abortion issue.  In keeping with the stand you seem to be stating, why do you pay taxes?  Surely you know some of your tax dollars are being used to abort babies?  Why do you not refuse to obey such a law?

Furthermore, if you view  PG rated movie, that is made by the same studio, or an affiliate of the same studio that produced the R rated movie, are you not promoting the same? The stranger/pilgrim thing can get strange indeed!   I have several thoughts on how to apply wisdom to this idea, but I would like to hear your thoughts first.

Elizabeth:

YOU WROTE:  One thing that seems to be missing from this discussion is the fact that nearly all of the founding fathers (with a few minor exceptions) were wealthy, slave-owning, landholders. the writers of the Constitution stood to profit hugely by the establishment of a strong federal government independent of England.  In other words, they had a direct economic interest. which is not bad, per se, but it should be noted that there were definitely groups of people NOT represented in the Constitutional Convention. primarily: women, men without property, indentured servants and of course, slaves.

MY RESPONSE:  Yes, Elizabeth we have to be pretty naďve to imagine that none of these Founding Fathers had any monetary interests in seeing a new country established in which they could define slaves as “property,” and not to be included among those creatures whom God had endowed with certain "inalienable rights." Without speculating on their motives, it is inconceivable to me that Christian men could designate other human beings as "property."   

YOU WROTE: I just think it's silly to stoke up the fires of Our Great City on a Hill when many of the motivating factors were just plain, old-fashioned "show me the money."

MY RESPONSE:  I can’t disagree because I think you may be right.  Yet I believe some of these men were truly sincere in their effort to try to build a better nation. 

YOU WROTE:  that being said, I do not believe America was founded on a false premise. in fact, I love this beautiful country and thank God for the freedom we enjoy today. I just think we have to be careful about being idealistic/pessimistic on either side.

Elizabeth

MY RESPONSE:  It would be too lengthy to try to write out my reasoning on a BB post. I’ve spelled out my reasons very thoroughly in my complete article. (which no one seems to have a desire to read).  That’s not a complaint - just a statement of fact.
I too enjoy the “freedom” we have in this country, Elizabeth,  but I don’t labor under any illusion that we are a nation “under God.”  Many would call me a pessimist, whereas I prefer to think of myself as a realist.  You’ve heard the cliché - The pessimist says “The glass is half empty,”  but the optimist says, “The glass is half full.”  Well I like to add - The realist says,  “I really don’t care to philosophize whether the glass is half- full or half- empty -  I just know I‘m thirsty and even a half glass of water is going to taste real good.” 
And I guess I would also say I’m idealistic in the sense of one of Merriam/Webster’s definitions -  “the practice of forming ideals or living under their influence.“  I believe the word of God is superbly paradoxical in that it is pragmatic yet idealistic.   Our problem is that, quite often, we just don’t take God at His Word, and we see it as being idealistic only.

God bless,

Chuck

[continued from above]

So much for illegal activity,  But what if you found out that your unsaved friend was engaged in some immoral activities? For instance, watched “R” rated movies?  Or that he condoned abortion?   Or that he buys Playboy magazine?  Or he was having an affair? 

Here, I believe is where Paul’s exhortation applies in regard to our not judging unbelievers. 

I had a boss for whom  I worked, and though he was not a Christian, he was well aware that I was, since I had witnessed to him  shortly after he had become the Director of the Company.  And even though he didn’t become a Christian,  we developed a close friendship.  He asked me to lunch one day, and broke down and confessed to having had an affair.  His wife had found out about it and was suing for divorce.  He was devastated and needed a friend to confide in.  I acknowledged that he had been foolish, but refrained from condemning him.  Inasmuch as reconciliation was deemed impossible, the divorce was soon finalized.  I didn’t have any misgivings about him marrying another woman several years later and I attended their wedding.   Now, it would be great to be able to say that he eventually came to know the Lord, but to date, I have no such information.  So, if you’re wondering what is the point of this little tale, I’ll  tell you.  Because I didn’t judge him, I believe he has a greater respect for my beliefs, and I would like to believe he saw something of value in my life, and in our relationship that might eventually bear fruit for Christ.  I pray for him.

