Can America restore her Global strength and Spiritual Integrity:
"Ye have sown much, and bring in little; ye eat, but ye have not enough; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink; ye clothe you, but there is none warm; and he that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes." (Haggai 1:6)
America according to her own roots and history shows that at one time she considered herself a nation after God. From the magna carta of the Plymouth pilgrims to the charters of those early colonies and eventual states God is honored and revered as the source of provision, strength and national building in America’s behalf. Her most famous founder, George Washington stated: "The man must be bad indeed who can look upon the events of the American Revolution without feeling the warmest gratitude toward the great Author of the Universe whose divine interposition was so frequently manifested in our behalf. And it is my earnest prayer that we may so conduct ourselves as to merit a continuance of those blessings with which we have hitherto been favored."
I submit that much that we are experiencing today in America finds its source in our own actions against our religious and historical founding. Also I submit that our inaction can be faulted as much. There must be a return to our historical Godly heritage else we continue sowing to the wind and reap the whirlwind. [Hosea 8:7] God in times past has dealt with nations that have left him in much the same manner as we see American suffering problems within her Environment, Economy, and with her enemies.
He states: In fact, the founders opposed the institutionalization of religion. They kept the Constitution free of references to God. The document mentions religion only to guarantee that godly belief would never be used as a qualification for holding office—a departure from many existing state constitutions. That the founders made erecting a church-state wall their first priority when they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution reveals the importance they placed on maintaining what Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore have called a "godless Constitution." [http://www.slate.com/id/2067499]
I do agree that the founders opposed institutional religion, if that religious entity controlled the government or the government controlled that entity.
Ezra Taft speaks of other positions on the religious and government relationship.
Separation of Church and State
"I support the doctrine of separation of church and state as traditionally interpreted to prohibit the establishment of an official national religion. But this does not mean that we should divorce government from any formal recognition of God. To do so strikes a potentially fatal blow at the concept of the divine origin of our rights, and unlocks the door for an easy entry of future tyranny. If Americans should ever come to believe that their rights and freedoms are instituted among men by politicians and bureaucrats, they will no longer carry the proud inheritance of their forefathers, but will grovel before their masters seeking favors and dispensations -- a throwback to the feudal system of the Dark Ages." (Ezra Taft Benson, "Freedom Is Our Heritage," 10 Nov. 1970)
Such a time has come in American politics when the people believe their only hope and source of rights comes from the National Government. Such fallacies have encumbered the freedom movements of women, slaves and even today among immigrants. We must remember our forefathers did not believe Government had all the answers and was the source of our freedom. On the otherhand, they believed that the source of our freedom came from the God who gave us equality and our rights.
That idea of Religious control of government had been experienced by many of them with their English roots and the Church of England’s relationship with the King of England. Some early Baptists desired to influence the fledgling government in favoring them in relationship to other religions or at the very least to ensure they had equal standing with the other religions of their respective state. Thomas Jefferson in an answer to the request of early Baptist for America to become a Baptist leaning nation, stated:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [See both letters here: http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/misc/danbury.htm]
Furthermore this idea of a godless America as interpreted from Jefferson’s writings is explained by R. Freeman Butts who has made a clear and concise statement of the view of a secular Government: Jefferson's "words 'a wall of separation between church and state' are not simply a metaphor of one private citizen's language; they reflect accurately the intent of those most responsible for the First Amendment; and they came to reflect the majority will of the American people. The words 'separation of church and state' are an accurate and convenient shorthand meaning of the First Amendment itself; they represent a well-defined historical principle from the pen of one who in many official statements and actions helped to frame the authentic American tradition of political and religious liberty." Butts, The American Tradition in Religion and Education (Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, 1950)
These views are a far cry from where our Founder’s perspective formed the early framework of our Constitution. President John Adams declared, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Furthermore in a day when anti Semitic sentiment seems to abound John reaffirms our Judeo Christian heritage:
The Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations. [ibid]
Where and when did we begin such a different path than that which our Founder’s envisioned? One of the places whereby we began a pathway to a secular view of American history is seen in a 1950 court interpretation of the Danbury letters themselves.
In the court case, Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1 (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether a local law pursuant to a New Jersey statute authorizing the use of public funds to reimburse parents for money spent by them for the public bus transportation of their children to Catholic parochial schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The court assumed Jefferson’s meaning of “wall of separation” to indicate:
…the phrase is absolute. According to the Court, "that wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve of the slightest breach." Everson, 330 U.S. at 18.
