Link to 20-minute radio interview informing on the dangers of the UN Convention On the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:
Visitwww.hslda.org/crpd for more info.
A contention for the Constitutionally legitimate right to LIFE and biblical marriage in brief contrast to the maligned insistence that same-sex “marriage” and other forms of perverted sexuality also qualify as natural, equal rights.
An actuality that most people are increasingly (and, often willfully) ignorant of today is the fact that America began with the collective ambition of effectuating a “city upon a hill” vision. This goal was the dream of our Puritan founders; the proclamation of the Gospel and the freedom to interpret it privately as common citizens was the primary motivation for our establishment. Ensuing liberty was consequently inevitable as responsible men and women recognized that freedom was not an absence of laws, but rather an upholding of God’s Law. One such, namely, was the sanctity of the marriage covenant.
The defilement of sexuality and marriage was rightly understood a reproach to a nation (Proverbs 14:34); this persuasion signified not merely the understanding under the Old Covenant, but continued and surfaced throughout several centuries of our own government, as well. As is the case with every substantial document, the Constitution cannot be properly interpreted by its text alone as definitions and wordage subjectively undergo continual evolution with society and culture. Historical context is nearly as important as textual content itself, acting as the enlightening “lens” of literature, so to speak. During the time of the Constitution’s drafting and following, the sin of sodomy was severely penalized by castration. Thomas Jefferson endorsed a bill supporting dismemberment of rapists. Imprisonment connoted one penal consequence of adultery. Clearly, perverse sexuality was a significant issue to our founders—not a matter deserving “equal-rights protection,” but as a matter deserving due recompense considering the natural right it essentially opposed.
Civic rights are founded initially on the concept of natural law. Natural law delineates those rights divinely dispensed at conception; this conviction was the driving motivation of the Preamble (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”) The highest and most fundamental of these natural rights was the “right to LIFE,” ensured indirectly by Amendment Ten, and directly by Amendment Fourteen and our Preamble. Life was therein avowed federal protection and preservation from the womb.
Homosexuality blatantly disregards life as it opposes the marriage union and the pattern of sexuality providing the only possible formula for reproduction: the one-man, one-woman bond. More severely, it transgresses the spiritual concept that earthly marriage reflects: the Trinity.
Without a respect for natural rights, no basis for “equal rights” exists.
“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” ~ George Washington
“Is it not the great end of religion, and, in particular, the glory of Christianity, to extinguish the malignant passions; to curb the violence, to control the appetites, and to smooth the asperities of man; to make us compassionate and kind, and forgiving one to another; to make us good husbands, good fathers, good friends; and to render us active and useful in the discharge of the relative social and civil duties?”
~ William Wilberforce
What William Wilberforce proclaimed a Christian obligation is regarded with great skepticism today. Legislative attempts to “drive religion and its influence out of public life” (Carson) and appeals for tolerance from within the church have contributed to the labeling of Christian political participation as irrelevant to biblical priority and evangelical calling. As immorality gains legalization in increasing distaste towards life and family, many well-meaning believers assume silent complacency in the face of moral deterioration. Insisting that God’s people are not of this world, and holding to a misconception of church-and-state separation, the Church has unknowingly forfeited her voice in the pulpit and courts. Unfortunately, she has forgotten that an evangelical calling requires that every believer wield the sword of righteousness in a biblical worldview which places earthly law in the scope and view of the consummation of the Great Commission.
To limit the Christian’s accountability to the church or mission field is to underestimate God’s range of presence and concern. He does not reign over those regions pronounced religious only, but also over every aspect of life. To reflect His universal permeation, man was designated the role of cultivator over both natural and spiritual matters (Genesis 2:2). From tilling the ground to constructing profound cities, creation was lent subject to man’s will for the express purpose of directing men to their Creator (John 20:31). Men were called to exemplify the spiritual implications of this cultural mandate in upholding the Law in both daily life and particular vocations. Biblically prominent figures such as Daniel, Joseph, and Deborah were each called to civic roles to enact social order based on biblical statutes. Paul re-affirmed the continuity of this responsibility among believers in addressing the protection of widows, orphans, and the socially weak (Psalm 82:3; Isaiah 1:17).
A truly biblical understanding of the Great Commission perceives the world a mission place in which every earthly subject holds potential to serve and glorify the Savior. This worldview presents not a dichotomy of life, but a unity which centralizes upon Christ. By asserting laws which resemble eternal precepts and restraining surrounding evils, Christians fulfill their office as true “witnesses” (Isaiah 43:10). The institutions of church and state are perceived not as polar associations, but as subjects mutually ordained by God. Only in this perspective do we begin to fathom God’s all-consuming sovereignty. It is only in this enlightenment in which regenerate, mortal beings can exist in the world, utilizing its tools without conforming to its values.
Works Cited: Carson, Clarence B. Basic American Government. Amercan Textbook Committee Publishers. Wadley, Alabama. 1994.
The Church Universal has only two divisions.
- The Church Militant – Ecclesia Militans – are those Christians living on earth. They are the Christian militia who struggle against sin, the flesh, the devil and “… the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Ephesians 6:12).
- The Church Triumphant – Ecclesia Triumphans – are those Christians who are in Heaven. Although progressive sanctification takes place through this struggle on earth, those who pass on to be present with the Lord are made perfect “in the twinkling of an eye” (1 Corinthians 15:52).
As much as anyone I have ever known, Jeff Ziegler was a man who understood the meaning of the Church Militant. On Tuesday, February 28, 2012, Jeff became part of the Church Triumphant. He has been relieved of all earthly struggle and has been made perfect in Christ.
Jeff had suffered a cerebellar aneurysm in late 2009 and had been recovering from what is certain death in about 97 percent of cases. Doctors called his recovery late December of that year a “Christmas miracle.” Last week, Jeff suffered a heart attack while doing work at the Ohio State House. This was apparently unrelated to the earlier episode.
I first met Jeff when he was a speaker in our church, The Boston Worship Center, in 1987. A group of us took him on a “revival tour” of northern New England visiting several of the churches where a hero in the faith, George Whitefield, had preached. Jeff later traveled to England and Scotland and was able to preach in one of the pulpits frequented by Whitefield. In the 25 years I knew him, Jeff was a man driven by a vision for Revival and Reformation.
He went through quite a theological evolution in his lifetime. However, in all my dealings with Jeff, he was always Jeff. In the early 1990s, after I came to Florida to work on The Forerunner. Jeff would contribute frequent articles, which I’ve posted links to below. Our phone calls often went on for a long time and covered every topic imaginable. Jeff had a huge impact on my thinking as a young Christian involved in full-time missionary and evangelistic work. I saw him whenever he came to Florida and visited Cleveland for two conferences he organized. Jeff was always very gracious, yet direct when he needed to be. For example, he used to call me when I was doing print version of The Forerunner to give me names of donors that were generous with him. He did that without my solicitation just trying to help me.
Jeff took a role in leading several organizations throughout Ohio for the purpose of direct action in reforming culture and politics. One of the former members of his church recently described him as “a gentleman of the first order … he lived what he believed, a rare commodity in 2012.”
He later took part in video productions I produced, including God’s Law and Society and the following clip as part of a World Changers Seminar on the Capitol Mall in Washington D.C.
