Christian Passivism

Dear John,
I received your thoughtful letter and have responded below. I appreciate and respect your devotion to the scriptures as our sole rule of faith and like you am leaning into God and pursuing Him that my life might steadily become more conformed to His. I know that this is your heart as well. May this dialogue draw the two of us closer to the One who has called us. I have included quotes from your previous letter below and have highlighted them in yellow.

“And if you faithfully obey the voice of the Lord your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the Lord your God. Blessed shall you be in the city and blessed shall you be in the field.” – Deuteronomy 28:1-3

So begins this great chapter in which the Lord tells the nation of Israel of the benefits for following the natural laws that govern all of creation. In this chapter He promises blessings of liberty, prosperity and freedom to nations that acknowledge His ordinances. Not only will their enemies be defeated but they will be a creditor nation and live in prosperity.

I am afraid I do not adequately understand the differences between covenant and dispensational theology and its impact on my worldview but I believe that even without such knowledge we can both see the straightforward meaning of the passage above.

Six thousand years of human history testify to the veracity of Deuteronomy 28. Nations which acknowledge The Creator and His Natural Laws prosper and those that do not posit God do not. We might say it is a law as are His laws of gravity and thermodynamics.

The demise our nation faces today, morally, politically and economically, are a direct result of our violation his natural law. George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Please allow me to share a bit of our country’s history and connect it to the importance of you and I understanding our role and our responsibility in society today.

After three months of private deliberations on a hot and muggy Philadelphia summer in 1787 the blue print for our Constitutional Republic was complete. Our framers had laid a foundation for a nation built on the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”. That is higher law, the Rule of Law as opposed to the arbitrary rule of man.
The subsequent years of prosperity from our revolution would testify to the prosperity of following natural law while the French Revolution and the resulting Reign of Terror would testify to the curse of nations which refused to acknowledge “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.

Madison and the fifty four other delegates acknowledged that a higher law existed that governed all men and therefore preceded all human government and because it preceded all human government it was also superior to it. It is said that as Benjamin Franklin walked out of the building he was approached by a person who asked, “What type of government are we to have?” To which Franklin replied, “A constitutional republic, if you can keep it.”

That “if” mentioned by Franklin foreshadows a struggle that would one day seek to overthrow a nation, not from a army in Europe or from some poor third world Muslim “terrorist threat” but from ourselves.

“At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reaches us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” – Abraham Lincoln

Samuel Adams brought the issue closer into focus;

“A general Dissolution of Principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the Common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when one they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader… If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security.”

What did Franklin and our Christian forefathers understand that the contemporary church does not? I submit to you it was the vital role Christianity must play in governing the lives of individuals who were to be organized in society by a government whose power was strictly limited by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

In short, if Americans were to enjoy freedom and liberty as a free people and not live under the tyranny of a despot, then they must be able to self govern. And who governs men best? Christ the King. A federal government can never rule in the heart of man. Only Jesus can rule there and God forbid any man who attempts to encroach on that kingdom.

This idea, although lost on most of us today, was elementary to the thirty nine men who signed the Constitution and the ninety men of the first congress who drafted the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment.

In order to protect the republic from losing the very foundation upon which it depended, laws were enacted to guarantee the church’s inalienable right to inform the citizenry.

First Amendment
“Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech…”

After all, how could we have a limited federal government if churches were not free to influence the hearts and minds of men and therefore our culture?

George Washington in his Farewell Address said,
“Reason and experience forbid us to presume that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of moral and religious principal.”

John Adams said,
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passion unbridled by religion.
Our Constitution was created only for a religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

John, we live in a nation that has become completely disconnected from the above truths. The moral and economic crisis we face is a direct result of failing to adhere to the path that was set before us. Although these truths were preached with inspiration throughout the pulpits of New England and the other colonies in the years leading to 1776, I have yet to hear them articulated from a church leader today.

