DCIM100MEDIA

What Will the 21st Century Church Do?

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

In American education, liberal secularists have decoupled God/Jesus Christ from education, and have therefore eliminated the theological and epistemological foundation for knowledge: “Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” The ramifications are significant because, in God’s economy, righteousness exalts a nation and an individual.

Virtue is required for sustainable freedom. Secularists have successfully removed the transmission agent (The Word of God) for the accumulation of wisdom and knowledge, which created freedom in America. The nation is now basically biblically illiterate. Let’s be clear, the secularists and their priests — i.e., public education, higher learning, Hollywood and Media elite — have a coordinated, deliberate, sustained effort, a blitzkrieg, imposing an intolerant and aggressive false religion on America — Secularism.

This false god of Secularism — embedded in public education by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1963 — has glamorized, exalted and now normalized sin in America, creating a spiritually decadent, godless society. Proverbs instructs that easy sex and easy money are always the two temptations coming at the man — filth is everywhere. The deterrent for kids to resist temptation has been removed from public schools. Why would resisting the temptation for easy sex matter? Because, in God’s economy, righteousness exalts a nation and an individual. America has been hijacked, we are now living between Babel and the Beast.**

Secularism is an affront to the Living God, make no mistake. In His economy it is an abomination for leaders to commit wickedness, for freedom requires righteousness. In God’s unchanging order He emphasizes the connection between the nation’s moral health and well-being, juxtaposed against the insurrectionist with “shoddy moral character, prone to wickedness and simple nastiness, and devoid of good sense and moral compunctions.”

Someone’s values are going to reign supreme.

Evangelical and Pro-Life Catholic Christians must engage the culture through voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts to return biblical virtue, righteousness and character to city, state and federal government. Folly seeks a public venue, appearing in many of the same places as wisdom. Folly and wisdom are often in proximity, proposing alternative choices to the best way forward.

Exhibit 1

Billy Graham’s grandson: ‘Evangelicals hurt by their association with religious right’” (Complete article here.)

Paul Blair’s response to Brother Tchividjian is worth noting:

Wrong in so many ways. To begin with, he has fallen prey to the idea of “compartmentalizing” Christianity.  If Jesus is the Lord of our lives, then He is Lord of all areas. His Lordship will impact how we act as an employee, an employer, a husband, a wife, how I behave on vacation, what I buy at the store, how I parent my kids, etc., AND how I look at political question. Do I consider politics with a Biblical Worldview or a secular humanist worldview? Apparently, he believes we should depend on CNN or MSNBC for dependable information and counsel politically.

Second, he doesn’t understand the relationship between civil liberty and religious liberty. Rev. John Witherspoon, President of Princeton, signer of Declaration and member of the Continental Congress stated: “There is not a single instance in history, in which civil liberty was lost and religious liberty preserved entire.” 

THE issue of the day from 1620 to 1770 was not abortion or homosexual marriage, it was religious liberty. Christianity has always been persecuted beginning in Acts 4 and throughout 2000 years of history. Only in America for the last 200 years have we Christians enjoyed Religious and Civil Liberty.  Why are we the exception?

This is because of the tremendous influence that the Pilgrim and Puritanical worldview had on our political thinking in New England. Being free Englishmen holding devout Biblical worldviews, and believing that since God established civil government He would have a lot to say about it in the pages of Scripture, we have been given this exceptional country which believes that our rights come from God and not government and truth is not arbitrarily established by the King, but has been established by God — “the law of nature and nature’s God.” 

We Americans have only enjoyed liberty, so we don’t recognize how precious it is.

In order to establish a tyranny, the government must control the mind, in order to control the body. Therefore, they nationalize education, control the flow of information through the media, and must gain control of your conscience.  That means no religious liberty. An atheistic communism (where since God doesn’t exist, government replaces God as the one who grants rights and determines truth) OR you have a theocracy (God and Government are one) and you come to the same end. In either way, you do not have a free conscious to defy the government as the government is supreme.

Coincidentally, the King’s threat to reestablish the Anglican church over the colonies was one of the last straws that led to our independence. Currently, you see our religious liberty under attack (no proselytizing in the military, Hobby Lobby case, judges mandating homosexual marriage, Christian bakers sued, etc.) The writing is on the wall.

Fortunately, the 18th Century church led the fight for liberty. What will the 21st Century church do? Will we be like the Black Robed Regiment of the 18th Century or will we be the church of Germany in 1935?

Print Friendly and PDF



Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

  • tomd

    The author disagrees with the Constitution, apparently.

  • Ash Pagan

    the author is an anti-christ. for him its all about power, influence, and of course, money. not unlike the folks who run this website.

    typical really.

    vote the christianists out !

  • EboTebo

    Christianity = Stupidity

  • Foxxblood

    Why do Conservatives want to FORCE government written pray down our Children’s throats? Does not the 1st Amendment and freedom from Tyranny dictate that we can decided to pray or not to pray in school on an individual basis?

    • http://theawakenednation.ning.com/profile/KevinMKeener Snowman8wa

      It’s NOT that we want to force prayer down children’s throats (unlike Liberal Factions who want to jam OTHER things down their throats, but that is for another time.) The SCOTUS decision is like this:

      “Here is a Steak Dinner and a Chicken Dinner, You…..are FREE to choose which one you would like, bring your own, or you can be excused from Dinnertime. but that is what we will be serving today.”

      That is called Freedom of Choice; you can have Steak, Chicken, or you can choose to have neither, you can even bring your own Dinner if YOU CHOOSE TO, or you can excuse yourself from Dinner. You make the choice that best suits YOU.

      But the 1962-63 SCOTUS decided because the person who chose to not have anything because they didn’t like steak or chicken and didn’t want to enjoy their own dinner…..they made the decision that NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO HAVE STEAK OR CHICKEN, even though the facts showed THE MAJORITY enjoyed Steak and Chicken Dinners.

      That is called CAPITULATING TO A MINORITY FACTION…….it, by its own actions violate Our Country’s Declaration of Independence in where Thomas Jefferson penned; “…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;…..” Everyone had EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to eat Dinner, EVERYONE COULD OBSTAIN, They could bring their own. WHATEVER made them HAPPY. What isn’t acceptable is for ONE or TWO to make The REST MISERABLE.

      Unalienable

      UNA’LIENABLE, a. Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights.

      We have LIBERTY……as Defined by Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

      Liberty

      LIB’ERTY, n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.]

      1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.

      2. Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.

      3. Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.

      The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.

      In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural liberty.

      4. Political liberty, is sometimes used as synonymous with civil liberty. But it more properly designates the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by another nation. Hence we often speak of the political liberties of Europe, or the nations of Europe.

      5. Religious liberty, is the free right of adopting and enjoying opinions on religious subjects, and of worshiping the Supreme Being according to the dictates of conscience, without external control.

      6. Liberty, in metaphysics, as opposed to necessity, is the power of an agent to do or forbear any particular action, according to the determination or thought of the mind, by which either is preferred to the other.

      Freedom of the will; exemption from compulsion or restraint in willing or volition.

      7. Privilege; exemption; immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant; with a plural. Thus we speak of the liberties of the commercial cities of Europe.

      8. Leave; permission granted. The witness obtained liberty to leave the court.

      9. A space in which one is permitted to pass without restraint, and beyond which he may not lawfully pass; with a plural; as the liberties of a prison.

      10. Freedom of action or speech beyond the ordinary bounds of civility or decorum. Females should repel all improper liberties.

      To take the liberty to do or say any thing, to use freedom not specially granted.

      To set at liberty, to deliver from confinement; to release from restraint.

      To be at liberty, to be free from restraint.

      Liberty of the press, is freedom from any restriction on the power to publish books; the free power of publishing what one pleases, subject only to punishment for abusing the privilege, or publishing what is mischievous to the public or injurious to individuals.

      The Plaintiff like the “Dinner patrons” were given FREEDOM of CHOICE and yet that wasn’t good enough….EVERYONE HAS TO SUFFER AND REMAIN MORALLY IGNORANT. Maybe you will comprehend:

      “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. [Galatians 6:7-8]

      And know THIS Foxxblood………EVERYONE who is “yoked” to the Sower shall ALSO REAP what is SOWN by the sower. Even those who wanted to eat Steak………..

      Semper Vigilo, Fortis Paratus et Fidelis

      • Foxxblood

        *yawn*

        The constitution protects the minority from the Tyranny of the majority and the government takes NO stance on any religion period.

        To say otherwise is to not understand the constitution as you have CLEARLY demonstrated. READ the anti-federalist papers to get a better understanding of the arguments for and against the constitution and you realize that dim-bulbs like you are an anti-federalist. The majority of religious folk were AGAINST the constitution because it does not mention god and it does not promote Christianity even though the majority of people were Christians. The constitution was drafted to protect against tyrannical dictator morons like you from forcing your religion on everyone else.

        Children have a right to their religion in school and can even pray when they want but the government and government representatives have not right to promote one religion over another PERIOD!

        You promote liberty and wave it like a tyrannical dictator.

        “you have no choice but to have free will” You see the contradiction dim-bulb?

        • http://theawakenednation.ning.com/profile/KevinMKeener Snowman8wa

          “Children have a right to their religion in school and can even pray when they want but the government and government representatives have not right to promote one religion over another PERIOD!”……

          If you sincerely believe that, let me as you two questions, and unlike you it will be without rude, sarcastic and snarky insults.

          Where is your OUTRAGE when Islam is INJECTED into the American Education system? Islam, Christianity and Judaism are complete theological life systems; why is it you object ONLY to Christianity?

          Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis

          • Foxxblood

            That is the best you got? LOL You really are a dim-bulb. Its not a snarky remark if it is true. I said “religion” and Judaism and Islam count as a religion.

            Your question is a straw-man for multiple reasons,

            1. I don’t object to Christianity. I object to Government lead Christianity

            2. Not one single time in my post did I say I ONLY object to Government lead Christianity and I am happy-go-fucking-lucky with Government lead Islam and Judaism. I am siding with the constitution and disproving of Government lead Religion period

          • http://theawakenednation.ning.com/profile/KevinMKeener Snowman8wa

            RE: #2

            If you are stating that Government decides in which DOGMA will be shared in schools, then I agree with you as THAT was the intent of the 1st Amendment.

            But as I said above: “Islam, Christianity and Judaism are complete theological life systems…”; given our current social fall from morality and ethical conduct, of which I can see you apparently adhere to through your commentary, in which you feel that you have to resort to degradation in your remarks like a school bully, but then again that is your choice. You may disagree with me, as you have shown in your crude neanderthal way, again, that’s your choice.

            Sad……….there is a way to fix our children and a minority of “HATE MONGERS” refuse, in fact fight against it because why??????

            Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis

  • Sanford Sklansky

    So what happened in 1963? The Supreme Court ruled that schools could not force school children to recite government-composed prayers. This is what Lane claims “embedded” this “false god of secularism” into American society. If forcing children to recite government-written prayers is not a violation of the First Amendment (multiple clauses — the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause), what possibly could violate it? Even by the loosest possible standard of review, the coercion test, it would be a violation. What Lane is arguing for here is an actual theocracy, the government using its power to force citizens to confess a religious belief or suffer the consequences

    Sorry David, but you clearly failed history. The Pilgrims, who were Puritans, did not believe in religious liberty at all. In the Plymouth Bay Colony (and later Massachusetts Bay Colony) that they created, it was, quite literally, illegal to be a different type of Christian, much less a Jew, Muslim, deist or atheist. Baptists were thrown in prison, exiled and even put to death. And you really think that only in America have Christians had religious liberty? Are you really that ignorant?

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!