"We have arrived at a period in American and world history when being awake is of utmost
importance. Being in a position of leadership and yet asleep to critical issues at such a time will certainly
lead to the ‘disastrous results..."
Asleep at the switch: An Open
Letter to America’s Pastors
November 3, 2009
This past Sunday I had an
interesting experience I thought I should share. After attending an average church meeting in the morning and
spending an uncomfortable afternoon reading the news, I eventually ended my day and got to sleep. I was awakened at
4am with some of the news articles in my mind and a phrase predominant in my thoughts.
The phrase was: Asleep at the switch. Although I thought I was aware of the
meaning of the phrase I got up and looked it up.
The Online Dictionary defines ‘asleep at the switch’ as follows: “This term came
from 19th-century American railroading, when it was the trainman’s duty to switch cars from one track to another by
means of manually operated levers. Should he fail to do so, trains could collide. It was later transferred to any
lack of alertness … disastrous results are implied.” (http://www.yourdictionary.com/idioms/asleep-at-the-switch)
This started me thinking. We have arrived at a period in American and world
history when being awake is of utmost importance. Being in a position of leadership and yet asleep to critical
issues at such a time will certainly lead to the ‘disastrous results’ referred to in the closing phrase in the
Here in The United States of late we are daily confronted with news of proposed
legislation that would radically change the very underpinnings of our nation. Recently afinal copy of the
proposed health care ‘reform’ was released. Despite lawmaker promises
to the contrary,the bill still contains items like government
funded abortion (Page 110) and end of life counseling (Pages 649-661).
I began to review the happenings of the previous day. Oddly enough, I heard no out
cry in church about any of the provisions in the legislation. Although I expected to hear readings from the
scripture on subjects like, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13), no such sermon was given. Rather, the current
ongoing sermon series was apparently to be continued without interruption.
Perhaps, I thought, the pastor might fit in a section about “You shall not
steal” (Exodus 20:15), relating it to the ‘cap and trade’ bill, which will effectively, and
under false pretenses, redistribute (read: steal) the incomes of
Americans, convert them to ‘carbon credits’, and
give them into the hands of some of the same organizations that
caused the current economic crisis. This subject was not presented either.
Or, perhaps, a message about the ‘stealing’ from the American people that occurred
when congress and the federal reserve,against the wishes of 80% of
Americans, gave trillions of taxpayer dollars to bankers last year about
this time, andwants to domore of the same. No, to my surprise, nothing such as
this was included in the message.
Or, perhaps, a word or two aboutproposed gun control
legislation and the Biblical right of self defense, with a reference
to Exodus 22:2 which states, “If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there
will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.” Sadly, that was not mentioned either.
Or, perhaps, a section of the sermon would be about the
Corps, orgovernment figures andschools
encouraging children to report on their parents for
‘suspicious behavior’ with a reference to Exodus
20:12, “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your
God gives you.“ Maybe, I thought, that section would reference Jesus’ words in Mark 13:12, “Brother will betray
brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and have them put to
death.“ Unfortunately, that sermon section was absent as well.
While I was not really surprised, the lack of reference to any current topic did
disturb me. My concern is not ‘political’ per se, but it is a concern for the people these bills are planning to
harm, kill, rob, etc. In pondering the lack of any ‘political’ or current events content in sermons I heard that
day, or have heard in recent years, I began researching the actual text of the government’s tax exempt status for
churches. Although this tax status offers a benefit to the churches in that the member’s donations are exempt from
taxes, it has a darker side to it as well.
While these restrictions are clearly stated by the government, they are
not clearly understood by many church congregations, and their ramifications, which restrict what a pastor can
speak freely about, are even less understood. These issues warrant serious consideration by any church seeking tax
exempt status, as well as reconsideration by any church already organized as a 501(c)(3).
Being an ordained pastor as well as a business owner I understand the difficult
issues involved in leader/congregation relations and can empathize with pastors who are uneasy about approaching
their congregations with the idea of giving up their tax deduction. Fortunately most congregations recognize that
pastors in America have a unique privilege and responsibility to help guide the church of America into the truth,
and are likely to consider seriously what their pastors share with them.
During the American
Revolution pastors had more influence with the common people than the
signers of the Declaration of Independence had. The pastors reach the people where they live. Congregations trust
their pastors to give them ‘the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’. Pastors, on the other hand,
have access to and an impact on a large audience, and have a strong persuasive platform based on the underpinnings
of people’s desire to be right with God. If pastors speak with conviction their congregations will generally
I realize that there are already pastors in America who do speak out on the issues
facing us, with or without tax exemption. To those pastors I say, “Thank you for your service.” I applaud you for
speaking out about the issues our country faces as they relate to the teachings of the Bible. We live in the freest
nation on earth, and you have squarely taken on the responsibility that comes with that freedom. If we must lose
tax exempt status by speaking out it is a small price to pay. If we face imprisonment for it we will join the
honorable ranks of pastors from China, Iran, and many other nations who have faced persecution for decades simply
for doing and speaking what is contained in the Bible.
In many cases it is the congregation who will be the ones who need to make the
decision on this issue once they are fully informed. I have found that most believers who are clearly addressed on
this issue, being told the consequences to sermon content and all that the scriptures say that is applicable, will
opt for change.
If the congregation wants the content of their pastor’s messages to remain limited
by the government for the sake of the tax deduction, they can continue as they are. If not, they can make the
If the majority opts for freedom of speech in their sermons some members may leave
in search of another church that will still offer them a tax deduction. This is unfortunate, but will likely occur.
Meeting attendance and offerings will likely be affected. Personally, I have counted the cost, and believe it to be
worth it in order to allow the unfettered truth to be spoken. God will honor the ‘love of the truth.’
Jesus taught us that we ‘cannot serve both God and money’, so if such a choice
exists it is clear how we must choose. As ministers of the good news about Jesus we must be able to say with Paul,
“I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you
the whole purpose of God.” (Acts 20:26-27). If a pastor who has studied the details of the tax exempt status finds
themselves in a congregation that chooses to retain tax exemption after knowing the full ramifications, the pastor
is free, if they desire, to step down and move to (or start) a church that desires to hear all that the scripture
has to say on the current state of our country and the world without the 501(c)(3) filter.
I have heard it said that, since the government ‘requires churches not to speak on
political issues’, and Romans 13 requires us to obey the government, the topic of whether or not to use 501(c)(3)
is not an issue. It is true, however, that the same apostle Paul who dictated those words in Romans 13 did not obey
the Roman or Jewish government edicts requiring citizens to give up the locations of believers in hiding, although
he once had crafted such edicts himself. Jesus’ disciples and Jesus himself apparently did not obey the edict that
said, “Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that if anyone knew where He was, he was to report
it, so that they might seize Him.” (John 11:57). Along these lines it may be helpful to
It is also important to remember that our governmental situation is much different
than the Roman Empire of Paul’s day. We live in a constitutional republic. The persons mentioned in the opening
sections above who are violating the laws of the land are not us, but rather the elected officials attempting to
force through legislation against the will of the constituents who elected them.
I fully understand the quandary American pastors find themselves in. A few years
back when I began researching what appears to be the ‘course planned for our nation’ I eventually became rather
depressed and felt hopeless. I felt like David facing an entire army of Goliaths. With God’s help I eventually had
to shake off this overwhelming intimidation, trust God, and take action. I now have hope for America and all her
pastors and congregations. We need not be found asleep at the switch. If we all set our sails God will supply the
Daniel Barrett, Maryland, USA
“For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the
Jews from another place and you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not attained
royalty for such a time as this?” Esther 4:14
“But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet and the
people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away 1in his iniquity; but
his blood I will require from the watchman’s hand.” Ezekiel 33:6
“The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.” –
All quotations are from the New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. 1995.
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
The Opposite of
"No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God
lives in us and his love is made complete in us." I once asked a class I was teaching, "What
would you say was the Christian's number one sin?" to which a jokester replied, "Apathy, but who cares?" And as the
old saying goes, "Many a true word spoken in jest."
In the book The
Screwtape Letters, by C. S. Lewis, a devil briefs his demon
nephew, Wormwood, in a series of letters on the subtleties and techniques of tempting people.
In his writings, the devil says that the objective is not to make people wicked but to make them
This higher devil cautions Wormwood that he must keep the patient
comfortable at all costs. If he should start thinking about anything of importance, encourage him to think
about his luncheon plans and not to worry so much because it could cause indigestion. And then the devil gives
this instruction to his nephew: 'I, the devil, will always see to it that there are bad people. Your job, my
dear Wormwood, is to provide me with people who do not care.'"2
Many 501(c)(3) pastors promote government viewpoints rather
by Chuck Baldwin | Infowars.com | August 11, 2014
George Barna is the foremost researcher of modern Christianity in the
He recently spoke about a two-year research project studying why modern-day pastors and churches are so silent
regarding political issues. The result of his research only confirms what I have been trying to tell people for
years. But there was one thing his research uncovered that did somewhat surprise me. OneNewsNow.com covered the
“On Thursday, George Barna–research expert and founder of The Barna Group–shared with American Family Radio’s
‘Today’s Issues’ about new information he’s compiling at American Culture and Faith Institute over the last two
years, gauging where theologically conservative pastors are at politically.
“‘What we’re finding is that when we ask them about all the key issues of the day, [90 percent of them are]
telling us, Yes, the Bible speaks to every one of these issues. Then we ask them: Well, are you teaching your
people what the Bible says about those issues?–and the numbers drop…to less than 10 percent of pastors who say they
will speak to it.’
“When researchers ask those pastors what else they are willing to do to get their people active in the political
process, Barna said ‘it’s almost nothing.’
“‘So the thing that struck me has been that when we talk about the separation of church and state, it’s that
churches have separated themselves from the activities of the state–and that’s to the detriment of the state and
its people,’ stated the researcher.”
That 90% of America’s pastors are not addressing any of the salient issues affecting Christian people’s
political or societal lives should surprise no one–especially the readers of this column. It has been decades since
even a sizeable minority of pastors have bothered to educate and inform their congregations as to the Biblical
principles relating to America’s political, cultural, and societal lives. But the part of the research that did
somewhat surprise me was this statement by Barna: “What we’re finding is that when we ask them about all the key
issues of the day, [90 percent of them are] telling us, Yes, the Bible speaks to every one of these issues. Then we
ask them: Well, are you teaching your people what the Bible says about those issues?–and the numbers drop…to less
than 10 percent of pastors who say they will speak to it.”
Did you get that? Ninety-percent of America’s pastors say they KNOW that the Bible speaks to all of these
issues, but they are deliberately determined to NOT teach these Biblical principles. That is an amazing
It would have been one thing if the pastors had said that these political issues were not relevant to scripture,
and, therefore, they didn’t feel called to address them. But the pastors are admitting that, yes, they KNOW that
the scriptures DO relate to our current political issues, but they are deliberately choosing to NOT teach those
scriptural principles. Holy heads-in-the-sand, Batman!
I confess: this statistic caught me off-guard. So, we can forever dismiss ignorance as justification for pastors
Now, all of the church members out there who have been forgiving of their ministers for not speaking out on the
issues by saying things like, “He really doesn’t understand what’s going on,” need to reevaluate their leniency–if
they are intellectually honest, that is–and if they truly care about the future of their country.
Church member, admit it: that pastor of yours who refuses to speak out on the issues KNOWS the Bible speaks to
these issues, and he is DELIBERATELY refusing to teach those Biblical principles to you and your family.
So, we are not dealing with IGNORANT pastors; we are dealing with DELIBERATELY DISOBEDIENT pastors. They are
PURPOSELY CHOOSING to remain silent. Will that make any difference to the Christians in the pews who say they want
their pastor to take a stand but are willing to overlook his “ignorance?” Probably not. But, at least, we now know
what the real issue is, don’t we?
The report goes on: “Why the disconnect? According to Barna, the answer is simple. He suggests asking pastors
how someone would know if their church is ‘successful’–which he did.”
“‘There are five factors that the vast majority of pastors turn to [when asked that question],’ he explained.
‘Attendance, giving, number of programs, number of staff, and square footage.’”
There you have it: pastors are more concerned about being “successful” than they are being truthful. They
believe if they tell their congregations the truth, their churches will not be “successful.” And it is so
refreshing to see Barna directly ask pastors what “success” means to them. So, now we know (as if we didn’t know
before; but, at least now there is definitive research to back it up). The vast majority of pastors believe church
success lies in:
*Number of programs
*Number of staff
*Square footage (of facilities)
Shazam! Where did pastors come up with this definition of “success?” You know where: from men such as Joel
Osteen, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, et al.
The megachurch phenomenon of the last several decades transformed how pastors think and behave. Pastors read the
“successful church” books and publications; they attend the “successful church” conferences; they watch the
“successful church” videos, etc. They, then, try to mimic the tactics and strategies they have been taught. And if
there is one constant theme promulgated by the likes of Osteen, Warren, and Hybels, it is pastors must avoid
controversy like the plague. Again, one must realize that the goal is NOT being faithful to Biblical principles;
the goal is building a “successful” church as noted above.
It is time for Christians to acknowledge that these ministers are not pastors; they are CEOs. They are not Bible
teachers; they are performers. They are not shepherds; they are hirelings. It is also time for Christians to be
honest with themselves: do they want a pastor who desires to be faithful to the scriptures, or do they want a
pastor who is simply trying to be “successful?” BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF, CHRISTIAN FRIEND.
Barna’s research blows the “ignorance” excuse out of the water. Again, it is not ignorance; it is deliberate
Barna goes on to say, “Now all of those things [the five points of success listed above] are good measures,
except for one tiny fact: Jesus didn’t die for any of them.” Wow! You nailed it, George!
Where do you find anything in the New Testament that measures a pastor’s success by the number of people
attending his church? Or by how large his offerings are? Or by how many programs his church has? Or by how many
staff members he has? Or by how large his facilities are? In fact, the early New Testament church didn’t even own
property or buildings.
When the Apostle Paul listed his ministerial pedigree, here is what it looked like (II Cor. 11):
*Stripes above measure
*In prisons frequently
*In deaths often
*Beaten with rods
*Hunger and thirst
*Cold and nakedness
I don’t see attendance, offerings, programs, staff, or square footage in that list at all, do you?
When Paul wrote his own epitaph, it read, “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept
the faith.” (II Timothy 4:7). He didn’t say, “I had a large congregation, we had big offerings, we had a lot of
programs, I had a large staff, and we had large facilities.”
In the world of Osteen, Warren, and Hybels (and 90% of America’s pastors), the Apostle Paul’s ministry must have
been a dismal failure. And how many church pulpit committees would even consider the pastoral résumé such as the
Apostle Paul wrote above?
Please understand this: America’s malaise is directly due to the deliberate disobedience of America’s
pastors–and the willingness of the Christians in the pews to tolerate the disobedience of their pastor. Nothing
more! Nothing less!
Oh, and get this: according to the survey conducted by Barna, guess what the number one reason is why pastors
choose to be “successful” and not “controversial?” You guessed it: fear of the IRS 501c3 tax-exempt status. Who
would have thought it? (Yes, that question is deliberately facetious.)
The release of this research by George Barna could not have come at a more opportune time. I announced just last
week that we have officially launched the Liberty Church Project, whereby we will be helping people around the
country to establish non-501c3 churches. I invite folks (pastors or laymen) who are serious about starting new
non-501c3 churches–or helping to resurrect patriot pulpits within existing churches–to fill out our online
application. We already have several groups that we intend to help and are looking for others. If you are someone
who is serious about such an endeavor, and seeks our assistance, please fill out the online application here:
I want to commend George Barna for his research. I suspect that the vast majority of pastors and churches will
ignore it, but, at least now we know the painful truth of the matter: by in large, pastors are deliberately
choosing to not teach Biblical truth to their congregations for the selfish goal of being “successful.” But as we
come to grips with this reality, we must also acknowledge that pastors are simply (and shamelessly) putting their
fingers to the wind and finding that the people in the pews are more interested in their churches being
“successful” than faithful to the teaching of Holy Scripture. As Barna noted, it is the churches, themselves, that
have chosen to separate from the political affairs of their country.
In the end, it always comes down to We the People, doesn’t it? If you want a church where the pastor is willing
to teach the Biblical principles that relate to our everyday lives–including our political lives–you might have to
vote with your feet and go find one. That is, if that kind of thing is truly important to you.
It's government re-education time again, and in an effort to support the ongoing Infowar aimed
at injecting liberty and truth into the mainstream education system, the Infowars Store is having a limited time
10% discount on all items by using promo code "10". Click here for more information.
What is it going to take for pastors and churches to wake
up and realize that America is in the throes of a burgeoning police state? Ladies and gentlemen, the long-standing
veneration for law and order does not include blind submission to governmental abuse of power. Yet, it seems that
very few Christian conservatives are even paying attention to what is happening before their very eyes.
