Archive for the ‘Church & State’ Category

Self-described Conservatives outnumber Liberals in America by a 2:1 margin (40% to 21% according to Gallup), but a majority (albeit slim) voted for socialist Barack Obama in the 2012 election.   How does that compute?

The 35% “moderate” swing-vote still believes in the myth of the free lunch.  Rush Limbaugh observed the day after that it’s very difficult to run against Santa Claus.  In spite of Obama’s abysmal first-term performance, a majority opted to believe his pie-in-the-sky promises that government exists to give them “the good life.”  The socialist myth dies hard even among Christians.

Myth:   It is the purpose of civil government to provide a safety net to ensure that nobody in America goes to bed hungry.

Dan Smithwick, President of the Nehemiah Institute and author of the PEERS worldview test,  takes a hard look at this myth and the elusive meaning of the term “biblical worldview.”   Following is his obituary on the death of the republic.

On Choosing Leaders

Dan Smithwick

President, Nehemiah Institute

November 7, 2012

 A good friend died this week; he was known simply as “The Republic.”

 Exodus 18:21 (KJV) Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.

Romans 13:4 (KJV) For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; — for he is the minister of God, –.

These verses have long been used by the Christian Church as criteria for selecting civil leaders to provide an orderly, God-fearing society based on objective truth.  For decades in America, we have been ignoring these commands to be a Bible-based community of people.  This week, in my opinion, we struck bottom.  We chose an administration that will not base public policy around the axiom of ‘hating covetousness,’ but rather is likely to  promote it at every turn.  There can hardly be anything more threatening to a nation’s liberty.

Yet, we must remember, God is sovereign.  He was neither surprised nor disappointed with the results of this democratic selection of leaders.  I say this because of another ‘proverb’ that Christian philosophers have repeated for eons:  God always gives His people the type of government they deserve.

We simply do not deserve liberty and prosperity.  What would you point to over the past 40 years to convince God that liberty and prosperity should be the ‘fruit of our labors?’  Or that because of our faithfulness to His Word we are deserving of good things?  I would like to see your list.

What convinces me that we ‘got what we deserve’ this week, are the results of Biblical worldview testing that I have been observing from a front-row seat for over two decades.  Most of the recipients of this short essay know of our worldview assessment program called, The PEERS Test.  It measures a person’s basic worldview beliefs in five areas: Politics, Economics, Education, Religion and Social Issues (PEERS).  The results are then categorized into one of four worldview classifications: Biblical Theism, Moderate Christian, Humanism, or Socialism.  Please note:  Socialism is based entirely on the attribute of covetousness.

For a quarter of a century of PEERS testing, with approximately 100,000 tests of youth from Christian homes, we have been watching results move away from a mature Biblical Theistic worldview, toward a Socialist worldview.  Let me share a very recent example:

Last week we conducted PEERS testing for a pricy Christian school in one of our nation’s largest cities.  This is a large school with the following claim in its mission statement:

[name] is an independent, Christ-centered college preparatory school that integrates learning with biblical faith — for the Glory of Jesus Christ.

Note:  I am not criticizing the statement per se, all Christian schools have similar such statements about why they exist.  What I am criticizing is that the mission statement does not comport with their worldview results.

The rating of worldview understanding of the PEERS test is based on the following numerical scale (+100 to -100):

70—100                Biblical Theism

30 – 69                 Moderate Christian

0 – 29                 Secularism/Humanism

-100 – 0                Socialism

About 5% of Christian schools in America score in the top category, over half score in the bottom two categories, with the trend dropping about 2-3 points per year for 25 years.

The school I referred to above had a composite PEERS score of 13.88, well on the way to Socialism as a desired worldview.

