Author Archives: Bruce Gust

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.

by

Separation of Church and State | Part I

Nine times out of ten, when you hear someone play the “Separation of Church and State” card, they’re doing so believing that they’ve insulated themselves from having to defend their platform simply by declaring your position an illegal and inappropratiate assertion of your belief system…

Abortion.

Homosexuality.

It can be anything that is addressed specifically in Scripture. However clarifying the Bible can be in defining the difference between right and wrong, it is an unwelcome Presence in the mind of somone who prefers to declare themselves as their own moral absolute.

“You can’t force your beliefs on me…”

“Not everyone feels that way…”

(sarcastically) “You ever hear of the ‘Separation of Church and State?'”

It’s a signature tactic of the person who has something to hide as opposed to having something to say. By posing as a victim, they can sidestep any direct line of questioning because you can’t be critical of someone who’s in pain without immediately being labeled cruel and intolerant.

It’s brilliant.

There are several things wrong with their argument, though.

First of all, from a historical standpoint, they’re taking that phrase completely out of context and applying it in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with same sex marriage or taking the life of your baby before it’s born.

Secondly, what they’re attempting to do is philosophically impossible. Every government that’s ever been conceived by human kind has been based on a “church” of some sort. It’s here where you can see the true purpose of those who are asserting the “separation…” argument in that they’re not trying to “separate” anything as much as they’re attempting to establish a new god, a new church and a new morality.

But how do you refute what they’re saying? How can you “argue” if they’ve secured themselves behind a wall reinforced by the kind of pity that is due to someone who’s been wounded? How do you make your point if they’re not willing to listen and instead are just waiting for you to stop talking so they can proceed in telling you how intolerant you are?

What we’re going to do is unpack all this by posing a couple of questions that you can ask the person who’s pointing their philosophical pistol at you and compel them to make your point for you with the responses they’re logically obligated to give.

Here we go…

What is the Common Book of Prayer?

It’s part of the legislative package passed by Parliament in 1558 as part of the “Act of Uniformity” which Queen Elizabeth initiated as part of relieving the tension between Catholics and Protestants. It positioned her as the head of the church and imposed a collection of state-sanctioned directives that dictated the way you were to pray, how you were to condut a church service and even imposed a fine should you decide to not attend church on any given Sunday.1

What is a Puritan?

A Puritan is someone who wanted to “purify” the Anglican Church – the church created by Henry the VIII and then later legally mandated by his daughter Queen Elizabeth with the Act of Uniformity. They wanted to distance themselves from a doctrine that was dictated by the crown and instead based on the Authority of God’s Word. The Puritans were among the first settlers of the New World along with the Pilgrims who didn’t want to “purify” the Church of England as much as they wanted to remove themselves completely from having to answer to any government interference with one’s faith.

Why did the British refer to the Revolutionary War as a “Presbyterian Rebellion?”

In the aftermath of the Great Awakening, 75-80% of the colonies were actively involved in church.2 Preachers like George Whitfield and Jonathan Edwards had successfully re-introduced the Truth of how one’s relationship with Christ was not facilitated by a liturgy or a religious institution, but was instead based solely on a personal decision to follow Him.

With that awareness came a new perspective on how one’s rights were not a king’s to dispense as much as they were God’s to guarantee.

It wasn’t just “taxation without representation,” it was the way the motherland was attempting to control church government, the way in which you to pray (which included a mandate to swear allegiance to the king) and a directive to ordain ministers, not according to the New Testament, but according to a format approved by the Church of England.

Many Americans were quoted as saying, “We have no governor but Jesus Christ.”3

This is why many redcoats and Englishmen were prone to refer to the Revolution as a Presbyterian Rebellion.4

How many times to Congress call for a National Day of Prayer, Fasting and Humiliation during the Revolutionary War?

Sixteen. And these were not generic “moments of silence.” These were specific admonishments to appeal to Christ for the forgiveness of sins and wisdom in the way the United States was to prosecute its war with England.5

Bear in mind too that the verbiage of these Proclamations were written by many who would later serve in the Constitutional Convention.

Tomorrow…Part II

1. “The Act of Uniformity” was conceived in 1558 and passed by Parliament in 1559. Its purpose was to regularize prayer, worship and the administration of sacraments in the Church of England. In addition, all persons had to attend Anglican worship services once a week or be fined 12 pence which amounted to about three days wages. (“Act of Uniformity 1558”, “Wikipedia”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Uniformity_1558, accessed May 20, 2023)

In 1662, the scope of “The Act of Uniformity” was enhanced to include the mandate that all ministers be ordained according to an Episcopal format and anyone who held an office within the church was to swear allegiance to the monarchy. (“Act of Uniformity 1662” “Wikipedia”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Uniformity_1662, accessed May 20, 2023 | “Act of Uniformity”, “Encyclopedia.com”, https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/modern-europe/british-and-irish-history/act-uniformity, accessed May 20, 2023

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

3. “Directory of National Biography, Vol XXV”, Harris – Henry I, Smith, Elder and Company, London, 1891, p68 (also read “The Black Robe Regiment” to learn more about the Presbyterian element that was perceived by the British)

4. “Public Statutes at large of the United States of America, from the Organization of the Government in 1789 to March 3, 1845, Volume VI”, “https://books.google.com/books?id=Opt0L-PDdPAC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=%22that+the+duties+arising+and+due+to+the+United+States+upon+certain+stereotype+plates%22&source=bl&ots=p2xVUkIfub&sig=ACfU3U3N9AeyAcd_E0QqZfiXJlHQXbKGTA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjq8oSY0__9AhV6mWoFHduzBy0Q6AF6BAgDEAM#v=onepage&q=%22that%20the%20duties%20arising%20and%20due%20to%20the%20United%20States%20upon%20certain%20stereotype%20plates%22&f=false”, accessed March 28, 2023

5. To read a list of all sixteen proclamations as they’re documented in the Library of Congress, head out to http://muscularchristianityonline.com/forum/the-finish-line/

by

Look With Confidence

Even human wrath will praise You; You will clothe Yourself with their remaining wrath.. (Ps 76:10)

Doctor John Witherspoon.

American Devotional Series

If you’ve been enjoying the last several posts, then you’ll enjoy the “American Devotional Series | Part One: The Revolutionary War!”

“The American Devotional Series” is designed to reinforce the way our Founders revered God as the Author of our Rights and Freedoms and how our history is frequently punctuated with bold and definitive references to Christ and the Power of God’s Word.

Click here to order it on Amazon!

He was a preacher born in Scotland in 1723. Briefly imprisoned during the Highlander uprising in 1745-1746, his was a strong and articulate voice recruited by Benjamin Rush in 1766 to preside over the then struggling College of New Jersey which would later become known as Princeton University.

The good doctor would publish The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men, a sermon he preached at Princeton just two months before he signed the “Declaration of Independence.”

In his sermon, he elaborated on Psalm 76:10 by saying this:

The truth, then, asserted in this text, which I propose to illustrate and improve, is, That all the disorderly passions of men, whether exposing the innocent to private injury, or whether they are the arrows of divine judgment in public calamity, shall, in the end, be to the praise of God: Or, to apply it more particularly to the present state of the American colonies, and the plague of war, The ambition of mistaken princes, the cunning and cruelty of oppressive and corrupt ministers, and even the inhumanity of brutal soldiers, however dreadful, shall finally promote the glory of God, and in the meantime, while the storm continues, his mercy and kindness shall appear in prescribing bounds to their rage and fury.1

In other words, there is no Power or Plan that can succeed against the intended Purpose of God – even to the point where the most diabolical scheme, however unjust or forceful it might be – it will be Divinely routed in a way where the end result will ultimately translate to something good (Ps 78:34-35; Is 26:8-9).

This is what the Psalmist meant when he said that “Even human wrath will praise you.”

It’s because every nuance of the human experience is ultimately subordinate to His Will that you can engage every aspect of your life from a position of Strength. Witherspoon emphasized that point later in his sermon by saying, “If your cause is just—you may look with confidence to the Lord and intreat him to plead it as his own.”2

Whatever challenge you may be facing today, you can confront it with the confidence founded on the Power and Sovereignty of God.

“If your cause is just…”

…look with confidence to the Lord.

1. “1776: Witherspoon, Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men (Sermon)”, “Online Library of Liberty”, https://oll.libertyfund.org/page/1776-witherspoon-dominion-of-providence-over-the-passions-of-men-sermon, accessed January 23, 2023

2. Ibid

by

All Men Are Created Equal

So God created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female. (Gen 1:27)

 In his Second Treatise of Government, John Locke dismantled the flawed philosophy supporting the idea that monarchs could justify their authority over their subjects by claiming to be Divinely superior to any human court or governing body.1

He said…

For Men being all the Workmanship of one Omnipotent, and infinitely wise Maker; All the Servants of one Sovereign Master, sent into the world by his order and about his business, they are his Property, whose Workmanship they are, made to last during His, not one another’s Pleasure.2

By saying that all men were the “…workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise maker,” he was stripping away the manufactured rank and title that some had asserted as a way to elevate themselves over their peers. Rather, we were to perceive ourselves as equals having been created by God in His Image for His Purpose and not our own.

