If Obama is elected President, churches should be prepared for an assault on their freedoms unseen since Colonial times. Early settlers came to North America seeking religious freedom. Ironically, some duplicated the very religious oppression they had escaped in Europe. Some colonies had state-sponsored churches. Religious liberty in colonial America existed for the most part in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania.
Roger Williams was forced to flee Boston for fear of being jailed for his religious views. He founded what became Rhode Island, based on full religious liberty. In the mid- to late-1770s, Baptists were being jailed in Massachusetts for refusing to pay a tax used to support Congregationalist ministers. In Virginia, Baptist preachers were jailed for preaching the gospel. Such practices continued until 1778. They were accused of child abuse and their marriages were not recognized. The penalties they incurred included being beaten with whips, shot, beaten by the sheriff, and having their hands slashed while preaching.
Baptists led in the fight for religious liberty first in Virginia and then in the nation. Baptists were vocal champions of this cause, which was brought to pass in the Bill of Rights. With the support of Baptists, James Madison was elected to Congress. In Congress, he fulfilled his pledge to gain passage of the Bill of Rights, which included the Religious Liberty clause. Without Thomas Jefferson, whose Bill of Religious Freedom was the precursor to the Bill of Rights, Madison, who worked tirelessly in support of religious freedom, and Baptists, whose persecution in the absence of religious freedom led them to support such an idea, we might not know religious liberty today.
Ironically, we are poised to see history repeat itself in America. The time may be upon us when believers will no longer have the religious freedom we have enjoyed since the closing years of the 18th century. If Obama is elected, almost two and a quarter centuries of freedom could be wiped out, all in the name of social justice.
What the government grants, the government can take away. Churches currently enjoy tax-exempt status. The government has “granted” this benefit. Can tax-exemption be revoked? Under what circumstances? If the Obama/Democrat Party agenda prevails, abortion rights will be expanded and same-sex marriages and other items on the homosexual agenda will be enacted. Many of these will be legislated, requiring compliance by individuals and institutions of the nation.
If a pastor preaches against homosexuality, or leads in a pro-life protest, law suits would ensue. The offending preacher and his congregation could find themselves in court. If the court found the church and or the minister to have broken federal statutes, loss of tax-exempt status most likely would be the consequence for the church. Sexual harassment and hate crimes legislation would guide the court in its decisions. When same-sex marriage is legalized, the government will be granting homosexuality moral equivalence to heterosexuality.
So, how do we respond to such a possibility? We vote. We encourage every member of our congregations to vote. We vote conscience, not politics. We vote, realizing what we do in the voting booth has to be an expression of our basic biblical beliefs. We remind our membership of the critical ethical issues involved in this election. Most importantly, we do not give up, regardless of the outcome.
We also, regardless of the outcome of the election, need to take some additional steps. First we should enact formal guidelines for membership in our churches. Included in these statements should be a clear statement outlining our view of what is required to be a Christian. Further, far more strict rules for membership should be enacted. For too long, walking down an aisle and shaking the preacher’s hand and being dunked in a baptismal pool has been enough. Times have changed.
Churches must begin requiring doctrinal affirmations by those seeking membership. These affirmations have to include fundamental requirements for church membership. These must include affirmation of God’s Word as the only standard and guide for the faith and practice of believers. Making that affirmation would include acceptance of the Bible’s prohibition against homosexuality and the Bible’s affirmation of the sanctity of human life beginning at conception.
Also, churches should formally state their requirements for marriage within the church. For a minister of a church to marry someone, that person must be a member of the church. If not a member, they must agree to the biblical guidelines the church uses in defining itself. Preferably, non-members should not be married by a minister of the church as an official representative of that church. Second, members-in-good-standing, and members-in-good-standing only should be allowed use of the church’s facilities for weddings and other functions.
When drawing up these guidelines, the church should seek the counsel of an attorney. The attorney should be a believer and have a firm knowledge of constitutional law. If such a resource person is not available, churches should consider consulting the American Center for Law and Justice, or the Liberty University School of Law. These actions should be enacted before Obama is inaugurated, if he in fact is elected. Indeed, these steps should be taken even if John McCain is elected President.
We are late in the game and most churches have no clear strategy for their future. So, we must act so we will not have to react. We must plan, not panic. We can no longer be lulled into a false sense of security by politicians of any party in America. Most of all, we must be steeled for action knowing the Supreme and Sovereign God of the Universe will be on his throne November 5th just as he was at the beginning of the day on November 4th. His power cannot be nullified in the voting booth.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Rethinking Church, Pt. 1 of 2
Let’s consider a “what if” scenario: President Barak Hussein Obama. If he is elected president, how should churches (those congregations of all denominations identifying themselves as fundamental or conservative evangelical) respond? If we expect a “business-as-usual” world in an Obama administration, sadly we are mistaken. If Obama takes the White House, and Congress becomes overwhelmingly Democrat, the world will change for all believers who remain faithful to biblical Christianity. If Obama becomes President, we also can expect a federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, to become characterized by the most liberal judicial philosophy in its history.
The positions taken by Obama and the Democrat Party on two issues stand as road signs indicating where this county will be headed with all branches of government under the control of a party noted most for its social, economic, and political liberalism. These two watershed issues are abortion and homosexuality, not the economy, foreign policy, or the environment.