One of the hallmarks of Jeff’s preaching is that he always threw his whole heart and being into his message, speaking with the same forceful tone and volume no matter if it were a crowd of hundreds or less than a handful of people in a small seminar. We recently worked together on the Statesman Global Initiatives website and blog. Jeff’s most recent book, Republic Restored, was accepted into the Library of Congress.
Recent years had more than their share of personal trials and medical turmoil that took a toll on this soldier for Christ, but he can rejoice that he has joined the Church Triumphant.
- Perfect Love and Revival
- The Path of Revival – Part One
- The Path of Revival – Part Two
- What is Revival and Spiritual Awakening?
- Who Will Rule the Earth?
- The Reformed Paradigm
- Covenantal Inheritance
- The Million Man March
- Puritan Storm Rising
- Imprecatory Prayer! – The Church’s Duty Against Her Enemies
- Enforcing the Crown Rights of Christ
- A Prayer for Ohio
- Impact of Calvinism on Culture
- Creeds and the Cultural Mandate
- He Who Reads, Leads!
- The Declaration of Independence: Christian Masterpiece or Humanist Tripe?
- The Bipolar World of Death Penalty Politics
- Schizophrenic! The Muddled World of Egalitarian Media Politicos
- The Image of God, the Incarnation, and the Spirit of Herod
- Political Vision of Christian Patriotism
- Dangers of Nativism in the Religio-Political Sphere
- Take Me Out to the Ball Game
- Puritan New World Thinking vs. The Nativistic Urge
- Political Propaganda: Not the Exclusive Domain of Tyrants
- Of Reformers, Separatists and Elections
- Topical Questions for the Resurgent National Reform Association
- Prophetic Voice and Campaign Finance Reform
- True Life: Faith, the Assault against Maturity, and Its Political Impact
- For Renewed Vigor!
- Puritan Storm Rising!
- A Call For A Renewed Reformation Zeal
- Paradigm Shift: Ecclesiology and Eschatology
- The True Nature of History
- Imprecatory Prayer: The Church’s Duty Against God’s Enemies
- Obama and Infanticide: The issue that will not go away
- An Imprecatory Prayer Proclamation: Barack Obama
- An Interview with Jeff Ziegler
- God’s Law and Society (DVD)
- Reed Worship
- Election 2012: What Will You Do?
Question:– Didn’t the Apostle Paul say that we are no longer under law but under grace? If so, then what is the use of the Law of God under the New Covenant?
Jeff Ziegler: The notion of being “under grace and not law” is something not to be underestimated or undermined. But what is it Paul is saying? We are not saved nor justified by law. We are justified by faith in Christ. It is His finished work alone that secures our redemption. However, how is it that we are to live our lives? Is it by every whim or every fancy of our own wicked heart — a deceitful heart that we cannot know? The Law of God has not passed away in terms of our guide for life in godliness. Jesus himself said that “not one jot nor tittle will pass away” until all things are fulfilled. Christ as the fulfillment of the law gives us the grace, which is divine almighty power effective on our behalf. He gives us the grace to live according to the law not to transgress the law. We see in Romans 6:1, “Shall we sin that grace may abound? God forbid!” And how is it we know that we sin? We have an unchanging standard in God’s Law.
Now granted, there have been portions of Old Testament Law that have been changed or nullified. For example, the sacrificial system is no longer needed and is repugnant to God because Christ is the final and last sacrifice. The dietary laws have been modified and changed. But the moral law is still binding. For example, the laws against bestiality in the Old Testament are no where repeated in the New. Yet no one will say that bestiality is somehow now under grace. It’s still sin. The ideas and notions of our conduct are in the Law of God. They are not options. They are commands. They have not been nullified or abridged in any way by Christ’s finished work. In fact, now that law is written upon our heart and our mind and we are given grace to follow hard after them in a way that was not possible in the old dispensation.
Of course, Christianity is ultimately personal and intimate. We come by the finished work of Jesus Christ into a living, real and vital relationship with God. The creation can touch the Creator — the Christ. That brings joy unspeakable and full of glory — there can be no doubt. But then what? This personal, real and vital relationship must be manifest. The Great Commission says that we are to be a witness unto all nations. We are to teach those nations all the things that Christ did depict and declare. That means that we are to enforce, declare and disciple the nations, every tribe, every kindred, every ethnic grouping under and according to God’s Law.
The idea that religion is only personal is actually heretical. That’s an ancient heresy called Gnosticism. They said that the material world was evil and the unseen world was innately spiritual. That’s why so many Christians in that era, and even today, have not had a proper view of sexuality, the family, the role of the Church, their role in society, and even the idea of work and creating wealth. They think the material world is evil. And therefore, they must cultivate material monastic ideas to be closer to Christ. But the idea of being close to Christ, the chosen fast of God, is to go out and set at liberty the captives. So whether it is preaching the Gospel to men so that they may be redeemed. Or whether that means going into the civil realm as a politician and declaring the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ there and ruling diligently according to the Law of God. Or whether that means being a home schooling mom and raising a generation of champions for Jesus Christ. At every realm, Christ the expression of the Gospel, His life is real and vital, and therefore it must have an outward flow.
Question:– Was the New Testament Church really a “New Testament” Church as we think of it today? In what ways was their situation different from ours?
Jeff Ziegler: The battle in America is between two ideas or notions and it is the Lordship of Jesus Christ versus the authority of the state or “Caesar.” And that’s really always been the question. Even in Christ’s day, in the Gospels we see that the issue is always framed around: What allegiance do we owe to Caesar? What are our duties? And what allegiance do we owe to Christ?
Romans 13 gives us the parameter by which we are to judge our actions in this way. Romans 13 declares what kind of civil magistrate or elected official is endorsed by God. This kind of civil magistrate be he a monarch, a king, a parliamentarian, a congressmen, a president, must affirm God’s law, punish wickedness, and affirm and reward righteousness. That is the kind of civil magistrate we are to obey. However, if the civil magistrate becomes tyranny to God’s ways and in fact punishes righteousness and rewards wickedness, by virtue of their call to obey God’s Law-Word in every jot and tittle, by His grace, Christians must be resolved to resist tyranny and to stand against such injustice.
While there was no implicit call to resist the tyranny of Rome by Paul, the fact that he gave us that filter in Romans 13 actually was a defense of the civil disobedience of the early church. The very preaching of the Gospel, the serving of Christ as the Lord of the nations, as He being God alone and no the Caesar cult, that was an act of civil disobedience. That’s the reason why the Christians were persecuted and hounded and sent to the catacombs and put into the coliseums in the fierce competitions and the persecutions of Imperial Rome. It was the fact that they were not obeying the Caesar cult. So Romans 13 is a defense of the Gospel, but when we act upon the Gospel, when we preach the Gospel, when we live the Gospel, it is inevitably going to bring us in conflict with Caesar — or the state that would be God.
When we look throughout the book of Acts and we see the Apostles, the deacons, and simple Christians being brought before civil magistrates giving an account for their faith and the Apostle Paul is one of these. And the question comes down to: When it is Christ versus Caesar, do we obey God and His Law or man? That is the issue between Christ and Caesar and on that there can be no neutrality, if we consistently live the Gospel, preach the Gospel, demonstrate the Gospel. Even the idea of rescuing babies — the early church were taking abandoned babies that were left under the bridge abutment to die by Roman paganism. They were taking them as their own and adopting them and raising them in the faith. That was against Roman law. A true Gospel expression will always bring us into conflict, not with the civil magistrate that God ordains, but with the civil magistrate who seeks to dethrone God and become God himself.
