Of Faith, Fidelity, and Civil Witness

June 14, 2009

By Jeff Ziegler

One of the many erroneous “Religious-Humanistic” charges against Orthodox expressions of The Christian Faith or vibrant demonstrations of Christian civil witness is that we care little or nothing at all for the doctrines and disciplines that theoretically lead to sanctification and holiness. In this context, the Religio-Humanist views Christianity as “private” and at its zenith “monastic” useful only for self-examination and otherworldliness. Such standards are valuable for the Religio-Humanist in that a self-imposed “ghettoization” for the Church is in harmony with their unintentional tyrannical vision of civil polity.

On the contrary, while transformational Christians, (those who hold that Christ’s rule is not confined to the unseen world) hardily reject the monastic, introspective, legalistic and selfish “privatized religion” of these arrogant “will-worshiping” idolaters. (For the Religio-Humanist rejects Christ’s cultural claims). We maintain with equal vigor and unbending determination our allegiance to Christ and the exhortation of both Old and New Testaments “… be ye holy as I am holy.” Yet “holiness” and fidelity to the Biblical ideal, is not defined by those who walk in antithesis to Divine revelation. Hence, a true Christian should not define their existence nor judge themselves in accordance with a “man-centered paradigm” of holy living.

The differences between the Religio-Humanist and the true Christian concerning the question of holiness and fidelity revolves around two distinct areas of conflict.

FIRST The Source and Standard of Holiness

Christian orthodoxy holds, that God’s grace is administered from Christ in His enthronement and is demonstrated by the Holy Spirit, consequently giving us the mercy, grace, and power to obey the revealed will of God as contained in the Scriptures. Herein is an objective, immutable standard that cannot be diluted by subjective, arbitrary man-based notions of “what ought to be”. So as Christ has redeemed man by His meritorious work through crucifixion, so too He maintains and sanctifies His sons through His resurrected, ascended state by the power and efficacy of The Holy Spirit.

The Religio-Humanist believes that through monastic, legalistic, self-abasing acts of ritual to sully, mock and destroy the “flesh”, the Church may be fully emancipated from the material world and escape any form of civil discourse. Their mantra maintains that the experience of the “inner light” or God infused into the essence man, can only be achieved through separation from the “world”. The “God-infused” experience confines “holy” behavior to private subjective interpretations as the Religio-Humanist rejects any notion of Christ’s authority in the visible world and culture. Hence man and his feelings are the final authority of ethics, and are not to be defined by Scriptures, nor authenticated by the Church. Consequently, the standard of holiness is man-centered, subjective, and capricious. It is never to be “seen” or demonstrated in the culture. It is the penultimate ‘private’ life.

SECOND The Scope of Holiness

Christianity contends that every person, family, every activity, relationship or human endeavor must be conformed to the Word of God and subsequently becomes the objective expression of “Holiness unto the Lord.” This view of sanctification is applicable to the individual, the family, the Church and in civil affairs. The emphasis is comprehensive in scope. Individual sanctification leads to an outward witness that impacts the corporate Church and then society as a whole. Hence, the continual ongoing work of the maturation of The Church maintains that individual holiness is not independent of corporate holiness. True Christianity holds to a global vision of dominion through ethical reform. Ergo, there exist no false dichotomies between individual holiness and corporate expressions of the same. Such outward holy witness leads to the transformation of the world in every aspect. This is in keeping with the anthem of The Great Commission as described in St. Matthew chapter 28.

The Religio-Humanist sees all spirituality in terms of the individual. They are ascetics who laboriously practice self-denial of physical and material pleasure or denial of civil concern in order to earn God’s favor. Typically they eschew the institutional Church and wholly and altogether reject the notion of Christian Culture. They are separatists in terms of the “material and spiritual world” and create a false antithesis between a public vibrant Church acting as God’s embassy and a private ‘conscious’ driven religion. Their end goal is the idea of man absorbed into divinity. For them the Church is an impediment, and the corporate Christian community a weight and encumbrance to their fictional quest of total, absolute, self-perfection.

