Author Archives: Bruce Gust

by - 3 Comments

Driving on the Wrong Side of the Road

How Bizarre is That?

Imagine someone driving on the wrong side of the road and justifying it by saying they have the right to be happy.

How bizarre is that?

Now envision that same situation, only now that person is being pulled from the wreckage that was their automobile after colliding with another car because they were in the wrong lane. But instead of admitting that it was their fault, they insist that it’s all due to an oppressive system that obligates them to conform in ways that make them feel uncomfortable.

The person who wants to see themselves as their own absolute is having to constantly reconfigure the human experience in order to validate their mindset as being beyond reproach. They’re like the middle schooler who turns in their multiple choice exam believing that because they had the freedom to choose how they wanted to answer each question, they’re automatically deserving of a perfect score.

This is the world of the individual who has declared himself as his own bottom line. There are no failing test scores, there are no standards, and anything that could be accurately processed as a consequence of their actions is dismissed by labeling it as a hateful convention coming from either a corrupt institution that needs to be destroyed or an ignorant individual that needs to be silenced.

They shoot themselves in the foot and then blame all the pain they’re in on the one who told them not to pull the trigger to begin with.

When you attempt to reason with this kind of person, you are not being heard as someone who’s questioning their logic as much as you are challenging their authority. It’s not about what’s true, it’s about what works as far as those statistics and testimonies that can be used to make a self serving agenda appear compassionate and preferrable while simultaneously validating themselves as the only one that they’re accountable to.

And yet…

Practical Gravity and Simple Math

The validity of one’s perspective is ultimately proven by what happens when that perspective is put into practice. However convoluted and volatile the debate may be, feelings and beliefs can be readily identified as being either clarifying or distracting simply by observing those things that result from the application of any one methodology.

Should one approach translate to a world of pain and problems, that perspective can then be logically subordinated to a viewpoint that yields better results. At that point, you’re not looking at anything other than pure utility and however passionate you may be about your particular brand of morality, you are no longer able to assert your preferences as principles when all that exists in the aftermath is a mess you expect someone else to clean up.

There has always been an element that wants to push back against those things that remind them that there is such a thing as “practical gravity.” You cannot hope to do certain things and not have to contend with the natural consequences of your actions. If you decide to jump out of an airplane as it’s flying through the sky, you can’t deny the effects of gravity simply because you want to believe that you have the right to be happy or because you believe that gravity is a byproduct of an oppressive hierarchy.

In a similar way, you can’t drive on the wrong side of the road and not risk a head on collision, nor can you embrace what amounts to a perverse or irresponsible lifestyle and not be confronted with the medical and practical realities that characterize the choice that you have made.

There is a natural order in place that transcends whatever it is that drives your resolve and you can’t circumvent that infrastructure simply because it doesn’t coincide with your opinion on the matter.

It’s math, really.

The way you think + the way you act = the price you pay

Wise decisions tend to be very beneficial and cost very little.

On the other hand, foolish choices can be lethal and in that way are very expensive.

And here’s the thing: When that bill arrives, it’s your responsibility. However you want to insist that it’s someone else’s fault or another person’s obligation, you’re the one that has to come up with the functional finances necessary to pay the amount owed which will inevitably include a lack of fulfillment, a substantial amount of wasted time and a collection of physical and emotional scars.

Antiquated Traditions

Some want to try and avoid the “practical gravity” of their situation by insisting that the angst they experience as a result of the way they choose to process themselves and the world around them is due to the unjust and antiquated traditions of the society they live in.

Perhaps.

But then again, if your perspective is revealed as being problematic in terms of what happens when your perspective is put into practice, it’s not the society you live in that’s causing the tension, it’s the organic outcome of your flawed approach.

It’s not the Supreme Court, it’s not a political party, it’s not a cultural trend or a societal norm.

You’re driving on the wrong side of the road and there are consequences to not staying in your lane that are based more so on the laws of Physics and Chemistry then they are the Department of Motor Vehicles.

This is the problem you inevitably encounter when you establish any kind of human agency as your philosophical foundation.

Die, Quit or Change

You have chosen to build your existence on a platform that is destined to either die, quit or change. It is as fluid as it is inconsistent and whatever rights or truisms you want to maintain as givens will resonate as such only when you’ve surrounded yourself with like-minded individuals. Reason being is that you can’t logically condemn another person’s viewpoint if everyone is entitled to their opinion and the universe is nothing more than a lucky mistake.

This is what happens when you remove God from the equation. Bear in mind that there are only two religions in the world: Either God is God or you are. Every religion on the planet empowers the individual with the ability to facilitate their own salvation. Only Christianity maintains that you are not your own deity and the only thing that you contribute to your salvation is the sin that makes it necessary.

When you embrace God as your philosophical starting point and the Substance of the empty tomb as what defines your identity, you’re no longer tasked with having to manufacture a reason for your existence or an enduring Source of fulfillment.

Bear in mind we’re talking about the Person of Jesus Christ – the Son of God and not a corrupted clergyman or a hypocritical layperson. Neither one of those two individuals died for your sins or put the planets in their place.

The Image of God, the Son of God and the Spirit of God

You are made in the Image of God, you have been redeemed by the Son of God and you have access to a Perfect Source of Purpose, Peace and Power because of the Spirit of God who lives in and through you.

Like our Founding Fathers, you can effectively dispute injustice because you’re not limited to a human premise, and unlike those who borrow from God without believing in Him, you can accurately claim an entitlement as a legitimate right because you know that they’re gifts from God He gives to guard your way and not weapons you use in an attempt to get your way.

Moreover, you don’t see His Instructions as “rules” as much as you see them as “tools” that you use to realize a life where you are making a difference and not just an appearance.

Scale that Wall and Dismantle that Strategy

There will always be people who drive on the wrong side of the road. They will justify themselves with compelling sounding arguments framed by a strategy designed to avoid that direct line of questioning that has the capacity to reveal their platform as toxic and self-serving.

But you can scale that wall and dismantle that strategy by focusing on the empirical results of their perspective and allow the logic of how a flawed methodology needs to be subordinated to an approach that yields a better outcome.

When you hear someone say, “That’s your opinion!” or “You can’t force your beliefs on me!” they’re neither proving their point nor are they proving you to be wrong. Rather, they’re attempting to secure the kind of pity that’s awarded to the person who’s been hurt in order to distract from the wreckage caused by their own decision making.

You can’t always change a person’s mind without changing their heart and only God can do that.

But God can use you to make an impact and you want to be ready to do more than argue…

You want to champion the Truth by asking the right questions and letting their responses not only make your point, but more importantly make Him known.

by - 2 Comments

The Real Contest

The last two posts may seem perhaps a little out of place when the topic is Politics. But in the end, every Political system is based on the way it configures it’s legislative paradigm according to the way it defines a human being.

From that perspective, there is no such thing as the “separation of church and state,” at least not according to the way in which that phrase is asserted into the political dialogue as a means to suggest that a humanistic approach to government is any less of a “church” than the Christian foundation upon which we are based.

In the end, the struggle isn’t between two political parties or “Conservatives” vs “Liberals.” It’s actually far more profound than votes, bills and petitions. In Truth, it’s the foundation upon which all of those political elements are built.

What you’re getting ready to read is something I wrote in 2017. But it serves as a good way to consolidate the themes of the two previous posts into one main idea.

When you’re debating a person that has a substantial amount of emotional and philosophical capital invested in a particular topic, you don’t make your point by being merely logical. According to Scripture our struggle is not against flesh and blood, therefore it’s a spiritual struggle.

And that’s why things that are so heinous and make no sense can still be embraced as normal because if you are your own absolute, then there is no Standard apart from the one that best lines up with your personal appetites (Phil 3:18-20).

We’ll talk more about this later in the week.

For now, let’s take a look at “The Real Contest!”

I don’t care what side of the political aisle you sit on, praying for your leaders is right out of Scripture:

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:1-4)

So, when you’ve got a number of pastors gathering around President Trump to pray for him – that God would give him wisdom and insight –  how is it possible that another pastor would refer to that as “theological malpractice bordering on heresy?“

I’ll tell you how: When your platform is more about your agenda than it is those Absolutes that govern all of mankind, both Republicans and Democrats.

More and more the political tension that we’re seeing is becoming easier to discern as a contest between those that look to Divine Absolutes for the bottom line and those that would have nothing to do with any absolute save the absolute of themselves. 44% of Democrats go as far as to say that they believe church is detrimental to the nation.

If you pop the hood on that statistic, what you have is a scenario where close to half of your political constituency is antagonistic to Christ, grace and the concept of sin. Forget the incalculable love proven on the cross, never mind the Power represented by the empty tomb. Neither of those Realities are considered credible. The only thing that matters from a philosophical standpoint is the priority of self and from a practical perspective the only thing that matters is the acquisition of power.

Perhaps that seems a little harsh, but consider some of the talking points of the Democrat party: Abortion, Same Sex Marriage and the Doctrine of Entitlement. All three of these are antithetical to Scripture. But what makes it even more sinister is that they’re not “topics” as much as they are ultimately “tactics.”

Even Racism, in the way it is touted as a current stain on the fabric of American culture and indicative of our nation’s dark past as an enterprise built on enslavement, theft and cruelty, is more “strategy” than it is “substance.”

But if you can demonstrate the America is built on something sinister, then you can easily segue into what appears to be a viable reason to reconfigure the philosophical paradigm that America is built upon. In other words, if you can retool America’s heritage – if you can redefine morality and redo the foundational impetus of personal responsibility – you can establish a government based entirely on Humanism.

At first brush, perhaps that doesn’t seem like an especially dramatic scenario. But the end result is something truly heinous.

Os Guiness was born in China during WWII. He moved with his family to England and completed his undergraduate work at the University of London and completed his doctorate at Oriel College, Oxford. A sought after speaker and a prolific author, he sums up America’s political status apart from it being founded on a Divine Absolute in his book, “Last Call for Liberty“:

The framers also held that, though the Constitution’s barriers against the abuse of power are indispensable, they were only “parchment barriers” and therefore could never be more than part of the answer. And in some ways they were the secondary part at that. The U.S. Constitution was never meant to be the sole bulwark of freedom, let alone a self perpetuating machine that would go by itself. The American founders were not, in Joseph de Maistre’s words, “poor men who imagine that nations can be constituted with ink.” Without strong ethics to support them, the best laws and the strongest institutions would only be ropes of sand.

He makes a strong argument for the way in which the “pursuit of happiness” unchecked by the responsibility one has to be moral translates to disaster. And while it’s not always obvious, as far as the true essence of why our political climate continues to deteriorate into violent protests and little regard for the rule of law, it is nevertheless the foundational curse upon which their rhetoric is based.

…there is a deep irony in play today. Many educated people who scorn religious fundamentalism are hard at work creating a constitutional fundamentalism, though with lawyers and judges instead of rabbis, priests and pastors. “Constitutional” and “unconstitutional” have replaced the old language of orthodoxy and heresy. But unlike the better angels of religious fundamentalism, constitutional fundamentalism has no recourse to a divine spirit to rescue it from power games, casuistry, legalism, litigiousness—and, eventually, calcification and death.1

If you position yourself beneath the banner of Progressive thought and liberal politics, take a moment and pop the hood on what your party pushes as “compassion” and “equality” and realize it’s nothing more than a ploy to retool morality and redefine true freedom. Your champions are godless, your clergy is heretical and your platform is toxic.

If you want to argue the disaster of socialized medicine, it you want to debate the credibility of perversion, if you want to challenge the rule of law – fine. But if you fail to acknowledge the true source from which this philosophical approach proceeds, you’re either a fool or a fiend. It’s not about politics as much as it the One Who governs the affairs of men. It was that Reality that the Framers based, not only their case for independence, but also for what equated to an entirely new approach to government. Jefferson references this in the Declaration of Independence (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.“). Adams mentions it in his commentary on the Constitution (“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”). And Benjamin Franklin references this fact in some comments he made recorded by James Madison in the “Records of the Federal Convention of 1787“:

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise with his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the house they labour in vain that build it.”2 

Regardless of how you want to base your rhetoric on judiciously selected snippets of history in order to create a fictional account of the role Christianity played in our nation’s conception and legislative framework, the volume of evidence that proves your narrative to be false is overwhelming. However you would attempt to assault someone’s character simply because they don’t agree with the spin you put on current events and our nation’s heritage, your perspective is revealed for the poisonous platform that it is when you’re confronted with a comprehensive perspective on the news and history that forces you to think beyond your liberal talking points.

And however you want to present yourselves as the champions of freedom and enlightened thinking by referring to Trump supporters as fascists and racists, your strategy fails miserably once your tactics are exposed, your labels are revealed and your motives are recognized.

The real contest today is not defined in the context of political parties. Rather, it’s a fight between a mindset that seeks to justify its morality by asking “Is it Constitutional?” as opposed to “Is it right?” It’s not whether or not you have the Constitutional right, it’s whether or not you are morally right in doing whatever it is that you’re attempting to justify.

And where do go to determine a behavior’s moral value? Now you have the true essence of the debate. Either God is the Absolute that you default to or you simply default to the absolute of yourself.

That is the real contest.

1. “The Golden Triangle of Freedom”, Os Guiness, http://rzim.org/just-thinking/the-golden-triangle-of-freedom/, accessed October 4, 2017 2. “The Records of the Federal convention of 1787 / ed. by Max Farrand, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911”

2. “The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787”, James Madison, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000009929227;view=1up;seq=487, accessed October 4, 2017)

by

Make No Provision | Part II

In “Make No Provision Part I,” we looked at how some will push the boundaries that define the difference between right and wrong and justify their actions by saying that unless they’re crossing the line, they’re not guilty of any wrongdoing.

