This post is a deviation from the normal subject matter. About two months ago, Jacob and I, frustrated by the current political process, discussed how we could speak about the subject in church without offending fellow believers who felt that politics should stay outside the walls of the assembly. While it may be true that non-profit organizations cannot espouse support for specific candidates without jeopardizing their tax exempt status, they are permited to speak about the actions of candidates and the impact those actions have on our beliefs.
Most believers have some understanding that scripture instructs us to pray for our leaders. What most believers do not recall is the specific need we are to lift up in prayer.
“First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.” (1 Tim 2:1-2)
The goal of praying for our leaders is so that we might “lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.” Said another way, believers should pray for the ability to worship and conduct our lives in a manner prescribed by the LORD. Judging by the condition of our government, believers have not sufficiently prayed for our leaders.
The opportunity to worship the LORD in a manner He prescribes was the reason Moses stood before Pharaoh while the nation was in Egypt,
“Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘Let My people go that they may celebrate a feast to Me in the wilderness,” (Ex 5:1).
Like the repressive governments before and after, Pharaoh would not allow the people of God to go and worship in a manner prescribed by the LORD.
The LORD is a God Who desires all to be free so that every person may have the opportunity to “Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near,” (Isa 55:6). The principle of seeking the LORD runs throughout the entire breath of scripture. To this end, God establishes rulers, authorities and principalities to function as “a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil,” (Rom 13:4). Punishing “the one who practices evil” provides a level of restraint against the sinful nature of man “so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life.”
The writers of the Declaration of Independence drew on these principles from scripture when they wrote,
“All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”
Many believers are unaware that the current (2009-2012) Executive Administration of the Federal Government has become increasingly hostile against religious institutions and the free expression of religion in public places. The examples are numerous, but for the sake of brevity, we will cite only a few.
**********************************************
Banning the Mention of God at Military Funerals: In June 2011, the Department of Veteran Affairs and its Director of the Houston National Cemetery, who fall under the authority of the Obama Administration, forbid the mention of God and Jesus at funerals services for veterans buried in the local area National Cemetery. In addition, funeral volunteers were required to remove “God Bless” from condolence cards to grieving families and were banned from speaking a religious message when talking directly to veteran’s families while on cemetery grounds. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgY5ej-9kSg)
Banning Bibles At Walter Reed Military Hospital: In November 2011, Walter Reed Military Hospital in Washington, D.C., issued a memorandum to caregivers stating, “No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading material and/or artifacts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit.” After sufficient protest, including collecting a petition with over 20,000 signatures, the Hospital reversed their position.
“This is very ironic,” said Tony Perkins of The Family Research Council, “We’re talking about the ability of family members to read from a Bible to their wounded or even dying family members who fought to defend that same liberty. If the freedom of those who have sworn to give their lives defending such freedoms can be taken away, what can we expect for the rest of us?”
Forcing Christian and Jewish Worshippers to Violate Their Faith: In January 2012, under the provisions of Obamacare, churches, synagogues, and related religious institutions, including affiliated hospitals, colleges, and charities, must pay for contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion drugs for their employees even when such payments would violate the institution’s religious beliefs. Although the Catholic Church was most vocal in the news about these provisions of Obamacare, the requirements would apply to most religious institutions.
In the words of Pastor and author Rick Warren, “The issue here is not about women’s health. There is a greater principle, and that is do you have the right to decide what your faith practices?”
Dictating Who A Church Can Hire: In the fall of 2011, President Obama’s Justice Department petitioned the Supreme Court to eliminate the long-standing legal precedent that protects religious organizations from government regulations in the case of “Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School vs Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.” The case involved a teacher who lost her job at the school and sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Rather than just argue the merits of the specific case, the Justice Department used the opportunity to argue that all employees of a church are subject to Federal employment regulations. If the Administration’s claim was approved, government-appointed judges “could impose ministers on churches against their will,” said Luke Goodrich, a legal council representing the church. Churches would then lose their ability to make employment decisions based on religious beliefs.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on January 11, 2012, affirming the freedom of religious groups to choose their own ministers. In the words of the court,
“Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.”
The decision appeared clear cut to the court justices so why was the Justice Department of the Obama Administration so willing to take this case to the Supreme Court? One must conclude that the position of the Justice Department reflects the convictions of the Obama Administration.
Failing to Defend Traditional Marriages: The Obama Administration’s Department of Justice does not defend the traditional definition of marriage between a man and women. In February 2011, President Obama instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage, which has since 1996 allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex partnerships recognized in other states.
Not only did the President make this decision, but this position was publicly announced to throw open the door and invite the opposition to come in. This is typical of the current the Administration. At best, the Obama Administration weakly defends the traditional values of most believers and, at worst, the administration is openly hostile toward those values.
Conclusion: Through the efforts of faithful men and women, most of the above infringements have been successfully reversed for the moment, but the approach of the current administration in Washington is clear:
(1) Disassemble and remove religious symbols, practices and institutions to the degree that these institutions will abdicate their beliefs,
(2) Backtrack from this strategy only temporarily when under extreme pressure, and
(3) Continue to wear down the opposition and look for future opportunities to continue the process.
The Believer’s Responsibility: Some in the body of Christ do not believe the discussion of politics should occur under the roof of the sanctuary. This dispute is as old as the gospel accounts. In the days that Jesus walked the earth, the Jewish Pharisees accepted the rule of Rome, provided such rule did not interfere with the worship of the Jewish people. At the other end of the spectrum were the Zealots who wanted to throw off all Roman rule and were willing to risk the nation to achieve that end. Even the apostle Paul appeared reluctant to criticize the Empire since he was able to preach the message under the protection of, and with relatively little interference from, the Roman government.
However, when a government or leaders within that government fail to fulfill their God given function to
secure the rights of citizens to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” and thus threaten the ability of citizens to worship and conduct their lives in a manner prescribed by God, those citizens become obligated to speak against such abuses and the people who authored them. To remain silent only invites further repression that will ultimately spiral down into total persecution against the body of believers.
-- Scott
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment