This afternoon I took a little road trip with my son and we visited the “Creation Museum.”

Excellent!

If you’ve not ever visited or if you’ve never see the “Ark Encounter,” both are really, really well done exhibits and they’re worth both the drive and the admission price!

One thing that was a part of the “Creation Museum” presentation was an exhibit that focused on Abortion and the sanctity of human life. There were several references to Scripture that makes it very clear that God knew you while you were still in the womb, which qualifies you, even at that point, as a legitimate human being and not a mere inconvenience that can be removed like you would a random growth.

It reminds me of the recent Supreme Court decision and the whole concept of a person’s “rights.”

Much of the Liberal platform is framed around the idea that whatever behavior it may be – that would normally be questioned or criticized – is now justified by the notion that it is a reaction to an oppressive society and is therefore appropriate if not a noble stand against convention.

But what is “right?”

That’s what we’re talking about today…

I) Intro

Many of the issues that dominate our nation’s headlines are defended by insisting that an individual’s “right” is being violated if someone disagrees with their perspective.

Gay Pride

Pride events are about human rights; they empower LGBTI individuals to reclaim the rights and freedoms they are denied, and the public space they are often excluded from.¹

Civil Rights

…more than a year into the Biden-Harris administration, we remain disappointed by a lack of urgency on dismantling inhumane immigration policies and practices, reforming the criminal-legal system, and ensuring that civil rights are front and center in the nation’s technology and AI policies.²

Reproductive Rights

Reproductive rights—having the ability to decide whether and when to have children—are important to women’s socioeconomic well-being and overall health.³

For a homosexual, the “right” to be gay means that any school of thought that denounces Homosexuality as being morally wrong is to be legally processed as a form of discrimination. The Civil Rights movement dismisses any questions pertaining to illegal immigration – statistics that point to the disproportionate number of violent crimes committed by black people and the number of black minorities that drop out of High School – as being a front for Racism as opposed to an honest evaluation of all the factors that need to be considered before insisting that America is dominated by a bigoted populace.

And Pro Choice activists make a point of characterizing anyone who questions the morality of abortion as being opposed to women’s rights…

In all three instances, the validity of their platform is founded on an entitlement that is absolute and therefore any person who questions or attempts to refute their argument cannot do so without being immediately characterized as cruel and unjust.

Yet in order for a “right” to qualify as a transcendent given, you have to first consider how a right is defined and what it is that gives a right the ability to subordinate all preferences and opinions to its substance and truth.

What is a “right?” Let’s take a look…

II) The Declaration of Independence

Among the things that makes the Declaration of Independence such a powerful document is the premise it was built upon. The Declaration of Independence is more than a list of grievances. It is a statement that identifies the monarchy of King George as being fundamentally flawed, not because of his tyrannical approach to the colonies, but because of the way his rule violated Divine Absolutes.

That is why it reverberated the way it did around the civilized world. Our Founders recognized both the strength and the necessity of building a government on the Substance of Scripture if that government was to succeed in providing the legal environment where an individual’s God-given rights could flourish.

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.⁴

It was both the advantages of a biblically based government and the way in which they rightly identified the King of Great Britain as ruling in a way that was contrary to the way in which Scripture defined a human being, that positioned our nation has having a legitimate cause and not just a mere complaint.

It’s also here where we see what a “right” is and why its legal efficacy is so profound.

III) What is a Right?

A “right” is something that has as its Source God Himself. Anything less is nothing more than a consensus arrived at by a human collective. And if the composition of the right in question is nothing more than a collaboration of like-minded people, it will ultimately fail to be reliable because if a human dynamic can give it to you, that same human dynamic can take it away, which means that it wasn’t a “right” to begin with as much as it was a temporary accommodation.

That’s not to say that a godless individual is incapable of recognizing and championing a fair and compassionate system of rules and laws. The problem is not in the substance, but in its Source.

In addition to the inconsistent dynamic of a humanistic approach to morality and government due to its dependence on a consensus rather than an Absolute, the other problem is that by establishing the individual as his own bottom line, he can’t insist on his own autonomy without extending that same dynamic to everyone else.