For example, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has purchased over 2 billion rounds of hollow-point
ammunition (enough to wage a 30-year war); the DHS has purchased over 7,000 AR-15s. The DHS calls them Personal
Defense Weapons (PDW). These are the same semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines that when you and I
buy them are called “assault rifles.” Plus, the DHS has purchased over 2,700 armored vehicles, the same kind that
the US military uses in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Department of Defense (DOD) calls them MRAP (Mine Resistant
Ambush Protected). They carry .50 caliber weapons that fire from inside the vehicle. The vehicle itself is
impervious to mines and small-arms fire. They are the vehicle of choice for our combat troops in the Middle
Pray tell, why does the DHS need that kind of firepower? And who do they anticipate using all of this firepower
If all of that isn’t disconcerting enough, we have now learned that the DHS has spent 2 million dollars on
producing shooting targets of American gun owners. These are called “non-traditional threat” targets. They include
pregnant women, elderly citizens, mothers in playgrounds, and even little children. These targets are produced by a
company called Law Enforcement Targets, Inc. The company calls these targets “No More Hesitation” targets.
What is the DHS planning to do? Turn the entire continental United States into one big giant Waco?
Can one imagine the reaction by the DHS if a company was producing shooting targets depicting law enforcement
I guess another question I have is who are the people whose faces appear on these targets? Did they know they
were being photographed to be used on a shooting target? Or were their images photoshopped? Whose mother, father,
grandmother, grandfather, daughter, son, and child are being used for these targets? I wonder how many Americans
whose loved ones appear on these targets know that the photographs of their family members are being used as
targets for DHS agents to shoot at. And how would any of you like it if those targets bore the photographs of YOUR
This is bizarre! If this wasn’t so very, very real, one would think that it was one big practical joke. But it
is no joke!
While our own domestic federal police department (a blatantly unconstitutional entity, by the way) is arming
itself to the teeth, our President and Vice President are in a full-court press trying to disarm the American
citizenry of their most effective and efficient self-defense tool: the semi-automatic rifle. Are we supposed to
believe that all of this is mere coincidence? It is true that I was born in the morning, but it was not yesterday
Adding to our cause for concern is the way our veterans are being treated (or should I say mistreated) by the
federal government. As far back as 2009, returning Iraq and Afghan War veterans have been labeled as potentially
“dangerous extremists” by the DHS (along with people who are pro-life; people who support Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and
yours truly; people who believe the US should get out of the UN; people who are opposed to the “New World Order;”
people who believe in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ; etc.). Today, more and more veterans are being labeled
with PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), and other such names, and being told that they are not fit to possess a
In addition, under President Obama’s recent Executive Order, physicians, both military and civilian, are
quizzing their patients regarding firearms and have the potential authority to write a derogatory diagnosis about a
patient that could be used as an excuse for the government to deny his or her right to keep and bear arms. (If you
have a physician that asks you any questions regarding firearms, my advice is to find another doctor
My friends, our country is being transformed into an Orwellian society right before our eyes! All the while,
most pastors and churches seem to be completely oblivious to it. And, of course, most of the reporters and
journalists in the mainstream media are nothing more than compliant propagandists for anything Big-Government. The
same is true for most educators in our major colleges and universities.
But it is the apathy, indifference, and blindness of our pastors and churches that is the most disconcerting.
The most influential group of leaders in America is still the pastors–the trend away from traditional churches
notwithstanding. There are over 300,000 evangelical churches in the United States. Can one imagine what would
happen in this country if half of these pastors would get up in their pulpits this Sunday and sound the clarion
call to stand up and fight these insidious encroachments against our liberties? What if 25% would? What would
happen if only 10% would rise up and take a stand?
I ask you, did
you hear anything from your pastor regarding NDAA? Did you hear anything from your pastor regarding
the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act? If not, do you really think you will hear him say
anything about the EEA? Again I ask you, are not the fundamental principles of liberty as valuable
and as scriptural as the so-called “family values” we hear pastors talk so much about? I would
argue that without the undergirding foundational principles of liberty (codified in the Declaration
of Independence and Bill of Rights), the so-called “family values” would become moot very quickly!
Before Hitler’s government could begin marching people off to concentration camps, it had to
destroy the foundational elements of liberty in the hearts and minds of the German people–including
German pastors and churches. A government that doesn’t respect your liberty will not respect your
life, your family, your religion, or your morality!
-- Rev. Chuck Baldwin
Dear Christian friend, how can you stay in a church where
the pastor will not take a stand for your liberties? How can you give such a church your tithes and offerings? Do
you not realize that any pastor and church that refuses to fight and protect your liberties is helping to put the
shackles of tyranny and oppression around the necks of your families?
Regardless of how sound you believe your pastor to be doctrinally, or how educated he is, or how much Hebrew and
Greek he knows, or how warm and caring he is, or how much you personally like him, if he is not willing to take a
public stand for your liberties, he is a willing accomplice to the demise of our republic and the rise of
totalitarianism in this land–as surely as the pastors of Germany were accomplices to the rise of Hitler’s Third
Christian, please wake up! A police state is being constructed before your very eyes. Your liberties are
being systematically expunged. While you are waving your hands and praising Jesus, the enemies of liberty are
laying the nets and traps around your homes and communities that are going to be used to enslave you. While you are
fixated on your pastor and church staying doctrinally pure, the barbed-wire fences are being built around the camps
in which your children and grandchildren will be incarcerated. While you sit comfortably on the padded pews in your
heated and air conditioned church sanctuary and listen to an inspiring sermon that makes you feel warm and fuzzy
all over, the sacred principles that protect your right to freely worship, and speak, and defend your family are
Beyond that, not only are many thousands of pastors not resisting this emerging police state; they are actively
and enthusiastically joining with the big-government toadies in helping to eviscerate our freedoms. Is your pastor
one of these? If so, you might as well be listening to sermons written by Joseph Goebbels.
Big-Government propagandists love to couch submission to oppression under the guise of patriotic duty to law and
order. But submission to oppression is not patriotic; it is imbecilic! And make no mistake about it: the attempt to
outlaw, ban, and confiscate our firearms, especially our semi-automatic rifles, has nothing to do with law and
order; it has everything to do with overt oppression. To such an egregious encroachment against our liberty there
can be no submission, only determined, resolute resistance.
With would-be tyrants attacking our liberties with such a vengeance, and with such a ubiquitous display of
apathy and indifference by most pastors and churches, my constitutional attorney son and I have written a brand new
book entitled, “To Keep Or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns.” This book is sure to be a
There are numerous books out there which examine the right to keep and bear arms that are written from a
constitutional perspective, but we know of no modern book that takes an in-depth scriptural look at the right to
keep and bear arms. Well, that’s what our new book does. It is a thorough examination of both the Old and New
Testament regarding the right of self-defense. In this book, Tim and I show conclusively that nowhere does the
Bible teach Christians (or anyone else, Christian or not) should surrender their arms. Nowhere does the Bible teach
Christians (or anyone else) are obligated to obey the laws of men that would deny a man his God-given, Natural
right of self-defense. NOWHERE!
The book will be released very soon. We are taking pre-orders now. Orders are coming in very fast. To be assured
of getting your copy, I suggest you pre-order the book now. Go to:
All this talk about submitting to the government NO MATTER WHAT is simply a bunch of propagandist-hooey! And
dear Christian friend, if your pastor is teaching this fallacy, not only is he teaching a serious error, he is an
enemy to freedom! Get out of his church immediately! He has sold his soul to tyrants; and he is leading your family
Our country is being turned into a police state. What is it going to take for pastors and churches to awaken to
this stark reality? Christian, please wake up!
P.S. To see our list of pastors who are on public record as standing strong for the Second Amendment, go to:
If you don’t see your pastor’s name in the list, you might want to ask him why.
(c) Chuck Baldwin
My topic for this evening is “now, it’s assassinations”. What have
we allowed ourselves to become? Are we no longer a nation of laws? Have we become instead a nation of men who make
secret arrests? Are secret prisons now simply another tool of the federal government law enforcement? Is secret
rendition of individuals now permitted out of misplaced fear? Have we decided that the writ of habeas corpus is not
worth defending? Is torture now an acceptable tool for making us safe?
Unfortunately, the single answer to all these questions from the
leaders of our country to many of our citizens appears to be yes. And now we are told that assassination of
foreigners as well as American citizens is legitimate and necessary to provide security for our people. It is my
firm opinion that nothing could be further from the truth.
Secret arrests, secret renditions, torture and assassinations are
illegal under both domestic and international law. These activities should be anathema to the citizens of a
constitutional republic. The real threat doesn’t arise from our failure to torture, rather desensitizing our nation
to the willful neglect and sacrifice of our civil liberties fought and died for over the centuries, is the
"He who passively accepts evil is as much
involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really
cooperating with it."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr. --
"But the judgment of God is upon the church as never
before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its
authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning
for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the
best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into
tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
On the heels of the National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA), otherwise known as the “Indefinite Detention Act,” comes another draconian bill designed
to give the federal government the power to turn American citizens into enemies of the state for virtually any
reason it deems necessary. Stephen D. Foster, Jr. has the story.
"Sadder still is the way so many Christian pastors and churches have become
little more than glorified cheerleaders for Statism and Militarism. While the Trojan Horse of Big
Government sits unnoticed in Town Square, so-called Christians spend most of their time either
trying to kill each other because of differences of opinion over secondary doctrines, or trying to
turn their worship services into miniature versions of Walt Disney
Rev. Chuck Baldwin --
“Congress is considering HR 3166 and
S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This
bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of
being ‘hostile’ against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for ‘engaging
in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’ Legally, the term
‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a
little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism.”
Foster goes on to say, “I hope I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like this is a loophole for indefinitely
detaining Americans. Once again, you just have to be accused of supporting hostilities which could be defined any
way the government sees fit. Then the government can strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention
section of the NDAA without the benefit of a trial.”
Ever since Congress passed the Patriot Act back in 2001, it seems the floodgates have been
opened for more and more intrusions and abridgements of those fundamental liberties expressly protected in the Bill
of Rights. From the Patriot Act, to the Military Commissions Act, to the NDAA (Indefinite Detention Act), and to
now the Enemy Expatriation Act (EEA), these big government toadies in Washington, D.C., are clearly and
unmistakingly declaring war on the American people.
Have we forgotten the MIAC report out of the State of Missouri back in 2009? In that official
State report, supporters of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin were identified as potential dangerous “militia
members,” and Missouri State law enforcement officials were notified to be on guard. Beyond that, anyone that
identified themselves as being pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, anti-Federal Reserve, Christians who believe in the
return of Christ, and even returning Iraq War veterans were likewise targeted as potentially dangerous to Missouri
State law enforcement personnel. (Article Continued Below.)
A copy of the
MIAC report was sent to us by two Missouri police officers who were concerned by its content.
Perhaps due to the outlandish and shocking nature of the document,
some people are still having difficulty believing it is real. Unfortunately, we have confirmed that it’s 100 per
cent genuine. We spoke with Capt Hull at the Missouri State Highway Patrol who told us that the MIAC Strategic
Report is a part “normal operation for officers” to receive these periodic reports for “safety purposes and to
track trends or changes”. Hull added that the report was for the purposes of training their officers.
Anyone still in doubt as to the veracity of the document can call the
MIAC toll free at 866-362-6422 and confirm it for themselves.
We also spoke to Lt. John Hotz who, along with Capt Hull, declined to
appear on The Alex Jones Show to talk about the document, but had no qualms about admitting that it was genuine
and had been handed out to Missouri police officers. View the document below.
theMIAC website, “MIAC is the mechanism to collect incident reports of suspicious activities to be evaluated
and analyzed in an effort to identify potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations within
the state of Missouri.”
The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential
candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri
police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with
the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.
The MIAC report does not concentrate on Muslim terrorists, but rather
on the so-called “militia movement” and conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the
so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and
the New World Order.
Police are educated in the document that people are are
anti-abortion, own gold, display an assortment of U.S. flags, or even those that talk about the film Zeitgeist,
view the police as their “enemy” and conflates them with domestic terrorists like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy
McVeigh, Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph and other domestic militia groups who have been charged with plotting
The demonization of militia groups is something that we have come to
expect, despite the fact that the very same constitution police officers swear an oath to defend outlines the
need for “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. George Washington himself
was a member of a militia.
However, the conflation of banal sectors of society such as people
who own gold, fly flags, display bumper stickers or who support mainstream political candidates such as Bob
Barr, and the guilt-by-association smear that they are likely to be dangerous and potential terrorists, is a
staggering alarm bell which indicates police are being trained that ordinary Americans, not radicalized Mexican
race hate groups or Al-Qaeda suicide bomber cells, are the number one domestic threat in the war on
The MIAC report is similar to one created by the Phoenix Federal
Bureau of Investigation and the Joint Terrorism Task Force during the Clinton administration
(seepage one andpage two of the document). The FBI document explicitly designates “defenders” of the Constitution
as “right-wing extremists.” The MIAC report expands significantly on the earlier document.
Indeed, the MIAC report is just the latest in a series of similar threat
assessment documents that list average American citizens as dangerous extremists and potential
President Bush himself gave speeches about a White House “strategy
paper” that formed “an unclassified version of the strategy we’ve been pursuing since September the 11th, 2001,”
that takes into account, “the changing nature of this enemy.”
The document says that terrorism springs from “subcultures of
conspiracy and misinformation,” and that “terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information
about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive
grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda.”
The Maine Information and
Analysis Center (MIAC), also known as the Fusion Center, is a cooperative
effort between the Maine State Police and the Maine Emergency Management Agency, in partnership with the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security. The MIAC exists to evaluate information and intelligence about potential
terrorist activity in Maine. The MIAC ensures that critical information is shared promptly with all appropriate
After the MIAC report surfaced, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and I
sent a letter to the governor of Missouri demanding that the report be removed and that the State of Missouri
repudiate the report. After a firestorm of outrage by thousands of Americans all over the country (not just in
Missouri) the State of Missouri did indeed remove and repudiate the report.
Totalitarian regimes throughout history have attempted
to marginalize those people that the state intended to target for persecution. Once a group or groups of people had
been sufficiently marginalized, it wasn’t long before public condemnation and then military retaliation took place.
Legislation such as the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the NDAA, and now the EEA authorize military
power to be used against US citizens, and given the propensity of government propagandists in the National Press
Corps to marginalize groups of people whose ideas are thought to be politically incorrect, it’s only a matter of
time before the executive branch of the federal government begins utilizing the dictatorial powers that have been
granted to it by Congress. And, unfortunately, many State governments seem more than willing to participate in the
Machiavellian machinations put forward by Washington, D.C. The MIAC report in the State of Missouri is a prime
Sadder still is the way so many Christian pastors and churches have become little more than glorified
cheerleaders for Statism and Militarism. While the Trojan Horse of Big Government sits unnoticed in Town Square,
so-called Christians spend most of their time either trying to kill each other because of differences of opinion
over secondary doctrines, or trying to turn their worship services into miniature versions of Walt Disney
I ask you, did you hear anything from your pastor regarding NDAA? Did you hear anything from your pastor
regarding the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act? If not, do you really think you will hear him say
anything about the EEA? Again I ask you, are not the fundamental principles of liberty as valuable and as
scriptural as the so-called “family values” we hear pastors talk so much about? I would argue that without the
undergirding foundational principles of liberty (codified in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights),
the so-called “family values” would become moot very quickly! Before Hitler’s government could begin marching
people off to concentration camps, it had to destroy the foundational elements of liberty in the hearts and minds
of the German people–including German pastors and churches. A government that doesn’t respect your liberty will not
respect your life, your family, your religion, or your morality!
At this point, I invite readers to watch my address from last Sunday, January 8, 2012. In this address, I deal
forthrightly with the NDAA and show the scriptural instruction regarding how unlawful and illegitimate government
is the chief source of “tribulation” that the Bible talks so much about. I also give a scriptural outline as to how
Christian people are to relate and respond to government–both good and bad. Watch my Sunday address at:
While we are on the topic of liberty, someone has produced a fascinating clip of Congressman Ron Paul showing
the predictions he made on the floor of the US House of Representatives back in 2002–along with the fulfillment of
those predictions in subsequent news headlines. People who view this brief You Tube video might just begin to
understand why Congressman Paul is the only Presidential candidate who truly understands the causes of this loss of
liberty taking place in our land. See Dr. Paul’s speech on the House floor at:
Given the way congressmen and senators from both major parties are willing to grant dictatorial powers to the
President, it seems likely that the EEA will pass in much the same way as did the NDAA. It seems to me that the
longer we keep expecting Washington, D.C., to solve our problems, the more our problems will increase. Remember the
sagacious words of President Ronald Reagan: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the
problem.” Listen to that quote at:
If we are going to “guard and defend” (Daniel Webster) our liberties, it is going to take states and local
communities to do it, because those miscreants in Washington, D.C., are doing everything they can to dismantle our
liberties, not protect them. We need State governors, lieutenant governors, attorney generals, and sheriffs to
stand in the gap NOW! And in that vein, I invite readers to follow the Fanning-Baldwin Montana gubernatorial
campaign at the following Facebook and Twitter pages:
A former Marine Corps Colonel who was stationed
in Fallujah and trained Iraqi soldiers warns that the Department of Homeland Security is working with law
enforcement to build a “domestic army,” because the federal government is afraid of its own citizens.
In this exclusive in studio interview Ret. Col Martino covers the DHS buildup and solutions our overreaching
corrupt government officials.
“People in general just will NOT,
take their heads out of the sand!”
Psyops, or psychological operations, is a term used to describe the
techniques of psychological manipulation used in warfare. These operations are used to deceive, confuse, disrupt
and demoralize the enemy, with an aim toward weakening enemy resistance or even causing enemy forces to surrender
and enemy populations to capitulate.
How could there be aWar on Terror and actually say that we're having
awar against terrorism, and leave the
borders wide open? If you were the President of the United States, or I were the President of the United States,
and9/11 really happened the way they
want us to believe it happened, the first thing you would do is shut down the borders, so people couldn't get in
the country to harm you. But they left the borders wide open. Becausethe bankers want the borders open, because they want
aone-world government. They
want a North American Union. They don't want borders
here.9/11 was only a manifestation.
It was done to create afear in the
American public, so that we willobey what they want us to do.
Drug cartels across the border are
just as brutal as ISIS
Horrific violence not isolated to Middle
Ellen Weiss, Oct 23, 2014
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. officials have argued that
atrocities committed by the militant group ISIS are barbaric and that the group is a threat to the homeland, but it’s worth remembering that the horrific violence
perpetrated just across the U.S. border by Mexican drug cartels is equally barbaric and the cartels also
pose a threat to Americans.
This week brought another bloody reminder of the cartel’s brutality. Mexican activist Maria Del Rosario Fuentes Rubio, a physician and citizen journalist
who had taken a prominent stand against Mexican cartels on social media, died with a bullet in her head. And
her killers, in an obvious effort to terrorize others, tweeted her murder.
Yes, as President Barack Obama noted in his Sept. 24 address to the UN General Assembly, ISIS is leaving a trail of rape, beheadings,
dead children and mass graves. The numbers are terrifying: More than 5,500 people have been killed in Iraq
since June, according to the United Nations.
But here are some numbers – also terrifying – from just across the U.S.-Mexico border: In 2013,
Mexican drug cartels murdered more than 16,000 people, andHuman Rights Watch estimates more than 60,000 people were
killed in drug-related violence from 2006 to 2012.
There is no disputing that Mexican cartels are operating in the United States. Drug policy analysts
estimate that about 90 percent of thecocaine, heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine on U.S. streets
came here courtesy of the cartels and their distribution networks in Mexico and along the Southwestern
border. DEA officials say they have documentednumerous cases of cartel activity in Houston, Los Angeles,
Chicago and Atlanta.
Cartel violence isn’t restricted to one side of the border. “Spillover violence” has taken thousands of U.S. lives, according to the FBI. In
other words, the cartel threat – while certainly different from the jihadist-style threat of ISIS – is
nevertheless a threat.
A whole stream of disturbing statistics about the Mexican drug cartels was brought to light in an
opinion piece written by Musa al-Gharbia, a research fellow at the Southwest
Initiative for the Study of Middle East Conflicts. This is not a list for the fainthearted:
Beheadings – Mexico is ranked directly below Iraq on the Reporters Without Borders World Press
Freedom Index. On May 13, 2012, Mexican authorities found at least 49 decapitated and
dismembered bodies along a highway in Nuevo Leon state, between the cities of Monterrey and Reynosa.
Killing children and
women - As if decapitations and hanging dead bodies from bridges wasn’t enough, the
drug cartels have made a practice of targeting women and children to further terrorize communities or prove they are tougher than the next
gang. Children are shot in cars, in their grandmother’s arms or sitting next to their parents.
Mass graves: Mexican
authorities have discovered several mass graves with hundreds of corpses of victims of the drug gangs
in recent years. Some are filled with victims of the drug wars, others with those
murdered for refusing to join the gangs. Most recently, as part of the search for 43 young Mexicans studying
to become teachers, searchers have found six mass graves but so far none of the bodies has been identified
as any of the missing students. Six mass graves, and they still haven’t found the
right mass grave.
As noted, the comparison between ISIS and the cartels
has its limits. Operation Inherent Resolve (the silly name the administration has given America’s military action against
ISIS) and the “War on Drugs” are about different threats. ISIS wants to vanquish all sorts of infidels,
including Americans. The drug cartels are about business – and anyone who gets in their way – including
Americans – is a target.
It comes down to this: If the U.S. is being spurred into action against ISIS because of indignation and a
threat to Americans, then it is worth remembering that a beheading in Mexico is just as horrifying as one in
Iraq or Syria – and a threat against Americans is still a threat whether it is the result of ideology or
criminal drug traffickers.
Want to keep up with all the latest DecodeDC stories and podcasts? Sign up for our weekly
newsletter at decodedc.com/newsletter
COCAINE AND THE CIA
YOUR FAMILIES AND CONGREGANTS ARE
BEING HUMILIATED, MOLESTED, AND TREATED AS SLAVES!!
An independent agency of the United States government responsible for
collecting and coordinating intelligence and counterintelligence activities abroad in the national
interest; headed by the Director of Central Intelligence under the supervision of the President and
National Security Council...There has been considerable criticism of the CIA relating to security
and counterintelligence failures, failures in intelligence analysis, human rights concerns,
external investigations and document releases, influencing public opinion and law enforcement, drug
trafficking, and lying to Congress. In 1987, the former CIA Station Chief in Angola in 1976, John
Stockwell, said the CIA is responsible for tens of thousands of covert actions and destablization
programs since it was created by Congress with the passage of the National Security Act of
1947.At the time, Stockwell estimated that over 6
million people had died in CIA covert actions.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is a governmental agency
belonging to the United StatesDepartment of Justice that serves as both a federal criminal
investigative body and an internal intelligence agency (counterintelligence). Also, it is the
government agency responsible for investigating crimes on Indian reservations in the United States
under the Major Crimes Act. The branch has investigative jurisdiction over violations of more than
200 categories of federal crime. The agency was established in 1908 as the Bureau of Investigation
(BOI). Its name was changed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 1935. The agency
headquarters is the J. Edgar Hoover Building, located in Washington, D.C. The agency has fifty-six
field offices located in major cities throughout the United States, and more than 400 resident
agencies in lesser cities and areas across the nation. More than 50 international offices called
"legal attachés" exist in U.S. embassies and consulates general worldwide.
'Federal Bureau of Investigation organizes almost
all terror plots in the US' ...The report reveals that the FBI regularly infiltrates communities
where they suspect terrorist-minded individuals to be engaging with others. Regardless of their
intentions, agents are sent in to converse within the community, find suspects that could
potentially carry out “lone wolf” attacks and then, more or less, encourage them to do so. By
providing weaponry, funds and a plan, FBI-directed agents will encourage otherwise-unwilling
participants to plot out terrorist attacks, only to bust them before any events fully
"Sadly, most Americans don’t even realize that large numbers of
consumer products on our supermarket shelves contain ingredients which have been
aborted human fetal cell lines.This information is not hard to
find.But people donot like to talk
about it.There are price lists for
human fetal tissue all over the Internet. You can find one
here. So does
it bother you that aborted babies are being chopped up and sold to researchers all over
America?Or are you perfectly
fine with it?"
food corporations use tissue from aborted babies to manufacture flavor additives in processed
IRS office in California ordered
Christian Voices for Life of Fort Bend County, Texas to explain the content of
The Internal Revenue Service allegedly told two pro-life to reveal the content of their
prayers and prayer meetings, according to the Thomas More Society. An IRS office in California ordered Christian
Voices for Life of Fort Bend County, Texas to explain the content of prayers "as if they were engaging in highly
offensive or criminal behavior," the Thomas More Society charged. Agents also ordered Coalition for Life of Iowa to
provide detailed information about the group's prayer meetings.
Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) demanded that outgoing IRS commissioner Steven Miller answer questions about the incidents
during Friday's House Ways and Means Committee hearing. "Their question, specifically asked from the IRS to the
Coalition for Life of Iowa: 'Please detail the content of the members of your organization's
Alex speaks with former presidential nominee of the Constitution Party, co-author of Romans 13:
The True Meaning of Submission and To Keep Or Not To Keep and pastor of Liberty Fellowship in Kalispell, Montana
Armed Pastor Defends Lives with a Gun
"Out of Love"
The term "pastor" means shepherd — one who cares for and guards the sheep. In
Christian churches, the idea of a pastor is based on one who in the words and example of Jesus "lays down his life
for the sheep". That is exactly what Pastor Carl Sanders of Evansville, Indiana, did when he confronted an armed
robber to save "sheep" that had not taken measures to protect themselves. Pastor Sanders had the mindset of a
shepherd and the tool to protect — a handgun.
"The most foolish mistake we
couldpossible make would be to allow the subject races
to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry
arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that
the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So
let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole
responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories,
and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied
In the United States today, there are very few words that provoke as much outrage as the
name of Jesus. It is being banned from graduation ceremonies, chaplains all over America are being forbidden from
using His name in their prayers, and many school officials all over the nation have become absolutely fanatical
about eliminating every trace of Christian expression from their schools. One elementary school in North Carolina
even ordered a little six-year-old girl to remove the word “God” from a poem that she had written to honor her
grandfathers. Political correctness is spreading like a cancer in this country, and our “freedom of religion” is
rapidly being transformed into a guarantee of “freedom from religion” for those that hate the Christian faith.
Without a doubt, there is a war on the Christian faith in America today. It is being waged in classrooms,
courtrooms and churches all over the nation.
In the video below, Alex Jones highlights how the
Guardian Centers video is yet another startling indication that authorities in the United States are preparing for
civil unrest as America increasingly begins to resemble a militarized police state.
"Without a doubt, tyrants of all stripes love to exploit
this asinine attitude of these sheepish, slavish preachers who idolize the state! Lutzer quotes Hitler as saying,
“The parsons will dig their own graves. They will betray their God to us. They will betray anything for the sake of
their miserable jobs and incomes.” And that is exactly what many pastors, deacons, elders, and churchmen are doing
today: for the sake of their paychecks, insurance premiums, and retirement benefits, they are betraying the lawful
authority of Christ to the tyrannical authority of the state. And the bastardized teaching of Romans 13 is one of
the major tools by which this is being done." -- CHUCK BALDWIN
Chuck Baldwin - Romans 13 The True Meaning of
Chuck Baldwin - Romans 13 The True Meaning of Submission
"When I hear Christians saying we ought not get involved in
politics but just “preach the Gospel,” I show them this satellite picture of the Korean peninsula. Here we see a
homogenous population of mostly Koreans separated by a well-fortified border. South Korea is full of freedom, food
and productivity—it’s one of the most Christianized countries in the world. North Korea is a concentration
camp. They have no
freedom, no food, and very little Christianity."
Weeping for a dictator under threat
of arrest and execution
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, December 19, 2011
This is something the establishment media has completely
failed to explain properly. All the video footage of weeping North Koreans stricken with grief over the death of
the “dear leader” Kim Jong-Il is by no means spontaneous or natural.
It’s all part of the fun of living in a Stalinist dictatorship. If citizens do not show the appropriately sullen
facial expressions, if they don’t produce tears, and if they don’t properly grieve for the dead dictator, they face
imprisonment and possible execution.
Sure, some of the grief is genuine, it’s the result of a lifetime of brainwashing and the enforcement of the
cult of personality. But in the most arcane and brutal police state on the planet, not being upset over Kim
Jong-Il’s death could mean you’re reported as an enemy of the state by the local spy and sent to a gulag. Your
entire family could also be targeted for the same treatment.
Identical scenes were witnessed after the death of the previous “dear leader,” Kim Il-sung.
Millions of North Koreans have starved to death over the past 20 years as a result of the regime’s disastrous
economic policies and their refusal to accept food aid. Food is still scarce, so the fact that citizens are also
handed small snacks if they attend these spectacles and put on a fake display of grief is also a massive incentive
for a permanently hungry population.
North Korea is the perfect illustration of what happens when power is concentrated into the hands of the few –
totalitarianism, mass starvation, economic collapse and complete enslavement.
It’s a warning the western world would do well to heed, especially in the aftermath of the passage of a
law which formally opens up the chance of Americans being sent to gulags in the name of state
When I hear Christians saying
we ought not get involved in politics but just “preach the Gospel,” I show them this satellite
picture of the Korean peninsula. Here we see a homogenous population of mostly Koreans separated by a
well-fortified border. South Korea is full of freedom, food and productivity—it’s one of the most
Christianized countries in the world. North Korea is a concentration camp. They
have no freedom, no food, and very little Christianity.
What’s the primary reason for the stark difference between these two countries? Politics. The
South politically allows freedom, while the North does not.
Ironically, Christians who shun politics to supposedly advance the Gospel are actually
allowing others to stop the Gospel. How so? Because politics and law affects one’s
ability to preach the Gospel! If you think otherwise, visit some of the countries I have visited—Iran,
Saudi Arabia and China. You cannot legally “preach the Gospel” in those countries—or practice other aspects of your
religion freely—because politically they’ve ruled it out as they have in North Korea.
In fact, politics affects virtually every area of your life through the laws made by
government. So if you care about your family, business, church, school, children, money, property,
home, security, healthcare, safety, freedom, and your ability to “preach the Gospel,” then you should care about
Politics affects everything, which is why leaders throughout the Bible—including Joseph,
Moses, Daniel, Nehemiah, Mordecai, Esther, John the Baptist, and Paul— “went political” to influence civil
governments to govern morally. Even Jesus himself got involved in politics when he publically chastised the
Pharisees—the religious and political leaders of Israel—for neglecting “the more important matters
of the law.”
Unfortunately, our lawmakers today are doing the same
thing. They use the force of law tell us what light bulbs to use and what the
school lunch menu should be, but neglect to put any restrictions on the taking of human life by abortion! What
could be more important than life? The right to life is the right to all other rights. If you don’t have life,
you don’t have anything.
But what can Christians do? After all, we can’t legislate morality, can we? News flash:
legislate morality!Morality is about right and wrong and all laws declare one behavior right and the
opposite behavior wrong. So the question is not whether we can legislate morality, but “Whose morality will we
The answer our Founding Fathers gave was the “self-evident” morality given to us by our
Creator—the same Moral Law that the apostle Paul said that all people have “written on their hearts.” In other
words, not my morality or your morality, but the morality—the one we inherited not
the one we invented. (This doesn’t mean that every moral or political issue has clear right and wrong
answers. It only means that “the more important matters of the law” – life, marriage and religious freedom for
example—do have clear answers that we should heed.)
Notice our Founders did not have to establish a particular denomination or force religious
practice in order to legislate a moral code. Our country justifies moral rights with theism, but does not require
its citizens to acknowledge or practice theism. That’s why Chris Matthews and other liberals are wrong when they
charge that Christians are trying to impose a “theocracy” or violate the “separation of Church and State.” They
fail to distinguish between religion and morality.
Broadly defined, religion involves our duty to God while morality involves our duty to
one another. Our lawmakers are not telling people how, when, or if to go to church—that would be legislating
religion. But lawmakers cannot avoid telling people how they should treat one another— that is legislating
morality, and that is what all laws do.
Opposition to abortion or same-sex marriage, for example, does not entail the
establishment of a “theocracy.” Churches and the Bible also teach that murder, theft, and child abuse are wrong,
but no one says laws prohibiting such acts establish a theocracy or are a violation of the “separation of church
and state.” In fact, if the government could not pass laws consistent with church or biblical teachings, then
all criminal laws would have to be overturned because they are all in some way consistent with at least one of
the Ten Commandments.
Second, there are churches on both sides of these issues. In other words, some liberal
churches, contrary to scripture, actually support abortion and same-sex marriage. So if church-supported
positions could not be put into law, then we could not have laws either way on abortion or same-sex
Finally, most proponents of same-sex marriage argue as if they have some kind of moral
right to having their relationships endorsed by the state. They claim that they don’t have “equal rights” or that
they are being “discriminated” against. Likewise, abortion advocates claim they have a moral “right”
to choose an abortion. None of these claims are true, as I have explained elsewhere.
Nevertheless, their arguments, while flawed, expose the fact that independent of religion they seek to legislate
their morality rather than the morality.
