Tag Archives: The Bible

Bill Lockwood: Sweet Home Alabama!

by Bill Lockwood

Alabama governor Kay Ivey just signed into law the toughest anti-abortion bill in America. The new law, which such groups as the ACLU plan to challenge in court, makes it a felony for a doctor to perform an abortion at any stage of pregnancy—punishable by up to 99 years in jail.

Predictably, liberal groups are bewailing the measure. Staci Fox of Planned Parenthood Southeast said: “Today is a dark day for women in Alabama and across the country.” But it the meltdown prize goes, hands-down, to Alabama Democratic Senator Bobby Singleton. On the floor of the Senate he ranted,

“You don’t care about babies for real you just kicked them in the stomach, and you aborted them yourself! You just aborted the state of Alabama with your rhetoric with this bill!”

“You just aborted the state of Alabama yourself, and all of you should be put in jail for this abortion that you just laid on the state of Alabama! … Don’t come to me talking about giving big business some more incentive just to come to the state of Alabama to do business in the state of Alabama when you don’t care nothing about the citizens of the state of Alabama!” Singleton exclaimed.

“When you don’t care nothing about mothers in the state of Alabama! When you don’t care nothing about whether or not men take advantage of women and rape them and take something out of them and you still want them to have a child out of that bad act that’s on them, and you still want them to have a child! You just aborted the state of Alabama! You just raped the state of Alabama with this bill …!”

It is difficult to know where to begin with such an ungrammatical non-reasoning rant. What does “aborting the state of Alabama” mean? And why should it be punishable by death when Sen. Singleton thinks that murdering unborn children ought to be allowed? How is the state more valuable than its citizens?

Apparently, not everyone in the Bible belt is familiar with the prominent text from Psalms 139:13-14, “You [God] formed by inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”

How this will play out in the courts, who knows?

Jesse Lee Peterson, host of the Jesse Lee Peterson Show (Rebuildingtheman.com), commented only three words when asked about his home state of Alabama and its tough stance: “Sweet Home Alabama!”

AOC?

Now comes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter showing her true Democrat colors and blatantly lying about the law. She bemoaned the law this way: “Alabama lawmakers are making all abortions a felony punishable with jail-time, including women victimized by rape+incest.”

Of course, that is a bold lie. The law does not jail women who abort their babies, but the abortion providers. When called in the carpet for her lie, like a little child she lied again. Liz Wheeler of One America News Network put it clearly. “Under no circumstances would women be jailed for abortions. The abortionist would be penalized.”

To that public corrective, AOC responded to Wheeler with this: “Actually, it would be a felony for women—if those women are medical providers. See?” (Warner Todd Huston, godfatherpolitics.com).

Then follows another foolish statement repeated by AOC that too frequently goes unanswered. “This law forces people to be pregnant against their own consent.”

This reminds me of a pro-abortionist woman who told me upon one occasion, “If you [by government law] force me to keep the child, then you will have to help me raise it.” In other words, some of these women demand public hand-outs or welfare, financed by me, if they cannot abort (kill) their children.

No. There is the option that no one wants to discuss. Quit having sex outside of a legitimate marriage. Sexual activity has consequences—and it seeks to overturn the law of God to thrust the consequences of your sinful actions upon me.

But what about women who are victims of rape who are being “forced” to carry pregnancy to term? AOC gets all worked up about this. The answer is, if American went back to the standard of God which properly punished such crimes as sexual assault, then the issue would all but evaporate.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 prescribes the death penalty for both the man and the woman in consensual encounters. In the next verses, 25-27, a sexual assault, not consensual encounter, is described. In this case, “then only the man who lies with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case.”

Bringing back the death sentence, and execution in a timely fashion, shows that we are serious about these types of crimes. Instead, our soft penal system does not deter from crime, and sexual assault becomes rampant.

In the end, the question is: Is it life in the womb or not? The Bible and science agree that it is—from the moment of conception. Since that is the case—it is nothing less than murder to take willingly the life of the unborn. It is refreshing that lawmakers in the great state of Alabama understand this and will legislate accordingly.

Bill Lockwood: Spiritual Guidance & Modern Superstition

by Bill Lockwood

In Mexico, and in Mexican communities in places such as Los Angeles, there’s a lively movement of prayer to Santa Muerte, Saint Death. You pray to her for protection from the dangers of the night, in the conviction that she can protect you from attack, accident, and violent death. She can also bring trouble to someone who has attacked you unjustly. Prayer to Santa Muerte goes back to the religious life of people in the area before the gospel came to the Americas. (1)

Our modern era is supposed to be a bold new age that has cast off its need for God and the supernatural. According to modernists who signed the Humanist Manifesto’s I & II and the Humanist Manifesto 2000 mankind has outgrown its need for “God.” In reality, however, modernists who reject God eventually opt for the false religious ideas of man—the “god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4).

By the “god of this age” the apostle Paul, who penned 2 Corinthians, referred to “all the floating mass of thoughts, opinions, maxims, speculations, hopes, impulses, aims, aspirations at any time current in the world.” (2) These are precisely what are lauded by today’s cultural leaders.

A recent Pew Research study found that a large and growing percentage of Americans believe in reincarnation, astrology, psychics, and the presence of spirits in nature. The shock comes, however, in that not only do 6 in 10 Americans accept these beliefs, but that the numbers are the same among those who are self-professed Christians. Even agnostics have adopted occult ideas.

According to a new research by Trinity College in Connecticut, Wicca is one of the fastest-growing religions in the country. Between 1990 and 2008, it saw a forty-fold increase in the number of adherents. One-and-a-half million Americans now identify as either Wiccan or Pagan. As The Christian Post put it, “Wicca functions as a spiritual patina on progressive politics.” The occult is becoming mainstream in America. Such is a culture that continues to reject God.

Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is not simply the recognition that there are various cultures in the world, or even represented in the United States. According to Charles Tesconi at the College of Education at the University of Vermont, multiculturalism specifically views “all value systems as equal.” The multicultural view treats all diverse groups and ways of life as equally “legitimate.”  “Moral diversity” is the idea. This multicultural perspective therefore de-values biblical concepts as no more valid than any pagan or heathen belief. This is what is integrated into nearly all areas of public education and entertainment. “Diversity” is the watchword.

An example is the recent Disney movie Coco, a beautifully animated film that celebrates the Mexican tradition known as Dia de Muertos (Day of the Dead). Dia de Muertos has its roots in a “pre-Hispanic commemoration of deceased loved ones that is practiced by some Latin American indigenous populations” (Smithsonian.com). The film “draws its cultural inspiration from several Mexican variations of this tradition, which also happen to be those most commonly found in the United States.”

In the story-line, Miguel, a young boy is transported to the place of the dead in order to speak with his deceased ancestors. Cynthia Vidaurri, the writer of Smithsonian’s review, then asks:

So here is the big question: Did Disney Pixar get it right? My first response is to ask another question, ‘Right by whose standard?’ Are we talking about the indigenous traditions of celebrating ancestors as they were practiced before the arrival of the Europeans? … What about the Day of the Dead that merged with Roman Catholic practices after the arrival of the Europeans in the Americans? What about the Mexican national celebration? What about the Day of the Dead tradition introduced to the U.S. by Mexican Americans during the Chicano Movement of the 1960’s and 1970’s? Or maybe the Day of the Dead Traditions that are practices by recently immigrated Indigenous Latino populations in the U.S.?

The Smithsonian plainly challenges the cultural norm that was once common-stock in America—Christianity. Right by whose standard? There is no ultimate standard to multiculturalists. This is what we are being constantly fed, from the entertainment industry to the schoolhouse where “diversity” reigns. Little wonder that various forms of superstition such as Wicca, occultism, and prayers to Santa Muerte are being practiced. Remove the One True God from the culture and everything else becomes fashionable.

Isaiah 8

Many of Isaiah’s day (8 centuries B.C. in Israel) felt the same way. Turning away from God, however, they turned to superstition. Isaiah, the inspired prophet of God, relates that they sought spiritual guidance from “familiar spirits” and “wizards.” Some of these “chirped” and “muttered” out their instructions. Others among the Israelites assumed that dead people had access to information that was normally inaccessible to the living. They therefore sought to contact “dead people” in Sheol, especially their relatives to get guidance for the future or advice about coping with the crisis at hand—the threats from foreign nations (Isaiah 8:19).

Isaiah “bursts out” against all such occult practices that seek guidance from anything but God. “To the law and to the testimony!—if they will not speak according to His Word, there is no dawn of morning for them!” (8:20). Our culture condemns itself to the night from which there is no morning—if we do not seek spiritual guidance only from God.

(1) John Goldingay, Isaiah for Everyone, p. 37.

(2) Fritz Rienecker & Cleon Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, p. 463.

Bill Lockwood: Mixing Politics and Religion

by Bill Lockwood

In a letter to his wife Abigail in May, 1780, John Adams famously wrote:

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.

To John Adams the most important element of life was family. His continual service to the nation included that he was a delegate to the Continental Congress, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, an official Minister to England on behalf of the United States, and the second President of the United States. But this service he considered a “necessary evil” in order that he might enjoy pleasures of family and that his own future generations might enjoy the same.

In our modern era where warnings against “mixing politics and religion” are memorized and repeated without any real deep thought as to why or even what this means, Adams teaches us a few things about it. His keen mind was able to probe the issues of life and distill the principles and realities involved.

In analyzing what Adams meant when he said “I must study politics that my sons may have liberty to study …”, note the following.

What is Politics?

First, what is Politics? Politics simply means the management or administration of society. The word “politics’ is from the Greek word ‘politika’ meaning the “affairs of a city.” It is “the process of making decisions that apply to members of a group” (Wikepedia). Frequently the word “politics” is used negatively, such as in “play politics.” The root idea of the word, however, refers to principles by which people are to be governed.

The question now becomes, by what set of principles shall we govern society? Shall we use biblical principles or humanistic ones? Shall we use God-inspired principles upon which to base human laws, or shall we simply drift off into allowing people to do “what every man thinks is right in his own eyes?” The only issue in our society therefore is whether or not we plan to manage ourselves according to Christian principles.

This applies to a wide variety of social levels: the workplace, the office, the team, the church, or cities and nations; there is even “international politics.” All policies that are adopted in these various groups are called “public policies” precisely because those policies effect others. Once again, these policies will either reflect Christianity or humanism (non-religion).

These facts being so, whence comes the idea that Christian people should remain free from “politics?” Is it somehow inconsistent with biblical values that Christians should not influence public policy?

Freedom Politics is Pro-Family

Returning to Adams’ quote above, note that he was interested in freedom for his family. He wanted to construct a society along Christian principles that by this framework of freedom his family in future generations might continue to enjoy liberty. Specifically, limited government would allow personal freedom to flourish while at the same time curtail dictatorships or top-down controls that destroy freedom.

A sidebar note: Many confuse Roman Catholicism with New Testament Christianity. Not only were the colonists almost 95% Protestant in their belief-systems, but were afraid of Catholicism. The reason for this is clear. Roman Catholicism is an unbiblical political system that was constructed through the centuries to mimic Old World kingdoms such as the Roman. It too, therefore, is dictatorial and stifles freedom. Its record as a tyrannical power is matched only by other forms of government absolutisms.

Adams was well-aware of all of this. This is why that during the tumultuous formation of the United States he felt that he needed to invest time in order to create a political landscape such that allowed freedom to ring—but this was in order that his children might be able to enjoy more pleasurable pursuits. The political machinery of a nation is a direct reflection of religious values and presuppositions that underlie the society. For future family freedom, Christian politics was necessary.

Politics was not just one “hobby” that Adams chose among others he might have chosen, even though that is the casual way people view politics today. Adams showed this by couching it in his word “must.” In other words, politics was his “duty.” It functioned as an obligation. Political freedom is foundational to other freedoms.

To illustrate, Adams used “war.” Those who enjoy freedom and liberty rely on the sacrifices of untold thousands who study war and become warriors. A warriors’ occupation is not like playing sports, or collecting old cars or antiques. Without a fight for freedom, there would be no games to play or antiques to collect. Someone must do this business of war if we are to have pleasures of life. If we were all running for our lives from enemy soldiers, who cares about playing games?

So also is managing people by politics. It is foundational to freedom at large. For this reason, Cicero, the ancient Roman statesman at the time of Julius Caesar, observed: “For there is really no occupation in which human virtue approaches more closely the august function of the gods than that of founding states or preserving those already in existence.”

So exactly. Christians, being correctly informed, can change the character of the political landscape. By bringing the moral standards of Christ into the civic arena, society itself is transformed. The gospel of Christ not only changes lives and hearts of men, but the course of civil government. Why should Christians not be involved in politics?

Bill Lockwood-The Value of History

by Bill Lockwood

George Santayana famously remarked, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” History is an insightful teacher which helps guide us in the future. But if it is to be helpful and not harmful, we must have a realistic view of the past. For this reason, in order to turn societies on their heads, Karl Marx observed that “the first battlefield is to re-write history.” William Z. Foster, long-time head of the Communist Party in America, said “Our teachers must re-write history from the Marxian viewpoint.”

The reason that communists, progressives, and socialists wish to re-write history is perhaps best described by George Orwell. “Those who control the present, control the past; and those who control the past control the future.”

Distorting history has long been the stock-in-trade of all leftists in Western culture, from socialists, progressives, humanists, atheists, feminists, to Marxists and communists. Environmentalists paint grim pictures of Industrial America. Nativists wish to perpetuate the “indigenous” Indian culture on this continent in opposition to the Christian ideals of freedom and respect of human life enshrined in our Constitution.

Practically the only fact of history recited by schoolchildren from kindergarten to college is that America once had black slaves. The message inherent here is that the current generations should pay some kind of reparation.

This hatred of Americana is evident everywhere.  History classes regularly excoriate the founding generation for allowing slavery while completely ignoring the fact that not one slave was brought to America that did not originate with Muslim pirates who enslaved over 180 million Africans and over a million Europeans. Every single slave that came to America had been purchased from Muslim slave-traders. Not only is this a fact of history, but the Koran actually depicts Allah as teaching and demanding slavery. Yet, Islam is taught in a positive light in the same public schools. How can this be?