In other words, if he’s going to live by a mantra that says, “Everyone is entitled to their opinion” when it comes to issues of morality and the value of a human being, then they cannot logically declare that someone who differs in their viewpoint is “wrong.”

By saying that “You do you…” you’re implying that everyone can be right at the same time in the way they approach themselves and the world around them.

If that is the case, then there is no such thing as “intolerance” because, according to the idea that a person can choose however they want to perceive a particular behavior, then there is no right or wrong, it’s all a matter of preference.

So, any attempt to defend your perspective by labeling a person a person who disagrees with you as being “legalistic” or “intolerant” proves to be a pointless argument because of the way its philosophical foundation declares every viewpoint as being on the same moral plane.

Basically, you’re entitled to your opinion until you don’t agree. And then you’re labeled “hateful” and “intolerant” (see graphic below).

Yet how can this be if everyone’s viewpoint is valid?

This is why the court system is so utterly crucial in the mind of a Liberal. It’s the closest thing to being able to establish their preferences as principles without having to concede the one side aspect of their argument. But once the ruling of the court changes, the true nature of their philosophical paradigm is revealed as being an unsustainable and nonsensical preoccupation with one’s self as the ultimate bottom line.

IV) Ropes of Sand

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.⁵

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.⁵

Guiness is completely on point in what he says, as far the way in which a humanistic approach to morality and the world in general has no sure foundation. Even the idea of focusing on “what’s best for the community” ceases to be a legitimate restraint because, in the absence of an ideal that is not subject to interpretation, even what’s most beneficial becomes purely subjective.

V) Conclusion

Anytime you hear someone attempt to defend a behavior or viewpoint that’s contrary to Scripture by invoking the idea that it is their “right” to do so, you can easily refute their rationale and defeat their argument by simply asking who gave them that right?

Inevitably, they will have to concede that their right comes from the Constitution. Yet, as was recently seen in the way the verdict of Roe vs Wade was overturned, their “right” wasn’t a right after all as much as it was “a coupon” – an agreement made between the manufacturer and the customer that a certain provision could be assumed to be in place. But if the manufacturer decides that coupon is no longer valid, it becomes both obvious and incriminating in that what you claim to be a “right” is a favor defined exclusively according to the dictates of a higher, human authority.

It’s not a right.

And the idea that everything can be regulated to an open forum – that there are no Moral Absolutes and the individual is his own deity – is a sinister mechanism used to conceal a self-absorbed perspective that is ultimately revealed to be both hypocritical and nonsensical.

A right is something created by God to guard your way, not a weapon you can use to get your way.

The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple. ⁸ The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes. ⁹ The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever. The decrees of the Lord are firm, and all of them are righteous.  ¹⁰ They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold; they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the honeycomb. ¹¹ By them your servant is warned; in keeping them there is great reward. (Ps 19:8-11)

As believers we want to be the greatest commercial for all that Christ brings to the table, as far as the Purpose, Peace and Power that is available through a relationship with Him and how that translates to the kind of life that’s worth living.

We also want to be in spot where we can not just “defend” what we believe in the context of fielding criticisms and attacks, but also in being able to identify and defeat the assumptions that serve as the basis for the arguments used by those who are antagonistic to the idea of having to answer to anyone other than themselves.

However you may choose to believe that you are your own absolute and you can drive on whatever side of the road that you wish – that may be your choice…

…but it is not your “right.”

III) The Progressive Pentagon

There are five tactics you can be listening for when you’re being told by someone that they have a point, when in fact they’ve got something to hide.

I call it the “Perspective Pentagon” because, taken together, they serve as the way in which the Left both defends its stance and attacks its opponents.

It’s bogus, but it’s brilliant.

Here’s the five tactics we’re going to look at:

• They spend more time talking about labels, mobs and crowds than they do a name, a person and a choice.
• They spend more time attacking their opponent’s character than they do discussing their opponent’s content
• They spend more time pretending to be hurt than they do proving that they’re right.
• They spend more time trying to appear honest than they do telling the truth.
• They spend more time defending bad decisions and demonizing personal responsibility than they do applauding wise choices and holding people accountable for their actions.

Let’s start by looking at “Mobs…”

You can conceal a person’s lack of judgment by presenting them as part of a supposedly virtuous group.

You can do the same thing, only in reverse, by making a sinister collective appear innocent by associating them with an honorable person or intention.

Both approaches are part of a heinous tactic that seeks to assign whole demographics a specific morality, regardless of the individuals who do or do not qualify…

…and it’s often used by that person who has something to hide.

God doesn’t look at your appearance, He looks at your heart. So, however you would try to elevate or justify yourself by insisting that your membership in a particular tribe, company or movement is sufficient to validate your status as a moral individual, those efforts will not only fall short in the sight of God, they also tend to fail in the marketplace as well (Pro 1:32, 3:35; 10:10; Gal 6:7-8).

Jews in the time of Christ saw themselves as justified before God because of their last name (Dt 14:1-2). As a result, they felt comfortable being critical of others, despite the fact that they were just as guilty before God as those they were criticizing. Paul takes all of that apart in Romans 2:17-29. He summarizes everything beginning in verse 28:

A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. ²⁹ No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God. (Rom 2:28-29)

It’s not about a label, a mob or a crowd. Ultimately, the credibility of your platform is going to be measured according to the character and conduct of the individual in question and not the assumed morality of the collective.

In his book, Rules for Radicals, Alinski documents Rule #13 as: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” What you’re doing here is identifying a particular individual as the one who’s “responsible” for whatever the problem may be. Once you have your target, you focus all of your attack on them as opposed to anyone else who may bear some responsibility. That’s how you “freeze” them. And the one thing you want to keep in mind when selecting your target is that they must qualify as an intuitive personification of the problem you’re trying to solve. You make them the “poster child” for your cause and by giving your campaign a face and a specific behavior or quality to despise, you give your platform emotional momentum that draws people in because of the way they want to be perceived as compassionate and justifiably indignant.

Jesus of Nazareth…

His hometown wasn’t especially noteworthy and some saw that as one more reason to doubt His Authenticity as the Messiah.

Even when Nathanael was skeptical. When first told about Jesus, Nathanael said:

“Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” Nathanael asked. “Come and see,” said Philip. (Jn 1:46)

In addition, Jesus was never referred to as “Joseph’s son.” Rather, He was always referred to as “Mary’s son…”

Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. (Mk 6:3)

Reason being is that, in the mind of His detractors, He was an illegitimate child which made Him all the less likely to be “Divine.”

Christ’s critics spent more time attempting to discredit Him than they did actually listening to Him. And the more people that were drawn to His Message, the more the Pharisees resolved to attack His Character, even to the point where they made Him out to be an enemy of the state.

IV) Conclusion

In Part VIII we’re going to conclude our series by wrapping up the remainder of the “Progressive Pentagon” as well as take apart some examples where you can hear these tactics being deployed.

In the end, it’s not about winning elections or being overly cynical as much as it’s about being aware and being wise when it comes to the way in which we process current events.

1. Sanford Horwitt, Let Them Call Me a Rebel: Saul Alinski, His Life and Legacy (New York: Vintage Books, 1992); Saul Alinski, Reveille for Radicals, p25, books.google .com
2. Hoover Institution, “Our Socialist Future?”, Victor Davis Hanson, https://www.hoover.org/research/our-socialist-future-0, accessed February 16, 2022
3. Andreas Kluth, “Why Germany Will Never Be Europe’s Leader,” Bloomberg Opinion, April 29, 2020, https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-30/coronavirus-crisis-why-germany-will-never-be-europe-s-leader; Jennifer Rankin and Daniel Boffey, “Tensions Mount between EU Members Ahead of Budget Talks,” The Guardian, February 19, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/19/tensions-mount-between-eu-members-ahead-of-budget-talks; Alberto Alesina and Francesco Giavazzi, “Will Coronavirus Kill the European Union?,” City Journal, March 27, 2020, https://www.city-journal.org/covid-19-european-union.

We’re going to take a break from our series on “A Biblical Approach to Politics” and take a look at something called, “American Concrete.”

There’s a platform out there that says our nation’s spiritual heritage is either fundamentally flawed or a cursory acknowledgement of an “all mighty” benefactor that is more of a token courtesy than it is a relevant fixture.

That platform is wrong.

Here’s an excerpt from a post entitled, “American Concrete.” It starts with a “Pop Quiz” that actually happens at the end of the original post, but it accomplishes what the article was designed to do by demonstrating that what we have on our coinage, as far as, “One Nation Under God,” is precisely what our Founders intended.

Happy July 4th!

In Conclusion

Pop Quiz…

Question #1: How often from June 12, 1775 till August 3rd, 1784 did Congress proclaim a National Day of either Fasting or Thanksgiving?

Answer: 18 times. Twice a year – once in March and once in October.¹⁶

Question #2: The following statement is inscribed on the Liberty Bell: “Proclaim Liberty thro’ all the Land to all the Inhabitants thereof.” What text is that taken from?

Answer: Leviticus 25:10

Question #3: What President attended church services every Sunday during his administration, approved the use of the War Office as well as the Office of the Treasury for religious services and also approved the use of the Marine Band to provide instrumental accompaniment for the religious services going on within those government facilities?

Answer: Thomas Jefferson¹⁷

Question #4: Who, more than any other single person, is pictured in various locations throughout Capitol Hill?

Answer: Moses¹⁸

Question #5: Above the figure that represents Science in the Library of Congress, there is an inscription. What is that inscription?

Answer: Psalm 19:1 (The Heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth his handiwork [Psalm 19:1])

Question #6: Who stated the following: “… it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.” a) Billy Graham b) George Washington c) George W. Bush d) Charles Spurgeon

Answer: George Washington (proclamation October 3, 1789)

Question #7: It was on April 22, 1864 that Congress resolved to institute the phrase, “In God We Trust” as our national motto. Where did they get that phrase from?

Answer: The third verse of our national anthem¹⁹:

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”

The “separation of church and state” phrase can not be accurately utilized as a legal foundation upon which to build legislative mandates to remove Christian symbols from the marketplace. When one pauses long enough to objectively evaluate the whole of Jefferson’s political regard for Christianity, the collective disposition towards religion that belonged to his peer group and the esteem for Christ that characterized the people he governed, to arrive at such a conclusion is nothing less than an irresponsible interpretation of the facts.

Yet, regardless of substantive the argument may be – that the 1947 interpretation of Jefferson’s phrase was altogether wrong – there are other forces at play that make this debate more than just an intellectual joust.

The fact that no one balked when Washington so vigorously asserted a Christian dynamic in his farewell address or no one objected to Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson crafting the preface to the Bibles that were distributed to soldiers being deployed to Europe during WWI is because the religious tenor of nation as a whole was far more healthy.

The Light of Truth is a painting that’s featured on the ceiling of the Members of Congress Reading Room in the Jefferson building which was opened in 1897. The artist, Carl Gutherz, pictures four sets of cherubs to represent four tools that are needed to fashion law that is accurate and sound: the plumb, the square, the level and the Bible. The governmental patrons that commissioned the work of Gutherz were no more concerned about his art constituting a violation of the Establishment Cause then were the members of congress who took the time to read the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as they were reprinted on the inside cover of those Bibles that were distributed to servicemen during World War II. Again, America in the 1940’s is revealed as being a nation that was collectively embracing the Truth of God, rather than dismissing it as antiquated and limiting.

The fundamental essence of our corporate perspective on the First Amendment is defined by our national regard for Christ. It’s not a legal discussion only as much as it’s a reflection of who we are spiritually.

If we are to thrive and not just endure as a nation, it’s not a debate that needs to be won as much as it’s a revival that needs to occur. Traditionally, it’s only in times of crisis when our collective knees bow in worship and the indignation of those who want to remove Christian symbols from the marketplace is processed as an obstacle to the common good rather than a catalyst. If we are to enjoy the advantages that go along with being reverent without having to be alerted to our spiritual lethargy by something dramatic, then it’s only common sense to focus on what’s True and labor to influence those on the peripheral in that direction.

Again, it’s not our history that needs to be revisited, it’s our God that needs to be lifted up (Jn 12:32). Only then do our backgrounds and varying convictions blend together in a way that is Truly strong and enduring. Only then does our spiritual heritage come into focus in a way that is not tainted by a worldly desire to distance ourselves from the Author of our freedoms. Only then is our foundation set in the concrete that is truly American as opposed to the shifting sands of cultural whims and academic trends.

Welcome to Part III of a “Biblical Approach to Politics!”

This is the last part of the first section of our discussion. In Parts 1-3, we’re talking about whether or not God cares about Politics and how our success and tenure as a nation is possible because of the Scriptural foundation upon which our approach to government is built.

Still, some would like to suggest that our Founders were not especially godly men – that they were only token Christians. And then others want to say that because many were slave owners, that their perspective is therefore suspect and the system they created should therefore be discarded.

Today we address the issue of Slavery and to what extent that should influence our view of the things they accomplished.

Here we go!

While it is not difficult to believe that the Founders based their approach to government on Christian principles, given their verbiage both public and private, it is nevertheless challenging to reconcile their perspective with the fact that many owned slaves.

While Slavery is by no means an American institution, the fact that it’s contrary to Scripture (Ex 21:16) and an inhumane practice in general, makes it easy to question the mindset of those delegates from the South that comprised the Second Continental Congress.

How do you process a document written and agreed upon by men, many of whom maintained a mindset that allowed for the enslavement of human beings? 

First of all, from a purely practical standpoint, we don’t evaluate the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence according to the character flaws of the men who wrote them. Rather, we evaluate them according to the substance of the documents themselves.

Secondly, many of those that owned slaves were the same ones who sacrificed their homes, their fortunes and, in some cases, their lives, to ensure a system of government that possessed the necessary tenants that would ultimately translate to the end of the slave trade.

Third, to align yourself with the Revolution, whether as a statesman or a soldier, you were committing treason against the crown. The punishment for that included:

• That the offender be drawn to the gallows, and not be carried or walk: though usually (by connivance length ripened by humanity into law) a sledge or hurdle is allowed, to preserve the offender from the extreme torment of being dragged on the ground or pavement
• That he be hanged by the neck and then cut down alive
• That his entrails be taken out and burned, while he is yet alive
• That his head be cut off
• That his body be divided in four parts
• That his head and quarters be at the king’s disposal⁷

This was the fate that loomed over the progress of the Revolution. Those that fought and served to win America’s independence did so risking everything. However flawed they were in the way they processed the sin of slavery doesn’t change the substance of their work. It’s that work that we honor, not just because of the sacrifices that were made which made it possible, but also because of how the biblically based freedoms those efforts established would go on to secure the liberties that timeframe denied to others.

Historian Stephen E. Ambrose sums it beautifully in an article featured in “Smithsonian Magazine:”

Slavery and discrimination cloud our minds in the most extraordinary ways, including a blanket judgment today against American slave owners in the 18th and 19th centuries. That the masters should be judged as lacking in the scope of their minds and hearts is fair, indeed must be insisted upon, but that doesn’t mean we should judge the whole of them only by this part.⁸

Some of the most accomplished characters in Scripture were guilty of some truly despicable sins: David and his affair with Bathsheba and his subsequent murder of Uriah (1 Sam 11) and Paul, one of the more prolific writers of the New Testament, condoned the murder of Stephen and was an accessory to the persecution and imprisonment of perhaps hundreds of Christians (Acts 22:17-20).

While it’s tempting to place yourself in a category distinct from that kind of wrongdoing and be able to feel as though you appear more righteous in the sight of your Heavenly Father, you have to remember that all sin requires an attitude that is as heinous as it is universal.

In order to sin in any capacity, you have to walk up to God as He’s sitting on His Throne and tell Him to get out of your chair. Granted, some sins are unintentional (Num 15:27-31), but the vast majority of them are deliberate and all of it requires grace including everything from speeding (Rom 13:1-7) to overeating (Prov 23:20-21; 1 Cor 6:19-20).

The fact of the matter is anytime you’re looking at a believer, you’re looking at two worlds that are operating side by side simultaneously. While the power of sin has been destroyed (Rom 6:6), our capacity to sin remains (Rom 7:14-25). And the thing is, in the words of Paul, “…there is nothing good in me.” (Rom 7:18) Whatever good I’m able to do, it’s more because of God working in and through me (Ezr 1:5; 1 Cor 12:6; Phil 2:13) than it is me functioning according to a morally pure mindset.

This is why we can embrace the accomplishments of certain individuals despite them having significant sin in their lives. We can applaud the Activity of God in and through an individual without endorsing the depravity of that same person.

You don’t overlook wrongdoing (1 Cor 5:13), but you never want to become so preoccupied with the sin in others that you forget the way in which God uses both brand new gloves and filthy mitts to catch fly balls. We give God the credit because it’s Him doing the work and the fact that He uses sinners like you and me is a testament to His Grace and not our goodness.

And the same thing applies to unbelievers as well. However distant that person may be from God doesn’t change the fact that God can, and often does, use people who don’t honor Him to do His Work.

King Cyrus didn’t know or acknowledge God. For an orthodox Jew, that must’ve been a hard pill to swallow given the fact that Cyrus was not only a Gentile, but he was an idolater. Yet, God referred to him as “my shepherd” and it was through Cyrus’ administration that the Hebrews were able to rebuild their capital city (Ezr 1:2-4; Is 44:28; 45:5).

The example of Cyrus demonstrates that a leader can be a heathen and still be worthy of your support because of the way their platform promotes and protects the work of God. So the question isn’t, “How can I support someone who doesn’t acknowledge God?” The question is, “Whose platform is most aligned with that which promotes and protects our nation’s spiritual wellbeing?” Or, another question which better accommodates the whole of Scripture as opposed to those passages that restrict God’s usage of individuals to those that honor Him would be, “Would you have voted for King Cyrus?”

III) Conclusion (Part I)

God cares about Politics.

He facilitates governments and He uses our involvement and prayers to accomplish His Purposes.

Our nation is founded on Christian Principles that come from the Word of God. Our Founders were not masquerading as pious human beings when they cited Divine Absolutes as the basis for their declaration to King George. Anything less than the Substance of Scripture would’ve reduced our cause to nothing more than a complaint and it’s those same Truths that guarantee our continued success and serve as the basis for the way in which we choose our elected officials.

The thing is, God does care about Politics because it’s not just “politics.” It’s either His Purposes or man’s rebellion being played out in the context of legislation and foreign policy.

God cares about Politics.

To read “A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part II,” click here…

1. “John Adams to Thomas Jefferson 28 June 1813”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0208#:~:text=The%20general%20Principles%2C%20on%20which,by%20me%20in%20my%20Answer, accessed February 2, 2022
2. “The Writings of Samuel Adams”, Harry Alonzo Cushing, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, London, 1908, p189
3. “From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102, accessed February 2, 2022
4. “Transcript of President George Washington’s Farewell Address (1796)”, ourdocuments.gov, https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page=transcript, accessed January 31, 2022
5. Alice M. Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1958), p. 170
6. Douglass Adair and John A. Schutz, eds., Peter Oliver’s Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1961), p. 41; Paul Johnson, A History of the American People (New York: HarperCollins, 1997), p. 173; John Leach, “A Journal Kept by John Leach, During His Confinement by the British, In Boston Gaol, in 1775,” The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Vol.19 (1865), p. 256
7. Blackstone, Wm., Knight. Chase, George, ed. Chase’s Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books. New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co., 1936, p891
8. “Founding Fathers and Slaveholders”, Stephen E. Ambrose, “Smithsonian Magazine”, November 2002, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/founding-fathers-and-slaveholders-72262393/, accessed February 2, 2022

Excellent Reading: “Did America Have a Christian Founding” Mark David Hall

Yesterday in Part I we concluded by saying that there’s only two religions in the world: Either God is God or man is.

