Category: Christianity

He is Risen

Matthew 28:
5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.” 8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”

The next essay in North’s book is Religious Liberty Versus Religious Toleration by Rousas John Rushdoony. The opening paragraphs frame the issue of tolerance versus liberty like something written today even thought it was written over 30 years ago during Ronald Reagan’s first administration.

ONE of the areas of profound ignorance today is religious liberty and the meaning thereof. The common pattern throughout history, including in the Roman Empire, has been religious toleration, a very different thing.

In religious toleration, the state is paramount, and, in every sphere, its powers are totalitarian. The state is the sovereign or lord, the supreme religious entity and power. The state decrees what and who can exist, and it establishes the terms of existence. The state reserves the power to license and tolerate one or more religions upon its own conditions and subject to state controls, regulation, and supervision.

The Roman Empire believed in religious toleration. It regarded religion as good for public morale and morals, and it therefore had a system of licensure and regulation. New religions were ordered to appear before a magistrate, affirm the lordship or sovereignty of Caesar, and walk away with a license to post in their meeting-place.

The early church refused licensure, because it meant the lordship of Caesar over Christ and His church. The early church refused toleration, because it denied the right of the state to say whether or not Christ’s church could exist, or to set the conditions of its existence. The early church rejected religious toleration for religious liberty.

Rev. Billy Graham has reportedly agreed to stop calling Mormonism a cult following a recent meeting with Mitt Romney. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219364/Evangelistic-Association-Reverend-Billy-Graham-stops-calling-Mormonism-cult-meeting-Romney.html According to the report, Graham’s website has issued a statement that reads in part.
‘We removed the information from the website because we do not wish to participate in a theological debate about something that has become politicized during this campaign.’

I am disappointed that Rev Graham is willing to subjugate his theology to avoid appearing political. Since the beginning, Christianity has been viewed as political. Christians were persecuted in Roman because they believed Jesus was Lord and rejected the claim that Caesar was lord. Rome viewed the Christian doctrine as treason. Instead of standing for the Truth of the claims of Christianity, Graham has slipped another plank of the faith under the proverbial bushel basket.

This is not the first time Graham has been weak-kneed about the claims of Christianity. When backed into a corner on Jesus’ claim that, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14: 6) Graham allowed that perhaps followers of Islam and others might be able to avoid Jesus and get to heaven anyway. Graham has stated this rejection of Jesus as “the way” on several occasions. Such a denial of Jesus by Graham is heresy.

Standing for the truth of Christianity does not mean that we as believers cannot support Mitt Romney. Romney wants to be President not pastor or pope. The upcoming election is a choice between two men. One of these two will be President for the next four years. We have been given the opportunity to pick between a man that wholly rejects any biblical ethics and is openly hostile to God and a man that—while unregenerate—can acknowledge the value of many beliefs that we derive from the Bible. Stated another way, Obama repudiates western civilization and Romney embraces it.

We should use the candidacy of Romney to lift high the cross and call all men from error to the true gospel. We are defending the faith that Joseph Smith repudiated and attacked as “corrupt” and “an abomination” when he started the LDS church. Graham’s actions in scrubbing his website are wrong. His actions seem to imply that we need Romney to make a profession of faith or walk an aisle before he should get the evangelical vote. This is silliness. To the degree that Romney supports our values we should support him. Clearly he is at least willing to listen to us while Obama thinks of us as “bitter clingers.”

I rarely do movie reviews on this blog but last night I saw a movie worth writing about. It does not have the action of The Avengers or the special effects of Prometheus but the story in this movie was better than either film. Last night I watched a film on Netflix titled A Man Called Peter. The movie had been sitting in our instant cue for the better part of a year but last night my seven year old son asked to see it. The synopsis of the film is:

Based on a true story, this drama centers on young Scotsman Peter Marshall, who travels to America and becomes pastor of the Church of the Presidents in Washington, D.C., on his way to becoming chaplain of the U.S. Senate.

Peter Marshall was a Presbyterian minister with a gift of communicating his faith in a way that could be understood by the simple and the learned. Much of the film gives you a feel for the type of man that could go from such humble beginnings to the seat of power in a short period of time. Much of the movie covers the period of the Great Depression and World War II.