Question:– Can we really legislate the biblical standards of morality on non-Christians? The non-Christian doesn’t even believe in the Bible, so how can we even talk about building a society based on the Law of God?
Jeff Ziegler: The idea that we can be governed by many moralities, or pluralism, is really a myth. We are either in obedience to God’s Law or we are in opposition to God’s Law. Now there is a concern in a mechanistic sense that we are going to impose God’s Law through an ecclesiocracy, that is a rule through the clergy, or through some dictatorship as in an Islamic nation. That is a misinterpretation of biblical Law. Biblical Law when it regards civil polity, is the ultimate decentralized government. Scripture does not support nor trust dictatorships. The whole idea behind God’s judgment at the Tower of Babel was that man was coming together. He had all of his strength in one central location and had a global government. And God by once stroke of the hand decentralized that government and turned the languages against one another and formed nation-states from that one expression of a global tyranny.
That is the paradigm of the liberal. Liberals and humanists think in terms of statism. They must have the state to coerce and to force their ideas upon the people. They don’t have another way of thinking. The state is messiah for them. When they look upon us and see our ideas and notions, that we are fighting for biblical law being applied to all of life, they can’t think in any other terms. They think it’s going to be a top-down theocratic, oligarchic or monarchic system. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s not revolution or political dictatorships that we place our faith in, rather it’s the power of conversion. We are converting literally millions to the idea that God’s Law is supreme. We see these revolutionary trends in home schooling, in ecclesiastical reform, and in the civil realm as we elect expressly and explicitly Christian politicians — not simple neo-conservatives — but Christians who acknowledge God’s Law.
As we see this, one family at a time, one church at a time, one community at a time, one state at a time, America will be converted. It will be through conversion and not revolution that we see this great reordering and restructuring and reanchoring of our society to God’s Law. Now there will always be those who are autonomous rebels, who trample underfoot the Son of God, who count the blood of the covenant to be unholy. They will always seek to overthrow God’s rule. In the family, we see it with divorce and abortion. We see it in the church with ecclesiastical anarchists, those who will not be governed by sound doctrine. We see it in civil states. But only if they resort to violent means to overthrow godly order would they be suppressed. But they would not be suppressed by clergymen, but by a decentralized federal republic.
Question:– How did Christian philosophy influence our form of civil government?
Jeff Ziegler: There is great consternation and controversy about what Christ’s Lordship actually means in the real world. Most Christians will not argue with the fact that He does rule our lives. He is the ruler, the Lord, the King of their families and their church. But much beyond that, the idea of Christ’s Lordship begins to fall on deaf ears. The retort you often hear revolves around the time period when Christ is before Pilate’s inquisition and says, “My kingdom is not of this world.” Let’s put this in context however. Christ was not saying that His kingdom was not manifest in the world. What he was saying to Pilate “My kingdom does not gain it’s authority from Rome or the Sanhedrin. My authority comes from on high.” Pilate understood this. The irony is that the pagan tyrant understood, but Christians don’t today. So the authority of Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, but nonetheless, the kingdom has invaded this civil realm, the family realm, “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.” Every aspect of society is touched by the kingdom of God.
Now how does this work practically? If every time we’ll confess, “Every knee will bow” before Christ, that He is the Lord, that monarchs, kings, state representatives, congressmen, and presidents must bow their knee before God. By what standard will they bow the knee? Yes, it gets back to God’s Law. The kingdom has no place in terms of seeking approval or legitimacy here in the earth. It doesn’t need the president’s approval to exist. It’s authority comes from the other world. And therefore it is superior and higher. But the kingdom is manifest in the world and Christ’s Lordship is manifest in the world in the civil realm, in the family, in every aspect of society, economics, science etc. Christ’s Lordship has the claim.
We talk about the crown rights of Jesus Christ. By virtue of the finished work of Jesus Christ, He has the right to rule. He has the keys to the kingdom of heaven. He has reconciled all things in heaven and in earth, the visible and the invisible, the living and the dead. He rules over all. Christ’s kingdom is comprehensive in scope and absolute in its authority.
Question:– Were the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution drafted to uphold the moral laws of God — or were they Deistic humanist documents? If they were Christian documents, where have we gone so far off track?
Jeff Ziegler: There is no question that our Founding Fathers were an amalgamation of some Deistic humanists, Puritan thought as well as high Anglicanism, all mixed together and jostling for position in the context of our founding federal documents. However, there was an acknowledgment of man’s overriding depravity, the idea that absolute power corrupts absolutely was not a foreign idea to these men. In looking at the Hebrew Commonwealth in its decentralized forms of government, our founding fathers in their wisdom, set about to create a system where there would be checks and balances against this idea of absolute power, government by man, tyrannical carnality, with three branches of government, all of which are supposed to work to counter balance the other. At least theoretically, they would keep in check any tyrannical impulse.
Unfortunately, that assumes these three institutions are appealing to God’s Law. No matter how good the system, unless it is under the aegis and covering of God’s Law, any system can revert to tyranny. It can be the tyranny of the majority of paganism, of humanism. Even in Israel, in the Hebrew Commonwealth, when they began to apostatize and fall away from God’s Law, what did they begin to cry out for? — a tyrant, a king “like all he other nations.” They paid the price for it in terms of wars, tyrannical suppression and taxation, and ultimately in the division of their nation in two separate entities and then the invasion of foreign pagan powers to bring them under the enslavement of their anti-God ways. So they ultimately paid the price and we will too if we don’t turn back to God’s Law.
When we can compare biblical law versus natural law, scripture is the final immutable authority on every subject of which it speaks. It is binding not only on the regenerate that is the Christian, but the unregenerate alike. You’ll either are following God’s Law and prospering accordingly, or you’ll be broken by it. It doesn’t change. So whether you acknowledge it or not, it exists, and all men are judged by its standards.
Now there is certainly natural revelation. God has made himself known in the creation — there is evidence of his creation everywhere. But ultimately it is not evidence that man needs. It’s conviction of sin and to have his miscreant depraved nature arrested. The role of the civil magistrate is to keep a biblical and sound order, to prosper the righteous and to punish wickedness. You can’t do that by natural revelation or natural law. Now it’s true that in a godly or predominantly godly society, men will understand natural law in a way that mimics or comes close to biblical law. We see that in the embryonic stages of our nation. However, natural law can be co-opted and pirated by corrupt alien and humanistic worldviews. Natural law can be interpreted from many different angles. In so doing, morality become relativistic.
However, that cannot be said of the Ten Commandments because not only do we have the explicit injunction “Thou shalt not kill” (or murder) or “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” But we have case laws which interpret that law and how it is to be administered in the civil realm. So biblical law is superior because it is defined revelation. It is specific and applicable.
Question:– What about the “establishment of religion” clause in the U.S. Constitution? Doesn’t the U.S. Constitution forbid the display of religion in the civil sphere?
Jeff Ziegler: The main differences between the Roman Empire under the Caesar cult and the early Church’s reaction to it and Christians today in a constitutional republic, despite the fact that we’ve lost so many of our freedoms, we still have remedy at law to begin to work within the process to restore and reconstruct our nation along biblical lines — simply to restore it to what it once was. Under the Roman authority, Christians did not have the means to defend themselves. Christians did not have the right to an appeal. But we have that process here. We have the right to defend ourselves. We have a Constitution. We have a Bill of Rights. We have elected representatives that we can work with, lower civil magistrates that we can work alongside, convert to the faith and even elect those who are explicitly Christian to these lower realms and then begin to work up into the governmental powers that be.