Every religion, with the exception of Christianity, empowers the individual with the ability to facilitate his own salvation. Christianity is the only religion that says the only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that made it necessary.

When you pull back the curtain on this one central idea, you see the subtle supernatural dynamic being bestowed upon the individual. The fact that you can do something or abstain from something to merit heaven qualifies you, to a certain extent, as being divine…

Sound familiar?

⁴ “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. ⁵ “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:4-5)

 Kind of makes sense now, doesn’t it.

When you pull back the curtain and see how Christianity is the only authentic religion in that it’s based solely on the grace of God rather than a human being attempting to be a god, you can understand why it resonates as a stronger option in the mind of the person who recognizes the frailty of his human condition and the veiled attempt on the part of other creeds to position man as his own deity.

Moving on to Part II…!

You can also see why from a purely logical point of view that only the Absolute Power and Perspective represented by the Word of God would suffice in providing the philosophical strength the Founders needed in order to refute a monarchy and create a republic.

John Adams said it best:

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.¹

This is why the best option, when reviewing different candidates for office, is going to be the one whose policies are most consistent with Scripture.

However you may personally disagree with that premise, the verbiage of the Declaration as well as the documented comments of the early patriots demonstrates conclusively that the novel political ideas they dared to assert were not based on human preferences as much as they were Divine Guidance (see “Divine Guidance” on sidebar). And while they celebrated the Goodness of God’s Providence in the context of our nation’s initial declaration and the creation of the new Constitution, they were just as vocal in declaring that our future welfare was a certainty only if it was based on the same Resource.

Samuel Adams had this to say:

May every citizen in the army and in the country have a proper sense of the Deity upon his mind and an impression of that declaration recorded in the Bible: “Him that honoreth Me I will honor, but he that despiseth Me shall be lightly esteemed” [1 Samuel 2:30]. ²

John Adams mirrors his cousin, Samuel Adams:

…We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (John Adams)³

George Washington leaves no doubt as to his perspective on religious piety and political prosperity:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.⁴

“In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.” Washington’s words capture the spiritual and political direction that needs to be central to the platform of anyone who aspires to public office because it’s that foundation alone that guarantees a successful administration.

Some will want to insist that a Christian worldview is a needless and ignorant basis for the selection of our national leaders. They will assert the 18th popularity of Deism as a means to minimize the way in which Scripture served both as a Resource and as a Guide in the formulation of our government (see “Christianity or Deism” on sidebar).  In other instances, they’ll take statements made by those like John Adams out of context and attempt to turn them into comments that prove he didn’t perceive Christianity as the fundamental foundation for our country’s government that it is (see “The God Delusion vs The God Conclusion | Part One – FIT“).

The fact is, when you consider the spiritual fabric of our nation’s initial colonization and the way in which Christianity was such a prominent cultural fixture during the time of the Revolution, any effort to try and dismiss or qualify the fact that our country is based on Christian principles borders on the absurd.

Perhaps one of the more compelling proofs of our country’s collective regard for the application of Scripture to the cause of liberty comes from the battlefield (read the story of Major General Peter Muhlenberg by clicking here).

The “Black Robe Regiment” was the name the British troops gave the clergy who supported the Revolution from behind their pulpits with their Bibles and in combat with their rifles.

Historians have commented that:

There is not a right asserted in the Declaration of Independence which had not been discussed by the New England clergy before 1763.⁵

British soldiers went as far as saying blaming Christianity for the Revolution:

The influence of the Reformed political tradition in the Founding era is manifested in a variety of ways, but particularly noteworthy is the almost unanimous support Calvinist clergy offered to American patriots. This was noticed by the other side, as suggested by the Loyalist Peter Oliver, who railed against the “black Regiment, the dissenting Clergy, who took so active a part in the Rebellion.” King George himself reportedly referred to the War for Independence as “a Presbyterian Rebellion.” From the English perspective, British Major Harry Rooke was largely correct when he confiscated a presumably Calvinist book from an American prisoner and remarked that “[i]t is your G-d Damned Religion of this Country that ruins the Country; Damn your religion.”⁶

Tomorrow we hit Part III!