Yet Scripture commands us to be making no provision for that which can lead to a genuine problem (Rom 13:14). So, even if we’re not at that point where Satan is getting ready to hit a home run, if we’ve allowed him to load the bases so all he needs now is a base hit, we are guilty of accommodating the devil rather than resisting him (Jas 4:7; 1 Pet 5:8-9).

And here’s the thing: You’re not playing to win when you’re doing things that make it easier to lose. And when you’re not just contemplating concessions but actually you’re doing things that make those compromises more likely, then you have to ask, “Whose team am I playing for?”

These aren’t just “impure thoughts,” this is you intentionally fumbling the ball and giving the other team a chance to score.

No, not everything is black and white. But, then again, God never has to speculate and since He sees the heart (1 Sam 16:7) and no man can serve two masters (Matt 6:24), you can rest assured that however you may be able to successfully convince another human being that things aren’t as they seem, God has full access to both your actions and your motives and you’re either promoting His Reputation or protecting your own.

Period.

In her article, “The Difference Between Guilt and Conviction,” Jeanne Harrison, a staff writer at Grace Church in Orlando, does a great job of shutting down all the white noise and allowing the  Truth that is central to this whole debate be heard in a way that’s easy to hear and understand…

Here’s the difference between guilt and conviction: guilt is not willing to pay the price of repentance. Guilt wants to make the problem go away as painlessly as possible because guilt’s primary focus is me. What will they think of me? How will the consequences impact me?

Conviction focuses on God. We begin to experience conviction when our hearts are grieved not solely because we might lose our job, or our spouse, or our standing, but because we have broken fellowship with God. In 2 Corinthians 7:10 Paul captures the difference between guilt and conviction by describing two different kinds of sorrow. He writes, “Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.”

The question is, why are you lamenting over your sin? Is it because you fear losing the things of the world—the respect of your boss, the esteem of performing perfectly, the pleasure of sin itself? If so, you are experiencing worldly sorrow. Or are you pained because you have personally grieved God’s heart? This kind of godly sorrow takes us straight to the cross—to repentance, restoration, and life. In order for me to repent, I had to care more about my relationship with God than I did about my reputation.

If your priority is your relationship with Christ, your actions will reflect your priorities (Matt 7:17).

Those who are being either indifferrent or critical of your behavior are subordinate to the One Who died for your sins.

That’s good news to the person who has a clear conscience, but it’s anything but encouraging to the one who has something to hide.

If you or the person you’re listening to defends their actions in a way that demonstrates a greater emphasis being put on their reputation than that of their King, there’s a good chance they’re being disobedient. Not necessarily in the context of an obvious sin, but a sin nevertheless in that if you’re making it easier for Satan to win, then you’re working against your Heavenly Father (Mk 9:38-40).

by - 1 Comment

Make No Provision | Part I

MoneyBall

The movie, “Moneyball” is based on the book by the same title authored by Michael Lewis. It stars Brad Pitt and it tells the story of the manager of the Oakland A’s who, at one point, deployed a strategy when it came to recruiting new employers that represented a dramatic departure from convention. Instead of going after big ticket all-stars, they focused instead on players that could consistently get on base. Not home run hitters, just solid and consistent ball players that could get on first every time they got up to bat.

The result was amazingly successful.

That year the A’s turned in a winning season and were able to do it at a fraction of the cost that comparable teams were paying for a roster that was supposedly more talented.

A Snake and a Lion

Satan is described in Scripture as both a snake (Rev 12:9) and a lion (1 Pet 5:8). Put those two illustrations together and you have something that is as vicious as it is subtle. He’s not posing as a home run hitter. Rather, he’s just trying to get on first. And what happens over time is he keeps advancing runners and before you know it, he’s putting points on the board and you’re up to your neck in the kind of sin you never thought possible.

Satan doesn’t just pounce, he prowls. He doesn’t necessarily need to hit a homerun, he just needs to get someone on base. From that standpoint, sin is not a singular situation or a specific boundary. It’s a comprehensive strategy designed to reduce wrongdoing to nothing more than a subjective collection of do’s and don’ts, which can be easily adjusted to suit a person’s need to justify themselves depending on the situation (Rom 10:3).

It’s just like MoneyBall – all he needs to do is get on base.

Do you see where this is going?

Death

The Bible defines sin as death. You see that in Ephesians (Eph 2:1), you also see it in the way God set up the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil as something that would result in both Adam and Eve dying if they were to cross that line (Gen 2:17).

Death.

Sin is what put Christ on the cross and what lands us in hell apart from God’s Grace.

Bear in mind, that even seemingly trival transgressions require you to go up to God as He’s sitting on His Throne and telling Him to get out of your chair.

It’s not just the sin itself, as far as the physical consequences you may have to contend with, it’s Who you’re sinning against that makes it so heinous (2 Sam 12:13; Ps 51:4).

But we like to minimize the significance of sin by categorizing our transgressions according to the severity of the offense from a human perspective. In addition, we write off sinful compromises as nominal improprieties by dismissing any criticisms as coming from an overly conservative or legalistic mindset.

No doubt, you can take things to the extreme and read something evil into just about anything. Abraham Lincoln once said, “Those who look for the bad in people will surely find it.”

But the possibility of being legalistic shouldn’t be used as an excuse to intentionally walk every batter until the bases are loaded before you get serious about striking out the next hitter.

Make No Provision

And here’s the thing…

It’s not just about being “careful” or “sensitive” as much as it’s about being obedient.

But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts. (Rom 13:14 [Col 3:5; 1 Pet 2:11])

Being “tempted” isn’t a sin. Jesus was tempted and didn’t sin (Heb 4:15). But you’re not playing to win when you’re making it easier on yourself to fail. That’s what you’re doing when you’re giving a bad idea an opportunity to become more than just a dirty little concept.

This is part of what Christ meant when he talked about committing adultery in your heart (Matt 5:28). He’s using the same word for “heart” that Paul uses in the book of Romans when he explains how to get saved, by believing in your “heart. (Rom 10:9-10)” When your disposition towards something is rooted in that place that serves as the seat for the way you see yourself and the world around you, you’re no longer just thinking about it, you’re acting on it.

You may have yet to cross “the” line, but you’ve already crossed “a” line by showing contempt for the standard that’s in place and the One Who established it (Jas 4:4).

So, where does this land? How do you approach your situation with a genuinely holy resolve to be obedient, given the fact that perhaps it looks a little suspicious?

We’ll take a look at the answer to that question in Part II!

by

Twenty Five Inconvenient Realites | Part II

This is the second installment of “Twenty Five Inconvenient Realities” which document twenty five facts that characterized our nation’s pursuit of Independence during the Revolutionary War.

Ours is a unique history because of the way we depended on God and based our approach to government on Biblical Absolutes.

While it can be a lively debate, it’s nevertheless an obvious truism that our nation’s beginnings were decidedly influenced by the Christian doctrine once you stand back and let the facts speak for themselves.

What follows is another five facts. You can read the remaining 15 by clicking here.

If you want to test your knowledge, click here to access the “Muscular Christianity Campus” and take the quiz!

6) Third Verse of our National Anthem

Our national motto is derived from the third verse or our National Anthem:

Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust”

Yet again another example of how many recognize that the “separation” of church and state doesn’t mean the elmination of the church and its influence on the state.

7) The Thoughts of Thomas Jefferson
The Four Evangelists
Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Christ, but he nevertheless looked to the Bible as the greatest source of moral teachings known to man:

…there never was a more pure and sublime system of morality delivered to man than is to be found in the four evangelists.24

That was Jefferson’s primary justification for admiring the Christian faith, while not subscribing to it completely. But before one can dismiss Jefferson’s perspective as being inconsequential to the way in which it contributed to the philsophical structure of the American government, you have to first acknowledge the way in which he pointed to the Scriptures as being the Standard that defined moral behavior:

…the religion of Jesus is founded on the Unity of God, and this principle chiefly, gave it triumph over the rabble of heathen gods then acknoleged. thinking men of all nations rallied readily to the doctrine of one only god, and embraced it with the pure morals which Jesus inculcated.25

The following quote is anecdotal, meaning that you won’t find it in anything written by Jefferson himself. But it’s nevertheless preserved in the Library of Congress as an exchange between Jefferson and a friend of his that was observed  by Reverend Ethan Allen who was the pastor of Christ Church where Jefferson attended. Seeing him on his way to church one Sunday, Jefferson’s friend asked him where he was going. Jefferson responded by saying he was on his way to church to which his friend responded with a bit of surprise asking him why he would go to church when he didn’t believe a word of it. Jefferson replied by saying,

No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.26

Again, it isn’t documented anywhere in Jefferson’s writings, but it’s credibility is believable given it’s place within the Library of Congress and the fact that it captures both the outward behavior and the documented inner workings of Jefferson’s mind when it came to the substance of the Christian faith.

Thomas Jefferson’s orthodoxy wasn’t at all with what most would regard as doctrinally sound. While he believed that Jesus represented the greatest expositor of moral standards ever, Jefferson did not subscribe at all to His Deity.11

In a letter to Thomas B. Parker in 1819, he said:

…my fundamental principle would be the reverse of Calvin’s, that we are to be saved by our good works which are within our power, and not by our faith which is not within our power.12

But while his convictions pertaining to the Gospel of Jesus Christ may have been questionable, he still saw religion as being a necessary component to the philosphical foundation a government had to be based on in order to define and defend an individual’s rights.

You see this in a letter he wrote to P.H. Wendover in 1813. Jefferson, referring to the discourses of a Mr. McCloud, says…

I feel my portion of indebtment to the reverend author for the distinguished learning, the logic and the eloquence with which has proved that religion, as well as reason, confirms that soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted.13

In addition, while serving in the House of Burgesses, Thomas Jefferson worked alongside Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee to craft a resolution for the state of Virginia to set aside a day of fasting and prayer. He said…

We were under conviction of the necessity of arousing our people from the lethargy into which they had fallen as to passing events; and thought that the appointment of a day of general fasting and prayer would be most likely to call up and alarm their attention.14

Later, he wrote that the reaction was like a “shock of electricity…”

We returned home, and in our several counties invited the clergy to meet assemblies of the people on the 1st of June [actually at various times in June and July], to perform the ceremonies of the day, and to address to them discourses suited to the occasion. The people met generally, with anxiety and alarm in their countenances, and the effect of the day thro’ the whole colony was like a shock of electricity, arousing every man and placing him erect and solidly on his centre.15

The bottom line is that Thomas Jefferson saw in Christianity a reliable and needed foundation that, while it could not be coerced, could nevertheless support a legitimate assertion of individual rights and justify a national pursuit of independence.

8) The Testimony of John Adams on the Second Continental Congress

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson corresponded frequently after they had both retired from public life. In one particular letter, Adams and Jefferson were discussing a recent comment that had found its way into print that suggested that “Science and Morals are the great Pillars on which this Country has been raised to its present population, Opulence and prosperity, and these alone, can advance, Support and preserve it.”16

In his letter to Jefferson, Adams disagreed and he articulated his position in part by saying…

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Achieved Independence, were the only Principles in which, that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United…17

Among those that comprised the Second Continental Congress you had men that owned slaves and those that despised the slave trade. In addition, you had varying temperaments, vocations, as well as different philosophies when it came to loyalty to the crown.

Adams was part of the five-man team tasked with writing the “Declaration of Independence.” Whatever was getting ready to be sent to King George had to be both substantial and unanimous. But how do you unite a group of statesmen with such different backgrounds and perspectives given the risks that were involved?

As one who was there to witness it first hand, Adams could confidently say that it was because of the way each of the delegates could come together beneath the umbrella of their Christian faith that they were able to outline our country’s position with one voice.

9) The Impact of the Great Awakening
A Remarkable Incident
A remarkable incident at the beginning of the Revolutionary War testifies to the great evangelist’s hold on the imagination of ordinary Americans. In the fall of 1775, a New England force, commanded by Benedict Arnold (1741-1801), was recruited to invade Canada and capture Quebec. Arriving in Newburyport, Massachusetts, where Whitefield was buried in 1770, the officers descended into the church crypt, opened Whitefield’s coffin, removed his clerical collar and wristbands, cut them in pieces, and passed them out to the troops. The distribution of these Great Awakening amulets showed in its eerie way that men facing stress and anxiety wanted links to a preacher of a living God, not the latest London edition of Locke.21 One need look no farther for the reason evangelicalism demolished deism in eighteenth-century America.22

Anytime your relationship with Christ becomes defined more by a routine and an institution as opposed to a personal rapport with your King, your perspective on yourself and the world around you suffers. You see yourself exclusively in terms of your circumstances and the Purpose, Peace and Power that flows from an intentional focus on God and His Truth is overshadowed by the thought of who you are as opposed to Whose you are (Is 43:1; Matt 10:30-31; Phil 2:13; Rev 20:15).

From 1735-1743, preachers like George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards were able to profoundly impact the colonies by proclaiming the Gospel in a way that emphasized the personal aspect of an authentic relationship with Christ. As opposed to sacraments and religious gestures, ministers like Whitefield and Edwards directed their listeners to the Gospels where it could be readily seen that it was a personal decision to believe in the empty tomb that secured one’s salvation.

The basic themes of the Great Awakening included:

  • All people are born sinners (Rom 3:23)
  • Sin without salvation will send a person to hell (Eph 2:8-9)
  • All people can be saved if they confess their sins to God, seek forgiveness and accept God’s grace (Rom 10:9-10)
  • All people can have a direct and emotional connection with God (Gal 3:28)
  • Religion shouldn’t be formal and institutionalized, but rather casual and personal (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6)18

While the essential doctrines being espoused may not have directly impacted the colonies’ collective dispostion towards Independence, between 1700 and 1740, an estimated 75-80 percent of Americans were actively attending churches which were, “…being built at a headlong pace.”19 This was a result of the Great Awakening and it was this ever growing constituency of believers that provided the material and philosophical support for the Revolution because of the way they were now rethinking the manner in which their rights were, in fact, guaranteed by God and not dispensed by a monarch.

This change in their perspective was due in a large part to the way in which Revolutionary War era ministers were endorsing America’s resistance to the crown as a biblically sanctioned cause. And  because you had such a large majority of colonists now attending worship services, the result was a unified group of patriots that were linking arms across those borders previously defined by state sanctioned churches and vivid denominational differences.

Dr. James Hutson from the Library of Congress explains…

The plain fact is that, had American clergymen of all denominations not assured their pious countrymen, from the beginning of the conflict with Britain, that the resistance movement was right in God’s sight and had His blessing, it could not have been sustained and independence would not been achieved. Here is the fundamental, the indispensable, contribution of religion and its spokesmen to the coming of the American Revolution.20

10) Jefferson’s Approval of Federal Resources for Christian Worship Services

While serving as President, he made a point of attending church every Sunday and he made available Federal Buildings and the Marine Band for worship services. Dr. James Hutson, in his book “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic,” states…

It is no exaggeration to say that, on Sundays in Washington during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, the state became the church.23

Today’s interpretation of the “separation of church and state” does not square at all with Jefferson’s allocation of state resources for expressly Christian worship services. In order for his adminstrative acts to not conflict with his letter to the Danbury Baptists, it is logically mandated to rethink the notion that the First Amendment refers to the elimination of all reference to Scripture as a basis for our laws and political philosophy.

The issue was not the Authority of the Word of God. Rather, the issue of the separation of church and state was whether or not the government could impose a uniform approach to the Throne of God. It was the way that different states and their sanctioned churches could tax their constituents and take from those monies a portion to support a specific denomination, or the manner in which certain states required you to be a member of a particular church in order to run for public office. This was the sort of politically mandated spirituality that permeated 18th century America. The “separation of church and state” had nothing to do with whether or not you could legally kill your child before it was born or if it was legally feasible to redefine the institution of marriage.

11) “Jefferson, Thomas and Religion”, “Encyclopedia Virginia EMA, Virginia Humanities”, https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/jefferson-thomas-and-religion/, accessed April 4, 2023

12) “Thomas Jefferson to Thomas B. Parker, 15 May 1819”, “National Archives Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-14-02-0292, accessed April 4, 2023

13) “The Complete Works of Thomas Jefferson, the Third US President”, Thomas Jefferson, edited by Henry Augustine Washington, DigiCat, 2022, https://books.google.com/books?id=MS-cEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT2921&lpg=PT2921&dq=%22Religion,+as+well+as+reason,+confirms+the+soundness+of+those+principles+on+which+our+government+has+been+founded+and+its+rights+asserted.%22&source=bl&ots=jvCeLSmjCd&sig=ACfU3U1-4FsCJ2Gwx8s2xkAUHIojqOIvSA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwii0PWm2JD-AhXgmWoFHYOFCs0Q6AF6BAgnEAM#v=onepage&q=%22Religion%2C%20as%20well%20as%20reason%2C%20confirms%20the%20soundness%20of%20those%20principles%20on%20which%20our%20government%20has%20been%20founded%20and%20its%20rights%20asserted.%22&f=false, accessed April 4, 2023

14) “Resolution of the House of Burgesses Designating a Day of Fasting and Prayer, 24 May 1774”, “National Archives, Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-01-02-0082, accessed April 4, 2023

15) “Thomas Jefferson and John Walker to the Inhabitants of the Parish of St. Anne, [before 23 July 1774]”, “National Archives, Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-01-02-0087, accessed April 4, 2023

16) “John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 28 June 1813”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0208, accessed February 13, 2023

17) Ibid

18) “Great Awakening”, https://www.history.com/topics/european-history/great-awakening, accessed April 5, 2023

19) “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel02.html, accessed April 5, 2023

20) “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p40

21) “Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People”, Jon Butler, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MS, London, England, 1990, p188

22) “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p35

23) Ibid, p91

by

Twenty Five Inconvenient Realities | Part I

When you set out to write a devotional based on our nation’s history, there’s a temptation to try and word things in a way that’s similar to the style you might use when you’re trying to make a point…

When I first sat down with my buddy who would go on to encourge me to write “The American Devotional Series,” he gave me some good counsel by saying, “Don’t argue. Just let the content speak for itself.”

In the end, it’s so much more than just the debate surrounding the Separation of Church and State. The amount of content and documentation that exists which points definitively to a population that understood, not only what was at stake, but how important it was to be basing their stance on something more than a political philosophy…

It’s overwhelming and utterly compelling.

You don’t commit High Treason nor take up arms against your sovereign based on a mere complaint. Our cause was preached from behind pulpits and not just proclaimed in the public square.

However critics and academics want to dismiss the Revolutionary War as a secular enterprise, vaguely supported with no real principle or ideal behind it apart from a collective disdain for King George, the documents and the commentary coming from that time period from the people who lived it, tell a much different story.

Here’s a list of some “Inconvenient Realities” that reveal those who insist on a humanistic foundation for the Revolutionary War and the United States in general as people who don’t have a point as much as they have a resolve to ignore what’s true in order to validate a world where they are their own Absolute.

Enjoy!

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

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

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

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

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

Below is a brief yet potent list:

Read more: Twenty Five Inconvenient Realities | Part I
 1) The Declaration of Independence

What qualified our statement to King George as a legitimate cause as opposed to a mere complaint is the way in which our Founders showed how his monarchy violated Divine Absolutes. However unjust or belligerent his adminstration may have been, it was the manner in which his rule restricted rights that were not his to dispense as much as they were God’s to guarantee – that is what gave our cause the Substance it needed to resonate as something that was True and not just preferred.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.1

That is the starting point. The rights we have are God-given and the governments that are established by men to ensure those rights, but…

…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.2

We are founded on a Biblical Absolute and not a legal argument.

 2) Sixteen Congressional Proclations for Fasting

During the seven years we were at war with Great Britain, Congress proclaimed a National Day of Fasting, Prayer and Humiliation 16 different times. You can view an image of those proclamations as they are preserved in the Library of Congress as well as a readable transcription by clicking here.

The verbiage of these proclamations is not conducive to an all-inclusive dynamic as far as it being something that accommodates all faiths. Rather, it specifies Christ and a need to seek His Forgiveness and Direction.

For example, a portion of the Proclamation from March 20, 1781 reads as follows:

The United States in Congress assembled, therefore do earnestly recommend, that Thursday the third of May next, may be observed as a day of humiliation, fasting and prayer, that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and through the merits of our blessed Savior, obtain pardon and forgiveness:

There’s a couple of things that are worth noticing: First, the commitee that was tasked with drafting this proclamation included James Madison who many want to believe to be a Deist. Someone with that kind of spiritual temperment would not be advocating Christ as “our blessed Savior.”

