Tag Archives: Government

Important Religious Research

Culture, Legislation, Web sites,

Sometimes, the practice of faith receives a boost from the sciences. Over the weekend an analysis was posted by the Heritage Foundation which brings together many studies on the benefits of religion. One of the conclusions hints at the breadth of this report.

The available evidence clearly demonstrates that regular religious practice is both an individual and social good. It is a powerful answer to many of our most significant social problems, some of which, including out-of-wedlock births, have reached catastrophic proportions. Furthermore, it is available to all, and at no cost.

The report cites studies which demonstrates the following benefits gained from the religious life.

For example, there is ample evidence that:

  • The strength of the family unit is intertwined with the practice of religion. Churchgoers are more likely to be married, less likely to be divorced or single, and more likely to manifest high levels of satisfaction in marriage.
  • Church attendance is the most important predictor of marital stability and happiness.
  • The regular practice of religion helps poor persons move out of poverty. Regular church attendance, for example, is particularly instrumental in helping young people to escape the poverty of inner-city life.
  • Religious belief and practice contribute substantially to the formation of personal moral criteria and sound moral judgment.
  • Regular religious practice generally inoculates individuals against a host of social problems, including suicide, drug abuse, out-of-wedlock births, crime, and divorce.
  • The regular practice of religion also encourages such beneficial effects on mental health as less depression (a modern epidemic), more self-esteem, and greater family and marital happiness.
  • In repairing damage caused by alcoholism, drug addiction, and marital breakdown, religious belief and practice are a major source of strength and recovery.
  • Regular practice of religion is good for personal physical health: It increases longevity, improves one’s chances of recovery from illness, and lessens the incidence of many killer diseases.
The report is detailed and lengthy but is required reading for Christians. You will be encouraged. There are specific suggestions for religious leaders as well as specific steps which should be undertaken by Congress and the President. Care is taken not to establish a single religion. The article is not about Christianity only but about religion generally.
Given the effort to exclude faith from the public square this article is timely and very needed.

Immigration and the Christian

Bible General, Culture, Daily living, Government, ,

Immigration and the Christian, commons.wikipedia.orgThe media is full of immigration stories. Here in Baldwin County, Alabama the media is reporting on a gathering of Hispanic ministers who are concerned about a new immigration enforcement law. Many people of Hispanic background fear they will be targeted for deportation because of the law. The Hispanic ministers feel trapped between their love for their church goers and the demand to uphold the law.

One preacher said his mission is twofold: to preach the gospel and to teach morality. “If one is called before a judge… it is essential “to say I followed the laws, I obeyed the rules.”

Still many religious leaders are struggling with how to deal with this nexus of law and faith.

Immigration and the Christian, Talking Past Each Other

Both sides of the immigration issue must spend more time listening and less time talking. When neither side listens to the other and is more concerned about their own next comment no progress can be made. The result is a mush of mumbled arguments.

Both sides must also become more honest. Attempting to score points by attributing positions to your opponent – position you know they do not hold – is wrong. Listen carefully, speak slowly and always ensure honesty and integrity in your discussions.

To be clear, this article is a consideration of how we should respond to the undocumented or illegal immigrant.

Immigration and the Christian: The Clash

It’s difficult for a Christian because we are caught between two important principles. The Christian is to be benevolent and caring for those in need. The Christian is to preach the Gospel to all men. But the Christian is also commanded to honor government and the powers that be. Wanton disregard for the laws of government is disregard for God’s laws too. So what’s a Christian to do?

Immigration and the Christian: The Immigrant

At the heart of the discussion is a person. That person shares much in common with every natural born U.S. citizen. He has dreams and aspirations. He has children that he hopes will have a better life. He worries about his finances, his future, his health and the well-being of his family. His presence here is a demonstration of all those hopes.

But the undocumented person must accept that he has broken the law. Whether he knew it when he came to the U.S. or not, he is in violation of our laws. We’ll talk more about that later but let me say that we do him no service to pretend his status is not important.

The immigrant has something else in common with every U.S. citizen. We are all sinners. We are all in need of salvation. We all need a redeemer.

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity;
there is none who does good.

God looks down from heaven
on the children of man
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.

They have all fallen away;
together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one.
(Psalms 53:1-3)

“…for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8)

Christians have a mission to those people regardless of nationality. Jesus said  it this way:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20)

Called the Great Commission, Jesus’ words supersede anything man may say, but more about that shortly. The point is that Christians must not be fearful of reaching out to those in their community because of laws and legislation.

But some are worried that laws aimed at curbing illegal immigration may also prosecute those who help or assist those here illegally.

Jesus taught extensively about caring for the poor. As Jesus taught about a young wealthy man about his own greed and materialism he told the man to go and sell what he had and give to the poor (Matthew 19:21, Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22). The early church focused great effort on serving the needy among them (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 6:1-7). James told us to pay special attention to the weak and vulnerable (James 1:27). There is a Biblical mandate to aid and assist the less fortunate. ((We speak here of those truly in need, not the malingerer or slothful.))

If a person presents themselves in true need the church must respond if possible. Remember the example James used to describe dead faith:

“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

To have the ability to help, and the refuse to do so, is shameful.

Christians must not be fearful of reaching out to those in their community because of laws and legislation.

Immigration and the Christian: The Government

CBP Badge, public domainThe Bible also teaches that Christians should be obedient to government. Government is a product of God just like the church and the family. As such we must respect the law. “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Romans 13:1). Paul goes on to say that opposing government is opposition to God.  Paul reminds Titus to be subject to government (Titus 3:1). Peter echoes that comment, “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Peter 2:13-14).

So how should a Christian balance the demands of the Lord against the demands of the state?

Some examples from Scripture will help. Paul submitted himself to government even when he was falsely accused. Beginning in Acts 21:7 Paul is accused of causing a riot and is arrested by Roman officials. He does not resist the arrest and will even say the he will submit to death if he is guilty (Acts 25:11). But Paul also uses the Roman system, as permitted by law, to protect himself (Acts 22:23-29; Acts 25:11). Roman was terribly oppressive and yet Paul submitted to their authority.

But we see something different from Peter and John. Years before, the two were called before the Sanhedrin, the ruling council of the Jews. There were told not to preach Jesus Christ anymore. They disobeyed.

“But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name.”  So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.” (Acts 4:17-20).

What was the difference between Paul’s life-threatening circumstances and Peter and John’s refusal to obey? Peter and John were told not to do what Jesus had commanded. Paul was not told not to preach or teach. His accusations centered on him and his conduct and although the charges were false his situation did not rise to the same level.

Christians can, even must, disobey government when laws prevent the exercise of our Christianity.

But caution is required. Civil disobedience has often been used to bring about political change far removed from obedience to the Gospel. One might justify sit-ins and protests in some way but not through the Bible. Unless government assaults our faith we must remain good, law abiding citizens.

Christians and Immigration: Application

As it pertains to the present situation the course for the church is clear. We teach anyone, anytime and at any place. But that teaching must include respect for God’s governing authorities. Here’s is where it gets tough. We must teach those undocumented persons that they must obey the civil law even if the consequences are severe. The church can assist them with resources to help them gain their papers or even help them to return home. zlet us share with them the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) which includes respect for the powers that be. We are not the government nor are we agents of the government. But we can be helpful resources to assist those trying to obey.

It is also clear that we must extend a benevolent had to those in need without regard to government attempts to prevent such assistance. Benevolence is God’s will.

I do not believe that we are presently at a moment where such disobedience is required. Fear and rumor are our enemies now. But let us use the present to study and prepare for the future.

It bears repeating that we must use extreme caution here. Consequences are serious both legally and spiritually. But as for me, I stand first in the Kingdom of God. I am a Christian first and a U.S. Citizen second. Let me leave you with Jesus’ own words: Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s (Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25).

Your comments are more than welcomed. May I also ask that if you find this post useful you will consider a tweet, a share or a digg? Thank you in advance.

 

A Christian Nation

Culture, Government, ,

The United States is founded upon Christian principles. For decades we have watched the national slide into secularism and mediocrity. Any mention of God, Christ,  the church or anything resembling religion has been removed, by force and coercion from the public square. That seems to be changing.

The rise of angry, militant Islam has caused Americans to rethink our foundations. The proposed building of a mosque near Ground Zero has caused many to examine the relationship of this nation to the various religions. The conclusion, for thinking people, is that America was founded upon certain religious principles. Our founding fathers wisely chose not to compel adherence to any faith but even in that decision they mirrored the God of Heaven who grants every person the decision to obey or disobey. People are now choosing to reconsider their faith and its impact on public policy.

Continue reading A Christian Nation →

Pledge of Allegiance Is Constitutional

Government

The U.S. Pledge of Allegiance has been at the center of the church-state discussion for many years. Like the phrase “in God we trust,” imprinted on our money, atheists have been aggressive in trying to remove any semblance of the creator from the public square. In recent days the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the case brought by Michale Newdow which sought to remove the phrase “in God we trust” from the Pledge of Allegiance. The court said that the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic, not religious.

The ruling says, “the pledge is constitutional.” The 9th Circuit, held to be among the most liberal in the nation, published an opinion that says what many of us have been saying for years. Namely, our forefathers believed in God. The court furthermore properly elucidated the 1st amendment question of the separation of church and state in their published ruling:

The Pledge reflects many beliefs held by the Founding Fathers of this country—the same men who authored the Establishment Clause—including the belief that it is the people who should and do hold the power, not the government.
They believed that the people derive their most important rights, not from the government, but from God:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The Declaration of Independence, 1 U.S.C. § XLIII (1776)
(emphasis added).

The Founders did not see these two ideas—that individuals possessed certain God-given rights which no
government can take away, and that we do not want our nation to establish a religion—as being in conflict.

I must say that I am pleasantly surprised with the court’s ruling. God has never forced men to come to him but instead desires that they come of their own free will. People are not required to worship or even acknowledge God and that is as it should be.

While this battle has waned, it may not be over. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court might be possible or the atheist community may seek other venues to force their beliefs on others. For now however we should rejoice.

The March 11, 2010 court decision on the pledge is is on the 9th Circuits web site.



“…under God…”

Government,

June 14, 1954, 55 years ago today, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a resolution adding the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Eisenhower was moved to sign the bill after hearing a sermon preached earlier in the year which referenced Abraham Lincoln’s use of the term in the Gettysburg Address. It was truly momentous, especially by today’s standards, that a sitting Congress and President would dare mention God let alone include a reference to God in a federal document. Today, that phrase remains in the pledge but just barely. Continue reading “…under God…” →

San Diego Relents

Culture,

[cref san-diego-stops-private-bible-study San Diego will allow Bible study] to continue in a private home. The city land use department warned a homeowner that he was in violation of city ordinances because he conducted Bible studies in his home. The city claimed traffic issues were the reasons for the warning but were forced to back down in the face of public complaints.

A San Diego newspaper reports that county officials will clarify and retrain their enforcement officers in the wake of the embarrassing incident.

We are glad the case has been resolved in favor of those who would study but warn our readers that anti-Christian government officials will still cause trouble where they can. It is unbelievable to me that this was just an oversight or over-zealous officer. What do you think?

(P.S. Thanks to Chuck Smothers for the update!)

U.S. Government Burns Bibles

Bible General, Culture, Islam, , , , , , ,

Yes, it is true. To avoid offending muslims the U.S. Army burned Bibles written in the language of the Afghan people. Here’s the link to a report.

Now I have a few questions:

  1. Who gave the order?
  2. How many Korans should we burn?
  3. Has the Army ever, at any time deliberately burned a Koran?
  4. Are soldiers expected to jettison their faith when they enlist? If so does that raise any serious questions for anyone else?
  5. Simply – why?

I assure you I have my own opinions but I want to hear yours.

Add your comments below and speak out boldly!

H.R. 1913 Will Not Stop Preaching

Culture, Homosexuality, Legislation, , ,

763px-handcuffssvgBrethren are being warned about the passage, in the U.S. House, of H.R. 1913. The bill is called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. The warnings tell of future prosecution or persecution of preachers who speak Biblically against homosexuality.

We are all sensitive to any threat against the pulpit. Some in our culture would love to stop all preaching especially that which brings to light their own sins (John 3:19). God’s men have preached against sin in good times and in bad and will continue to do so no matter what threats may appear (2 Timothy 4:2).

H.R. 1913 will not shut down the pulpit as warned by some and likely will not open the door for federal seizures of preacher’s computers, books, files etc.

Here are some things about the bill typically left out of the dire warnings:

  • Hate crimes against religion are protected in this bill along with hate crimes against “NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY” (actual language, Section 6).
  • The bill specifically targets those who commit a crime “through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerouse [sic] weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device” (actual language, Section  6).
  • The bill specifically excludes any activities protected by the Constitution (Section 8). The First Amendment secures our right to practice religion and to engage in free speech.

Homosexuality is sinful (Romans 1:26, 27) and should be opposed. But let us be so careful in our church bulletins and our emails. Inaccurate reporting of legislation, although with good, solid motives, is harmful and should be avoided.

The larger question is whether preacher’s will stand for truth or cave in to  the latest fad or trend. Even if the government should somehow ban preaching altogether, faithful men will continue to preach the words of God loudly and  publically.

If you are still concerned you should know that your local Congressman, Jo Bonner, voted against the measure. The bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where your Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions is the ranking member.

Should the IRS Control the Pulpit?

Church Bulletin, Eastern Shore church of Christ, General,

Last week preachers from across the nation used their Sunday sermons to publically endorse a single candidate for President of the United States.  Aside from what one might think of the wisdom of such an endorsement, it put their congregations at odds with federal tax laws regarding the churches tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). This action and the resulting discussion has brought to the foreground a thorny issue which for years has not been discussed: Should  government have the power to silence the pulpit for any reason?

Let us first observe that the preachers who made endorsements did so in violation of unambiguous laws which require tax exempt organizations to avoid endorsing individual candidates for political office.  As such, unless they terminate their tax exempt status, they are in violation of  the law of the land and risk losing their status. If a church loses its tax exempt status, it must pay taxes on its weekly contribution and likely would also have to pay state taxes on property. This is a weighty financial question as well and should not be lightly considered. We will soon examine this case of civil disobedience from a Biblical perspective.

Historically, the laws restricting the extent of pulpit involvement in political campaign began in 1954 during a congressional debate of the tax code. The provision restricting tax exempt organizations from direct or indirect campaign involvement was inserted without hearings or debate by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson. There is no record to indicate why the restriction was placed. The rule applies to all organizations that are tax exempt under section 501(c) (3) of the IRS tax code, not just to churches. Although the United States Supreme Court has never heard arguments regarding churches and political campaigns, lower courts have and have upheld the IRS requirements. Generally, it is thought the rules do not violate First Amendment guarantees regarding  free speech or violate the constitutional establishment/separation clause either. Churches do have the absolute choice to avoid the conflict altogether if they are willing to forego their tax exempt status.

My judgment is that nothing should restrict the preaching of truth and such restrictions ought be immediately removed. However, such is a political question and beyond my ability to change. Certainly John the Baptist was unafraid to challenge the powers that be when he pointed to the moral failings of King Herod (Luke 3:19). Preachers must never be afraid of, or restricted in, their responsibility to preach against sin.

But even if there were no such restriction, preachers would still have to ask if there is wisdom in using the pulpit to endorse a given political candidate. And it is on this point that I disagree with many. I made a choice many years ago to never endorse a political candidate neither as a preacher nor a private citizen. As a minister of the Gospel  I am blessed to be able to speak for God. As such, I only have my credibility and the credibility of the Bible as tools of my trade. Should I become tarnished by some endorsement, I have damaged the message of Christ. I know of no individual worth such a gamble.

Consider  the possibility that after endorsing some candidate, that same candidate becomes involved in a terrible scandal. Would that not reflect upon the preacher and upon the church? It is the wiser decision to stick to the issues themselves and avoid personal endorsements.

Later this week, we will explore the idea of civil disobedience and the circumstances under which breaking the law would be acceptable for the Christian. I hope you will read carefully that article too.