If you want to know why the people of this period were called the Greatest Generation, this film will give you the answer. This film touches on many themes that are still plaguing our culture today. It has the best rebuttal of feminism that I have ever encountered and the movie was made in 1955. Marriage and family are spoken of at length as is the subject of death. The film’s depictions of the events of December 7, 1941 are haunting and very memorable. In a sense, the timeline of the movie revolves around the events on this date.

Toward the end of the film, Marshall is made the Chaplin of the U.S. Senate. As I heard Marshall’s prayers for the beginning of each day in the U.S. Senate, I thought that here was a clergyman that even humorist Will Rogers would agree had the correct view of the Congress and partisan politics.

Peter Marshall is played by Irish actor Richard Todd. Todd was a very prolific actor in the 1950s. His bio on Wikipedia reads in part,

He later appeared in The Dam Busters (1955) as Wing Commander Guy Gibson. Americans remember Todd for his role as the United States Senate Chaplain Peter Marshall in the film version of Catherine Marshall’s best selling biography, A Man Called Peter and as Robin Hood in the 1952 Disney film The Story of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men. Todd was the first choice of author Ian Fleming to play James Bond in Dr. No, but a scheduling conflict gave the role to Sean Connery.

Wife Catherine Marshall is played by actress Jean Peters. Peters starred in movies with Marilyn Monroe, Clifton Webb and other top stars in Hollywood during the 1950s. Amazingly, her last film was A Man Called Peter. She then married billionaire Howard Hughes and stopped acting until the 1970s. Her last roll was on an episode of the television series Murder, She Wrote.

This film was nominated for an Oscar. It is great for the whole family and has a message that families need to hear.

Last week I was able to deliver the sermon at my church. Here are the notes that were the basis of the message.

Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. Psalm 19: 14

Intro
In today’s message we will be exploring some weighty issues in the New Testament. I am trying to distill a complex issue into a single sermon. My purpose is to help you understand the larger context of the verses in Acts chapter 4.

Throughout history, many have used these verses as the basis for various novel interpretations of ecclesiastical and social structures. In the past this was a formative text to various monastic movements and how they modeled communities of faith. This verse was important to the Pilgrims as the original basis of their social and economic structure. In more recent times both theological and political liberals have used the passage as a proof text for Marxism and Socialism. All have missed the larger context of the passage. Today, I will try to make the case for the larger context of the passage.

Text

Acts 4: 32 Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. 33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold 35 and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. 36 Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, 37 sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 4: 32-37 introduces a unity of heart and soul within the Church of Jerusalem.  Additionally, the needs of each were met by the others. Many sold their property and gave to other believers. Joses who is also called Barnabas is cited as an example in his contribution to the Church. Later he becomes an ally and companion to the Apostle Paul on his missionary journeys. The generosity of Barnabas is contrasted with the selfishness of Ananias and Sapphira in the verses that follow.

Acts 5: 1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold , was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

• These events were at the church in Jerusalem; Ananias and Sapphira lied to Peter.
• There is no parallel account of property in common, only in Jerusalem
• The text of these passages makes plain that selling all and giving to the Apostles was not required but was a gift.

Why?
To understand, we need to look at other New Testament passages to build a case for a larger context.

Point 1 Why hold things in common? Monks, Pilgrims & Marxists

Marxists

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” Karl Marx 1875

Marxism is antithetical to Scripture; especially as taught in the Old Testament. It is directly contradictory to the Ten Commandments. If everything belongs to the State; your wife, children, house, oxen (job) and ass (transportation) do also. The State usurps both the family and the Church and becomes “god” to the masses.

President Gerald R. Ford, said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have,” August 12, 1974

Clearly the passage in Acts has no concord with Marxists.

Pilgrims
Limbaugh Quote See, I Told You So p 70 – 71 (reordered to make my point stronger.)

“The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well.”

“William Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives.”

Bradford wrote of the experiment, “For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense…that was thought injustice.”

Seeing the failure of collectivism, “He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the market place.”