The outcomes at this school are extremely relevant to what happened in America this week, politically speaking.  Here is why:

There is a sixth index on the PEERS Test called, Limited Government.  This index includes all test items (out of 70 total) that have any relationship to the question, “What is the role of civil government regarding the topic being addressed?” This school (with testing from two high school grades) scored -1.30 in the Limited Government category, ranking them in the Socialism category of the PEERS test.  Ironically, 75.4% of the students marked themselves as “Republicans.”   I am convinced that they selected Republican because their parents have been telling them for years, “We are REPUBLICANS!”  But what these kids want is a Republican president who offers a Socialist view of life.

Here is one example from the PEERS Test that revealed their thinking in this direction:

In a democratic society, citizens have a civil right to an education and this right must be protected and enforced by civil governments.”

Both constitutionally and Biblically speaking, this statement is in error.  Education is not a “right,” (entitlement) and civil government does not have responsibility for education, certainly not at the high school level.  Note:  I am happy to provide a detailed Position Paper on this test question if you care to read further.

But for this Christian school, 94.7% of the student body gave an unbiblical response, siding with the Humanist/Socialist view- “education is my right.”

If our young people (Church attending families) believe that they are “owed” an education which others are obligated to provide, guaranteed by our civil government, it is a very short step to also view things such as a job, housing, health care (the good life!) as a “right to be guaranteed.”  May I say Greece?

This is Socialism; this is covetousness.

But this is not the worst of why we (the Christian community) deserved the political results that we received.  In spite of all the rhetoric from the Christian community about the need for godly values and principles, 85% of church families still send their children to the government’s school system, an officially Socialist institution where entitlement thinking is the norm.  Yes, we are just getting what we deserve. The political results of this week in America were simply the result of decades of educating youth that government exists to “ensure quality of life.”  The winning party simply presented this argument better than the losing party.

So, what now?

I don’t pretend to have a clear answer on where we go from here- how to once again become a nation based on Exodus 18:21 and Romans 13:4, and all that that means.  But this much I do know; we don’t need another 4-year plan to find the right political nominee to right the ship; we (the Christian community) need something like a 24-year plan.  We need to think long-term, very hard and very carefully.  Before thinking about ‘who we will nominate next time,’ we MUST rethink our views about leadership.  And we MUST educate our youth with this view of life.

I have been working at Nehemiah Institute for 25 years; a ministry we founded in 1986.   Our mission is all about doing just what Nehemiah of the Old Testament did: rebuild a fallen city.  We are a fallen city today.

If you share the views I have expressed here, and want to help, and I do mean HELP, then I would like to hear from you.  I want to take Nehemiah Institute to a new level, very likely into new hands that can truly result in a rebuilding of America.  It will be hard, long and expensive.

Like Nehemiah of old, I want to start building a team of people who are willing to rebuild “in front of their own house,” (Nehemiah, chapter 3).  If this is your heart today, send me a note, please:

dan@nehemiahinstitute.com

If you would like to discuss this matter in person, give me a brief summary of your views and a phone number.

Dan

Ps-  If it is simply your ambition to find a way to help get more Republicans elected to civil office, let’s not waste my time or yours.

Also, please circulate this article to others as you are able.

Once upon a time our Pilgrim forefathers sailed on the Mayflower and established a tiny village on the shores of Cape Cod.  Because their charter required all produce be kept in a common storehouse, a lot of them didn’t work very hard and half the colony starved to death in the winter.

The next summer everybody grew their own food in their own garden and they all had plenty to eat.  And that was how the Pilgrims learned the bitter lesson of socialism and free enterprise flourished in America happily ever after.

That little story has become a favorite of American Christians as they gather around their annual Thanksgiving tables.  Unfortunately, while the story is true the moral of the story is not.

The Puritan refugees, who settled 10 years later just up the coast in Boston learned little about economics from their Pilgrim brethren.  In fact, Puritan experiments with economic control and price fixing during their first half century in the New World were a primary factor contributing to the Declension of the Holy Commonwealth.

Ironically, these experiments drove the more worldly grandchildren of the pioneers to embrace a more Christian, capitalistic system of economics, but divorced from its Biblical base.  Thus, the Holy Commonwealth became associated with an unpopular system of social and economic control.  To the modern Christian mind, this unfortunate development has been obscured by the popular myth.

Myth:   After the disastrous winter of 1621, and the Pilgrims’ experiment with the common storehouse, the New England colonists abandoned socialism.

The story of the Puritan’s 50-year dalliance with a controlled economy was documented by Dr. Gary North in his doctoral dissertation in the early 1970s.  The work appeared originally as a number of short articles and then in book form in 1988.   MythBusters relied heavily on this research for purposes of the investigation of the Puritan economic experiments.

The Puritan end or goal was a Shining City Set on A Hill, a model of statesmanship to which all the world would look.  Concerning the laws of God, they sought to “keep and do them, for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people'” (Dt. 4:6).  This is the law as a tool of evangelism.

Unfortunately, their means did not match their ends.  Their application of the law was faulty.  Nowhere was this more apparent than in the realm of economics, in particular common ownership of land and price fixing.

Common Ownership

To secure their goal the Puritans tried to structure their new society so as to maintain maximum oversight by the church.  This extended to the physical layout of their towns and fields.  This was challenging because most were obviously farmers.

In order to keep everybody as close to possible to the church, all of the homesteads were located in town, with fields extending out in long narrow parcels.  Some of these extended out as far as two or three miles, often in a wedge or cone-shape.

This arrangement enabled the clergy and neighbors to hold one another accountable, but it was very inconvenient for farmers who had to waste a lot of time traveling to the farthest reaches of their fields.

Moreover, the legitimate desire for profit, led inevitably to animal husbandry in addition to simple agronomy.  Raising of crops was sufficient for little more than subsistent agriculture.  It was more profitable for farmers to increase their planting and utilize the grain to feed the livestock.

It was initially deemed more efficient to run all the livestock in a common pasture.  Less fencing would be required to keep the cattle out of the crops in a commons than in individual plots.  The unforeseen drawback was that individual cost-benefit analysis associated with private property was eliminated.

Thus there was strong incentive for individuals to take advantage of the benefits and shirk the costs.  Illicit benefits included midnight tree cutting and overgrazing.  Shirked costs were associated with keeping the fences repaired and compensating the herdsman.

All of this led to unenforceable regulation and bureaucratic wrangling that went on for half a century until the commons was distributed to private owners.  This inefficient use of public property has been called “the tragedy of the commons.”

Price Fixing

Puritan economic control went even further in attempting to establish the “just price” of various products by law.  This concept stemmed from the tension in Puritan social theory between a strong sense of diligence in one’s calling and unscrupulous exploitation.

Magistrates sought to regulate the tendency of men to slip over the fine line between devotion to their calling and avarice or greed.  The latter was said to find expression in price gouging or charging an “unjust price” for one’s produce.

The problem of course lies in defining exactly what is the just price.  It is the arrogance of the bureaucrat that tells him he is capable of such knowledge. The price fixing regulations took the form of caps on wages that could be charged by artisans and laborers and a 33% profit margin for businessmen.  This was America’s first excess profits law.

The immediate effect of this price fixing was suppression of productivity and an increase of demand over supply.  When officials deemed that citizens had learned their lesson the controls were relaxed, only to be imposed again later.  The cycle of economic disruption by price fixing  repeated itself endlessly until King Phillips War in 1675-76.

When the Puritans finally abandoned their heavy-handed control and price fixing, the economy boomed.  The unfortunate by-product was the self-sufficient Yankee of the third generation who now regarded the Holy Commonwealth of his grandparents as quaint, but impractical.

Case Closed:  MythBusters concluded that Puritan economics failed because it was not based on Biblical law.  Rather it was based on the early scholasticism and natural law reasoning of Thomas Aquinas.  Had the Puritans been more cognizant of Biblical law, their experiment would have succeeded because “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God…that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished for every good work” (II Tim. 3:16).