If you have a problem with the morality, don’t blame me. I didn’t make it up. I
didn’t make up the fact that abortion is wrong, that men are not designed for other men, or that natural
marriage is the foundation of a civilized society. Those unchangeable objective truths about reality are
examples of the “Laws of Nature” from “Nature’s God,” as the Declaration of Independence puts it, and we only
hurt others and ourselves by suppressing those truths and legislating immoral laws.
When we fail to legislate morally, others impose immorality. For example,
totalitarian political correctness is already imposed in states such as Massachusetts where the implications of
same-sex marriage override the religious liberties of businesses, charities and even parents. As documented
illustrated here, same sex marriage prevents you from
running your business, educating your children, or practicing your religion in accord with your Conscience. And
soon, as is the case in Canada, you may not be able to merely speak Biblically about homosexual behavior. That
is because those who say they are fighting for “tolerance” are often the most
Unless Christians begin to influence politics and the culture more significantly, we will
continue to lose the very freedoms that enable us to live according to our beliefs and spread the Gospel
all over the world. That’s why you should not vote for candidates because of their race or religion, but because
they will govern morally on the more important matters of the law—life, marriage and religious freedom. (To see
where all the major candidates stand visit the non-partisan website http://www.ontheissues.org.)
If you are a pastor who is worried about your tax-exempt status: 1) you have more
freedom than you think to speak on political and moral issues from the pulpit; 2) if you do not speak up for truth
now, you will soon lose your freedom to speak for anything, including the Gospel; and 3) you are called to be
salt and light, not tax-exempt.
Kim Jong-un, the supreme leader of North Korea, has called
for the execution of 33 people for reportedly working as accomplices to South Korean Baptist missionary Kim
Jung-wook and planning to help him create 500 underground churches.
The North Korean tyrant has asserted himself by ruthlessly and brutally murdering all whom he deems a threat to
his power. In August, Kim Jong-un executed by firing squad his ex-girlfriend/singer Hyon. She and eleven others in
her orchestra were executed with machine guns while the families of the victims watched in horror. Also, Kim
Jong-un ordered the execution of his own uncle, Jang Song Thaek, in December for allegedly being a “traitor to the
nation for all ages, and a despicable political careerist and trickster, human scum and worse than a dog.”
Last October, Kim Jung-wook was arrested and placed in jail for his plan to set up underground churches.
Supposedly having received help from South Korea’s intelligence agency, the missionary entered North Korea from
China and was heading for Pyongyang.
This article was posted: Wednesday, March 5, 2014 at 1:17 pm
“Conservatives” Silent on the
Genocide of Christians in the Middle East Half a million Christians have fled Mosul. Any who remain will be
by Christopher Manion | Lew Rockwell Blog | July 31, 2014
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) took to the House
floor yesterday to condemn the silence in Washington – in both the White House and Congress — regarding the
massacres of Christians in Iraq (especially) and the rest of the Middle East.
Why is Washington silent, he asks?
Christian leaders in Iraq have put the blame for these atrocities squarely on George W. Bush and
his invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003.
Half a million Christians have fled Mosul. Any who remain will be slaughtered.
Patriarch Louis Raphael I Sako, head of Iraq’s Catholic Church, says that the invasion did what
Moslems couldn’t do in 1500 years: destroy Christianity in Iraq.
Thus, Republicans are afraid. If they acknowledge the genocide, they fear that people will remember
that it was their war that led to it. So they are silent.
Democrats are too busy attacking Christianity in the U.S.
So both parties, corrupt to the core, are silent on this holocaust.
Bush cowers, silent and sullen, behind his compound walls. When questioned about his own
involvement, Cheney snarls like a trapped animal. “Blame Obama!” he sneers.
National Review’s paymasters insist that any comments mentioning the Christian holocaust be
immediately deleted (just try it, here.). Apparently, there’s no money in defending Christians. And this comes
from the once-respected journal that valiantly defended the rights of Christians put behind the Iron Curtain by
Pope John Paul II warned Bush before the invasion that it would cause chaos in the Middle East.
Bush blew him off, and a cadre of fawning Catholics cheered — some of them my friends (Michael Novak, George
Weigel, Deal Hudson, among others). William McGurn, a former Bush speechwriter who then went to work for Rupert
Murdoch, actually tried to sell the story that Pope Benedict recognized that Pope John Paul’s opposition was a
mistake (McGurn now edits Murdoch’s New York Post).
As this writer has repeatedly, and sadly, observed on these pages for the last decade and more, the
neocons never admit their mistakes, and they never, **ever** apologize.
“The Pulpit Is Responsible For
It” Published: Thursday, April 11, 2013
By Chuck Baldwin
The famed 19th Century revivalist and major
contributor to America’s “Second Great Awakening,” Charles Finney, said the following: “If there is a decay of
conscience, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the public press lacks moral discernment, the pulpit is
responsible for it. If the church is degenerate and worldly, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the world loses
its interest in Christianity, the pulpit is responsible for it. If Satan rules in our halls of legislation, the
pulpit is responsible for it. If our politics become so corrupt that the very foundations of our government are
ready to fall away, the pulpit is responsible for it.” I believe Finney was absolutely correct.
Notice that Finney believed there was a direct correlation between the kind of legislation passed
in Congress and the kind of preaching taking place in the pulpits of America’s churches. He also believed that the
pulpits of the country were responsible for corruption in government. Again, I agree.
America’s biggest threat does not come from abortionists, gay rights activists, pornographers, or
drug dealers. Neither does our biggest threat come from North Korea, Iran, Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan. America’s
biggest threat comes from our nation’s pulpits.
In all candor, I’m increasingly frustrated with many of my pastor and Christian brethren. Over the
decades, they have made a god out of government–especially the federal government. Their support for US military
interventionism (justified or not) borders on worship. Plus, they have put their absolute trust in the Republican
Party to the point that their support for the GOP has, for all intents and purposes, made the Republican Party more
sacred than their own churches. They would abandon a church, or denomination, or pastor quicker than they would
abandon the GOP–regardless of how much Big Government Republicans promote. When a Republican is in office
(especially the office of President), he or she takes on the image of a god more than a civil magistrate. The
Religious Right was absolutely deaf and dumb to the ubiquitous unconstitutional and unlawful conduct committed
during Bush’s eight years in office. In fact, virtually everything that President Barack Obama is currently doing
to circumvent constitutional government was copied from G.W. Bush’s political playbook.
Then these same pastors and churches turn around and get all righteously indignant about abortion,
gay rights, family decay, etc. The fact is, the government in Washington, D.C., is the chief culprit in America’s
moral and cultural tailspin. DC is a cesspool whose leakage has spilled over into the entire country. And the more
pastors and Christians refuse to resist the ever-burgeoning power and influence of Washington’s unconstitutional
manipulation and intimidation of our states and communities, the deeper the manure gets. Yet, so many pastors and
Christians continue to quote Romans 13 as justification to sit back and do NOTHING to prevent DC’s unlawful control
over what was the FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES of this nation.
Forgive me, but when I hear these pastors and Christian leaders bewail the conditions of America, I
get kind of sick. If they would stop supporting this out-of-control federal leviathan that is swallowing our
liberties, if they would stop preaching their pansy, don’t-make-anybody-mad sermonettes, if they would stop sucking
up to these corrupt politicians, most of the problems they complain about would not exist.
Why do you think your public schools are so liberal and socialistic in their philosophy? Why do
your public school textbooks promote sodomy and other aberrant lifestyles? It started back in 1979 when the United
States Department of Education (DOE) was created by President Jimmy Carter as a payoff to the National Education
Association (NEA) for their political support. Ever since its creation, the DOE has coerced, intimidated,
harangued, and cajoled State and local school districts to adopt its socialistic agenda. That’s why no matter what
local school district one may find themselves living in, the textbooks, philosophies, and instruction of the school
varies nary a bit. They are all under the thumb of the DOE. Get rid of the DOE, and local schools would be able to
teach what the people of the local school districts preferred, which in many school districts would mean
old-fashioned American values. That’s why, for the most part, it doesn’t matter to a tinker’s dam who you elect to
your local school board. The root problem is the DOE in Washington, D.C. But when is the last time you heard any
preacher in America say a word of protest against the DOE?
Why is your county sheriff so reluctant to oppose the Obama/Feinstein gun control bills? Because
his office is receiving millions of federal tax dollars (otherwise known as bribes) from the United States
Department of Justice (DOJ). In addition, the DOJ constantly sends directives, policies, agendas, etc., to your
local sheriff. And, unfortunately, most sheriffs, governors, attorney generals, etc., labor under the delusion that
individual states have no authority, power, or right to resist, and otherwise refuse to comply with, the wishes of
Washington, D.C. That’s why, regardless what county you live in, your local sheriff’s office is not in charge. It
is taking its orders from the DOJ in Washington, D.C. (Thank God not every county sheriff in the country is such a
brain dead puppet of Washington. There are several hundred sheriffs who have unequivocally stated that they will
NOT comply with any law out of Washington, D.C., outlawing semi-automatic rifles. Praise God for them!) Get the DOJ
off the backs of your county sheriff’s office and you will see honest law enforcement return to your county. But
when’s the last time you heard any preacher in America say a word of protest against the DOJ?
The reason you cannot afford to build a new home is because of federal departments such as the
Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). The reason you cannot afford to buy property or do much of
anything with the property you own is because of federal departments such as the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The reason you cannot get a loan at your “local” bank–or the reason you lost your business, house, or job
during the past five years–is mostly because of the draconian and damnable decisions of the Federal Reserve. But
when is the last time you heard any preacher in America say a word of protest against OSHA, the EPA, or the Federal
Where did abortion-on-demand come from? Did you vote for it? Did your State legislators and
senators vote for it? No! It was forced upon the states by the US Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. Yet, when
Congressman Ron Paul of Texas introduced (several times) the Sanctity of Life Act, which would have, in essence,
overturned Roe vs. Wade and given the states the authority to restrict or outlaw abortion-on-demand, what did
America’s pulpits do to support it? NOTHING! The GOP leadership didn’t support Dr. Paul’s pro-life bill, so neither
did America’s pulpits.
And where are America’s pulpits regarding the current attempt by Washington, D.C., to make
criminals out of God-fearing Americans who believe in the Second Amendment and who own a semi-automatic rifle? They
are AWOL! They are deserters from battle. They are traitors to freedom and the Bill of Rights. They follow
constitutionally-ignorant Christian leaders such as Franklin Graham and Richard Land. (By the way, Land is a member
of the Council on Foreign Relations, a notorious Big-Government, globalist organization. I just thought you should
Oh, trust me, I know that there are a handful of courageous preachers (true men of God) around the
country who actively resist the tyrannical tentacles of the Beast in Washington, D.C., but, unfortunately, they are
a small minority of the hundreds of thousands of preachers across America.
Again, what do you hear from the vast majority of our pulpits? “Romans 13.” “Obey the government.”
“Don’t resist the government.” And by “government,” they almost always mean the federal government in Washington,
D.C. So, our pastors and churches actively support the DOE, the DOJ, OSHA, the EPA, the Federal Reserve, etc. By
their complicity with Big Government zealots in Washington, D.C., our pulpits are culpable in the escalation of
virtually every piece of vice and villainy that currently engulfs our country. Every bit of it can be traced back
to the manipulation, coercion, intimidation, regulation, oppression, bastardization, calculation, constriction,
repression, and contamination spewing forth from Washington, D.C.
This is why when I hear these preachers lamenting the deteriorating conditions in America, I get
Give pulpits back to honest and courageous pastors who will preach the Bible without fear of losing
the tax exempt status that Washington, D.C., hangs over their heads, and give America back to the states and to the
people who could enact their own civil laws and cultural norms without interference from Washington, D.C., and
watch the re-birth of freedom take place; watch tens of thousands of communities return to the streets of Mayberry;
watch the crime rates drop like an anvil; watch the demand for abortion drop; watch education test scores
skyrocket; watch people go to work; watch houses being built; and watch prosperity thrive.
Sure, I realize that there would be hundreds of communities (mostly large, metropolitan areas and
socialist-dominated states controlled by large, metropolitan areas) that would continue to promote the same
Big-Government programs and policies that we see now. So be it. If people want to live in those pig pens, let them.
But give people an opportunity to choose for themselves communities that respect old-fashioned decency, honesty,
integrity, limited government, true republicanism, etc., and see how many people would flee to these refreshing,
modern-day Cities of Refuge. Instead of gun free zones, America needs “Washington, D.C., Free Zones.” After all,
that’s what America was intended to be; that was the purpose of the Tenth Amendment, and rest of the Bill of
By refusing to resist the Big-Government machinations of Washington, D.C.; by hiding behind an
erroneous, passive, and compliant interpretation of Romans 13; by fearing the IRS more than they fear God; by
worshipping the state more than they worship God; by refusing to teach their congregations the Biblical and Natural
Law principles of liberty, America’s pulpits are the ones that are the most culpable in the deterioration and
destruction of our blessed country. Instead of blaming the abortionists, gay rights activists, pornographers, and
drug dealers, they need to be looking in the mirror.
Charles Finney was right: “If Satan rules in our halls of legislation, the pulpit is responsible
for it. If our politics become so corrupt that the very foundations of our government are ready to fall away, the
pulpit is responsible for it.”
P.S. Now that 14 people have been injured in a multiple-stabbing attack at a college in Texas, will
Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein call for a ban on “assault knives”? And will Franklin Graham and Richard Land
call for national registration and universal background checks for all knife buyers? And if not, why not? I guess
we had better watch out for those “assault rocks” and “assault baseball bats” next, huh?
(c) Chuck Baldwin
Satanic books handed to US kids after religious freedom
Published on Oct 5, 2014
Teaching Satanism in schools sounds like the stuff of horror movies. But a US court
ruling on religious freedoms, has enabled devil worshippers in Florida to hand out educational material about
their beliefs - to kids at state schools. Marina Portnaya reports.
John Dewey (1859-1952) was the father of the modern American public school system, a
leading progressive who promoted the philosophy of pragmatism and an activist for secular humanism in American
society. Dewey was also an original signatory of the “Humanist
Manifesto” and ridiculed moral absolutes and traditional religion, especially Christianity in favor of an evolution/atheist worldview.
Sex Taught to Kindergarteners?!! WARNING: This editorial includes
discussion of topics that are sexually graphic.
It should be blatantly obvious to Christians where this is
“Domestically, they’re pulling together all the data about
virtually every U.S. citizen in the country and assembling that information, building communities that you have
relationships with, and knowledge about you; what your activities are; what you’re doing. So the government is
accumulating that kind of information about every individual person and it’s a very dangerous
Who You Are – Collected information includes names, addresses, biometrics,
social media accounts .
What You Do – Travel history, communications, financial transactions and
movement of physical assets.
Who You Know – Relational information including family, friends, associates
Context – Contextual data such as demographics, politics, cultural norms
Acloser look at the
upcoming Jade Helm military exercise, specifically its “master the human domain” motto, reveals a larger agenda in
regards to domestic policy.
...“They’re building an infrastructure of tyranny,” stated Infowars David Knight.
“There’s a legal infrastructure with things like the NDAA, there’s a technical
infrastructure with things like the capability to do dragnet surveillance, and then of course there is going to be
a military and law enforcement infrastructure, and those are merging.”
me begin by saying, I’ve been an evangelical Christian since I was a child.
I’ve been in the Gospel ministry all of my adult life. I attended two
evangelical Christian colleges, received honorary degrees from two others,
and taught and preached in several others. I’ve attended many of the largest
evangelical pastors’ gatherings and have been privileged to speak at
Christian gatherings–large and small–all over America. I have been part of
the inner workings of evangelical ministry for nearly 40 years. I think I
learned a thing or two about evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity in
America. With that said, I’m here to tell you: I don’t like what I see
happening these days.
Historically, Christians have always attempted to
be–and have always publicly taught the importance of being–peacemakers. Have not
Christians preached–and tried to practice–love and brotherhood? The early church
was born in a baptism of love and unity. Oh sure, there were always individual
misunderstandings and differences, but, on the whole, the church was a loving,
caring, compassionate ecclesia.
Mind you, Christians historically were not afraid
or ashamed to defend themselves, their families, and their country. The Lord Jesus,
Himself (the Prince of Peace), allowed His disciples to carry personal defense
weapons (see Luke 22:36, 38). While some Christian sects were conscientious
pacifists, these were the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of Christian
believers understood the Biblical, Natural Law principle of self-defense. But
believing in the right of lawful, God-ordained self-defense was never to be
confused with warmongering.