Following Acts 4 didn’t work so well for the Puritan, a people that tried to base their whole society on the Bible and not the laws of men.

Monks—poverty and celibacy

Monks link poverty with celibacy. Since at least the fifth century, Christian orders have frequently encouraged communal living and vows of both celibacy and poverty. Proof texts for this lifestyle will often cite acts 4 and 1 Corinthians chapter 7 which reads in part:

25Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to befaithful.26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. 27 Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife.28But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. 29But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; 30And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; 31And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

Paul’s words in Corinthians seem contradictory to his instruction in other epistles. Bishops should be the husband of one wife, etc. Families were created by God. Men and women were supposed to marry and within that context have children. Genesis taught this and Jesus reaffirmed it. His first miracle was at a wedding. Is there really an inconsistency or is there some provisional instruction being given for a specific reason?

I think the monks were right to link Acts 4 with this passage in Corinthian but they too missed the larger context. To understand the passage in Acts chapter 4, the context of the situation of the early church needs to be understood. We need to walk in the shoes of people living during that time.

Point 2 Coming Judgment—Prophecies of Jesus

Jesus—the heir to David—is prophet priest and king. Few talk about Jesus’ prophetic office because they think the prophecies speak of unknowable events for sometime in the future. What prophecies am I referring to?

A good starting point is by going back to Matthew chapter 24.
“1And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.2And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down .”
Jesus then talks for two chapters about the coming of the day of the Lord.

I know many of you lived through Hal Lindsey and The Late Great Planet Earth so it may surprise you to know that the biblical phrase “the day of the Lord” has nothing to do with Lindsey’s description of the “end times”.

The phrase “the day of the Lord” speaks of the impending judgment of God. It appears 29 times in the King James Bible; mostly in the Old Testament. The warnings of judgment are in connection to the fall of Judah, Assyria and Israel which culminates in the Babylonian captivity, the first coming of Jesus and yes on a few occasions, the end of the age.

We could spend the next few weeks going through the proof texts for the fact that a judgment was coming upon Israel. Jesus told us that it would happen. Just to make his point, Jesus promised that this generation would not pass away until all these things were fulfilled. The promise that the current generation would see the judgment is recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke.

It is indisputable that the New Testament teaches that judgment was coming upon Israel. The apostles were responsible to insure that the Church was to ready. In fact, the New Testament is full of instruction for preparation of the coming judgment.

If you look at many passages in the New Testament with this idea in mind then perhaps you will see their context in a different light. Verses concerning the coming judgment can be divided into preparation and action. Our passages in Acts and Corinthians are clearly about preparing for the judgment. Why should believers hold onto their real estate and personal property when judgment was imminent? They also knew the instruction to be ready to flee when they saw the warning sign. It is also the lesson of the parable of the ten virgins and other parables to be ready.

The instruction to flee is recorded in all three of the synaptic gospels.

Matthew 24: 15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) 16Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house:18Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day:

Luke 21: 20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh .21Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out ; and let not them that are in the countries enter there into. 22For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Mark 13: 14But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: 15And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take anything out of his house: 16And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment.

Look at 1 Corinthians Chapter 7 again.
26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
29But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
31And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

Paul warns three times in this passage that change is coming shortly.

Given the scriptures above as well as others that could be brought into this discussion I think a case can be made that provisional rules were in place because of the coming judgment. In a nutshell, believers should prepare for the judgment and flee when they saw the sign.

Point 3 Israel Destroyed
Many Christians were persecuted and martyred in the final decades of Israel but there is no record of any Christians dying in the siege and destruction of Israel in 70 AD.

Josephus, the Jewish historian, was an eye witness to the systematic destruction of Israel by the Roman armies. He documents the famine, pestilence, war, and death experienced by the Jews. Over one million people died in the siege of Jerusalem and one hundred thousand were sold as slaves.

Flavius Josephus War of the Jews Book 7 Chapter 1

1. NOW as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury, (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done,) Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison, as were the towers also spared, in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valor had subdued; but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness of those that were for innovations; a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind.

