Home » Posts tagged 'Christian Nationalism'
Tag Archives: Christian Nationalism
A Useful Exploration of Truth about Christian Nationalism (Part Four)
Even though the Constitution protects against a state religion, it nevertheless projects a Christian nation. The God about which Jefferson referenced in the Declaration was the God of Christianity, who is the true God. The founders wrote a Constitution for a Christian nation. The Constitution envisions a Christian nation.
The Constitution limits the power of government based on the truth that rights come from God. Government does not give the rights that the Constitution protects. God does. This puts the true God, the God of Christianity, above the government of the United States. It also places the people of the United States under God, like the pledge reads: “one nation under God.”
The people or government of the United States cannot replace God with something else and succeed. The framework still stands and hinders a significant decline, but by replacing God the nation then essentially opposes itself. True believers will tell the truth about this, so not stay silent.
God blesses only nations whose God He is (Psalm 33:12). That is axiomatic. But I’m writing something here even more than that. The United States started as a Christian nation under the one and true God. To cease from that would make the United States a different nation than how and what it began. It would eliminate Americanism, the true nature of the nation according to its founding.
Declaration of Independence
Laws of Nature and Nature’s God
The United States declared its existence on the following self-evident truths. First,
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
This nation began with the dissolution of political bands to England. It declared that the laws of nature and nature’s God entitled it. This God is not some arbitrary God. In the context of the history of England and the United States, this was the Christian God.
All Men Are Created Equal and Endowed by their Creator with Certain Unalienable Rights
Second,
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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That 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.
This nation declared that England did not give their rights. It was endowed with those rights by their Creator, who is the Christian God. The United States could rightly abolish the former colonial government and institute a new government on the rights the Christian God gave. The Christian God possessed higher authority than England and the new nation under Whom it stood. He gave them these unalienable rights and the right of independence.
Gettysburg Address
Dedicated to the Proposition That All Men Are Created Equal
Unless the nation made a new declaration, the United States continues a Christian nation. The founding principle of the Declaration of Independence faced a challenge during the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863 and he attached that time to its founding with his words in that speech. First,
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
To start, he didn’t use the name, “God,” like Jefferson did and the Founders signed their John Hancocks. But he agreed that “our fathers” were “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” referring to the Declaration of Independence again. By saying, “created,” he alluded to the Creator, the same Christian God of 1776.
Nation Dedicated to a Proposition
If I were to choose a key word in Lincoln’s address, I would pick, “dedicate.” His speech had three paragraphs and he used the word “dedicate” as crucial in all three. This connected the following two paragraphs to the first. The founders dedicated themselves to the proposition that God created men equal, so God gave men their rights by His creation. Even if the United States did not live out that proposition, they remained dedicated to living out that proposition. Second,
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
Civil Laws and Rights
A civil action is a legal dispute based upon laws. Old Testament Israel functioned according to civil laws. Civil rights essentially means the rights God gave according to His laws, having created mankind. The term comes from the Latin, jus civis, “right of the citizen.” The North and the South fought over a disagreement about the rights of citizens.
Lincoln said the Civil War was a test to see if a nation, dedicated to the proposition that God created men equal and gave them their rights, could endure. A Christian nation cannot endure if it rejects the Christian God. I believe this nation is in another struggle right now of the same nature as 1863. Lincoln uses “dedicate” twice. Was the nation dedicated to the proposition that it received its rights from the Christian God? Lincoln expressed that the nation could live because of those who gave their lives, a very nice turn of phrase. He came to dedicate a portion of the former battlefield as their final resting place.
Paragraph Three of the Address
Abraham Lincoln memorialized the cemetery at Gettysburg, the most crucial battle and turning point in the Civil War, according to the nation’s dedication to the Christian God. Third (this is one paragraph in the speech, but I’m dividing it into two),
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Hallow or Sacred
In general, people today don’t use “dedicate,” “consecrate,” and “hallow.” “Hallow” is a form of “holiness.” Almost nothing is sacred anymore. No one wants hallowed ground. They don’t want to acknowledge anything as holy. More important are their own conveniences and privileges, living not for anything greater than themselves.
Lincoln would not use “consecrate” and “hallow” without reference to the Christian God. The ground at Gettysburg was not hallow because of a Lincoln speech. Hallow ground goes back to Exodus 3 and Moses’ encounter at the burning bush. The ground at Gettysburg was hallow because the reason that justified these men’s death. A great proposition, dedicated to the Christian God, hallowed their deaths. They didn’t die for self, for their own rights, but for rights vindicated by a biblical proposition. These were true rights that proceed first from Genesis 1 and God’s mandate.
Christian Nation
Consider again that Lincoln says, “we can not dedicate” and “to be dedicated here to the unfinished work” and “to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us.” What is the increased devotion the living were to take from the dead’s last full measure of devotion? He implied the dead at Gettysburg would die in vain without dedication to the proposition of a nation under the Christian God. The Christian God gave everyone their rights.
For a government to protect the rights of the people and be a government for the people, it must submit to the highest authority: the Christian God. This nation as a whole loses its dedication when it denies that God. It rejects its purpose for existence. No principle holds it together. How does it do that? Many, many ways that every Christian at least should understand.
I hope I’m expressing a legitimate idea or concept of Christian nationalism, based upon natural laws ordained by God, scripture, and history. Christians should not apologize for these laws, scripture, and history. It is the truth about the United States. May the one and true God, the Christian God, be praised!
More to Come
THE MOOD IS NOT THE PROBLEM IN MOSCOW, IDAHO (part three)
Tucker Interview
After already publishing parts one and two in this series, Tucker Carlson teased an interview with Douglas Wilson. This is a boon for he and his brand. Immediately Wilson wrote a post to welcome the Tucker audience with links to his numerous ventures. This gives even greater importance to exposure of Wilson. The content of the Tucker trailer also dovetails closely with this series, because Wilson mentions the gospel.
Wilson surprised me with his representation of Christian nationalism (another still ongoing series here, here, and here). It differed from his norm (see my part three). He gave no hope for Christian nationalism in the United States, except through gospel preaching. In many expositions of Christian nationalism, I don’t remember his saying that. Maybe I missed it. Postmillennialists and theonomist-types like Wilson, who envision their bringing in a physical kingdom on earth, don’t usually convey utter hopelessness remedied only by hot gospel preaching.
Perhaps the whole interview (presently behind the Tucker paywall) will reveal more. Wilson sounded good about the gospel, but he left out infant sprinkling and child communion, something he mixes with the gospel. Shouldn’t he urge Tucker’s audience also to sprinkle its infants? It’s important in his vision of Christian nationalism.
Roman Catholicism
Not Sola Scriptura
Roman Catholicism passed down infant sprinkling among many other scriptural perversions. It condemned maybe as many people to Hell as any false doctrine. Protestants continued in a system of false interpretation and doctrine, albeit better than Roman Catholicism, yet still misleading.
Protestants point to the Latin, sola scriptura, scripture alone, as their heritage. Yet, tradition still guides much of Protestantism. Infant baptism isn’t scripture alone and this challenges the Protestant embrace of sola scriptura. Keeping significant aspects of Roman Catholicism, Protestants also point back to the Catholic fathers as theirs too. Wilson has pieced together a patchwork of belief and practice that required the beginning of a new denomination, the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). Jesse Nigro in The North American Anglican writes in his analysis of Wilson:
[H]is trajectory has led him into the broader pool of “Reformed Catholicism” that Anglicans occupy.
Catholic Church
Nigro was praising Wilson. Protestants fork off the Roman Catholic line or trajectory, not in the succession of New Testament Christianity or true churches, separate from the state church, since Christ. Roman Catholicism and its stepchild Protestantism resembles little the belief and practice of the church of the New Testament. Scott Aniol writes in his review of Wilson’s book, Mere Christendom::
I am aware that Wilson’s church recognizes Roman Catholic baptisms and welcomes them to the Lord’s Table, but this Baptist considers Roman Catholicism a false religion.