Well, this is a pretty long-winded response to your question, but I hope it shows you where I am coming from.
 
YOU WROTE:  That brings up the abortion issue.  In keeping with the stand you seem to be stating, why do you pay taxes?  Surely you know some of your tax dollars are being used to abort babies?  Why do you not refuse to obey such a law?

MY RESPONSE:   Because we are told to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." (Matt 22:21). Jesus paid the tax even though some of it was undoubtedly going to be used for ungodly purposes.  As I stated in a previous post, we are to obey the laws of the country in which we are residing, unless doing so would violate our conscience before God.   

YOU WROTE:  Furthermore, if you view  PG rated movie, that is made by the same studio, or an affiliate of the same studio that produced the R rated movie, are you not promoting the same? The stranger/pilgrim thing can get strange indeed!   I have several thoughts on how to apply wisdom to this idea, but I would like to hear your thoughts first.

MY RESPONSE:  If we are to boycott every company that engages in, or supports immoral activities, we would have to go out of the world.  For instance, you would be hard pressed to find a consumer oriented corporation today that does not contribute to, or at least target their marketing strategy toward, the Gay and Lesbian segment of our society.  I might refrain from patronizing a company if I become aware of their doing so, but that doesn’t necessitate my searching for a snake under every rock.  It would be extremely difficult if not virtually impossible to discover all of the companies who condone or actually engage in immoral activities.

In the case of movie produces, I feel I might be able to make at least a slight impact by patronizing the studio’s “G” movies and avoiding the “R”s.  I subscribe to “Clean Films,” where movies are edited for language, nudity, or extreme violence.  The major studios have opposed the company’s editing their films, but to date, have been unsuccessful in preventing them from doing so..  Hopefully, ”Clean Films “ success might send a message to producers that there is a growing market for such movies. 

I‘m looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

In His service,

Chuck

Bystander,

YOU WROTE:  There is no oath a Christian can take that is more binding that saying, "Yes." Unless I am mistaken, when we say yes to something, we are expected to faithfully perform what we said we would do, barring unforseen/extraordinary circumstances.  I don't see how holding office is any different than agreeing to help a friend paint a house in that sense.
 
MY RESPONSE:   Certainly, a Christian’s word or promise  should  be his/her bond,  but I don’t believe that is the only object of Jesus’ command in Matthew 5:34-37.  Because Jesus was cognizant of our sin nature, He knew that we would be prone to breaking vows or oaths that we might make.  Consider the high percentage of well intended wedding vows that are broken every day and the unfulfilled promises of parents, children, employers, and politicians and you will understand Jesus’ foresight.  So, I view Jesus‘ admonition as a safeguard against making vows that, in weakness, we would not keep.  (I.e., The vow of Peter and the other disciple’s to Jesus to not deny Him)(Mathew 26:35).

And, I also view Jesus’ imperative of Matthew 5 as  referring to our responses  to  interrogatives,  i.e. “Did you take the money?”, “Are you telling the truth?” etc..  James, in reiterating Jesus‘ command wrote: “But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment” (James 5:12).  I believe that what James is conveying is that as Christians, our integrity should be above reproach, therefore  it is superfluous to reinforce a yes or no reply with an oath.  I’m reminded of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”  wherein Gertrude, in response to the play-Queen's repetitive statements of loyalty to, and love for, her first husband, observed - “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.“

However, we know that in the case of an elected or appointed official, almost all are obligated to take an oath of office, whereby they must swear (or affirm) that they will endeavor to uphold the laws of the state.  Inasmuch as current laws or future laws might run counter to God’s law, we can recognize the pitfall this can present for a Christian, so I also view this command as prohibiting a Christian from taking such an oath - or running for an office where one is required 

YOU WROTE:  For example, if I were mayor, I could administrate the cities business fairly, faithfully, and with energy and good will.  There would be no problem at all doing this, unless I was asked to participate is some shady business, in which case I would merely refuse.  I might also choose to committ political suicide(or not) by voting against having Mardi Gras, or a Gay Pride event.

