Civil Government: An Exposition of Romans 13:1-7 Part 3

Posted on March 4, 2012 by ccpastormike

Section II

General Considerations Enforcing the Duty of Obedience to Civil Rule.

For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. Verses 1, 2.

Having stated the duty, the apostle now proceeds to show the grounds on which it rests, insisting upon two classes of arguments, and

1. They derive their power from God, or in other words, government is a divine
institution, originating in, and of course, sanctioned by the will of God. For (1.)“There is no power but of God.” This is true, whatever sense we attach to the word “power.” All physical power — all executive energy, in every department of creation, is from God. “In Him we live, and move, and have our being.” (Acts 17:28.) In this sense the power of evil beasts and even of the devil, is from God. “By Him all things consist,” (Colossians 1:17). Again, if we understand by“power,” the possession of the reins of government, it is, certainly, through Him that kings are permitted to occupy their thrones and that, whatever the steps by which they may have succeeded to the seat of authority. Pharaoh was “raised up” in the course of that providence which controls all the affairs of men. God“gave the kingdom” to Jeroboam. The same hand “raised up” Cyrus, and our Lord expressly declares to Pilate, the unholy Roman governor, “Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given to thee from above,” (John 19: 11.) Even the devil has “power,” in this sense, from God. Does Paul mean no more than this? Assuredly he means something far different. This clause assigns a reason for that hearty subjection which the apostle had just enjoined. But,surely, the mere fact that one possesses “power,” can be no reason why his claims should be acknowledged, and his laws conscientiously obeyed. If so, the slave — ay, the slave who has been stolen from his own land and ignominiously held as a chattel — would be required to admit, as from God, the validity of his master’s claims. To throw off his chains, and make his way to his native home as a freeman, would be rebellion against God. No doctrine could be more agreeable than this to tyrants, and to all the panders to unholy power; for, if this be Paul’s meaning, there is no despot, no usurper, no bloody conqueror, but could plead the divine sanction and, more than this, the devil himself could lay the teachings of Paul under contribution to enforce his pre-eminently unholy authority. An interpretation which leads to such monstrous conclusions — that would bind the nations to the footstool of power with iron chains, and utterly crush every free aspiration — that would invest with the sanctions of the divine name the most flagrant usurpation and the most unrelenting despotism — stands self-condemned.

But we go further. Providence is not a rule of action. Sin and evil of all kinds exist in the course of the same providential administration, as that which furnishes a place for governments which contemn God and oppress mankind. And yet who claims for sin a divine sanction? Who denies to the suffering the right to rid themselves of their trials? Carry out this interpretation, and you furnish the bloody government of the Papal States an impregnable defense against the efforts of the liberators of Italy.

The truth is, the apostle has no reference here at all to anything but the
institution of government; [“Power is to be distinguished from persons; for
Paul loved polity and power; but Caligula and Nero he execrated as
monsters in nature, instruments of the devil, and pests of the human race.”
Lectures on Romans by Andrew Melville, Edin., 1850, p. 487.] and
designs to assert, and does assert, that there is no authority properly
exercised over men, but that which God has established. This is true in the largest sense: for man is God’s creature and subject, and he who sets up claims to dominion over him must be prepared to show that he exercises an authority of that sort and of that character which bears the stamp and sanction of divine institution. Had Paul, indeed, said no more, it might have been argued, with great plausibility, that he designed in this passage to give tyrants of the earth, what they have always claimed, the sanction of the Most High in their course of monstrous iniquity. Even then, however, we would have endeavored, and we think successfully, to vindicate the word of God against so abhorrent a conclusion. But Paul did not stop with these general assertions. He proceeds, as will presently appear, to define, with great distinctness and brevity, his own meaning: to designate the sort of “power” to which he alludes: not any and every existing government, but that which answers the end of its institution. In short, the design of this clause: “There is no power but of God,” is merely to assert the general principle that subjection is due to civil government, inasmuch as government is a divine institution. This appears more distinctly from what follows.

(2.) “The powers that be are ordained of God.” The prime fallacy of many commentaries on this entire passage consists in taking for granted that this phrase — this celebrated phrase — “the powers that be” — means all and any existing governments. This cannot be. The considerations already advanced, in setting aside a similar interpretation of the preceding clause, forbid it. Nor are there wanting others, equally conclusive. Of Israel it is said, referring to the establishment of an independent government by the ten tribes under Jeroboam, “They have set up kings, but not by me; they have made princes, and I knew (approved) it not.” (Hosea 8: 4.) And the prophet Daniel, and afterwards the apostle John, expressly and frequently denominate the Roman Empire a “beast.” The former, a “beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it,” (Daniel 7:11.) The latter, a “beast having seven heads and ten horns, and on it horns ten crowns, and on its heads the name of blasphemy,” (Revelation 17:1.) Surely such a description was never given of a government that could lay any solid claim to be “ordained of God;” at least, in any other sense than the pestilence is God’s ordinance, existing in his providence, but to be shunned and banished as soon as possible.⁵ And, in fact, for this end, among others, the gospel is sent into the world. It is the “stone cut out of the mountain without hands,” which is to “smite the great image (Daniel 2) and break it in pieces.” One ordinance of God, smiting, and breaking in pieces, another! The term “powers” here denote, as before, the institution of civil rule. This, with all other kinds of power that may be lawfully exercised among men, is “ordained of God.” In other words, the Most High has made provision for the exercise of civil authority. He has not left mankind to be controlled by no other government than that of parents over their children, of masters over their servants, of church rulers over private Christians. He has, also, provided for the setting up and administering of another kind of power, having its own peculiar ends, its rules, its limits, and its administrators — the power of civil government. God has willed the existence of a national organization and polity; and, in so doing, has fixed its ends, which it must subserve; has given it a supreme law, which it must observe; has bound it by limits which it may not pass over. In short, God has “ordained”⁶civil government as Christ has ordained the ministry of reconciliation, not by merely willing its existence, but by prescribing its duties, its functions, its end, and its limitations.

