55 Sermon Illustrations on Liberty

Utah was Brigham Young’s community. He was absolute master of its every detail. He knew every Mormon in Salt Lake City, his name and family, his assets and problems. When he visited St. George, the Mormon settlement near the southern Nevada border, he entered every home, embraced every Saint. When he ordered a thing to be done, it was done: Tabernacle, temple towns, schools, roads, library…

Plays appearing in the theater had to have his approval. Marriages required his consent, and courtships as well. If a man wanted to enter a business or trade, Brigham Young had to approve. … When he told a man to enter into plural marriage, that man took another wife. Whatever he said was the religion of the Mormons; when he said that a man or group was apostate that man or group was excommunicated. Heber Kimball, Young’s first in command, told the congregation: “If Brother Brigham tells me to do a thing, it is the same as though the Lord told me to do it.”

If it seemed that the Mormon was not overburdened with personal decisions, Sir Richard Burton, who visited them as a friend in Salt Lake in 1860, said that Brigham Young’s policy was based upon: “The fact that liberty is to mankind in mass, a burden far heavier than slavery.”

Little attention has been devoted to the impact of the Bible on economics. At least seven contributions made by Christian thinkers, meditating on the words and deeds of Jesus Christ, altered the vision of the good society proposed by the classical writers of Greece and Rome and made certain modern conceptions of political economy possible.

Seven contributions of Christianity to Western Civilization:

1. To bring Judaism to the Gentiles.

Belief in a Creator leads to liberty.

Three corollaries from notion of a Creator:

a. We should be intelligent.

b. We should trust liberty.

c. We should understand history has a beginning, and an end.

The concept of "progress" is a Hebrew idea, not Roman or Greek.

Every story in the Bible is about a drama involving the human will.

Offering thanksgiving is our first moral obligation.

2. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Trinity points to the mystery of community.

Christianity has a vision of the entire world community.

The many form one.

3. The children of God.

Greeks viewed people as gold, silver or lead (slaves).

Christianity sees people as creations of God, and valuable.

Even the weak have value.

Value comes from God.

We are equal because we are unique, we are not equal because we are

the same (modern progressivism).

We do not have to pull people down to enforce uniformity.

4. Compassion.

Progressive philosopher Richard Rorty wrote that he owes more to Jesus

for certain key progressive notions, such as compassion and

equality, than to any of the classical writers.

Bertrand Russell, in his book, "Why I am Not a Christian," conceded

that although he took Jesus to be no more than a humanistic moral

prophet, modern progressivism is indebted to Christ for the ideal

of compassion.

Christianity tries to humble the mighty and prod the rich into concern

for the poor.

5. A universal family.

The entire human race is a universal family.

All are created by God, and urged to love that God.

We cannot be parochial, and we cannot be premature universalists.

6. "I am the truth."

Everything in creation is understandable.

Christianity is committed to truth beyond human purposes.

The notion of truth is crucial to civilization.

Relativism undercuts this foundation.

There can be no civilization of reason, or love, without faith in the

vocation of reason.

7. The name of God: mercy.

Christianity teaches not only about human glories, but also sins.

Our republic is constructed for sinners.

Mercy triumphs over justice (or none of us would stand).

Mercy is only possible because of judgment.

A U.S. Supreme Court Justice once wrote, "Our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." They do not presuppose ANY Supreme Being, but the God of Judaism and Christianity. Remove the religious foundation and free society falls apart. Better than the philosophers, Jesus Christ is the teacher of many lessons indispensable for the working of the free society.

THE ARMED DEFENSE OF LIBERTY

Despite the heroic efforts of Sen. Bob Smith to turn it back, the latest batch of irrational and servile restrictions on the Second Amendment continues to ooze its way through that allegedly deliberative institution, the Congress. Perhaps because the gun control debate is now so entirely drenched in the emotive sludge that is the principal intellectual food of our political establishment, this seems a good moment to recall the deep reasons, the fundamental context, that must inform any responsible deliberations on the question of an armed citizenry.

I believe that underlying all of the prominent issues of the day -- abortion, the breakdown of the family and of our educational institutions, the betrayal of our national sovereignty and military readiness, and the ongoing expansion of government's tyrannical claims to tax and regulate -- we can discern what is essentially one moral challenge which manifests itself in many areas. Simply stated, that challenge has to do with the corruption of our understanding of freedom, which leads to the abandonment of respect for law and individual responsibility, the twin pillars which ought to under-gird true freedom.

As a free people, our way of life depends upon certain moral ideas. As a matter of personal conscience, I believe that Christianity most perfectly embodies those ideas. But since Americans come from many different religious backgrounds, in dealing with issues of public policy, we must derive these ideas from sources that are open to support from all the people.

Nothing meets this purpose more completely than the principles and logic of our own Declaration of Independence, so American citizens and statesmen should make it the explicit basis for dealing with the moral crisis we now face.

The Declaration is fundamentally a statement of the principles of justice that define the moral identity of the American people. It presents a certain concept of our human nature and draws out the political consequences of that concept.

All human beings are created equal. They need no title or qualification beyond their simple humanity in order to command respect for their intrinsic human dignity, their "unalienable rights."

The purpose of government is to secure these rights, and no government is just or legitimate if it systematically violates them.

But the Declaration is more than just an assertion of rights. It also makes a clear statement about the ultimate source of authority which commands respect for those rights. God, the Creator, the author of the laws of nature, is that source.

Thus the effective prerequisite for human rights is respect for God's authority and His eternal laws. This is also the prerequisite for the idea of government based upon consent, which includes free elections, representation, due process of law, etc.

If we accept the logic of our Declaration of Independence, this reverence for God is not just a matter of religious faith. It is the foundation of justice and citizenship in our republic.

Therefore, our freedom is derived from our respect for law, especially the highest law as embodied in the will of the Creator. Thus freedom, rightly understood, cannot be confused with mere licentiousness. It first of all involves the duty to respect its own foundations in the laws of nature and nature's God. That's why our rights are "unalienable," which means that we do not have the right to surrender or destroy them by our choice or actions.

Indeed, if we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically violated, we have the duty to resist and overthrow the power responsible. This duty involves both the judgment and the moral and material capacity to resist tyranny. These principles constitute our character as a free people, which it is our duty to maintain.

It is in the context of these principles that we must understand the purpose of the Second Amendment, and the duties that it implies. The Founders added the Second Amendment to the Constitution so that when, after a long train of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover those rights.

If we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically violated, we have not merely the right, but the duty, to resist and overthrow the power responsible. It is very hard to do this if the government has all the weapons, something that our Founders and the generations before and after them knew from repeated and first-hand experience, as well as from a study of history. A strong case can be made, therefore, that it is a fundamental DUTY of the free citizen to keep and bear arms.

The claim that the Second Amendment is principally concerned with the maintenance of state militias -- military bodies under the direction and control of state governments -- is not just historically false, it is also fundamentally incoherent. It would make no sense whatsoever to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to state governments, since the principle on which our polity is based, as stated in the Declaration, recognizes that any government, at any level, can become oppressive of our rights. And we must be prepared to defend ourselves against its abuses. The gun control movement is incompatible with the sovereignty of the people, because it aims to eliminate one of the key material supports of that sovereignty.

This is not the principal danger of the gun control movement, however. Perhaps more important than the physical disarmament the government is attempting is the moral disarmament that accompanies it. If we accept the view that the American people cannot be trusted with the material objects necessary to defend their liberty, we will surely accept as well the view that the American people cannot be trusted with liberty itself. Why should a man who can't be trusted to refrain from murder be trusted with the much more difficult and morally subtle task of choosing his leaders responsibly?

The advocates of gun control take as their first principle that the American people are morally incompetent creatures of passion. The America they envision for us is, accordingly, more like a national 24-hour day-care center than a self-governing republic of free men and women. If we agree to accept this apparently comfortable arrangement, we will have to check our citizenship at the door along with our guns.

If, on the other hand, we intend to exercise the duties of self-government and justice that are our patrimony as free and rational creatures, then we will need to think clearly and coherently about securing the means necessary to do so. We must defend the moral self-confidence of America by reasserting the capacity of our people to make the most important decisions and bear the most important responsibilities themselves. And we must retain the material means necessary to shoot the windows out of the national day-care center, if it comes to that.

Second Amendment rights are sacred because of their connection to higher rights and higher duties, which are the very substance of liberty and justice, and to the God that America has always acknowledged as the source of both. We cannot surrender our guns without surrendering the vision of human dignity under God which is our national soul. The slow erosion of our national understanding of this fact is continuing in the Congress. Only a citizenry armed with a clear understanding of what is at stake can ultimately save us from the civic imbecility to which the gun control movement leads. By disarming, we will confess to our government that we no longer aspire to sovereignty, and wish our rulers to take up this burden in our stead. We will be signaling with great clarity that we wish to be comfortable slaves -- and slaves, at least, we will soon become.

