.

A Sermon Preached on the Tenth Anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks

.

by Frank Smith, Ph.D., D.D.

.

Has it really been ten years?  Who of us who witnessed the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, can forget the events of that day?  Just like December 7, 1941, it is a date that will live in infamy; just like the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the assassination of JFK, people will always remember where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news.

The events of a decade ago have continued to impact us as a nation and a society in numerous ways, and continue to shape even our everyday lives.  However, the broader issue is whether or not we have learned any lessons; or if, perhaps, we have, after receiving a wake-up call, hit the snooze button and gone back to sleep, spiritually speaking.

The sermon today is essentially the same one I preached on September 16, 2001, in the church I was pastoring at the time in Coeburn, Virginia.  In recounting the events of 9/11, I used the rhetorical question, almost as a refrain, “Where was God last Tuesday?”—a rhetorical device I will be using again today.

I began that sermon this way:

It’s been only five days—five long and agonizing and tiring and confusing days—since our world was turned upside down.  In the space of about a half hour, we saw both of the twin towers of the World Trade Center—magnificent skyscrapers reaching a quarter of a mile into the air—crumble into dust.  We witnessed an attack on this nation’s symbol and headquarters of military might, the Pentagon.  We came to understand something of the terror created in the hearts of countless people.  We experienced a sense of horror at the thought of the mass murders which had been committed.  We could imagine the smell of burning rubble, and maybe even the stench which would arise from the place of carnage.

It is at times such as these that many people believe that God has somehow failed.  Either He was impotent to stop the actions of the terrorists; or, perhaps He was caught napping.  Perhaps He was asleep, and was therefore unable to prevent the tragedies because He just didn’t know in time.  Or, perhaps He’s not really the morally perfect Being in whom we’ve been led to believe.

Let me assure you that God is absolute perfection.  Let me also assure you that He is also a God of love and compassion.  We know that Jesus, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, wept.  We know that God counts every hair of our head, and that not even a sparrow falls to the ground without our heavenly Father knowing about it.  He writes down every tear of His people, and keeps them in a bottle.

I know that some of you may be afraid, and are wondering what is going to happen next.  Please be assured that if you are a child of God, He will keep you in His care, and nothing can happen to you apart from the will of a kind heavenly Father.

But, we may still wonder: Where was God last Tuesday?  My friends, He was where He has always been—sitting on His throne, ruling the universe in perfect holiness, working all things together for His glory and the good of His Church.

Now, ten years later, I declare to you that that basic message has not changed.  As we affirmed this morning in the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism Q/A 7, “The decrees of God are, his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.”

There are numerous Scripture texts which teach us of this truth of God, which tell us of His sovereignty (His rule over all), of His omniscience (His knowing all things), of His omnipotence (His being all powerful), of His omnipresence (His being everywhere present).  The text upon which I would like to focus this morning is from Isaiah 45.

As we approach this passage, let us first appreciate its context.  The prophecy of Isaiah is divided into two major sections.  Chapters 1-39 deal with the apostasy, or the falling away, of Israel, the people of God.  Chapters 40-66 emphasize God’s rule over the nations, and both their judgment and their eventual conversion to the Lord.

It is in this second of two major sections that the prophet, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, asserts the sovereign rule of Jehovah, or Yahweh, with respect to the raising up of a powerful ruler by the name of Cyrus.  Cyrus would not be born for quite some time, yet the prophet was able to predict that that would be the name of the Lord’s “servant” who would be raised up for the good of the captive people of God.  This pagan king would provide for the re-building of the ruined city of Jerusalem.

Think with me of how difficult a time through which the people of God would go: the total destruction of the city of God, including its beautiful temple; and captivity in a foreign land.  It was a horrible experience that they would have to endure.  And yet, the prophet says that the Lord would go with them in their trials.  The prophet proclaims, “‘Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people,’ saith your God.  ‘Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned; for she hath received of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins’” (Isaiah 40:1-2).

You see, in the midst of trouble, the prophet is also able to sound a note of comfort and peace.  And overarching all of these themes is that of God’s absolute rule—the reality that He truly is in charge, that nothing takes Him by surprise, and that, indeed, He has planned and is directing even the tremendous tragedies which befall humanity.

As we focus on our text, which is verses 5-10 of Isaiah 45, notice with me several truths about God which we are taught.  (1) The Lord is the only true God.  (2) The Lord is sovereign over every event in the universe.  (3) The Lord warns those who reject His sovereign rule.  (4) The Lord sovereignly provides hope.

.

The Lord is the Only True God

.

First, we are taught that the Lord is the only true God.  Verse 5 begins by saying, “I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me.”

There are, of course, many false gods in our world.  There are many false religions.  But there is only one true and living God.

Let us consider just who this God is.  Our catechism sums up the Biblical teaching regarding God by saying that “God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.”

The true God has a spiritual nature.  He is pure spirit.  He doesn’t have a body like humans do.

Accordingly, He is not to be worshipped by means of images, which cannot possibly do justice to His holy and spiritual nature.

God is infinite—without limits.

God is eternal.  He is not bound by time.  And, He has forever existed.

God doesn’t change.  He doesn’t change His character, and He doesn’t change His mind.  He is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore.

God is all-wise, all-powerful, totally holy, totally just, totally good, and absolute truth.  And none of these attributes or characteristics of God contradicts any other attribute: they all are in perfect harmony with one another.  Therefore, we conclude that He is at all times holy, and at all times powerful, and at all times just, and at all times compassionate, for that is His nature.

There are many people who deny the existence of God, who are atheists.  But Psalm 14 tells us: “The fool is saying in his heart, There surely is no God.  They are corrupt, their deeds are vile, Not one of them does good.”  The fact that many people deny God, does not change the fact that He is.

“Where was God last Tuesday?”  Despite the best efforts by many New Yorkers and many Americans to live their lives apart from God, or to act as if He doesn’t exist, or to profess that He doesn’t exist, God was where He has always been—sitting on His throne, in light inaccessible.

This God Who exists, is a jealous God.  That is why He here proclaims so boldly that “there is no God beside me.”  That is why He says that “from the rising of the sun, and from the west,” everyone might know that “there is none beside me.”  And to highlight it once more, God says again, “I am the Lord, and there is none else.”

It’s a little hard to miss the message, don’t you think?

And yet, there are many who do miss the message.  We have already alluded to the fact that there are many false gods and false religions in the world.  Interfaith services notwithstanding to the contrary, the God of the Bible is not the same as the gods of human imagination.

The God Who is the living and true God, has revealed Himself in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.  He has revealed Himself by means of His covenant.  His name is Jehovah.  He is the covenant-keeping God.

“Where was God last Tuesday?”  Sitting on His throne, asserting His sovereignty and destroying all idols.

.

The Lord is Sovereign Over Every Event in the Universe

.

That leads us to the second major truth we find in our text, viz., that the Lord is sovereign over every event in the universe.

Notice with me the Lord’s words which the prophet records in verse 7: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”

The words, “I form the light, and create darkness,” remind us of Creation and the account of Creation found in Genesis 1.  We have already affirmed that God is eternal.  Another related truth is that Creation is not eternal, but that it had a beginning.  And God is the Creator, who brought into existence the light and the darkness.

It is out of that context of God’s creatorhood that He also proclaims the fact of His Providence.  “I make peace,” God says, “and create evil.”

When the Old Testament uses the term “peace,” the word which most often is employed is “shalom.”  This term conveys more than the absence of war or conflict.  It also signals peace in the fullest sense—a peace couched in a garden of prosperity.

It is perhaps not very difficult to affirm that God is concerned with the establishment of peace.  This is a truth which should and does bring comfort to our hearts.  This is an aspect of God’s providential dealings that all men undoubtedly appreciate and desire.  After all, who wants trouble?  And, when you’re in trouble, you want God to rescue you from it.  Hence our cries to God for help.  We witnessed something of that instinctive reaction from numerous people as they saw and heard the buildings collapse on 9/11.  They immediately cried, “Oh, my God!”  It was a plea for God’s comfort and protection.  It was a prayer for God to come to their aid, and provide them with peace.

But please notice with me that the Bible does not merely bear testimony to God’s sovereignty over the peaceful events, or the good things, of life, or the provision of prosperity.  The Bible also clearly indicates here that God is in charge of the bad things, too.

At this point, let me correct what may be a misunderstanding.  When our text tells us that God creates evil, this is not an ethical reference.  It is not a reference to wickedness.  Rather, it is a reference to disasters and tragedies.  The New King James Version captures that sense when instead of the word “evil”, it uses the word “calamity”.

The Bible is clear that God is not the author of sin.  Where sin comes from is a great mystery.  How could it be that in a perfect universe, Satan could rebel?  How could it be that a perfect Adam and Eve would succumb to temptation?  These are questions to which we do not have full answers.

We do know that God foreordained the fall of man and all subsequent sins—for God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.  Yes, even sinful actions are under God’s sovereign control.  But we also know that He is not the author of sin, and that He cannot tempt anyone, for He is of purer eyes than to behold evil.

But the point of our text here is not to address that ethical question, of the origin of wickedness.  Rather, the point is that all the “bad things” which happen are a result of God’s sovereign plan.  In a similar way as He created the universe, including light and darkness, He also creates the good and bad events of life, in that He brings them to pass.

This includes not just natural disasters, but also disasters which result from wicked actions by men.  In I Kings 11:14, we read that “the Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite.”  In verse 23 of the same chapter, we are told that “the Lord stirred . . . up another adversary” against Solomon.  And the most awful sin of all, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, was according to “the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23).

Does that mean that God knew ahead of time about all those things that happened on 9/11?  Yes, not only did God know about them, He also ordained them from all eternity, for His glory and the good of His people. Amos 3:6 says, “Shall there be evil [destruction] in the city, and the Lord hath not done it?”   “Where was God last Tuesday?”  Sitting on His throne, directing all the events which took place.

This is a truth taught in multiple places throughout the Bible.  In point of fact, an almost countless number of texts can be seen to teach or at least to assume the sovereignty of God.

Take, for example, the acknowledgement by King Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4:35, that “all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he [the Lord] doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, what doest thou?”  Isaiah 14:24 quotes the Lord of hosts as saying, “Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand.”  Isaiah 46:10 proclaims the Lord’s words: “My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.”  Psalm 115:3 sings triumphantly: “But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.” Ephesians 1:11 speaks of our predestination which is “according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.”

.

Why?

.

But this may indeed lead us to consider the big question of “why?”  Why would God ordain such disasters and tragedies as we have witnessed?  How can they be a part of “the counsel of his own will”?

There is a very real sense in which we cannot discern the reasons for why God does this or that.  To use very down-to-earth language, Providence is poker-faced.  Providence often surprises us, and often does not reveal the cards it holds, or the “why?”  This is why the three friends of Job, the man who suffered such tragedies, were taken to task by God, when they tried to counsel Job in an inappropriate way—when they implied that Job’s troubles must have resulted from his having been a great sinner.  Accordingly, we must be careful in trying to read divine Providence.

Nevertheless, even though we cannot fully fathom all of the reasons for why God ordained for those jetliners to crash on 9/11, we can draw reasonable conclusions as to what message or messages God may be intending.  The sons of Issachar, we are told, were those who were discerners of the times.  These ancient Israelites were being held up as good examples to us, to spur us on to becoming discerners of the times in which we live.  And, my friends, it surely is not too difficult to surmise at least part of the reason as to why these disasters have occurred.

We live in a moral universe, in which actions have consequences.   The fact that we do live in such a world is precisely because a sovereign God reigns from His throne, and holds us accountable.

Moreover, we know from the Bible that whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap.  It is a principle that applies not merely to individuals, but to societies, cultures, and nations as well.

We know that this nation has been especially blessed in so many ways, and therefore has had a special responsibility to recognize God’s rule over her and to keep His law.  Historians and churchmen may debate the exact nature of America’s commitment to the Christian faith; and one can argue that in the adoption of the U. S. Constitution, which is our civil covenant, there was deliberately no covenanting with God to be a nation officially committed to Him.  Nevertheless, it is also true that the settlers of Jamestown, Virginia; the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock; and the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay Colony, all were very determined to found a Christian civilization in what was then the American wilderness.  Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that Christianity has been at least the unofficial religion of this nation since its founding.  It is also the case that in unique ways, this nation has been blessed with material wealth and other good things; and, for most of its history, with an absence of war—particularly war on its own shores.

Especially in light of America’s Christian heritage, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the nation’s apostasy from the Christian faith has resulted in God’s judgment.  We have forgotten God.  This is what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said of Russia.  This Russian dissident, who suffered imprisonment in a Soviet gulag, was quite certain that the troubles which befell Russia stemmed from a basic atheism.

“Where was God last Tuesday?”  Certainly not in the hearts and minds of many Americans.  Certainly not in the forefront of most American institutions.

.

America’s National Sins

.

That leads us to consider America’s national sins.  There are numerous manifestations of national sins in America today.  One could catalog a whole host of wickedness.  But allow me to focus on several themes which seemed to run through the events of 9/11, as a way of looking at our nation’s sins.

One is that of blood.  The Bible tells us that whenever human blood is shed in the land, the earth cries out for retribution.  Is it possible that the awful carnage we have witnessed is a divine judgment for national sins involving the shedding of blood?

For almost three decades—and now for almost four decades, abortion on demand has been the law of the land.  Millions upon millions of judicially innocent unborn children have been murdered in the womb.  Federal, state, and local governments have been complicit in this massacre.  I am sure you are aware of what is called partial birth abortion, in which a pair of scissors is thrust into a baby’s brain.  Not only is there partial birth abortion, but there have been cases of infanticide—instances of killing a child who made it completely out of his mother’s womb, alive.

What I would suggest to you today is that abortion is not merely a violation of the sixth commandment—“Thou shalt not kill”—but that it also is a direct assault on God.  It is a blatant shaking of the fist in the face of God.  It entails treating with disrespect the image of God in which each of those babies is made.  It is a manifestation of having forgotten God.

“Where was God last Tuesday?”  Sitting on His throne, and enforcing His law that the shedding of blood will not go unnoticed.

Another theme is that of money.  Mammon is America’s god.  And the World Trade Center was one of its primary temples.

Who would have thought that those mighty twin towers would have come tumbling down?  Who could have imagined the utter devastation of those symbols of wealth?

The smoke and pillar of cloud arising from those collapsed towers, perhaps bring to mind the words of Revelation 18:9-10, speaking of the mystical city of Babylon: “And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning, standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! For in one hour is thy judgment come.”

“Where was God last Tuesday?”  Sitting on His throne, rebuking the idolatrous materialism of our culture.

Another theme is that of immorality.  Who can forget that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, with fire from heaven, because of their open sexual immorality?