If the Puritans had paid attention to a few basic Biblical principles of economic theory they could have saved half century of grief.  As seen in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, God gives property to individuals to manage on His behalf (Acts 5:4).  In one of His parables Jesus established the principle that the private land owner has the right to set the wages for his laborers.

 

 

 We admire Judge Roy Moore – his courage, his tenacity, and his commitment to God — and wish him well in his campaign for Supreme Court Justice in the state of Alabama.

However, MythBusters would be remiss if we did not investigate the apparently faulty premises on which Judge Roy Moore bases his campaign as well as his judicial theory.

MYTH:   Promoting the form of government found in the United States Constitution is synonymous with promoting the form of government laid out in the Bible.

Our initial impression was that nothing can be further from the truth.  This myth has left Christians mired in confusion and political impotence for over 200 years.

We found a number of statements in a recent fundraising letter for the Roy Moore campaign put out by World Net Daily that illustrate the problem.   First is the assertion that….

We need a God-fearing Chief Justice who will uphold the Constitution of The United States and who will stand for what made our Christian Nation great!  We are watching judges ignore and dismantle the greatest constitution in world history.

Herein lies the great contradiction.  We noted the logical conflict between being both a “God-fearing Chief Justice” and at the same time trying to “uphold the Constitution of the United States.”  That is because the Constitution of the United States contradicts the Bible on virtually every major point.

A  recent book by Pastor Ted Weiland proves that accusation beyond a shadow of a doubt:  Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution.  Pastor Weiland has identified at least 75 points on which the U S Constitution directly contradicts the Bible.

Included among the primary contradictions are the following.  The United States Constitution is opposed to a Biblical form of government because:

1)      its governing authority is derived from “we the people” rather than from God, per Rom. 13:1.  This complies with the definition of humanism:  Man in and of himself defining what is good and what is evil, with no reliance on God.

2)      It makes itself and all the man made laws that flow from it, “the supreme law of the land” instead of the Bible (Art VI, sec 1).  This alone would be enough to condemn the document.

3)      Exclusion of the religious test oath outlaws the Biblical requirement that government officials swear to make their judicial decisions based on the law of God. (Art. VI, sec. 3)

Turning to the Bible we observed that American government was constituted under the same circumstances and with the same outcome as the Israelite rebellion from God recorded in I Samuel Chapter 8.  Israel was a confederacy of loosely united tribes or states, as were the American colonies.  Israel wanted to be united under a grand king, who would ride in and out to make war, “like the nations.”  The American colonies wanted a similar centralized military coalition like the other great empires of the day.

In both cases they rejected God from being king over them.  In both cases the  results have been disastrous.

The letter goes on to make a further rather problematic claim.

“This great nation was founded on a belief in God and founded on Christian Principles.  I pledge to fight for the rights and freedoms given to us by God and guaranteed under the greatest constitution of government ever devised by man.

What Christian principles we asked?  The conflict is largely symbolic.  Shall Judge Moore’s monument be allowed on display in the state Supreme Court Building.  As a “lower magistrate” Judge Roy Moore is commended  for  opposing the tyranny of a corrupt king or “higher magistrate.” Symbols are important, but the real issue is whether or not the law of God shall form the basis of the legal system in the state and nation.

That goes beyond even the Ten Commandments.  God requires that not only the commandments, but His statutes and ordinances be enforced in the courts of law (Neh 10:29).  These are the specifics of the law and its penalties.

“And the statutes and the ordinances and the law and the commandment, which He wrote for you, you shall observe to do forever; and you shall not fear other gods.”

The Ten Commandments are recorded in Exodus 20.  The statutes and ordinances follow immediately in Exodus 21-23.  These are treated as a unit (Ex. 24:7) and aside from ceremonial changes, there is no basis for keeping one and rejecting the other.  God’s standard of justice does not change from age to age.  It boils down to whether we will fear God and His law or the law of some other god.

Is Judge Moore as committed to the statutes and ordinances as he is to the Ten Commandments?  This is uncertain and calls for further investigation.

Case Closed:  Where is all this taking us?  Judge Moore cannot cling to the United States Constitution and at the same time claim allegiance to the law of God.  In an interview earlier this year, Judge Roy Moore said that the trend toward secular government will lead to Sharia law in the United States.

The article notes that “The man who is likely to be Alabama’s next chief justice is warning that secular government will lead to Islamic law in the United States.  In an interview with conservative talk show host Steve Deace last week, Roy Moore opined that “a government that is denying God was also allowing Sharia law to take hold.”

It is a supreme irony that the man who issues this warning can in the same breath defend the document that is the heart and soul of American  secular government.

Modern Christians like to point with pride to their First Century counterparts, but do they really comprehend what they were standing  – and suffering for, in light of Christian theology?

“Get it right, folks,” says Doug Giles in a recent article at ClashDaily.com, “It wasn’t the church’s belief that Jesus is God, or their love of covered dish dinners, or their Christian rock music that got them the ax; it was their holy defiance to the demonic edicts that  Caesar attempted to slap them with.”

Well said.  Rome could care less if the church of Christ had simply assumed it’s place in the pantheon of gods representing all of the empire’s conquered peoples.  Normally, Rome considered religion, even Christian  theology, a kind of social cement to pacify the populace and provide cultural stability.

MYTH:  The 1st Century Christians were sent to the lions because of their faith in Jesus Christ.

If that is a myth, why then was Rome so upset with the Christians?  Why were they upset enough, like Herodias,  to want their heads on a silver platter?

Why The Early Christians Were Sent To The Lions

 1) In reality the early Christians were sent to the lions for political reasons, not Christian theology, per se, because of their insistence that Rome was subject to the Kingship of Jesus Christ.

The die was cast with the ministry of John the Baptist, who boldly approached Herod’s throne and confronted the local representative of Rome with the claims of God’s law.  “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife” was the sum and substance of John’s message to Herod (Mk. 6:18).

The message was crystal clear.  There was no aspect of Herod’s life that was immune from the authority of King Jesus.  Not even Herod’s personal life was exempt as so many would have it today.

In addition to the “simple gospel,” the church insisted on proclaiming the crown rights of King Jesus.  That is, Rome must model her judicial system on the Mosaic law.  Rome was not excited about this challenge to the Imperial authority.

2) Another reason the Christians ended up in the coliseum was their refusal to submit to the licensing requirements of Caesar.  Instead of submitting to Christ, Rome was intent on licensing the Church of Christ.  A licensed church is a kept church.

According to Peter Crenshaw incorporation of all “spontaneous collectivities of persons” became mandatory throughout the Roman Empire by 6 A.D.  The leaders of the church refused to incorporate and that refusal resulted in their persecution.

The churches saw incorporation under the empire as a denial of the Lordship of Christ.  Because a corporation is by definition “a creature of the state,”  to incorporate was to make Caesar their creator rather than Yahweh.

This issue that the early Christians thought worth dying for, has become a matter of mere administrative convenience for most of the churches in America.  Rather than a free church in a free state, modern churchmen would rather have the alleged benefits of submission to the state, with little thoughT of the impact on Christian theology.  And so the church is muzzled, irrelevant and in the words of Christ, not good for much “except to  be thrown out and trampled under foot by men” (Mt. 5:13).

3) In addition, the early church challenged the Roman emperor’s claims to deity.  Not only did the Roman emperor refuse to submit to the law of God, in many cases he proclaimed himself to be god or demanded worship of the Roman gods.

For example, Nero in the latter part of his reign “practiced incessantly as an artist-performer. Seeing himself as a shining divinity, likened to the sun, to be applauded and adored by the plebeian masses (indeed it seems his music and theatrical compositions were not without success).”

Later emperors demanded that the Christians worship the gods of Rome, which they of course were unwilling to do in light of Christian theology.  In 303 a series of edicts was issued by Diocletian “rescinding the legal rights of Christians and demanding that they comply with traditional Roman religious practices.  Later edicts targeted the clergy and demanded universal sacrifice, ordering all inhabitants to sacrifice to the gods. Christians were compelled to sacrifice to Roman gods or face imprisonment and execution” (Wikipedia).

Modern State Claims to Deity

Mythbusters notes the following parallels between 1st Century Rome and modern America.  Now as then we have a state pretending to the throne of God and – while not overtly religious — making even more intrusive godlike claims to omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence.

1) Omnipotence.  Christian theology limits the role of civil government to the trial of alleged violations of the law of God that have been committed within its jurisdiction.   The Word of God teaches that the state is to be reactive, not proactive in its police powers.   Christian theology does not permit the civil magistrate to impose reams of regulations on its citizens, which it enforces proactively with an army of bureaucrats and oppressive fines.

Instead, the locus of enforcement shifts to the individual, who is motivated by total liability for any violations of Biblical law.  For example, if an individual starts a fire and it spreads to a neighbor’s property, he is liable for damages (Ex. 22:6).  However, he is not subject to fines for starting the fire as long as he keeps it contained.

2) Omnipresence.  It’s a completely different story in modern America.  These regulations extend like tentacles into every nook and cranny of American life, thus strangling legitimate Biblical freedom.

3) Omniscience.  The IRS demands to know every aspect of the individual’s personal affairs, contrary to the law of the land.   More recently surveillance cameras and TSA style searches have violated the person of air travelers and are now being extended to land transportation.

Case Closed:   The state is at peace with a church that voluntarily places herself under state authority and meekly acquiesces to its every demand.  The early Christians were not sent to the lions simply because they believed in Jesus.

They resisted the pressures to accept state licensing and worship the emperor, insisting instead that Rome was subject to the law of Christ (not to the church).  For this cause they were willing to die in the Coliseum.  It remains to be seen if the modern American church will follow in the glorious footsteps of her forefathers.

The church should be taking the lead in resisting all of the above-mentioned, godlike claims to total sovereignty by the civil magistrate.  To date she has not.

It is heartening recently to see some Christian leaders placing themselves in a position of interposition between the people and their evil rulers.

In one example of interposition, Newsmax recently reported that “the Rev. Billy Graham has thrown his support behind embattled Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy and announced plans to stop by the fast food restaurant next Wednesday as part of Mike Huckabee’s “Eat Mor Chikin” promotion.”

In like manner, “Dr. James Dobson is taking a defiant stand on Obamacare and issuing a loud and clear message to President Obama: ‘I WILL NOT pay the surcharge for abortion services. … So come and get me if you must, Mr. President. I will not bow before your wicked regulation.’”

These are encouraging signs and a departure from the prevailing head-in-the-sand mentality that has characterized most evangelical church leadership for much of the past 100 years.

MYTH:  Christian leaders are obligated to obey every edict of the civil magistrate without resistance of any kind, in accordance with Rom. 13:1.

It is the responsibility of church leadership to inform the civil magistrate when his law does not conform to God’s law.  It may also be the responsibility of church leadership to disobey such a law because the church is a separate legal jurisdiction.  The great failing of church leadership in America today is its refusal to proclaim the law of the King of kings to the civil magistrate.

For John the Baptist, announcing Christ’s authority to Rome was as much a part of “preparing the way for the Lord” as was his ministry of baptism (Ps 2:10-12).  Baptism was John’s “priestly” preparation, but he was also announcing to Rome that a new King had arrived and Rome must obey His law:   Mt. 14:4,5 – “For John had been saying to him (Herod), ‘It is not lawful for you to have her.”  That was the kingly preparation.

This would make proclaiming God’s law to local magistrates as much a part of the job description of church leadership, as baptizing new converts.  This kind of interposition is not an option.  That’s the reason early Christians were sent to the lions: they boldly proclaimed, “there is another king, Jesus and His law is supreme.” Rome could care less how much they baptized.

The Failure of Modern Church Leadership

Our civil leadership today at every level is guilty as Rome in defying the law of God.  How does American church leadership respond to this?  From what I’ve seen across the board, it’s pretty much apathy — none of our concern.  Is not that very apathy and rejecting the duty of interposition that has led to our current desperate plight?

The most energetic response the contemporary church can muster at this time of crisis seems to be scheduling the next church picnic or rock concert.  But, throughout the Bible we see church leaders standing before kings and taking the initiative to instruct civil leaders in the law of God.  We may protest that we have no time, but John the Baptist was probably short on time also.

If we don’t start taking God’s law seriously in the matter of interposition how can we avoid His displeasure or judgment of even our worship, just as He smote Uzza in the midst of a very charismatic worship service (I Chr 13:9,10).  “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be an abomination” (Pr. 28:9).

One pastor indicated to me that has denomination had made several overtures to the Obama Administration a while back.  There was no response and therefore that fulfills the church’s responsibility.  That was a good start toward interposition, but refusal of the evil “king” to respond to this and many other appeals leads necessarily to the 2nd Biblical step.  That is appeal to the local or lesser magistrate to fulfill his oath-bound duty to position himself between the people and the evil king.  That is the Biblical answer to tyranny, seen many times in the book of Judges (e.g. 3:9; 4:2,3; 6: 6-12).

Failure to do this leaves the congregation and the community exposed to the wrath of God, as was the case with David’s census.  Almost every day we see outrageous assaults on our freedom.  These are doubtless orchestrated gradually by God in mercy to wake us up.

America is under the authority of a man who 1) defies the law of God in the most audacious manner and 2) is intent on using his executive power to enslave the people.  We have economic insanity, strip searches in airports, the government encouraging people to spy on each other in 4,000 WalMart stores, the FCC taking initial steps to neutralize the internet, and much more.

This is all right out of the “1984” playbook.  Or more specifically the “Rules for Radicals” playbook for Communist takeover as taught by Mr. Obama in Chicago.  This is a direct result of an isolationist church that refuses to represent the Kingship of Christ to the civil magistrate.  It is in danger of being thrown out and trodden under foot by men.

The Biblical Doctrine of Local Interposition

The doctrine of interposition is seen throughout the book of Judges and summarized by Calvin in Chapter XX, par. 31, pp. 1518-1519 as follows:

“For if there are now any magistrates of the people, appointed to restrain the willfulness of kings…I am so far from forbidding them to withstand, in accordance with their duty, the fierce licentiousness of kings, that, if they wink at kings who violently fall upon and assault the lowly common folk, I declare that their dissimulation involves nefarious perfidy, because they dishonestly betray the freedom of the people, of which they have been appointed protectors by God’s ordinance.”

Calvin here denounces failure of leaders to interposition at the local level in the strongest terms.  He is calling for the “magistrates of the people” to refuse obedience to the lawless king and not to “wink” at him as the Nazis blindly followed the orders of Hitler.

Mr. Obama has been advised by the godfather (Soros) to ignore Congress and the courts and impose his will via the agencies.  They are testing our tolerance for tyranny a step at a time.  Would our Puritan forefathers have tolerated this?  Would Patrick Henry or George Washington have tolerated this?  Would John Knox or John the Baptist have tolerated this?

The current strategy of many churches is to raise up future generations who will eventually deal decisively with these problems.  It seems to me we are passing the buck to our grandchildren or great-grandchildren to perform the work of reformation that is staring us in the face.  If we do not take the necessary Biblical action of interposition in the present I think it is more likely that our great granchildren — if any survive — will look back and curse this generation for its passive response to the clear and present danger.

Case Closed:  It is the duty of the lower magistrate, supported by the clergy, to lead the people against a tyrant who refuses to obey the law of God.  How can we expect anything but judgment from God if we refuse this duty?  Like Jonah who fled from Ninevah at first, maybe God will spare us if we turn and carry his law into the heart of our city and warn the rebellious officials.