Reconstruction and reformation is a ground-up idea. The idea of seizing control of Washington D.C., of the Congress and presidency, is hopelessly naive. We have to reconstruct families. We have to reconstruct churches. We have to begin to work at the local level. We have to develop regional zones of kingdom influence. Within that realm, we are exhibiting, testifying, and working for the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ. So in that realm Christians have a greater hope and an easier road to hoe than the early Christians did versus the imperial power of Rome.
It’s not as if this is a new thing that we are talking about. Our nation was founded under these strictures. If you go to any of the early colonial charters, the Fundamental Charters of Carolina, for example, there was a test for Christian orthodoxy for all civil magistrates and even land owners that they had to adhere to before they could be a recognized and vibrant part of the social fabric. We are not talking about anything that has not been done. It was done and accomplished in our nation and prior to the War Between the States, America prospered under such a mandate.
So we are not talking about Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran. We are not talking about Islamic law. We’re talking about biblical law. If we go back and we look at the Commonwealth of the Hebrew Republic, before the kings, we see a very decentralized system of government. Many people have the notion that Moses was a dictator, but that was only in the initial stages of the Exodus, which was primarily a military operation. Soon after that we see that Moses was going to wear away the people and God not only gave 70 elders, but princes and captains of fifties and tens. So you had this incredibly decentralized system of government among the tribes of Israel. People could say it was inefficient, but the whole idea was a check and balance against man’s depravity. We modeled our constitutional republic after the Hebrew Commonwealth. That’s what we’re talking about here.
Question:– What about the idea that the government should be neutral and should recognize that we live in a democratic, pluralistic society?
Jeff Ziegler: Probably the greatest evidence of humanism’s collapse and the reactionary statist hand being felt is in the former monopoly that we call public education. Public education is no such thing; it’s government indoctrination. After all, whether it be Hitler, Stalin or Mao, tyrants always try to grab hold of the next generation to perpetuate their rebellion. The public school system on a number of different fronts is beginning to collapse — academically, economically because people are no longer voting for levies, and because it is becoming more centralized in Washington D.C. Centralization is never an answer. Any business man could tell you that if the public school elitists definitely wanted to succeed, they would not want to centralize, but that is what they are doing. As these things begin to happen, more and more individuals leave the public school system either for parochial schools, private schools or for home school.
The correct reason for home schooling is not simply the quality of education in the government run school system. It is to say that the government has no authority whatever over you children., You are the one who is ultimately responsible.
As more have home schools, as more move to the parochial schools what is happening is a literal depopulation of the public system. Laws are being enacted at the state and federal level to destroy the freedom the parents have over their children. Home schoolers think that they have fought most of the legal battles in the 1980s. Actually they are going to see that their own success is going to breed a greater backlash by the state against their efforts. Ultimately, the state believes, whether at the local municipality, state or federal government, that they own the children. And that is where the great backlash of a collapsing humanism is going to be felt. It is going to take courage, conviction and sound theology by Christian parents not only to resist the tyranny, but to fight for justice.
Question:– Wouldn’t a Christian Republic run according to God’s Law become oppressive to non-Christians?
Jeff Ziegler: Freedom, liberty, has one chief end, and that is to advance Christ’s rule, His reign, over all the nations and all the realms of the earth. Liberty without the sure anchor of Christian orthodoxy is really a Greco-Roman idea. It leads either on one hand to unfettered licentiousness and moral anarchy, or on the other, to a paternalistic tyranny. Because when you have moral anarchy, the state will move to suppress that anarchy. Without Christian orthodoxy, the hope of freedom and liberty for which our Founding Fathers fought is elusive at best.
When autonomous man seeks liberty from God, his first action is to revolt against God’s law in order to fulfill the lusts of his flesh. Thereafter this period of anarchy, the messianic state seeks to suppress this moral anarchy. At that point, you have tyranny. You have the liberal or the right wing imposing their own morality apart from God. And so the whole idea of liberty is connected intrinsically to the idea of God’s moral law. Liberty apart from God’s law is an impossibility. There is no neutrality on this issue. It’s either God’s law or chaos. And if we have chaos, we will have tyranny. God has designed all governments, whether they are fascist, communist or democratic republics, to gravitate towards stability. The only question is will it be the governance of God’s Law or communism or fascism or any other man-centered humanistic ideal. So man can have his licentious, lust-filled day in the sun. But he will pay a price in the ultimate loss of all freedom.
It is no accident that apostasy and heresy in the church and civil tyranny among nations walk hand in hand. The orthodox expression of Christianity is the final guarantor of our freedoms. And so if heresy and infidelity to orthodoxy gains ascendancy within the church, it will eventually work its way out into the civil sphere. People often ask me why we have such oppressive government in America today. And my answer is: Don’t point to Washington D.C., because, while it is Sodom on the Potomac, the real problem lies with the pulpits of America. Unless we affirm Christian orthodoxy and the resulting freedoms it has birthed and guaranteed throughout the years, we will continue to be enslaved by our statist masters.
Question:– What can Christians begin to do from a practical standpoint to begin to rebuild our nation according to the standard of the Law of God? What would a Christian America look like?
Jeff Ziegler: The way that the state attempts to supplant God is to intrude upon the God-given rights of personal property and the pursuit of happiness — the things which are codified in our founding documents. This is true of communism, fascism, socialism and even a democratic republic. When the state begins to tax property, when it says that property which is given to you by God is now subject to their rule and their reign. You no longer own that property. You have become a serf through property taxes and income taxes. God gives you the power to get wealth. He is not the disburser of wealth, but gives you the power to get wealth to honor God. When they begin to tax income, property and things of this nature, they are intruding upon rights that God has given you. If they curtail your speech regarding the Gospel. We see that around abortion mills in these “buffer zones” where you cannot preach the Gospel or declare God’s Law. These notions to control the freedom to worship God are all signs of tyranny.
But the good news is this. Tyranny only goes so far and so long before it begins to burn out. First, because of its own corruption. Second, because there is only so much money and so much property to tax. Eventually, this insatiable appetite for more has to be curtailed by simple arithmetic. In America today, we have reached the point where moral corruption, infidelity to Gods law in the civil realm, humanism as a life assistance in the collegiate realm among the intellectual elite, Darwinism, all of these notions are coming to the end of their political and social life span. In fact, I can hear the death rattle in the throat of humanism. They know it. This is in one way encouraging, but in another way it leads us to the most dangerous period. Whenever these systems begin to collapse, men who have tied their fortunes, their lives, their reputations to these corrupted and fallen paradigms become very vicious and violent.
We see this in the old Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union began to collapse, it was uneven. We see anarchy, murder, the Russian Mafia. Yet there could be more political tumult there and in Eastern Europe. We don’t see the end of this yet. The same thing could happen in America. When humanism ultimately collapses and Christians rise to the fore, we could see things like the break-up and realignment of the United States. What is happening in the Soviet Union could certainly happen here. Those are dangerous times when one system is collapsing and another system arises. My great hope is that there is sufficient reformation and reconstruction in the church so that when the paradigm of humanism ultimately collapses, we will be able in the crisis to fill that vacuum. Otherwise, we’ll exchange one tyranny for another.
Jeff Ziegler: The Reformation Worldview
On September 3rd, 2000, a few Christian activists and scholars gathered on the Mall in Washington D.C. to conduct a day-long seminar on “world changing.” Exactly one year later, terrorists attacked Washington and New York. It became apparent that America must fight a long and costly was on two fronts. While international terrorism is being fought on one front, Christians activists must wage a war against a more subtle attack by anti-Christian “terrorists” within.
This seminar has become more relevant in light of the events of 9/11.
We offer this seminar to the next generation of world changers who can be used of God to turn our nation back from humanist domination.
Jeffrey A. Ziegler
Whining pontifications, belched from the nefarious abortionist; Merle Hoffman have filled the feminist press with tiresome libertine dribble. In her latest book; Hoffman declares abortion a “motherly loving choice” Hoffman’s definition of “loving” is at best strange and perverse.
Her predecessor, Margaret Sanger; the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an unabashed racist and urged the forced sterilization of “Jews, blacks, and Europeans of eastern and Mediterranean ancestry.” Additionally, Sanger advocated the complete overthrow of traditional families and “the enslaving institution of marriage.” In the political realm, Sanger’s views ran to anarchy and her depraved admiration for Adolph Hitler is well documented. Today, Hoffman follows the legacy of Sanger as the foremost champion of abortion in America and familial anarchy. Witness her shameless fawning over her own killing policies, and the promotion of abortions in America. Ergo, following the convoluted logic of Hoffman, killing unborn babies has become a “loving” value that must be defended from the advance of orthodox Christianity and justice for the unborn.
Hoffman clumsily attempts to legitimize and mainstream her statist bloodthirsty views under the aegis of traditional concepts of love and motherly notions. She knows that killing babies is not a marketable idea. Hence, Hoffman resorts to subtlety and subterfuge to posture herself as a benign centrist so as to maintain her blood money enterprise of killing. So while outrage at Hoffman’s anti-baby view is legitimate, one must turn such frustration into long term activism to challenge and repulse her skewed world-view. Murder money thugs like Hoffman always crash and burn in history!
Hoffman’s latest “motherly love” missive proves her contempt for “all things pertaining to life and Godliness.” In fact, Hoffman is a true rival of traditional Christianity. Judged by her sappy rhetoric, her religion venerates abortion as the new sacrament. Such love religions have fallen many an empire and left unchecked, will mean the death of America.
For More See Video at Jill Stanek’s article in Foundation of Life. http://www.foundationlife.net/?p=25450
By Jay Rogers
It is blasphemy to call tyrants and oppressors God’s ministers…. When magistrates rob and ruin the people, instead of being guardians of its peace and welfare, they immediately cease to be the ordinance and ministers of God, and no more deserve that glorious character than common pirates and highwaymen.— Jonathan Mayhew (1720 – 1766), Congregational minister at West Church in Boston
Should Christians always obey the government? If a government is ungodly should Christians resist the government? Romans 13 is often used as a proof text to say that we must obey civil rulers in all circumstances. Here is an underlying confusion between the person holding the office and the authority of that office which is established and maintained by God.
In John Knox’s day, the church had to deal with a wicked ruler, Mary Queen of Scots, who claimed authority merely because she held the office of regent. Knox argued that rulers who are disobedient to God have no part in civil office. Romans 13; 1 Timothy 2:1-2 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 refer specifically to just rulers and not to Lawless covenant breaking rulers. When David broke the commandments of God, it was the duty of the prophet Nathan to resist him, because God himself resisted David. In fact, when God himself opposes such rulers, it is the Church’s duty to pray imprecations and to resist their wickedness in obedience to the Law of God. If a tyrant is guilty for his crimes before God, then it is our duty to oppose him. If he repents, then our opposition to his sin will be used of God to bring him to repentance (as was the case with David). But if he does not repent, then our complicity with his sin will make us equally guilty.
Here I will answer some objections to this covenantal understanding of disobedience to tyrants. The following are actual objections culled from letters and articles I have received over the past few years from Christian leaders.
Objection #1: “The Lord wants to use the church even more than He wants to use the government.”
Here is a basic misunderstanding of the rule of God betrayed by the use of the phrase “the government.” Government does not refer to the civil sphere only. God has ordained all government; it falls into several biblical spheres: individual, family, church and civil government. Each one has a divine role to play in governing society. It is not a matter of God wanting to use the church “even more.” It’s rather a matter of each sphere fulfilling its proper role. The church cannot do what God has ordained for the civil magistrate (such as enforce the death penalty); nor can the state do what God ordained for the church (enforce church discipline and preserve correct doctrine); nor can the state play the role of the family (raise and educate our children). Our society is presently in a weird feeble state because we have not correctly understood these distinctions.
Objection #2: “We have a mandate from God to pray for and support our government, regardless of what we think about the current administration.”
We must always pray for our civil rulers, yes, but we should only support them if they uphold the covenant of God by ruling righteously. Over 400 years ago, the Scottish Covenanters refuted the idea of the “Divine Right of Kings” arguing that the king himself is in covenant with God. The people, as the king’s subjects, were also a part of the covenant.
Yes, God ordained earthly rulers, but only those who were just and obedient to God’s covenant with civil rulers (Romans 13:3-5). These rulers: (1) are not a terror to good works; (2) are ministers of good not evil; (3) bear not the sword in vain [unjustly]; (4) are servants of God (5) avengers of evil. If a civil ruler breaks covenant with God, the people are obliged to throw off the shackles of tyranny. Otherwise the people are guilty of submitting to the unjust commandments of wicked rulers.
Objection #3: “We must not continue to worship at the feet of political movements, trying to get the government to do the church’s job.”
What is really being said here is that it is not the civil rulers’ job to enforce the Law of God on issues such as abortion nor to bring biblical punishment to law breakers. Of course, this is absurd!
The church has its part to play and the state has its part. Both are responsible to uphold the rule of God’s Law in its own sphere. A model of government in which the church ruled supreme or the state ruled supreme would result in tyranny (and it often has). It is simply not God’s biblically ordained plan.
Objection #4: “If the energy now being put into political activism were redirected into prayer and the preaching of the gospel, far more would be accomplished for righteousness and truth than will ever be established through legislation.”
“Abortion is not a gospel issue.”
“If we would just preach the gospel; just pray more; etc. …”
Yet each of these sayings is antinomian. It seems that some Christians will always object to the idea of enforcing the Law of God.
Objection #5: “Morality instituted by compulsion can only be maintained by increasing control and fear.”
On the contrary, it is our God-given duty to maintain morality under “compulsion.” This is one of the reasons why the moral Law of God was given: it restrains the passions of a sinner in society.
John Calvin commented on this use of the Law:
Then, since the law declares God will be the avenger, sets punishment for transgressors, and threatens death and judgment, it serves at least by fear of punishment to restrain certain men who, unless compelled, are untouched by any concern for what is just and right. But they are restrained, not because their inner mind is stirred or affected, but because, being bridled, so to speak, they keep their hands from outward activity, and hold inside the depravity that otherwise they would wantonly have indulged. Consequently, they are neither better nor more righteous before God. Even though hindered by fright or shame, they dare neither execute what they have conceived in their minds or rage according to their lust. Still, they do not have hearts disposed to fear and obey God. Indeed, the more they restrain themselves, the more they are inflamed, burn and boil within, and are ready to do anything or burst forth anywhere — but for the fact that this dread of the law hinders them. Not only that — but so wickedly do they also hate the law itself, and curse God the Lawgiver, that if they could they would most certainly abolish him, for they cannot bear him either when he commands them to do right, or when he takes vengeance on the despisers of his majesty. But constrained and forced righteousness is necessary for the public community of men, for whose tranquillity the Lord so provided in guarding against complete and violent confusion. This would happen if all things were permitted to all men (Calvin, Institutes).