John Locke

John Locke (1632–1704) was one of the greatest philosophers in Europe at the end of the seventeenth century. Locke grew up and lived through one of the most extraordinary centuries of English political and intellectual history. It was a century in which conflicts between Crown and Parliament and the overlapping conflicts between Protestants, Anglicans and Catholics swirled into civil war in the 1640s.4

Locke’s Second Treatise of Government was published in 1690 and would heavily influence the political philosophies of those who would go on to craft the “Declaration of Independence.” Some would argue that the Founders, “….succeeded admirably in condensing Locke’s fundamental argument into a few hundred words.”5

Locke had a profound impact on those tasked with crafting the “Declaration of Independence.” You can see both his verbiage and his thinking represented in the opening lines penned by Thomas Jefferson when he said: 

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.3

While many throughout history would sort men according to distinguished sounding titles and family crests, the United States built its argument on the platform that says our rights are not a king’s to dispense, but they are God’s to guarantee.

The fact that you and I are created in the image of God is what was used to ensure our Declaration resonated as a legitimate cause and not just a mere complaint.  And it’s because we bear His Likeness that this isn’t just another day and you’re not just another face in the crowd. Your life is more than your situation and you are more than your mistakes.

That’s the Reality of God and the beauty of grace.

We are not just existing, we are seen…

…and you weren’t merely “sorted…”

You were created.

Now go make a difference!

1. “Divine Right of Kings”, Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/divine-right-of-kings, accessed January 22, 2023

2. “The Project Gutenberg eBook of Second Treatise of Government, by John Locke”, Gutenberg.org, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm, accessed January 22, 2023

3. (n.d.). Declaration of Independence: A Transcription. National Archives. Retrieved January 14, 2023, from https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

4. “John Locke”, “Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy”, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/#SecoTreaGove, accessed January 22, 2023

5. “The American Constitution, Its Origins and Development”, Alfred Hinsey Kelly, Winfred Audif Harbison, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, NY, 1963, p90

by

Avenge Our Innocent Blood: Rev Jonas Clark

Listen, my children, and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,1

Those words penned by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow helped to immortalize the efforts of Paul Revere when he rode to Lexington, Massachusetts from Boston to warn John Hancock and Samuel Adams that the British were on the move and enroute to arrest them as well as impound the cannon, gunpowder and ammunition stockpiled in Concord.2

Egypt will become desolate, and Edom a desert wasteland, because of the violence done to the people of Judah in whose land they shed innocent blood. 20 But Judah will be inhabited forever, and Jerusalem from generation to generation. 21 I will pardon their bloodguilt, which I have not pardoned, for the Lord dwells in Zion. (Joel 3:19-21)

Both Hancock and Adams were staying with the Reverend Jonas Clark.3 Clark’s home was familiar territory in that Hancock was the cousin of the young pastor’s wife.4 In addition, Clark was a passionate supporter of America’s quest for freedom. His sermons often referenced the tyranny represented by King George and how America’s pursuit of liberty was something that could be validated as a Biblically-based perspective.

You can hear that in the sermon he published the day after Revere completed his journey entitled, “The Fate of Bloodthirsty Oppressors, and God’s Tender Care of His Distressed People.”

On the 19th of April, 1775, many of the minutemen that had squared off against His Majesty’s soldiers were members of Clark’s congregation. When the smoke had cleared, eight were dead and another ten were wounded.5

Pastor Clark’s text was Joel 3:19-21. He began by saying:

Next to the acknowledgement of the existence of a Deity, there is no one principle of greater importance in religion, than a realizing belief of the divine government and providence, to realize that God is Governor among the nations, that his government is wise and just, and that all our times and changes are in his hands…6

In other words, God is in charge. And it’s because of His Supervision that we can trust that His Justice will ultimately prevail, even when circumstances would suggest otherwise.

By referencing God’s Sovereignty, Clark wasn’t merely offering some general, pastoral comfort. He was reminding his congregation that however evil might be able to function despite the laws and ethics that would otherwise prevent it from happening, oppressors are ultimately defeated by God’s Divine Power and Justice.

In his sermon, Clark referred to the British as having shed innocent blood and calls them “sons of oppression and violence.”7 He then went on to say that the word spoken by the prophet Joel could be applied to the United States.

How far the prophecy before us, may be applicable, upon this solemn occasion, and with what degree of truth, or probability, it may be predicted, in consequence of the present unjust and unnatural war, “that Great-Britain shall be a desolation, and England be a desolate wilderness, for the violence against the children of America, because they have shed INNOCENT BLOOD in their land: But America shall dwell forever, and this people from generation to generation. And the LORD himself will cleanse their blood, that he hath not already cleansed.” —How far (I say) this prophecy may be applicable, in the present interesting contest, and how far it may be accomplished in the issue thereof, God only knows, and time only can discover.—But of this we are certain, if we “humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God upon us, we shall be exalted, in his due time:” and if we rightly improve his dealings, “accept the punishment of our sins” and religiously trust in his name, we shall see his salvation. 8

There are times when a church sanctuary functions as an Emergency Room, where wounds are treated, and victims are placed on the road to recovery through the restorative Power of the Holy Spirit (Ps 6:2; 34:18; Jn 14:27; Jas 5:16).