MY RESPONSE:  Yes, you  probably would be committing political suicide.  Having served for a short time as a County Assessor in Nebraska, I found that even at a that low level of government,  there was political chicanery and dishonest practices.  I thought  I could make a difference, but soon found that it was too difficult to try to buck the system.  I resigned after serving just about one year of my four year term.
Perhaps you would fare better, but do you really suppose that they would allow you to forego the oath of office?   

YOU WROTE:  On the other hand, if I tell a friend "yes" regarding painting his house, only to find out that he is selling drugs out of the house, I am not bound to perform my vow, at least in my mind.

MY RESPONSE.  .  I’m assuming, of course, that you friend is an unbeliever. For if he were a believer, you would be obligated to confront him in accordance with Matthew 18:15. 

If he were an unbeliever, we have a different situation.  Since he is breaking the law, I would confront him and say something like “Jack, I know you are dealing in drugs from your house and therefore, you put me in a very uncomfortable position.  Since I consider you to be my friend, I would like to discuss this with you and find out why you would jeopardize your life, your family (if he has one), our friendship and your future.  I would have to assume that it’s something that you would like to quit, but maybe haven’t been able to figure out a way to do so.  I’d like to help you in any way I can.  I myself was trapped into a bad situation many years ago and I found a way out through Jesus Christ.  You can too.  If you’re not interested in discussing it, I’ll leave you alone, but then I would ask you to release me from my promise to paint your house.  But if you do want to talk, let’s get together tomorrow and I’ll bring along my brushes and we can talk while I throw some paint on your house.”

[continued below]

Red added by me. If you remember, I was the one who originally asked if you could post the entire paper on this BB. You offered to send it to Tom, but would you consider sending it to me.? I'd like to read it. I'll give you my address or a fax number if you would rather fax it.

Moonflower2

Monnflower,

I stand corrected.  If you will send me your address to chuckmiller888@yahoo.com, I'll gladly send you a copy. 

Chuck

Is there a difference between Moonflower & Moonflower2?

Same person-- Split personality. ;D ;D ;D

al ;)

Yes. One has a 2 at the end.

Could just be indicative of extra baggage (2). As a matter of fact, I just came across a bag of "prayer hankies" with LHal embroidered on them in various colors. He must have had multiple personalities that needed expression via crayola-colored threads.  ;D

So which one are you? 1 or 2?

There is only ONE LHal, but many evil twins!!! ;D ;D ;D

Brothers and Sisters,

I'm having a difficult time understanding how the use of pseudonyms serves any useful purpose in Christian dialogue. 

Chuck Miller

don't take it too personally, chuck.

if you're looking for a "useful purpose" and "christian dialogue" you might be posting on the wrong board.

 ;D

Elizabeth,

Thanks  - you may be right.  So I'll just say "Adios," and bow out.

Chuck

that wasn't meant as a broom by which to shew you away, chuck!

lots of people have bowed out because they don't like what's being said/done etc. when i first started posting here i took myself way too seriously. when someone expressed a different opinion i freaked out and took it personally. having been baptised into the board through a couple of stinging posts, i don't worry about it as much anymore.

people come, people go. sometimes it's boring, sometimes annoying. but sometimes (and this is really great when it happens) it's illuminating. i just don't have lofty expectations or hold my breath waiting for the next enlightening topic.

all this to say: check in sometime soon. i liked reading your thoughts, even if you didn't get the feedback you expected.
cheers,
e.

 Elizabeth,

From your comments, I must have sounded like the little kid on the block who took his marbles and went home because the other kids wouldn’t play the way he wanted.   