The pastors that informed the political philosophy of Washington and Adams and the other founders were graduates of Harvard, Princeton, Yale and William & Mary. They were the most learned men in their communities. They were scholars, classically trained not only in theology but philosophy, logic, metaphysics and ethics, but Latin and Greek. They were the presidents of great universities. Like the revivalist preachers Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield, they were trained in the teachings of Luther, Calvin, Locke, Sidney and the Westminster Confession. These pastors understood the important role religion must play in our country. They understood the depth of wisdom that lay in the verses of Deuteronomy 28 for the man who would search for them as for silver and gold.

John, these classically trained pastors and clergy, these God fearing men were rebels!

They rejected any encroachment by the civil authorities on their inalienable rights and God given liberties. By signing the Declaration of Independence they were guilty of treason for which hanging was the penalty. These men were not passive spectators waiting upon God to divinely intervene. These men were filled with a fear of God that was greater than their fear of the British army, greater than their fear of King George III and greater than their fear of death. All the signers who rebelled against the ungodly authority of British Crown did so at the risk of hanging. That is how committed they were liberty and the freedom to worship. They desired the freedom to exercise their God given liberties and to work out their faith in a society without state coercion.

What was the result of submitting the course of this nation to natural law and a free church? The first 150 years of our history stand as a monument to the most prosperity and freedom this world has ever seen. Millions have traveled from foreign lands to live in a country of opportunity and liberty. As promised in Deuteronomy 28, the nation quickly became the world’s largest creditor nation and was richly blessed by their God.

However, things began to change when our nation turned to the arbitrary rule of man and away from the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” Things began to change when the state began to encroach upon the church. We began to fulfill the second half of Deuteronomy 28, the curses for nations that despise the law of God. Our churches, the pillars of our republic, began to lose touch with the teaching and wisdom of the founders and failed to fulfill their required role in “salting” and being a light in our culture. (See 1 Samuel 8). Our leaders passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and Roosevelt converted our Constitutional Republic into a democracy. With four terms of office and the appointment of nine unelected black robed men who didn’t care for the original intent of our founders and their purpose, Roosevelt would be successful in beginning to reverse what our founders fought so bravely and sacrificed so greatly for.

The immorality we see on our televisions today and outside our front doors is a direct result of the Supreme Court rulings of FDR’s nine unelected black robed men. These men abandoned the Higher Law that our founders sacrificed their lives for. Anyone who is willing to look can see the fruit of this cursed form of government. A government that seeks to replace the sovereignty and authority of God with arbitrary rule of man.

In the thirty years from 1963 to 1993 after the culmination of these judges steady destruction of our natural law we have seen;

· An increase from 13 to 45 unwed births per 1,000 to unwed girls ages 15-19.
· A tenfold increase in violent crime
· An increase from 18 to 54 cases of gonorrhea per 100,000 of population
· And SAT scores have dropped from an average of 970 to 910.

What will we tell our grandchildren? How did we respond? We can choose to be fatalist and be passive spectators submitting to a self inflicted “dispensation” or be active participants in inspiring our communities to adhere to the Rule of Law intead of the rule of men. What if George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Calvin and Luther had chosen to be passive?

Let’s turn now to some of the passages of scripture that you shared in your letter

Daniel 2:20-21.
I agree. It is God who raises governments and brings them down. I might add 1 Samuel 8:6-8 to your note as well.

“The Lord kills and he brings to life;
He brings down to Sheol and raises up.
The Lord makes the poor and makes the rich;
He brings low and he exalts . . .
For the pillars of the earth are the Lords.”

But who does he use to do this? Does he not use men? Were George Washington and John Adams submitting to the governing authority? Did he not use Moses to set his people free? Did he not use Shadrach’s rebellion to turn a tyrant and the country towards Himself? Does God not use the church and their fear of Him to speak out and take stands against ungodly rule? Did he not use Nathan to confront the states sinful behavior in King David? Nathan did not wait for God to divinely convict David. In the words of Isaiah he said, “Here I am Lord. Send me.”