The terrible history of the 20th century should make clear enough that subjection to unlimited government is not desirable. But a clear and thoughtful examination of our national principles teaches us also that it is our duty to shun such servitude. It is our right, and it is our duty, to remain free.

*

“What causes the greatest crimes in history? The greatest bloodshed? The most murders? I would say two things: sincere love and a sincere devotion to liberty. . . . If you kill out of love or for a perfect utopia, you never stop killing because human nature is always imperfect. Robespierre, rightly called ‘the incorruptible,’ was more sincere than Danton and always found somebody deviating just a little bit from true liberty.”

________

Peter Viereck, conservative theorist and history professor, in his 1997 lecture at Mount Holyoke College, his final one before retiring; his lecture was titled “The Messiness of History.” He is warning his students of the dangers of trying to democratize the world.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #29958]

[According to Snopes.com, this story contains many distortions and inaccuracies. See http://www.snopes.com/glurge/declare.htm ]

Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War. They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year, he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later, he died from exhaustion and a broken heart.

Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.

Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more.

Standing talk straight, and unwavering, they pledged: "For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

They gave you and me a free and independent America. The history books never told you a lot about what happened in the Revolutionary War. We didn't fight just the British. We were British subjects at that time and we fought our own government!

Some of us take these liberties so much for granted, but we shouldn't.

So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July Holiday and silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid. Remember: Freedom is never free!

A number of zoning cases have affected the right of worship in

private homes. In Colorado Springs, minister Richard Blanche has

been repeatedly cited for holding religious meetings in his home in

violation of a city zoning ordinance. In Fairhaven, Massachusetts,

local zoning officials ruled that Bible studies were home

occupations and therefore prohibited under the town's property-use

ordinances. In Los Angeles, officials ruled that home-occupancy

regulations forbade orthodox Jews from holding prayer meetings in

their homes. As civil-liberties lawyers could not help but note in

a Stratford, Connecticut, case, prayer in home Bible studies is

penalized while Tupperware parties enjoy the full protection of the

Constitution.

Charles Colson

Kingdoms In Conflict

(p. 320, 1990)

2 Corinthians 3:17-18 - "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is

liberty--But we are changed..by the Spirit.." The increase of

our liberty in Christ does not come because the world around us,

or sin, has changed, but because "we are changed".

Let me illustrate this: A baby is born into a home, and as that

child changes and matures, while the dangers around the child remain

the same, the parents give that child increasing liberty. Let the hot

stove in the living room and the various hazards in that child's

environment represent the dangers of sin:

First, the child has Crib Liberty, which is practically none at

all. Next, the child has Playpen Liberty as he or she grows and

changes. But as junior grows even more, so that he can climb over the

slats of the playpen, instead of building higher sides on his

protective prison to keep him from touching the hot stove, you give

him greater liberty.

Third, the child receives Room Liberty--can crawl or toddle around

the room. You spank the hand if there is an attempt to touch the hot

stove, and you teach your child how to avoid, by choice, that which is

hazardous. Next, the child is given House Liberty as the growing up

process has increased his or her ability to handle that increased

liberty.

Later, the child receives Property Liberty, which is followed by

Neighborhood Liberty and Area Liberty. Continuing to change and

mature, your child is given Town Liberty, and somewhere in the

teen-age you grant Car and Vicinity Liberty. Finally, when that child

has become legally of age, you give him or her Total Liberty, and

that's when you kick `em out and insist that they pretty much shift

for themselves.

Do you get the picture? Never do the hazards around your child

change, and never does your basic concern for your child's safety

change, but as the child changes and matures you grant increasing

liberty. This is not only proper, but necessary for the good of your

child. Translate this into the spiritual real and we should realize

that it is God's will for us to "go forth and grow up" (Malachi) so as

to be able to make moral distinctions with God alone as our guide.

--Duane V. Maxey

She has reached the topmost ladder;

O'er her hangs the great dark bell;

Awful is the gloom beneath her,

Like the pathway down to hell.

Lo, the ponderous tongue is swinging,

--'Tis the hour of curfew now,

And the sight has chilled her bosom,

Stopped her breath, and paled her brow.

Shall she let it ring? No, never!

Flash her eyes with sudden light,

As she springs, and grasps it firmly,

--"Curfew shall not ring tonight!"

(Clinging to the ponderous tongue, Bessie muffled its sound with

her hands as she hung suspended beneath the bell swinging to and fro)

Out she swung--far out; the city

Seemed a speck of light below,

There `twixt heaven and earth suspended

As the bell swung to and fro,

And the sexton at the bell-rope,

Old and deaf, heard not the bell,

Sadly thought, "That twilight Curfew

Rang young Basil's funeral knell."

Still the maiden clung more firmly,

And with trembling lips so white,

Said to hush her heart's wild throbbing:

--"Curfew shall not ring tonight!"

It was o'er, the bell ceased swaying,

And the maiden stepped once more

Firmly on the dark old ladder

Where for hundred years before

Human foot had not been planted.

The brave deed that she had done

Should be told long ages after,

As the rays of setting sun

Sages of old contended that no sin was ever committed whose

consequences rested on the head of the sinner alone; that no man could

do ill and his fellows not suffer. They illustrate it thus:

A vessel sailing from Joppa carried a passenger who, beneath his

berth, cut a hole through the ships side. When the men of the watch

expostulated with him, "What doest thou, O miserable man?" the

offender calmly replied: "What matters it to you? The hole I have made

lies under my own berth!"

Manasseh's wickedness brought suffering and retribution upon the

whole nation of Judah. --C. H. Spurgeon

The dictionary accurately defines a fence as “a barrier intended to prevent escape or intrusion or to mark a boundary.” Regardless of the type of fence, it is a barrier, creating a limit on someone’s freedom.

SOME EXPERTS, THEIR “FENCE,” AND A JANITOR

Robert Schuller tells an interesting story that occurred years ago in San Diego. The elevator at the El Cortez Hotel could not handle the number of people who were staying at the hotel. The experts -- engineers and architects -- were called in. They decided to put another elevator in by cutting a hole in each floor and installing the motor for the new elevator in the basement. The plans were drawn up. Everything was in order.

One day the architect and the engineer came into the lobby discussing their plans. A janitor, who was there with his mop, heard them say they were going to chop holes in the floors. The janitor said, “That’s going to make a mess.”

The engineer said, “Of course. But we’ll get help for you, don’t worry.”

The janitor observed, “You’ll have to close the hotel for a while.”

“Well, if we have to close the hotel for a while, we’ll close the hotel. We must have another elevator.”

Holding his mop in his hand, the janitor asked, “Do you know what I would do if I were you?”

The architect arrogantly responded, “What?”

“I’d build the elevator on the outside,” the janitor replied.

The janitor’s unique idea astonished the experts. But the elevator was built on the outside. This was the first time in the history of architecture that an elevator was built on the outside of a building.

HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO OUR LIVES?

The experts didn’t realize it, but they had surrendered leadership of their lives to fences. The fences were not wooden or chain link. Their fences were mental -- thoughts that limited their thinking and their actions. The janitor did not have these boundaries, so he could apply his best thinking with unlimited freedom.

Do fences set unnecessary boundaries for your life? Think about it -- have you discarded ideas and dreams that once created excitement when you thought about them? Have you lowered your goals, so that you aim for and achieve far less than your capabilities? Fences may be negative self-perceptions like, “I don’t have enough education.” Or past discouragement and disappointments may be limiting you.

Note that each fence focuses on a problem, not a solution. And each builds a boundary limiting your freedom and happiness.

Peter Drucker, a management consultant, says the most effective people are not problem-minded; they’re opportunity-minded. They mentally feed opportunities, and starve problems. The janitor did just that -- dissatisfied with the experts’ approach, his mind raced freely, and he created a better solution to the problem.

Who sets the boundaries for your life? If you focus on the world and its problems, your freedom and happiness will be limited. Instead, focus on God, the Creator of unlimited opportunities. If you follow Him, refusing to give in to circumstances and problems, He will set your heart free to enjoy life to its fullest. “I run in the path of your commands, for you have set my heart free.” (Ps 119:32)

No one who was old enough to take it in will ever forget September 11, 2001. We see passenger jets flying out of a clear September morning, the flashes of flame, the destruction, the death, and the valiant acts of heroism. It is well to remember and to mourn the victims this day. But let me raise the question of why we memorialize those who have sacrificed for us. What's our object in doing so?

The answer is gratitude. As we mourn and remember the sacrifices of those who went before us, we ourselves, out of gratitude for what they did, commit ourselves to defend those values for which they died -- principles we hold so dear: freedom and human dignity.

Gratitude: John Calvin said gratitude was at the center of the Christian life, and G. K. Chesterton called it "the mother of all virtues." It was gratitude for living in a free country that caused me to put on the uniform of a United States Marine officer during the Korean War. We do our duty to our country out of gratitude for those who went before us to defend the liberties we hold so precious.

I love the scene at the end of the movie SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. Ryan, who is now seventy years old, returns to Normandy, and he is looking at the grave marker of Captain Miller, the man who died to save him during World War II. Ryan is on his knees. The grave marker is a stark, white cross. He addresses Miller, now long dead: "I've tried every day to live up to what you did for me ... I hope I've lived a life worthy of your sacrifice."

On this anniversary of the attacks, we ought to be looking at the sacrifices people made for us and asking ourselves whether we are living lives worthy of their sacrifices.

In addition to gratitude and duty, we remember because good can come out of those vicious terrorist attacks. It is, of course, a biblical principle that God works through human suffering, tragedies, and defeats -- sometimes to do His greatest work.

These acts of war served as a wake-up call. There was a lot of utopian discussion going on in the nineties about how Western liberal democracy had won the great ideological contest for the twentieth century. We forgot this is a dangerous world and that evil is real. Now we know better, and even the postmodernist has to agree there is evil.

And just as the great World War II generation saved the world from Hitler's evil, so this generation must become great for this moment. It is our calling to be great in defense of liberty and freedom and human rights, to defend good against evil today.

The war on terrorism is, by its nature, slow and treacherous. We must not allow ourselves to become discouraged or fatigued.

On this September 11, after looking back with gratitude, we need to look ahead. Our hope lies in our resolve to do our duty that our gratitude inspires. Our hope lies in the lessons we have learned for the future. And our hope lies in our confidence in a sovereign God -- that in the end, right will prevail, that civilization can be preserved, and that America and her allies, in defense of freedom and in opposition to evil, will triumph.

And just like that scene in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, let us also this day look at the cross as Ryan did. May we live lives worthy of the supreme sacrifice Christ made for us.

FURTHER READING & INFORMATION

BreakPoint's "9/11 Worldview Resource Kit" answers questions many Americans are asking. It includes Timothy George's book IS THE FATHER OF JESUS THE GOD OF MUHAMMAD?, Chuck Colson's WHEN NIGHT FELL ON A DIFFERENT WORLD: HOW NOW SHALL WE LIVE?, and a "BreakPoint Weekend Special" CD including two interviews with Chuck Colson recorded after September 11 and a year later.

"A Fact Sheet on Just War Theory," BREAKPOINT ONLINE, 3 December 2001. http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/Home/A+Fact+Sheet+on+Just+War+Theory.htm

"Making Biblical Sense of This National Tragedy: Learning from the Events of September 11, 2001," BREAKPOINT ONLINE, 2001. http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/Home/Making+Biblical+Sense+of+This+National+Tragedy.htm

"Comforting Children in a Time of Crisis: A reading list for children in the wake of terror," BREAKPOINT ONLINE, 2001. http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/Home/Comforting+Children+in+a+Time+of+Crisis.htm

BreakPoint commentary no. 020703, "Exhausted and Elated: A Just War Justly Fought." http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/FeaturesGroup/BreakPointCommentaries/Exhausted+and+Elated.htm

BreakPoint commentary no. 020530, "'Love Our Enemies' or 'An Eye for an Eye'?: The Morality of War." http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/FeaturesGroup/BreakPointCommentaries/Love+Our+Enemies+or+An+Eye+for+an+Eye.htm

BreakPoint commentary no. 020327, "Hating War while Loving the Warrior: A New Kind of War Film." http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/FeaturesGroup/BreakPointCommentaries/Hating+War+While+Loving+The+Warrior.htm

Peggy Noonan, "A Heart, a Cross, a Flag: What Arose from the Ashes," WALL STREET JOURNAL, 6 September 2002. [see HolwickID #18012]

Adam Keiper, "Commemorating Attacks: Pearl Harbor and Now," NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE, 6 September 2002. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-keiper090602.asp

Peter L. Bergen, "Portrait of the Enemy," BOOK WORLD, WASHINGTON POST, 8 September 2002, BW03. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43692-2002Sep5.html

Amitai Etzioni, "American Society in the Age of Terrorism," The Communitarian Network, September 2002. http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_AmericanSociety.html

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

The Revolutionary War, like all war, was brutal, gruesome, and had more than its share of tragedy. But with an important difference: We fought not for a king, but for an ideal.

In one of the poignant early moments of the film THE PATRIOT, before joining the war, the main character Benjamin Martin asks, "Why trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away?"

It's a good question -- and a question John Adams anticipated when commenting on our newly adopted constitution. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

The American fight for freedom was rooted in the belief that political liberty frees us to act virtuously. And virtuous, self-regulated men are not tyrants. And the vision of our Founders has been borne out -- the entire world is witness to what a nation of free men of moral and religious virtue can do.

Fifty-six courageous men signed their names to the Declaration of Independence. That document ends with these words: "...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." But their patriotism came at a great cost.

Of those 56 signers, five were captured, tortured, and killed. Twelve saw their homes burned. Nine died in the war. Two lost their sons. Another saw his sons captured.

One of the signers, Benjamin Rush, wrote that patriotism "is both a moral and religious duty. It comprehends not only the love of our neighbors but of millions of our fellow creatures, not only of the present but of future generations."

If we were patriotic simply because we were born here, that would be ignoble. But American patriotism is rooted in something else: the transcendent ideals of law and liberty.

[The last verse is the most familiar — the entire poem is reproduced here for completeness; this was written after Lovelace was imprisoned for his Royalist support. The theme is that love gives freedom irrespective of one's actual circumstances.]

When Love with unconfinèd wings

Hovers within my gates,

And my divine Althea brings

To whisper at the grate;

When I lie tangled in her hair

And fettered to her eye,

The birds that wanton in the air

Know no such liberty.

When flowing cups run swiftly round

With no allaying Thames

Our careless heads with roses bound,

Our hearts with loyal flames;

When thirsty grief in wine we steep,

When healths and draughts go free —

Fishes that tipple in the deep

Know no such liberty.

When, like committed linnets, I

With shriller throat shall sing

The sweetness, mercy, majesty,

And glories of my King;

When I shall voice aloud how good

He is, how great should be,

Enlargèd winds, that curl the flood,

Know such liberty.

Stone walls do not a prison make,

Nor iron bars a cage;

Minds innocent and quiet take

That for a hermitage;

If I have freedom in my love

And in my soul am free,

Angels alone, that soar above,

Enjoy such liberty.

*

Years ago, I visited with Malcolm Muggeridge, the great curmudgeonly journalist and convert to Christianity. He was dubbed "Saint Mugg" by the WASHINGTON POST.

During tea, I remarked on one of our many cultural travesties of the day. I don't remember the subject, but I was outraged.

Muggeridge leaned back in his chair and started laughing uproariously. "Oh, Chuck! Don't you get all heated up over these kinds of things. This is simply human folly. What we're witnessing is human beings going through all the foolish and stupid things they do. In the end, God will have to work it all out. At my age" -- Muggeridge was then seventy-three -- "it just all looks so ludicrous, I laugh at it."

I thought perhaps Muggeridge was getting a bit senile, but now that I am approaching that age myself, I appreciate what he said. Some of what goes on is so bad that you'll end up ranting and raving like a madman unless you laugh. It's nothing more than the idiocies of human beings. How utterly preposterous we are!

I thought of Muggeridge when I read a recent article by Frank Rich in the NEW YORK TIMES titled, "Religion for Dummies." Yes, you're getting the point about what it's about. In the article, he took the Catholic church to task for its handling of the pedophilia cases and then gratuitously brought in a few others for condemnation.

He cited Tom DeLay, the House majority whip, who had the audacity to say, to a church audience, no less, "Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world" -- a statement, by the way, right out of my book HOW NOW SHALL WE LIVE?

I had to laugh. What does belief in a religion mean if not a conviction that it provides the ultimate answer for how we're to respond to the realities of life? We all -- including Mr. Rich -- choose a worldview by which we order our lives. And we all believe it's the best response to reality, or we wouldn't have chosen it. Mr. DeLay's statement is no more scandalous than saying, "I get up in the morning and think I'm a human." It's stating the obvious.

I suspect Mr. Rich won't see the humor in this, but it's really comical.

Rich goes on to bash John Ashcroft, the attorney general and target of choice these days for angry liberal columnists. Ashcroft had the audacity to say, "We are a nation called to defend freedom -- freedom that has not been granted by any government or document, but is our endowment from God." Rich writes that "Ashcroft has therefore dispensed with the constitution, which defines our freedoms."

Really? No, Mr. Rich. The Declaration of Independence says that all are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights including liberty. That was the point of the American Revolution. We fought believing that rights come from God, not from King George.

And wasn't it Thomas Jefferson -- not John Ashcroft -- who said that we abide by the laws of nature and nature's God?

Mr. Rich insists that John Ashcroft is "pumping up the volume of his preening sanctimony." Can it be that Mr. Rich really doesn't know American history? He needs to go back to the books.

Rich's column is a farce, and Malcolm Muggeridge had it right. The world is a foolish place filled with foolish people making foolish statements. The best thing you can do sometimes is to laugh.

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

For further information:

Russell Kirk, "Malcolm Muggeridge's Scourging of Liberalism," Heritage Foundation Lecture no. 229, 21 September 1989.

Frances Stead Sellers, "A Satirist in Search of Salvation," THE WASHINGTON POST, 3 March 1996.

Frank Rich, "Religion for Dummies," THE NEW YORK TIMES, 27 April 2002. (Free registration required.)

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. 'BreakPoint with Chuck Colson' is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

[A critical view of the Pledge of Allegiance.]

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America;

and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God,

with liberty and justice for all.

How did this Pledge of Allegiance to a flag replace the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights in the affections of many Americans? Among the nations in the world, only the U.S.A. and the Philippines, imitating the U.S.A., have a pledge to their flag. That begs the question: Who institutionalized the Pledge as the cornerstone of American patriotic programs and indoctrination in the public and parochial schools?

In 1892, a socialist named Francis Bellamy created the Pledge of Allegiance for Youth’s Companion, a national family magazine for youth published in Boston. The magazine had the largest national circulation of its day with a circulation around 500 thousand. Two liberal businessmen, Daniel Ford and James Upham, his nephew, owned Youth's Companion.

Before the turn of the last century the American Flag was rarely seen in the classroom or in front of the school. Upham changed that. In 1888, the magazine began a campaign to sell American flags to the public schools. By 1892, his magazine had sold American flags to about 26 thousand schools(1). The market for American Flags existed because state’s flags held the staff of honor, not the military flag of the United States that currently hangs in classrooms and courtrooms across America. [Holwick: I don't think the Star Spangled banner can be construed as a military flag. Some nations have a military version of their flag but America has a single version.]

In 1891, Upham had the idea of using the celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus' discovery of America to promote the use of the flag in the public schools. The same year, the magazine hired Daniel Ford's radical young friend, Baptist minister, Nationalist, and Christian Socialist leader, Francis Bellamy, to help Upham in his public relations work. Bellamy was the first cousin of the famous American socialist, Edward Bellamy. Edward Bellamy's futuristic novel, Looking Backward, published in 1888, described a utopian Boston in the year 2000. The book spawned an elitist socialist movement in Boston known as "Nationalism," whose members wanted the federal government to nationalize most of the American economy. Francis Bellamy was a member of this movement and a vice president of its auxiliary group, the Society of Christian Socialists(2). He was a Baptist minister and he lectured and preached on the virtues of socialism and the evils of capitalism. He gave a speech on "Jesus the Socialist" and a series of sermons on "The Socialism of the Primitive Church." In 1891, he was forced to resign from his Boston church, the Bethany Baptist church, because of his socialist activities. He then joined the staff of the Youth’s Companion(3).

By February 1892, Francis Bellamy and Upham had lined up the National Education Association to support the Youth’s Companion as a sponsor of the national public schools' observance of Columbus Day along with the use of the American flag. By June 29, Bellamy and Upham had arranged for Congress and President Benjamin Harrison to announce a national proclamation making the public school ceremony the center of the national Columbus Day celebrations for 1892(4).

Bellamy, under the supervision of Upham, wrote the program for this celebration, including its flag salute, the Pledge of Allegiance. His version was,

"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it

stands -- one nation indivisible -- with liberty and justice for

all."

This program and its pledge appeared in the September 8 issue of Youth’s Companion(5). He considered putting the words "fraternity" and "equality" in the Pledge but decided they were too radical and controversial for public schools(6).

The original Pledge was recited while giving a stiff, uplifted right hand salute, criticized and discontinued during WWII. The words "my flag" were changed to "the flag of the United States of America" because it was feared that the children of immigrants might confuse "my flag" for the flag of their homeland. The phrase "Under God," was added by Congress and President Eisenhower in 1954 at the urging of the Knights of Columbus(7).

The American Legion's constitution includes the following goal: "To foster and perpetuate a one hundred percent Americanism." One of its major standing committees was the "Americanism Commission" and its subsidiary, the "Counter Subversive Activities Committee." To the fear of immigrants, it added the fear of communism(8).

Over the years the Legion has worked closely with the NEA and with the U.S. Office of Education. The Legion insisted on "one hundred percent" Americanism in public school courses in American history, civics, Geography and English. The Pledge was a part of this Americanism campaign(9) and, in 1950, the Legion adopted the Pledge as an official part of its own ritual(10).

In 1922, the Ku Klux Klan, which also had adopted the "one hundred percent Americanism" theme along with the flag ceremonies and the Pledge, became a political power in the state of Oregon and arranged for legislation to be passed requiring all Catholic children to attend public schools. The U.S. Supreme Court later overturned this legislation(11). Proving, once again, that the Constitution is the underlying strength of our political and judicial system.

Perhaps a team of social scientists and historians could explain why over the last century the Pledge of Allegiance has become a major centerpiece in American patriotism programs. A pledge or loyalty oath for children was not built around the Declaration of Independence -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...." Or the Gettysburg address -- "a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal..."

Apparently, over the last century, Americans have been uncomfortable with the word "equality" as a patriotic theme. In 1892 the nation began its second century with the Pledge of Allegiance. Perhaps, and this is meant with no disrespect to the brave men and women who have given their lives for all the flag represents, the time has come to see that this allegiance should be to the U.S. Constitution and not to a piece of cloth.

_________________

1. Louise Harris, THE FLAG OVER THE SCHOOLHOUSE, C. A. Stephens Collection, Brown University, Providence, R.I., 1971, p. 69.

2. Margarette S. Miller, TWENTY-THREE WORDS, Printcraft Press, Portsmouth, VA, 1976, pp 63-65.

3. Ibid, pp. 55-65.

4. Ibid, pp. 105-111.

5. Ibid, p. 123.

6. Ibid, p. 122.

7. Christopher J. Kaufmann, KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, Harper & Row, NY, 1982, pp. 385-386.

8. Raymond Moley, THE AMERICAN LEGION STORY, Duell, Sloan, and Pearce, NY, 1966, p. 7.

9. Ibid, p. 371.

10. Miller, p. 344.

11. NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, Washington, D.C., Catholic University of America, 1967, Vol. 10, p. 738-740.

*

NICKTOWN, Pa. (AP) - Roads winding around rolling hills cut picturesque paths through this western Pennsylvania hamlet.

But those curves make it difficult for drivers to spot slow-moving Amish buggies _ especially at night, when the all-black, horse-drawn vehicles can fade into the darkness.

"I have had some close calls, and it's really scary," said resident Bonnie DeFazio. "At night, you can see something there, but you can't always tell what it is."

There have been no deaths or serious injuries, but the threat has sparked a showdown with the small, conservative Swartzentruber Amish community.

Its members refuse to use the standard warning symbol of a bright orange triangle that state law requires on slow-moving vehicles, saying the colorful reflectors violate their belief in plain personal belongings. Instead, they outline the back edges of their buggies with gray reflective tape.

Although most other Amish groups in Pennsylvania use the orange reflectors, the Swartzentrubers have received the backing of the American Civil Liberties Union. And state Sen. John D. Wozniak, who represents the area including Nicktown, said last week that he would introduce a bill that would allow the Swartzentrubers to use their reflective tape.

In December, Jonas Swartzentruber spent three days in jail after being cited for not having a triangle on his buggy. Since then, 10 other members of the sect have been cited, and all say they would rather go to jail than pay the $100 fine or perform community service.

"Doing community service would probably require us to ride in a truck or work with electrical tools," said Levi Zook, one of those who have been cited. "We don't want to go to jail, but that is what we will do."

Pennsylvania law requires all slow-moving vehicles, including Amish buggies and farm equipment, to display the familiar triangle reflectors as a warning to drivers coming from behind.

"Slow-moving vehicles are at risk when they travel on the roads in Pennsylvania," said Jack Lewis, a State Police spokesman. "The reflective emblem law is designed to promote safety. We are enforcing that law."

Lewis said there have been a few crashes involving Swartzentruber Amish buggies, and State Police began enforcing the reflector law after other residents complained.

The Swartzentrubers are among several conservative Amish orders in Pennsylvania and elsewhere that object to the reflectors _ both because of the bright colors and the idea that they should wear a symbol for their protection.

"They've cited to me scriptural passages about the perils of putting your faith in a man-made symbol instead of putting your faith in God," said Donna Doblick, an attorney with a Pittsburgh law firm that is representing the Swartzentrubers. "You have to remember these people read the Bible very literally and find that aspect _ the symbol, the triangle _ very problematic."

Swartzentrubers came to western Pennsylvania in 1997 from eastern Ohio. There are now about a dozen families in the area some 65 miles east of Pittsburgh.

Doblick said four states - including Ohio - permit reflective tape outlining the back of a buggy as a substitute for the orange triangle. Doblick's firm and the ACLU are working with Wozniak to draw up similar legislation for Pennsylvania.

One safety researcher argues against an exemption.

"That triangle is there for communicating, 'Hey _ I'm moving slowly,"' said Tom Schnell, director of the Operator Performance Laboratory at the University of Iowa. "When you see not just a triangle, but an orange triangle, you know there's a slow-moving vehicle ahead."

But in a similar case in Wisconsin, state Supreme Court justices in 1996 upheld the right of conservative Amish to use white reflective tape instead of the required orange triangle. Courts in Minnesota and Michigan also have sided with the Amish.

"If we can find something that's equally effective, why not let them use it?" Wozniak said.

Marri, a young woman in Kabul, Afghanistan, smuggled this poignant letter out to London Sunday Telegraph correspondent Christina Lamb after the U.S. and British air strikes began last week.

Dear Christina,

This week I listen to the bombs falling on the airport and military command just a few miles away and though we are scared by the bangs which shake our flat, we believe they will not hurt us and we come out and watch the flashes in the sky and we pray this will be an end to our suffering.

You asked me to write a letter about our life under the Taliban regime and I hope this will help you outside to understand the feelings of an educated Afghan female who must now live under a burqa.

Although Marri is not my real name please use this as what we are doing is dangerous. I'm 30 years old and live in a three-room flat with my family on the outskirts of Kabul. I graduated from high school and speak Dari, Pushtu and English as my father was a diplomat and my mother an English teacher. My mother went to university in India.

I know from our friend that you have a kind husband and a beautiful son and you travel the world reporting and meeting people. I dream of a life like that. It's funny we live under the same small sky yet it seems we live 500 years apart.

You see us now in our burqas, like strange insects, scurrying in the dust our heads down, but it wasn't always this way. I do not remember much before the Russian invasion as I was still young but even when the Russians came we still went to school. Women worked as professors and doctors and in government. We went for picnics and parties, wore jeans and short skirts, and I thought I would go to university like my mother and work for my living.

I know in the villages many schools had been destroyed in the war but here in Kabul we were lucky. Only when the Taliban came were all the girls' schools and university closed.

Hidden in our house, behind all the burqas and shalwar kamiz, is a red silk party dress, my mother's, from the time when the king was in power and my father was in the foreign ministry. Sometimes I hold it up against me and imagine dancing but it is a lost world. Now we must wear clothes that make us invisible and cannot even wear high heels. Several of my friends have been beaten because the Taliban could hear their shoes clicking on the pavement.

You might think we women are doing nothing but my friends and I struggle for the rights of Afghan women, working secretly here for the Afghan Women's League, trying to educate our women and young girls. There is not much we can do as we are not allowed out, but some of our members make nan bread and distribute it.

We have small rebellions. Maybe you do not know but we are forbidden to wear make-up under the burqas but I have a red lipstick.

I have two brothers and two sisters, and right now my elder brothers work and we women must stay home all day. We study or we try to teach our neighbors some English but it is hard as we fear someone might report us and we cannot get English books. At night there is no light.

Life here is very miserable. We have no rights at all and we have asked many times other countries of the world for help but they have been silent.

Now it is good that after all this time the world has turned its face toward Afghanistan. Right now I want to laugh at the world a lot because in other countries of the civilized and progressive world no one knew about our problems before those attacks on America and now we are all the time on BBC.

You cannot imagine how an educated Afghan girl lives or how even when we go out for something in the market, the Taliban, in particular Pakistani Taliban, tease us a lot. They insult us and say: "You Kabuli girls, still coming out in the streets, shame on you," and worse. Now think, Afghanistan is my motherland and a Pakistani Talib treats me like that.

You might wonder why I am not married. It's hard to find love in this situation, we are so tired. I look in the mirror and I see a face that does not remember a time before war, and I would not want to bring a child into this city of fear.

We do not have schools, the doors of education are closed on all, especially us. We cannot paint or listen to music. The Taliban ran their tanks over all the televisions.

We asked the world, are we not human beings? Do we not deserve to live in peace? Can we not have our rights as women in other countries?

Many people have left but my family is staying, praying for change. The market is still working - we Kabulis are tough - and there is food in the market but we have stocked up in case it runs out. Already there is no oil.

The Taliban say this is a war on Afghanistan. Some of our friends say we must now support the Taliban against the outside, but how can we support those who lock us away? We listen secretly to the BBC and hope that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair mean what they say.

I hope they do not come and bomb then forget us again. Maybe when you watch the bombs on CNN you will think of me and know we are real feeling people here, a girl who likes to wear red lipstick and dreams of dancing, not just the men of beards and guns.

I do not know what you want me to write to you. If I start writing I will fill all the paper and my eyes will fill with tears because in these seven years of Taliban no one has asked us to write about our lives.

In my mind I make a picture of you and your family. I wonder if you drive a car, if you go out with friends to movies and restaurants, and dance at parties. Do you play loud music and swim in lakes? One day I would like to see and I would also like to show you a beautiful place in my country with mountains and streams, but not now while we must be hidden people. Maybe our worlds will always be too far apart.

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20011015-14680088.htm

The Fourth of July is an American holiday that goes uncelebrated in much of the rest of the world. At home, the Stars and Stripes flutter. The pleasing aroma from backyard cookouts pervades the air. And as dusk descends, the skies explode with a crescendo of fireworks celebrating life, liberty, and happiness.

Abroad, America is seen as many things, not all of them complimentary. The US is rich and powerful, and that sometimes engenders envy, derision, and - as we have seen with the onset of terrorism -- hatred.

America is not a perfect society, but it is truly a remarkable one. It is built on a desire for freedom, and a conviction on the part of most Americans that this freedom should not be hugged selfishly to themselves, but is a right to which all mankind is entitled.

It is a belief that has motivated Americans to fight against fascism in World War II, and for presidents like John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan to inveigh against the Berlin Wall and communism's “evil empire.” It is a belief that underpins US attitudes toward the rest of the world even though US diplomacy is sometimes marred by missteps and miscalculations.

The desire for freedom is one of the great, driving historical forces of our times. I have watched it simmer, erupt, and surge in countries from South Africa, to Indonesia, to the Philippines, to Latin America, and to Russia and a host of countries in Eastern Europe. One of the most satisfying experiences in my life was a stint at the Voice of America during the bad old days of the cold war. From behind the Iron Curtain, notes and messages would trickle in, telling of Russians and other East Europeans who listened at some peril to VOA broadcasts, and who pleaded for continued broadcasts to keep the flame of liberty flickering.

People who have never known freedom still yearn for the freedoms that Americans take for granted - freedom to worship in the faith of their choice, to live where they want, to travel where they will, to work at a profession of their choosing in a free-market economy.

The good news is that the overall trend throughout the world is in a positive direction. The bad news is that there are still too many countries where such freedoms do not exist.… In a new book, “The Future of Freedom,” which has attracted attention in the foreign-affairs community, Newsweek International editor Fareed Zakaria reminds us that “spreading democracy is tough.” …

Though critics may harp, America remains for much of the world a beacon of liberty and opportunity. It is to America that every restless and politically dispossessed student in the underdeveloped world wants to flee - not to China, or even emancipated Russia.

America to them stands for freedom. It is that freedom, deeply cherished by Americans, for which they long.

__________

John Hughes, editor and chief operating officer of the Deseret Morning News, is a former editor of the Monitor. Copyright 2003 The Christian Science Monitor

*

We are an affluent and comfortable people. We live in the midst of freedom as championed by those who established this nation and defined by successive generations, not only in terms of the originating vision of freedom, but now an ever-expanding understanding of liberty. We live in a time of prosperity; we live in a time of trouble. It all depends upon how you look at the world around us.

It is good for Christians to take some time to look at the trouble, for all around us are a darkening sky and gathering clouds. As we engage this culture and look at it honestly, we must sense that something has happened -- and is even now happening -- in our culture. These major shifts and changes will change everything we know about ministry in terms of the challenge before us and will draw out the reality of who the church is in the midst of a gathering conflict. Clouds are darkening.

We are no longer seeing the first signs of cultural trouble, but rather the indicators of advanced decay. The reality is that people now do not even know what they have lost, much less that they themselves are lost.

As a nation, we are living in the midst of an intense season of cultural, political, and moral conflict -- that is no longer news. America has been through epic conflicts in the past, including a bloody civil war. Still, we must wonder if the worldview conflicts of our time may represent an even deeper conflict than those experienced in times past. We are living in a time of deep and undeniable trouble.

There is a sense, I think, in this culture that we are waiting for a signal for something to tell us which way we are going to go. Something is happening and about to happen. The landscape is changing, the skies are darkening -- and this is something we know with a spiritual perception, a spiritual sense, a spiritual urgency. Something is happening that we as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ should see and understand. For we cannot say that we were not warned.

The prophet Joel declared: “I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke. The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the Lord has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the Lord calls. (Joel 2:30-32 ESV).

And, from the book of Hebrews: “See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of things that are shaken -- that is, things that have been made -- in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.” (Hebrews 12:25-29 ESV)

These passages describe a reality we might call darkness at noon. In these passages we confront a prophetic vision, a prophetic warning, and a haunting reality. DARKNESS AT NOON -- I borrow this title from Arthur Koestler. In 1941 he saw the Soviet Union in all of its horror and the Third Reich in all of its hateful fury, and he described this horrifying reality as DARKNESS AT NOON. Our times are not the same as Koestler's, nor are the particular challenges we face. Our central concerns and fears are not represented by totalitarian governments or foreign regimes that threaten world domination, but we must see a real and present threat on our horizon. We can hear the prophet Joel -- we can hear him speak of the sun turned to darkness and the moon turned to blood on the great and awful day of the Lord. This is apocalyptic imagery -- we know that. It is speaking of a judgment, of a day of the Lord that was near on Joel's horizon, and yet distant on the horizon of the eschaton, when the Lord Himself shall come to judge the living and the dead.

The imagery of judgment in this passage -- of the sun turned to darkness and the moon to blood -- is a foreboding image that gives us in a graphic picture a sign of the times, and around us we can see a darkening sky that threatens a darkening sun. We can see darkness at noon on the dawn.

A central dimension of this reality is the dawning of a post-Christian age. History has been altered in so many ways in the twists and turns of human experience. But who could have expected that in our times we would see those nations that once were the cradle of Christianity become so secularized that they can only be described as post-Christian in composition, in culture, in theme, and in worldview and understanding? The post-Christian sense, the post-Christian theme, the post-Christian mentality of these cultures is such that we can look to the nations of Western Europe and see what a post-Christian culture begins to look like. We hear the language, we listen to the discourse, we see the laws, we hear the judgments, we watch the culture at work, and we realize that this is what a nation, a people, an ethnos, a generation that once knew Christianity but knows it no more, looks like and sounds like. This is how they live. And it is not just Europe.

Even as demographers, pollsters, and statisticians tell us how many Americans believe in God, and how many claim belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, still we can see the beginnings of a post-Christian mentality here in America. Look at the cultural elites -- the political elites, the legal elites, the judicial, academic, and entertainment elites -- look at them, and you will realize that they are largely post-Christian in their mentality.

The prophet Joel speaks of the “day of the Lord,” when the divine judgment would fall like a terrible and swift sword. In Joel 1, the prophet says, “The word of the Lord that came to Joel, the son of Pethuel: Hear this, you elders; give ear, all inhabitants of the Land! Has such a thing happened in your days, or in the days of your fathers? Tell your children of it, and let your children tell their children, and their children to another generation. What the cutting locust left, the swarming locust has eaten. What the swarming locust left, the hopping locust has eaten, and what the hopping locust left, the destroying locust has eaten.” (Joel 1:1-4 ESV)

This text speaks most directly of a crop, but it also points to a culture. Our culture has been savaged by locusts. What the cutting locust leaves, the swarming locusts eat. What the swarming locusts leave, the hopping locust takes. What the hopping locust leaves, the destroying locust destroys.

We can give evidence of this in individual words, each representing an individual loss. Consider what has happened to truth, to beauty, to dignity, love, and marriage. Consider what is even now happening in our midst. We are witnessing the dawn of a post-Christian age in our own times, in our own nation, in our own world, and among our own people. We can see the ravages that will come as the sacred things are profaned and trampled under foot. We see the evidence of this decadence and downfall in the culture -- in art and music and literature. We are a people whose cultural and moral aspirations are indicated by the Neilson ratings and by the lowest common denominator of the entertainment industry. We are a nation, a people, entertained by a show called “Desperate Housewives,” by reality TV that celebrates the lowest and most base human instincts, and by entertainment that panders and is profane.

Look at what has happened to marriage and family. The idea of romantic love is now commonly reduced to lust. We have largely destroyed the purity of marriage. This central institution of civilization has been decried, denigrated, and even discarded. Marriage is under attack by those who would transform it into something it cannot be and never was, and truthfully never will be.

We see all of this and we wonder how it could have happened. And yet Scripture has told us that sinners love darkness rather than the light. Let me put it this way -- in a truly post-Christian age, the saddest loss of all is a loss of the memory of what was lost. The saddest aspect of our dawning post-Christian age is that there is no longer even a memory of what was discarded and what was denied and rejected. Having lived for so long on the memory of Christian truth, without the substance of Christian truth, the culture now grows hostile to that truth.

Even the memory of what once was is now being lost in our generation. We are living in an age in which all constraints and restraints are to be thrown off -- all in the name of the liberation that does not liberate, but enslaves. We are seeing the coming of a repressive post-Christian age that is packaged as an age of unprecedented liberty. We must name it for what it is -- and be aware of what a challenge this represents for the believing church.

________

This is an edited transcript of an address given to the faculty and students of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

*

In America, it has long been a popular sport to demean and ridicule the faith of religious conservatives. Christians who seek to participate peacefully in the political process are often denigrated as “religious Ayatollahs” who represent a threat to freedom and democracy.

Such aspersions are themselves a form of bigotry and accomplish little, other than to add to the profound polarization that already characterizes American politics. Further, such demagoguery reflects a lack of appreciation for the positive contribution that religious faith has made to the shaping of American law and freedom.

Author John Eidsmoe has rightly noted that at the time of the founding of the American republic, our system of law and justice was forged out of an underlying social consensus that included four elements:

(1) There is a God who transcends human history and to whom human beings are ultimately accountable.

(2) Even though human beings are fallen in their nature, they are special, having been created in the image of God.

(3) Because of their special nature, human beings have been endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights.

(4) Government is instituted among men to secure the inalienable rights conferred upon mankind by the Creator.

The Judeo-Christian worldview which prevailed at the beginning of our republic dramatically impacted the shaping of the American political and legal system. This unique view of the nature of man and the role of government has been responsible, in large measure, for producing the greatest protection and the greatest freedom for individuals that the world has ever known.

It is not difficult to understand why individual liberties flourished within the Judeo-Christian social consensus that existed for so long in American culture. Ideas have consequences, and what we believe determines how we behave. To understand the impact of the Judeo-Christian worldview on American law and freedom, one needs only to ask and answer a few simple questions:

• What measure of protection should the law extend to a creature made in the image of God -- one who has been declared by none other than Almighty God Himself to have worth, value and dignity?

• What right does society, or any individual, have to strip such a creature of inalienable rights conferred upon him by the Creator?

• What limits are placed on the state to prevent it from overbearing the conscientiously held beliefs of one person who stands in conflict with the rest of society?

“Self-evident truths,” “inalienable rights,” “equal protection,” “limited government with delegated powers” -- all these flow naturally from the Judeo-Christian worldview.

Secular cynics counter that we live in a more enlightened age than that of America’s founders. They maintain that we should discard the antiquated notions that inhere in the Judeo-Christian religious traditions. Secularists reject the notion that there is a transcendent God to whom human beings will one day render an account. They maintain that God is merely a creature of our imagination. Human beings were not created, they say. Rather, humans evolved by chance from slime, and they are accountable only to themselves. They are but “beasts,” albeit the best of the beasts. There is no such thing as truth, no right or wrong. There is no authority greater than the state, and it is from the state that human beings are granted their rights. What the state gives, the state can take away.

The secular worldview of those who condemn religious conservatives has also had an impact on the rights and freedoms of our citizens. To assess that impact, one may again ask a few simple questions:

• On what basis does a creature of chance claim to have worth, value and dignity worthy of the protection of the law?

• On what basis can such a creature claim to have a “right” to resist the will of the majority or the weak to resist the will of the strong?

• What claim can such a creature lay to inalienable rights conferred by the Creator, when the very existence of the Creator is denied?

The answers to these questions suggest that when it comes to preserving our legal rights, it is the view of the secularists, not of Christian conservatives, which is to be feared.

Thomas Jefferson rightly declared, “God, who gave us life, gave us liberty.” Then he wisely asked, “Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are a gift of God?”

Competing worldviews naturally come into tension in the political process. Since that process has a dramatic impact on the rights and freedoms we enjoy, we would do well to examine the consequences of the premises advanced by the partisans participating in the political arena. We would also do well to do more thinking and more listening. It is hard to carry on the conversation we call democracy if all we engage in is name-calling.

________

Ken Connor is chairman of the CENTER FOR A JUST SOCIETY based in Washington D.C., online at www.centerforajustsociety.org.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #20874]

The Fourth of July — a day on which we celebrate our liberty — is a good time to ask, what is the state of religious freedom today?

Let's see. In New York last month, the owners of a private skating rink were warned by the state's Division of Human Rights to stop holding a Christian skating event on Sundays. It allegedly discriminated against non-Christians.

In Iowa, as part of his ruling against Prison Fellowship and the InnerChange Freedom Initiative, a federal judged grossly mischaracterized the orthodox beliefs of evangelicals (such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus). He said these beliefs are hostile to “many Christians.” Then he ordered the InnerChange program in Iowa shut down.

And in Boston, Catholic Charities was recently forced out of the adoption business because it would not, for doctrinal reasons, agree to place children with homosexuals.

This hostility towards religious practice would have shocked America's Founders. They understood that freedom is a gift of God, made possible only when societies recognize God's authority.

Two hundred and thirty years ago, our Founders bravely declared their independence in one of the most eloquent documents ever written, the Declaration of Independence. It was a ringing call to freedom — not only for the American colonists, but for people the world over. But what few remember is that our IN-dependence declared that day is predicated on our DE-pendence upon God.

The Declaration's first lines refer to “the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.” The Founders also declared their “firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.” And in the most stirring lines of this document, they wrote, “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.”

But these truths are far from being self-evident to many elites today. For 50 years, they've tried to scrub religion out of public life. Even to speak of God's authority is deemed intolerant.

This is madness. Thomas Jefferson, himself a Deist, understood that political independence could rest only upon human dependence upon a higher authority, whatever one might call that authority — God, or Providence, or the Almighty.

Today we are engaged in a clash of civilizations and a noble mission in Iraq, not to conquer, but to liberate — to give Iraqis what President Bush calls “God's gift of human freedom.” But we cannot export something we don't have. If we don't see freedom as God's gift, we will have great difficulty establishing free societies around the world — or, for that matter, hanging onto our own freedom. As Rodney Stark writes in his brilliant book, THE VICTORY OF REASON, our ideas about democracy and equality stem from the Christian understanding of man created in God's image.

And that's why freedom has flourished only in those societies where citizens have embraced Judeo-Christian understandings of human dignity and God-given rights.

We do have much to celebrate and be grateful for this Fourth of July. But we must also be vigilant and defend against attacks on religious freedom that could undermine the very liberty we celebrate.

________

Copyright (c) 2006 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Gypsy was a furry, wheat-colored collie, who lived and played on a ranch – several hundred acres of hills and woods, full of good things like rabbit trails and streams. She loved it there. At the ranch house she was given a comfortable bed and good meals. Her Master, who owned the ranch, made no unreasonable demands on her. She knew that her job was to love her Master and to be faithful to him and to obey other commands – to follow, to come, to lie down. And she also knew that she wasn’t supposed to chase the chickens and the rabbits. Actually these were easy for Gypsy, because it was in her nature to obey and to love her master.

But one day when Gypsy was prowling on a hill far away past the spring house and pasture, two things happened at once: the Master called her and a rabbit dashed across the hill. Gypsy turned and raced towards the Master, as she had always done. Then she stopped. It entered her mind that she didn’t have to obey. Perhaps the Master didn’t understand about that rabbit. Anyway, these were her hills. The rabbit was hers, too. Very likely it was all lies – that story of everything, including herself, belonging to the Master. How did she know that the food in her dish came from him? Probably there was some natural explanation. She was a free dog and that was the end of it. These thoughts went through her mind swiftly while she stood irresolute. Again came the Master’s command; the rabbit crossed the hilltop. Gypsy whirled and raced after the rabbit. She had made a choice. She was free to choose.

Hours later she came home. She saw the Master waiting for her, but she did not rush gladly to him, leaping and frisking as she had always done. Something new came into her demeanor: guilt. She crept up to him like a snake on her belly. Undoubtedly she was penitent at the moment. But she had a new knowledge – the knowledge of the possibility of sin – and it was a thrill in her heart and a salt taste in her mouth. Nevertheless she was very obedient the next day and the day after that. Eventually, though, there was another rabbit, and she didn’t even hesitate.

The Master still loved her, but he trusted her no longer. He put Gypsy in a pen and took her for walks with a rope around her neck. All her real freedom was gone. But the Master gave her from time to time, new chances to obey of her own free will. Had she chosen to obey, she would have once again had perfect freedom to roam her hundreds of acres. But she did not. She always chose, if she were out of reach, to run away. The Master, knowing that hunger would eventually bring her back, let her run. He could have stopped her. A rifle shot would have ended her rebellion once and for all. But she was allowed to live. Perhaps she would someday choose the way of obedience and true freedom.

One day, during a journey by car, Gypsy and her young daughter Flurry were taken to the edge of the woods. Always before, Gypsy had limited her disobedience to the ranch. But now, coming back to the car, she suddenly felt the old thrill. She turned and ran away. The Master called with a note of sharp urgency. Flurry, in her innocence, came at once. But Gypsy, her ears dulled to the voice of the Master, continued her rush into the dark forest. After hours of searching and calling, the Master sadly abandoned the lost dog and with Flurry beside him, went home.

Flurry continued to live in freedom, always being obedient to the Master who loved her and took good care of her. She was happy to be in his service and she loved the look on his face when she did something that pleased him. She obeyed gladly of her own free choice.

But lost Gypsy, as long as she still lived, wandered the woods and roads as an outcast. She had lost her way home. She became dirty and matted with foxtails and thorns. Stones were often thrown at her and she was always hungry. She had more puppies who, like her, were lost and inclined to disobedience – as were their puppies for generations to come. The kind and benevolent hand of the Master was unknown to them, except as a tale.

But this is the way Gypsy chose on the Day of the Rabbit, and continued to choose, until finally there was no more choosing left to do.

Where to take it from here…

God created Adam and Eve with complete freedom – freedom not only to enjoy all that God had given them, but freedom to choose to obey or to disobey. We all know how they chose.

Adam and Eve, filled with guilt over their disobedience, covered themselves and hid from God. Their innocence was gone, and they could no longer be trusted. God had to place them and their offspring under tighter restrictions called the Law. But still they disobeyed, and all of their offspring – that’s us – have inherited their tendency to disobey. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

That’s why Jesus came. If the Master in this story could have actually become a dog and chased Gypsy through the woods to bring her back, that would approximate what God did when he sent Jesus.

God continues to call us back, and we still have the freedom to choose the way of obedience over the way of sin and death. The Bible says, “Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15). We can use our free will to choose the way of obedience. And when we do, God gives us even more freedom to enjoy life to its fullest. Jesus said, “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10). The way of sin and disobedience robs you of your freedom. Don’t be a slave to sin. Choose Jesus Christ and you will have more freedom than you ever knew was possible.

Fortunately, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Pledge of Allegiance in 2010, so kids will go on reciting it. But how many know what it really means — especially “one nation under God”?

For most people, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is a heart-warming patriotic expression. However, in some public school classrooms, what has been a “given” is now “questionable.” In some people’s view, reciting the Pledge may still be legal, but it is no longer appropriate.

However, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “can the liberties of a nation be thought securec when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that they are gifts of God?”

He reflected this idea in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote

“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...”