Religio-Humanism – Unwitting Allies of Secularity

In the context of Secularized-Statist Humanism, we find a worldview that is replete with its own manifesto and is a full orbed statist-religion that aspires to the deification of man through totalitarian, pagan and occultic influences. In repudiating Christian orthodoxy, principally the notion of God’s transcendence, Humanism becomes an amply articulated antichristian worldview. The humanistic notion of freedom elevates the state to the place of God and positions it as the author and protector of liberty. Thus from beginning to end, man is to be dependent on the state. Secular-Humanism can be depicted as a scientific-intellectual elite who has through time, reinvented God and ethics in man’s image; the antithesis of the Biblical record. Thus man as a kind of “god” engineers an imagined “superior secular culture,” ever evolving into a forced egalitarian cooperative society: theoretically resulting in the utopian ideal. In this context the progress of the state is akin to divinity itself and therefore any religion that would impede such progress, or would attempt to decentralize its power is regarded as retrograde, fit for marginalization and eventual eradication. To the Christian who holds Christ as the “transformer of culture” the anthem of Secular-Humanism signals an unyielding fight until one or the other is triumphant.

The Religio-Humanist is in full alliance with his secular brother. If not intellectually in league with such designs, certainly in point of fact, due to his social inaction and deliberate segregation of the ethical demands of Christ to the unseen. They are in the parlance of Joe Stalin “useful idiots” to the statist agenda. In fact they are often recruited by the statist to give legitimacy to the dictatorial motif, hence theoretically adverting opposition to the state.

The early Church was seen as a threat to the Roman Caesar cult not due to a bulging militia, but because of its concern for true sanctification of social structures. As such they ethically and morally exposed the ethically rotted foundations of Imperial Rome. This pattern is repeated over and again whenever the Church’s vitality is manifested in a particular culture or nation state. In colonial America, the clarion trumpet of the Church and the dynamic lives of her saints, became the fertile ground that led to our corporate revolt against the Crown of King George. The Church was also the first to be attacked by any of the 20th century examples of Marxist revolution. So a vital Church, rejecting the siren seductions of Religio-Humanism, will always lead in “… The transformation of the World, every part of it, into a place of worship for Jesus Christ.”

In sum that is the chief end of “HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD.”

Imprecatory Prayer! – The Church’s Duty Against Christ’s Adversaries

June 10, 2009

By Jeff Ziegler


There is a communion of men with God by which, having entered the heavenly sanctuary, appeal to him in person concerning his promises in order to experience, where necessity so demands, that what they believed was not vain, although he had promised it in word alone.

– John Calvin


This grand description of the legislative dynamic of prayer as taken from Calvin’s introduction to the subject in his “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” is an essential foundation for the Church to recover if she is to resolutely and effectively exercise her parliamentary role in the earth. Explicitly, this “communion of men” reach into the very seat of all governmental authority in heaven and earth through prayer. These prayers are marked not by sentimentality, mystical expression, nor monastic vain babbling. Rather from this lofty plane, they make appeal to the Father through Christ concerning divine legislation, chiefly, that which God has promised to perform in His Law-Word. As depicted, the Church, this “house of prayer for all nations” is asking the “God who keeps covenant forever” to execute his Word “where necessity so demands” thus advancing the Kingdom on “Earth as it is Heaven.”

The aim here is not that the Church should pray for indeed she must even “without ceasing.” Rather the stress is upon the legislative content of prayer. That is for the Church to rightly function in her governmental capacity, she must through prayer and public proclamation legislate God’s will, as revealed alone in Scripture, on earth, thus enforcing the Crown Rights of Christ over all of life.

Again I must stress, that the body and form of these legislative-governing prayers are not subjective and cannot be formed by human instrumentality no matter how noble the thought may be. Rather such praying must be founded upon all that God has vouched to effect exclusively in the inspired and infallible Law-Word of God. God’s written Word is peerless in that it alone is divinely guaranteed not to “return void” and to “accomplish that which I (God) please” even to “prosper in the thing whereto I (God) sent it.”

Positive and Negative Sanctions

The promises of God could be defined as anything that God has vouched to perform. Specifically, the promises of Scripture are grouped throughout in covenantal structures. Within these structures, God promises blessings both spiritual and material for those, who, in the long term, obey His statutes. Through this inheritance of blessing, God multiplies and increases His covenant people, so that in turn, they may advance His purposes in the earth. Just as crucial to understand is that within the same covenantal structures, God promises negative sanctions both spiritual and material for those, who, in the long term, transgress and mock His Law. Thus through the covenantal curse, the wicked are disinherited in history. Through this dynamic of blessing and negative sanctions, the righteous accrue dominion in the earth.