There are only two possible types of societies: a society under total sanctification with no compulsion; or a society that is only partially sanctified yet under compulsion to obey the Law. One of our founders put it this way, “If all men were angels, there would be no need for government.” Within history, there will never be a thoroughly “Christian” nation, in that not all members of the society will be entirely sanctified. In most societies, there will always be some sinners living in open rebellion to God. To advocate “no compulsion” is another way to say that sinners are free to do whatever they please in this life.
Since some will never be saved (and Christians will remain imperfect) the only restraint for their sin is “compulsion” under the moral Law of God. If a man is a thief, he should be punished for his thievery. What is called “oppression and bondage” is actually the moral Law of God acting as a standard for societal righteousness.
Some believe that God’s Law can have no jurisdiction over unconverted people. According to this reasoning, any attempt made to prevent the unconverted from their acts of sin is a futile, fleshly attempt to do only what the Holy Spirit can do through salvation. In reality, unconverted people are under the Law and therefore under the jurisdiction of God. Sinners are under the curse of the Law, because they haven’t obeyed the Law (Galatians 3:10). Of course, our primary objective is the salvation of the sinner. But to deny societal morality because it is instituted by “compulsion” is to advocate lawlessness and anarchy.
Objection #6: “When revival comes, we will not have to worry about changing laws — the people will be changed.”
Revival does not negate the role of the moral law of God in governing society. True revival is always characterized by: (1) Recovery of the Law-Word of God in the church and society; (2) Tremendous judgment of sin in the church and society; (3) Societal transformation. A.W. Tozer wrote: “Revival changes the moral climate of a community.”
These characteristics have been borne out by historical fact and are recorded in the writings of America’s past revivalists such as Charles Finney, John Wesley, George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards. These men have also taught us that politics or “civil government” is an institution to be reformed according to God’s Word.
“Revival” does not imply utopian perfection. When we have “revival” there will still be a need for civil government. As time goes on, its role will lessen and it will function within its God-given authority. In a biblically ordered society, for instance, acts of abortion might still occur, but the offenders would be punished by the civil authorities. Biblical Law enforced by the civil magistrate acts as a deterrent to crime.
Objection #7: There is also the prevailing view that “politics is dirty and cannot be expected to be as holy and sacred as the church.”
The Bible plainly teaches that both of these institutions are given by God and are equally holy, both are set apart for His purposes. The church has spiritual authority to address matters of morality, but civil government was given by God to punish wrongdoing (Romans 13).
Objection #8: “The Pharisees were on the right side of moral issues, but Christ opposed them for having a spirit of intolerance.”
The fact is, Jesus Christ opposed the Pharisees because they were lawless, covenant-breakers who held to the traditions of men rather than the Law of God.
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say and do not.” (Matthew 23:2,3).
Christ commanded his disciples to obey the Law, but He condemned the Pharisees for not observing the Law. Elsewhere He accused them of theft and idolatry.
Objection #9: “I’m not under the law. I’d rather err on the side of liberty than on the side of legalism.”
These statements belie a basic misunderstanding of the relationship between Law and Grace. There is some confusion among Christians today when discussing the Law of God and the Grace of God. When many Christians speak of grace or “Christian liberty,” they are often advocating a license to sin or an “antinomian” view that is clearly condemned in Scripture. Likewise, when many evangelicals speak of “the law” what they are referring to is not the moral Law of God, but a system of legalism or traditions devised by men. Many people view Law and Grace as being opposites. But both are true and necessary as standards of true conversion.
The grace of God means infinitely more than forgiveness of sin and umerited favor; it also entails the victorious Christian life and final perserverance to the resurrection. Grace is not merely a “covering for individual acts of sin” (justification) but it is “power over all sin” (sanctification).
Yet the moral Law of God remains the measure of sanctification for the believer. Furthermore, the Law of God, when codified as a basis for civil law, restrains the passion of the sinner (i.e., capital punishment is a deterrent to murder). It also acts as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Knowledge of the moral Law of God brings individuals knowledge of sin. How can we be saved unless we first know that we are sinners? Christ works through the moral Law as a means of grace to bring sinners to salvation. This is why we need to preach the Law of God to sinners in addition to salvation by grace through faith.
Thus there is no contradication between being “bound to obey the moral Law” and “being under grace.” The Law and Grace are not diametrically opposed, but are completely complementary doctrines.
Objection #10: “There are no political solutions. Jesus Christ is not a Republican nor a Democrat. He did not come to take sides in man’s political struggles. He came to take over.”
Yes, He came to have dominion. But His rule does not tolerate antinomianism!
The role of the Christian is to continue to resist evil tyrants until they leave office. It is sad that we have to have this discussion in America, a country founded on the ideals of Puritan theology. In the 1700s, at the time of the American Revolution, the average American citizen understood Puritan social theory and had a foundation in all these ideas. Samuel Adams said, referring to the overthrow of George III’s tyranny in America:
He who sets up and pulls down, confines or extends empires at his pleasure, generally, if not always, carries on his work with instruments apparently unfit for the great purpose, but which in his hands are always effectual … God does the work, but not without instruments, and they who are employed are denominated as his servants; no king, nor kingdom was ever destroyed by a miracle which effectually excluded the agency of second causes … We may affect humility in refusing to be made the instruments of Divine vengeance, but the good servant will execute the will of his master. Samuel will slay Agag; Moses, Aaron, and Hur will pray in the mountain, and Joshua will defeat the Canaanites.
And so the Church must defeat tyranny. If a civil ruler does not have God’s spirit in him, his lawless works will show him to be anti-Christ. If he rules in a tyrannical manner, we are duty bound to resist him as humble instruments in the hands of God. And if he does not repent of murder and idolatry, we are bound to destroy his regime.
“Ethical management,” “reproductive health,” and “choice” are all terms regularly utilized by pro-abortion advocates. Within a span of mere years, however, Planned Parenthood alone has been faced with charges involving malpractice and illegal admissions. In Texas, institutions were forced to close when allegations revealed that induced abortions were being administered by uncertified professionals. Establishments elsewhere drew more attention when supposed minors were given abortion referrals without required parental consent. Concerning the matters of reproductive health and choice, the company has refused to integrate ultrasounds in counseling, and has encouraged anything but true reproduction. Of the many services explicitly stated on its website, the company presently equates reproductive health with the promotion of STD testing, abortion and birth control services, and HPV vaccinations as easily accessible and affordable. Apparently, “choice” to this company refers not to a decision between life and death, but upon the varying ways to enact murder. Ironic is the fact that the very union decrying the moral standing of departments has been so apparently secretive and contradictory itself!
The protection of Amendment One and briefest recognition of natural right as secured by Amendment Fourteen are sufficient in refuting the document in question. While often misunderstood and abused, the liberty commonly recognized as “freedom of speech” originated from a deep-seated desire to restrict governmental censorship where unnecessary. Only when a circumstance aroused the suspicion of being morally unsound or treasonous was regulation summoned. The right to “life” simply and generally acknowledged every man as commonly and innately entitled to protection under the Creator of all life (John 14:6). As the pro-life cause has reputably defended every duration of life and avoided serious illegalities, it may be safely concluded that Planned Parenthood, the NARAL, and similar organizations should reconsider the party truly in need of public posts and moral correction. Only then can a female, in reiterating Ms. Rawlings-Blake’s misapplied rhetoric, make an independent, “informed” decision which is Constitutionally and ethically compliant.