So, what has happened to turn the most
peace-loving institution the world has ever known (the New Testament church) into
the biggest cheerleaders for war? I’m talking about unprovoked, illegal,
unconstitutional, unbiblical–even secret–wars of aggression. The biggest
cheerleaders for the unprovoked, unconstitutional, pre-emptive attack and invasion
of Iraq were evangelical Christians. Ditto for the war in Afghanistan, the bombing
of Libya, the attacks in Yemen, drone attacks in Pakistan, etc. Who is calling for
the bombing of Iran? Evangelical Christians. Who cheers for sending more and more
troops all over the world to maim and kill more and more people (including
innocents)? Evangelical Christians. Most evangelical Christians didn’t even bat an
eye when the federal government sent military and police personnel to murder
American citizens, including elderly men, women, and children–Christian elderly
men, women, and children, no less–outside Waco, Texas. Neither have the vast
majority of them piped a peep of protest against the federal government’s murder of
Vicki and Sammy Weaver.
And where are today’s evangelical Christians
giving a second thought regarding their fellow Christian brothers and sisters in
many of these Middle Eastern countries that are being persecuted, imprisoned,
tortured, and killed by the puppet regimes being put in power by the US
government–at US taxpayer (including Christian taxpayer) expense? I hate to be the
bearer of bad news, but more Christians have been persecuted under the US-imposed
regime in Iraq than were ever persecuted when Saddam Hussein was in power. Oh! And
don’t forget that it was the US government that was responsible for putting Saddam
Hussein in power to begin with. The US government set up Osama bin Laden, too. But
In addition to the “white” wars (the ones everyone
knows about), the US government authorizes some 70 black ops commando raids in some
120 countries EVERY DAY. In fact, the secret, black ops military of the US is so
large today it now totals more personnel than the ENTIRE MILITARY OF
A recent report noted, “In 120 countries across
the globe, troops from Special Operations Command carry out their secret war of
high-profile assassinations, low-level targeted killings, capture/kidnap
operations, kick-down-the-door night raids, joint operations with foreign forces,
and training missions with indigenous partners as part of a shadowy conflict
unknown to most Americans. Once ‘special’ for being small, lean, outsider outfits,
today they are special for their power, access, influence, and aura.”
To see the complete report of America’s secret
wars, go to:
Yet, how much of this knowledge would even faze
the average evangelical Christian today? All we seem to hear from today’s
“churches” is “bomb,” “attack,” “wipe them out,” etc. Then, at the same time, they
get all emotional about sending missionaries to the same countries that they had
just cheered-on the US military in raining down missiles of death and destruction
upon (to bring salvation to the lucky ones that weren’t killed, I
And who were the ones that belittled and impugned
Ron Paul? Evangelical Christians. Why? Because he dared to tell the truth about
America’s foreign policy being responsible for much of the hatred and bitterness
erupting in foreign countries against us.
The disciples of our Lord were called “Christians”
first by the Gentiles of Antioch, because of the manner in which the disciples
reminded them of Christ’s nature and teachings. I never thought I would hear myself
say what I’m about to say, but the truth is, the term “Christian” today signifies
anything but Christ-like. To many people today, “Christian” refers to some
warmongering, mean-spirited, throw-anyone-to-the-wolves-who-crosses-them person,
who then has the audacity to look down their nose in contempt against anyone who
disagrees with them for even the smallest reason. And the word “church” has the
stigma of being simply an enclave of warmongers to many people today. And that, my
friends, is one reason so many people are turned off with today’s Christianity. And
I can’t say that I blame them. I’m turned off too!
Am I a pacifist? Absolutely not! Do I believe an
individual, a family, a community, or a nation has the right to lawful
self-defense? I absolutely do! But this blind support for illegal, immoral,
unconstitutional war is anything but Christian. Not only is it turning people
against our country among people abroad, it is turning our own countrymen against
the Christ we Christians claim to love right here at home.
I dare say that the modern Warfare State would
grind to a screeching halt tomorrow if evangelical Christians would simply stop
supporting it! And the thing that most evangelical Christians fail to realize is
that the Warfare State is one of the primary tools being used to usher in a
devilish New World Order that even babes in Christ know to be of Satan. Hence,
Christians are helping to promote the very thing that Satan, himself, is using to
And I realize that right now the vast majority of
evangelicals eat, breathe, and sleep only one mantra: “Get rid of Obama!” They
would vote for anybody to beat Obama. Well, anybody except Ron Paul, that is.
Evangelicals might hate Ron Paul more than they do Barack Obama. And after Mitt
Romney is elected on November 6, these same “Christians” will go into a state of
extended hibernation, ignoring every unconstitutional big-government decision that
Romney makes. Not only that, buckle your seat belts boys and girls, because Romney
is going to expand America’s foreign wars (and the emerging police state at home)
like nobody’s business. And when he does, guess what? Evangelicals will be the ones
who clap and cheer the most.
Let me ask my Christian brethren some questions:
does God give governmental leaders a pass on obeying His moral laws? If God will
hold you and me accountable to His command to not murder, for example, will He not
hold our civil magistrates accountable to His command to not murder? Or do you
really believe that murder is justified on the word of a king? If so, had you been
alive in Hitler’s Germany, you would have supported his atrocities, too, right? And
is that whom you think occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue: a king? Is murder
justified simply because a magistrate orders it? And if that’s true, is it then
justified that government forces pillage, plunder, and rape? If not, why not? After
all, if it’s lawful for men to murder on the command of a magistrate, why can they
not pillage, plunder, and rape? What’s the difference?
Accordingly, I personally believe that
evangelicals owe Bill Clinton an apology. They excoriated him when it came to light
that he had committed adultery. They then turned around and supported G.W. Bush’s
unconstitutional, unprovoked, preemptive wars of aggression, which resulted in the
deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents. Pray tell, if a President is exempt
from the moral law against shedding innocent blood (Genesis 9:6; Proverbs 6:17) why
should he not be exempt from the moral law against adultery?
Believe it or not, a local pastor here in the
Flathead Valley of Montana recently preached a message to his congregation on
Romans 13 with the typical erroneous “obey-the-government-no-matter-what” claptrap.
When a member of his congregation later asked him personally to explain himself, he
told the parishioner, “If government agents or troops came to my house and laid my
wife on the kitchen table and raped her, Romans 13 tells me I cannot resist.”
That’s what he said, folks. I’m not making it up.
Well, if you believe that Presidents are above the
moral law of God regarding shedding innocent blood, why should they be held to any
other moral law of God? And if Presidents are exempt, what about governors, mayors,
sheriffs, etc.? I truly wonder how many evangelical Christians deep in their heart
share the opinion of the above-mentioned pastor. Scary thought, isn’t
And, by the way, that President Obama continues to
escalate America’s wars in the Middle East is the one thing that evangelicals LIKE
about him. In fact, it was Ron Paul’s opposition to the wars of aggression in the
Middle East that was the chief reason why evangelicals rejected him. Yes, between a
war-mongering socialist such as Barack Obama, and a peace-loving freedomist such as
Ron Paul, the average evangelical would choose the warmonger.
Have evangelicals forgotten I John 3:14, 15? It
says, “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the
brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his
brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in
And folks, need I remind you that there are
hundreds of thousands of our Christian brothers and sisters scattered throughout
the Muslim world? In fact, Christianity is growing fastest within the Muslim world
today. I have been to the Middle East. I have met hundreds of Palestinian and Arab
Christians. And I can tell you unequivocally that they do NOT hate America; they
are NOT our enemies; and they love the Lord and try to live for Him as much as any
of us here in the United States do. And every day many of these innocent brothers
and sisters of ours are being maimed and killed by the relentless missile attacks
and countless wars being perpetrated by the US government. So, pray tell, how can
we claim to be Christians on the one hand and be so callused to the suffering and
death of our Christian brothers and sisters on the other hand? (And that is not to
minimize the deaths of the tens of thousands of non-Christian innocents who are
killed in these attacks, but to simply appeal to my fellow Christians with the
Biblical “love the brethren” message.) How can we justify this carnage? Oh, it’s
just “collateral damage,” right?
No man is exempt from the moral laws of God. No
man! Not even the President of the United States. And how much guilt do those of us
in America who laud and support the Warfare State share when atrocities are
committed by our leaders in our name and with our approval? And if none, then what
were those trials in Nuremberg all about?
Yes, I’ve been an evangelical Christian for most
of my life and an evangelical pastor for most of my adult life. And if we
Christians do not quickly repent of this bloodlust that seems to dominate
evangelical Christianity today (spiritually and militarily), the word that was
first used by un-churched Gentiles to describe Christ’s followers will be used as a
curse-word to describe those who facilitated the ruination of our country, because
“whatsoever a [nation] soweth, that shall [it] also reap.”
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me
distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now
be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
Authors Forum: "Christianity and War" | Laurence M.
Laurence M. Vance discusses his book
"Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State" at the Ludwig von Mises Institute's 2008 Austrian
Scholars Conference, the international, interdisciplinary meeting of the Austrian School, held annually at the
Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. http://mises.org
Ever since its inception there have been those who have
warned that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, far from offering a simple "collective security" pact to ensure
the integrity of its member nations' borders, would in fact be used as an offensive tool of imperial adventurism
and conquest. Since the NATO-led Kosovo bombing campaign of 1999 at the very least, those fears have appeared more
and more justified.
Since that time, NATO has continued to take a lead role in more and more overtly
offensive campaigns of aggression in theatre after theatre. By now it is commonly understood to be an extension of
the Pentagon itself, a convenient international military instrument for Washington to wield whenever the pretense
of an international consensus cannot be achieved at the UN Security Council.
-- James Corbett
NATO is the first attempt in history to establish an aggressive
global military formation, one which currently includes a third of the nations of the world either as members or
partners, has members and partners on five continents and has conducted active operations on four, with the
potential to expand its reach into the remaining two where it has not yet officially intruded
itself...As NATO continues to expand across the globe
through a series of partnerships, initiatives and dialogues, what was once a collective security agreement is
increasingly becoming a global military strike force capable of bombarding, invading and occupying countries
anywhere in the world.
The Crime of Aggression is the most serious crime a nation can commit. The condemnation
of this crime is rooted in both Natural and Biblical Law. The preparation for committing this crime almost caused
David his kingdom. In judgment upon David for planning this crime, God destroyed tens of thousands of David's
fighting men, and had David not repented, the nation of Israel itself would have been destroyed.
Sadly, almost no preacher even deals with this subject and almost no Christian has ever heard it explained.
Yet it is one of the most important laws dealing with nations in the entire Bible. The committing of this crime
constitutes much of the current crisis in America and the world today.
In this DVD, Dr. Baldwin explains this almost forgotten and extremely important doctrine.
This is a message you will likely hear nowhere else.
Author of "Hushmoney", speaks out against IRS controlled
501(c)(3) churches, will share how the churches have been allowing Caesar to control them and how you can help your
church become free of Government control!
When a body of believers organizes as a
corporation, even a non-profit tax-exempt religious corporation, such as a corporation sole or a 501(c)(3), it is a
fiction, becomes a servant of government and ceases to be governed by Yahweh. It is no longer part of the body over
which Christ is the head, it becomes a corporation according to government codes, statutes, rules and regulations,
and its head becomes the State, its creator.
By incorporating, the "church" cedes authority to the State. But by this act of submission, it
bestows upon the State authority over all areas of "church" operation. The "church" organization can no longer be
accountable solely to Christ's commands, which are superseded by any command the State may choose to place upon
Here are the Ten Commandments handed down by the 501(c)(3) church's new lord, the State:
I. Thou shalt not attempt to influence legislation either directly or
II. Thou shalt not talk to legislators about legislation
III. Thou shalt not engage in activities related to non legislative decisions, such as
opposing or supporting the issuance of regulations
IV. Thou shalt not make available the results of nonpartisan studies
V. Thou shalt not respond to requests to testify before legislative committees
VI. Thou shalt not support or oppose political candidates
VII. Thou shalt not engage in partisan political campaign activities
VIII. Thou shalt not distribute partisan "voter education" information
IX. Thou shalt not attempt to persuade the public one way or the other on candidates or
X. Thou shalt not allow groups or individuals to use your facilities and equipment to
campaign for candidates
The State's "Ten Commandments" conform the
church into the image of the State to carry out its will, purpose and intent. This "church" can no longer obey the
Great Commission; the 501(c)(3) must grovel before its new lord as it carries out the "contrition commission".
In the eyes of the law ordained of men it has become a fiction, an organization; it is no longer a
living organism with Christ as its head. The corporation's master doesn't care about religious issues, all
corporations are under their jurisdiction, and they are the sole authority over all corporations.
The Prophets Prophesy Falsely: And People Love
- by Chuck Baldwin -
Published on Aug 15, 2016
This message was preached by Pastor Chuck Baldwin on Sunday, August 14, 2016 during the service
at Liberty Fellowship. To purchase a copy of this sermon or to support the fellowship please visit
In the latter half of the 20th century, eugenics merely changed its face to become known
as "population control". This was crystallized in National Security Study Memorandum 200, a 1974 geopolitical
strategy document prepared by Rockefeller's intimate friend and fellow Bilderberg member Henry Kissinger, which targeted thirteen countries for massive population reduction by means of
creating food scarcity, sterilization andWAR.
Birth defects in Iraq Surpass
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Al Jazeera reporter Dahr Jamail discusses how the U.S. invasion of Iraq has left behind a legacy
of cancer and birth defects suspected of being caused by the U.S. military’s extensive use of depleted uranium
and white phosphorus. Noting the birth defects in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, Jamail says: "They’re extremely
hard to bear witness to. But it’s something that we all need to pay attention to ... What this has generated is,
from 2004 up to this day, we are seeing a rate of congenital malformations in the city of Fallujah that has
surpassed even that in the wake of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that nuclear bombs were dropped
on at the end of World War II."
Please Share these images with as many people as possible
Christ Alone is a beautifully 3D animated full feature documentary film. It
features expert guests Dr. Alan Keyes, Dr. Chuck Baldwin, Dr. Katherine Albrecht, Don McAlvany, George W. Hunt, Tim
Baldwin, J.D., and Ty Bollinger who all brilliantly construct the Biblical and Natural Law model of good
government, and then show how each key institution in our society is being corrupted and used as mass vehicles of
control. All of which is pushing humanity towards a global empire ruled by a technocratic elitist system.
Topics Include: Eugenics, Transhumanism, Population Control, Agenda 21, RFID, The New World
Order, 2nd Amendment/Self-Defense, Federal Reserve/Central Banks,Dangers of Institutionalized Churches, Natural
Law, Biblically defined roles of Man, Family, Church, Society & Government
What Every Christian Should Know About
The New World Order
- Sermon by Chuck Baldwin
How To Resist The Conspiracy
- Sermon by Chuck Baldwin -
A LOOK INTO IT ORIGINAL SHORT FILM
Memorial Day is remembering those patriots who fought and paid the ultimate
price for justice and freedom. Meanwhile, ironically, many patriotic men and women today are being demonized
and persecuted for defending the constitution of our nation. In Liberty On The Big Screen, watch how this mix
of valor and hypocrisy come to a head between two brothers - one military veteran, the other, an assistant
HOW WILL YOU BE REMEMBERED DURING THESE TREACHEROUS TIMES? ARE YOU FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM AND JUSTICE?...THINK ABOUT
IT, CAN YOU CALL YOURSELF A PATRIOT?
REIGN OF THE MONARCH
Philosophy of Government
Political Activism in the
Articles by Robin and Esther Phillips
commonly assumed that prior to Constantine in the fourth century, Christians had as little to do with politics as
This is far from true.
1st century itself, Christianity and politics were inextricably combined. In order to
appreciate the significance of this, we need some background information about the religious and political climate
of ancient Rome.
In ancient Rome there was an array of different
mystery cults. These mystery cults were brought to Rome from all over the empire, many from the East. These cults
functioned as personal devotional hobbies, offering their votaries privileged access to various divinities. They
gave worshipers a subjective sense of belonging since one could have a personal relationship with a god or demigod.
The mystery cults did not affect someone’s life in the public world, but were directed towards one’s
interior spirituality. With an esoteric flair, they offered spiritual excitement, without making demands on public
life. As Lesslie Newbigin puts it,
Roman law was in general tolerant of religious diversity. As long as religion confined itself to
matters of personal salvation, the state did not interfere. There were many forms of religious teaching
and practice, mostly coming from the East, which offered to their adherents the promise of salvation. These
'private cults' were not in general interfered with.
Now the religion of Rome, on the other hand, was
just the opposite of this. It was a political religion that dictated the whole of one’s life in the public world.
It structured how people were expected to live as good citizens in the Roman world.
Many of the Roman emperors claimed to be sons of a god, and some even went so far as to claim divinity.
Emperor worship thus became a feature of the Roman religion. However, even in the provinces where the
Julio-Claudian emperors were not actually heralded as divine, we may still speak of the Roman state as being
‘religious’ in the sense that it sought to structure all public life, thought and allegiance. The Roman state
offered a vision of the good life; the Roman state offered peace; the Roman state brought together previously
warring pluralities; the Roman state offered a sense of eschatological progress; the Roman state provided a
framework of meaning to answer the question ‘how should we then live?’
If you lived in the way good Roman citizens were expected to live – that is, if all your public life
acknowledged Rome as the supreme power – then the state could not care less if you engaged in various mystery
religions. This is because the private cults did not seek to structure one’s life publicly.
Stephen Perks contrasts the mystery cults with the religion of Rome:
"Religion…structures life. It structures the life of the individual and of society. This is precisely what
a cult does not do. A cult is a personal worship hobby. It does not structure one’s life nor does it structure
society. The Eastern cults that were popular in ancient Rome, such as the cults of Mithras and Isis, did not
structure the life of their adherents, at least not if they were good Roman citizens. What structured the lives of
the Romans was the religion of Rome which was a political religion." (From lecture ‘Christianity as a Cult’,
downloaded from the Kuyper Foundation audio archives)
There is evidence that some of the families of the Roman emperors worshipped at various mystery cults.
They could do that because the mystery cults were not in competition with the religion of Rome.
To sum, the mystery cults were directed towards the private, the personal, the devotional, the internal
spirituality of an individual, while the religion of Rome was directed towards the public, the external, the
corporate, and political society as a whole. The one did not affect the other.
The Christian Challenge
Understanding this distinction is crucial if we are
to appreciate the impact early Christianity had in the 1st century.
Christianity offered a direct challenge to the political religion of Rome. Christianity was not one more
among thousands of mystery cults.
The Roman state would certainly never have persecuted Christians if the worship of Jesus was simply one
more private cult to choose from. On the contrary, Christians were seen as subversive precisely because their
religion was in competition with the political religion of Rome. Christianity offered a vision for how society as a
whole should look, as well as showing how individuals within that society should behave. The gospel had as much to
say about politics – how nations should be governed – as it did about our own personal lives. As Stephen Perks has
again pointed out,
"As long as Roman citizens practiced the religion of Rome, they were free to practice whatever cult they
wished, the cult of Jesus Christ included. It was the early Church’s refusal to limit the Christian faith to the
status of a cult that brought Christians in conflict with Rome. The practice of Christianity as a religion and not
a cult brought the church into direct conflict with the religion of Rome. This was a clash of religions not cults."
Frances Legge makes the same point in his book Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity:
"The Officials of the Roman Empire in time of persecution sought to force the Christians to sacrifice, not
to any of the heathen gods, but to the Genius of the Emperor and the Fortune of the city of Rome; and at all times
the Christians' refusal was looked upon…as a political offence." (Kessinger Publishing, 2003)
This dispels the common myth, which we find time and time again, that Christianity was apolitical prior to
Constantine in the fourth century. Even if all we had was the New Testament, without the massive corpus of other
historical evidence, we would still know that Christianity challenged Rome as a competing political system. Let’s
look at some of the New Testament evidence.
The very proclamation ‘Jesus is Lord’ (Acts 2:36; 10:36; Rom
8:39; 1 Cor. 1:2; 1:9; 8:5-6; Phil. 2:10-11; 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:20) would have been seen as a direct challenge to the
political religion of Rome. The underlying subtext was ‘Jesus is Lord, therefore, Caesar is not.’ This did not mean
that Christians denied that Caesar had genuine authority. They acknowledged Caesar’s authority, but even this
acknowledgement contained an implicit challenge. As our Saviour put it, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are
Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’ (Mark 12:17) We know from Psalm 24 that all the earth belongs to
the Lord. This means that Caesar only has the authority God chooses to give him. As Jesus said to Pilate, “You
could have no power at all against Me unless it has been given you from above.” (Jn. 19:11)
God’s authority over all things was the basis of Paul’s argument to the Romans for why they needed to
submit to civil authorities. Paul said, ‘Yes, Caesar has authority, but only because it has been given to him by
the higher authority of God,’ to paraphrase Romans 13:1-2. Paul’s teaching that Caesar’s authority was derivative
rather than ultimate would have been perceived as nothing less than fighting talk, a direct challenge to imperial
pretensions. Because Caesar’s authority was given to Him by the higher authority of Jesus Christ, Paul could claim
in Romans 13:3-4 that rulers were responsible before God to do good and to be a terror to evil works. Christianity
thus held even the emperor accountable to a higher standard.
In light of this backdrop, it is not surprising to find Roman emperors later making such a point of trying
to force Christians to say, ‘Caesar is Lord.’ They rightly recognised that Christianity was a challenge to the
emperor’s pretentious claims and the ideology on which the state was based. Christianity challenged the state, not
by advocating anarchy and civil disobedience, but by showing that our citizenship rests first and foremost with a
higher empire (Eph. 2:19-20; Heb. 11:15-16). This higher empire is ruled by a King who demands that even Caesar bow
the knee and repent (Acts 17:30).
If the gospel had been merely the good news that there is a way to go to heaven when you die, or
if Christianity had been promoted as merely a way to have a personal relationship with God, it would have been lost
amidst an array of numerous other mystery cults and private devotional hobbies. The religion of
Christ was so subversive precisely because it proclaimed that Jesus reigns on the earth now. Jesus’ Kingdom claimed
to be the final say, not merely on private devotional matters, but on public, social and political
The Political Religion of Jesus
Christianity was a political religion right from the
very start, even before Paul. We find this same emphasis in Jesus Himself. In Matthew 28, Jesus claimed total
authority over everything and he used this as the basis for commanding his disciples convert, not just individuals,
but entire nations.
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go
therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit.’ (Mt. 28:18-19)
If all authority has been given to Jesus on heaven and on earth, then this includes everywhere. There is
nowhere on the earth or in heaven that does not come under Jesus’ demand for complete allegiance (Col.
If the early Christians had not challenged every area of life and society with the doctrine of
Christ, then they would have been giving the implicit message that there are some areas where Christ has not been
exalted Lord. They would have been implying that there are some places in the world and culture that Christ did not
die to redeem.
It is customary to hear, in retort, that Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world. A careful look at
the original Greek reveals that Jesus did not actually say that. The RSV translates John 18:36 closest to the
original: ‘My kingdom is not from this world.’ Christ’s kingdom is certainly of and for this world, but it does not
arise out of or (from) this earth. It comes from heaven to the earth. That is why Jesus taught us to pray, ‘thy
kingdom come on earth…as it is in heaven’ (Mat. 6:10). The phrase ‘kingdom of heaven’ in the gospels rests on this
same nexus, referring to the rule of heaven (that is, of God), being brought to bear in the present space-time
world. This draws on the theological backdrop of passages like Daniel 7: 26-27 and is the same crowning vision we
find in Rev. 11:15, where we are told that “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and His
The Church’s Vocation
If you look out in the world today, it is sometimes
hard to see much evidence of Jesus’ authority. But that is where the church comes in. In the present period -
between the inauguration and consummation of Christ’s kingdom - the church has the vocation of bringing His
authority to bear on every area of society. The people of God are to turn the kingdoms of this world into the
kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ.
This means that piece by piece, institution by institution, nation by nation, person by person, all things
need to now be reconciled to Christ. That is the mission of all Christians, who are called to be ministers of
reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18-19) in the task of bringing all things back into subjection to the Lord (2 Cor. 10:5).
Like the Psalmist, we are to “say among the nations, ‘The Lord reigns’” (Ps. 96:10). Naturally, this includes all
the institutions, organisations and cultures that make up those nations. We are to bring the Lordship of Christ to
bear on all the arts, the sciences, the economies, the music, the philosophy, the educational systems, and of
course the political systems of this world.
In these and every other area, we are to proclaim that Jesus reigns by showing the implications of that
reign in practice. Our message to the powers of this world is that their time is up - Jesus is in charge now.
Because Jesus is now the boss of every store, every restaurant, every university and every institution, we should
be able to go into shops and say, ‘You’re not allowed to sell that video because Jesus owns this shop.’ We should
be able to go to theatres and say, ‘You’re not allowed to stage this play because Jesus owns this
The Gospel Challenge
The very term ‘the gospel’ would have also
functioned as a political challenge to the religion of Rome. Throughout the Roman world of the 1st century,
euangelion (‘gospel’ or ‘glad tidings’) was regularly used to refer to the birth, announcement, accession or
victory of a great emperor. There is an inscription in Priene on the Asia Minor coast from 9 BC which refers to the
birthday of Augustus. The inscription talks about this day as “the beginning for the world of the glad tidings that
have come to men through him…” In this context, glad tidings were associated with the creation of a new world, an
era of peace and justice made possible by the new emperor. Thus, the inscription refers to Augustus as “a saviour
for us and those who come after us, to make war to cease, to create order everywhere…”
The striking thing is that this is the exact kind of language that early Christians used to talk, not
about the emperor, but about another leader: namely Jesus. The ‘gospel of Jesus Christ’ also announces the
beginning for the world of the glad tidings that have come to men through Him (Lk. 2:10-11). It also announces a
Saviour who comes to (eventually) make wars to cease, to create order everywhere and to bring peace (Isa. 9:6-7;
Lk. 1:79). From the Roman perspective, Christianity must have seemed like the great parody of the Roman state,
while the early Christians would have seen Rome as the great parody for which Christ’s kingdom was the reality.
Both Christianity and Caesar believed they alone held the answer for bringing justice, order and peace to the world
(Zech. 6:13; Jn. 14: 27), both offered a sense of community (Eph. 2:19-22; 1 Pet. 2:9), both had brought unity out
of previously warring pluralities (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11; Rev. 5:9) and both were intent on achieving worldwide
dominion (Isa. 9:7; Col. 1:19-20; Rev. 11:15).
Although Christianity and the Roman state may have had similar goals, they went about achieving those
goals in radically different ways (Jn. 18:36). No wonder the early Christians were persecuted. The glad tidings of
Jesus was bad news for Caesar because it proclaimed there was another way to bring peace and justice to the world
that was superior to Caesar’s way. It proclaimed that God had called out a people whose vocation was to work for
peace and justice on Jesus’ terms instead of Caesar’s terms.
We have explored Christianity’s challenge to Caesar, but we might equally have explored the way the gospel
confronted first century paganism. If Paul’s gospel had been merely an approximation for a personal,
individualistic experience that has little or no bearing on public life (one more mystery cult), then the makers of
idols in Ephesus would never have found him to be a threat to their livelihood (Acts 19).
Similarly, if we preach the gospel in all its original power, the makers of idols today will find us a
threat to their livelihoods. In our world, no less than the first century, the power of the gospel depends on it
functioning as a subversive challenge to the false gods that abound (1 Cor. 8:5-6). The New Testament writers could
make this challenge boldly because they had confidence that Jesus had already won the victory (Col. 1:19-20; Heb.
1:1-4). Christ’s resurrection is the guarantee of the success and worldwide dominion of His kingdom (1 Cor.
15:20-28). What is left is simply the implementation of that victory.
The Christian Mystery Cult Today
In contemporary evangelical parlance, the term ‘the
gospel’ has been reduced to a shorthand for the salvation message, or an approximation for the doctrine of
justification by faith. It is seen as applying to one’s personal spiritual interiority. In other words,
Christianity is reduced to the level of a first century mystery cult. But if that was all the early Christians
meant by the gospel then Caesar couldn’t have cared less. Who cares if there is one more wacky cult out there of
people exploring their own spirituality? This is ‘another gospel’, with the person, rather than Jesus Christ, at
the centre of control.
This is not to say that the personal and the private are unimportant to the Lord. Jesus is Lord over these
areas just as He is Lord over everything else. One of the saddest features of contemporary Christianity is the way
people have turned it into a mystery cult. The faith is presented as being, first and foremost, about having a
personal relationship with Jesus. You’ve probably heard the statement before that ‘Christianity is not a religion
it is a relationship.’
That is mystery cult language and there is precious little in the New Testament with that kind of
sentimental gush. We are told to love the Lord, and that love is demonstrated in tangible word and deed, not in a
subjective friendship between me and the Creator.
What happens when the personal relationship template becomes the centre of one’s faith – as opposed to the
‘Jesus is Lord’ template - is that everything else becomes redrawn in subjective categories. The emphasis between
the two paradigms is the same difference between the imperial religion and the mystery cults. One model emphasises
the personal, the private, the subjective and the individual, while the other emphasises the public, the corporate
and the objective. The former removes the nerve from Christianity, neutralising the challenge of the gospel. Caesar
would have loved that. Caesar would have loved it if the early Christians went around telling people to have a
personal relationship with Jesus rather than going around with the proclamation that Jesus is Lord.
Christians today should learn from the example of Paul and the early church. We need to reject
formulations of the faith that make no demand on the political sphere. We need to ask the Lord to put the nerve
back into the gospel – the gospel that troubled Herod when he heard of Jesus’ birth; the gospel that made the
idolaters at Ephesus riot; the gospel that made Caesar quake in his boots.
Temptations for Politically Conscious
Like many people, I used to believe that the transition from
Old Testament to New Testament corresponded with a move from religion being a physical, political reality to being
a private and invisible reality. For about three years now I have been critical of that view for I have come to
realise that Christ's Lordship applies to every area of public and private life. As Carl F. H. Henry put it, "If
while evangelizing we abandon the socio-political realm to its own devices, we shall fortify the misimpression that
the public order falls wholly outside the command and will of God, that Christianity deals with private concerns
only; and we shall conceal the fact that government exists by God's will as His servant for the sake of justice and
This shift in understanding has led me to write a number of articles trying to articulate the basis
for a truly Biblical political theology (for example, see my article HERE on political Christianity in the early
church). My job as a researcher for Christian Voice also reflects a strong political emphasis. However, recently I
have come to be aware of some significant dangers to which politically conscious Christians seem prone.
Politically active Christians have the tendency to adopt the secular mindset which says that the
world's problems can be fixed through politics. You know the mentality: just elect enough Christians, just pass
enough Christian laws, etc., and then the problems of society will rectified. This really is a dangerous heresy
since all totalitarian movements are also based on the idea of salvation through the state. The first principle of
Christian political activism should be to attack this idea of the state, yet so many Christians collude to it.
The Biblical paradigm recognises that the church, not the ungodly political structures, is God's
answer to the world (see my Bible Overview where I argue for this point). This is also the position of the
reconstructionist movement (see this compilation of quotations), however they have been caricatured. Popular
right-wing political activism, on the other hand, works on a different paradigm, with disastrous results. Because
they see the state as God's instrument for transforming society, Christians who could be focusing their attention
on building strong families and strong communities, with the consequence of building strong churches, neglect all
this to campaign for watered-down legislation and compromised conservatism.
"The entire medieval and Protestant tradition," writes Doug Jones in Angels in the Architecture,
"is anti-Statist, and that includes, as Augustine taught us, the view that the State is the least important
institution among Church, State, and Family. Yet, the great irony of the Christian Right is that though their
families are often messes and their churches splintering, they think they have the wisdom to wield the sword. In
search of 'real change,' they charge out to conquer the institution that is most impotent in actually bringing it
about. We haven't changed much from our ancient Israelite brothers. We want a king or a sword just like everybody
else. We don't understand how God has structured the world, how real change occurs.... Why should we want to wield
any political party club or rule any council at this stage of life? The State is a superficial, testy institution
that is merely a shifting symptom of deeper realities. And so a reformation of the State should be like healing a
sore throat. Nurture the rest of the body with good things first, and the throat will follow along in time."
Later on in the same book, Doug Wilson writes, "The rWestoration of the nations is not, in any
important sense, a political process. Rather, the process is one of baptism and catechism. The means given for the
conversion of the heathen were the waters of baptism and the words of instruction. When the lessons have been
learned, there will of course be some political consequences. But they will be minimal for the simple reason that
the state itself, in a nation that has come to repentance, will also be minimal....Our problems are spiritual, and
the solutions are the Word and sacraments. The charge was not 'go ye, and elect right-of-center congresspersons.'
Now certainly the gospel has an effect on all of culture, as it should. But results are not causes; apples are not
roots." (Also listen to Doug Wilson's talk 'Cultural Change & Worship')
Sadly, most Christian campaigners have not read Angels in the Architecture, and hence they continue
to mistake the result for the cause in the way described by the two Dougs. A practical result of this is that the
gospel is compromised. Consider how so many Christian activists are content to simply have a place at the table, on
a par with any other lobbyist for any other organization or special interest group. This is a functional denial of
the fact that Jesus claims total authority over the whole system. Our goal should not be to have a place at the
table but to have the whole system down on its knees before Jesus.
Equally worrying is the fact that Christian activists begin using the world's methods, such as
'louder is better.' Organizing protests that are larger than their opponents becomes more important than
constructing rational and coherent arguments. More energy is devoted to huge letter writing campaigns than engaging
in thoughtful public debates. We seek to amplify our message with quantity rather than quality because we notice
that is how the homosexual and Muslim lobby get their voices heard. The corollary to this is that the world begins
to perceive us as just another pressure group, unable to listen or engage thoughtfully with any other position.
The answer to these problems is not to react and say that Christians shouldn't be involved in
politics at all. That would only perpetuate the Gnostic concept that religion is a personal and private affair,
detached from the public world ("Jesus is the Lord of my heart but the devil is Lord of the world", etc). On the
contrary, we must seek to evangelize politics just as we must seek to evangelize music, poetry, philosophy,
economics, technology, sociology, sports, and so on. The key question is how? It is time we realized that, as
Christians, we are involved in politics every time we gather to worship; we are involved in politics every time we
read to our children; we are involved in politics every time we produce artifacts that reflect the standards of
goodness, truth and beauty; we are involved in politics every time we put into practice what it means to live in
the kingdom of God. The reason these things are political is because it will be through all these pedestrian
Kingdom-of-God-acts that the world (and therefore politics) will eventually be transformed. Let's not put the horse
before the cart.
Biblical Philosophy of Government
(An Expansion of Article: Political Activism in the Early Church)
A while back I did some research on what the Bible has
to say about government. A Biblical philosophy of government is necessary because of what Paul wrote to the
In 2 Corinthians 10 Paul wrote: “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the
weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and
every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the
obedience of Christ…”
This passage is a mandate for developing a Christian (Christ-centred) worldview over every area of life. If we
are to follow the apostle’s injunction to bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, this should
include thoughts about everything: art, science, recreation, food, literature, television, and anything you could
possibly name. And of course it involves political issues. Government falls under Christ’s Lordship just as much as
any other area. That is why a Christian philosophy of government is necessary.
Another reason why a Christian philosophy of government is necessary is because Christianity has always been a
political religion. This is something that emerges very clearly from a study of the early church. In the 1st
century Christianity and politics were inextricably combined. You couldn’t separate the two.
In order to appreciate the significance of this, we need some background information about the religious and
political climate of ancient Rome.
Mystery Cults in the 1st Century
In ancient Rome during the 1st century, there was an array
of different mystery cults. These mystery cults were brought to Rome from all over the empire, many from the East.
These cults functioned as personal devotional hobbies, offering their votaries privileged access to various
divinities. They gave worshipers a subjective sense of belonging since one could have a personal relationship with
a god or demigod. The mystery cults did not affect someone’s life in the public world, but were directed towards
one’s interior spirituality. With an esoteric flair, they offered spiritual excitement, without making demands on
Imperial Religion in the 1st Century
Now the religion of Rome, on the other hand, was just the opposite of this. It was a political religion that
dictated the whole of one’s life in the public world. It structured how people were expected to live as good
citizens of the Roman state.
Many of the Roman emperors claimed to be sons of a god, and some even went so far as to claim divinity. Emperor
worship thus became a feature of the Roman religion. However, even in the provinces where the Julio-Claudian
emperors were not actually heralded as divine, we may still speak of the Roman state as being ‘religious’ in the
sense that the state sought to structure all public life, thought and allegiance. Like all religions, the Roman
state offered a vision of the good life; the Roman state offered peace; the Roman state brought together previously
warring pluralities; the Roman state offered a sense of eschatological progress; the Roman state provided a
framework of meaning to answer the question ‘how should we live?’
If you lived in the way good Roman citizens were expected to live – that is, if all your public life
acknowledged Rome as the supreme power – then the state couldn’t care less if you engaged in various mystery cults.
As Stephen Perks points out, contrasting the mystery cults with the religion of Rome:
Religion…structures life. It structures the life of the individual and of society. This is precisely what a cult
does not do. A cult is a personal worship hobby. It does not structure one’s life nor does it structure society.
The Eastern cults that were popular in ancient Rome, such as the cults of Mithras and Isis, did not structure the
life of their adherents, at least not if they were good Roman citizens. What structured the lives of the Romans was
the religion of Rome which was a political religion. (From lecture ‘Christianity’ as a Cult’, published by the
There is evidence that some of the families of the Roman emperors worshipped at various mystery cults. They
could do that because the mystery cults were not in competition with the religion of Rome. The reason they were not
in competition was because the mystery cults were directed towards the private, the personal, the devotional, the
internal spirituality of an individual, while the religion of Rome was directed towards the public, the external,
the corporate and political society as a whole. The one did not affect the other.
Christians Challenge Rome
Understanding this distinction is crucial if we are to
appreciate the impact early Christianity had in the first century.
Christianity offered a direct challenge to the political religion of Rome. Christianity was not one more among
thousands of mystery cults.
The Roman state would certainly never have persecuted Christians if the worship of Jesus was simply one more
private cult to choose from among. On the contrary, Christians were seen as subversive precisely because their
religion was in competition with the political religion of Rome. Christianity, like Rome, offered a vision for how
society as a whole should look, as well as showing how individuals within that society should behave.
Quoting again from Stephen Perks:
"As long as Roman citizens practiced the religion of Rome, they were free to practice whatever cult they wished,
the cult of Jesus Christ included. It was the early Church’s refusal to limit the Christian faith to the status of
a cult that brought Christians in conflict with Rome. The practice of Christianity as a religion and not a cult
brought the church into direct conflict with the religion of Rome. This was a clash of religions not cults."
Francis Legge makes the same point in his book Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity:
"The Officials of the Roman Empire in time of persecution sought to force the Christians to sacrifice, not to
any of the heathen gods, but to the Genius of the Emperor and the Fortune of the city of Rome; and at all times the
Christians' refusal was looked upon…as a political offence." (Kessinger Publishing, 2003)
The gospel was seen as a political offence. This is because the gospel had as much to say about politics – how
nations should be governed – as it did about our own personal lives.
This dispels the common myth, which we find time and time again, that Christianity was apolitical prior to
Constantine in the fourth century. Even if all we had was the New Testament, without the massive corpus of other
historical evidence, we would still know that Christianity challenged Rome as a competing political system.
Gary DeMar makes this point in Volume 3 of his God and Government series:
“The Roman empire presents a classic example of the Messianic man-centered State, of the denial of God’s Law,
and of the implementation of humanistic law. Caesar declared himself god and his decrees were to be acknowledged as
the laws of the gods. The Roman rulers understood that their claim to divine rule was threatened by God’s unlimited
and universal reign. Peter declared confidently “that there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name
under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). The gospel of Jesus Christ,
with its claim of divine prescriptions, threatened the very nature of the Roman State. Rome had to submit itself to
the position of ‘minister’ under God or be crushed by the power of God. Rome did not submit”
Jesus is Lord
The very proclamation ‘Jesus is Lord’ (Acts 2:36; 10:36; Rom 8:39;
1 Cor. 1:2; 1:9; 8:5-6; Phil. 2:10-11; 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:20) was seen as a direct challenge to the political religion
of Rome. (N. T. Wright’s book Paul: Fresh Perspectives, SPCK 2005 and his essay ‘Paul’s Gospel and Ceasar’s Empire’
athttp://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/wright.htm) The underlying subtext was ‘Jesus is Lord, therefore, Caesar is not.’ This did not mean that Christians
denied that Caesar had genuine authority. He had temporal authority only because God had given it to him, but he
was not the supreme Lord. The early Christians acknowledged Caesar’s authority, but even this acknowledgement
contained an implicit challenge since it was based on the fact that God was the higher authority. As Jesus said to
Pilate, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it has been given you from above.” (Jn.
God’s authority over all things was the basis of Paul’s argument to the Romans for why they needed to submit to
civil authorities. Paul said, ‘Yes, Caesar has authority, but only because it has been given to him by the higher
authority of God,’ to paraphrase Romans 13:1-2. Paul’s teaching that Caesar’s authority was derivative rather than
ultimate would have been perceived as nothing less than fighting talk, a direct challenge to imperial pretensions.
Because Caesar’s authority was given to Him by the higher authority of Jesus Christ, Paul could claim in Romans
13:3-4 that rulers were responsible before God to do good and to be a terror to evil works. Christianity thus held
even the emperor accountable to a higher standard.
In light of this backdrop, it is not surprising to find Roman emperors later making such a point of trying to
force Christians to say, ‘Caesar is Lord.’ They rightly recognized that Christianity was a challenge to the
emperor’s pretentious claims and the ideology on which the state was based. Christianity challenged the state, not
by advocating anarchy and civil disobedience, but by showing that our citizenship rests first and foremost with a
higher empire (Eph. 2:19-20; Heb. 11:15-16). This higher empire is ruled by a King who demands that even Caesar bow
the knee and repent (Acts 17:30).
If the gospel had been merely the good news that there is a way to go to heaven when you die, or if
Christianity had been promoted as merely a method for having a personal relationship with God, it would have been
lost amidst an array of numerous other mystery cults and private devotional hobbies. The religion of Christ was
subversive precisely because it proclaimed that Jesus reigns on the earth now. Jesus’ Kingdom claimed to be the
final say, not merely on private devotional matters, but on public, social and political affairs.
This comes across clearly in Matthew 28, where Jesus claimed total authority over everything and he used this as
the basis for commanding disciples to convert, not just individuals, but entire nations.
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go
therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit.’ (Mt. 28:18-19)
If all authority has been given to Jesus on heaven and on earth, then this includes everywhere. There is nowhere
on the earth or in heaven that does not come under Jesus’ demand for complete allegiance (Col. 1:15-18).
If the early Christians had not challenged every area of life and society with the doctrine of Christ, then they
would have been giving the implicit message that there are some areas where Jesus has not been exalted Lord. They
would have been implying that there are some places in the world and culture that Christ did not die to redeem.
‘Not of This World’
It is customary to hear, in retort, that Jesus said His
kingdom is not of this world. A careful look at the original Greek reveals that Jesus did not actually say that.
The RSV translates John 18:36 closest to the original: ‘My kingdom is not from this world.’ Christ’s kingdom is
certainly of and for this world, but it does not arise out of or (from) this earth. It comes from heaven to the
earth. That is why Jesus taught us to pray, ‘thy kingdom come on earth…as it is in heaven’ (Mat. 6:10). The phrase
kingdom of heaven’ in the gospels has this same underpinning, referring to the rule of heaven (that is, of God),
being brought to bear in the present space-time world. This draws on the theological backdrop of passages like
Daniel 7: 26-27 and is the same crowning vision we find in Rev. 11:15, where we are told that “The kingdoms of this
world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ…”
Jesus shows in many statements that His kingdom definitely is of this world. “God was in Christ reconciling the
world to Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19); Jesus is “the light of the world” (John 8:12), “the Savior of the world” (4:42),
and “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!” (1:29).
The Gospel in the 1st Century
The very term ‘the gospel’ would have functioned as a
political challenge to the religion of Rome. Throughout the Roman world of the 1st century, euangelion (‘gospel’ or
‘glad tidings’) was regularly used to refer to the birth, announcement, accession or victory of a great emperor.
There is an inscription in Priene on the Asia Minor coast from 9 BC which refers to the birthday of Augustus. The
inscription talks about this day as ‘the beginning for the world of the glad tidings that have come to men through
him…’ In this context, glad tidings were associated with the creation of a new world, an era of peace and justice
made possible by the new emperor. Thus, the inscription refers to Augustus as ‘a saviour for us and those who come
after us, to make war to cease, to create order everywhere…’
The striking thing is that this is the exact kind of language that early Christians used to talk, not about the
emperor, but about another leader: namely Jesus. The ‘gospel of Jesus Christ’ also announces the beginning for the
world of the glad tidings that have come to men through Him (Lk. 2:10-11). It also announces a Saviour who comes to
make wars to cease, to create order everywhere and to bring peace (Isa. 9:6-7; Lk. 1:79). From the Roman
perspective, Christianity must have seemed like the great parody of the Roman state, while the early Christians
would have seen Rome as the great parody for which Christ’s kingdom was the reality. Both Christianity and Caesar
believed they alone held the answer for bringing justice, order and peace to the world (Zech. 6:13; Jn. 14: 27),
both offered a sense of community (Eph. 2:19-22; 1 Pet. 2:9), both had brought unity out of previously warring
pluralities (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11; Rev. 5:9) and both were intent on achieving worldwide dominion (Isa. 9:7; Col.
1:19-20; Rev. 11:15).
Although Christianity and the Roman state may have had similar goals, they went about achieving those goals in
radically different ways (Jn. 18:36). The glad tidings of Jesus was bad news for Caesar because it proclaimed there
was another way to bring peace and justice to the world that was superior to Caesar’s way. It proclaimed that God
had called out a people whose vocation was to work for peace and justice on Jesus’ terms instead of Caesar’s
In the book of Acts Peter said that there is no other name given under heaven by which we will be saved – that
expression was found on a coin referring to Caesar Augustus.
The ascension of Jesus pointed to this same reality. When a Roman emperor died, there was often a process of
deification that followed. They would get someone to say they had seen the emperor ascend into heaven and that
would prove that he had been divine. Christians proclaimed that Jesus had ascended into heaven and that was a
powerful political statement. It meant He was God and the ruler of the world.
We have explored Christianity’s challenge to Caesar, but we might equally have explored the way the gospel
confronted first century paganism. If Paul’s gospel had been merely an approximation for a personal,
individualistic experience that has little or no bearing on public life (one more mystery cult), then the makers of
idols in Ephesus would never have found him to be a threat to their livelihood (Acts 19). Similarly, if we preach
the gospel in all its original power, the makers of idols today will find us a threat to their livelihoods. In our
world, no less than the first century, the power of the gospel depends on it functioning as a subversive challenge
to the false gods that abound (1 Cor. 8:5-6). The New Testament writers could make this challenge boldly because
they had confidence that Jesus had already won the victory (Col. 1:19-20; Heb. 1:1-4). Christ’s resurrection and
ascension are the proof of this.
Christians today should learn from the example of Paul and the early church. We need to reject formulations of
the faith that make no demand on the political sphere. We need to allow the Lord to put the nerve back into the
gospel – the gospel that troubled Herod when he heard of Jesus’ birth; the gospel that made the idolaters at
Ephesus riot; the gospel that made Caesar quake in his boots.
Worship of State Today
The early Christians opposed the ultimacy of the Roman
government, as embodied in Caesar, by asserting the ultimacy of Christ. This is the same battle that we, as
Christians, must fight today. In our own era, the nation state is deified in practice.
The German philosopher Hegel (1770 – 1831) taught explicitly that the nation state was divine:
“The Universal is to be found in the State…. The State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth….We must
therefore worship the State as the manifestation of the Divine on earth… the State is the march of god through the
world… [Hegel, from a collection of quotations compiled by Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), vol. 2, p. 31]
Although we do not find people using this kind of language today, people still treat the nation state as if it
were divine. This is because people are constantly looking to the state as the savior to the world’s problems.
We have to be clear about what this doesn’t mean, because there is a lot of confusion about this. Many
Christians deny the Lordship of Jesus over politics because they think that acknowledging His Lordship would lead
to certain disastrous consequences.
First, to acknowledge that Jesus’ Lordship extends over political matters, does not mean that we should seek to
turn America into a Christian theocracy along the lines of Old Testament Israel. The New Testament teaches that
many things changed at the coming of Jesus and one of the things that changed was the way God deals with peoples
and nations. Since the Bible does not teach that we should just transfer the entire legal code of the Old Testament
into modern day, to do so would not be applying Christ’s Lordship responsibly.
Secondly, acknowledging Christ’s Lordship over all the governments of this world does not mean that the church
should run government. There is a lot of confusion about the separation of church and state, and we will be
discussing this principle in relation to the American constitution later on. For the moment, however, we need to
clarify what this doctrine of separation means and what it doesn’t mean. To do that I’d like to begin by telling a
Ambrose and Theodosius
The church father Ambrose of Milan lived from 339-397
Ambrose became bishop of Milan in 374. As bishop, Ambrose attained fame as a magnificent preacher, a resolute
enemy of Arianism, and a pioneer hymn-writer. When the emperor Theodosius the Great made Milan his Western capital,
Ambrose became his close friend and advisor; but Ambrose was quite clear that the emperor was not to behave as a
ruler in the Church. Ambrose wrote: "The Church belongs to God, therefore it cannot be assigned to Caesar. The
emperor is within the Church, not above it."
Ambrose’s view led to a famous confrontation between bishop and emperor in 390. That year, in the city of
Thessalonica, a rioting mob murdered Botherich, the virtuous governor of the province of Illyria, along with
several of his officials. The results were explosive. Theodosius was normally a wise, generous, far-seeing ruler,
admired for his Christian integrity of character, but he had one fatal weakness – he was prone to outbursts of wild
fury, which so terrified everyone that even his wife and children would hide from him. When Theodosius heard about
the murder of Botherich, he lost all self-control, and in a fit of wrath he sent an order to his soldiers to
massacre the Thessalonians as a punishment. Almost immediately Theodosius recoiled from what he had done, and sent
another order cancelling his savage decree.
But it was too late. The Thessalonian troops, eager to avenge the murder of their beloved governor, had already
butchered some 7,000 people.