As an example of the covenantal foundations of Scripture we examine the structure of Deuteronomy 28. The first verse exhorts the Israelite nation to hear, observe, and perform all the commandments which God had given for the expressed purpose of setting her high above all the nations of the earth. Then in the next 13 verses, all the blessings that were to be accrued in relation to their obedience are delineated. Literally blessings are conferred which are coextensive with all of life both spiritual and material and all given with the end of blessing the nations of the earth. However, in the 15th verse the transition to negative sanctions (curses) occurs. From this point until the end of the chapter, temporal but very real curses are delineated for long term disobedience and covenant breaking. Thus, the negative sanctions exist to disinherit, diminish and eventually destroy wicked unrepentant individuals and nations.

If then the church is to pray and make proclamation covenantally, she must embrace the statutes of Scripture, both the blessings and the curses. For both are inspired by God and necessary for the work of Divine governance.

King David At War

David the warrior king, was a man of covenant who approached civil polity and spiritual worship, with a firm understanding of positive and negative sanctions. Witness the first Psalm. David extols the virtues of the righteous man who delights in God’s Law. He declares blessing and strength for the lawkeeper. The righteous man is described as a tree planted by the water, which brings forth its fruit in due season, whose leaf does not wither. This man is shown to be prospering in “whatsoever he doeth.”

However, David goes on to describe the lawbreaker as one who under the crushing weight of Divine wrath, becomes chaff driven by the wind, who cannot endure the judgement and will by virtue of his wickedness, perish from the earth. This covenantal understanding is paramount if we are to comprehend, embrace, and emulate David’s imprecatory war Psalms and recapture our lawless society.

Let us examine the controversial 109th Psalm. David is at prayer warring against the enemies of God. In verses 4 and 5, David gives himself to prayer and describes his enemies as those who act with disdain for God and righteousness. From this forensic-legal ground he proceeds to proclaim and enforce the covenantal negative sanctions against these very same enemies in verses 6 through 29.

It is important to note that David is merely applying God’s Law to specific conditions. That is each imprecation found in this Psalm is directly related to definite covenantal sanctions. There is nothing of David here!

All of his utterance is being inspired by God and applied to very real circumstances. Yet to the casual observer, the language is harsh even hateful. Indeed, this has caused great bewilderment for many learned men who have tried to reconcile such praying with the love ethic of Christ. C.S. Lewis for example found these Davidic imprecatory prayers so offensive that he ascribed them to demonic authorship. C.I. Scofield while not as brazen as Lewis, nevertheless asserts that the imprecatory Psalms amount to something of a Davidic temper tantrum, which under the “old dispensation” was excusable, yet in the “new” is less than desirable behavior.

While these views are common, they are also heretical and in the case of Lewis, blasphemous. Certainly these views (Lewis in particular), fail to take into account that God’s Word is Divinely inspired, infallible, and immutable. Secondly, they fail to understand the covenantal continuity of both Old and New Testaments. What this means practically, is that unless the New Testament specifically changes, modifies, or nullifies an Old Testament principle, that principle is still in effect and is binding. Mr. Scofield and the adherents of dispensational thought find this proper covenantal hermeneutic somewhat disturbing in that it strips away the convoluted notions that the New Testament saint should never act “harsh and hateful” as David. However, David is not praying these prayers autonomously, but rather under Divine inspiration. Thus to assert that David is motivated by hate is to charge the God of Old and New Testaments with maniacal intentions.

Truly, many pietistic clergyman have maintained that the God of the Old Testament is full of wrath and hate and yet the very same God is full of sentiment and love in the New Testament. Rather than a Biblical depiction of the God who “is the same yesterday, today, and forever”, their perception is of a truncated and schizophrenic deity who maintains an identity crises replete with subjective, mercurial and arbitrary actions. Due to these views, the pietistic, antinomian, dispensationalist framework denies any possibility of enforcing negative sanctions in the temporal yet inconsistently and hypocritically affirms Divine wrath in eternity. Such incongruent thinking is typical of anticovenantalists.

The New Testament Speaks!

Another strange omission by these anemic evangelicals are the numerous imprecations which are found in the New Testament directly from the lips of Jesus and the apostles. For example, In Matthew 23 verses 13, 15, 16, 23, 24, 27, and 29, Christ unleashes a crushing cannonade upon the Pharisees in the form of a seven-fold curse upon their heads! Is this utterance inharmonious with the love of God?

Certainly not! Rather this is a loving warning of the sure and swift negative sanctions that are about to fall upon those who have prostituted the Law of God if they do not repent. In fact Christ is delivering a covenantal lawsuit that will arrest their miscreant behavior either through repentance or horrific judgment.