Revelation 3:15-20.
“Christ is outside the church.”

I do not believe it is theologically correct to say “Christ is outside the church”. The church is made up of believers who by definition must be indwelled by His Spirit and therefore under His rule. I believe this passage is about people who think they are saved but in fact are not. I do not see how this supports the contention that God cannot use man to challenge ungodly authority.

“In any case this is not the purpose of the Church.”

I don’t follow how you arrived at this conclusion. The purpose of the church and chief end of man is to glorify God. Being silent and participating in immorality does not glorify God. How does man glorify God? By being silent on issues of immorality? By keeping silent while their property and lives are taken by an ungodly authority? By being silent as the state takes billions of dollars of property from its citizens by force to feed an imperialist army that is bent on world domination and the denial of inalienable rights of men across the world? Does Isaac have to be drafted and forced to fight a war in a foreign country that poses no threat to us and come back crippled before we rise and say enough is enough!(Again see 1 Samuel 8) God forbid. To quote Jonathan Mayhew, a New England pastor whom John Adams’s referred to as a “transcendent genius”. A king’s authority is only legitimate when he follows higher law, but when the king . . .

“… turns tyrant and makes his subjects his prey to devour and destroy instead of his charge to defend and cherish, we are bound to throw off our allegiance to him and to resist . . . We may safely assert…that no civil rulers are to be obeyed when they enjoin things that are inconsistent with the commands of God . . . All commands running counter to the declared will of the supreme legislator of heaven and earth, are null and void; and therefore disobedience to them is a duty, not a crime.” The Revolutionary Years by Mortimer J. Adler, Encyclopedia Britannica, Chicago, 1976, p. 21 and 306.

1 Corinthians 1:20-25

I agree. God has made foolish the wisdom of this world and our country for the past one hundred years for rejecting His wisdom. Believers need to reject the government’s encroachment on the church and the “philosophers of this age” and actively influence their government despite the sacrifices and persecution. I do not support the political wisdom of this world or a naïve church philosophy that forfeits God’s sovereignty for state sovereignty whenever ungodly magistrates make a law they lack the authority to create. Quite the contrary.

“Owning land and goods are not a guaranteed right of the believer.”

This is a “straw man”. This was not claimed by me in my essays and leads our dialogue away from meaningful interaction. Man does have a right to defend his property from theft and I will make that case again here. Life and liberty are not gifts from the state they are gifts from God and as such cannot be taken away by any man unless by consent of the owner. Fundamental to orthodox Christianity is the concept that “all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” I will repeat here what I have shared in my previous essay “Christian Collectivism”.

God has given us an understanding to direct our actions, and has given us free will and liberty to act under the law He has established. We were created to enjoy this freedom without any interference from other men that we might not only be able to preserve the gift of life He has given but not be impaired from using our liberty to come to a knowledge of Him. When I violate the freedom God gave you to come to the knowledge of Him or steal by force property you need to sustain the life He has given you, I have sinned (and when governments do so they are evil as well and are to be opposed) In other words, you and I are allowed to exercise our authority to do all we please unless it encroaches on another person or his property. These are the first principles of tort law and property rights. When one party deprives another party of his right to property he is encroaching on that which God has given to sustain his life and is violating the equal status each has amongst men. The role of civil governments is to secure these rights. The Apostle Paul declares in Romans 13 that the state only has the authority it has received from God. God does not give any authority to do evil.

According to Elisha Williams, Harvard class of 1711, tutor to Jonathan Edwards, Yale University rector, delegate to the Albany Congress in 1754 (the first plan for American union under the leadership of Benjamin Franklin) and pastor of a Congregational Church in Connecticut. . .