When Ambrose heard of this outrage, he boldly excommunicated the emperor and exhorted him to deep, meaningful
repentance. (The above is taken from Needham’s book 2000 Years of Christ’s Power)
Ambrose wrote to the Emperor the following:
“I cannot deny that you are zealous for the faith and that you fear God. But you have a naturally passionate
spirit; and while you easily yield to love when that spirit is subdued, yet when it is stirred up you become a
raging beast. I would gladly have left you to the workings of your own heart, but I dare not remain silent or gloss
over your sin. No-one in all human history has ever before heard of such a bloody scene as the one at Thessalonica!
I warned you against it, I pleaded with you; you yourself realised its horror and tried to cancel your decree. And
now I call you to repent. Remember how king David repented of his crime. Will you be ashamed to do what David did?
You can wash away your sin only by tears, by repentance, by humbling your soul before God. You are a man; you have
sinned as a man; you must repent as a man. No angel, no archangel can forgive you. God alone can forgive you; and
He forgives those who repent. How I grieve that you – you who were so outstanding for your spirituality, so
unwilling that even one innocent person should suffer –how I grieve that you should not repent of the slaughter of
so many innocent people! You are brave in battle, and praiseworthy in every other way, but goodness was the crown
of your character. The evil spirit envied you these purest of your blessings. Conquer him while you can! I love
you; I honour your from my heart; I pray for you. If you believe this, accept what I say. But if you do not believe
it, forgive me for preferring God to you.”
Notwithstanding Ambrose’ letter, on the following Sunday the emperor turned up for church as usual as if nothing
had happened. But Theodosius found Ambrose barring his way, refusing to let him enter. The emperor claimed that he
had repented, but Ambrose informed him that words were not enough – his repentance must be as public as his sin had
been. Theodosius submitted and walked through the streets of Milan doing public penance. He was banned from
attending worship for eight months. When Ambrose finally allowed him to enter church again, the emperor had to
kneel and beg God’s forgiveness before the whole congregation, which he did with passionate sorrow, tears streaming
from his eyes.
This was not the only time that the Bishop and the emperor had clashed. Just before the Thessalonian massacre,
in 388 the Christians of Callinicum on the Euphrates burnt down a Jewish synagogue. Theodosius ordered the local
bishop to rebuild the synagogue from church funds. Ambrose intervened, declaring that it was wrong for a Christian
bishop to be forced to use his church’s money to build a place for non-Christian worship. Ambrose preached a sermon
against Theodosius when the emperor was actually sitting in the congregation, and refused to let Theodosius take
part in communion unless he gave up his plan to make the Christians of Callinicum rebuild the synagogue. Theodosius
surrendered to Ambrose and the synagogue was not rebuilt. (Ibid)
Separation of Church and State
This story shows the principle of church and state
separation as it operated in the early church. Both the church and the government had authority but in different
spheres. The ministers and apparatus of church government were separate from the institution of civil
Ambrose had authority over one sphere and Theodosius had authority over another sphere. This sphere sovereignty
was undermined – or at least Ambrose thought it was - when the emperor crossed over and started meddling in the
affairs of the church by telling them how to use their money. So Ambrose had to excommunicate him. Likewise when
the king murdered the Thessalonians, Ambrose had authority to withhold the Lord’s supper from him even though
Ambrose had no civil authority.
Because the emperor had authority over the state but not the church, he came under Ambrose’s authority in
matters relating to the church, just as Ambrose had to submit to the emperor in matters of state. For example, if
Ambrose had committed a murder or a theft, it would be liable to civil punishment. Each had legitimate,
God-ordained authority, but over different spheres.
We also see from this story that the distinction between church government and statecraft or between the sacred
and the secular spheres of authority, does not mean that one area is outside Christ’s Lordship. Theodosius was
expected to be a good emperor under the authority of Christ, and that is why he could be blamed for his action
against the Thessalonians.
In the secular world, separation of church and state is usually synonymous with separation of religion and
state. But the Biblical separation of church and state acknowledges that both spheres are under the Lordship of
Christ and derive their authority ultimately from God.
Government is not autonomous or religiously neutral. Emperors, presidents and governors are required to serve
Christ in the decisions they make in secular governments, just as bishops, elders and pastors are required to serve
Christ in the decisions they make in ecclesiastical government. God has given them authority over different areas,
but they are both under His authority and that is why they can both be blamed when their decisions do not conform
to God’s laws. We have already seen that this was a point that the early Christians emphasised strongly – that even
Caesar is under the authority of Christ and, as such, is subject to the same ethical standards as believers. Caesar
will be judged for not submitting to Christ’s laws.
We understand sphere sovereignty when it comes to families. I am head of my family but I am not head of the
family next door. Each family has a different government, yet each are expected to submit to the Lordship of
Many people think that in the Old Testament the church and the state were equivalent. But even in the Old
Testament theocracy, the Lord insisted on preserving the separation of church and state. We read in 2 Chronicles
about king Uzziah of Judah. King Uzziah became proud and decided to go into the temple and burn incense to the
Lord. But that job had been given to the priests. As king, Uzziah no more had authority to burn incense in the
temple then the priests had authority to govern the land. (2 Chronicles 26:16-21)
Throughout history, church and government have rarely managed to achieve Biblical sphere sovereignty.
During the medieval era, the doctrine of papal supremacy meant that the church had authority over all
governments. The Pontiff was the supreme earthly governor over civil authorities.
During the Reformation this was flipped and in many countries the church became subservient to the state. This
is known as Erastianism. In England, this is still the case because it is the monarch who is the supreme head of
the English church. It is the Queen who appoints the Archbishop. Because the head of state in England is the one
who controls the church in England, the state thinks it has the right to meddle in what the church does. This is
creating real problems for English Christians. Earlier in the year the Queen allowed Parliament to pass laws which
could affect what Christians are and are not allowed to do in the privacy of their own churches. A number of
Christian organisations are being forced to shut down because they don’t subscribe to politically correct theology.
The state has authority over the church.
In America, although the constitution preserves sphere sovereignty, there are many who are trying to make
America more like England, where the state has authority over the church.
“God’s system of political power is decentralized. No single institution has been established by God to bring
about social order. Freedom and order are realized when men throughout a society strive to follow the blueprint God
has given for the restoration and maintenance of all family, ecclesiastical, social and political institutions. For
example, Genesis 10 is a list of many families that represent a decentralized social order. The builders of Babel
wanted to eliminate the many governments and consolidate family, ecclesiastical, and political power in the one
State. God would have none of it. He “scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they
stopped building the city” (Gen. 11:8). [Gary DeMar, Liberty at Risk: Exposing the Politics of Plunder, p. 40]
The Different Functions of Government & Church
Why is it good to separate church and state? Because God
has given church and state different jobs to do. This is crucial. I believe that most of the political problems the
Western world is facing today is because people don’t understand that the church and the state have different
Romans 13 tells us what the job of the state is. It is to retrain evil. It is to wield the sword by punishing
evil-doers. This enables the state to avoid anarchy. If the government is doing its job properly, there can be
social order. If somebody comes to take away my private property or to stop me buying and selling, then the
government kicks in and punishes that person. If another country tries to invade us and takes away our land, then
the government defends us. The government is there to stop evil-doers so that citizens can get on with their lives.
We pay the government taxes so that they have the resources to protect our families and our property. We vote so
that lawmakers are accountable to us to do their job. That job is to maintain law and order. C.S. Lewis puts it
like this in Mere Christianity:
“It is easy to think the State has a lot of different objects -- military, political, economic, and what not.
But in a way things are much simpler than that. The State exists simply to promote and to protect the ordinary
happiness of human beings in this life. A husband and wife chatting over a fire, a couple of friends having a game
of darts in a pub, a man reading a book in his own room or digging in his own garden -- that is what the State is
there for. And unless they are helping to increase and prolong and protect such moments, all the laws, parliaments,
armies, courts, police, economics, etc., are simply a waste of time.”
That is the function of government according to the Bible. But notice that government’s function is entirely
negative: it is there purely to stop bad things from happening so that daily life can continue on uninterrupted.
Government is there to stop the bad guys from stealing my things, to stop the rich and powerful from helping
themselves to my property, to punish evil-doers and to wield the sword. The state is not there to actually try to
change the world for the better but to maintain what already exists. The government is there to cancel out what is
negative so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity” (1 Tim. 2:2)
The function of the church is just the opposite.
God hasn’t given the church authority to stop evil by
wielding the sword, but He has given the church authority to promote social good, to be His instrument of light,
well-being and common grace to the world. The church is to be the city on a hill, a light to the nations, God’s
instrument of redemption in the world, implementing the victory achieved through the death and resurrection of
Christ. The Church is to pray the Lord’s pray: “Thy kingdom come…on earth as it is in heaven.”
So the function of the church and the state are exactly opposite. One is to stop evil, and one is to promote
good. The church is responsible to change the world for good, which it does through evangelism, while government is
responsible to simply stop things getting worse.
Now, of course, these are complimentary ends and should work together like two blades in a pair of scissors:
when the state punishes evil it encourages good to flourish, and when the church promotes social good it
discourages evil from flourishing.
The problem today is that both the church and the government have lost sight of their God-given goals. Because
the rulers in government are not acknowledging the Lordship of Christ, they do not view government as merely a
mechanism for punishing evil like the Bible says. Instead they think that it is their job, as lawmakers, to
transform the world for good. Lenin said that the struggle of the proletariat is “to set up heaven on earth.”
[Cited in J. L. Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy (New York; Praeger, 1960), p.9f] It is salvation
through statecraft. This leads to the administrative view of government, which grew out of the utilitarianism of
the Enlightenment and the view of the innate goodness and perfectibility of man. The administrative view of
government view sees the state as an engine to promote social good; to creatively use government’s resources to
advance the best interests of its citizens. Government is there to ‘deliver the goods’, to manage and administer
things effectively for the people. In short, government tries to become church.
It is very dangerous when government tries to do the job of the church because it leads to totalitarianism.
Totalitarianism is essentially the state trying to usher in its secular parody of the kingdom of God and its own
secular parody of redemption. The church has been given the job of announcing spiritual redemption to men by
evangelism through the power of God. The state that tries to do this will announce secular redemption to men
through the power of statecraft. Government becomes messianic. So it says, ‘this is what men should be like - you
should all be tolerant, well-education, non-discriminating, modernised, people - so let’s use legislation to get
you there.” That is the state trying to use secular means to do the church’s job. The church says, ‘this is what
men should be like – you should have love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness and eternal salvation –
now let’s use evangelism and the worship of the Triune God to get you there.’ That is the church using spiritual
means to accomplish its God-given goals. (By spiritual I do not mean non-physical. That leads to the idea of a
personal and private faith cut off from life in the public, physical world. By spiritual I mean doing things
according to God’s way.)
Now the church is often tempted to abandon its spiritual weapons and take up carnal weapons. Thus, instead of
promoting redemption in the world through the spiritual resources Christ has given us, many Christians have the
tendency to adopt the secular mindset which says that the world’s problems can be fixed through policies. You can
transform the world by correcting its systems. You know the mentality: just elect enough Christians, just pass
enough Christian laws, etc., and then the problems of society will rectified. There is an implicit salvation
through statecraft ideology behind this thinking. Jesus had to continually confront this ideology during His
ministry. Many in Jesus’ day saw the kingdom of God in externals only, visualising the kingdom of God as coming,
not through regeneration, but through social revolution. Like the Israelites during the time of Gideon, the Jews of
Jesus’ day believed that God was going to fix the earth by first fixing the world’s systems.
But the church cannot fix the world through the power of politics. The church has been given tools for bringing
change into the world: evangelism, worship of the Triune God, faithfulness to God’s word, applying the Lordship of
Christ to every area. Now government must be evangelized just as every other area, but the best a Christianized
government can do is to fulfill its God-appointed goal of retraining evil. The rest is left up to the church.
This explains one of the reasons why it is important to have a separation of church from state. Without that
separation, it would be easy for government to begin using its resources to do what it is the church’s
responsibility to do, and visa versa.
Although the state is not subservient to the church, Rom 13 and Jn. 19:1 make clear that the state, no less than
the church, is under the authority of God.
As Christians we should certainly vote and involve ourselves in the political process, because through doing so
we can influence the government to maintain law and order. Christian lawmakers, who understand the principle of
sphere sovereignty, need to run for office and be a positive voice. But we should avoid thinking that simply by
electing enough Christians to office that the government and the nation are going to be Christianized. The
government and our nation will only be Christianized when the whole system, from the very top to the very bottom,
submits to the Lordship of Jesus.
Morality and Government
To affirm the separation of church and state does not mean
that we can separate God from state, morality from state or religious values from state. Not only is it not a good
idea to try to separate these things, but it is impossible.
Have you ever heard someone say that government can’t legislate morality?
Morality is about the only thing government can legislate. When government makes laws against stealing, against
kidnapping, against murder, they are legislating morality. They are using coercion to impose a system of ethics.
And that is inescapable unless you have no government (anarchy).
By adopting a legal system at all a nation is, by definition, imposing some kind of morality on the populace.
Legislation, by definition, is the codification in law of some particular moral concern, normally so that the
immorality of a few is not forcibly inflicted on the rest of us. To say, “I don’t want to impose my morality on
anyone” is simply an advertisement to be robbed. As soon as a lawmaker says ‘thou shalt not steal’, he has imposed
his moral beliefs on others. And that’s what everybody wants, despite everyone saying that lawmakers shouldn’t try
to impose their moral beliefs on others. No one wants a President who says, “I don’t want my decisions to be driven
by any moral considerations.” People want a government that is going to protect them, which means using coercion to
Charles Colson recently lamented the times throughout history when Christians have tried to impose their values,
resulting in “bloody crusades and inquisitions.” But during those times in history where Christians have been
guilty of outrages, it is because they weren't imposing their values, not because they were.
The question is not whether government will try to impose values or morality, but which morality they will try
to impose? And what standard are they using? Are they deciding what is moral based on their own personal whims, or
is there an objective standard that they are using? That is where questions of religion kick in and become
inescapable? Are we going to base morality on the religion of secularism, Christianity, Darwinism, humanism or some
It remains unclear what people really mean or want when they say lawmakers shouldn’t try to impose morality on
Religion and Government
Just as it is impossible to have a state without
legislating morality, so it is also impossible to separate religion and government.
People are inescapably religious because of how they were made. A person’s religion may be Christianity, or it
may be secular humanism, or it may be utilitarianism, or it may be the worship of self, or it may be a combination,
but every person has a religion in the broad sense in which I am using the term.
A religion answers the following questions: What is the source of my values? What standard do I appeal to on
moral questions? What are my gods? What determines which things in life are important and which things are not?
Just as all legal systems necessarily try to impose morality, so all legal systems are necessarily religious in
this broad sense. Every state has its gods that it tries to protect.
The way you can tell what the gods of a state are is by seeing who the final authority is. When you get to the
point past which there is no appeal, then you have identified the god of that system. Because man is inescapably
religious, all societies are theocracies somehow. There will always be a point of ultimate justification - if you
don't have a Supreme Being, you will wind up with a Supreme Court, and they will be treated as God.
If the people are the final authority, then the people are being treated as god. If the monarch is the final
authority, then the monarch is being treated as god. Christians affirm that Jesus Christ is the final authority
since the authority of a ruler is delegated by God (Rom 13 & Jn. 19:11). Whether we are talking about a
democracy, a monarchy, a republic or a dictatorship, Christians recognise God as the highest authority.
Religion and politics cannot be separated. Politics is grounded in ethics and ethics is always religious,
whether explicitly or implicitly. Herbert Schlossberg makes the point this way:
"Laws are always theologically based, whether or not they are so acknowledged. In the societies of the ancient
Near East, laws were always associated with deity. The famous Hammurabi stele, for example, shows the sun god
Shemash giving the Babylonian laws to the king. The laws had to have ultimacy, or they could not work as intended.
When law loses what only the conviction of ultimacy can bestow, it degenerates into pragmatism, and that means that
breakdown is near. Right and wrong become questions of risk versus reward, and morality then is purely a matter of
calculation." [Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction, p. 47]
Josef Stalin tried to produce a society in which religion and politics were kept strictly separate (although he
was very religious in his atheism). Stalin said: “We guarantee the right of every citizen to combat by argument,
propaganda and agitation, any and all religion. The Communist Party cannot be neutral toward religion. It stands
for science, and all religion is opposed to science.” (Stalin, ‘Declaration to American Labor Delegation,’ Moscow,
September 7, 1927) The scary thing is that many liberals today are arguing for the same thing.
The alternative to Hitler, Stalin and the French revolution is not democracy. “Idolizing democratic government
as the antithesis to a Hitler or a Stalin ignores the fact that a tiny handful of people cannot rule without the
tacit agreement of the masses.” [Schlossberg, p. 49] The alternative to Hitler, Stalin and the French revolution is
for government to acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus Christ.