Also, the apostle Paul declares anathema (eternal destruction) upon anyone “who loves not the Lord Jesus” in I Cor. 16:22. Again Paul grapples with heretics who were seeking to pervert the church at Galatia when he pronounces a curse upon them in Galatians 1:8 and again praying that they would be emasculated, neutered lest their heresy reproduce in chapter 5:12. In II Timothy 4:14 Paul invokes covenantal theology when he declares that Alexander the metal worker be repaid according to his deeds. Alexander resisted and caused great damage to Paul’s ministry.

Question:- Is this the same Paul who authored the great love chapter namely I Corinthians 13?

Yes, indeed and the same God who moved upon him with Divine inspiration!

Real Churchmen Fight!

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds.

– 2 Corinthians 10:4

Our forefathers embraced covenantal imprecatory prayer as a potent and Divine weapon that would demolish all opposition to the advance of the Kingdom of Christ. They were not a squeamish lot, and were fully prepared to prosecute the war against the lawless.

We should pray that our enemies be converted and become our friends, and if not, that their doing and designing be bound to fail and have no success and that their persons perish rather than the Gospel and the Kingdom of Christ.
– Martin Luther

If any of the enemies of God’s people belong to God’s election, the Church’s prayer against them giveth way to their conversion, and seeketh no more than that the judgement should follow them, only until they acknowledge their sin, turn, and seek God.
– David Dickson

That which is ridiculous deserves ridicule!
– St. Augustine

Dear saints it is time to stand upon the covenants of Scripture. It is time to rise and strike for the advance of the Gospel. No shirkers nor cowards need apply. The call of Divine government is upon you. Will you be girded with terrible resolution as David? Will you join the “communion of men with God? Will you exercise dominion in all spheres of life? I pray so for the sake of your children and our republic.


Dr. George Tiller and “Defensive Action”

June 1, 2009

By Jay Rogers

If you are concerned with the abortion issue at all, you already know about Dr. George Tiller’s death. Tiller was the late term abortionist who operated a clinic in Wichita, Kansas. He was shot to death while serving as an usher in his church on Sunday, May 31st, 2009.

In 1993, I moved into a house directly across the street from one of America’s most notorious abortion clinics, Aware Woman Center for Choice in Melbourne, Florida. I had been involved in pro-life activism at abortion clinics since 1989 and was especially concerned that, after the shooting deaths of two abortionists in 1993, the movement was in serious trouble. Rather than duck and cover like so many other Christian media outlets had done, I felt it was the right time to confront the issue head on with a viable solution. I later bought the house and it became a staging area for peaceful protest. I became obnoxious to both the abortionists, who attempted unsuccessfully to sue me, and even to some pro-lifers who refused to act without a proper respect for the guidance of seasoned pro-life pastors and leaders. I even banned several people from use of my property who refused to follow the protocol I demanded as the owner. Eventually, the clinic was forced to close in 1999 and the owners chose to retire rather than relocate.

But in 1993, the prospect of furthering peaceful resistance looked bleak. With the election of Bill Clinton, restrictive federal laws were created concerning free speech and assembly. The right to protest in front of abortion clinic in Melbourne, Florida was made illegal for a time. Such laws, which were applied only to pro-lifers, would have been unthinkable had they been applied to any other social activist group. Civil rights protesters who trespassed in “whites only” restaurants, PETA protesters who spray paint fur, and environmental activists who chain themselves to redwoods to save the trees from logging companies are not only tolerated under the first amendment, but even celebrated within their own community of advocates. But with the election of Clinton, pro-life speech suddenly became illegal. The reason given, of course, was to curb the “terrorism” of the defensive action crowd within the pro-life movement.

The crisis of principles was inevitable. Pro-life advocates believe abortion is murder. Many of us were drawn into pro-life activism because we were challenged by a radical idea.

If you believe that abortion is murder, then act like it is murder!

Taken to a logical extreme comes the philosophy of defensive action — that it is permissible to use violent force in resistance to a more egregious violent force. I wrote a response to defensive action in 1993, called Justifiable Homicide that was published in the Christian Reconstructionist magazine, The Chalcedon Report. The article has been referenced by both pro-life and pro-abortion activists. I won’t paste my argument in its entirety into this blog entry, but it is available at our website:


Defensive action is the idea that violent force in the defense of life is permissible since a human life is being taken in an abortion. Since the civil magistrates’ duty is to protect life is being neglected, it is logical to a certain type of mind that individual violent resistance becomes permissible in these cases. Defensive action advocates claim that this is not vigilantism, but the necessary use of violent force in defense of life.