In his book, Reformed Is Not Enough, Wilson wrote (pp. 73-74):
The visible church is also Catholic in an earthly sense, meaning that it is no longer confined to one nation, as it was before under the law. The visible Church is composed of anyone in the world who professes (biblically) to believe in the Christian faith. When they make this profession by means of baptism their children are attached with them. The visible church is to be understood as the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Church is the household of God, and outside of this Church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
Baptism and Salvation
Later in his section on sacerdotalism, he writes:
Baptism and salvation are not mechanically or magically linked. But in the ordinary course of life, they are linked, and we are to speak of them as though they are.
Furthermore, Wilson writes (p. 111):
By means of baptism, baptism with water, grace and salvation are conferred on the elect.
Paedocommunion
Wilson and Child Communion
In addition to the heretical practice of infant sprinkling, Wilson endorses and practices child communion, inviting the toddlers to the bread and the cup. Wilson writes:
At the very center of the strong family emphasis that you will find in our churches, you will also find our practice of communing our children at the Lord’s Table. This is unusual in Protestant churches, and in some places it is even controversial. . . . [I]n our churches, the Lord’s Table is not protected with a profession of faith; the Lord’s Table is regarded as a profession of faith.
What do Wilson and others imply by children partaking of the Lord’s Supper? They can partake worthily because they have repented, believed, and received forgiveness of sins. Children who cannot believe, do not have the capacity to do so, are said to make a profession of faith through the Lord’s Table. However, the Lord’s Table is a table of examination. A man examines himself and then eats the bread and drinks the cup.
The Wickedness of Child Communion
1 Corinthians 11:27-28 say:
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
So much contradicts clear scripture and biblical teaching with participation of children in the Lord’s Table. Wilson argues that paedocommunion follows paedobaptism, when he writes:
[T]he apostle Paul compares the entire congregation to one loaf of bread (1 Cor. 10:17). And it is our conviction that all who are bread should get bread.
This is a typical turn-of-phrase or rhetorical flourish intended to persuade in some doctrinal or practical position. Wilson sounds interesting, but he’s false. His teaching confuses the gospel. It brings God’s judgment down on unworthy partakers of the table. Finally, it corrupts the true nature of the church. One can truly say that paedocommunion is false worship. It is not an act of faith in God, but man-ordained, human innovation.
More to Come
A Useful Exploration of Truth about Christian Nationalism (Part Three)
Teach All Nations
Matthew 28:19-20 say:
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
I ask you to notice above, “teach all nations.” The Great Commission requires teaching all nations. We want entire nations to follow Christ. Will that always occur? No, but it is a goal. It is a holy ambition for true churches and believers in those churches following Christ. How does this relate to Christian nationalism?
In verse 20, part of teaching all nations is “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Christians should wish the nations in which they live would observe all things Christ commanded. God’s Word is still the standard for all of mankind. God will judge everyone based on His rules or laws.
True Christians and their true churches should repudiate all the ways that a nation does not follow the Lord. They should strive for a nation that follows the Lord. What Christian would not want a “Christian nation”? Would that not be a nation that follows Christ in all things? When Christians go to judge their nation, they should judge it based upon scripture. They should vote for representatives with the greatest opportunity or possibility of their nation following the standards of God.
Imagining a Christian Nation
What I’m writing so far in this essay is not a form of amillennialism or postmillennialism. I’m not talking about someone other than Jesus bringing in His kingdom. Romans 13 says there is “no power but of God” (verse one). It goes on to say that “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil” (verse three). Good works are not arbitrary. They are only biblical good works. Evil is as God defines it. People have liberty only in the context of scriptural regulation or accurate interpretation and application of the Bible.
Rulers in a Christian United States would terrorize evil and elsewise “minister . . . for good” (verse four) only in a biblical or Christian fashion. Making disciples of the nation requires observing everything Christ wants observed. Right before His commission in Matthew 28, Jesus said that He possessed all authority for all of heaven and all of earth. Jesus will judge the world like He owns it and always has owned it. If we want His judgment to go well for everyone, we must let them know in no uncertain terms.
For sure, Christians of a nation start with the gospel. No one observes whatsoever Christ says without surrendering first to the gospel. A nation won’t be Christian without Christians, but when they are Christians, that means what some people have said, “All of Christ for all of life.” This means Christ rules in the home, at work, and in government. The words of Christ apply to every earthly institution if Christ will rule.
Jesus and the Christian Nation
Will Christ rule over this world? Yes, He will. He will begin a rule with a rod of iron (Psalm 2) when He returns to set up that kingdom on the earth for a thousand years. So is that it? Is that all anyone could hope for? Mainly, yes. Jesus said in Matthew 18:36, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.”
When Jesus said what He did in Matthew 18:36, one could take it as the following:
Look around. Does this look like my kingdom? Of course, not. This is not anything like my kingdom. My kingdom is not of this world.
Jesus’ plan was not to force everyone into His kingdom. He does not coerce people into His kingdom. His subjects would subject themselves to Him voluntarily. That’s His plan for His kingdom.
Internal Rule First
External rule of Jesus proceeds from internal rule of Jesus. The spiritual precedes the physical. It isn’t mere conformity. It is transformation. If a nation skips this transformation step, it’ll probably get something like the seven demons possessing the swept out house (Luke 11).
Kingdoms of this present world, the one Jesus talked about in Matthew 18, as a whole would not come to Him. That’s why in Matthew 7:13-14, He said the broad road leads to destruction and the vast majority go down that road. Jesus did not since rescind that statement. He has not said: “At some point the broad road would be full of true believers on their way to heaven.” If Jesus said that, then it is true, no matter what your desires.
Yet, anyone following Christ will follow Him in every arena of life. A Christian nation can come, but it will come through faith in Christ. The way to a Christian nation is faith in Christ. Before nations behave in their governments as if He rules, they will receive Him to rule their own personal lives. One should expect that true Christians in a government would function like Christians.
Christians don’t want a pagan government. They don’t want an idolatrous government. True Christians as much as possible want a Christian government. To the degree that it is one, it can be a Christian nation.
How a Christian Nation Might Occur
If churches are barely Christian, and if all of Christ is not even all of the church, no one should expect that of the whole nation. This is a simple less than and greater than — not about what is most important, but sheer population size of the institution. Jesus should rule each Christian — one. Then He should rule each family — two to fifteen (let’s estimate), then each church — ten to five thousand, and then each government or nation — several thousands to a billion. The order matters. The latter won’t occur without the former. You can’t get to a Christian nation without getting to quite a few single Christians, who received a true gospel.
No Christian should hope to see a Christian nation without making one disciple. Yet, Jesus commanded, “Teach (make disciples) all nations.” In other words, “Make all nations disciples.” He didn’t command, “Make disciples of, as in part of, all nations.” The goal is whole nations. BDAG says concerning the Greek term translated “nations”: “a body of persons united by kinship, culture, and common traditions.”
What Christ Would Have It
The goal, all of Christ for all of life for all of the world, must envision whole nations. Scripture must get to every institution God instituted. Scott Aniol, who has written a book on this subject (that I have not yet read), it seems, would call this position, “Christian Faithfulness.” Scripture does envision a kingdom of Christ on earth to come and tells us what it will be. Anything that might call itself a Christian nation should not be something less than what Christ would have it.
Christians can’t skip steps to get to Christian nationalism. It starts with internal rule, spiritual transformation. Anything else would essentially say, “Christians fight.” Get armed and loaded and ready for when the pagans who saturate our government take our power away. Without true Christians, what would that nation or government look like on the other side of that fight? Christ has us here now as pilgrims and strangers. Anything beyond that, that might come before the kingdom Christ sets up, will come in an organic way. It will be obvious, which right now, it’s not even close to obvious.