Matthew 24: 2 ”And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down .” Forty years after he spoke the words, Jesus’ prophecy was literally fulfilled. His Church not only survived but thrived.

There are a good number of prophetic statements in Christ’s teaching regarding Jerusalem’s demise (e.g., Matt. 21:33-46; 22:1-14; 23:31-38; 24: 1-34). Somewhat later in Acts 2: 16ff. the Pentecostal tongues event in Jerusalem was pointed to as a harbinger of “the day of the Lord” that was coming. Tongues-speaking was a warning sign to Peter’s hearers of the necessity of their being “saved from this perverse generation” (Acts 2:40) before the “great and glorious day of the Lord” (Acts 2:20).6 In Acts 2:43E. and Acts 4:32ff. a strong case can be made showing that there was a practical motive to the Jerusalem church’s selling of their property and sharing of the profits. 7 Such action was not commanded them, nor was it practiced elsewhere. This selling of property and distributing of the profits seems to have been related to the impending destruction of the city prophesied by Jesus. The Jerusalem holocaust was coming in that generation and would render the land valueless. 1 Thessalonians 2:16 speaks of the Jews who “always fill up the measure of their sins” and upon whom “the wrath has come . . . to the utmost. ” Hebrews 12:18-29 contrasts Judaism and its fulfillment, Christianity, and notes that there is an approaching “shaking” of the old order coming. There are many other Scriptural indications that point to something dramatic and earth-shaking that was coming upon the world and that would be felt in reverberations even beyond Judea.8

Thus, Revelation 7 is strongly indicative of a pre-fall Judea. After the Jewish War “Palestine was proclaimed a Roman province, and a great part of the land became the personal property of the emperor. But the country was in ruins, its once flourishing towns and villages almost without inhabitants, dogs and jackals prowling through the devastated streets and houses. In Jerusalem, a million people are reported to have perished, with a hundred thousand taken captive to glut the slave markets of the empire.

Kenneth L Gentry, Jr. Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation 1989.

Conclusion

Our lesson today affirms that Jesus is prophet, priest and king. Christ is ruling the kingdoms of men for his own purposes. Not only did he give his life for his bride the Church but he nourishes and protects his people. Our text today is not only an admonition to love each other but a reminder that Christ is at work to guide and nourish his folk, even thru the tumult of perilous times.

My wife ran across an article that appeared on the Des Moines Register website. It was called “Historian: Why U.S. is not a Christian nation” by Kenneth C Davis.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110715/OPINION01/107150352/1001/NEWS/?odyssey=nav|head

The author “cherry picks” a few historical references—mostly related to Thomas Jefferson—and his letter to the Danbury Baptist association to try to prove the “wall of separation between church and state” is the original intent of the Founders. It is his contention that the belief that America was founded as a “Christian nation” was an invention of the 20th century.

The Constitution and the views of these founding fathers trump all arguments about references to God in presidential speeches (permitted under the First Amendment), on money (not introduced until the Civil War), the Pledge of Allegiance (“under God” added in 1954) and in the national motto “In God We Trust” (adopted by law in 1956).

And those contentious monuments to the Ten Commandments found around the country and occasionally challenged in court? Many of them were installed as a publicity stunt for Cecile B. DeMille’s 1956 Hollywood spectacle, “The Ten Commandments.” http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110715/OPINION01/107150352/1001/NEWS/?odyssey=nav|head

This is dishonest history disguised as scholarship. Please note that he does not quote anything prior to 1954 that references God to try to prove his argument. Were he an honest historian, Davis would give the reason that God was added to the Pledge and our Motto was a reaction to the rise of the Soviet Union and their official doctrine of a secular, atheistic empire. No one that knows history would use these things as the only proof that America was founded as a Christian Nation. This is a simple misdirection on his part.

His claim about the Ten Commandments is even more bogus. The Bible including the Ten Commandments has been the core of school curriculum in the West since the Reformation. The Bible and Shakespeare were the primary books that Abraham Lincoln used to educate himself. Only since the rise of Darwin, Marx and other secularists has this changed.

As Paul Harvey used to say, “And now the rest of the story.”

The Washington Monument

When the monument was under construction in 1854, the Washington National Monument Society ran out of money and the project ground to a halt. Twenty-five years later, the U.S. Government took over and completed the upper two-thirds of the structure by 1884 using marble from a different quarry. http://www.nps.gov/wamo/faqs.htm

On the 140-foot landing of the monument, a memorial stone is inscribed with a prayer from the city of Baltimore. It reads “May Heaven to this union continue its beneficence; may brotherly affection with union be perpetual; may the free constitution which is the work of our ancestors be sacredly maintained and its administration be stamped with wisdom and with virtue.”

On the 260-foot landing of the Washington Monument memorial stones quote Proverbs 10:7, Proverb 22:6, and Luke 17:6. These stones were presented by Sunday school children from New York and Philadelphia…

The cornerstone for the monument was laid on July 4, 1848, within the cornerstone rests the Holy Bible, presented by the Bible Society. The monument was opened to the public on October 9, 1888. In total, there are 36,491 stones. Inserted into the interior walls of the monument are 188 carved stones presented by individuals, societies, cities, states, and nations of the world. http://www.just4kidsmagazine.com/beacon4god/lausdeo.html

 

Few people know that engraved on the metal cap to the monument, towering 555 feet above the ground are the words, “Praise be to God.” In addition, several tribute blocks line the staircase, and they are inscribed with Bible verses: “Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not; for such is the Kingdom of God (Luke 18:16),” “Search the Scriptures (John 5:39; Acts 17:11),” and “Holiness unto the Lord (Exodus 28:36); 39:30; Zechariah 14:20).” http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080607153549AAOCTIc

In addition, the following Scriptures appear on the Washington Monument. Below I quote the King James because this is likely the version that was used.

The memory of the just is blessed: but the name of the wicked shall rot.  Proverb 10:7

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. Proverb 22:6

And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamore tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you. Luke 17:6

Other taxpayer funded monuments include references to God and the Bible.

Further east, along the Mall’s north side, stands the National Archives.  No building in Washington, save perhaps the Library of Congress, is more emblematic of this nation’s desire to preserve its history as the key to a secure future. Carved in stone adjacent to the entrance of the Archives are the words “What is past is prologue,” appropriately introducing the original parchment of the United States Constitution inside. Inlaid at the Archives’ entrance is a bronze medallion of the Ten Commandments, surrounded by four winged figures representing Legislation, Justice, History, and War and Defense, a testament to the Archives’ architects’ bold witness to the centrality of biblical truth to the American experience.

Still further east, the level expanse of the Mall gives way to the gentle rise of Jenkins’ Hill, known by its more political name, Capitol Hill. Below the west front of the Capitol, where our presidents take their inaugural oaths, lay gardens planted with the offerings of people and organizations from around the world. One such planting is a group of five crabapple trees, donated by the people of Iowa in memory of the five Sullivan brothers, sons of the Hawkeye State, who served and died together aboard the U.S.S. Juneau in World War II. This living monument, eloquent beyond words, reminds Americans of the “costly sacrifice” so many families have laid, in Lincoln’s words, “on the altar of freedom.”

The U.S. Capitol also bears public witness to the legacy of biblically inspired faith that Americans have passed on from generation to generation. New England statesman and orator Daniel Webster was voted by the United States Senate in the 1980s as one of the five greatest senators ever to serve in that chamber. In 1851, when the new House and Senate wings of the Capitol were begun, Webster gave a speech that was deposited in the cornerstone. Its final words are these:

If, therefore, it shall hereafter be the will of God that this structure should fall from the base, that its foundations be upturned, and this deposit brought to the eyes of men, be it then known, that on this day the Union of the United States of America stands firm, that their constitution still exists unimpaired, and with all of its original usefulness and glory, growing every day stronger and stronger in the affection of the great body of the American people, and attracting more and more the admiration of the world. And all here assembled, whether belonging to public life or to private life, with hearts devotedly thankful to Almighty God for the preservation of the liberty and happiness of the country, unite in sincere and fervent prayers that this deposit, and the walls and arches, the domes and towers, the columns and the entablatures, now to be erected over it, may endure forever. http://www.religiousliberty.com/article-washington-dc-monuments.htm

Lincoln Memorial Commissioned 1910 Dedicated 1922

National Archives opened in 1935

US Capitol Building was built in 1793 and continued to grow periodically.

The whole Washington Mall was purposely designed as a crucifix. Google “Laus Deo” and see http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/monument.asp for more information.

You may ask what about the contemporaries of Thomas Jefferson. Davis don’t go into that issue on purpose and neither did he explain what a test oath is or how it related to Article VI of the US Constitution. Why because it proves the falsehood of his claims.

Most states had a state sponsored church at the time that the US Constitution was ratified. http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=69 No States saw a conflict between having a State sponsored church and the First Amendment.

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 First Amendment only restricts the national government from establishing one Church for all of the United States. We often forget that the States created the national government and not the other way around. Many States did sponsor churches of one denomination or another.

The last part of Article VI of the US Constitution reads:

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.

What is a test oath? It is an oath of adherence to certain beliefs in God and was often required in States as a condition of holding public office. It is consistent with the First Amendment that no national church be established. This keeps America from being just like England where the monarch was both head of state and head of the church.

In the Middle Ages, kings, princes, and feudal lords demanded oaths of loyalty from their vassals. Not just to the prince, but to his religion as well. After the Reformation, if a prince became a Lutheran, everyone in his realm became a Lutheran. By law. Anyone accepting a political office or public trust took an oath of loyalty to the prince and to the Catholic (or Lutheran, or whatever) faith.

In America, many of the colonies limited political offices to members of the Church of England, or other denominations. After the Revolution against Britain, very few people wanted their tax dollars to pay the salaries of the clergy for the Church of England (no surprise). But which denomination would be supported by taxes and oaths? The colonists decided to eliminate taxes and oaths which favored any particular denomination. Before the Constitution was written, every state had eliminated the requirement that public office holders be members of a particular denomination. The Revolution (not the First Amendment) effectively marked the end of test oaths and “established churches.”

But every state still required that politicians believe in God. Atheists could not take an oath of any kind. An oath was a declaration of belief in God. That’s what an oath is: The oath taker declares that he believes in God and that he is fully aware that God will judge him if what he says is false or if what he promises is not fulfilled.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, these two points were universally understood:

• An oath could be taken only by someone who believed in God.
• An oath of office could be taken by anyone who believed in God, regardless of denominational affiliation. In short, no other “religious test” would be required.

Both before and after the Constitution was ratified, the states required candidates to be Biblically qualified to take the oath of office. They were not required to affirm their membership in a particular denomination, but they were required to swear that they were Christians. If you were not a Christian, you could not hold office. http://vftonline.org/TestOath/WhatIs.htm

If memory serves correctly, Georgia was the last state to drop the requirement that a person had to believe in God in order to testify in a court of law. This was in the 1980’s. It makes sense; if you don’t believe that God will punish you for bearing false witness (violating one of the Ten Commandments) for lying on the witness stand then what compels you to tell the truth?

This is just a brief survey of the material that proves that the author, Kenneth C Davis is a liar. Properly understood, Jefferson’s wall only protects the Church from the State. http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html The Founders never envisioned that the State should be free from the influence of Christianity. Quite the opposite, our Founders assume that a Christian people are necessary for freedom and liberty. Davis isn’t interested in religious liberty; he is really advocating freedom from religion not of religion. Davis dare not cite the Mayflower Compact or other documents that came from the colonial period because none support his claim.

Jefferson’s letter to the Newbury Baptists was just an obscure document until the Supreme Court elevated it as the basis of a decision issued in 1947. So why is Davis so upset that “under God” was added to the Pledge just seven short years after has precious “wall of separation” was created by the Supreme Court? Jefferson’s wall doesn’t even mean what the Court said it did in 1947. It was just a tool to get them the outcome that they wanted; a “fig leaf” to give them political cover for their decision. It’s no different than the current Court quoting European law as precedent when no such case can be cited within our own court system. It is a device for the Court to legislate from the bench. Talk about violating original intent!