In 1993, Rachelle Shannon used this rationale to shot Dr. Tiller in both arms with a .32 caliber pistol — a gun that is able to kill, but usually does not incapacitate people. Her intent has to merely prevent his ability to commit abortion that day, but not to kill. I remember at the time wondering why in heaven’s name, if she used this argument to justify her defensive action, she simply didn’t finish the job once and for all. As one activist remarked, “This woman is a disgrace both to our pro-life ethic and our marksmanship!”

I’ve spent many hours debating with the defensive action crowd. I will be the first to say that their argument, although wrong, deserves careful scrutiny. I actually agree with defensive action in certain cases. Think of the following situation. Let’s say a serial child molester was released from prison. It defies all justice that the man was released, but let’s suppose that an extreme circumstance was responsible for this travesty. Suppose also that this sociopath has moved into your neighborhood. Soon after that you discover that your six-year-old daughter has wandered on to his property. After a frantic search, you find your child pinned to the ground by the man in the very act of rape. You hold a baseball bat in your hand.

Is it permissible in this case to use deadly force in defense of life?

Let’s say a group of pastors in Nazi Germany begin to participate in a strategy of espionage that results in several assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler. We applaud the resistance of brave Lutheran pastors and erstwhile pacifists such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoeller, precisely because their defensive action in taking one life would have prevented the killing of tens of millions.

What makes killing abortion doctors any different?

The reason is that the defensive action scenarios and their actual implementation have never taken place within the confines of God’s law. That is not to say that they cannot in any circumstance be justified. For instance, if a family member, let’s say a 16-year-old daughter, was about to kill her unborn child and was inside the abortion clinic with a police presence that prevented you from interceding for the life of the baby. I believe it would be permissible to use violent force to prevent the abortionist from murdering your grandchild. In this example, I would agree with violent defensive action.

However, under God’s moral law, we cannot act outside the authority of the civil magistrate to prevent all murder in all cases through the use of deadly force. The only exceptions to this would be the case of a war action, defending a family member, which I’ve mentioned, or a case in which all other options of non-violent resistance would be ineffective to defend a helpless victim. None of the four deadly shootings of abortion doctors that have occurred since 1993 fit these parameters.

It is also good to keep this in perspective. Four cases have occurred in 16 years in which abortion doctors have been shot to death in the United States. Yet since Roe v. Wade was decided, about 45 million unborn baby boys and girls have been slaughtered.

“Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord GOD, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?” – Ezekiel 18:23

Except for the sorrow expressed by God himself when an unrepentant sinner perishes, I don’t mourn the death of those who deserve death. I expect that the general public’s attitude toward Tiller’s assassination is going to be a lot less austere than it was in 1993. We have a president who refused to vote to protect babies even in the ninth month of pregnancy. It’s no coincidence that abortion clinic related violence decreases when a pro-life president is in office, but increases when extreme pro-abortion legislation is enacted that is out of the mainstream of American public opinion.

Barack Obama is responsible for creating the atmosphere of violence among the defensive action folks in the pro-life movement, just as Bill Clinton and Janet Reno through their jackbooted federal thuggery were responsible for creating the frustrated backlash that erupted from among a fringe element who were previously quelled by opportunities for social and political activism within the larger peaceful movement.

As John F. Kennedy said about the civil rights movement, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”


June 1, 2009

By Jeff Ziegler
The great dynasties of Major League Baseball have always maintained supremacy of the ball diamond through the development of supportive minor league teams more commonly referred to as the farm system. When properly supported, the farm team – minor league organization, cultivates young talent that can be employed for the “big leagues” when the need arises or the position has opened. This is an inherently”bottom-up” approach which in the long term, provides a particular franchise with stability and success. While the age of “free agency” has modified this approach (using large sums of cash to buy a players contract), the farm-system comprised of home grown talent is still the dominant theme for long term stability and annual competiveness.
In the political world success is measured in the terms of victories, from which the projection of power determines policy. Even if one desires to decentralize and restrict political power, such polices must at some point be enacted from a position of authority. In order to achieve that influence one must field candidates, win races, and control political parties at the local level. Unfortunately, most politically active Christians think in terms that cripple any long term development of local “talent” which can then be called upon to cogently represent the claims of Christ in the “big leagues” of civil discourse and policy making.
In America, politically active Christians are eerily uniform in their reactive response to negative and sinful national trends. They are very good at the point of protest and can marshal grass roots outrage on the national stage. But as SGI oft declares “outrage” rarely wins battles! So even when Christians are victorious at blunting a particular onerous policy, such obsessions with all things national brings a woeful neglect to the gateways of political influence at the local level. Therefore we are always left to react to what the “bad guys” are doing instead of making them react to us. You can’t play defense all the time and expect to take ground!
This negligence ensures that explicitly Christian thinking candidates are not developed. Hence; the saints are nearly always left outside the political process, first at the local level and then in the larger arenas. Tough we do become expert “rock throwers”! Local political farm systems support the development of national candidates. Where do you think Sarah Palin came from? Was she groomed by a cabal of “New World Order” thinkers? Hardly! She started out as a school board activist! Hence patience over panic, planning over reaction, and intelligent action over protest wins the day!
Yet, most Christians hold to a “top-down” approach to political thought that deleteriously ignores grass-roots foundations. Result? The saints are marginalized as protestors with little if any bite. Indeed, if I had a dime for every sincere saint who said something akin to “I don’t care about this local stuff … look at what Obama is doing to the nation” I would be a very wealthy man indeed.
When you add the varied conspiracy theories to the milieu, the saints are at a huge disadvantage. “Success” is deemed impossible in that even if some measured advance is noted “the conspiracy” either real or imagined will succeed in thwarting any meaningful advance. Hence local politics is seen as naive and without hope for promotion. Yet it will be local politics, state sovereignty issues, governors and business leaders that will determine the outcome of the Obama years, not Federal obsessions, international cabals, or elite effete billionaires!
A Dominion Attitude
A dominion attitude rejects defeatist notions and embraces long term biblical strategies which ensure a “little by little” conversion or defeat of entrenched political adversaries. Some of these strategies include:
1) Training explicitly Christian candidates in issues of civil polity, campaigns, and theology. This is paramount! You can’t beat something with nothing!
2) Building campaign organizations that are not dependent on the party. That is building a self-sustaining entity at every level of campaign involvement. THIS IS IMPERATIVE! More Christian candidates have lost races due to their naive dependence on state party machines than any other single factor. The machine is NOT on your side! No exceptions! Build your own base, over successive elections and watch how effective you become as a power broker for Constitutional causes!
3) Training precinct committeemen for party service. Concentration is on trained Christians who look to control the executive committee and various other committees (finance, public relations, candidate recruitment etc.) with an eventual Christian party chairman that takes seriously his mission to win back and advance basic Christian cultural ideals.
4)  Running races at local and state levels. That is zoning boards, city council, county offices, health boards, school boards, state representative etc. Start with the achievable and LEARN!
5)  Involvement in vital peripheral organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, Rotary Clubs, or start your own think-tank!
6)  Discipleship of existing civil magistrates.
7)  Committees of correspondence and phone/email/fax/blogging networks to bring public pressure to bear on various issues.
8)  Using antithesis both in campaigns and marketing to help define the battlefield in the community. Politics is war by another means! Grow up! Remember Jesus called the scribes and Pharisees “whitewashed tombs and vipers”.
9) After one local county party is sufficiently controlled, branching out into the contiguous counties within the same congressional district.
10) Encourage Christian independents to also run for non-declarative races (city council) and so as to raise up an alternative group of candidates that can assert pressures from outside the  main parties.
11) Start your own business! Especially in an age when entrepreneurism is frowned upon by the Obamaites, what better way to resist and prosper than to start your own business!

Church Recruitment
The average church in America has membership of approximately 190 people. If each church represented on the SGI mailing list were able to activate 10% of their parishioners toward service in the civic realm, a great political force would arise. Now many a churchman decries political involvement. They claim we are not “saved” through politics! To which I agree! But one must ask the question for what end did Christ save us? Certainly he saves us from our sins and sanctifies us for an eternity spent with Him. Nevertheless we are not placed in this life to take up space, but to press His claims in every sphere of life. Politics is of importance because in this age it has become the chief battleground, the place of contest and the great engine of brutish state power. Our involvement in the body politic will be to make poltics of less import through limited government power, greater personal freedom and responsibility, and finally emphasis on family renewal in Christ. In the end we work for a world free from Caesar that we may be free in Christ!

%d bloggers like this: