An American Hero!

I remember when I was in a senior American history class at college, I ask my professor about the religious position of Patrick Henry. My professor was not sure, but said she assumed that Henry was a deist.

My teacher was dead wrong, and she showed her bias. She, like so many others, had bought into the lie that the majority of our founders were not Christians. It is true that some very important men among the Founders rejected the Christian Faith, but they were in fact a minority. For the most part the deist kept their skepticism to themselves or revealed it to only close associates.

Patrick Henry is, as some of you know, my favourite among the American Founders. He was a devout Christian and he was not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ.

Patrick Henry was an Anglican (the official church then) like most of the Virginia gentry, but he strongly supported religious freedom. He was a favourite of the Scotch/Irish Presbyterians and the small, but growing number, of Baptist in the state.

Henry, who died the same year as Washington --1799, had this to say about this country he played such a vital role in establishing.

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

Patrick Henry, in my opinion, was the most farsighted of the Founders. He understood that American liberty was founded on, and was a product of, the Christian faith. He knew that even those that rejected the salvation freely offered in the Gospel benefited from the liberty produced by a Christian culture.

Civil liberty is not common in history. It is in fact rare. It was produced here because of mature Christianity. Such Christianity is now rare, and we are living on the cultural capital produced long before we were born. That capitol is being rapidly spent and (IMHO) when it goes so will our liberty. Let’s work and pray for true, biblical revival, this alone will safeguard liberty for our children, our children's children until the end of time.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Kenith

The First Amendment then and now

Most American's today believe that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution sets up a “wall of separation” between church and state. Those American's who think this way do so because they have heard the phrase “wall of separation” repeated so often on news shows and in pop culture that they just take it for granted that it is true. But this widely held current view is a gross distortion of the First Amendment and a radical departure from the views and intent of the overwhelming majority our country’s Founding Fathers.

The First Amendment actually says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice that the two words so often used when discussing the First Amendment (wall and separation) are no where to be found in the amendment. In fact, the first congress that passed this amendment along with the other nine amendments that form the Bill Of Rights, also passed a bill to pay for the printing of Bibles that were to be used among the Indians. They also established paid chaplains for the military, for the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate.

We should also remember that nine of the thirteen states that ratified the First Amendment to the Constitution had official state churches. No one then ever suggested that the First Amendment outlawed those official state churches and they did not see these things as contradictory.

It’s interesting that the constitution of the now defunct/atheistic Soviet Union did formally make a clear separation between church and state. Article 124 in that constitution states:

In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the State, and the school from the church...

The Soviets also separated the church from education. Our country too has succeeded in removing Christianity from the public schools in the past forty years. You might think that the American judges who did this were reading the Soviet Constitution and not our own!

The U.S. Constitution formed a confederation of self-governing states (i.e. nations). The founders tried to tie down and limit the federal government to a very narrow sphere of authority. The Bill of Rights was written to further restrain the then very, very, small federal government.

Today many of our leaders (liberal and conservative) ignore many of the most fundamental laws of our land or, as they do with the First Amendment, they twist it to say the very opposite of what it really says. Christian people must obey the law; we also need to insist that those in authority also obey the law. Our children and Grandchildren's liberty to worship the God of scripture may be at stake if we don’t learn and work to restore and uphold some of those most fundamental laws written into the Constitution.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Kenith

Nero, de Tocqueville and liberty

It is true that all rulers and all ruled are fallen in Adam, and there will NEVER be a utopia here on this earth before sin and death or conquered and destroyed at Christ Second Coming (at the end of history).

America’s founders were not utopians and understood that what ever form of government they produced it would be able to allow for maximum freedom and liberty only so long as the people were a "moral and religious" (i.e. Christian) people. This is very clear in their writings and speeches.

Though we are far removed from the federal republic that the founders established many of them, if not most, would be surprised at the amount of liberty we have retained since our nation’s establishment.

In the Scriptures we learn that Civil magistrates (governors, mayors, congressmen, presidents, etc…) are ordained of God, and are ministers from God for our good (Roman 13). That may seem hard to believe at times, but you have to remember Paul wrote that statement during the reign of Nero Caesar, a man not known for his kindness in governing the empire or the city of Rome. It was the Christians of Rome to whom Paul wrote those words in Romans 13. Paul said this “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore [ye] must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.” Nero was proceeded as emperor by Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius, none of whom were known for being kind genteel rulers.

The point is civil government was established by God for our good. And as evil as Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero were their rule did produce a stability and prosperity that allowed for the spread of the Gospel in the Roman Empire. Anarchy is always worse than tyranny.
Moral and religious decline leads to a growth in civil government, because as men and women cease to govern themselves by the Word of God, law and order naturally breaks down and despotism increases to overt anarchy. Anarchy leads to absolute tyranny as it did in Imperial Rome, Napoleon’s France, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Men at those times and places were more than willing to trade political liberty for stability. Anarchy and instability preceded the despotism imposed by the tyrants mentioned above.

Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America , toured the United States in the 1830’s and he was amazed at the lack of civil government that existed here. He made this observation "there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America; and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.”

Tocqueville knew that the United States had no established church or religion but he says "In the United States religion exercises but little influence upon the laws and upon the details of public opinion; but it directs the customs of the community, and, by regulating domestic life, it regulates the state." America was Christian, not because of some establishment, but because the people were morally self governing under God in their private lives.

We see this clearly in Tocqueville’s next observation. He writes "Thus, while the law permits the Americans to do what they please, religion prevents them from conceiving, and forbids them to commit, what is rash or unjust.” A Christian people, that are self governing under God, don’t need big government with millions of laws and mass bureaucracies to rule over them, because they govern themselves under God.

Early America was, I believe, a very feeble and poor example of what the Gospel will yet do in the world under the present reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is now reigning and ruling from the right hand of the Father in heaven with all authority and power (Matt. 28:18; Acts 2:32-36; Ps 110:1; etc…). The cultural influence of the Gospel has waxed and waned over many years and cultures. It had been in decline here long before Tocqueville arrived, but the fruits were still readily apparent.

When Christ returns (the Second Coming) He will destroy the last enemy which is death, but before then His earthly enemies will have been conquered, not by the sword, but by the preaching of the Gospel.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Kenith

Robert Lewis, George Washington's nephew and private secretary, gave the following account of Washington.
I accidentally witnessed Washington’s private devotions in his library, both morning and evening. On these occasions, I saw him in a kneeling posture, with a Bible open before him. I believe such to have been his daily practice.

The people of America trusted George Washington very much. After he had defeated the British at Yorktown, Virginia he was the commander of the only standing army in the United States and many of his admirers were ready to make him king. But George Washington went to congress, resigned his commission in the army and went home to Mount Vernon. He was not, like so many people, hungry for power.

His habits, mentioned above, of daily prayer and devotions, may go a long way in explaining why he was this way. The Bible tells us that God is the maker of all authorities. The Christian is to submit to legitimate authority, because we know that all lawful authority is from the LORD. To seek authority illegally is not just rebellion against man; it is rebellion against God.

Some folks will say that Washington, and the Americans, were rebels toward King George. Doesn't that go against what was just said? The answer is no. Reformed Christians believed that ALL authorities, including kings, are under God's rule, so if the king breaks the law and oppresses the people, the lesser magistrate (a governor, mayor, sheriff, etc.) are to uphold their office and defend the people from the abuse of higher authorities.

Most Americans then had a Calvinistic background and their actions were perfectly in line with what John Calvin had said in his institutes. Calvin wrote: "So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians. "

I don't have time to go into all the details, but that is how the Christian people of America were (IMHO) justly able to fight against their king. They followed men with legitimate authority that were upholding to their offices. Lesser magistrates in America stepped up to protect the people from King George and the British Parliament who they saw as were acting illegally.

Were it not for his submission to these Christian principles George Washington could have made himself king. He controlled the Army and it was very loyal to him, but instead he acted humbly and he lawfully resigned to the then legitimate authority and went home to his farm.

We need leaders and people with the integrity of Washington today. If more Americans had the daily devotional habits of Washington, perhaps God would bless us with leaders like him.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

The Diet of Worms (1521)

In 1521 Martin Luther was called to appear before the Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms (pronounced dee-it of Vorms). He was asked if he would recant his writings. Luther knew that his life was on the line and he would likely not leave Worms alive. He know that a stand now would mean that he would, like John Huss a century earlier, most likely be burned at the stake if he did not recant.

His strength and courage wavered. He asked for 24 hours to think about how he would answer. J. H. Merle D’Aubigne in his great History of the Reformation gives us part of Luther’s prayer that he prayed that night in his cell.

“O Almighty and Everlasting God! How terrible is this world! Behold, it openeth its mouth to swallow me up, and I have so little trust in Thee!…...How weak is the flesh, and Satan how strong! If it is only in the strength of this world that I must put my trust, all is over”…..My last hour is come, my condemnation has been pronounced…...O God! O God! O God! Do thou help me against all the wisdom of the world! Do this; thou shouldest do this…..thou alone…...for this is not my work, but Thine….I have nothing to do here, nothing to contend for with these great ones of the world! I should desire to see my days flow on peaceful and happy. But the cause is Thine and it is a righteous and eternal cause. O Lord! help me! Faithful and unchangeable God! In no man do I place my trust. It would be vain! All that is of man is uncertain; all that cometh of man fails O God! my God, hearest Thou me not? My God, art Thou dead! No! Thou canst not die! Thou hidest thyself only! Thou hast chosen me for this work. I know it well!…..Act, then, O God!…...stand at my side, for the sake of thy well-beloved Jesus Christ, who is my defence, my shield, and my strong tower.”

After a moment of silent struggle, he continues:
“Lord! where stayest Thou?…..O my God! where art Thou? Come! come! I am ready. I am ready to lay down my life for Thy truth…..patient as a lamb. For it is the cause of justice—it is thine…..I will never separate myself from Thee, neither now nor through eternity!…..And though the world should be filled with devils,—though my body, which is still the work of Thy hands, should be slain, be stretched upon the pavement, be cut in pieces…..reduced to ashes…..my soul is Thine! Yes! Thy Word is my assurance of it. My soul belongs to Thee! It shall abide for ever with Thee…..Amen!…..O God! help me…..Amen!”

The next day Luther was once more brought before the assembly of princes. He was told that he need to give a clear answer. Luther responded:

“Since your most serene majesty and your high mightinesses require from me a clear, simple, and precise answer, I will give you one, and it is this: I cannot submit my faith either to the pope or to the councils, because it is clear as the day that they have frequently erred and contradicted each other. Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning,—unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted,—and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and I will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience.”

And then, looking round on this assembly before which he stood, and which held his life in its hands, he said “Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! AMEN!”

Luther did not recant.

Deo vindice,

Kenith

Ecclesiastical Myths

We live in a day of great knowledge. Knowledge flows freely through cyberspace and is accessible to all people as never before in history. Along with the "real" knowledge that is at our fingertips is a whole lot of pseudo-knowledge as well. Much of this pseudo-information is called urban myths.

Urban myths are not new; they have been around for millennia. One pre-cyberspace urban myth is that beforeChristopher Columbus people thought the world was flat. That is just plain false. Men have known the world was round for as long as there have been men.

The educated peoples of the ancient world knew the earth was round. In fact Eratosthenes (276BC-194BC) was, with amasing accuracy, able calculate the size of the earth. Eratosthenes calculated the earth to be 252,000 stadia around. 252,000 stadia equals 24,662 miles, which is only off the mark by a mere 250 miles.

So there goes one ancient myth. Men have always known that the earth was round.