But there are other instances where it’s a Locker Room, where strategies are being rehearsed, mistakes are being addressed and players are being encouraged so they’re sufficiently equipped to take the field and make a difference (2 Sam 5:24; Dt 31:6; Mk 11:23; Jn 14:12).

In his sermon, Clark would not merely utter spiritual sounding condolences nor would he advocate for a forgiving disposition to be extended to the British. Rather, he would reinforce the Scriptural Substance upon which America’s resolve to be free was based and it was that Foundation that would provide both the courage and the endurance necessary to win the Revolutionary War.

There is a time for all things (Ecc 3:1). There is a time to weep (Ecc 3:4), there is a time to wait (Ps 27:14) and there is a time to win (Ex 17:15; Josh 6:5; Lk 10:19; 1 Jn 4:4).

Do not miss the victory that is yours to claim because you’re focused more on the way you would define your circumstance according to what you can do rather than the way God defines it based on what He can do.

1. “Paul Revere’s Ride”, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, https://poets.org/poem/paul-reveres-ride, accessed February 20, 2023
2. “The Real Story of Paul Revere’s Ride”, paulreverehouse.org, https://www.paulreverehouse.org/the-real-story/, accessed February 20, 2023
3. “Paul Revere’s Letter to Jeremy Belknap, ca. 1798 (abridged)”, “The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History”, https://www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/default/files/inline-pdfs/Revere%20to%20Belknap%20abridged.pdf, accessed February 20, 2023
4. “Jonas Clarke – The Pastor Who Fired the Shot Heard Around the World”, “Christian Heritage Fellowship”, https://christianheritagefellowship.com/the-pastor-who-fired-the-shot-heard-around-the-world/, accessed February 20, 2023
5. “The Battles of Lexington and Concord”, Isaac Merrill, “Digital History”, https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=129, accessed February 20, 2023
6. “Sermon – Battle of Lexington – 1776”, Wallbuilders, https://wallbuilders.com/sermon-battle-of-lexington-1776/, accessed February 20, 2023
7. Ibid
8. Ibid

by

You Will Have Trouble

On the west side of the obelisk that serves as the grave marker for the Reverend James Caldwell, it reads:

Hannah, wife of the Rev. James Caldwell, and daughter of Johnathan Ogden, of Newark, was killed at Connecticut Farms by a shot from a British soldier, June 25th, 1780, cruelly sacrificed by the enemies of her husband and of her country.1

The popularity of Caldwell and his courage on the battlefield reads in a way where you can easily imagine that in the aftermath of his heroics, he would survive the war and go on to live happily ever after.

But that was not the case.

Not only would he lose his life as a result of an unwarranted gunshot fired by a sentinel who would later be tried and hung for murder,2 but just two weeks prior to the Battle of Springfield where Caldwell would utter the now famous words, “Put Watts into ‘em boys,” Caldwell would learn that his wife had been shot and killed by the British.3

As believers, we’re not exempt from heartache, sickness, death and anxiety. It’s part of the world we live in and pretending to be either immune or indifferent is neither healthy nor helpful.

The idea is not to ignore sin or its effects, but to remain focused on the One Who gives you the Power and Perspective needed to endure and overcome.

That’s what Jesus meant in John 16:33:

I have told you these things so that in Me you may have peace. You will have suffering in this world. Be courageous! I have conquered the world.” (Jn 16:33)

Neither your witness nor your success is defined according to the lack of difficulty you encounter, rather they’re determined by the extent to which you allow Him to shape your perspective (Rom 12:1-2), fortify your resolve (Phil 4:13) and empower your performance (Is 41:10).

However intimidating the sin of the world may be, remember you have working in and through you the One Who brought the sin of the world to its knees.

1. “The Pictorial Field-Book of the Revolution”, Benson J. Lossing, Harper & Brothers, Publishers, New York, NY, 1851, p326
2. “Proceedings of the Historical Society, Volume I 1845 – 1846, The Office of the Daily Advertiser, Newark, NJ, 1847, p83-84 (https://books.google.com/books?id=NWVIAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=Morgan&f=false)
3. “A Short History of the American Revolution”, Everett Titsworth Tomlinson, Doubleday, Page and Company, New York, NY, 1901, p286-287 (https://books.google.com/books?id=BhwTAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=watts&f=false)