109 Sermon Illustrations on Government

Tarquin the Proud, being asked what was the best mode of governing a conquered city, replied by beating down with his staff all the tallest poppies in his garden. Livy.

Seditions in. The surest way to prevent seditions, if the times do bear it, is to take away the matter of them; for, if there be fuel prepared, it is hard to tell whence the spark shall come that shall set it on fire. Lord Bacon.

A schoolboy in Brooklyn was asked: “What is the Constitution of the United States?” He replied: “It is that part in small print in the back of the book that nobody reads.”

There is a peculiar propriety in the name “No Man’s Land,” which has been applied to the group of rocky snow-clad islands four hundred miles to the north of the North Cape of Norway, once spoken of as East Greenland, and appearing on all modern maps as Spitzbergen. Wintering on these islands is practically impossible to civilized man. There are myriad petrels and gulls and wild geese in summer.

For two centuries the whalers and sealers--Swedes, Danes, Dutch, Norwegians--frequented these islands in summer months. The right whale disappeared. The seals became fewer. Visits to the islands became less frequent. Now coal has been discovered in such beds as to justify civilization in taking cognizance of “No Man’s Land.”

The United States accepted the invitation of Norway to take part in an international conference, at Christiana, to consider the government of Spitzbergen. Russia, Great Britain, Sweden, Germany and Denmark were invited. There is not much doubt that a form of government will be devised and a full agreement reached.

This is a significant movement toward extending law in some form to every bit of territory on the earth’s surface. A century hence it will perhaps be impossible to find a square foot of earth that can be called “No Man’s Land.”--Brooklyn _Eagle_.

Excellent article on the Christian approach to government and the legislation of morality. Cannot be avoided. But nature of morality in gov’t differs. Chart on the contrast of: Secular (Russia), Just (America) and Religious (Iran) Gov’t in regard to religious freedom, belief in God, and basis of civil law.

1. Whose morals should we legislate?

2. Back to the Bible?

3. Is the Old Testament Law binding today?

(would violate 1st amend.)

(natural revelation is all God requires of governments.)

4. Our founding fathers. – not a Bible-based government.

5. Avoiding two extremes.

a. Relativism of secular humanism.

b. Reconstructionism of Christian fundamentalism.

6. Is the Natural Law clear? Rom 1 & 2.

7. Outlining the options. 1 Tim 2:2.

Work for just laws. (Chuck Colson)

Many Christians are coming to believe the Old Testament law has a place in our society and should shape government actions. There are a variety of opinions on how this should be done. Some see it as a dangerous trend.

Protestors are divided over whether to practice civil disobedience. Some see it as permissible because a law allowing the murder of the unborn is unjustice; it is not illegal to break an unjust law. Others say God’s law is higher than man’s law. Some are even advocating violence. The success of the rescue movement justifies it to some.

Cynicism over governments and religion is reflected in John Lennon's famous song, "Imagine." It is not a biblical view but idealizes individualism.

John Lennon and song "Imagine." [played week of Oct 8-14, 1990]

Played simultaneously on all radios. "1 billion" listened.

Theme for our generation.

Imagine there are no wars, governments or religion.

Reflects our cynicism about organizations.

After all, how many politicians are truly loved?

(Note anti-government stance of many politicians.)

Do groups help or hurt us?

Minor Prophet series. Micah and godly leadership.

1. Failings of current political leadership.

2. Micah's condemnation of national leaders.

a. They eat the people up.

b. Self-serving attitude.

c. Whole system corrupted.

d. No sense of justice or God.

3. Messiah will be God's perfect leader.

4. The "shepherd" model of leadership.

a. Leadership in the areas of our lives.

b. How well are we imitating Jesus?

Politicians should preach morality.

New Jersey Gov. Christie Whitman issued a warning to the Republican party against involvement in divisive “moral” issues. The Daily Record editorial applauded her, saying, “Preach tax cuts, not morality.” For “The Party of Lincoln” to announce that it had no interest whatsoever in the great moral questions of the day would be to renounce its legacy, its very foundation.

The Republican Party owes its existence to debate over the “moral issue” of slavery. It provided much of the impetus for purging the nation of the immoral legacy of Jim Crow. Every generation confronts its “moral” questions in the political context, whether those moral issues be slavery, equality of the sexes and races, gay rights, or what have you. To suggest the majority party in this state and country should take no position on these questions boggles the mind.

For all law is essentially a codification of society’s moral compass. If someone can show me a law which is objectively true, provable without reference to subjective standards of right and wrong, I will eat the page upon which it is printed. Is insider trading objectively “wrong”? It’s illegal, but that simply means that society, acting through government, has determined that such conduct violates accepted notions of fairness; it is “immoral” and, hence, made illegal.

One cannot objectively prove that discrimination against members of a particular group – race, sex, religion, – is “wrong.” Society accepts this as a given, as a moral guide, and legislates accordingly. Although one would, these days, be hard-pressed to discover a passionate advocate of enslaving blacks, that was not always so. Forests were leveled to produce the paper used for books defending the practice. The bloodiest single episode in American history had its roots in what was essentially a debate over the morality of a legal, if execrable practice.

Even well-intentioned, deeply religious or otherwise “good” people can be profoundly wrong on questions of morality. Their passion in favor of injustice hardly constitutes a reasonable basis for ending debate on the issue involved. Not that they don’t try to stifle debate; for decades, the slave power succeeded in cutting off debate on the subject in Congress.

In some recent polls, a majority of the American people felt that the country is experiencing, or has undergone, a great moral decline. Babies have babies, drug abuse, epidemic violence, and – yes – abortion, are but some to the great moral issues of our time. Does the Daily Record truly believe these issues should not be the subject of debate?

The governor suggest that some issues should not be, and what good conservative could disagree? Government certainly ought not be the ultimate arbiter of all areas of conduct. Some aspects of life are, and quite properly ought to be, none of anyone else’s **** business. The question, though, is where one draws the line. That is not always an easy question to answer.

Should government prohibit interracial marriages? It did, in many states, for quite some time. Should government be able to prohibit large families (i.e. more that one or two children)? I’ll wager you could find passionate advocates for such a position, even outside of China.

But even questions involving purely personal decisions – whom to marry, what career to pursue, with whom to have sex – are subject to societal regulation. One may not marry one’s sister, pursue a career as a burglar, or have sex with a 13-year-old without facing governmental sanction. And quite properly so.

Invective and ad hominem attacks – referring to one’s opponent’s as “yahoos” – accomplishes precisely nothing. Thankfully, the Governor does not engage in any such thing. Her laugh line – that politicians discussing morality is problematic – begs the question: if our elected representatives do not, who will?

#2875

*

(Spirituality) is still essential to poverty-fighting. In Washington, D.C., multimillion-dollar programs have failed, but, a mile from the U.S. Capitol, success stories are developing: spiritually-based programs such as Clean And Sober Streets, where ex-alcoholics and ex-addicts help those still in captivity; the Gospel Mission, which fights homelessness by offering true hope; and the Capitol Hill Crisis Pregnancy Center, where teenage moms and their born and unborn children are cared for. They are all saving lives.

In Dallas, Texas, a half-mile from the Dallas Housing Authority’s failed projects, a neighborhood group called Voice of Hope invites teenagers to learn about God through Bible studies and to work at remodeling deteriorated homes in their neighborhood. During the past decade, crime rates among the boys involved with Voice of Hope and pregnancy rates among the girls have been dramatically lower than those in the surrounding community.

Private charities can do a better job than government, but only if they practice the principles of effective compassion. GIVING, by itself, we need to remember, is morally neutral. We need to give RIGHTLY, so as not to impede the development of values that enable people to get out of poverty and stay out.

[filed under #3043 in file cabinet]

#3106

*

[see #3454]

How warfare rhetoric is hurting the work of the church.

Talk of war is everywhere. It exploded into popular discourse when sociologist James Davison Hunter of the University of Virginia published “Culture Wars,” his book-length analysis of our nation’s moral impasse. In his follow-up book, “Before the Shooting Begins: Searching for Democracy in America’s Culture War,” Hunter argues that the conflict over values is so severe that our very democracy may be in jeopardy.

In his provocative book “Beyond Culture Wars: Is America a Mission Field or Battlefield?” Reformed theologian Michael Horton uses the same language of battle and claims the war has been fought and lost. Horton cites Jewish scholar Irving Kristol’s doleful lament: “In his [1992 Republican] convention speech, Pat Buchanan referred to the ‘culture wars..’ I regret to inform him that those wars are over, and the Left has won. … The Left today completely dominates the educational establishment, the entertainment industry, the universities, the media… There is no point in trying to inject ‘family values’ into these institutions. They will debase and corrupt the very ideal while pretending to celebrate it.”

Evangelical leader James Dobson of Focus on the Family also uses the powerful metaphor of war, writing urgently about “the ongoing civil war of values.” His newsletters rehearsing various battles of this “civil war” mobilize thousands. Other ministries and, indeed, Christianity Today authors comment on both victories and losses in this Herculean struggle.

Undoubtedly, the metaphor of “culture war” reflects the reality of conflict. Today Christians swim against a tide of sub-Christian behavior: drugs, distorted sex, greed, violence, abortion, abuse, broken families, children without fathers. Key institutions–the media, universities and schools, and government agencies–sometimes seem less concerned to change such behavior than to defend it from “Puritanism.” Christians who want to reverse destructive behavior may find themselves at odds with a culture that enables, encourages, or even celebrates it under the rubrics of personal expression and individual rights.

Activist Christians may also encounter anti-Christian attitudes–a spirit of condescension if not outright hostility. ABC News religion commentator Peggy Wehmeyer, herself an evangelical, observed in an interview in TV Guide: “The elite in this country–the courts, education, media, the arts–tend to view people who take their faith very seriously … with a smug, arrogant attitude.” On National Public Radio, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz noted that no evangelical Christian could be appointed as a faculty member at Harvard Law School. He lamented the fact that pluralism is often a code word for “ideologically correct.”

And yet, I believe Christians should be wary of adopting uncritically the friend-or-foe, either-or rhetoric of war. Such a metaphor is problematic for several reasons.

THE DANGERS OF WAR TALK

First, culture-war rhetoric can be self-fulfilling prophecy, exacerbating the very conflicts it seeks merely to describe. Repeated recourse to the language of war makes it harder to love our enemies–and it is already hard to do so–because it inflames angry feelings.

Second, culture-war rhetoric leads us to distort others’ positions, to see enmity in place of mere disagreement. It leaves no room for nuanced positions, or for middle ground.

Third, culture-war rhetoric distorts our own position, too–making our message seem mainly to be angry criticism when it ought to be mainly the reconciling gospel of Jesus Christ.

Fourth, culture-war rhetoric plays into the hands of extremists on the Left, who would like to convince Americans that “the Religious Right” seeks to impose a theocratic state on them.

Fifth, culture-war rhetoric tends to create division among Christians, even evangelical Christians–for in war, there is no room for question or hesitation, and those who are slow to march in lockstep seem to be cowards or traitors.

These concerns apply to all orthodox believers. Culture-war rhetoric may hurt our purposes–and hurt us.

I regret the haunting title of Hunter’s recent book: “Before the Shooting Begins.” Such rhetoric may sell books. But such rhetoric does little to foster an ambiance in which those Americans who are alienated from each other can seek reconciliation. Indeed, it reinforces the mindset of people like those extremists who laud the killing of abortion doctors and staff.

The vast majority of other Americans are not hostile toward evangelical Christians and are not ready to shoot anybody. We would be more accurate to portray the bulk of the American public not as belonging to two giant phalanxes of the Right and Left engaged in mortal combat, but as religious centrists, remaining to varying degrees committed to Judeo-Christian values and to First Amendment guarantees regarding freedom of religion. There are theaters of cultural warfare, but millions of Americans are not self-consciously enlisted soldiers in them.

The recently released study of American sexuality, for example, “The Social Organization of Sexuality,” paints a more conservative portrait of Americans’ sexuality than we would suppose, given the lurid presentation often proffered by the television, film, and print media. Similarly, a recent Roper poll sponsored by Focus on the Family uncovered a spectrum of beliefs regarding abortion, not the monolithic divisions associated with a culture-war model. A majority of Americans lean toward the pro-life position, with 52 percent of men and 60 percent of women fitting this description. In their book “The People’s Religion: American Faith in the 90’s,” George Gallup, Jr., and Jim Castelli note the surprising finding that the formal beliefs of Americans have changed relatively little since the 1940s: “In fact, the nation in some respects has remained remarkably orthodox–even fundamentalist–in its belief.”

The imagery of a spectrum must be counterbalanced with Augustine’s famous descriptions of the City of God and the City of Man. Evangelical Christians do believe that only some follow Christ and the Spirit; these disciples are distinguished from others who follow the Evil One and the flesh (see also Jesus’ parables in Matthew 13). Moreover, hard-fought spiritual warfare is taking place on this planet and right in this country. Nor should we run away from the biblical passages that compare the Christian life to soldiering and fighting the good fight and contending for the faith.

But Augustine reminds us that, at the societal level, it is preferable if the citizens of the City of God and the City of Man live at peace on earth. The imagery of a spectrum encourages our seeking after civic peace, disdaining rhetoric that promotes unnecessary explosive confrontations.

Perhaps the spectrum might be envisioned in this way. On the Far Right are those Americans who want to impose Christian values by law on their fellow citizens and who appear willing to sacrifice constitutional guarantees regarding freedom of religion. The culture-war motif serves them well as a rationale for enlisting and inspiring partisans.

On the Far Left is a relatively small but powerful group of atheistic elites in education, government, law, and the media who want to drive anything but atheism from the public square. Their tactic is to woo the huge, confused middle by characterizing conservative Christian political activists as extremists who want to take away the civil rights of other Americans.

The culture-war motif also serves their cause beautifully. With their oversized media megaphones, they can try to persuade Americans in the middle that perfidious Christian extremists (read fundamentalists or the “Religious Right”) are the nation’s foes. And whenever a Christian leader speaks about a desire to recreate a “Christian America,” or a fringe extremist from the Far Right commits murder, he or she gives ammunition to those who would want to frighten the religious middle.

It would be wrong to confuse those in the muddled middle with the left-wing extremists. What many Americans in the middle are concerned about is the imposition of moral teachings by law. They cannot justify this approach with their perception of the Constitution’s guarantees regarding separation of church and state. For example, Hunter has found that some Americans oppose abortion but feel their personal beliefs should not be forced upon others. One woman told Hunter’s researchers, “I would say my views are true for me, but I can’t put that on someone else. I just can’t force my truths on other people.” Those of us who oppose abortion and believe the law should explicitly protect unborn children may sometimes misinterpret our neighbors’ concern as hostility toward us or our view of the morality of abortion. In fact, they may agree with us about the horror of abortion but come to a different conclusion when they wrestle with the issue of how its eradication should take place. They often view religion and morality as “private,” having no place in public life. It does not necessarily help, in persuading such people, to cast them in the role of “enemy.”

In an address to the National Association of Evangelicals, NAE president Don Argue declared: “The so-called Religious Right has lost its right to be heard by a large segment of the general public.” He continued: “Our positions regarding abortion and homosexuality are very clear, but we need balanced, articulate, biblical leadership” in order to avoid alienating “the very people we are trying to lead.” He lamented the fact that some evangelicals “have violated Jesus’ command to love their enemies and do good to those who persecute them.”

I would argue that the very use of “culture wars” rhetoric tends to reinforce that attitude. It pushes people into opposite camps instead of encouraging them to seek areas of common ground. It blinds us to our own shortcomings by keeping our focus on the wounds inflicted by our “enemies” rather than on addressing our own failings. Culture-war rhetoric can even stir misunderstandings within the evangelical community itself by creating a climate in which anyone who speaks up for civility can be suspected of inadequate courage in fighting for “Christian values.”

Continuation of article on how to improve family values in America.

4. Liberals tend to look too much to government for solving family problems; conservatives too rapidly dismiss the government as a useful resource. Liberals should look to government less; conservatives should look to government more.

Since their 1960s successes in using government to make racial discrimination illegal, religious liberals have too often thought they were fulfilling the church's mission if they could persuade the government to do what they believed was just and good. In the process, liberal churches, especially at the leadership level, have often been more concerned about what the state should do than what churches should do. As evidence, note that during the 1970s and '80s the national family programs of most mainline Protestant denominations were severely cut, while lobbying efforts for various federal programs received continued support.

Christian conservatives have a reputation -- not always justified -- for being against family-support programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, food stamps, and Medicaid. Many religious conservatives believe that these programs undermine family values, function as welfare traps, support out-of-wedlock births, and encourage dependency; and they believe that if everyone followed Christian family ideals, welfare programs would not be needed.

On this point -- the attitude of the church toward government -- religious conservatives and liberals have the most to learn from each other. This is also the point on which conservatives and liberals in the church can learn something from the pre-election dialogue between political neoconservatives and neoliberals. Although tensions continued, both groups agreed that some forms of short-term welfare are needed, that welfare recipients have responsibilities as well as rights, that welfare should not become a trap, and that it should not encourage teenage pregnancy and out-of-wedlock births. Furthermore, the consensus held that government assistance should not contradict generally held moral standards. Hence, government should resist merely expedient remedies and communicate moral expectations consistent with settled moral traditions. It is important for that emerging consensus to hold in the new Republican order.

This new consensus is important, not just for what it implies for government family programs, but for what it suggests for a wider cultural synthesis on family matters. Since Charles Murray's October 1993 editorial in the "Wall Street Journal" in which he predicted the rise of a new "white underclass," there has been a deeper concern among liberal elites about the health of American families. Murray, in his less inflammatory pre-Bell Curve days, wrote that the out-of-wedlock birthrate in the white population, now at 22 percent, is the same as it was for the black community in the early 1960s. The out-of-wedlock birthrate in the black community has now risen to 68 percent. Murray argued that whites are now undergoing the same consequences blacks experienced -- deepening poverty for mothers and declining well-being for children. Murray held that the family issue is the biggest public issue of our time, and he succeeded in convincing leading liberals and conservatives he was right.

But Murray would enlist the help of conservatives, in politics and in the church, to support the withdrawal of all government supports for single mothers, with the exception of medical insurance for their children. If this

happens, he believes, couples will take marriage more seriously, confine procreation to marriage, divorce less frequently, or turn to extended family, church, or community organizations if divorce or out-of-wedlock birth throw them into poverty.

If an unfeeling conservativism replaces the fragile consensus that existed before the election, Murray's radical approach is much more likely to be tried. And we think this goes too far. Families need government supports for a wide variety of reasons. The neoliberal/neoconservative proposal to preserve family assistance, make it temporary, and connect it with basic moral expectations, is worth refining and trying.

Even if this consensus were to endure and mature, neither Christian conservatives nor liberals should invest all of their attention in government programs and public policy initiatives. This message is especially important for liberals. Religious liberals need to attend once again to their theology of marriage and the family. They need to do historical work of the kind they have neglected. They need new programs with youth that start very young and help them to replace current individualistic cultural scripts about sexuality and the family with the classic perspectives of the Christian synthesis. Religious conservatives, on the other hand, need to continue their present energy on family issues, but with a more accurate sense of context in

handling ancient texts.

5. Religious conservatives and liberals should be alert to the subversive effects of market forces. Both groups should be more sophisticated in relating family issues to market dynamics.

Religious liberals often pride themselves on being critical of capitalism and its excesses. Some mainline religious leaders have been socialist or even somewhat Marxist in their antimarket attitudes. Conservatives are often seen as promarket, occasionally as ideological defenders of its injustices.

But the family issue shows the positions of both sides to be more complex. Religious conservatives have had less relish for women joining the labor market. From one angle, they look patriarchal and appear to confine women to domestic life. Liberals, on the other hand, have appeared to encourage wives and mothers to work outside the home, seeming to be progressivist, profeminist, and egalitarian.

There is, however, another angle of vision. Religious conservatives may be inadvertently the true resisters of competitive market values and the spread into private life of cost-benefit modes of thinking. By preferring that mothers stay at home and by granting dignity to full-time homemaking, they block the spread of market values into the inner life of families. On the other hand, religious liberals may have unwittingly sold out to the growing dominance of cost-benefit and rational-choice ways of thinking, even in the home. Religious liberals are far more likely to celebrate the dual-income, 90-hour-a-week working family. Yet, when both parents work full-time, both are fully absorbed in the world of market values, demands, efficiencies, and logics. The small children of dual-income families do not easily conform to the pressures of market forces.

We believe both Christian conservatives and liberals should affirm the market as an effective method for generating wealth while, at the same time, they should be vigilant against the ways it can undermine families. The market hurts families by taking too much of their time, by engendering individualistic and cost-benefit mentalities even in intimate affairs, and by promoting consumerism and hedonism in both children and their parents.

Christian men and women alike should resist the spread of market forces by spending less time at paid work. We will not solve this problem by preserving the two-sphere ideology of the industrial family that religious conservatives baptized for decades. We join with Harvard social scientist Jacqueline Olds and her team in their 1992 paper titled "Part-Time Employment and Marital Well-Being." Their research shows that the families with the most marital, parental, and child satisfaction are those that work one-and-a-half jobs or approximately 60 hours a week between them. Although this may not be financially possible for many couples, we believe it is an ideal toward which society should aim. (This does not mean necessarily that mothers and wives should be the ones with the half-time employment, although that may be best in many cases.)

There are several ways the market can be attuned to the needs of families. Employers might experiment with some 30-hour-a-week positions. Job sharing could be used more frequently. More half-time employment with partial benefit packages might be offered. These positions could become full-time after children grow older.

There are many other ways Christian conservatives and liberals can cooperate to create healthier families. Religious liberals should study the men's programs of conservative churches. Conservative churches are clearer than most liberal churches in teaching that male responsibility is crucial in the current cultural climate. Religious liberals will want to soften the notes of male headship that sometimes pervade these programs, but liberals should acknowledge that male responsibility, not authority, is often the deeper theme of these programs. Both liberals and conservatives should work to restore the viability of the two-parent family. Today, however, it should be the equal mother-father team with flexible role definitions and permeable boundaries between domestic and public life.

Conservative and liberal churches should start their sons and daughters at a young age to prepare for equal-regard marital partnerships. They should work together to chasten the excesses of the market and force it to adapt to family needs. They should work together to fine-tune government programs. They should, as did the early church, develop leadership patterns in the churches that model egalitarian relations between the sexes. They should work together to protect their children from the demonic values of a materialistic age. They should eliminate all of their inflammatory rhetoric on family issues and search for commonalities before accentuating differences. Finally, they should go beyond the labels of conservative and liberal to find common ground in a faithful interpretation of the Christian tradition that informs them both.

********************

Don Browning is Alexander Campbell Professor of Religious Ethics and the Social Sciences at the Divinity School, University of Chicago, and director of the Religion, Culture, and Family Project sponsored by the Lilly Endowment. Carol Browning is a musician and researcher of the family. This article was written while they were in residence at the Center of Theological Inquiry, Princeton, New Jersey.

Copyright (c) 1995 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazine

[see #3476 for part A]

In the winter of 1988, nuns of the Missionaries of Charity, an order led by Nobel laureate Mother Teresa, were walking through the snow in the South Bronx in their saris and sandals to look for an abandoned building that they might convert into a homeless shelter. They came to 2 fire-gutted buildings on 148th Street and, finding a Madonna among the rubble thought that perhaps Providence itself had ordained the mission. New York City offered the abandoned buildings at one dollar each, and the Missionaries of Charity raised $500,000 for the reconstruction. For a year and a half, the nuns traveled from hearing room to hearing room, presenting the details of the project to city government officials. Finally, in the fall of 1989, the project won approval.

Providence, however, was no match for the law. After they had begun reconstruction, the nuns were informed that the building code required an elevator in every new or renovated multiple-story building. It would add $100,000 to the cost, and the law could not be waived even if an elevator didn't make sense. Mother Teresa and the nuns gave up. They didn't devote that much extra money to something that wouldn't really help the poor.

==============================================================================

Version in Rev. Brett Blair's "Illustrations by e-mail," September 26, 1999:

In the winter of 1988, nuns of the Missionaries of Charity were walking through the snow in the South Bronx in their Saris and sandals looking for an abandoned building that they might convert into a homeless shelter. Mother Teresa, the Nobel Prize winner and head of the order, had agreed on a plan with Mayor Ed Koch after visiting him in the hospital several years earlier. The nuns found two fire-gutted buildings on 148th Street, and the city of New York offered the buildings to the mission at one dollar each. The Missionaries of Charity set aside 500,000 for reconstruction. The plan was to create a facility that would provide temporary care for sixty-four homeless men. The buildings would provide a communal setting that included a dining room and kitchen on the first floor, a lounge on the second floor, and small dormitory rooms on the third and fourth floors. The members of the order, in addition to taking a vow of poverty, avoid the routine use of modern conveniences. As a result, the facility would have no dishwashers or other appliances, and laundry would be done by hand. For New York City, the proposed facility was a godsend. Then Mother Teresa's Missionaries of charity encountered the bureaucracy of New York City, For a year and a half, the nuns, wanting only to live lives of service, found themselves traveling from hearing room to hearing room, presenting the details of the project. In September 1989, the city finally approved the plan and the Missionaries of Charity began repairing the fire-damaged buildings.

Then, after almost two years, the nuns were told that according to New York's building code every new or renovated multistory building must have an elevator. The Missionaries of Charity explained that because of their beliefs they would never use the elevator, which would also add $100,000 to the cost of the project. The nuns were told that the law could not be waived even if the elevator would not be used.

Mother Teresa gave up. She did not want to devote that extra money to something that would not really help the poor. According to the representative, "The Sisters felt they could use the money much more usefully for soup and sandwiches." In a polite letter to the city expressing their regrets, the Missionaries of Charity noted that the episode "served to educate us about the law and its many complexities."

As Philip K. Howard observes, no one decided to spite Mother Teresa. It was just the law. Yet he argues that the story of the Missionaries of Charity in New York reflects how rules can replace thinking. The result? What Howard calls "the death of common sense."

________

Philip K. Howard, The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America, New York: Random House, 1994, 3-4. Adapted by James Emery White, Rethinking The Church, Baker Books, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997, 92-93.

[see also #3089]

#4107

*

Does the public have the right to snoop on its political leaders? Character and morality remain important.

1. Sin stains not only politicians, but media and church leaders as well.

2. Not even civil government requires inner purity.

3. Some matters of private conduct have no bearing on qualification for

the presidency or any other public office.

4. Resentment of the media for exposure of inconsistencies is misdirected.

5. The religious facets of public policy issues are often deliberately

highlighted by those who champion Judeo-Christian values vis-a-vis

secular humanism. Americans expect fidelity and truth from leaders.

6. The saddest aspect of the immorality controversy among politicians is

the choice of some to see the concentration on personal character as

a sign of national unbalance and weakness.

7. Although the Constitution prohibits a religious test for office, the

question of one's religious views is relevant insofar as they bear

upon political commitments. Almost all legislation has moral

implications.

8. What the political arena desperately needs is not merely better parties,

platforms, and policies, but better persons.

9. In the last analysis, sound political judgment requires a verdict on

policy no less than on character.

Should Christians be involved in politics? In the wake of the failed impeachment hearings, many evangelicals decided that the attempt to bring a moral perspective into the political sphere had proven fruitless. In their new book "Blinded by Might," Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson charge that Christians have been seduced by the siren call of politics, and ought to restore their priorities to building the Church.

All told, the mood among evangelicals is more pessimistic than I've seen in decades.

To turn the tide, we need to understand that this painful deflation of hopes is a sign that our earlier hopes were OVER-inflated. Many evangelicals were first galvanized into political activism by the liberal victory in Roe V. Wade, a Supreme Court decision that turned around an entire culture on the most crucial moral issue of the day. The lesson was not lost on moral conservatives: They concluded that top-down political action was the most effective means of cultural transformation. If liberals could do it, so could they.

Thus was born the so-called Religious Right, a movement that often made extravagant promises of "saving America" if we could just elect the right candidates and pass the right bills. Much of its political rhetoric smacked of triumphalism. We thought "we had the power to right every wrong and cure every ill," Cal Thomas writes.

In short, at its worst, the Religious Right was a mirror image of the secular left.

But if earlier hopes to "save America" were overblown, so is today's mood of withdrawal. Instead, we ought to learn from our mistakes and become better equipped-and that means developing a biblically based political philosophy, guided by the classic elements of a Christian worldview: creation, fall, and redemption.

The doctrine of creation tells us the state is ordained by God; it is not a necessary evil but a good part of God's creation. Therefore, participation in political life is a moral obligation. Christians must always seek justice and civil order, striving to be "the best of citizens," as Augustine put it, because we do for love of God what others do only because they are coerced by law.

But the doctrine of the Fall teaches us the limits of political success. This side of heaven, our accomplishments will always be partial, temporary, and painfully inadequate. There is no basis for triumphalism.

Neither, however, is there a basis for despair. For the doctrine of redemption promises that there can be healing and restoration, even in a broken world. All creation came from God's hand, all creation was affected by the Fall, and creation itself shares in Christ's redemption. Salvation is not only about personal renewal, but also about social and political renewal.

These principles give Christians an independent stance that prevents us from being tucked into any political party's hip pocket. They also provide a framework for developing a powerful and distinctive approach to politics.

As the new millennium approaches, Christians must resist the temptation to retreat. With a Christian worldview approach, we can learn how really to be, as Augustine put it, "the best of citizens" -- even in a post-Christian world.

________

Copyright (c) 1999 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Christmas is a season of celebration and hope, and there's nothing better at this time of year than the chance to celebrate a true Christmas miracle. Today I have a story that comes close to miraculous status. It's a story of how faith, combined with persistence, can change America's cultural landscape.

The story actually began with a woman named Rita Warren, whom I have mentioned in previous broadcasts. Rita grew up in Mussolini's Italy where she was painfully acquainted with the extremes of anti-religious bigotry. She well recalls the day when fascist soldiers marched into her classroom and ripped a crucifix from the wall, replacing it with portraits of Il Duce and Adolf Hitler. The Lord's Prayer was forbidden, replaced with songs glorifying those two monsters and their vision of world domination.

After Rita emigrated to America, some years later, she thought she had escaped the forces of tyranny, but she was in for a surprise. For many Christmas seasons she set up a nativity scene in front of the nation's Capitol, but each evening she was ordered to take it down. The attitudes she encountered made no sense. This is Christmas, she thought. We're not celebrating the birth of "Frosty The Snowman," but Jesus Christ. So, knowing only too well what happens when anti-religious views prevail in society, Rita decided to take a stand.

When she attempted to erect a crèche in Fairfax, Virginia, the city fathers made her stop. But shortly after the Supreme Court ruled that the Ku Klux Klan had the right to erect a cross in a public park, Rita was back again, arguing that Christians should have at least an equal right to free expression. This time the lawyers told her that, while she had a right to erect a display, she could not do so in Fairfax because she didn't live within the city limits. And that's when the miracle happened.

Unable to get assistance from conservative lawyers, Rita turned to an unlikely advocate: the ACLU. Yes, the organization that devoutly opposes any hint of religion on public property admitted that Rita's rights were being trampled. After a fight lasting four years, the forces of darkness finally blinked, and this year Rita's display will go up -- complete with a Menorah, honoring the faith of her ACLU-appointed lawyer, Victor Glasberg.

Rita Warren's miracle should teach us an important lesson. Through her war-time experiences, Rita knew that whenever God is hidden from public view, substitute religions spring up in His place. And whether the substitute is a political ideology or some type of New Age concoction, these man-made religions are far less benevolent than the real thing.

As Christians, we need to remember that we can never take our religious freedom for granted. But Rita Warren's story reminds us that, with prayer and persistence, all things are possible. So in the spirit of the season, I say "God Bless Rita Warren" and "God bless us every one."

___________________________

Copyright (c) 1999 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

Well, the FBI has been at it again. Examining documents with cutting-edge computer technology, they've deciphered blacked-out text and lost messages. And what their investigation reveals is scandalous.

Another sex scandal? Blessedly, no. They were scrutinizing a draft of Thomas Jefferson's "Letter to the Danbury Baptists." And what they uncovered is much more important than any alleged shenanigans -- they discovered the almost forgotten doctrine of constitutional federalism.

In that letter, President Jefferson referred to the now-infamous "Wall of Separation" between Church and State. For years, this so-called "Wall" has provided the pretext for restricting religious expression. But the FBI's examination of an early draft of the letter shows that what Jefferson really meant by that "Wall" bears little resemblance to the way it is being used today.

In 1802, Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut objected to the established state Church -- Congregationalism. They wanted President Jefferson -- famous for promoting religious disestablishment in Virginia -- to intervene in Connecticut. But Jefferson refused.

Although he favored the Baptists' position, Jefferson explained that the Constitution forbade the Federal government to intrude in state matters. That was the "Wall of Separation" he referred to in his letter. FBI investigation of early drafts of that letter reinforces this interpretation.

You see, the First Amendment forbids the establishment of a national church, but that restriction does not apply to individual states. In fact, there were established state churches in America until 1833 -- almost 50 years after the Constitution was ratified.

Today's predominant view of the First Amendment -- that silences public religious expression -- could not be more different. But today's position is rooted not in the Constitution or Jefferson's writings, but in the 1947 Supreme Court decision, Everson V. Board of Education.

In Everson, Justice Hugo Black proclaimed that the First Amendment forbids any interaction between Church and Government -- that Jefferson's "wall [of separation]... must be kept high and impregnable."

Well, American University professor Daniel Dreisbach argues that this interpretation is entirely contrary to what Jefferson intended.

In the Journal of Church and State, Dreisbach points out that the so-called "Wall" had "less to do with the separation of church and civil government than with the separation between state and federal governments."

You see, Governor Jefferson declared religious days of prayer and thanksgiving, but President Jefferson wouldn't. As governor, he even promoted a law punishing preachers who would not preach on state holidays. But Jefferson was no hypocrite -- he simply understood that the First Amendment restricts the President, but not state governors.

Now, Dreisbach's research is not just historical trivia. The Court's strict separationist mantra lacks constitutional foundation. And this has important implications for policy-making today, especially as support for faith-based ministries becomes a campaign issue.

So when your neighbor cites some ACLU representative invoking the "wall of separation" to silence religious expression, tell him what Jefferson really said. And keep this view in mind when you consider candidates for office. For how well they understand Jefferson's federalism -- that is, state vs. federal power -- affects our most basic liberties.

The Founders' respect for religion is stamped all over our founding documents. And it shouldn't take FBI investigators to find it.

_________________________________________

Related Reading:

The Washington Times, "Very Political Jefferson Built 'Wall of Separation,'" (June 1, 1998). The New York Times, "Fresh Debate on 1802 Jefferson Letter" (September 10, 1998).

Daniel Dreisbach, Religion and Politics in the Early Republic (Univ.

Kentucky Press, 1996).

----, "'Sowing Useful Truths and Principles': The Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson, and the 'Wall of Separation,'" Journal of Church and State (Summer 1997).

----, Real Threat and Mere Shadow: Religious Liberty and the First Amendment (Crossway Books, 1987).

----, "Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists Revisited," William and Mary Quarterly (October 1999).

----, "In Search of a Christian Commonwealth: An Examination of Selected Nineteenth-Century Commentaries on References to God and the Christian Religion in the United States Constitution," Baylor Law Review (Fall 1996).

___________________

Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

US Dept. of Agriculture personnel rose at a 2.7% annual rate during 1932-89, a period in which the number of farmers was declining at a rate of 2% a year. Current figures show 3,199,000 farmers versus 122,062 Public Servants. At this rate in 2059 each side will have the same number -- 800,000 each!

________

FORTUNE, April 20, 1992

When President Bush turned to Joe and Jennifer Balsarotti of Clayton, Mo., in January 2003, to represent families and business owners who would benefit from his tax cut plan, the strategy was one which politicians of all stripes strive to employ -- putting a face on public policy. The president framed the issue with the words “fair” and “right.” He sought to convince Congress and the public that “federal spending should not rise any faster than the paychecks of American families” (State of the Union, 2003).

Bush's tax proposal re-ignited the classic debate over the proper role of government in a $10 trillion economy. Nearly a century ago the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (1913) enabled the government to legally redistribute wealth under a law code touted at the time as just and fair. The amendment accomplished this goal through direct taxation on income. Proponents of the income tax defined justice in terms of forced compliance that would level society and create social equality. Opponents of the income tax saw it as theft by statute -- a confiscation of wages earned through the effort of hard work. Both sides understood something: Government policies have a far-reaching influence, for good or ill, on society. To impose a policy on the wages of workers -- rich or poor -- was a new level of intrusion that had only been used thus far in U.S. history for national emergencies such as the Civil War. Such an action could not help but have a dramatic effect on the country's future.

A theological conundrum still surrounds the definition and use of the words justice and virtue as applied to taxation. Both words have religious and political meaning. Defining these words, therefore, becomes the critical issue. Private ideas that emerge into public policies spring from worldviews grounded in some semblance of truth. The start determines the finish, and careful attention always should be given to the genesis of any idea. Taxation is no exception. While competing interests work to dictate the definition of a just tax, past differences form present debate.

Modern tax policy presupposes certain truths about human beings. As innately sinful creatures, those individuals entrusted with governmental power must be checked by processes preventing them from authorizing a system of suffocation and tyranny through arbitrary and excessive taxation. Combining federal, state and local requirements, taxes now consume a large share of the national economy, and the fact that government now reaches into virtually every area of life should signal that perhaps the current tax code should be reexamined. Chief Justice John Marshall aptly stated in 1819, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”

Ecclesiastes gives notice that power is often on the side of oppressors who arbitrarily use coercive tactics to legitimize vice (Eccles. 4:1). The Hebrews were forbidden from perverting justice by showing partiality or favoritism (Leviticus 19:15). Jesus denounced the religious establishment for what was clearly an unjust use of power both to tax and influence behavior through discriminatory practices (Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:12-17). Among the first fruits of Zacchaeus' conversion was his willingness to return money obtained through excessive taxation (Luke 19:1-8).

Taxes, when viewed under Scripture's guidance, are laden with theological significance. Understanding this, the framers of the Constitution crafted principles for a moral fiscal code. Prohibiting direct taxation of income blocked off many blind alleys of escape for those who might later seek to use the law as a means for private gain at public expense. With the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment, an inevitable expansion of government has taken place, and with it, a certain shaping of the nation's soul. Government is now seen more as a savior and less as a servant. The federal bureaucracy is so large and the tax code so complicated that even the likes of Albert Einstein once declared, “the hardest thing in the world to understand is the federal income tax.”

As the debate on the tax bill moves from committee to the floor of Congress, the church should watch and listen for the number of times the words justice, fairness and equity appear in amendments, speeches and television commercials. The use of these words will signal various understandings of justice that should be carefully evaluated. The Bible gives no prescription for a definitive tax rate, but the lower, the better. For the American republic depends on the stern virtues of a citizenry who define justice in terms of honest labor, thrift, deferred gratification and self-denial -- all of which characterize a biblical worldview. When the government becomes an agent of interference with these virtues to the point that these attitudes are undermined through excessive taxation, then justice, by definition, will be theft by legal means.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #1081]

The story is told of a man who computed his taxes for 1998 and discovered that he owed $3,407. He packaged up his payment and included this letter:

Dear IRS:

Enclosed is my 1998 Tax Return & payment. Please take note of the attached article from the USA Today newspaper. In the article, you will see that the Pentagon is paying $171.50 for hammers and NASA has paid $600.00 for a toilet seat.

Please find enclosed four toilet seats (value $2,400) and six hammers (value $1,029). This brings my total payment to $3,429.00. Please note the overpayment of $22.00 and apply it to the “Presidential Election Fund,” as noted on my return. Might I suggest you the send the above mentioned fund a “1.5 inch screw.” (See attached article...HUD paid $22.00 for a 1.5 inch Phillips Head Screw.)

It has been a pleasure to pay my tax bill this year, and I look forward to paying it again next year.

Sincerely,

A satisfied taxpayer

In preparation for Sunday's lesson, I gathered these quotations from the first 25 presidents of our country. Many internet sources we very helpful. Also America's God & Country (Encyclopedia of Quotations) was helpful. I hope that some of this is useful to you. I know that it is long, but I didn't have the time to pick 'n choose. God bless. Mike

George Washington -- 1st U.S. President

1752 -- private prayer journal

"Most Gracious Lord God, from whom proceedeth every good and perfect gift, I offer to Thy Divine Majesty my unfeigned praise and thanksgiving for all Thy mercies towards me. ... I have sinned and done very wickedly, be merciful to me, O God, and pardon me for Jesus Christ sake. ... Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me; and hast given me assurance of salvation, upon my repentance and sincerely endeavoring to conform my life to His holy Precepts and example. ... Bless O Lord the whole race of mankind, and let the world be filled with the knowledge of Thee and Thy Son, Jesus Christ. ... I beseech Thee to defend me this night from all evil, and do more for me than I can think and ask, for Jesus Christ sake. in whose most holy Name and Words, I continue to pray, Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name. ..."

John Adams -- 2nd U.S. President

1756 -- personal diary, 2-22-56

"Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God. ... What a Utopia, what a Paradise would this region be."

1813 -- letter to Thomas Jefferson

"The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could unite. ... And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

Thomas Jefferson -- 3rd U.S. President

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."

1820 -- letter to Jared Sparks

"I hold to the precepts of Jesus as delivered by Himself, to be the most pure, benevolent and sublime which have ever been preached to man. ..."

1814 -- letter to Miles King

"... Nay, we have heard it said that there is not a Quaker or a Baptist, a Presbyterian or an Episcopalian, a Catholic or a Protestant in heaven; that on entering that gate, we leave those badges of schism behind. ... Let us not be uneasy about the different roads we may pursue, as believing them the shortest, to that our last abode; but following the guidance of a good conscience, let us be happy in the hope that by these different paths we shall all meet in the end. And that you and I may meet and embrace, is my earnest prayer. And with this assurance I salute you with brotherly esteem and respect."

James Madison -- 4th U.S. President

"Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe. And to the same Divine Author of 'every good and perfect gift' [James 1:17] we are indebted for all those privileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed in this favored land."

1778

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the 10 Commandments of God."

James Monroe -- 5th U.S. President

2nd State of Nation

When we view the great blessings with which our country has been favored, those which we now enjoy, and the means which we possess of handing them down unimpaired to our latest posterity, our attention is irresistibly drawn to the source from whence they flow. Let us, then, unite in offering our most grateful acknowledgments for these blessings to the Divine Author of All Good.

5th State of Nation, Washington, DC, 1821-12-03

Deeply impressed with the blessings which we enjoy, and of which we have such manifold proofs, my mind is irresistibly drawn to that Almighty Being, the great source from whence they proceed and to whom our most grateful acknowledgments are due.

8th State of Nation, Washington, DC, 1824-12-07

For these blessings we owe to Almighty God, from whom we derive them, and with profound reverence, our most grateful and unceasing acknowledgments.

John Quincy Adams -- 6th U. S. President

1821

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

"It is no slight testimonial, both to the merit and worth of Christianity, that in all ages since its promulgation the great mass of those who have risen to eminence by their profound wisdom and integrity have recognized and reverenced Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of the living God." (http://www.riversidebaptist.com/ff01.html)

1890 -- from The Churchman, 7-11

"There are 2 prayers that I love to say -- the first is the Lord's Prayer, and because the Lord taught it; and the other is what seems to be a child's prayer: "Now I lay me down to sleep," and I love to say that because it suits me. I have been repeating it every night for many years past, and I say it yet, and I expect to say it my last night on earth if I am conscious. But I have added a few words more to the prayer so as to express my trust in Christ, and also to acknowledge what I ask, for I ask as a favor, and not because I deserve it. This is it:

Now I lay me down to sleep,

I pray the Lord my soul to keep;

If I should die before I wake,

I pray the Lord my soul to take;

For Jesus' sake. Amen."

Andrew Jackson -- 7th U. S. President

1834 -- letter to mourning family of Gen. Coffee

"Rely on our dear Savior. He will be father to the fatherless and husband to the widow. Trust in the mercy and goodness of Christ, and always be ready to say with heartfelt resignation, 'may the Lord's will be done.'"

1835 -- personal letter

"All who profess Christianity believe in a Savior, and that by and through Him we must be saved. We ought, therefore, to consider all good Christians whose walks correspond with their professions, be they Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Baptist, Methodist or Roman Catholic."

"The Bible is the foundation upon which our republic rests."

(http://www.riversidebaptist.com/ff01.html)

Martin Van Buren -- 8th U. S. President

"Beyond that I only look to the gracious protection of the Divine Being whose strengthening support I humbly solicit, and whom I fervently pray to look down upon us all. May it be among the dispensations of His providence to bless our beloved country with honors and with length of days. May her ways be ways of pleasantness and all her paths be peace!"

1862 -- during his final illness

"The atonement of Jesus Christ is the only remedy and rest for my soul."

William Henry Harrison -- 9th U. S. President

* died in office after 1 month with pneumonia

1841 -- Inaugural Address

"I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow-citizens a profound reverence for the Christian religion and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty, and a just sense of religious responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness; and to that good Being who has blessed us by the gifts of civil and religious freedom, who watched over and prospered the labors of our fathers and has hitherto preserved to us institutions far exceeding in excellence those of any other people, let us unite in fervently commending every interest of our beloved country in all future time."

John Tyler -- 10th U. S. President

* took over after Harrison's death

1841 -- Inaugural Address,

(http://www.castle.net/~rfrone/history/1841-jty.htm)

"My earnest prayer shall be constantly addressed to the all-wise and all-powerful Being who made me, and by whose dispensation I am called to the high office of President of this Confederacy, understandingly to carry out the principles of that Constitution which I have sworn "to protect, preserve, and defend."

James Knox Polk -- 11th U. S. President

1845 -- Inaugural Address

'In assuming responsibilities so vast I fervently invoke the aid of that Almighty Ruler of the Universe in whose hands are the destinies of nations and of men to guard this Heaven-favored land against the mischiefs which without His guidance might arise from an unwise public policy. With a firm reliance upon the wisdom of Omnipotence to sustain and direct me in the path of duty which I am appointed to pursue, I stand in the presence of this assembled multitude of my countrymen to take upon myself the solemn obligation "to the best of my ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Zachary Taylor -- 12th U. S. President

* died in office

1849 -- Inaugural Address

"In conclusion I congratulate you, my fellow-citizens, upon the high state of prosperity to which the goodness of Divine Providence has conducted our common country. Let us invoke a continuance of the same protecting care which has led us from small beginnings to the eminence we this day occupy, ..."

1849 -- personal "thank you" for a gift Bible

"I accept with gratitude and pleasure your gift of this inestimable Volume. It was for the love of the truths of this great Book that our fathers abandoned their native shores for the wilderness. Animated by its lofty principles they toiled and suffered till the desert blossomed as a rose. ... I trust that their principles of liberty may extend, if without bloodshed, from the northern to the southern extremities of the Continent. If there were in that Book nothing but its great precept, 'All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them.' and if that precept were obeyed, our government might extend over the whole Continent."

Millard Filmore -- 13th U. S. President

1850 -- State of Nation Address. 12-2

"And now, fellow-citizens, I can not bring this communication to a close without invoking you to join me in humble and devout thanks to the Great Ruler of Nations for the multiplied blessings which He has graciously bestowed upon us. His hand, so often visible in our preservation, has stayed the pestilence, saved us from foreign wars and domestic disturbances, and scattered plenty throughout the land. Our liberties, religious and civil, have been maintained, the fountains of knowledge have all been kept open, and means of happiness widely spread and generally enjoyed greater than have fallen to the lot of any other nation. And while deeply penetrated with gratitude for the past, let us hope that His all-wise providence will so guide our counsels as that they shall result in giving satisfaction to our constituents, securing the peace of the country, and adding new strength to the united Government under which we live."

Franklin Pierce -- 14th U. S. President

1853 -- Inaugural Address

"But let not the foundation of our hope rest upon man's wisdom. It will not be sufficient that sectional prejudices find no place in the public deliberations. It will not be sufficient that the rash counsels of human passion are rejected. It must be felt that there is no national security but in the nation's humble, acknowledged dependence upon God and His overruling providence."

James Buchanan -- 15th U. S. President

1857 -- Inaugural Address

"I am a believer, ... But I ought constantly to pray, 'Help Thou my unbelief.' I trust that the Almighty Father, through the merits and atonement of His Son, will yet give to me a clearer and stronger faith than I possess."

Abraham Lincoln -- 16th U. S. President

1864 -- words acknowledging a gift Bible

"In regard to this Great Book, I have but to say, I believe the Bible is the best gift God has given to man. All the good Saviour gave to the world was communicated through this Book. But for this Book we could not know right from wrong."

Andrew Johnson -- 17th U. S. President

"Let us look forward to the time when we can take the flag of our country and nail it below the Cross, and there let it wave as it waved in the olden times, and let us gather around it an inscribed for our motto: "Liberty and Union, one and inseparable, now and forever," and exclaim, Christ first, our country next!" http://jeremiahproject.com/heritage.html

Ulysses S. Grant -- 18th U. S. President

1876 -- letter to editor of Sunday School Times

"Your favor of yesterday asking a message from me to the children and the youth of the United States is this morning received. My advice to Sunday Schools, no matter what their denomination, is: Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet anchor of your liberties; write its precepts in your hearts, and practice them in your life. To the influence of this Book are we indebted for all the progress made in true civilization, and to this must we look as our guide in the future. 'Righteousness exalteth a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people.' " (AG&C, p 264)

Rutherford B. Hayes -- 19th U. S. President

"I am a firm believer in the Divine teachings, perfect example, and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I believe also in the Holy Scriptures as the revealed Word of God to the world for its enlightenment and salvation." (AG&C, p 286)

James A. Garfield -- 20th U. S. President

1876 -- centennial of Declaration of Independence [spoken while he was a congressman]

"Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brace, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. ... If the next centennial does not find us a great nation ... it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces."

Chester A. Arthur -- 21st U. S. President

1881 -- Inaugural Address

"Summoned to these high duties and responsibilities and profoundly conscious of their magnitude and gravity, I assume the trust imposed by the Constitution, relying for aid on divine guidance and the virtue, patriotism, and intelligence of the American people."

Grover Cleveland -- 22nd U. S. President

1885 -- Inaugural Address

"And let us not trust to human effort alone, but humbly acknowledging the power and goodness of Almighty God, who presides over the destiny of nations, and who has at all times been revealed in our country's history, let us invoke his aid and his blessing upon our labors."

"I may do all I can her in the White House, and Congress may do all it can over there, but gentlemen, after all, that Book [holding up a Bible] has got to settle the Indian Problem." (AG&C, p 108)

Benjamin Harrison -- 23rd U. S. President

*writing to his son, Russell

"It is a great comfort to trust God -- even if His providence is unfavorable. Prayer steadies one, when he is walking in slippery places -- even if things asked for are not given."

William McKinley -- 24th U. S. President

1893

"We live to make our Church a power in the land while we love every other Church that exalts our Christ. That broad Christian liberality lies at the basis of your work ... Every organization of this kind demonstrates that Christian character is helpful in every avenue or emergency of life. . The demand of the time is the young man thoroughly grounded in Christianity and its Book."

"There is no currency in this world that passes at such a premium anywhere as good Christian Character. ... The time has gone by when the young man or the young woman in the United States has to apologize for being a follower of Christ. ... No cause but one could have brought together so many people, and that is the cause of our Master."

Theodore Roosevelt -- 26th U. S. President

"A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education." "After a week of perplexing problems ... it does so rest my soul to come into the house of the Lord and to sing and mean it, 'Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty' ... My great joy and glory is that while occupying an exalted position in the nation, I am enabled to preach the practical moralities of The Bible to my fellow-countrymen and to hold up Christ as the hope and Savior of the world." (AG&C, p 540)

"A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second

Coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible studies; who has a high

level of financial giving to a Christian cause; who home schools their

children; who has accumulated survival foods and has a strong belief in

the Second Amendment; and who distrusts big government. Any of these

may qualify a person as a cultist but certainly more than one of these would

cause us to look at this person as a threat and his family as being in a

risk situation that qualifies for government interference."

Janet Reno, Attny. General

USA Interview on 60 Minutes

June 26, 1999

BreakPoint Commentary -- September 14, 1998 Forgive and Forget? The Christian View of Impeachment All America is reading the shocking Starr Report, and as you might guess, my phone's been ringing off the hook. Naturally, the press want comparisons to Watergate. But Christians are asking questions as well. Do we forgive? And is it right for Christians to urge impeachment? Isn't that a political question? The first question is easy: I'll take the president at his word in his statement of repentance at his prayer meeting Friday. And if so, God forgives, and so should we. The second question is more complicated: Several Christians, including some pastors, have argued that God has raised up both righteous and unrighteous leaders for his people Israel. They believe that in the modern era, as well, we should accept our leaders. After all, Jesus didn't advocate rebellion. And the Apostle Paul said obey your rulers. Well these Christians' ideas miss the great political changes brought about during the Protestant Reformation. The reformers had a great phrase: Coram Deo, meaning we live in God's presence, literally in His face. So man no longer has to deal with God through the church or through the king. Instead, God deals with man directly. The state, therefore, has limited authority over man. A corollary was the principle of Lex Rex -- the Law is King. It means that every single person is subject to the rule of law -- the ruler and ruled alike. These two doctrines made western democracy as we know it today possible. Our rulers rule with the consent of the governed and are subject to the same laws we all are. The rule of law is the heart of a free society. So Christians have no business avoiding their political responsibility. In western democracies we vote for our leaders. And as Christians we should do so using godly wisdom. And the same principle would hold true for impeachment, a political process. Impeachment, remember, is essential to preserving the rule of law because under our Constitution, a sitting president cannot be indicted for crimes. So the only way to make him subject to the law, and preserve the rule of law, is through the impeachment process. This is why Christians have every right, indeed, a moral duty, to express their views on this subject. We are entrusted with preserving the rule of law, which is a product of our Christian tradition. Now, the president said Friday that he wanted to be forgiven and to get on with the job of government. Is that oppropriate? As most of you know, I've had some personal experience with this. Twenty-five years ago, I became a Christian in the midst of Watergate. I asked forgiveness for my sins, and I knew God forgave me. But I also knew I had to pay the consequences for breaking the law. I pled guilty-and went to prison. I hope and pray President Clinton is genuinely repentant, and that he'll be restored to his family, and that Americans will forgive. But that doesn't mean he's entitled to avoid the consequences of his sin. If the law has been broken, justice demands a penalty be paid. Congress therefore must do its duty, and decide if the facts warrant impeachment. There's much more involved here than a salacious sex scandal. What hangs in the balance are the two most important principles undergirding our free society. Limited government and the rule of law. No man is above it. These are profoundly Christian principles. Yes, we'd better care -- and care deeply. (c) 1998 Prison Fellowship Ministries Copyright notice: We encourage liberal distribution of these transcripts through email and print. Please do not post on the world wide web or use this content for profit.

Across America these days, governmental bodies are legislating what one philosopher calls "practical atheism." And in all the rhetoric about Christians forcing their morality on other people, the truth is that secularists are forcing their brand of morality on us.

Exhibit 1 is right here in Washington. Last month the District of Columbia City Council passed a bill requiring all employers in the city to pay for contraceptives in their health plans. The council refused to provide an opt-out clause for employers who objected on religious grounds.

The bill outraged Catholic leaders. It would have forced employers -- like Catholic University in Georgetown -- to pay for contraceptives, including those that are, in effect, early abortifacients.

That didn't faze the councilmen, some of whom could not resist a little in-your-face anti-Catholic rhetoric. Councilman Jim Graham said that he had "no intention of deferring to Rome." The message of the council was clear: "How dare Christians attempt to inject their religious beliefs into the political process?"

Well, mercifully, DC Mayor Anthony Williams shot the bill down. But this is more than a tempest of religious bigotry in a legislative teapot. It's part of a widespread effort to mandate atheism.

At a recent conference sponsored by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Jean Bethke Elshtain said that, for centuries religion and civic standing were tethered together: You could not be a citizen in good standing unless you were a communicant in good standing.

But in the seventeenth century, philosopher John Locke began to unravel this connection. He demanded the severing of religion and government as a way of avoiding sectarian strife. But in the process, Elshtain explains, Locke sowed the seeds of the privatization of religion -- seeds that are germinating powerfully in our own time.

Many people believe that Locke's views shaped American views. But, in fact, our Founders rejected Locke's notion that citizens had to park their religious beliefs at the gate to the public square. And no less than Alexis de Tocqueville insisted that democracy could not survive without religion to shape and mediate human passions.

But Tocqueville's warnings go unheeded today by those who want to strip society of all public markers of religion, Elshtain says. Their view contains "a built-in animus" against Christians who want to set up "their own network of schools, welfare provision [and] political advocacy." If they had their way, Elshtain says, secularists would have the state go on a rampage and gobble up society so that all of it would be thoroughly secularized.

This would result in radical secularists disenfranchising Christians from the democratic process, as we saw them attempt to do with the DC City Council. To them, religion is always strictly private.

But this is precisely what the devout cannot do, Elshtain says: "Civil society involves ... associations and relationships that [go] beyond the purview of the state." If the logic of church-state separation is carried into these realms, our society will be damaged and our religious freedoms destroyed.

This is an age in which we see the resurgence of faith-based programs. We are also going to see a continuing rise in radical secularism. That's why it is so important to take the arguments by Elshtain seriously, understand them, and be able to articulate a prudent argument for Christian involvement in public life. If we don't do this, the bureaucrats may continue to cram "practical atheism" down our throats.

___________________

Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.