The point is: this lop-sided instruction demonstrates that our culture is seeking to make some value-judgments of these things. Cultural leaders are almost completely leftists who are controlling the past and thereby controlling the future. Scholars call this “historical negation”—an illegitimate distortion of the historical record.

Columnist Bill Federer (World Net Daily, 9.12.17) reminds us of the methodology of communism. (1) Say negative things about a country’s founders so people emotionally detach from them. (2) Then the people are moved into a neutral position where they don’t remember where they came from. (3) Then they can be easily brainwashed into the communist future planned for them.

This sums up well what is occurring in America. Consider the ways this distortion of history influences society.

First, a political influence. The beginning point of shaping the future is to shape the politics of the day. Once historical myths such as Indian Genocide by Americans is perpetuated, politics are influenced. The Welfare State as a means of “reparation” continues—regardless of the plain facts that joblessness, alcoholism, fatherless families, depression, suicide and other societal problems are sky-high on Indian reservations. But these are directly related to the fact that those who live on reservations have been on the government dole for over 100 years. Individuals have little or no dignity remaining.

Exactly the same issue regards admissions into colleges, universities and graduate schools. Minorities, whose ancestors, it is held, have been oppressed in one fashion or another, have preference over other potential students regardless of academic qualification. We do not have an even playing-field nor are we likely to see one as long as history continues to be misrepresented and abused.

Second, an ideological influence. Michael d’Ancona, a columnist for The Guardian and one of the UK’s liberal political journalists, stated that historical “negationists” “seem to have been given the task in [a] nation’s cultural development, the full significance of which is emerging only now: To redefine [national] status in a changing world.”

He was speaking of Great Britain and the desire by many Brits to exit the European Union. In other words, history is being used as a “social resource” that helps shape “national identity” as well as the culture and its “public memory.” “Through the study of history, people are imbued with a particular cultural identity; therefore, by negatively revising history, the negationist can craft a specific, ideological identity,” correctly notes an article on Wikipedia.

There is that ideological identity which speaks to who we are as a nation. History is being manipulated to re-shape our identity as an American nation under God.

Third, a religious influence. The Bible in the Old Testament continually admonished the Hebrews to “teach their children” not only the ways of the Lord (Dt. 6:4-6); but to constantly remind them of their own past.  When Joshua led the Israelites through the Jordan River safely to the western bank, he erected a monument with the specific instruction: “When your children ask in time to come, What means these stones?” they were to remind them of the event it commemorated. The entire 78th Psalm can be entitled: “Remember to Remember.” Don’t forget your history.

The psalm tells the Hebrews “do not forget.” Teach your children (v. 4); Do not forget the works of God (v. 7); the generations before us “forgot God’s doings” (v. 11); the generation of Jews that came out of Egypt ended up “not believing God” (v. 22); they “did not remember his hand when He redeemed them from the adversary” (v. 42). Because of their forgetfulness God delivered them to enemies (v. 61). The nation finally went to captivity and slavery in foreign nations.

Americans have the same forgetfulness. Our nation was established to be “A Christian Nation” precisely because of biblical and Christian principles that were engrafted into its legal fabric. For this reason and this reason alone we have enjoyed the greatest liberties that history has ever known in any society. But who reads history any more? Our forgetfulness of these fundamentals is turning us into a secular society that more closely resembles a socialistic state of Europe than the free nation of our forefathers.

Bill Lockwood: True Religion Results in Free-Will Giving: Not Jizya or Socialistic Forcible Taxation & Redistribution

by Bill Lockwood

By speaking of the reign of Solomon (970-931 B.C.), which was a foreshadowing of Christ’s kingdom, the Psalmist in chapter 72 depicts the expansive coming reign as being from “sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth” (72:8). During this reign of the Messiah the kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts (10).

Charles Spurgeon, the matchless commentator on the Psalms, observed at these verses,

…true religion leads to generous giving; we are not taxed in Christ’s dominions, but we are delighted to offer freely to him… This free-will offering is all Christ and his church desire; they want to forced levies and distraints [to seize by distress], let all men give of their own free will, kings as well as commoners; …

Free will offerings. This is the only giving known in the New Testament. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 9:7 “Let each man do according as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly, nor of necessity, for God loves a cheerful giver.” For this reason, Paul writes the letter and encourages by persuasion the churches to freely give. How beautiful is this precedent compared to other systems and man-made religions and systems!

Compare Giving to Islamic Jizya

Mohammed absolutely established that people of other religious persuasions must pay a poll tax to Muslims called the jizya. This was specifically that they might recognize they were inferior to Muslims. “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (Koran 9:29).

From the religionofpeace.com website:

Traditionally the collection of the jizya occurs at a ceremony that is designed to emphasize the subordinate status of the non-Muslim, where the subject is often struck in a humiliating fashion. M.A. Khan recounts that some Islamic clerics encouraged tax collectors to spit into the mouths of Hindu dhimmis during the process. He also quotes the popular Sufi teacher, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi:

The honor of Islam lies in insulting the unbelief and the unbelievers (kafirs). One who respects kafirs dishonors Muslims… The real purpose of levying the Jizya on them is to humiliate them… [and] they remain terrified and trembling.

The jizya (or extortion) is one of the main cornerstones of the entire system of Islam. It institutionalizes forever the fact that, in the eyes of Muslims, non-Muslims have an inferior status in Muslim nations.

Another example is this that there is no way to live peaceably with Islam. Where it has dominated a culture, it has exacted a forcible toll on all non-Muslim peoples throughout the centuries—without exception. As it develops and engulfs a culture, Islam is designed to extinguish all Kafir civilizations. It is but a reflection of Mohammed himself who did not stop the conquering of Arabia until 100% of his demands were met.

This is just one example that demonstrates that Islam is not a religion of God, depending upon thoughtful reasoning and persuasion by argumentation; but a man-made totalitarian system relying solely upon force. When one comes out of the dank dungeon of Islam, and stands upon the mountaintops of Christianity, he is able to breathe the clean fresh air of a religion of the heart whose founder, Jesus Christ, never used violence or force to subjugate man, but died on the cross for the sins of the world.

Compare Giving to Socialism or Social Justice

Social Justice is not simply doing humanitarian acts of kindness as Buckley and Dobson suppose in Humanitarian Jesus: Social Justice and the Cross. “The Social Gospel asks Christians to be concerned and invested in the world around them” (p. 42). The authors suggest that the entire issue is about whether first to give a tract or a sandwich to those in need? (p. 43) This is ignorance as to what is social justice or socialism.

The great author and thinker Thomas Sowell explains: “Central to the concept of social justice is the notion that individuals are entitled to some share in the wealth produced by society, and irrespective of any individual contributions made or not made to the production of that wealth.” (A Conflict of Visions, 216)

But if all people in society are entitled to a share in that which I produce, how shall this be enforced? For this reason, socialism by definition implies the “expansion of the government domain to produce social results to which particular individuals are morally entitled.”

So states The National Association of Scholars. The term “social justice”, or socialism, they explain, is today understood to mean the “advocacy of egalitarian access to income through state-sponsored redistribution.”