However Jefferson in practice did not hold it as absolute as the court saw it in the Everson case or as R. Freeman Butts represents Jeffersonian thought.
“In 1803, one year after the Danbury letter, Jefferson made a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, wherein he pledged money to build them a Roman Catholic Church and to support their priests — all from federal funds. Jefferson apparently saw no conflict between asking Congress to implement the treaty's provisions by appropriating funds, and the prohibition that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ." In addition, Jefferson signed three extensions of "An act regulating the grants of land appropriated for Military Services, and for the Society of the United Brethren for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen." This act granted free of charge titles to sections of land to the United Brethren. In addition to holding the land in trust for Indians who were already Christians, the United Brethren used resources derived from cultivating and leasing the land to send out missionaries to proselyte among the non-Christian Indians. Once again, had Jefferson been an absolutist, as the Everson Court suggests, he would have vetoed not one, but all three extensions of this act. Thus, the Danbury letter is significant because when taken out of context, it provides the foundation for an absolute separation of church and state. Not only was Jefferson referring to the federal government, but his activities while in office also indicate that he was not an absolutist. [http://www.churchstatelaw.com/historicalmaterials/8_8_5.asp]
The problem for many people today is that they are being misinformed concerning the meaning and history of the facts. There must be a return to the facts as history presents them in context in order to reverse the misinformation.
How does God deal with nations that begin with him and then leave him for secular wisdom?
God clearly states in his word that he is the one by whom and through whom we receive the rights promised in the constitution of America.
(Rom 13:1) Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that 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, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/]
Just as the prophet Haggai challenged the children of Israel to consider her ways; America needs to reconsider her ways and her history. President John Adams rightly knew we need to be an informed public, Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write. [John Adams ]
Further, he understood our Judeo Christian heritage:
The Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations. [ibid]
The minor prophet Haggai spoke this to the children of Israel who had been allowed to return to rebuild their land after a long time of the judgment of God. It had been about 18 years since the Jews had returned. Haggai’s biting description shows his personal anger against the people who had failed to make progress in the rebuilding. He challenges them to: "Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways" (Haggai 1:5-7).
Haggai rightly assumed that the drought the land was experiencing came about due to Israel’s lack of focus in returning to the ways of God and his plan for their nation. Haggai is rebuking the people of Judah for tending to their own welfare and neglecting the work of God. "Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in your ceiled |paneled| houses, and this house |that is, the unfinished temple in Jerusalem| lie waste?" (Haggai 1:4).
Throughout History God has dealt with nations who strayed from his truth through three main means. As with the Hebrews in Haggai’s day he would deal with them through environment
During the time of Israel’s forgetting God’s plan in the reconstruction of their nation, God sent a drought.
Second God deals with straying peoples through their economics. As quoted at the beginning of this article, the nation was hoarding money to themselves and living in plush housing while God’s house lay incomplete. Haggai described their financial house as investing in an economic bag that was full of holes. In otherwords…no matter how much they saved they could not get ahead. When they needed to find help in their economic savings they would reach into the metaphorical bag and the money was missing.
Third God would deal with sinful nations through their enemies. Time and again God warned Israel of her straying and then would bring upon them enslavement by foreign governments. Some might argue that these environmental, economical, and enemy oriented judgements were only for the Nation of Israel who is God’s chosen people. However God held other nations responsible for their sins. Ethiopia and Egypt received judgement when they left God.
(Eze 30:4) And the sword shall come upon Egypt, and great pain shall be in Ethiopia, when the slain shall fall in Egypt, and they shall take away her multitude, and her foundations shall be broken down.
(Hab 1:13) Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?
Habbakuk’s question for God comtemplated the problem that God would use a more wicked nation to judge a less wicked Israel. God is sovriegn and his dealings with nations or individuals are without fault.
Thus God led Nebuchadnezzar in judgment in order to correct the nation he used to correct Israel.
Israel’s return and even Nebuchadnezzar’s personal revival mirror what America needs to experience. We do not need to follow the revisionists version of history and move on to a more socialistic godless society. We need to return to our roots.
(2Ch 7:14) If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
As we celebrate the freedoms to hold our personal positions this fourth, let us not prostitute our religious heritage on the altars of false history as promulgated by many who enjoy the rights of this nation. Let us remember who we are and where we have come from. Let us sing with our forefathers the music of freedom. Let freedom ring.
And I'm proud to be an American,
where at least I know I'm free.
And I won't forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me. [Lee Greenwood]
Just sayin, Pastor Tom
No comments:
Post a Comment