“And reason tells us, all are born thus naturally equal, i.e. with an equal right to their persons; so also with an equal right to their preservation; and therefore as such things as nature affords for their subsistence. For which purpose God was pleased to make a grant of the earth in common to the children of men, first to Adam and afterwards to Noah and his sons: as the Psalmist says, Psalm 115:16.

And every man having property in his own person, the labor of his body and the work of his hands are properly his own, to which no one has a right but himself; it will therefore follow that when he removes anything out of the state that nature has provided and left it in, he has mixed his labor with it and joined something to it that is his own, and thereby makes it his property . . . and if every man has a right to his person and property, he also has a right to defend them and all the necessary means of defense.” – Political Sermon, The Essential Rights and Liberties of Protestants, Boston Massachusetts, 1744.

This defense then becomes the basis for men to gather. And to “secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving there JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed.” – Declaration of Independence.

John, in societies that posit a Creator, people have a right to defend their “land and goods”. What incentive would there be to work if government could take whatever it desired? When a government disregards these natural rights it self destructs like a snake eating its own tail. See every socialist economy for the past hundred years, and might I add, watch what it happening to ours. What we do claim and hold as an unalienable right is that no man or government can use force to take from us that which God has given as a gift. I do not have the right to enter your home and take your property by force no matter what compassionate use I might have for it. Christians are not allowed to do evil that good may result (Romans 6). Since I cannot take your property by force neither can we delegate to the government the authority to do so since it operates at our consent and only has the authority we have to delegate to it. Romans 13 tells us there is no authority other than that which comes from God, therefore the state only has authority to do good and only in the jurisdiction God has given it to rule as His agent. It is this right to protection of our property that we delegate to godly governments to secure. God forbid a Christian with vested interest in the prosperity of his family and nation would fail to exercise his God given, First Amendment right to vocalize the violation of such when he sees his friends property (home and investments and purchasing power)stolen by the government. (You may not understand how your son’s loss of property is directly related to the above but I can explain that at your request)

“Pursuit of happiness in this life is not a valid Christian goal.”

This is another straw man. I don’t know where you found this.

“Disobedience to government is only valid in an extreme situation, not when I am unhappy about taxes ... If government tries to . . . force me into immoral behavior, that should be resisted, and Acts 5:28-30.

Your letter states “disobedience is only valid in an extreme situation or/and (?) when government forces immoral behavior.” I say, disobedience is required of the Christian whenever the states usurps its God given authority.

“If they (state authority) command anything against him (God) let it go unheeded. And here let us not be concerned about all the dignity which the magistrate possess.” - John Calvin, Institutes IV:XX:32

See Romans 13. Since God is the Creator, everything belongs to Him. He has all authority and the state is his agent to counter sin and encroachment of one man against his neighbor. Since government is also made up of sinners, the Constitution protects the people from abuse of civil authority. The only authority God gives the state is the authority to do good. When civil governments step outside God’s authority, they have no authority and are not to be obeyed.

Let’s use your mention of taxation as an example. We have a difference of opinion on the Sovereignty of God and the jurisdiction of the state. You are comfortable giving the state jurisdiction in areas where I find no basis for biblical authority. Let me explain. God as Creator, Ruler and King is the source for all legitimate authority. By virtue of God being Creator he has direct authority over those things He created. Examples of things that exist naturally in life and are self sustaining without state intervention and fall under God’s direct authority are families, the Church and business. God gave these areas life not the state. The state is not their creator. These spheres of life are to operate outside state jurisdiction in a life system that seeks to glorify God. When the state, or any social sphere, usurps their God given area of jurisdiction it comes under God’s wrath and judgment. The state’s authority is only legitimate when it is carrying out God’s divine authority (i.e. securing and defending man’s inalienable rights, protecting the individual from the masses and taxation to the extent necessary to carry out these duties). Government’s role is defensive not offensive. When governments encroach on these rights it is operating outside its area of jurisdiction and begins to grow. When it begins to grow it claim’s authority it has not been given and violates the ordinances of God. It then uses force (see 1 Samuel 8) to take more property (taxation) than is necessary and becomes immoral. This is theft. Once more when the state gives a monopoly to private families to create money outside the law (The Federal Reserve system and fraction reserve banking) it is diluting the purchasing power of the dollars held by American families. This has been the cause of every boom and bust in the last one hundred years and the resulting destruction of billions of dollars families depend upon to feed and clothe their children and were saving for retirement. I believe the issue here is a misunderstanding of the immorality of the banking system. Since I can’t walk into your home and steal thousands of dollars from you, why do you allow the state to do so? Is the state above God’s law? This would be Divine Right of Kings all over again. Remember John, government is not only to protect us from sinners but it is made up of sinners! Therein lays the problem and the valuable role of the U.S. Constitution. It is a document based on God’s law that not only protects men from the sinful behavior of their neighbor but from the abuse and tyranny of sinful rulers. The Constitution declared the proper jurisdiction of the state. Man naturally desires liberty and sinful men in government naturally desire more power and control. This has been the cause of multiple wars throughout the ages.
Our government has usurped their authority as limited by the U.S. Constitution

George Washington, the father of our country, on government . . .
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master.”

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
If angels were to govern men, neither external or internal
Controls on government would be necessary.
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men,
The great difficulty lies in this:
You must first enable the government to control the governed;
And in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”
- James Madison, Federalist #51

Your theology appears to be incongruent with the history of Christianity and our nation’s founders who were willing to sacrifice all rather than be passive spectators. I agree, God does raise up leaders and bring them low as you presented in the Book of Daniel and here is more from Daniel;

“The decision is announced by messengers,
The holy ones declare the verdict,
So that the living may know that the Most High
is sovereign over the kingdoms of men
and gives them to anyone he wished
and sets over them the lowliest of men.” – Daniel 4:17

“He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven
and the peoples of the earth.
No one can hold back his hand or say to Him;
“What have you done?” – Daniel 4:35

We are reaping what we have sown. An ignorant, silent and passive church is refusing to speak out and influence the political philosophy of a nation. It has chosen to eat the poisoned apple and exchanged its birthright for unconstitutional 501c3 legislation, it already had under the First Amendment. It has done so in exchange for mammon, thereby removing Christ as its head. It has accepted man’s law above God’s law and wants what it cannot ever have, prosperity while positing the state as its head. It has accepted “separation of church and state” despite the lack biblical precedent for doing so. Please note.

First Amendment clearly states congress shall make “NO LAW” respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
“Separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution.
The term comes from an 1801 personal letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, not a political treatise.
Thomas Jefferson wasn’t even a member of the legislature who wrote the First Amendment. Therefore the admission of his letter as evidence in a court of law, since he wasn’t part of the floor debate, is hearsay.
Jefferson’s clause “separation of church and state” was taken out of context by the Supreme Court and does not reconcile with the political philosophy and original intent and purpose of the First Amendment or the perspective of any of the 90 legislators that were there.

Thanks to what appears to be a spectator theology we have spectator pastors and spectator churches. We know more about the Chargers and Padres and American Idol than how our faith is to inform a godly nation. We have allowed the state to take Christ’s place as Head of the Church and education of our children. The state now dictates what a pastor can and cannot say from our pulpits. We cower in fear of state law that violates the higher law of our God. As I write, hate crime legislation is now working its way through congress to tighten the chains around our necks even more and limit our influence on culture another notch. No mention of this has been discussed in my presence at my church. While we have been sleeping the Supreme Court has begun striking down religious activities and expressions which had been constitutional for the past 150 years. Here is a brief summary:[1]

A verbal prayer offered in a school is unconstitutional even if that prayer is both voluntary and denominationally neutral. ENGLE vs. VITALE, 1962.

Freedoms of speech and press are guaranteed to students and teachers – unless the topic is religious, at which time such speech becomes unconstitutional. STEIN vs. OSHINSKY, 1965

It is unconstitutional for students to see the Ten Commandments since they might read, meditate upon, respect, or obey them. STONE vs. GRAHAM, 1980.

If student prays over his lunch, it is unconstitutional for him to pray out loud. REED vs. VAN HOVEN, 1965

The Ten Commandments, despite the fact that they are the basis of civil law and are depicted in engraved stone in the U.S. Supreme Court, may not be displayed in any public courthouse. HARVEY vs. COBB COUNTY, 1993

When a student addresses an assembly of his peers, he effectively becomes a government representative; it is therefore unconstitutional for that student to engage in prayer. HARRIS vs. JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT, 1994.

Even though the wording may be constitutionally acceptable, a bill becomes unconstitutional if the legislator who introduced the bill had a religious activity in his mind when it was authored. WALLACE vs. JAFFREE, 1985

Artwork may not be displayed in schools if it depicts something religious – even if that artwork is considered an historical classic. WASHEGESIC vs. BLOOMINGDAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 1993.

It is unconstitutional for a kindergarten class to ask whose birthday is celebrated by Christmas. FLOREY vs. SIOUX FALLS SCHOOL DISTRICT, 1979

It is unconstitutional for a school graduation ceremony to contain an opening or closing prayer. HARRIS vs. JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT, 1994.

It is unconstitutional for a nativity scene to be displayed on public property unless surrounded by sufficient secular displays to prevent it from appearing religious. COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY VS. ACLU, 1989.

Is it any wonder births to unwed teenagers have increased more than 400%? Is it any wonder we have seen a ten-fold increase in violent crime? Think for a moment about the stress this is putting on local government for higher taxes as the need for more police, judges, jails and social services increases to compensate for a silent and apathetic church that can talk of the boldness of Joshua but can’t walk it. Is it any wonder we are beginning to experience His wrath in the form of an ungodly government? We are receiving what we deserve just as Israel did. Did God not warn Israel,

“They you will cry out in that day because the king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
- 1 Samuel 8:18, NASB

Do we still stand passively waiting for God’s divine intervention? Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin approached state encroachment on the church when all other methods failed with the letter below . . . and rebelled against ungodly tyrants.

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation – That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government – When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government.” – Declaration of Independence

John, the states created the federal government not vice versa. That which is created is not greater that the creator.

“When the people fear the government,that is tyranny. But when the government fears the people, that is liberty.”- Thomas Jefferson
“For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established for God.” Romans 13:1, NASB.
The only authority that exists comes from God. When rulers cease to be His servants/ministers and act outside their jurisdiction they have no authority and therefore there isn’t an issue of disobedience. Hitler used Romans 13 against resistance movements in the church, most submitter to Hitler’s false hermeneutic. Bonhoeffer did not.

Eric Andersen
June 2009

P.S. In October I will have been studying these issues for two years. One of the missing pieces for me has been an explanation as to why our Christian community is so apathetic about state encroachment versus the Christian communities of the colonists. There are a number of reasons this may be true, the media and state education are most assuredly influencing our worldview, but you have given me cause to begin contemplating another, Dispensationalism. You are devout and a devoted disciple of Jesus yet passive in your response to state encroachment on our church. Could Dispensationalism be creating a form of tyranny on the mind of believers that keep them from responding to evil and seeing it in a proper context? I have been surrounded with this theology since I received Christ and I also know that many things I once held true are not. I am just beginning to be set free from much of the propaganda that has controlled my perception of theology and political philosophy. Part of wisdom is admitting that we don’t know everything and I will admit to you I have much yet to learn. I will say that it is not about Democrat versus Republican anymore. This a false worldview and keeps us from uniting and posing a credible threat to an ungodly civil government. I believe the correct biblical persective is about liberty versus tyranny and it is time for you and eye to stand arm in arm.

[1] Barton, David. Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion. Copyright 2000, pages 13-15.