But state-sponsored redistribution of my production begins with theft. Forcible removing from me of the fruits of my own production to give to others. This is not even remotely associated with the free-will giving taught by Christianity. If it is, why must there be a gigantic state to enforce it?

The French writer, Frederic Bastiat was correct therefore to explain socialism as plunder.

See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. . . It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder. (Bastiat, The Law, p. 17).

That the above has already occurred in America is obvious. The evil is already upon us. A gigantic welfare state.  Former Texas Congressman Ron Paul summarizes it well.

From lower-income Americans who rely on food stamps, public housing, and other government programs, to middle-class Americans who live in homes they could not afford without assistance from federal agencies like Fannies Mae and Freddie Mac, to college students reliant on government-subsidized student loans, to senior citizens reliant on Social Security and Medicare, to billionaire CEOs whose companies rely on bailouts, subsidies, laws and regulations written to benefit politically-powerful businesses, and government contracts, most Americans are reliant on at least one federal program. (Dec. 31, 2018. Ronpaulinstitute.org)

Make no mistake. The Welfare State is nothing akin to the free-will giving of Christianity. Once again, instead of relying on force to confiscate and redistribute, the early church in the book of Acts willingly and freely gave of their possessions to assist others (Acts 2:43-47; 5:1-4). There is a world of difference between the Bible and the systems of man.

Natural Law

Natural Law– “All humans have impressed upon them from the beginning of creation the principles of Natural Law…”

by Bill Lockwood

Sir William Blackstone was an English jurist, judge and politician of eighteenth century England. His Commentaries on the Laws of England were a profound study of natural law and the founders of our nation carried Blackstone with them as a reference and guide. Even Abraham Lincoln loved Blackstone and studied him copiously.

One paramount principle which our founders loved was Blackstone’s explanation of Natural Law. Blackstone wrote in 1765:

This natural law, being as old as mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, from this original.

Note the following: (1) These laws are dictated by God himself. (2) They are binding to all men everywhere. (3) No human law that violates natural law is of any validity. One can hear echoes of this in the Declaration of Independence. Again, from Blackstone:

Thus when the Supreme Being formed the universe, and created matter out of nothing, He impressed certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be. When He put the matter into motion, He established certain laws of motion, to which all movable bodies must conform. And, to descend from the greatest operations to the smallest, when a workman forms a clock, or other piece of mechanism, he establishes at his own pleasure certain arbitrary laws for its direction; as that the hand shall describe a given space in a given time; to which law as long as the work conforms, so long it continues in perfection, and answers the end of its formation.

All humans have impressed upon them from the beginning of creation the principles of Natural Law—reasoning ability concerning right and wrong.

Even Cicero, whose full name was Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.), the greatest orator of the ancient Roman Republic, and was raised in a pagan society, recognized true law imbedded within the heart of each person to which each is responsible.

True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions….It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.

One can hear in this echoes of Jefferson’s famous lines “the laws of nature and nature’s God.” Based upon this clear principle of natural law our founders disobeyed the unjust laws of King George.

Romans

Paul writes essentially the same thing in Romans 2:14-16, except Paul was inspired of God.

For when the Gentiles, that have not the law, do by nature the things of the law [OT revealed law, bl], these, not having the law, are a law unto themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their thoughts, one with another, accusing or else excusing them …

Here the apostle shows clearly that those without God’s written law have knowledge of the existence of a law within themselves. All humans instinctively have within them the understanding that some things will always be right and other things wrong.

For example, ABORTION. The forcible taking of innocent human life is wrong. The Roe v. Wade (1973) decision at the Supreme Court does not change this and one-half of our nation rightly continues to recognize it as murder. The depth of America’s sin can easily be gauged by this horrific transgression. Because our nation has been adrift for at least fifty to a hundred years or more does not mitigate our guilt.

Another illustration is, HOMOSEXUALITY. It matters not that the Supreme Court Obergefell (2015) decision dictates to states that same-sex couples may marry—it is still sinful activity and godly Americans will not simply accept it and move along. Nor should we. As Blackstone rightly said, these types of human laws “have no validity” before God nor with those who honor Him.

Shadow Government?: Obama’s Marxist Organizing for Action

Shadow Government?: Obama’s Marxist Organizing for Action “His advocacy group of Alinsky-style agitators is called OFA, “Organizing for Action.”

by Bill Lockwood

Former President Obama is a revolutionary Marxist. His roots all trace to the hard communist left; his lawless actions as president point to the same; and his post-presidency is about more street organizing to resist the Trump organization. True to his disruptive form, while still in office in 2013, Obama established an astro-turf organization by which, after he left the White House, he may continue efforts to overturn constitutional government and escort America into a socialistic nightmare. His advocacy group of Alinsky-style agitators is called OFA, “Organizing for Action.” OFA originally stood for “Obama for America” and is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and Chicago, IL. Its goal is to create communist-style pressure from below to produce society upheaval.

With over 30,000 members, Obama marshals OFA fellow-travelers from his Washington, D.C. nerve-center to create chaos such as we have witnessed since the election over a year ago. As The New York Post writer Paul Sperry put it, Obama has set up a “shadow government to sabotage” the Trump Administration through a “network of leftist nonprofits led by OFA, which is growing its war chest (more than $40 million) and has some 250 offices nationwide.”

What are Obama’s OFA’s Issues?

First, Climate Change. OFA’s website tells that Obama’s activists are to “turn up the heat” on “climate change deniers.” The “stakes are too high” for us not to act, it is claimed. His radical left environmental agenda, in sync with the socialist United Nations world government plan, is to use “Climate Change” to redistribute America’s wealth to foreign nations while at the same time shutting down the progress of American industry. That’s progressivism for you.

Environmentalism is the mechanism by which socialists wish to control Americans and curtail their freedom. So whether it is global warming, global cooling, climate change or whatever—it is all “human caused” per Obama and that calls for Big Brother to control the rest of us. Liberty be trashed.

Regulate industry, nationally and internationally. Place new controls on business. Ban drilling for American-based companies while allowing it for foreign companies. Steal money from American businesses (carbon penalties) and give it to foreign nations. Malign deniers of government orthodoxy. Orchestrate thousands of unwitting college students who have been trained by leftist professors and are looking for a cause for which to march. Pluck the feathers of the eagle of American freedom. Karl Marx would be proud.

Second, Abortion. Obama has always been radically pro-abortion. Killing the unborn bothers him not in the least. He even voted in 1997 while in the Illinois State Senate to allow the abominable Herod-like procedure of “partial birth abortion” to continue. In a comment years later to a questioner in western Pennsylvania Obama said if his daughters made a mistake in getting pregnant he would not want them “punished with a baby.”

The Bible teaches that “children are a heritage from the Lord and the fruit of the womb is His reward” (Psalm 127:3). To Obama however, children are the instruments of a curse to people whose goal is free sexual activity. This reminds me of a Democrat woman who recently told me, “If you want me to carry a baby until birth, then you help pay for it!” No, ma’am. If you do not wish for children, control your sexual activity.