Please don’t misunderstand,  I don’t object to having my opinions disputed or questioned;  nor do I mind stinging rebuttals (they’re generally the ones most easily refuted).  I simply don’t feel we should be using public communications in such a way as to be a poor testimony for Jesus Christ, nor our time in fruitless dialogue .

Many Christians are frustrated and anxious concerning the spiritual, political and economic state of affairs in this country today.  This is inescapably obvious to unbelievers, who view us as being no different than they, and find nothing impressive about our methods and nothing attractive in our solutions. This frustration amongst Christians stems from their inability to bring about change in the here and now, and their anxiety is a result of failing to recognize that our concern should not be about the temporal, but rather, the eternal.

I try to point to the way out of this anxiety and frustration, and direct fellow believers down a path of assurance and peace - peace that can only be found in the joy of their confidence in Jesus,  who tells us to put our trust in Him and His ways, and not the world and its ways.

Unfortunately, many Christians seem to think they are obligated to try to impose God’s laws upon unwilling citizens, and feel that they can create a more perfect society by doing so.  Also, they get so easily distracted by useless or unprofitable dialogue and lose sight of what we are here for.  That’s what causes my own anxiety and frustration, so rather than beat my own head against a wall, I get to a point where I feel it is more profitable to just move on. 

God bless,

Chuck

I understand your frustration, Chuck. I agree with you that the ultimate answer to America's problems is not political. That being said, I admire those Christians who are able to serve politcally without defiling themselves with what is a notoriously dirty business.

But I guess I also enjoy frothy, joking dialogue and try not to take everything in life so seriously. A little humor, a good laugh now and then does me more good than an extended disagreement about the sad, depressing state of America's affairs. Know what I mean?

I commend your efforts, though. You seem to enjoy meaningful reflection and academic conversation. I'm glad you contributed your thoughts and hope you do so again soon.

cheers,
e.

Chuck,

You said:

While I realize that you are speaking in general terms about large numbers of Christians, I think you need to take another look at what you have said above.  You seem to be saying that these folks are a good example of Christian conduct and testimony.

Praying that other Christians will be denied education and jobs,  imprisoned, beaten, tortured, even executed!   IMHO, no serious Christian, especially one who had suffered such things himself or at least known people so treated, would such a thing.
Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

...or, it could be that the Chinese saints, deprived of a free press and free exchange of information with their brethren abroad, labor under the delusion that the western churches have become worldly and sloppy in their profession of Christ.  So thinking, they may actually believe that some degree of persecution could serve as a wakeup call to us to repent of worldliness and return to the Author and Finisher of our redemption.

Chuck didn't specify the points you raise, above.  Persecution may begin as simply as labeling the gospel as hate-speech and illegalizing it, or demanding that Christian ministers perform same-sex marriages.  These things are actually occurring in other countries today.  They could happen here...

al

Al,

I think it is more likely that this idea is just "Christian Grapevine" rumors, the sort that spreads through casual conversations among folks who know little about what is really going on.

If you will remember, we used to hear things like the Jews had ordered all the materials for the rebuilding of the temple.  This was shortly after the recapture of Jerusalem in 1967.  Still waiting for that one to be verified, 35 years later.

Also, remember all the rumors about Watchman Nee?  We regarded him as a spiritual giant in those pre-assembly days.  According to the rumors, they had cut off his legs, arms, and blinded him.  Different rumors detailed different horrors.   Turned out they let him go when he was old, and he died outside of prison, feeble but of sound mind, with all his body parts intact.

Blessings,

Tom

Tom,

Obviously you and I have access to different grapevines.  What I heard was that Watchman Nee had ordered all the materials for the rebuilding of the temple.  The reason nothing has happened since is that he couldn't follow through with building it after losing his arms, legs and eyes.  (don't ask me why...)

Anyway, of course we know "what's really going on..."  That's what the rumors are for!!!

al ;)