In the Name of the Defender and Originator of Life (Psalm 82:3),
And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand. And they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” (Matthew 27:28,29).
The reed signifies the denial of Christ’s rightful present tense reign in this life. The scepter of a king was not just a weak plant with meaningless significance. In modern day America, this is the most common tradition of Easter – a consistent denial of Christ’s rulership in day-to-day affairs. Every time a baby is aborted and clergy insist there are “other issues,” a reed is placed in Christ’s hand and His Kingly rule is effectively denied. Every time so-called Christians vote against freedom and for tyranny, they deny Christ’s reign and place a reed in His hand! Each time a Christian refuses leadership or hides in the anonymity of false humility, a reed is again placed in the hand of Christ. Each time a seminary professor says “God doesn’t do that anymore,” they place a reed in Christ’s hand. Moderns love the reed and hate the scepter — the message of the supreme and contemporaneous Lordship of Christ.
LORDSHIP equates to dominion in every sphere of life. Many Christians find solace in admitting that God once ruled and will rule again. They even design whole theological systems to support such constructs. But as long as Christ’s reign is always for yesterday or tomorrow, it never has binding significance on your life today! So no matter how many eschatology maps one may possess, a denial of Christ’s rule and reign today amounts to a daily mocking of Christ!
Recently, President Obama boasted that neither asteroids nor the ground opening beneath him were in the offering for his anti-Christian antics. Obama placed a reed in Christ’s hands! Yet, Obama could never get away with such mocking, if it weren’t for the fact that clergy do it every Sunday!
They put a reed in His hand!
What about you dear reader? Is it a Scepter or a Reed?
By Whitney Ann Dotson
The Roe vs. Wade case posed perhaps the most controversial handling of Constitutional material in history. The argument defended—the national legalization of abortion—stirred claim to liberties stated within the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified over a century earlier. The premise for this preference of action was established upon the Article’s general references to “equal protection” and individual recognition regardless of race or cultural distinctions. Those representing defense for the recent lawsuit contended the right to private expression of choice; those countering the 1973 historical landmark, however, refuted their opponents’ rationalization. In convictions involving morality and governmental capacity, many questioned whether or not such a case faithfully typified the intentions of the article’s original authors. Although the Supreme Court, in the end, consented to all in behalf of Jane Roe’s cause, a nagging speculation continued to haunt the minds of the American people following: was the Roe event sufficiently and rightly justified? A brief overview of the significance asserted by the Fourteenth Amendment and the historical understanding of liberty and government supports the fact that in light of such knowledge, the Roe. vs. Wade case would have earned the forefathers’ disapproval.
Shortly following the War Between the States, the nation was still in shambles; unity was little more than a hope as each side begrudged the other for their inflictions—the South, for its facing an unbeknownst future of nationalism and without slave labor, and the North, as it proposed to uproot Southern political representation. It was, in short, a time identified by refutable prejudices and misconceptions. As former Confederates blamed the North for their poverty, some Northern politicians made it their aim to alter, within their judgment, the Constitution itself. The eyes of Radical Republicans, a party new to Congress, desired to see those formerly holding prominent Confederate positions excluded from all civil and political rights. Despite the less-threatening plans of reuniting the country proposed by both Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, Radicals sought to deny Southern Democratic senators and representatives civil voice; in short, they worked to chastise the South particularly for its mistreatment of slaves and divisive succession. In addition, they chose to turn their attention upon those whom they perceived suffered the most governmental neglect—the black community. Such was the fertile ground upon which Article Fourteen was conceived.
Wedged between Amendment Thirteen and Amendment Fifteen, Article Fourteen was birthed one of three laws proposed to proclaim civil rights. Each of these articles reflected the rampant desire to confirm equal citizenship and citizenship benefits among both slave and master. Under Amendment Thirteen, the institution of human slavery was permanently dissolved except as a method of lawful punishment. Article Fifteen addressed the matter of voting, in which any male—regardless of race or color—could represent themselves politically. Article Fourteen recognized all born within the United States as rightful inhabitants of equal freedoms within civil discernment—no state imposition could thereafter “…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.” Such a vision signified an attempt to atone for the prejudices and national immorality permeating the aftermath of slavery. Little could the authors of such inscription foresee that their own words would be channeled to defend a vastly dissimilar case.
Under the surname of “Jane Roe,” Norma McCorvey reflected the case of scores of women across the nation. Expectant with her third child and unwed, she sought to have her pregnancy terminated; such a procedure, however, was prohibited by Texan law. Falsely claiming her condition the result of gang rape, her circumstance drew the attention of attorney Sarah Weddington. Before long, Jane Roe became an object of sympathy, rousing a cause for defense amongst feminist and equal rights communities. Though abortion had been previously left a matter of state judgment, Jane Roe’s struggle increasingly met the consideration of federal politicians. Appealing to the equal rights clause of Amendment Fourteen, the case ended in the success of Roe, and women considered themselves liberated from circumstances threatening their right to “happiness.” Though Miss McCorvey remained personally disappointed—she had delivered her third child towards the end of the lengthy hearing—her unclaimed victory certainly affected the nation.
Since abortion became accessible to every state in the nation, an estimated 40,000,000 fetuses were destroyed to the present period, and the Constitution underwent an alteration from which it will never recover. A clause was conjoined to Article Fourteen to further modify and confirm the opinion reached; this appendage affirmed the fact that government acknowledged the individualistic freedom of sexual expression upon which no law could curtail. The case also opened the door to the efforts and eventual achievement in confirming the legality of partial-birth abortion. This particular procedure surpassed the standards formerly met in the Roe resolution–that is, through breeching births, the fetus could legally be aborted up to nine months following conception.
To the surprise of many, abortion was a rising practice into the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and was recognized by law. As city prostitution increased and factories drove unmarried women from the protection of their homes and families, abortion stood as the only certain form of birth control (WORLD magazine). In fact, from the mid-1880s and well into the twentieth century, abortions and all involved were severely penalized in nearly every state. With Massachusetts providing the first to take the initiative, the concept of abortion was banned, and nearly every state following prohibited abortions with the exceptions of the cases of incest or rape. As many medical advisors turned deaf ears to desperate mothers, only two main options remained: illegal and often unsanitary abortion clinics, or self-induced procedures—with the latter often ending in death for both parties. State laws, however, and legitimate medical institutions limited the procedure relevant to the woman’s stage of pregnancy. James Wilson, a respected and prolific speaker and participant in the signing of the Constitution, echoed the prevalent medical opinion circulating at the time—that is, that life began when the soul entered the material body of the fetus. This was accounted at around fifteen weeks into gestation, and was popularly termed the “quickening,” or movement, of the womb’s dweller. Though abortion was clearly not the widespread issue that it is today, it is apparent that it nonetheless existed. It was severely limited by law, however, and was strictly forbidden after a certain point following conception.
The American government as envisioned by the minds of those who aspired to establish it was one of great balance designated not for the service of government itself, but for the people. This republic boasted maximum freedom benefits in its construction of state and federal services. Generally, though the federal government was allotted the most authority, state laws were reserved the issues of domestic affairs; this was understood the most potent option in preventing the federal government from overriding state laws and representation. The founders of the American country understood too well the dangers of sovereign government, and proceeded to encourage individual statehoods to deal with topics vaguely or indirectly represented in the Constitution. Following this line of thought as asserted in Amendment Ten of 1791, the Bill of Rights protected the people from oppressive and unlimited federalism. This is largely why slavery—and, later, abortion—were outlawed by certain states, and less restricted by others. A more sovereign federal power as known today was incomprehensible to the founding fathers as the federal government received the majority of its power from consent of the states.
The companions of Roe vs. Wade corrupted governmental format, and transgressed civil and moral altitudes entrusted them by the Constitution and its amendments. With the understanding that state laws were to maintain the voice of domestic subjects, the intrusion of the Supreme Court was said to have “nullified state laws.” This understanding seems painfully true in light of the fact that the federal action insisted acted even for states which highly opposed the case. Clearly, this was false and unfair representation which undermined the founders’ aspirations for a confederated union.
The reference to a “right to life” was also represented unfairly within the case. In the understanding set forth by the forefathers, the right to life ceased to be a right when it obstructed another’s right to life (John Adams). Life was then understood a topic of Natural Law. It could not be loaned nor given to any man, and was therefore regarded as existing apart and outside of any earthly judiciary. Natural law consisted of freedoms already provided men—freedoms such as parenthood, marriage, and the family unit within a biblical worldview. In this understanding, government was regarded not the creator of freedoms, but a declarer of freedoms imparted by man’s Creator. Civil authorities were rightly understood only a factor mediating within a relationship concerning two parties—man and God. Though our forefathers fervently believed and fought for the cause of freedom, they understood that it also involved certain restrictions. Morality was understood an imperative influence under-girding any good legislative decisions.
When writing the Constitution and its amendments, the majority of its authors upheld morality as the cornerstone of liberty (John Adams). Moral law—including the sanctity of life—reminded lawmakers of their accountability to God. The Constitution itself was established within a biblical worldview. Because of this respect to persons as image-bearers of God, families were allotted cultural dominance through private property, individuals were recognized freedom of worship, and black men were justly allowed full access to common liberties!
Contrary to its terminology, the modern liberalism utilized to persuade such as those involved in the Roe case does not, in fact, promote true liberty. Forerunners of this philosophy have in the present age popularized liberty as an ideology existing for the very purpose of self-gratification, and relate heavily moral relativity to federal standards. Government has unfortunately evolved to symbolize a fountain of inexhaustible indulgences—an excuse to obtain pleasure apart from moral accountability. As biblical insight into the purposes of government and liberty have dwindled with the age of humanism and ignorance, men have forgotten that the blessings enjoyed exist only because sages of the past insisted that government was possible only with a “religious,” Christian people (John Adams). It was not the structure nor the men of government which prospered American freedom in her youth; rather, it was the convictions of an obedient people under God who recognized that Slavery and Death fettered every being who did not acknowledge His sovereignty and inheritance of liberty (Isaiah 61:1).
Though the Constitution admittedly makes no direct reference to the topic of abortion, it can be well-assumed that in consideration of the audience aimed within Article Fourteen, and the civil and moral matters confronting the forefathers even in their own time, dispute the fact that the decisions reached in abortion today would have earned their consent. Indeed, with such knowledge, it is difficult to conclude anything but the fact that the Roe vs. Wade case presented the greatest abuse of historical intention in history.
SEE US FOR MORE AT WWW.S-G-I.ORG
NEW ADDITION TO SGI!
By Jeff Ziegler
Below you will find a new “action’ column written by Whitney Ann Dotson. Whitney’s action points will become a regular feature in both our newsletters as well as our website. Whitney is dedicated to making applications to the theology and vision we proclaim at SGI. We know you will find her communications efficacious.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
By Whitney Ann Dotson
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is, after a seemingly silent period, emerging into public notice once again. Established two decades ago as an ambitious charter with the stated purpose of ensuring children’s rights around the globe, nearly every government throughout the world has embraced its terms—that is, with the exceptions of Somalia and the United States. Certain Americans, however, feel compelled to voice their acceptance of the charter. Prominent figures such as Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Hillary Clinton comprise perhaps two of its most unabashed and motivated supporters. The document is attractive because of its claim to preserve the domestic and public safety of children; what is often overlooked by casual readers, however, is the convention’s imbalanced perspective regarding governmental authority and familial rights.
Should the United States submit to the convention’s terms, children ages eighteen and younger would possess, upon the authority of States Parties, “a standard of living adequate for the child’ s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development (Article 2,1), ” the right to mandatory education involving primary levels (Article 28, 1(a)), the right to moral and religious liberation as indicated by law (Article 14, 3), and protection against imposition in consideration of privacy (Article 16, Section 1). Within this frame of order, the child’s welfare would ultimately originate and progress from the consciences of politicians. According to these assertions, parents are not to interfere with their children’s moral convictions or privacy—a factor which could encourage minors’ access to abortions independent from parental knowledge, access to pornography, and state-regulated education. Parental direction in morality would be limited by governmental insistence of privacy rights. Social workers—and others deemed worthy by the convention—would inherit the business of supplementing parental authority according to their discernment, becoming familial spectators and wedging imposition whenever parents are considered insufficient providers.
The major defect with this convention is not a question as to whether or not the child is entitled to certain rights. As a Christian, I firmly believe that all children are inborn image-bearers of the only true God, and are entitled to every God-given privilege to humankind. No, the matter within dispute rests in a proper analysis of whether or not the government should be given access to: our families, familial rights, and parental authority. In short,why should States Parties perceive themselves more capable of parenting than the parents themselves?
The two purposes of government were intended primarily to reflect justice in punishment, and to preserve what our forefathers regarded as certain unalienable rights. These rights were viewed not as legalities discharged by any earthly rulers, but characterized liberties imparted by the Creator. These liberties equate what are simply known as natural rights—rights which are instilled from conception, and cannot be denied. Our forefathers derived their understanding of natural rights from the principle underlying Genesis 1:26—that men are created reflections of God. Within this principle, God simultaneously instituted marriage and parenthood, demanding the sexes to procreate. Parenthood is a natural right—a right not to be impinged upon by man, but a covenantal responsibility to God. Any transcendence of such a right signifies a deified and misrepresented comprehension of government. It may surprise some people to know that Scripture always connects training and educational duties with the children’s parents. The writings of King David and Solomon repeatedly endorsed parental guidance in order that future generations might know God (Proverbs 1:8). How is this freedom of child rearing to continue when parents are no longer sole executors in guiding their children?
When examined, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child suggests a socialistic undertone. A socialist government asserts the desire that everyone be treated in corporate measure, and that government assumes the position as sole Benefactor and Sovereign over men. Note Sir Thomas More’s infamous work, Utopia; its pages envision a society in which everyone is endowed equally. Every person is directed in both personal and religious life by their governing factors. This ideology may strike the reader as an advantageous concept—especially when the less fortunate are considered. Think again, however, about the ultimate result of such living: the government would own all, distribute all, and decide all. This is nothing short of communism in which all free and individual thought is suppressed and discouraged.
The prohibition of this charter depends upon the action and voice of the people. In order for parents to maintain familial rights, the senate must be notified. If you also respect the foundation of the family unit, contact your US senators, requesting that they oppose the statements posed by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.