Perhaps no issue is quite as revealing as this one. Those who proudly enlist in the “Democrat” army of the OFA apparently have seared their consciences by supporting this public policy of infanticide. It is a pro-death culture in America encoded into legislation.

Third, Homosexual Deception. In keeping with his Marxist Alinsky-style roots which proudly utilizes lying and deception as tools for advancement, Obama repeatedly and blatantly lied about his feelings on this issue in order to manipulate the masses. David Axelrod, the primary adviser to Obama during his campaigns for president, admitted this in his 2015 memoir:

Opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church, and as he ran for higher office, he grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a ‘sacred union.’”

Obama followed Axelrod’s advice and publicly announced in 2008 that he believed marriage was between a “man and a woman.” The simple-minded were deceived. According to researcher Charles Scaliger, as early as 1996, while an Illinois state Senator, Obama answered a questionnaire in which he boldly stated that he supported “legalizing same-sex marriage” and would “fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” All of his “public support” for Christian marriage was a calculated lie.

Fourth, Socialized Medicine. That socialized medicine has never been as successful as the free-market in any country it has been tried is evident. America herself tried two general forays into socialism both at Massachusetts Bay Colony and Jamestown. Both were colossal failures.

Partly because of these failures, the founding generation outlawed any and all re-distribution schemes in America by the Constitution. Samuel Adams wrote,

The Utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government, unconstitutional.”

Of course, Obama is not the first nor the last to push unconstitutional communism. In the words of Samuel Adams, ObamaCare is “arbitrary and despotic.”

It is arbitrary in that it removes any connection between responsible living and healthcare. If one by personal choice burns his brain with drugs and alcohol—those result of those choices ought not be saddled on others who choose to live clean godly lives. Exactly the same thing is true pertaining to sexual activity and childbirth. Personal responsibility is anathema to Obama and OFA. This is why abortion itself is listed as “women’s healthcare.” ObamaCare cuts the connection between personal responsibility in lifestyle choices and the natural consequences that flow from those choices.

It is despotic because rulers and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. make many of the decisions for a patient. Not the patient him or herself; not the family; not the local community of doctors—but government employees at a desk. Whether it be procedures, medicines, which doctor one may utilize, which healthcare plan one desires, how much money one must pay for the “uninsured”—all controlled by government.

Predictably, ObamaCare is a complete failure. Tax hikes and premium increases of over 100% in many cases continue to punish the workers in favor of those who either choose not work or who, by life-choices, have landed in low-earning jobs. More citizens saw their “pre-ObamaCare benefits” completely “disappear under the spiraling deductibles and premiums. But this loss was small potatoes to an ex-president who cared not but to kill the unborn.

The American people rejected Obama’s policies with the election of Donald J. Trump. This apparently only signaled street-war to the community-organizer who now mobilizes thousands of dupes against lawful society. Obstruction, riots, protests, and revolution are now in store for America.

Calloway’s Socialism & Slavery

Calloway’s Socialism & Slavery “His “poor class” that is simply “down on their luck” everyone knows will not fare very well.

by Bill Lockwood

Donald Calloway, Jr., former Democratic state representative from Missouri, was pitted this week in a short interview-style debate with Star Parker on Fox & Friends regarding the Trump Administrations’ proposal to drug-test recipients of public welfare. Parker logged in favorably to the proposal, but predictably, Calloway opposed it. No drug testing ought to be conducted on those who receive “public benefits,” Calloway said. He offered several arguments as to why he believed drug-testing ought not be conducted. Examining his “arguments” reveals a shocking and skewed view of the world and of reality itself, which seems to be Democratic stock-in-trade.

Calloway’s First Argument

Calloway’s first argument, repeated several times in the course of a few minutes, was that this “vilifies the poor” and if we wanted to be equal we would drug-test all those corporation-heads and household-heads that have just received a tax cut from the Trump Administration! Get it: Calloway the Democrat believes that tax cuts equate with government hand-outs to the poor—hand-out money that has been confiscated from the middle-class. If my taxes decrease from 40% to 20% that is the same thing as the government handing me a welfare check. Both are “benefits,” Per Calloway– Unbelievable.

Well, Donald Calloway, bring it on! For argument’s sake: do it– drug-test every single person in the country; those that fail will receive nothing. No tax cuts, no welfare, no write-offs—nothing. His “poor class” that is simply “down on their luck” everyone knows will not fare very well. The average person of common observation ability knows that illegal drug use is rampant among the poor, among the minority-classes, and among those who receive government welfare. In every community the story is the same. I’ll take that challenge, Calloway!!

More to the point, however, Calloway gives Americans a glimpse into the Democratic view of the world. There is no such thing as “individual rights” before God. You are nothing but a cog in a society wheel to be utilized at the leaders’ discretion.  Everything you make; every penny you earn belongs to the government—and when the government lowers taxes “allowing” you to “keep” more of what you earned—you need to realize that 100% of it belongs to the government to begin with. You are a slave to the state and are to kiss the hand that feeds you. Nothing belongs to you. Period. That is the underlying assumption of Calloway.

The only way that an educated person could possibly equate government taking from some and re-distributing to others (welfare) with lowering your taxes and allowing you to keep what you yourself have earned is on the assumption mentioned above. I wonder if this is what is taught at Alabama A&M where he majored in Political Science and English?

But this is common belief among Democrats. Listen to Nancy Pelosi who tweeted this unbelievable comment last week—before taking it down.

I am disgusted with ‘President’ Trump allowing people to keep more of the money they earn. It is this type of wide spread theft of public resources that keeps America from being great, ‘Mr. President.’”

There you have it again. Keeping money you earn is a “theft of public resources.” Individuals are a “public resource” to be utilized as the managers of society see fit. How these people ever get elected to office can only be explained on the grounds that the constituents they represent must have their own head in drug-induced clouds. It also explains the wickedness of Socialism. No individual human rights—at least not to the reward for your own labor.

Calloway’s Second Argument

Calloway’s second argument was that drug testing has constitutional hurdles because of the Goldberg v. Kelly Supreme Court decision of 1970. Here, the Warren Court decided that the “Due Process” clause of the 14th Amendment requires a hearing before a public beneficiary of government handouts may be deprived of them.

Here it is important to see that the Court held that welfare benefits are a matter of statutory entitlements for persons who are qualified. The majority stated that welfare benefits is the private property of the recipients of which one cannot be deprived without “due process” of law. Food, housing, clothing, and medical benefits paid for by others and forcibly redistributed by the state actually belong to the recipients! This is the definition of entitlement.

Due Process simply means that no one can confiscate your private property or deprive a person of his life or liberty without due process of law. Calloway’s second argument may be on target with the Goldberg decision, but just as in the Dred Scott decision of 1857 in which Supreme Court ruled that “blacks were not citizens” of the United States but were considered “property”—the Goldberg decision is simply wrong and unconstitutional to boot. It is interesting also that Roger Taney, the chief justice at the Dred Scott decision, relied upon the “due process” clause of the Constitution in the Fifth Amendment. Slaves were private property of slave owners and these could not be removed “without due process of law.” How would Calloway answer this?

Anyone with just a smattering knowledge of the Constitution recognizes at once Calloway’s error. It is the same as Roger Taney’s mistake.