New York City was and is a very wicked city, with open expressions of sexual immorality, particularly homosexuality.  (Let me hasten to add that this is not to single out New York—Atlanta is not a bastion of righteousness.)  Greenwich Village is in lower Manhattan, not far from the World Trade Center.  And there are many homosexuals who work in highly-paid positions in the financial world.

Let me suggest that homosexuality is not merely a violation of the seventh commandment, which deals with sexual purity.  It is also an attack on God Himself, in that the degrading acts of homosexuality are an affront to God and an assault on the dignity of a man made in the image of God.

“Where was God last Tuesday?”  Sitting on His throne, reminding this nation that the open acceptance of sexual deviance will result in death and destruction.

Another theme is that of power.  The World Trade Center and the Pentagon were potent symbols of economic power and military might.

Yet all the nations of the earth, Isaiah reminds us in chapter 40, are but as a drop in the bucket in comparison to the power of Almighty God.

“Where was God last Tuesday?”  Sitting on His throne, demonstrating that to Him belongs all the power and honor and glory.

Yet another theme is that of pride and arrogance.  The twin 110-story towers may call to mind another tower, from Genesis 11, viz., that of the tower of Babel.  Those building Babel’s tower desired that it reach unto heaven.  It was a prideful and arrogant manifestation of human presumption.  God scattered the builders of the tower of Babel across the face of the earth.

“Where was God last Tuesday?”  Sitting in the heavens, humiliating the pride and arrogance of man who believes that he can build apart from God.

.

Warning Against Those Who Reject His Sovereign Rule

.

That leads us to the third major point of our text, which is a warning against those who reject the sovereign rule of God.  “Woe unto him that strives with his Maker!”  The prophet illustrates this warning by means of two comparisons.

First, the prophet rhetorically asks, “Shall the clay say to him that fashions it, What makest thou?  Or thy work, He has no hands?”  It would be absurd for pottery to try to talk back to the potter, questioning the maker’s wisdom or skill.  This is not the only place in Scripture in which this figure is used.  In Romans 9, the apostle Paul employs similar language, in highlighting God’s sovereignty: “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?  Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?  Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?”

Secondly, the prophet utilizes terminology which refers to the begetting of children: “Woe unto him that says unto his father, What begettest thou?  Or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?”  Even though the figures of speech are different, they convey the same meaning: the Lord is in charge, and we ignore or reject Him at our own peril.

“Where was God last Tuesday?”  Sitting on His throne, continuing to warn those who reject Him.

.

The Lord Sovereignly Provides Hope

.

But there is also a message of hope, even amidst the warning.  Our text tells us that the Lord sovereignly provides hope.  Notice verse 8 of Isaiah 45: “Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the Lord have created it.”

Here we have a celebration of God’s rich and abundant spiritual provision.  Notice the reference to nature, as a way of conveying the reality of salvation.  The heavens are to drop down, the skies are to pour out, the earth is to open, and righteousness is to spring up.  These figures are designed to convey spiritual rather than sensual reality.

There are at least two crucial truths found here.  One is the close connection between righteousness and salvation.  Scripture tells us that all of our righteousness is as filthy rags in the sight of God.  But, we do need righteousness in order to obtain salvation.  The key is that it is not our righteousness, but the righteousness of Another, viz., the Lord Jesus Christ.  His good deeds as the God-man—God come in the flesh—are credited to one’s account, and that righteousness is received by faith alone.

The other essential truth here is that this is all of grace.  In this verse, we have the affirmation: “I the Lord have created it.”  It is the Lord’s doing, and not ours.  Salvation is of, by, and through Him, not ourselves.

Furthermore, this gospel—this “good news”—is for all the nations.  This theme of the conversion of the nations is in our text. Verse 6 says, “That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me.  I am the Lord, and there is none else.”  Later in the chapter, verse 22 says: “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.”  But notice verse 14, where we are told that the Egyptians, the Ethiopians, and the Sabeans (Arab nomads in Arabia) would confess that there is no other God than the God of Israel.  Let me be clear—“Israel” is not a reference to the contemporary state of Israel, but rather to the people of God; or, we could say that the people of Egypt, Ethiopia, and Arabia will confess their belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

But this powerful theme is not confined to Isaiah 45; it is found throughout Holy Scripture.  Please consider with me that the Bible sometimes uses universal language and speaks of the nations in general, and sometimes names specific peoples and nations.  And what is especially amazing is the number of prophecies that foretell the conversion of what might be regarded as unlikely nations and areas.  In Isaiah 19, the prophet says that the Lord of hosts will bless “Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel Mine inheritance”.  Where were the Assyrians located?  In present day Iraq.  Psalm 72 promises that “The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts.  Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him.”  Tarshish is in Spain, far to the west; Sheba was in the desert lands to the south; and Seba was probably northern Ethiopia.  In the last chapter of the book of Revelation, we read that in heaven, there is a tree whose leaves were “for the healing of the nations.”  In this regard, let us not forget that peace among the nations—the beating of the swords into plowshares and the spears into pruninghooks—will come ultimately not through shuttle diplomacy, but when the nations embrace the Prince of Peace who through His death has established peace between God and man.  We sang earlier from Psalm 68, which says, “That all may humbly bow themselves, Bring bars of silver ore.  For He has scattered peoples all Who take delight in war.  Then shall the princes proud and great Come out of Egypt’s lands, And Ethiopia to God Shall soon stretch forth her hands.”

Thus it is written—and this prophecy will indeed come to pass.

God says that He will shake the nations, and over the past few years, we have felt quite literally His shaking of the world.  We have experienced earthquakes, and tsunamis, and floods, and hurricanes, and tornados.  He has been shaking the nations politically, from Europe to Africa to the Middle East to Latin America.  He has been shaking the economic and social pillars of our own nation.  God is shaking things up, and the events of 9/11 are part of His plan—particularly His redemptive plan.  We don’t understand God’s ways, nor how he works everything together for good to those that love Him, those that are the called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28).  But we know that He does, in ways beyond our comprehension.

One thing of which we can be sure is that His gospel takes root not via Humvees or M-16s or stealth bombers or at the point of a sword, but by His Spirit, as He converts the souls of men.  As we sang today in the 110^th Psalm, “A willing people in Thy day of power shall come to Thee.”  The Lord Jesus Christ, by His Spirit, convinces and captivates those who will submit to His Saviorhood and Kingship.

“Where was God last Tuesday?”  Sitting on His throne, as He promotes the gospel to all ends of the earth and brings the nations—all of the nations—into His kingdom.

.

Words of Application

.

As we contemplate the events of 9/11, I want to make three points of application.  The first point of application is to note that God has often used very wicked people to punish others.  This is what the prophet Habakkuk wonders about.  In chapter 1 of his prophecy, he is told that the Lord was raising up the “terrible and dreadful” Chaldeans (Babylonians) in order to punish the ancient people of God.  The fact that God uses pagan nations for this purpose does not absolve them of their own sins in the matter; and, eventually, they themselves face judgment.  But it is worth noting that the relative “goodness” or “evil” of various nations is not an indicator of who might be punished, or who might be victorious, in any given conflict.

The second point of application is the necessity to avoid hypocrisy.

Ten years ago, it was represented that the United States of America is a totally just and peace-loving nation, and one which would never engage in or support acts of terror.  But is that really true?

I am sure that the residents of Georgia and the Shenandoah Valley in 1864 would beg to differ.  I am sure that those who have suffered at the hands of terrorist regimes and organizations which have been supported by the U.S. State Department, would beg to differ.  I am sure that those directly affected by the destruction of an aspirin factory in the Sudan after a disgraced U. S. President fired cruise missiles, would beg to differ.  And many other examples could be given.

Please do not misunderstand this point.  We have been incredibly blessed in this nation.  We should be grateful for the fact that we enjoy great freedom here.  We should also be thankful for the display of courageous leadership in responding to the attacks against this nation.  Furthermore, I believe that the United States was totally justified in retaliating against those who directly waged war against this nation.  There is no doubt that “just war” doctrine virtually mandated that the government take decisive action.  What that action should be as long as it is within the parameters of “just war” doctrine is a purely political matter, which is beyond the sphere of the church’s expertise, and which is therefore left entirely to the civil authorities.

But we should not pretend that our national government has had clean hands and a pure heart.  Even with the premise that the terrorists who committed the awful crimes we witnessed ten years ago are far worse than our own government, it still does not absolve this nation’s government from its own guilt.

And that leads to the third point of application, which is that the answer to the present crisis is not a resurgence of patriotism, but rather repentance.  There’s nothing wrong with patriotism—love of one’s father-land—and indeed it is entirely appropriate to remember and honor those warriors and policemen and firemen and others who have sacrificed on our behalf.  But patriotism will not bring the solution or provide the final answers.  Our ultimate allegiance is not to our country, but to the heavenly kingdom.  Nations come and nations go; presidents and kings and dictators play their role on the stage of history, and then make their exit; empires arise and empires crumble.  But the kingdom of Jesus Christ will remain.

And it is our duty and responsibility, as individuals and nations, in the words of Psalm 2, to “Kiss the Son, lest He be angry” and we perish in the way.  It is our duty to turn away from our destructive ways and repent of our sins.  But, this is the lesson which we have failed to learn as a nation.

Does anyone believe that our nation is in a morally better position than it was ten years ago?  There is some statistical evidence that church attendance in New York has increased over the past decade; but, at the same time, the percentage of New Yorkers holding to sound Biblical doctrine has decreased.  “Churchianity” and religiosity are not adequate—whether in New York or Atlanta.  God calls us to a deep, heart-felt repentance, in recognition that He alone is God and He expects sincere obedience to His Word.  Jesus, in Luke 13, spoke of the contemporary incident in which 18 people were killed when the tower in Siloam fell; and He said, Do you think “that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?  I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”  This is a message not only for New York, but for all the great cities of our land.  Death and destruction swiftly and suddenly came upon New York and Washington and western Pennsylvania on a beautiful September morning ten years ago.  Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that we in Georgia are immune to a similar scenario.  And let us not forget the words of Jesus, who warned that we should not fear him who is able to kill the body only, but to fear—that is, to reverence—the One who is able to cast both body and soul into hell.  The theme of judgment cuts in numerous directions, including both temporal and eternal judgment.

.

Conclusion

.

In conclusion, we see the prophet Isaiah informing us of God’s sovereign rule, including all the “good” things and all the “bad.”  The Lord declares that He is God, and there is none else.

What we also discover is that the Lord provides salvation and comfort, as He brings all of His elect to Himself—a great company of people from every tribe, tongue, and nation.  The same One Who has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, particularly leads those whom He has predestined to eternal life.

“Where was God last Tuesday?”  Exactly where He has always been: sitting on His throne, working together all things for His glory and the good of His people.

May the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of history and the King of kings, be pleased to bless this message to our hearts, for our comfort and our edification, to the praise of the glory of His grace.  Amen.

—————-

Frank Smith, Ph.D., D.D., is the pastor of Northminster Reformed Presbyterian Church (Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America) of Alpharetta, Georgia; author of The History of the Presbyterian Church in America: The Silver Anniversary Edition; coeditor and contributer to Worship in the Presence of God; editor of Tales from the City: Real Stories of Urban Christian Ministry; Founding Editor of Presbyterian International News Service (PINS); and a Contributing Editor for The Confessional Presbyterian.

.

[Editor's Note: This article originally appeared as a response to a comment on the 12 May 2011 article "Westminster Presbytery overtures 39th GA seeking to help chaplains maintain clear and unequivocal stance against sexual immorality" on the Johannas Weslianus: PCA News and Views blog.]

.

Article by Darrell Todd Maurina

Dear Chaplain ______,

Much of what you say is valuable and crucially important for civilian church leaders to understand. However, I wish I could agree with you that “the military knows that if they attempt to force Chaplains to do things against their conscience … it would defeat the purpose of having chaplains and no one would serve in the military as a chaplain.” The problems come up when evangelical chaplains or conservative Roman Catholics have fundamental problems with “politically correct” issues being pushed by the military’s top leadership. It’s a lot easier for a theological liberal in the chaplaincy to live with an evangelical or conservative Roman Catholic senior chaplain than the reverse.

There are reasons why there are a lot of O-3 and O-4 evangelicals in the chaplaincy, but it becomes increasingly difficult for evangelicals to reach the O-5 and O-6 levels. Running into an intolerant liberal colonel in the chaplaincy can be a career-ender for an evangelical, or at least one that causes him to choose to go into the National Guard or the Reserves.

Think, for example, of the longstanding problems in the military chaplaincy over how to handle “proselytism.” The chaplaincy is founded on the concept that chaplains perform religious services for members of their own faith groups while making arrangements to provide such services for others. I remember a particularly effective Assembly of God chaplain telling Buddhist soldiers that if they’re Buddhist, it’s his job to help them become the best Buddhist they can, citing the Bushido warrior code as an example. Of course, he’d be the first one to say that he’d love to see that Buddhist become a Christian, but it’s up to the soldier which chapel service to attend, if any. As Calvinists, it’s not a problem to say that God converts, we don’t, and our focus needs to be on faithful preaching of the Word rather than getting more notches to our roster of converts made through soul-winning.

The military chaplaincy is virtually the only thing we have left in the United States that is comparable to the issues faced by evangelicals in the state churches of Europe. If tax dollars are going to be used to pay clergy — and even the ACLU agrees that is legitimate, since there’s no other way to provide for the free exercise of religion by deployed troops in combat environments, and in garrison environments in some foreign countries where the choice of off-post churches is limited at best — the government must seek out and recruit people who can meet the religious needs of its service members.

Unfortunately, if the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” actually gets implemented (and that’s not yet a settled issue), you’re entirely correct that the military will probably have to not only accept but also seek out chaplains to serve homosexual troops. It is impossible to repeal DADT and not get homosexual chaplains on the same “religious need” grounds that we have chaplains for relatively low-density religious faiths, the two most obvious being Judaism and Islam.

Realistically that will probably end up being some female UCC or PCUSA lesbian chaplains, plus a few tokens from the Metropolitan Community Churches, which have been trying for years to get a chaplain candidate approved. The reality of the military environment is such that it will take a long time before very many enlisted combat troops are even slightly tolerant of homosexuality. Southern “good old boys” are not exactly likely to give more than lip service to command directives to tolerate homosexuality.

Evangelicals represent a huge portion of the military, and when combined with Hispanic Roman Catholics, are probably the largest two blocks of service members who are actually attending religious services. If the military is going to pay people to perform or provide religious services (and yes, I understand the difference), it has to have evangelical chaplains not only for minority faiths but for the major religious groups.

The problem, however, is that a military chaplain will unavoidably have to cooperate with as well as submit to other chaplains who would never be allowed to be ordained in his denomination, and to chaplains who would not be allowed to join his church as a private member, and even in some cases to chaplains he considers to be unconverted. This isn’t anything new; there have been Roman Catholic and Jewish chaplains in the military for a very long time.

As long as that’s limited to longstanding doctrinal differences between denominations, that’s not a major problem. A Mormon LTC serving as an installation’s family life chaplain is not going to try to tell a Roman Catholic priest to stop celebrating the Mass, regardless of LDS teachings on “priestcraft” — on the contrary, the Mormon LTC is going to encourage the Roman Catholic chaplains to use their own Catholic family life resources and is going to encourage the evangelical chaplains to use resources by people like James Dobson and Focus on the Family.

Respect for the tenets of service members and chaplains of other religious faiths is fine. Evangelicals have long understood that it is necessary to serve in the chaplaincy. Most problems of “religious intolerance” in the military chaplaincy aren’t coming from evangelicals — they’re usually very clear that if you don’t like what they preach, don’t come to their chapel, and the problems take care of themselves.

However, how is a lesbian female chaplain who is a full bird colonel going to handle the preaching of a junior OPC or PCA chaplain who tells a homosexual soldier in a counseling session that he needs to repent? Let’s complicate the situation by adding that the junior chaplain has just a couple of years in military service rather than being prior service enlisted, is only an O-3, and is a bit rough around the edges in his counseling, but because he’s a good preacher has much higher attendance at his chapel services than the full bird colonel and other mainline Protestant chaplains, leading to some jealousy factors?

That kind of scenario, without some very clear policies in place to protect evangelicals and the clear political warning to Congress that it’s an issue on which evangelicals will fight, could make life extremely hard on evangelical chaplains. If the result is an exodus of evangelical chaplains, it will have serious negative consequences for the military.

.

by Bob Vincent

.

Until well into my life-time, the overwhelming majority of Americans believed that the United States was a Christian nation. In believing that, they did not desire the persecution of other religions, nor did they want to see people forced to become Christians, nor did they believe that one Christian denomination should be favored at the expense of others. They rejected the concept of one Christian denomination functioning as an established national Church, as the Churches of England and Scotland still do today in Great Britain.

But Americans overwhelmingly believed that Christian ideas and principles should receive favorable treatment and that its understanding of Moral Law should undergird the laws of the United States and the individual states. When other people’s religious practices came into conflict with Moral Law, Moral Law, not the practices of other religions, was always supreme. People were free to believe as they saw fit, but they could not practice their beliefs when those practices ran contrary to morality; they had to live by the Christian based laws of the United States. This can readily be seen through the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. As one example of how this has been worked out, one may note Davis v. Beason cited below, where Mormons were forbidden to practice polygamy, an early tenet of their faith, because it was contrary to Moral Law as understood by historic Christianity.

Two parts of the Constitution are often cited as evidence against this historic understanding of the role of Christianity in American public life:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 6).

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (The Constitution of the United States of America, The Bill of Rights, Amendment I).

Yet this same Constitution reflects a Christian understanding of morality:

“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law” (The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 7).

.

The Historical Understanding of Christianity and the Constitution

“Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the First Amendment to it . . . the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private religious rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation . . . .The real object of the amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government” [Justice Joseph Story (who served on the Supreme Court from 1811-1845) Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 2 Vol. 2:593-95, 2nd Ed. Boston: Little Brown (1905)].

Justice Story’s understanding reflects the thinking of the framers of the Constitution, who expressed unbridled faith in God in the Declaration of Independence:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them . . .

“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 . . .

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor” (emphases mine).

Such an understanding of the foundation of the American law was still reflected in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court just over one hundred years ago. Justice Josiah Brewer wrote on February 29, 1892, “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian” [Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226. (1892)].

A distinctively Christian view of the law is also reflected in Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890):

“Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho . . . It was never intended or supposed that the (First) amendment could be invoked as a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society. With man’s relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with. However free the exercise of religion may [133 U.S. 333, 343] be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislation. There have been sects which denied as a part of their religious tenets that there should be any marriage tie, and advocated promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, as prompted by the passions of its members. And history discloses the fact that the necessity of human sacrifices, on special occasions, has been a tenet of many sects. Should a sect of either of these kinds ever find its way into this country, swift punishment would follow the carrying into effect of its doctrines, and no heed would be given to the pretense that, as religious beliefs, their supporters could be protected in their exercise by the constitution of the United States. Probably never before in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried out without hindrance” (emphasis mine).

.

The Constitution and Blue Laws

What does the reference to Sunday in Article I, Section 7 above ["If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) . . ."] constitute? It reflects the thinking that underlies what are commonly called “Blue Laws” and demonstrates that the framers of the Constitution did not have a non-theistic, abstract concept of law. The federal courts, in striking down state laws about Sunday, have done so recognizing that these laws reflect a commitment to a Christian understanding of the Ten Commandments:

“The parentage of these laws is the Fourth Commandment; and they serve and satisfy the religious predispositions of our Christian communities” (The Supreme Court’s 1961 ruling on four separate cases, challenging Sunday closing laws: McGowan v. Maryland; Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown v. McGinley; Braunfeld v. Brown; and Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Supermarket). Article I, Section 7 demonstrates that the Moral Law of God, as understood by the followers of the Christian faith, is the foundation of our Civil Laws.

.

Religious Tests

While the framers of the Constitution were absolutely opposed to a national, established Church, they understood that in order for people’s words to be believed in court, they had to believe in God and future rewards and punishments in the world to come. At the time of the ratification of the federal constitution, most states had constitutionally defined, basic sets of beliefs that were necessary to be held by those who took oaths or held office. These were not seen to be in violation of the national constitution. As but one example, a person may note Article I of the Constitution of Pennsylvania (<http://www.house.gov/pitts/government/state-2.htm>), written in its original form by Benjamin Franklin and others:

“Religious Freedom

“Section 3. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.

“Religion

“Section 4. No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.” (emphasis mine.)

In early America the very understanding of the word “oath” meant that the person taking it believed in God.

Oath: “A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath, implies that the person imprecates his vengeance and renounces his favor if the declaration is false, or if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it. A false oath is called perjury”

Webster’s Dictionary (1828).

This understanding is reflected in how “Article 6″ was explained in the ratifying conventions. For example, one may consider the words of James Iredell at North Carolina’s ratifying convention:

Wednesday, July 30, 1788

The North Carolina State Ratifying Convention (<http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions52.html>)

‘According to the modern definition of an oath, it is considered a “solemn appeal to the Supreme Being, for the truth of what is said, by a person who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being and in a future state of rewards and punishments, according to that form which will bind his conscience most.” It was long held that no oath could be administered but upon the New Testament, except to a Jew, who was allowed to swear upon the Old. According to this notion, none but Jews and Christians could take an oath; and heathens were altogether excluded. At length, by the operation of principles of toleration, these narrow notions were done away. Men at length considered that there were many virtuous men in the world who had not had an opportunity of being instructed either in the Old or New Testament, who yet very sincerely believed in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments . . . (Mr. Iredell describes a British court case involving a man from India who was neither a Christian nor a Jew and then concluded.) It appeared that, according to the tenets of this religion, its members believed in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments. It was accordingly held by the judges, upon great consideration, that the oath ought to be received; they considering that it was probable those of that religion were equally bound in conscience by an oath according to their form of swearing, as they themselves were by one of theirs; and that it would be a reproach to the justice of the country, if a man, merely because he was of a different religion from their own, should be denied redress of an injury he had sustained. Ever since this great case, it has been universally considered that, in administering an oath, it is only necessary to inquire if the person who is to take it, believes in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments. If he does, the oath is to be administered according to that form which it is supposed will bind his conscience most. It is, however, necessary that such a belief should be entertained, because otherwise there would be nothing to bind his conscience that could be relied on; since there are many cases where the terror of punishment in this world for perjury could not be dreaded‘ (emphases mine) [Elliot, Jonathan, ed. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787. . . . 5 vols. 2d ed. 1888. Reprint. New York: Burt Franklin, n.d., Volume 5, Amendment I (Religion), Document 52].

.

The Establishment Clause

Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to a group of Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut states that the purpose of the First Amendment was to build “a wall of separation between church and state.” Yet what President Jefferson meant by this wall is patently obvious from the weight of historical evidence cited above: namely, that this did not mean that there could be no point of contact between church and state. Civil governments have all kinds of laws that churches must obey: building codes, fire safety codes and zoning ordinances. None of these violate the liberty of churches to worship God according to their own liberty of conscience. Furthermore, there are times when the members of ecclesiastical bodies are simply unable to decide issues without submitting to the judgment of civil courts. A prime example of this would be contentions over the ownership of the church’s property.

Thomas Jefferson’s phrase in 1802 must be understood in light of what he said in his “Second Inaugural Address,” in 1805:

“In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.”

Christian people are free to influence legislation that is in keeping with the moral principles of Christianity, and Christian parents are duty bound to see to it that their children are educated in light of Christian principles and morality. A godless educational system is a dreadful curse to American society, the very idea of which would have been abjured by the founders of our nation.

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up” (Deuteronomy 6:4-7).

.

Bob Vincent is pastor of Grace Presbyterian Church in Alexandria, Louisiana.

.

.

By John Lofton, Recovering Republican Editor, TheAmericanView.com

.

Our preacher this morning (17 January 2010) preached on John 5:1-18 which deals with a pool called Bethesda and a certain man there which had an “infirmity” for thirty-eight years. Jesus healed him. He was made whole. He took up his bed and walked.

This Bible passage is particularly significant for me because I, too, had an “infirmity” for thirty-eight years — the first thirty-eight years of my life — that “infirmity” being unbelief. But, in 1980, by the grace of God alone, I was saved, born-again.

Now, at the time I was saved, I had been an active observer of and participant in “conservative” politics for about fifteen years in the Washington DC area. The Goldwater-LBJ election began my interest in politics and writing. It was immediately apparent to me, watching this contest, that Goldwater made sense; LBJ did not. So, I reasoned, I must be a “conservative” Republican.

In 1968, I worked as a writer at the “National Republican Congressional Committee” which sought to elect Republicans to the House of Representatives. From 1970-73, I worked at the Republican National Committee as Editor of the GOP’s national weekly newsletter. My bosses there were, first, Bob Dole, then George H.W. Bush.

In the following years, I was Editor of the American Conservative Union’s “Battleline” publication. I was Editor of Richard Viguerie’s “Conservative Digest” magazine. I wrote a nationally syndicated column for United Features which at one time was in about 100 newspapers. I ran around with all the Big Name conservative “leaders” — met with them, ate with them, partied with them, knew them up close and personal.

From 1964 to 1980, I ate, drank, slept, breathed “conservative” politics. To paraphrase Scripture, I lived, moved and had my being in “conservative” politics. As a heathen, I was totally swept up in the temporal-horizontal. I was the complete Bread-Alone Guy. And things were going very well. I was achieving some degree of prominence – getting speaking dates, being on national TV shows, my column was appearing in more newspapers. Yep, things were going fine – except I was headed for Hell.

Then, in 1980, I was saved. It was an actual, physical experience, something I knew had happened to me, something I knew had changed me. I knew I was now a Christian but had no idea what, exactly, this meant much less what I was now to do. My direction was soon to be shaped by a book and its author.

Shortly after being saved, a friend, M. Stanton Evans — for what reason I do not remember — gave me a copy of a book titled “The Politics of Pornography” by a Dr. R. J. Rushdoony. Huh? Rushdoony? That’s a weird name, I thought — never heard of this guy.

Long-story-short: Thank God Stan gave me this book causing me to hear of this guy Rushdoony! In the coming years, I came to know him well personally. I read almost all his books (given me at no charge). I listened to hundreds of his tapes (at no charge.) We had many, many hours of personal conversations. He allowed me to write for his newsletter for eleven years. And all of what I read and heard from Rush answered my question — particularly in the political realm – as to what, as a Christian, I was now to do, to think.

What I learned from Rush was what Rush learned from the Bible, the Word of God. I learned that Jesus Christ is king of Kings and Lord of lords, the One Who has all power in Heaven and on Earth, including power over “politics.” I learned that God’s Word governs everything, including “politics.” I learned that the purpose of civil government is to obey God, administer His Laws, and stay within the limits set by God.

Now, this was a shock! Because almost all those Big Name “conservative leaders” I ran with all those years before I became saved claimed to be Christians. But, in all our meetings, manifestos, platforms, late-night bull sessions re: what to do or not do, nobody ever indicated, even slightly, that Christ or God or the Bible had anything to do with “politics,” had anything to do with our work!

In other words, this “conservative movement” I was a part of was, de facto, operationally, atheistic. We were merely “conservative” secular humanists seeking salvation through “politics” — politics that was “conservative” to be sure but still only “politics.”

And after I was saved, and attempted to, at times, inject Christ/God/Bible into our plans, or just raise this issue, I was looked at as if I had lost my mind. The truth, of course, was/is that in being saved, by the grace of God, my mind had been renewed, as in Romans 12:2: “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

And that’s why the “conservative movement” has been a failure, and should have failed. It has been, and still is, in the political realm, Godless, “conformed to this world.” It has been savorless salt and thus unfit for the dunghill (Luke 14:35.)

Unfit for the dunghill! Do you realize what it is to be so worthless you are not fit for a manure pile?!

Dunghill Rejects.

What a perfect name for the Godless, anti-Christian, modern “conservative movement.” And I say good riddance to them.

.

John Lofton (JLof@aol.com) is Editor for TheAmericanView.com, Communications Director for Institute On The Constitution, and Host of “The American View” Radio Show.

.

“Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ.” — John Calvin.

.

by J. Glenn Ferrell

I suppose my puny prayers, not having the advantage of a flying start in a plane, or a gathering which includes a NFL star, are at a disadvantage over those that do. Does living at 2700 feet and praying from the second floor help? Too much of this is treating prayer as a gimmick, a manipulation of God with a magic spell.

Jesus taught us how and what to pray. Only those who can call him “Our Father,” because we are his redeemed children by his grace through faith in Christ alone, have any promise of his hearing our prayers. Our priorities must be for the full manifestation of his glory in his name as revealed in his son and word, his kingdom, and his will, before we move on to our own daily needs. Then, we are to be equally concerned for our sins, our forgiveness of others, and protection from the evil of our own hearts so vulnerable to temptations and trial.

Prayer is not a magic spell to ward off harm and bring good fortune, practiced in gatherings of generic “people of faith,” or to be ferried in airplanes above state capitals once a year. Prayer is sincere faith from a broken heart trusting only in God’s mercy in his graciously provided redeemer Jesus. Prayer is not an ordeal or marathon public relations event whereby we earn God’s favor and blessing. Our sinful natures are unable and not inclined to pray aright without the work of God ‘s grace, and the Holy Spirit in our hearts, enabling us to pray according to God’s will revealed in his word. One can only truly pray from humility and dependence; not with the intent to earn God’s favor, or force his hand. Everything else is vain and pretentious affectation, which won’t get to heaven, even with a boost from wings, propellers, jet engines, or booster rockets.

Prayer is one of the essential elements of Christian worship. The Church is to be salt and light in the world, a royal priesthood of intercessors for rulers, nations and peoples, bringing the gospel of the kingdom to bear upon all. So, why the pretentious display of generic piety each year in May, giving religious credibility to reprobate politicians, joining with non-believers and idolaters in polytheistic devotions to an unknown god of their own making.

Each day in our private and family devotions, each Lord’s Day in public worship, make intercession for magistrates, governments, nations and peoples, pleading for God’s mercy, national revival, church reformation, and civil magistrates to know where their authority comes from, its limits and obligations; all in the context of biblical, God pleasing worship, not people pleasing therapeutic moralism to attract a crowd. Biblical worship, preaching and prayer should scare the fainthearted and unconverted away. And, it does.

© Copyright 2009 by J. Glenn Ferrell

.

by J. Glenn Ferrell

.

H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) described Puritanism as The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. Puritanical has come to mean prudish, judgmental, anti-intellectual, regarding pleasure as sin. Many believe the Puritans came to America on the Mayflower; lived dreary, guilt-ridden lives; executed innocent people as witches; hated fun; hated sex; and worshiped a harsh and distant God, who roasted sinners over the fires of hell.

Were Puritans puritanical? Our misunderstanding is based on common myths and literature we read in school. Who were the Puritans?

The English Reformation steered a course between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, without satisfying either. Puritans were those in the 16th and 17th centuries, who remained within the English Church, wanting to purify her of non-Biblical practices.

The Pilgrims came on the Mayflower, not the Puritans. These were Separatists, who left the Church of England to start independent congregations. They settled at Plymouth in 1620.

The more numerous Puritans remained in England and Scotland rather than emigrate. A fraction of them came to New England after the Pilgrims. They founded Massachusetts Bay Colony, which later absorbed Plymouth.

The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, published in 1850, is the dreary story of the self-righteous judgment of a forsaken woman, and the secret guilt of her adulterous, minister lover, during the Puritan era.

Puritans were not dreary, self righteous, religious prigs, obsessed with others sins. A self righteous Puritan is a contradiction in terms. They were humbly aware of their own sins and looked with mercy on the weaknesses of others.

We read of the 1692 Salem Witch Trials in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible (1953). Miller was writing in response to the McCarthy hearings in the US Senate, where people were intimidated by unfounded accusations. Miller tells us more about post WWII America than the Puritans.

Witchcraft was a crime in 1692 New England, as it was in England and France. Anglicans and Roman Catholics tried witches in Europe. We only remember Salem.

The Salem witch trials were conducted by civil judges appointed by an inexperienced Governor, William Phips. William Stoughton, the presiding judge, allowed the admission of spectral evidence. Excitable witnesses testified they saw the faces of their persecutors while being tormented. If the accused was sleeping or having tea with neighbors at the time, this was not considered a defense. This phantom evidence convicted many innocent people and some were executed.

Puritan minister, Increase Mather, vigorously objected to the use of spectral evidence and helped bring an end to the trials. This was a shameful episode in American jurisprudence. Though they were not the perpetrators, like those falsely accused, the Puritans take a bum rap, as intolerant, bloodthirsty fanatics.

G. K. Chesterton, an Englishman, who opposed the American adoption of Prohibition in 1920, blamed Puritanism’s righteous indignation about the wrong thing. Puritans are credited for any repressive or neurotic tendencies in American life.

Contrary to Chesterton, Puritans were a joyful people, who enjoyed feasting and believed God gave …wine that makes glad the heart of man… (Psalm 104:15). They called drunkenness a sin and warned of its dangers. However, Puritans allowed liberty in what the Bible permitted. They did not add human tradition to God’s Word.

The church of the Middle Ages considered human sexuality bad and celibacy commendable. The Victorian church was prudish and embarrassed by the mention of sex. Puritans encouraged neither celibacy nor prudishness. They taught God created man as male and female, intending a man’s and woman’s sexuality for mutual enjoyment and to produce children. Mankind’s fall added an additional need; protection from sexual temptation. Puritans valued human sexuality, protected within Biblical marriage. Puritan courts are recorded ordering husbands not to neglect their wife’s sexual needs; demonstrating Puritans regarded neither sex as evil nor women as powerless accessories of their husbands.

The English Prayer Book gave the purposes of marriage as: the procreation of children, a remedy against sin, and for mutual society, help and comfort. The Puritan order was: for companionship, the procreation of children and protection from temptation. Companionship, including the enjoyment of mutual sexual pleasure, was first on the list.

Jonathan Edwards, later President of what became Princeton University, preached Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God in 1741. This is offered as an example of Puritans rejoicing in people suffering in the fires of hell. The focus of the sermon is on the precarious predicament of fallen man, his hardness of heart and desperate need. It is a plea for repentance, not a celebration of hell’s fire.

Let Puritans speak for themselves. These were a humble people, knowing their own sins, the graciousness of a merciful God, communicating truth with practical application, allowing liberty where men create burdens, rejecting traditions not found in the Bible. Evaluate Puritans for what they were and said. You may appreciate, you may hate them. They are misunderstood and misrepresented, but not puritanical.

.

Copyright 2008 by J. Glenn Ferrell

.

.

by Dr. Richard Bacon

.

Last December the Dow Jones Industrial Index was at 13,851. Today (20 November 2008) it closed at 7,552 down another 5.56% from yesterday’s close.

The Secret Order of Goldman - Sachs has been sacked of its gold, man! But in the meanwhile, so have American investors who kept buying higher and higher priced stocks regardless of price to earning ratios.

In the last year we saw spot gold go from $680/oz to over $900/oz and now back down to $746/oz. [no, it's not yet time to begin buying again]

The downward plummet is not over yet: we don’t know where the DJIA will finally end up because we don’t know if there will even be any earnings this year to figure a correct price to earning ratio, and the market is presently at an 11 year low. That’s right! The last time the stock market was below 7700, people were talking about a stain on Monica Lewinsky’s dress. From an all-time high to an 11 year low in 11 months. That is 45% of the paper value of the stock market GONE in less than a year. Of course that percentage is also about the same as what the average California homeowner has lost in equity in his home over the past 11 months.

We’ve been told that if we didn’t bail out investment banks with $750 billion (the approximate amount of our entire defense budget in a two-front war year), it would be the end of the world. So congress unthinkingly and almost without hesitation voted for TARP (troubled assets relief program). But instead of buying up foreclosed mortgages and saving the American dream, the treasury department decided to buy up investment banks’ stocks and save your brokers’ bonuses. Perhaps instead of TARP, we should call the program TRAP (taxpayers’ redistribution of assets program). Is there any truth to the rumor that Henry Paulson is the reincarnation of Mordecai Jones?

So for the past two or three days, there has been a new group of Armani-clad beggars at the congressional redistribution trough. The auto-makers have suddenly discovered that western civilization depends upon them continuing to do business as usual. And they showed up in corporate jets to hold their hats out before Barney Franks (also known as Queen of the Hill) and friends; now that is adding insult to proposed injury. We are a long way from the bottom on this. If congress gives any money at all to the carmakers, they will simply increase the length of the line of folks who have their hands in your pockets. Let the Japanese and the people in right-to-work states build the cars. The future lies elsewhere, anyway.

It seems that there were three things that Jesus warned about the problems of laying up treasures on earth. One and two were moths and rust. The third was the thief who breaks in and steals. Sometimes God uses moths and rust and sometimes he uses thieves. And sometimes he just blows on it and it disappears into the pockets of the international banksters.

.

Dan Amos offers the following:

“Those fearing deflation assume that every American consumer is stereotypical: an overextended, credit card-addicted, house-flipping gambler. This is simply not the case. Many Americans don’t have a mortgage. And most Americans with mortgages are still making their payments. They have, however, temporarily reigned [sic] in discretionary spending because of falling house and stock prices.

“Those fearing deflation also assume that demand for debt is low and falling. But demand for debt doesn’t always come from businesses or households looking to invest more or spend more. Any business or household looking to refinance existing debt at lower rates – and there are many – is a source of demand for new debt. Banks borrowing at the Fed window at 1% or less will be looking to supply this new debt by make [sic] highly profitable loans to creditworthy borrowers.

“Once borrowers refinance, they may not be as aggressive about spending or expanding business as they used to be. But at least they will have access to credit. In the Great Depression, they did not. So the economy fell into a negative feedback loop of asset sales, bank failures, and rising unemployment.

“Treasury and the Fed will keep taking extreme measures to slow down the pace of credit contraction and housing prices – cutting off this deflationary feedback loop. This could include nationalizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and using the Treasury’s low borrowing costs to refinance hundreds of billions in existing mortgage debt into new 40- or 50-year mortgages with reduced principal balances.

“Sure, such an action would guarantee a decade or more of stagnation in housing prices, but it will also slow or flatten the rapid decline in prices. This is the essence of the Treasury and Fed actions: to stop the deleveraging from getting out of control – even at the cost of future economic stagnation. Like it or not, I think this is the most likely outcome from this crisis.”

My proposal: I think I shall once again take up the topic of The Almighty And The Dollar in our biblical institutes hour.

We need stability right now more than anything else economic. Contact, Recruit, and Invite! And remember that the plan for taking over the world is to explain to others God’s plan for taking over the world.

.

Dr. Richard Bacon is Pastor of Faith Presbyterian Church Reformed, Mesquite, Texas, http://fbpminister.wordpress.com

.

.

by J. Glenn Ferrell

.

The purpose of civil government is to restrain evil.

Prior to the Flood, man s violence toward men and rebellion against God was not punished by man. The first murderer, Cain, was allowed by God to live, with a curse placed on any who might slay him (Gen. 4:15). Without human restraint, evil grew in the earth (Gen. 5:5) until God s judgment upon all the living came in the Flood, sparing only Noah and his family.

After the Flood, God ordained and authorized capital punishment for the shedding of human blood (Gen. 9:6). Civil government was born, as a restraint on the evil of men. If not for conscience sake, for fear of the avenging sword, men might forebear to take another s life.

At Babel, nations were divided, limiting their corporate rebellion and presumption against heaven (Gen. 11:6-8). In their tension with one another, one nation was limited in their ambitions and aggressions by another.

Thus, the civil magistrate was a gift of God s common grace, restraining evil even for those in rebellion against him, not permitting men and nations to do the evil they might against other men, nations and God.

All authority, including civil authority, comes from God and is limited by his warrant. Such is true even of unbelieving, pagan or apostate rulers. In the exercise of their legitimate power to restrain evil, they act with authority from God. When they misuse or exceed the limits of this authority, they come under his judgment, though their sin may be a secondary instrument of his wrath upon others.

Ungodly rulers will inevitably live as rebels against God and his Messiah, seeking to exceed the limits imposed and to rule according to their own judgment of good and evil. (Ps. 2:2-3) In this, they continue the rebellion of our first parents, following the lie of the serpent, seeking to be as gods (Gen. 3:5). God warns all such rebellious rulers to be wise and be instructed, not just as individuals, but in their capacity as judges of the earth. Note, this was directed to kings of the earth in general, and not to the kings of Israel or Judah. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. (Ps. 2:11-12) All rulers have an obligation to recognize and submit to the rule of God in his anointed, Jesus Christ.

John Calvin, in the preface to his Institutes of the Christian Religion, instructed King Francis I of France regarding the legitimate authority and obligation of a ruler:

The characteristic of a true sovereign is, to acknowledge that, in the administration of his kingdom, he is a minister of God. He who does not make his reign subservient to the divine glory, acts the part not of a king, but a robber. He, moreover, deceives himself who anticipates long prosperity to any kingdom which is not ruled by the scepter of God, that is, by his divine word. For the heavenly oracle is infallible which has declared, that where there is no vision the people perish (Prov. 29:18).

God through the apostle Peter said civil magistrates are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. (1 Pet. 2:14) In the United States of America, we recognize the obligation of the civil magistrate to protect life, liberty and property. Assaults on these are evil and must be restrained or punished.

Evil is not limited to sins against man’s authority, life, family, property, or reputation, or safety. Protection of all these is indeed warranted by the last six of the Ten Commandments, sometimes called the Second Table of the Law. However, there is a First Table, the first four commandments, saying assaults against God s truth, dignity, name and day are also evil.

Where is the exemption for post-Calvary civil magistrates to limit their punishment and restraint of evil to those against man?

Obviously, the US Constitution prohibits religious tests, the establishment of a particular federal religion (now extended by the Fourteenth Amendment and court decisions to state and local governments), and guarantees the free exercise of all faiths. The majority of American Presbyterians said something of the same in 1789 by amending the twenty-third chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith, paragraph 3, to say, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. While this may seem like a scriptural principle to us who have been taught the separation of church and state, it was not the civil theology of the Reformation.

Consider, John Calvin, commenting on Exodus 32:29 said, “Let us also learn that nothing is less consistent than to punish heavily the crimes whereby mortals are injured, whilst we connive at the impious errors or sacrilegious modes of worship whereby the majesty of God is violated.”

Where is the civil magistrate exempted from his duty to punish public violations of the First Table of God s Law?

.

J. Glenn Ferrell is the Orthodox Presbyterian pastor of Sovereign Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Boise, Idaho, and Contributing Editor to the Christian Observer.

.

Copyright 2008 by J. Glenn Ferrell

by J. Glenn Ferrell

In his First Inaugural, President George W. Bush spoke of America’s purpose, faith and creed:

“Through much of the last century, America’s faith in freedom and democracy was a rock in a raging sea. Now it is a seed upon the wind, taking root in many nations. Our democratic faith is more than the creed of our country, it is the inborn hope of our humanity, an ideal we carry but do not own, a trust we bear and pass along.”

All nations of the earth are warned to cease their conspiracy against the LORD and his Anointed, who is given “the heathen for” his “inheritance,” with authority and power to “dash them in pieces” “with a rod of iron.” Thus, they are cautioned:

Be wise now therefore, O ye kings:
be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
Serve the LORD with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry,
and ye perish from the way,
when his wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

[Psalm 2:10-12]

J. Glenn Ferrell is the Orthodox Presbyterian pastor of Sovereign Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Boise, Idaho, and a Contributing Editor for the Christian Observer.

© Copyright 2008 by J. Glenn Ferrell

.