Let’s move on to a couple of other myths. Protestants believe that the Pope in Rome was the dictator of Europe throughout the Middle ages. That is false. For much of the mediaeval period the bishop of Rome was dependent upon and beholden to secular Emperors, kings and princes. Nor could he control who was appointed bishop in most parts of the Christian world. Kings, Emperors and princes often controlled the church in the territories that they governed.

It was not until the Papal Revolution (11th and 12th century) that the Church was able to make the appointment of the Pope a wholly ecclesiastical affair, which denied secular control over the process. Even after this it was not unusual for a Pope to have to flee Rome to keep some emperor or king from capturing him just so that he could force his dictates on the Church.

It will probably shock many Protestants to know that there were a good number of very godly men who God made to be the Bishop of Rome through those years that we call the Middle Ages.

So no, the Popes were not the dictators of Europe during the Mediaeval period. Certainly there were great abuses and the Renaissance Popes, especially, were often very corrupt and decadent men. They did seek to control all of Europe. But we can’t apply these facts to the whole period of the Middle Ages.

Another common myth is a Roman Catholic myth. Many Roman Catholics believe that the Bishop of Rome was always hailed as the "Pope" or leader of all Christendom. They believe this was true until those nasty Greek Christians broke with Rome in the 1054 AD and the Protestants did the same in 1517 AD.

This too is a myth. The authority of the Bishop of Rome grew over time by both slow crawls and sizable leaps. The Eastern Church never recognised the overall authority that was eventually claimed by the Roman Pontiff and this brought about the Great Schism of 1054.

The other day I pulled a book off the shelf that I had read many years ago titled Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition by Harold Berman. I was looking at things I had underlined way back then (I always underline when I read) and some of what I had underlined got me to thinking about these myths about the Bishop of Rome.

We need to dispel all such myths when we are able.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Last week my friend Izzy (Israel) called and asked if I was interested in watching Luther. This is a new movie that has just come out on DVD. He knew I was very interested and I told him so. That evening he brought me a rented copy. I found it to be very good and (for a movie) quite accurate.

Martin Luther has long been one of my heroes. I’ve read his book Bondage of the Will (De Servo Arbitrio), which was written as a reply to Erasmus of Rotterdam’s De Libero Arbitrio Diatribe Sive Collatio (Diatribe on Free-Will). I read this book many years ago and found it a delight.

In the introduction to Luther’s book he pays Erasmus some lofty complements for his “eloquence” and “genius,” in the Diatribe. Erasmus, who was one of the greatest and most prominent scholars of the day, certainly had both qualities that Luther readily attributes to him. Luther says this about Erasmus’ eloquence in the Diatribe. “I greatly feel for you for having defiled your most beautiful and ingenious language with such vile trash; ... that such unworthy stuff should be borne about in ornaments of eloquence so rare; which is as if rubbish, or dung, should he carried in vessels of gold and silver.” (Note: Dung is the polite translation.)

I’ve read other items of Luther. His 95 Theses is a must for anyone wanting to understand the issue of indulgences. This issue is the spark that ignited the Protestant Reformation.

Luther was very much a man of his times, and in that day men did not mince their words. Luther’s debating style (if it can be called that) was to always let his opponents have it with both barrels. Because of this the verbiage in his writings is, at times, quite colourful. He tended to push the envelope on matters, and often gave his opponents lots of ammunition to use against him.

This movie, Luther, is well made and is worth your time to watch. The facts presented are admitted on all sides. Luther lived in a time of great corruption in the church. The abuses he spoke out against where not new and Godly men had been trying to clean up these abuses long before Luther was ever born.

The time was ripe in 16th century Germany when Luther posted his Ninety-five Theses on the castle church door in Wittenberg. There was no turning back. Watch the movie and encourage others to do the same.

I also recommend the masterful biography of Martin Luther titled Here I Stand by Roland Bainton.

Coram Deo,
Kenith