That welfare benefits are “private property” of the recipients is clear violation of Natural Law. Government has no right by nature to steal from one segment of society and give to another, period. So all the founders who wrote the Constitution believed and encoded into law. 

But the New Deal period turned this common law maxim upside down and theft of private property and redistribution to others by an all-knowing government became commonplace. Then came the extreme “decision” (Goldberg v. Kelly) that this confiscated money actually belongs as private property to the recipient of welfare benefits! Calloway and the Goldberg decision is wrong just the same as Taney and the Dred Scott decision was wrong.

Calloway’s Third Argument

Calloway’s third and final argument was that “drug testing” of welfare recipients is “unchristian.” Here Calloway’s argument becomes a farce. Like all socialists, he misuses and abuses the Word of God.

That there are biblical injunctions to care for the poor is common knowledge. However, all of these commands are either individual mandates or apply to local churches of Christ. Not one of these biblical commands has even the remotest equivalence to government taxation and redistribution.

As a matter of fact, if Calloway wants Bible, let him see 1 Timothy 5 where the apostle Paul set forth criteria by which the young evangelist Timothy might help leaders of churches decide which persons ought to receive financial benefits and which ones should not. Even inspired Paul put forth a test. In the words of our Lord, Calloway needs “go learn what this means.” Paul forbade assistance to those who did not meet certain standards, going so far as to say that assisting those who should and could be working causes people to be idle, busybodies (involved in ungodly activities) and, saying things they ought not (v. 13). Exactly the point.

Far from being “unchristian”, setting out certain criteria, namely drug-testing, by which welfare distribution might be determined, is a common-sense beginning to cutting down our out-of-control spending in America. And if the Democrats of the country like Calloway and Pelosi want real constitutional reform—let’s go back and re-establish the Original Intent of the Founders. Public welfare as we know it would disappear in a heartbeat.

Loss of Civility in America

Loss of Civility in America “It is another to revile or abuse a person with words

by Bill Lockwood

People have always and will always disagree with one another. Unanimity of opinion is unrealistic where God’s free-will creatures are concerned. What is blatantly evident however, in modern America, is the increasing loss of civility in dialogue. This sad result is predictable in a society where godlessness has become the norm.

The apostle Peter, in his Second Letter (2 Peter), describes the current situation that unfortunately prevails in the streets, in the halls of Congress, in the collegiate and public school classroom, and in the marketplace. His remarks are deadly accurate.

2 Peter 2

Beginning in verse 10, the apostle explains what it is to “walk after the flesh”—a biblical phrase denoting pleasing our own base desires. Those who do so are libertines—who by lack of training and correction throughout their development—are devoid of moral or sexual restraints. They spurn normal behavior while putting a premium on on physical pleasures. The phrase “after the flesh,” taken in connection with “their foul lust” in the connecting sentence suggests sodomy (Green, TNTC, 103).

Regarding these libertines: Peter explains, “they despise authority.” Rejecting authoritative statements from God and man, they are “Brazen ones, and self-willed” (v. 10). Brazen means unashamed. The description of these individuals the apostle goes on to explain “they fear not to rail at dignitaries.”

It is one thing to disagree with another and even press one’s opinion. For the free expression of ideas and principles and concepts the First Amendment was composed–that open discussion on the issues would never be curtailed in America. “To rail at dignitaries” however, carries a completely different idea. The word “rail” is literally “blaspheme.” It means to “defame” a person. It means to slander or to crudely disparage another.

To put a fine point on this, Peter carries us to the court in heaven where good angels brought accusation against evil angels before the Almighty at some point in history. But even these angels refrained from bringing a reviling judgment against them. It is one thing to make accusation. It is another to revile or abuse a person with words. They abstain from no affront (Bigg, ICC, 280).

Almost as if describing the current malaise of civility among moderns, Peter continues his diatribe in v. 12 that “these are creatures without reason, born mere animals to be taken and destroyed; railing in matters wherein they are ignorant; shall in their destroying surely be destroyed” (ASV).

A “creature without reason” literally is an irrational person. Sensible discussion or thoughtful disagreement is beyond them.  One has observed that “they preen themselves on their knowledge (a palpable dig at their pretensions to superior gnosis)” while in fact they have no more knowledge than does a brute beast (Kelly, BNTC, 339). Peter strengthens this description with the statement that these “have been born as mere animals that are caught and killed.” The idea is of a person whose only reaction is one of physical instinct—not thoughtful or respectful dialogue. A graphic picture this of individuals who live for themselves and their own desires.

What an … indictment of the effect on a man of living like a beast! First he gets captured and then he gets destroyed by his passions. As Barclay points out, sensuality is self-destructive. ‘the aim of the man who gives himself to such fleshly things is pleasure; and his tragedy is that in the end he loses even the pleasure. … for a while he may enjoy what he calls pleasure, but in the end he ruins his health, wrecks his constitution, destroys his mind and character and begins his experience of hell while he is still on earth.’” (Green, Ibid.)

In just a few short verses Peter shows what we are witnessing with increasing regularity in our nation. Is it possible to disagree without becoming ugly and uncivil? Must one “take to the streets” with boiling anger to make a change? Is it no longer possible to debate the issues while refraining from toilet talk and cursing? Must people literally “howl at the moon” to demonstrate disagreement? Must people show rage to show a different view? Have we lost all civility?

The only answer to this morass of ugliness, of course, is a turning to Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World. May our nation bow its knee to God this holiday season.

NOTES

Bigg, Charles. International Critical Commentary, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the   Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude.

Green, Michael: Tyndale NT Commentary, The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude.

Kelly, J.N.D.: Black’s NT Commentary, The Epistles of Peter and Jude.

BC/AD or BCE/CE?

BC/AD or BCE/CE?The Christian calendar no longer belongs exclusively to Christians.

by Bill Lockwood

Since the Middle Ages calendars have been dated from the central point of history–Jesus Christ. “Before Christ” (BC) and “Anno Domini” (AD)—a Latin phrase meaning “the year of our Lord.” Theoretically, the Lord was born on the year zero.

Our present calendar is based upon the Gregorian calendar of 1582 which was named after Pope Gregory XIII. This calendar was actually a reform of the earlier Julian calendar put together in the year 45 B.C. and named after Julius Caesar.

The labels BC and AD were not added until 525 A.D. by Dionysius Exiguus, who used them to compute the date of Easter (Robert. R. Cargill, bibleinterp.com, 2009). Dates comprise the backbone of history and the BC/AD point of reference has been the backbone of western civilization.

This system has come under increasing criticism, however, and today “scholarship”—even Christian– recommends another option that removes Christ from that pivotal place in history. It is advised that the favored option B.C.E. and C.E., standing for Before the Common Era and Common Era, replace the older B.C./A.D. system.

Since both numerical systems utilize Jesus Christ as the point of reference (“Before Common Era” is equivalent to the time before Christ), how is it that tension exists on this?

First, by usage of BCE/CE the world of “scholarship” is insisting that the world of “science” has demonstrated the Bible to be inaccurate. Those of us in the less-educated circles need to get on board. Robert Cargill frankly states his case.