Secondly, to characterize Congress as a humanistic enterprise that placed no priority on the Reality and the Necessity of Divine Intervention requires a willful disregard for the repeated directives that came from their collective pen that recommended an intentional timeframe dedictated to an intensely focused and humble posturing before Jesus Christ.

In 1854, James Meacham, the Representative from Vermont, delivered a report pertaining to an issue involving the First Amendment. At one point, he said this:

Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain [the Christian] religion in some form. It was deemed peculiarly proper that the religion of liberty should be upheld by a free people. Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have strangled in its cradle. At the time of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation.3

In the same report, Meacham concluded by saying:

In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the founders of the Republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.4

 3) The Treaty of Paris

The first words of the Treaty that represented Great Britain’s surrender to America in 1783 were:

In the Name of the most Holy & undivided Trinity.5

 4) The Liberty Bell

The Liberty Bell was used to summon delegates to Pennslyvania Hall to discuss the matters of the day. Benjamin Franklin wrote to Catherine Ray in 1755, “Adieu, the Bell rings, and I must go among the Grave ones and talk Politicks.”6

It’s most famous tolling, however, was on July 8, 1776 when it was used to summon the townspeople to hear the public reading of the Declaration of Independence.7

Yet, up until that point, the bell wasn’t seen as an icon as much as it is today because of the way the text that’s inscribed on the bell was applied to the issue of slavery in 1844.

The inscription is Leviticus 25:10:

Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof. (Lev 25:10 [KJV])

William Lloyd Garrison, abolitionist and publisher of The Liberator, reprinted a poem written by H.R.H. Moore which represented the first documented use of the name, “The Liberty Bell.” Garrison saw it as an appropriate and effective way to combine the Biblical substance of the verse inscribed on the bell with the poetry of Moore which included the line, “Ring it, till the slave is free” and let the collective meaning serve as a rebuke against those who supported slavery.

In an article printed in Time Magazine, Dr Ben Carson tells of how when the body of Abraham Lincoln was laid in Independence Hall, he was placed in a manner where the Liberty Bell and the inscription was directly overhead. During the 20 hour public viewing, over 150,000 people paid their respects to the Great Emancipator.

In the article penned by Dr Carson, he concludes by saying:

Whether you’re black or white, Democrat or Republican, The Liberty Bell’s true story reminds Americans of all stripes that our nation’s history—and future—belongs to us all. It challenges us to tear down systems that hold us captive and honor the price great men and women have paid to cast and re-cast the American mold to form a more perfect union.8

The story of the Liberty Bell and the nation it represents possesses the profound and essential content that it does because of how it points to a Divine Absolute and not just a desired political climate.

 5) Washington’s General Orders

On May 2, 1778, General Washington issued the following General Orders:

The Commander in Chief directs that divine Service be performed every Sunday at 11 o’clock in those Brigades to which there are Chaplains—those which have none to attend the places of worship nearest to them—It is expected that Officers of all Ranks will by their attendance set an Example to their men.

While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion—To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian—The signal Instances of providential Goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labors with complete Success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of Gratitude & Piety to the Supreme Author of all Good.9

George Washington made frequent references to the Power and Goodness of God throughout his career as the Commanding General of the Continental Army as well as his time as Commander in Chief.

The fact that he made a point of ensuring that Christian worship services were held throughout the army he commanded and made it clear that he expected his officers to lead by example by being both present and engaged reveals the priority he placed on the acknowledgement of the “Supreme Author of all Good.”

While enduring the hardship and lethal challenges of the winter spent at Valley Forge, Washington directed his troops to set aside a day for thanksgiving and fasting. On December 18, 1777, Reverend Israel Evans delivered one of the sermons and Washington later wrote him to thank him. In that letter, he said:

…it will ever be the first wish of my heart to aid your pious endeavours to inculcate a due sense of the dependence we ought to place in that all-wise and powerful Being, on whom alone our success depends.10

1) “Declaration of Independence”, America’s Founding Documents, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript, accessed June 27, 2022

2) Ibid

3) “H. Rept. 33-124 – Chaplains in Congress and in the Army and Navy. March 27, 1854. Ordered to be printed, Committee on the Judiciary. March 27, 1854”, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SERIALSET-00743_00_00-004-0124-0000/pdf/SERIALSET-00743_00_00-004-0124-0000.pdf, accessed April 1, 2023

4) Ibid (you can also see this report referenced on the online copy of the Congressional Record of the Proceedings and Debates of the 87th Congress in Volume 108 – Part 13 that covers the activity from August 20, 1962 to August 30, 1962. It’s on page 17597 and can be accessed by heading out to https://www.google.com/books/edition/Congressional_Record/dKHcR9moGwkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=1854

5) “Treaty of Paris (1783)”, “Milestone Documents”, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/treaty-of-paris, accessed April 1, 2023

6) “National Park Service”, “The Liberty Bell”, https://www.nps.gov/inde/learn/historyculture/stories-libertybell.htm, accessed April 1, 2023

7) “Liberty Bell Tolls to Announce Declaration of Independence”, “History”, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/liberty-bell-tolls-to-announce-declaration-of-independence, accessed April 1, 2023

8) “Ben Carson: What You Don’t Know About The Liberty Bell”, Time Magazine, Dr. Ben Carson, August 24, 2016, https://time.com/4464934/ben-carson-liberty-bell-history/, accessed April 2, 2023

9) “General Orders, 2 May 1778, George Washington, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-15-02-0016, accessed March 7, 2023

10) “The Writings of George Washington, Volume V”, Jared Sparks, Russell, Odiorne and Metcalf & Hilliard, Gray and Company, Boston, 1834, https://books.google.com/books?id=UatV3YPhGVAC&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq, accessed April 2, 2023

by

Driving on the Wrong Side of the Road

How Bizarre is That?

Imagine someone driving on the wrong side of the road and justifying it by saying they have the right to be happy.

How bizarre is that?

Now envision that same situation, only now that person is being pulled from the wreckage that was their automobile after colliding with another car because they were in the wrong lane. But instead of admitting that it was their fault, they insist that it’s all due to an oppressive system that obligates them to conform in ways that make them feel uncomfortable.

The person who wants to see themselves as their own absolute is having to constantly reconfigure the human experience in order to validate their mindset as being beyond reproach. They’re like the middle schooler who turns in their multiple choice exam believing that because they had the freedom to choose how they wanted to answer each question, they’re automatically deserving of a perfect score.

This is the world of the individual who has declared himself as his own bottom line. There are no failing test scores, there are no standards, and anything that could be accurately processed as a consequence of their actions is dismissed by labeling it as a hateful convention coming from either a corrupt institution that needs to be destroyed or an ignorant individual that needs to be silenced.

They shoot themselves in the foot and then blame all the pain they’re in on the one who told them not to pull the trigger to begin with.

When you attempt to reason with this kind of person, you are not being heard as someone who’s questioning their logic as much as you are challenging their authority. It’s not about what’s true, it’s about what works as far as those statistics and testimonies that can be used to make a self serving agenda appear compassionate and preferrable while simultaneously validating themselves as the only one that they’re accountable to.

And yet…

Practical Gravity and Simple Math

The validity of one’s perspective is ultimately proven by what happens when that perspective is put into practice. However convoluted and volatile the debate may be, feelings and beliefs can be readily identified as being either clarifying or distracting simply by observing those things that result from the application of any one methodology.

Should one approach translate to a world of pain and problems, that perspective can then be logically subordinated to a viewpoint that yields better results. At that point, you’re not looking at anything other than pure utility and however passionate you may be about your particular brand of morality, you are no longer able to assert your preferences as principles when all that exists in the aftermath is a mess you expect someone else to clean up.

There has always been an element that wants to push back against those things that remind them that there is such a thing as “practical gravity.” You cannot hope to do certain things and not have to contend with the natural consequences of your actions. If you decide to jump out of an airplane as it’s flying through the sky, you can’t deny the effects of gravity simply because you want to believe that you have the right to be happy or because you believe that gravity is a byproduct of an oppressive hierarchy.

In a similar way, you can’t drive on the wrong side of the road and not risk a head on collision, nor can you embrace what amounts to a perverse or irresponsible lifestyle and not be confronted with the medical and practical realities that characterize the choice that you have made.

There is a natural order in place that transcends whatever it is that drives your resolve and you can’t circumvent that infrastructure simply because it doesn’t coincide with your opinion on the matter.

It’s math, really.

The way you think + the way you act = the price you pay

Wise decisions tend to be very beneficial and cost very little.

On the other hand, foolish choices can be lethal and in that way are very expensive.

And here’s the thing: When that bill arrives, it’s your responsibility. However you want to insist that it’s someone else’s fault or another person’s obligation, you’re the one that has to come up with the functional finances necessary to pay the amount owed which will inevitably include a lack of fulfillment, a substantial amount of wasted time and a collection of physical and emotional scars.

Antiquated Traditions

Some want to try and avoid the “practical gravity” of their situation by insisting that the angst they experience as a result of the way they choose to process themselves and the world around them is due to the unjust and antiquated traditions of the society they live in.

Perhaps.

But then again, if your perspective is revealed as being problematic in terms of what happens when your perspective is put into practice, it’s not the society you live in that’s causing the tension, it’s the organic outcome of your flawed approach.

It’s not the Supreme Court, it’s not a political party, it’s not a cultural trend or a societal norm.

You’re driving on the wrong side of the road and there are consequences to not staying in your lane that are based more so on the laws of Physics and Chemistry then they are the Department of Motor Vehicles.

This is the problem you inevitably encounter when you establish any kind of human agency as your philosophical foundation.

Die, Quit or Change

You have chosen to build your existence on a platform that is destined to either die, quit or change. It is as fluid as it is inconsistent and whatever rights or truisms you want to maintain as givens will resonate as such only when you’ve surrounded yourself with like-minded individuals. Reason being is that you can’t logically condemn another person’s viewpoint if everyone is entitled to their opinion and the universe is nothing more than a lucky mistake.

This is what happens when you remove God from the equation. Bear in mind that there are only two religions in the world: Either God is God or you are. Every religion on the planet empowers the individual with the ability to facilitate their own salvation. Only Christianity maintains that you are not your own deity and the only thing that you contribute to your salvation is the sin that makes it necessary.

When you embrace God as your philosophical starting point and the Substance of the empty tomb as what defines your identity, you’re no longer tasked with having to manufacture a reason for your existence or an enduring Source of fulfillment.

Bear in mind we’re talking about the Person of Jesus Christ – the Son of God and not a corrupted clergyman or a hypocritical layperson. Neither one of those two individuals died for your sins or put the planets in their place.

The Image of God, the Son of God and the Spirit of God

You are made in the Image of God, you have been redeemed by the Son of God and you have access to a Perfect Source of Purpose, Peace and Power because of the Spirit of God who lives in and through you.

Like our Founding Fathers, you can effectively dispute injustice because you’re not limited to a human premise, and unlike those who borrow from God without believing in Him, you can accurately claim an entitlement as a legitimate right because you know that they’re gifts from God He gives to guard your way and not weapons you use in an attempt to get your way.

Moreover, you don’t see His Instructions as “rules” as much as you see them as “tools” that you use to realize a life where you are making a difference and not just an appearance.

Scale That Wall and Dismantle That Strategy

There will always be people who drive on the wrong side of the road. They will justify themselves with compelling sounding arguments framed by a strategy designed to avoid that direct line of questioning that has the capacity to reveal their platform as toxic and self-serving.

But you can scale that wall and dismantle that strategy by focusing on the empirical results of their perspective and allow the logic of how a flawed methodology needs to be subordinated to an approach that yields a better outcome.

When you hear someone say, “That’s your opinion!” or “You can’t force your beliefs on me!” they’re neither proving their point nor are they proving you to be wrong. Rather, they’re attempting to secure the kind of pity that’s awarded to the person who’s been hurt in order to distract from the wreckage caused by their own decision making.

You can’t always change a person’s mind without changing their heart and only God can do that.

But God can use you to make an impact and you want to be ready to do more than argue…

You want to champion the Truth by asking the right questions and letting their responses not only make your point, but more importantly make Him known.

by

Grasp the One, Do Not Let the Other Slip From Your Hand

Patrick Henry was speaking to the House of Burgesses and had tasked himself with convincing those who were hesitant to openly oppose King George and commit themselves to America’s quest for liberty.

He began by acknowledging the reality of differing opinions and emphasizing the importance of giving all viewpoints an equal hearing, especially given the magnitude of the subject being discussed.

At one point, he said…

It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country.”1

A common flaw in the way Truth is pursued by some is the way in which a person’s bias inclines them to dismiss any information that has the capacity to undermine the perspective they are most comfortable with. Instead of a conviction characterized by a comprehensive and balanced overview of the issue in question, preferences are substituted for principles and an emotionally charged opinion is submitted as an objective bottom line.

Ecclesiastes 7:16-18 says:

16 Don’t be excessively righteous, and don’t be overly wise. Why should you destroy yourself? 17 Don’t be excessively wicked, and don’t be foolish. Why should you die before your time? 18 It is good that you grasp the one and do not let the other slip from your hand. For the one who fears God will end up with both of them. (Ecc 7:16-18)

Regardless of the topic being discussed, it’s imperative to be balanced in the way you consider the criteria you allow to influence your thinking. It’s more than just a healthy way to ensure a good decision, it’s part of the daily debt you owe to God out of respect for Who He is and what He expects (Ps 32:8-10; Prov 12:22-23; 29:1; Jas 1:5-8).