By the way, the move among younger evangelicals away from pro-life, pro-family, and pro-traditional sexuality to social justice issues is a troubling trend. Stung by criticisms from the secular world about “what we are against, not what we are for,” these young believers are trying to improve our image. World hunger, compassion for those with HIV/AIDS, and concern for so-called global climate change are worthy issues. Yet, we can feed people, minister to those with a variety of STDs, and reduce our carbon footprint (whatever that means), but if we live in a world where human life, from its very beginning, and traditional marriage are held in contempt, what have we gained in our pursuit for social justice?
Now, what do we know about Obama and the Democrat party? Obama, feigning lack of knowledge about an issue relegated by him to a "higher pay-grade," was afraid to say when human life begins (lest he alienate his core following of pro-abortionists). He has stated he would not want to see either of his daughters “punished” with a child if they made a “mistake.” One wonders if he would require his daughters to abort their unborn child and his unborn grandchild, even if the daughter wanted to carry the child to term.
Regarding homosexuality, Obama has declared his support for the traditional view of marriage, between a man and a woman only. Yet, in letters to the Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club and the pro-homosexual Family Equality Council, Obama stated his plans to have the Federal Defense of Marriage Act repealed and his opposition to California’s Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage in that state. He also opposes the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy; he instead wants all branches of the military fully open to homosexuals.
Barack Obama is not a friend to those who support pro-life policies, traditional marriage, and a military free from social experimentation. So, we must conclude Obama is not a friend of conservative Christians and their churches. For, in Obama’s world, those who do not line up with him and support his radical social agenda will run the risk of serious legal battles. Will believers be granted a fair hearing in courts dominated by the Obama view of legality? No. He has already stated his conviction that our courts should be sensitive to a person’s sex, race, social class, and sexual choices. Thus, those who might be called into court in a battle against a poor, female, black homosexual are bound to lose. We will not be a society governed by law, but by the social values of the judges, and ultimately, the social values of the President who appointed them.
If a theologically conservative or fundamental church or synagogue refuses to marry homosexuals or to allow them to use the church or synagogue facilities for such marriages, these groups will find themselves in court. If the Obama/Democrat agenda prevails, the federal government will one day be issuing licenses to ministers, priests, and rabbis, granting or denying them the legal authority to marry. If a minster refuses to marry homosexuals, he will not be licensed to perform marriages.
If a rabbi, priest, or minister speaks out against homosexuality, he will incur the wrath of the homosexual community and the federal government. At that point, we will have a situation in which the federal government, not the sovereign God of the universe, dictates doctrine.
So, what do we do?
The positions taken by Obama and the Democrat Party on two issues stand as road signs indicating where this county will be headed with all branches of government under the control of a party noted most for its social, economic, and political liberalism. These two watershed issues are abortion and homosexuality, not the economy, foreign policy, or the environment.
By the way, the move among younger evangelicals away from pro-life, pro-family, and pro-traditional sexuality to social justice issues is a troubling trend. Stung by criticisms from the secular world about “what we are against, not what we are for,” these young believers are trying to improve our image. World hunger, compassion for those with HIV/AIDS, and concern for so-called global climate change are worthy issues. Yet, we can feed people, minister to those with a variety of STDs, and reduce our carbon footprint (whatever that means), but if we live in a world where human life, from its very beginning, and traditional marriage are held in contempt, what have we gained in our pursuit for social justice?
Now, what do we know about Obama and the Democrat party? Obama, feigning lack of knowledge about an issue relegated by him to a "higher pay-grade," was afraid to say when human life begins (lest he alienate his core following of pro-abortionists). He has stated he would not want to see either of his daughters “punished” with a child if they made a “mistake.” One wonders if he would require his daughters to abort their unborn child and his unborn grandchild, even if the daughter wanted to carry the child to term.
Regarding homosexuality, Obama has declared his support for the traditional view of marriage, between a man and a woman only. Yet, in letters to the Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club and the pro-homosexual Family Equality Council, Obama stated his plans to have the Federal Defense of Marriage Act repealed and his opposition to California’s Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage in that state. He also opposes the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy; he instead wants all branches of the military fully open to homosexuals.
Barack Obama is not a friend to those who support pro-life policies, traditional marriage, and a military free from social experimentation. So, we must conclude Obama is not a friend of conservative Christians and their churches. For, in Obama’s world, those who do not line up with him and support his radical social agenda will run the risk of serious legal battles. Will believers be granted a fair hearing in courts dominated by the Obama view of legality? No. He has already stated his conviction that our courts should be sensitive to a person’s sex, race, social class, and sexual choices. Thus, those who might be called into court in a battle against a poor, female, black homosexual are bound to lose. We will not be a society governed by law, but by the social values of the judges, and ultimately, the social values of the President who appointed them.
If a theologically conservative or fundamental church or synagogue refuses to marry homosexuals or to allow them to use the church or synagogue facilities for such marriages, these groups will find themselves in court. If the Obama/Democrat agenda prevails, the federal government will one day be issuing licenses to ministers, priests, and rabbis, granting or denying them the legal authority to marry. If a minster refuses to marry homosexuals, he will not be licensed to perform marriages.
If a rabbi, priest, or minister speaks out against homosexuality, he will incur the wrath of the homosexual community and the federal government. At that point, we will have a situation in which the federal government, not the sovereign God of the universe, dictates doctrine.
So, what do we do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)