Eric Buehrer, founder and president of Gateways to Better Education, points out that the idea of our freedom coming from God at the time of creation is central to the American experience. And, as Buehrer writes, “rooted in Christian history, the idea of being under God is reflected in important developments in every century of American history.”

In the 1800s Lincoln recognized our liberties coming from God when he delivered his Gettysburg Address. He said “Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

And, in the latter part of the 20th Century, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. appealed to the same principle of divinely bestowed rights for all people as the underpinnings for the Civil Rights movement. From a Birmingham jail, he referred to the “transcendent Law of God, governing us all.” And then he said famously, “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.’”

Each time we recite the Pledge of Allegiance, we are reminding ourselves of what Jefferson called the “only firm basis” for liberty — a conviction that these rights come from God, not the government.

________

Copyright (c) 2010 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Eight hundred years ago, a document was signed that guaranteed the freedoms we still enjoy today. And I’ll tell you about the crucial role the Church played in its creation.

June 15th marks the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta — a document that has been called “the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.”

As you might expect, Great Britain is pulling out all the stops to celebrate the anniversary. And as you might also expect, the celebrations are omitting an important detail: the role of Christianity in “the foundation of freedom.”

The Magna Carta, Latin for “Great Charter,” was a product of one of the most turbulent periods in English history. Forty-five years earlier, King Henry II was implicated in the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket. And now, in 1215, rebellious barons were objecting to what they saw as King John’s infringement on their traditional rights, including unlawful imprisonment and excessive taxation.

With the disagreement threatening to turn into a civil war, the Archbishop of Canterbury, working as an intermediary between the King and the barons, helped to draft a proposed charter that would settle the dispute.

The charter was not limited to the barons’ concerns. As historian David Carpenter has written, what made the Magna Carta beloved by the likes of our Founding Fathers and Nelson Mandela was that the charter “asserted a fundamental principle — the rule of law. The king was beneath the law, the law the charter itself was making. He could no longer treat his subjects in an arbitrary fashion.”

As Carpenter says, “in 1215 itself both John and his enemies would have been astonished had they known that the Charter would live on and be celebrated 800 years hence.” In 1216, they fought the war the charter was intended to avoid. But John’s successors reaffirmed their commitment to the Magna Carta, and in 1289 made it part of the laws of England.

Since then, virtually every opponent of despotism and tyranny in the English-speaking world has drawn inspiration from the Magna Carta, which declared, “To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay, right or justice.” When the Founding Fathers complained about “taxation without representation,” they were appealing to the Magna Carta.

Given the centrality of this document to our way of life, it behooves us to tell its story accurately and completely. Unfortunately, that is not happening. That’s why British churches have started a major campaign that focuses on the Christian influence on the charter.

The Church of England’s Synod of Bishops has stated that “It is important that the Church’s crucial role in Magna Carta and its rights is not air-brushed out in 2015 — as was the role of Christians in the anti-slave trade celebrations.”

As the Bishops remind us, “The Church in England was central to the development of legal and human rights centuries before the French Revolution ... the first parties to the charter were the bishops — led by Stephen Langton of Canterbury, who was a major drafter and mediator between the king and the barons; and its first and last clauses state that ‘the Church in England shall be free.’”

In other words, no human rights without religious freedom.

Perhaps the secular air-brushing isn’t that hard to understand, after all. The very words of the Magna Carta are a stumbling block for a culture that is eager to cast off its Christian heritage.

________

Copyright (c) 2015 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

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

"The Magna Carta & the rise of religious liberty," by Stephen Douglas Wilson, Baptist Press, June 15, 2015.

Eight hundred years ago on June 15, 1215, a group of English nobles at Runnymede forced a reluctant King John to endorse a document of grievances against royal authority.

Written by Stephen, the archbishop of Canterbury, the Magna Carta was designed to be a compromise between rebellious nobles and the king. The work contained allusions to protecting religious liberty that, remarkably, would be embraced by England, the United States and much of the West today in subsequent centuries.

Before discussing how the Magna Carta -- “The Great Charter,” now at its 800th anniversary -- started the long journey of governments recognizing the principle of religious freedom, some clarifications are in order.

The Magna Carta itself was not written specifically to address religious freedom and, in fact, the document functioned primarily as a set of grievances on the part of some rebelling nobles against King John and a set of actions and compromises to address those grievances.

Revised time and time again in the centuries that followed, new information impacted the original issues in 1215. Later English rulers signaled their support or opposition to these various revisions. And finally, more significant language in other important documents of later ages enshrined religious liberty on both sides of the Atlantic.

With those clarifications, and with aspects of religious freedom quite different in the 21st century than in 1215, various provisions of the Magna Carta nevertheless shaped the unfolding concept of religious liberty. For instance, Article One stated, “First that we have granted to God, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired.”

While this provision seems incredible for its time and comports well with contemporary Western and Christian thinking, it should be noted that Article One was written in the context of a three-way fight for English church dominance between the papacy, the king and some members of the English nobility. The provision itself seems directed more against royal interference with the church and the fact that many English churchmen had joined in the rebellion against King John.

Furthermore, while declaring that the English church “shall be free,” it was understood in 1215 (300 years before the Reformation) that the church functioned as part of the universal church dominated by the papacy and that it possessed the beliefs and practices set forth by the papacy. As an aside, the pope himself later annulled the document. Although unstated, perhaps he became concerned with how the document might restrict papal influence within the British Isles in the future. Nevertheless, as a principle, Article One established a bold precedent for future religious freedom.

Among other provisions in the document, Article 22 restricted fines on the private property owned by church clerks to only the value of the particular property without reference to the total value of an ecclesiastical holding in the kingdom (that is, the church as a whole would not be assessed for its holdings within the kingdom -- a practice that the English monarchy may have sought to impose in view of its funding shortfall at the time).

Article 27 empowered the church to supervise the liquidation of the property of free men who left no will. This provision probably preserved a practice already in place, but with this provision, the framers formally ensured that that the church, rather than the state, be involved in these personal but important post-mortem decisions.

Article 62 issued pardons for all (including individual clergymen) involved in the dispute between the crown and clergymen who had joined the rebellion against the king. This continued a pattern within the document of also protecting the rights of clergymen apart from the protections on the church itself -- an important aspect of religious liberty.

Finally, Article 63 again confirmed the freedom of the English church with similar language as found in Article One.

Other articles that seemingly expanded the privileges of the nobles apparently referenced the clergy as well. Some of these guarantees included provisions for trials in local courts, protections against unlawful seizures of goods or persons, and respect for property rights. The framers of the document noted that all these customs and liberties applied to “all men of our kingdom, whether clergy or laymen.”

For the next few hundred years, various English political figures invoked the Magna Carta in defense of both political and religious liberty rights. Furthermore, the British and American political bodies, building on the lofty but hazy principles of the Magna Carta, eventually added more substantial protections to religious liberty. The British Act of Toleration of 1689 recognized the rights of all Protestants, including Baptists, to practice their faith without interference. In 1791 and 1829, the British Parliament legalized the status of Catholics by the Roman Catholic Relief Acts.

In the United States, the Constitution of 1787 and the Bill of Rights of 1791 gave specific protections to religious liberty that included the abolition of religious tests for public office and specific guarantees for citizens to practice their faith. Other Western nations, as well as many non-Western nations, offered similar protections in the years after the 1790s.

The struggle for religious liberty has been in progress for 800 years. At a time of escalating religious liberty issues, what started on the fields of Runnymede in 1215 remains relevant to the present day.

________

Stephen Douglas Wilson is an adjunct professor at West Kentucky Community and Technical College and a former member of the SBC Executive Committee.

[The last verse is the most familiar — the entire poem is reproduced here for completeness; this was written after Lovelace was imprisoned for his Royalist support. The theme is that love gives freedom irrespective of one's actual circumstances.]

When Love with unconfinèd wings

Hovers within my gates,

And my divine Althea brings

To whisper at the grate;

When I lie tangled in her hair

And fettered to her eye,

The birds that wanton in the air

Know no such liberty.

When flowing cups run swiftly round

With no allaying Thames

Our careless heads with roses bound,

Our hearts with loyal flames;

When thirsty grief in wine we steep,

When healths and draughts go free —

Fishes that tipple in the deep

Know no such liberty.

When, like committed linnets, I

With shriller throat shall sing

The sweetness, mercy, majesty,

And glories of my King;

When I shall voice aloud how good

He is, how great should be,

Enlargèd winds, that curl the flood,

Know such liberty.

Stone walls do not a prison make,

Nor iron bars a cage;

Minds innocent and quiet take

That for a hermitage;

If I have freedom in my love

And in my soul am free,

Angels alone, that soar above,

Enjoy such liberty.

*