 

 

1. “Patrick Henry – Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death”, “Yale Law School – Lillian Goldman Law Library”, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/patrick.asp, accessed May 21, 2023

by

Shake the Dust Off Your Feet

March 23, 1775.

Richmond, Virginia.

The House of Burgesses were meeting in Saint John’s Church to discuss the recent actions of the First Continental Congress. The “Intolerable Acts” were passed by Parliament in early 1774 in response to the “Boston Tea Party.” Among other changes, the “Intolerable Acts” included the closing of the Boston Port and rescinding the Massachusetts Charter. Congress had met in September of that same in year to craft a response which called for a boycott of all British imports, an end to the exportation of any and all goods to Britain as well as the raising of a militia.79

It was now several months later. Despite the consensus shared by most Americans that the crown was not going to address any of the grievances that had been repeatedly voiced by the colonies, many hesitated endorsing a war and were yet hoping for a diplomatic solution.

It was in this moment that Patrick Henry rose to speak to the delegates gathered at Saint John’s Church. What followed was a speech made without notes and no transcript was made of the address he was about to deliver which would include the famous phrase, “Give me liberty, or give me death!”1

His desire was to present an argument that could change the minds of those who were determined to believe that diplomacy could sway a tyrant who saw negotiations, not as a way to arrive at a just compromise, but as a scheme to perpetuate a sinister agenda.

Those that were there to hear the words of Patrick Henry had legitimate concerns. But there are times when you’re talking to someone who doesn’t have a concern as much as they have a resolve – a willful determination to ignore what’s True and instead subscribe to something totally irrational.

In those instances, it’s possible you’re dialoging with someone the Bible refers to as a “fool” – someone who will “despise the insight of your words (Prov 23:9),” regardless of what you say.

Jesus says in Matthew 10:13-14 that when you encounter someone who refuses to listen to what’s True, then you need to walk away.

13 If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. (Matt 10:13-14)

Not everyone’s going to agree with you and differences in opinion are inevitable (1 Cor 11:19). There’s a difference between matters where there’s room for interpretation and other issues that can be processed according to obvious Absolutes. Humility and wisdom go hand in hand (Jas 3:13). You never want to be so passionate about your preferences that you assign to them the same Authority belonging to Biblical Principles.

But when you can rightfully cite a chapter and a verse to reinforce the Substance of your argument, know that however articulate you may be, there are times where you won’t be able to change their mind until God first changes their heart.

And until then…

…move on and shake the dust off your feet.

 

 

1. “Patrick Henry”, https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/patrick-henry, accessed May 21, 2023

by

Separation of Church and State | Part II

Consider for a moment the questions we’ve asked thus far:

  • What is the Common Book of Prayer?
  • What is a Puritan?
  • Why did the British refer to the Revolutionary War as a “Presbyterian Rebellion?”
  • How many times did Congress call for a National Day of Prayer, Fasting and Humiliation?

The first two questions outline the way in which the Anglican Church was replacing the “Lord’s Prayer” with the “Common Book of Prayer” along with several other directives that positioned the monarchy over the Trinity. This lead to the Puritans wanting to “purify” the doctrine espoused by the Church of England and return to a biblically based approach to one’s relationship with Christ.

By the 1700s, the “Act of Uniformity” had been expanded to include mandates pertaining to church government – something very beligerent in the mind of a Presbyterian who subscribed to a Scriptural approach to elders and deacons as they are described in the New Testament.

Moreover, part of the “Common Book of Prayer” included prayers that were to be made for the king, which implied a form of political support regardless of that monarch’s character or conduct.1

This is what was meant by the “separation of church and state.”

The delegates that formed the Constitutional Convention were not attempting to facilitate a potentially godless society with the First Amendment. Rather, they were honoring the Authority of God’s Word by placing a limitation on the way the government could dictate the manner of your worship.

Congress could not tell you how to pray or fine you for not attending church on Sundays. There would be no legislation that dictated how a church’s government was to be structured.

But while the individual is free to choose how they worship God according to the dicates of their own conscience, the individual is not at liberty to reconfigure the Foundation upon which that right was based.

In a 2019 ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of context in determining meaning in defamation cases. They said that context is “a factor of considerable importance” and that the “…words complained of should not be fixed by technical, linguistically-precise dictionary definitions divorced from the context in which the statement was made. Nor should individual words be removed from their context and defined in isolation, before reconnecting them to the rest of the statement.2

If that ruling is to apply to the debate surrounding the separation of church and state, then you’re obligated to conclude the the Founding Fathers were not looking to limit Christianity’s influence on government as much as they were resolved to limit government’s influence on Christianity.

John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli which was designed to ensure the militant Muslims that were preying on American ships that the US was not planning on invading Jerusalem. Part of that Treaty says:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries (Treaty of Tripoli).

Some will take the statement, “…America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” to mean that the Declaration of Independence represents nothing more than a token acknowledgement of God and the sixteen Congressional proclamations calling for a National Day of Prayer and Fasting had no specific reference to Christ.

That’s just not the case.

Adams himself said:

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which, that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities Sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.3

In 1789, James Madison, the architect behind the Bill of Rights, wrote a “Memonstrance and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments.” His goal was to discourage the use of tax dollars to financially support teachers of the Christian religion.

His point wasn’t to discredit Christianity or minimize its place in the public square. Again, it was a concerted resolve to avoid the sins of the Church of England in the way government was used to obligate people to process and revere God in a specific way, if they were to even worship God at all.

Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered.4

Again, while the individual is free to choose how they worship God according to the dicates of their own conscience, the individual is not at liberty to reconfigure the Foundation upon which that right was based.

While Madison is brilliant in his defense of not using public funds to finance religious education, bear in mind he was part of the group of men that wrote the following Congressional Proclamation:

The United States in Congress assembled, therefore do earnestly recommend, that Thursday the thrid of May next, beay be observed as a day of humiliation, fasting and prayer, that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous sidpleasure, and through the merits of our blessed Savior, obtain pardon and forgiveness…5

The Separation of Church and State was never designed to be used as a way to normalize Homosexuality or justify Partial Birth Abortion. The government of the United States, while it will not dictate how or to whom you pray, it will not be redefined in a way that removes the Divine Absolute that is both its heritage and its Foundation.

 

1. “Variations in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer”, “The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England (1662)”, http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Variations.htm, accessed June 13, 2023

2. “Supreme Court emphasizes importance of context in determining meaning in defamation cases”, https://hsfnotes.com/litigation/2019/04/11/supreme-court-emphasises-importance-of-context-in-determining-meaning-in-defamation-cases/, Herbert Smith Freehills, April 11, 2019, accessed November 5, 2022

3. “John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 28 June 1813”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0208, accessed November 5, 2022

4. “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. 20 June] 1785”, “National Archives, Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0163, accessed June 13, 2023

5. To see an image of the Proclamation as its preserved in the Library of Congress, click here.