More to Come
A Useful Exploration of Truth about Christian Nationalism (Part Two)
Seeds of Christian Nationalism
Scripture teaches nothing about anything remotely Christian nationalism for the New Testament church age. Christian nationalism must arise at the most from principles through scripture that permit Christian nationalism. Is that possible? I think a semblance of that is. True believers in Jesus Christ, Christians, could hope for that. However, before I write about that, I will deal with the Christian nationalism movement in the United States, as I see it.
The Christian nationalist movement in the United States arises from the false eschatology of postmillennialism and a false ecclesiology of paedo baptism and communion. I suggest that several factors have contributed to this theonomist style or Christian reconstructionist postmillenial revival.
Recent Embrace of Protestant Theology
Not necessarily in this order, but, one, postmillennialism proceeds from recent new embrace of Protestant theology, some being a new Calvinism, or the “young, restless, and Reformed movement.” Many factors, I believe and have witnessed, led to the attraction to this faction of professing Christianity. The Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 1:22: “For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom.” The latter wisdom, one might also call, “intellectualism.” Perhaps an insipid, superficial evangelicalism swung the pendulum to theological seriousness and the greatest allure to a muscular, Puritanical determinism with heavy historical roots.
Attack on the Male Role in Society
Two, the elimination of and attack on a male role in society and growing egalitarianism pushed young men toward a more masculine view of the world. Postmillennial theonomy embraces not just complementary roles for men and women, but thoroughgoing Patriarchy. This also explains the great popularity of Jordan Peterson, who promotes the significance of the Patriarchy and a unique place for men in the culture.
Other Reasons for the Rise of Christian Nationalism Propositions
Three, men responded to the degradation of the culture. The United States slouches toward Gomorrah. The weakness all around begs for an answer or a reaction. Men don’t like what they are seeing. This corresponds with the decline of the United States on the world stage, a porous border, and decrepit leaders.
Four, the Postmillennials have some effective spokesmen, that contrast with the ineffectiveness of the alternative. I would compare Russell Moore, now editor of Christianity Today, and Douglas Wilson. The former capitulates and whine and the latter puts on the battle fatigues.
Five, even though Trump himself is not a Christian, Christian nationalism dovetails with the rise of Trump. It would take some explaining here, which I don’t think is too difficult, but I’ll leave it at that one sentence.
Premillennialism the Truth
Scripture is plain on the future or how everything will end. It is not postmillennial. Premillennialism represents a grammatical, historical interpretation of scripture. It is how the Bible reads. Premillennialism does not correspond well to a biblical presentation of Christian nationalism.
Based on this understanding of the future, Scott Aniol has written a different position than Christian Nationalism, that he calls Christian Faithfulness (he further argues here). I can’t disagree with anything Aniol says about this and generally agree with his criticism of the positions of Stephen Wolf and Douglas Wilson. I haven’t read Aniol’s new book, Citizens and Exiles: Christian Faithfulness in God’s Two Kingdoms, so I don’t know how far he goes in his vision for the nation.
The Likelihood or Unlikelihood of Christian Nationalism
Without having read Aniol’s book, I’m certain I would go further than Aniol and propose something toward Christian Nationalism without actual Christian Nationalism. I explained some of this in part one. In a refreshing way, Aniol calls himself a Baptist. I am a Baptist. Baptists as one of their distinctives claim the separation of church and state, even if the United States Constitution does not claim that. Baptists have taken strongly a very anti church state doctrine. The Baptists promoted and ratified the first amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Aniol has coined a new position related to the Christian Nationalism debate: Christian Faithfulness. My thinking has not yet congealed into a position. Maybe it won’t get to that and I could hold some version of Christian Faithfulness. I want to and will explain where I am right now.
More to Come
A Useful Exploration of Truth about Christian Nationalism
Probing Christian Nationalism
The mainstream media now uses the words “Christian nationalism” as a political cudgel against Republicans. Rob Reiner, the former “meathead” of Archie Bunker fame produced a documentary against his caricature of “Christian nationalism.” The left labels new Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, a “Christian Nationalist.” This last week, Politico writer, Heidi Przybyla, made news herself with this statement on television, attacking Christian Nationalism:
The thing that unites them as Christian nationalists, not Christians because Christian nationalists are very different, is that they believe that our rights as Americans and as all human beings do not come from any Earthly authority. They don’t come from Congress, from the Supreme Court, they come from God. . . . The problem with that is that they are determining, men, are determining what God is telling them.
Apparently this is news on the left, that people believe that rights come from God. This was, of course, found in the Declaration of Independence (1776) by the apparently Christian Nationalist, Thomas Jefferson:
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.
Not long ago in 2018, professing conservative commentator, Jonah Goldberg, wrote something akin to Przybyla in National Review:
Let’s begin with some somewhat unusual assertions for these pages.
Capitalism is unnatural. Democracy is unnatural. Human rights are unnatural. God didn’t give us these things, or anything else. We stumbled into modernity accidentally, not by any divine plan.
Christian Discussion of Christian Nationalism
As much as the left picks Christian Nationalism as a talking point, Christians are discussing it. Here are important books in the debate:
The Case for Christian Nationalism, by Stephen Wolfe
Citizens & Exiles: Christian Faithfulness in God’s Two Kingdoms, by Scott Aniol
Also several have written many articles on Christian Nationalism, both pro and con. I understand the rise of the terminology. I’ve written posts here with a consideration of Christian Nationalism, but the very idea of consideration drew fierce opposition for even broaching the subject. Never have I said I agreed with Christian Nationalism. However, I have questions that did not and do not relate to the popularization of the concept of Christian Nationalism.
Basis For Considering Christian Nationalism
My questions and then thoughts, perhaps answers, arise from the following.
One
One, the first amendment of the Bill of Rights and to the United States Constitution guarantees religious freedom. The first sentence of the Bill of Rights starts with this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Analysis sees two clauses: (1) no establishment of state religion, and (2) free exercise of religion. I contend there is already the establishment of a state religion and that free exercise is at least abridged. The latter proceeds from the former. I like saying, “If there is a state religion, then it matters which one.” There is a state religion and it is against God, not even for God. Everyone does already subjugate to the anti-God state religion.
Two
Two, if the United States functions according to God-given rights, then it should not ignore the one and true God. All truth comes from God and it is a lie when the state will not acknowledge this. Going back to number one, it is a religion that rejects this, not neutrality.
The vacuum from great desire not to establish state religion acquiesces to false state religion. God is truth. The Bible is truth. The one God and His Word, the Bible, are not some tier of religion, which is separate from reality. This is our Father’s world. A nation cannot and will not function according to truth and laws without the acknowledgment of the true God.
Three
Three, God wants application of His Word to everything. The Bible is sufficient. God wants application of scripture to employment, to culture, to art, to government, yes, to everything and everywhere. To occur, this must be open, welcome, and purposeful. It should not be a process incessantly hidden or camouflaged, so as not to reveal its occurrence. Let God be God.
Four
Four, free exercise requires openness in conversation about everything in God’s Word. It requires quoting scripture like scripture is in fact authority. This means saying, we’re going to do this because God wants us to. God founded government. It isn’t matter and motion. Truly discussing rights, since they do come from God, requires including God in the discussion.
Opening the Can of Worms
I believe I can give more than the above four, but that’s enough to percolate thinking and expressing on this matter. The closing of the Constitution of the United States does not mean the end of discussion on the Constitution. It is not inspired. It is not God’s Word. Did it fail in the first amendment and really throughout the Constitution because of that failure?
Before the completion of the United State Constitution, Hamilton and Madison spent hundreds of pages discussing these ideas. Did that yield a perfect masterpiece? Is any kind of correction over? Questioning it is not akin to challenging the Word of God. I believe it is just the opposite. The Bible requires someone to prove it and even go back to the drawing board.
More to Come
Recent Comments