Despite the rise of science, Christians have used—and many times have insisted upon—the continued use of the labels ‘AD’ and ‘BC’ to designate calendrical years, and thereby portray human history as directly relative to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. But in our modern world of scientific reason and religious plurality, the battle over whether or not to use the increasingly accepted international scientific standard of BCE … and CE … has not waned, but rather has intensified.

Cargill plainly implies that the biblical record is inaccurate. The marvels of science have fortunately saved us from believing the historicity of the Good Book! This is continually cast in the framework of “scholarship.” As Professor Alan Bloom stated, “Every scholar I know uses B.C.E. and shuns A.D.” (quoted by William Safire, August 1997). The implication: insistence on the BC/AD referents comes from the unlearned masses.

Second, the more modern designations reflect “religious plurality.” This is also echoed in Cargill’s statement above. Plurality simply means a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in their traditional culture.

That many various groups make up America and western civilization cannot be denied.

But those who have taken the pulse of academia and other cultural leaders know perfectly well that this has occurred by design, not accident. From the purposeful changing of immigration policies favoring non-Christian countries to the revamping of educational goals to celebrate other cultures while denigrating our own—Christian people have rightly been alarmed.

Even Friedrich Nietzsche of yesteryear recognized that the Christian faith was the undergirding of western civilization—not only of its religious beliefs but also of social values and its fundamental view of human nature (Os Guinness, The Dust of Death, 37). It is this Christian foundation that is under assault by continued emphasis upon “religious plurality.”

William Safire relates that the “shunning of A.D. …goes clear up to the Supreme Court.” He tells of Adena K. Berkowitz, who has both a law degree and a doctorate in Hebrew literature, who applied to practice before the Court. “In the application,” she wrote, “I was asked if I wished ‘in the year of our Lord’ to be included as part of the date listed on the certificate or omitted.” She chose to omit. “Given the multicultural society that we live in, the traditional Jewish designations—B.C.E. and C.E.—cast a wider net of inclusion, if I may be so politically correct.”

It may be indeed a “wider net of inclusion” but the fact that it is a “Jewish designation” shows that it was not originally intended to be so much “inclusive” as simply “excluding Jesus Christ.” Those familiar with blasphemous Jewish Talmudic references to Jesus Christ can readily understand this erasure of Jesus Christ. That it has gained popularity in the world of “scholarship” may point more to the skepticism that now undergirds academia. This brings me to another reflection:

Third, the designations BCE/CE originated in Jewish unbelief.  Even Wikipedia recognizes, as Adena Berkowitz confessed, that these terms “became more widely used in the mid-19th century by Jewish academics. In the later 20th century, the use of CE and BCE was popularized in academic and scientific publications, and more generally by authors and publishers wishing to emphasize secularism or sensitivity to non-Christians, by not explicitly referring to Jesus as ‘Christ’ …”

Besides secularists, another group preferring the more modern designations are Muslims. They date their lunar calendar from the date A.D. 622, the day after the Hijra, or flight of the Prophet Mohammed from Mecca to Medina. How eager does the reader suppose Muslim scholars would be to accommodate Christians in Islamic societies by usage of the Gregorian calendar? How successful does one think would be the efforts to erase Mohammed from their calendars—no longer dating with the traditional Muslim A.H. (After Hijra)?

The State of Israel uses an official Jewish calendar which is based upon a lunar cycle. I would suspect that efforts for them to adopt the Hijra calendar of reckoning by Islam would meet with stiff resistance, even claiming that it would be tantamount to melting cultural supports of Israel. I wonder how Israel would meet the argument of former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan who stated:

The Christian calendar no longer belongs exclusively to Christians. People of all faiths have taken to using it as a matter of convenience. There is so much interaction between people of all faiths and cultures—different civilizations, if you like—that some shared way of reckoning time is a necessity. And so the Christian Era has become the Common Era.

Multiculturalism and plurality always demand Christians—not Muslims or Hindus or Humanists– to be accommodating. This reminds me of the modern usage, even by conservative Christian writers and authors, of “Judeo-Christian Culture.” This term only became vogue in the 1950’s and one never read such a statement from the Founding Era of our nation. To those men it was “a Christian culture.” The change occurred in the 1950’s and does not represent the views of earlier generations. And the alteration of “Christian culture” or “Christian nation” to “Judeo-Christian nation” represents a change in philosophy.

I choose not the modern scholarly option on dating, not because I “cling to … the symbolic superiority [I] feel”, as Robert Cargill patronizes—or because I “deny the facts and use different labels (i.e., ‘intelligent design’)”—but because the facts upon which Cargill relies are not so factual. Most of all, I oppose the world of naturalistic assumptions cornering the market on the label “scholarship”, then demanding we must all fall in line; even to the point of reframing history. Jesus Christ is the center point of all history. His life is historical; the Gospels factual; and His resurrection from the dead defensible.

Bill Lockwood, Anno Domini (The Year of our Lord), 2017.

The Constitution, Christianity, and Patriotism

The Constitution, Christianity, and Patriotism “…The Constitution is the civil Bible of Americans…

by Bill Lockwood

Some suggest that biblical commands never enjoin one to be “patriotic” regarding America. Patriotism, it is supposed, is not commended in scripture; therefore, Christians need emphasize Americanism less.

This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of America and Americanism; specifically, the God-inspired freedoms which form our core. It is true that most peoples love their own country, the place of their nativity. And if that was all that is involved in American patriotism–love of the fatherland–then the criticism might be well-founded. But America is different. It is unique in the history of the world. And it is not simply that it is unique that ought to cause Christians to be patriotic—but due to the substance of that uniqueness. This substance makes it superior.

John Adams, the second president of the United States, gives us a clue to the singular character of our nation. America is the first time in history, he noted, since even the time of Adam and Eve, that humanity might be able to enjoy, by the framework of governing principles, the freedoms which come from God. He was reflecting upon the sad fact that all governments and nations throughout history curtail the liberty which can only come from God since these governments do not begin with the fundamental premise of the sacredness of human life.

More to the point, a statement drafted first in 1922 by the Committee for Constitutional Government and signed by such dignitaries as Herbert Hoover, Alfred E. Smith, Mrs. Calvin Coolidge, Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt, Mrs. William H. Taft and others, recommended a study of the Constitution on the following grounds.

Menaced by collectivist trends, we must seek revival of our strength in the spiritual foundations which are the bedrock of our republic. Democracy is the outgrowth of the religious conviction of the sacredness of every human life. On the religious side, its highest embodiment is the Bible; on the political, the Constitution. As has been said so well, ‘The Constitution is the civil Bible of Americans.’ Next to the Bible, the best book on the Constitution should be in every home, school, library and parish hall.

Our republic is the direct outgrowth of Christianity. The founding generation understood exactly what they were doing. For the first time in recorded history biblical values were enshrined as the basis of a limited government called a republic in which individual freedom was based upon individual worth.

This is why founder Noah Webster admonished, “Our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion … and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.” For the same reason Patrick Henry, a long time preacher, insisted that our nation was actually founded upon Jesus Christ. Strange sounds for modern ears.

Practically every founder which wrote on the subject agreed with Henry. Alexander Hamilton observed, for example, that “The law … dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.”

Another signer of the Constitution, Rufus King, stated, “The … law established by the Creator … extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind….This is the law of God by which he makes his way known to man and is paramount to all human control.”

None of the above is to say that pulpits ought to draw their texts from particular Articles of the Constitution upon which to preach; for they are to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2).  But it is to say that a failure to recognize Christianity as the bulwark of our nation’s charter betrays a very limited understanding of America as well as the Bible. 

The very concepts of the sacredness of life, liberty, and private property—which the entire construct of the Constitution is designed to protect–are biblical in nature and are not traceable to any other source. The “transcendent values of Biblical natural law were the foundation of the American republic,” summarizes constitutionalist David Barton (Original Intent).

For this cause, Abraham Lincoln advised regarding the Constitution:

Let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges, let it be written in primers, in spelling books and in almanacs, let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation, and, in particular, a reverence for the Constitution.

Again, it is education in the principles behind our founding charter which Lincoln was encouraging. The same is true for western culture as a whole. It is superior to other cultures precisely because of the undergirding concepts upon which it is based. As Herbert Schlossberg put it in Idols for Destruction,

Cultures are equal in value only if there is no standard against which to judge them. The culture of the West, infused as it is with Christian values, is superior to any other, and all the valid charges against the West are indications that it has betrayed its own heritage. It is not superior because it is wealthy; it is wealthy because it is superior, because it believes that work is a calling, that matter is important, that reason is a gift of God. This culture, God’s gift, transmits its material blessings along with its interpretation of reality.

America’s greatness is only assessed by the eternal standard of God’s Word. Alexis de Tocqueville is credited with this famous passage in which the Frenchman searched for the greatness of America. His answer was, “Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” (Ezra Taft Benson, God, Family, Country: Our Three Great Loyalties).

It is not commendable that many modern pulpits cannot seem to recognize that when they preach on the sacredness of an individual life they are preaching God-given values which, because of the Bible, became the foundation of Americanism—a unique event in world history. Is this not worthy of Christian homage?

Or, when preachers “invite” sinners to obey the gospel (1 Pet. 4:17) they are celebrating the concept of liberty and free choice protected by our wise founders.  Does this protection not call forth our reverence? Or, when pleading for donations they are assuming that God has invested people with private property which they can dispose of at their own volition; and because the founders believed in these biblical principles they constructed a lawful system of protection to guard that property. Should we not pay homage to this system?

Patriotism runs much deeper than love of my birthplace or attachment to the language I speak. It glories in God’s grace that enabled our founders to infuse the ideals of God into the framework of society. No other nation has ever attempted such a project. American patriotism is in reality a loyal adhesion to Christian principles which were grafted into a governing system.

The red, white, and blue therefore, evoke deep feelings not merely because I was born here—but due to the fact that these colors represent the fundamental godly doctrines which my forefathers died to protect. Not all of them lived in accordance with these values—to be sure– but they believed in them.   

America is not merely exceptional. This means “better than average; not normal.” It is that. But it is also unique in that it is unequalled. It is superior. And this distinction lies in its reliance upon Christianity by which our nation was forged.

United Nations Healthcare v. The Bible

United Nations Healthcare v. The Bible- “The only Constitutional and biblical solution to America’s health-care problem, therefore, is to repeal ObamaCare.”

by Bill Lockwood

As the Health Care debate wages in Congress and across America, the United Nations, fulfilling its world “governance” destiny, is seeking to influence our laws. Dainius Puras, the UN “Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”, warned the Trump Administration in February that “repealing ObamaCare” would violate “international law.” The United States, in going back to a more constitutional government, would become a “human rights violator.”

This is more than merely meddlesome political pressure for Puras declares that it is the duty of the UN to manage America. “It is my responsibility, under the mandates provided me by the Human Rights Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention.” Puras demanded not only more information from the Trump Administration, but asserted the UN’s supposed responsibility to “prevent” violations by the United States. The Republicans would be committing illegal actions by International Law if ObamaCare is repealed because, according to the UN, healthcare is a “right” for all citizens to enjoy.

Back to Basics

Seeing the mass confusion on this issue led by the socialists of the world at the UN, let’s go back to pick up basic concepts.

First, if there is no God, there are no so-called “rights.” A “right” as normally defined refers to a moral or legal entitlement to something or to a certain behavior. But an “entitlement” by definition means “to give a right” or to “bestow a privilege.” The atheistic UN has no ground upon which to argue that any nation “ought” to do this or “ought not” to do that. Omitting God as the UN has done removes the basis from which to argue that anything should be “given” to some by others. Things just are. “Human rights” are just the personal tastes of those who populate the World Dictator’s Club known as the United Nations.

Second, the inalienable “rights” of mankind, as set forth in our Declaration of Independence, are posited on the ground that they are gifts of God. Important it is for Bible students to recognize that nowhere does God actually speak of “man’s rights” in the sense of “entitlements.” One might argue that rights to life, liberty and property are implied due to the fact that murder and theft are forbidden (Exo. 20:15; Dt. 5:21) and the ability to own private property is assumed. So also is my ability to earn a living wage (1 Cor. 9:9-11).

But it is just as important to recognize the fact that these privileges are actually blessings from God and not entitlements that are owed to me by my Maker.

Third, good health is actually itself not a “right” but a blessing from God. Not every person in the world is born with good health. Many have defects and diseases due to the sin-cursed earth upon which we live. Resentment can easily be created in persons who have disabilities if they assume the notion that they are “entitled” to good health by God. If we consider good health in life a “blessing” from God we are much closer to a biblical frame of mind.

Fourth, maintaining my health is a personal responsibility which I have, not a “right” to which I am entitled. My body actually belongs to God and is considered a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:9-11). My physical body is a “gift” from God which prevents me from abusing it or destroying it with health-altering drugs or lifestyles. How many myriads of people deliberately abuse their bodies into poor health? Whose is responsible for addictive behaviors or poor choices that people make pertaining to their bodies?

Fifth, health care is a service provided by some people on the behalf of others. Becoming a doctor or nurse is no different than becoming a carpenter, plumber, or even an attorney—except for the amount of training that is necessary. These are all occupations by which people serve others for profit. Health care therefore is the means whereby I can fulfill my God-ordered responsibility to my body and to family members under my care. There is no difference in principle in my hiring a doctor to serve myself or my family than hiring a carpenter to build my house. Health care is not a right owed to me by others.

Government intrusion via ObamaCare and all socialized medicine schemes are actually forcing individuals who are in the professional business of providing health-care to serve some people for little or no compensation—or, for compensation provided by a taxpayer.

There is no difference between this and slavery. For government to overstep its God-ordered bounds of maintaining order to extract money from me in order to provide for others who may or may not have the means to care for themselves is a form of slavery, pure and simple. Government run Health-Care also enslaves health care providers by forcing them to provide for others at either their own expense, or others’ expense.

The only Constitutional and biblical solution to America’s health-care problem, therefore, is to repeal ObamaCare. This may make America, in the eyes of the UN, a “human rights violator,” but according to the world body, it prefers communist dictatorships to freedom.

As Jefferson famously observed, “…a wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

« Older Entries