No other meaning can be affixed to the language of the apostle, consistently with due reverence for Him who is the Holy One and the Just, the rightful and
beneficent moral Governor. Can it be, for a moment, believed, that God has
made man a social being — placed him in society, and thus necessitated, by the very laws of the human constitution, the establishment of civil rule, and that he has, after all, set no bounds to the authority, no hedge about the claims of civil rulers? That, after all, He has left this whole matter to be lawfully managed, not by law, even His law, not by rule, but merely according to human caprice, or, what is far worse, human ambition, self-seeking, pride, and violence? And, then, as the issue of the matter, that in case a government exist, whatever the ends it aims at, whatever the principles that guide it administration, whether it be just or unjust, God-fearing or infidel, liberal or despotic, it exists, and He acknowledges it as “ordained” by Him, and as entitled to the regard, homage and obedience of its subjects? This cannot be. God is not so indifferent to His own glory, or to the welfare of man, and particularly of the church. He never intended, we may assert, with entire confidence, to sign, if we may so speak, a blank, and then leave man to fill it up according to his pleasure. Every attribute of God forbids this. Paul teaches no such doctrine.

The terms employed by the apostle, and the connection of the clauses, accord precisely with these views. He first asserts “power is not, except from God:”⁷ God alone is the source of legitimate authority. He is sovereign. Man is His. Power, not derived from God, is ever illegitimate. It is mere usurpation; as, for example, the Pope’s claim to reign in the church, and over the nations. The apostle then adds, in vindication of civil government, “the powers that be” — governmental institutions; “are arranged under God,”⁸ or if this be preferred, “by God.” There is such a “power” as that of civil rule. It is among the kinds of authority for which the Most High has made provision, and to which he has assigned the requisite laws and functions.

But we rest our interpretation upon no mere verbal criticism. God is the only source of power. And God has in the sense in which we have explained the term, “ordained” civil government. He is the source of power, that power of which Paul speaks, not as he endows with physical strength, or even as He opens the way, in his providence, for its successful employment in subjugating mankind; but as he has authorized the exercise of that particular kind of authority; of course, putting upon it, when measurably conformed to his institution, the impress of his own dignity, and the sanction of his law.⁹

Is it inquired, where this institution is found? The reply has been, in part, anticipated. In the constitution of man, and in the principles of piety, of equity, of beneficence, originally implanted in the human heart, but now, much more clearly, in the written Scriptures, which abound with instruction, addressed to rulers and people, and furnishing all the light mankind need for the organization and administration of the most salutary political regimen. The passage before us is an example. It is proper, however, to add, that instruction is given in the word of God, not so much in regard to the particular form which the government should assume, as in reference to the ends it should seek, the principles that should guide the administration, and the character of those into whose hands national affairs should be committed.

This is Paul’s first argument enforcing the duty of obedience, and to demonstrate that it is not beneath the dignity of the Christian to be subject to civil government. So far from offending Christ, such subjection honors him — for it is yielded to a divine institution, and for the same reason, it cannot safely be withheld. Hence Paul argues:

2. From the sin and danger of resisting civil authority, and

(1.) The sin. “Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.” — Verse 2^nd.

The distinction is still kept up between the institution — “the ordinance” of God, and the magistrate in whose hands the reins of government happen to be found. “Whosoever resisteth the power.” A most important distinction. For, in truth, there are occasions when it is not merely lawful, but a matter of high and imperative duty, to resist authority. The case of the high priest, Azariah, and his brethren, who withstood Uzziah, the king of Judah, in his attempt to pass over the limits of his power and obtrude into the priest’s office, is well-known to every reader of the Bible: “It pertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord; but to the priests, the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary, for thou hast trespassed.” (I Chronicles 26:18) And still more to the purpose are the cases of Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego, and afterwards Daniel, who all refused compliance with laws enacted by the then supreme authority in Babylon (Daniel 3:6.) To the same effect is the refusal of Peter and John to obey the command of the Jewish magistracy “not to speak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus.” They reply, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye,” (Acts 4:18, 19.) Indeed, until of late, the duty of refusing to obey the commands of the civil power, when they conflict with duty to God was never, so far as we know, denied by any bearing the name of Christian. It is certain that the advocates of the doctrine of “passive obedience and non-resistance” during the 17^th and 18^th centuries in England, did not go so far as this. The very terms in which they announced their doctrine make this manifest, “passive obedience, non-resistance.” They acknowledge a higher law than the enactments of human, and, of course, fallible, and often impious power. The first prominent enunciation of the principle of unlimited and unquestioning obedience, was reserved for an atheist — Hobbes of Malmesbury. Denying the existence of any fixed standard of right — and, consequently, of any such things as virtue and vice — this speculative philosopher resolved all the laws of morality into one — the will of the legislature. But who were his disciples?

None but the godless, the dissipated, the scorners of all that is sacred. The heart of England was shocked at the daring attempt to dethrone the Almighty. It was reserved for another age and another land to hear and assent to the
blasphemous assertion, that the law of the land overrides all other laws, and
must be obeyed under penalty of resisting the ordinance of God.

But we may go further, and assert that Paul did not intend, by the language
before us, to forbid even the forcible resistance of unjust and tyrannical civil
magistrates, not even when that resistance is made with the avowed design of
displacing offending rulers, or, it may be, the change of the very form of
government itself. There are few in this land, or in any free country, to deny the right of a nation to rid itself of oppressive power — whether foreign or domestic. The right of revolution, for the purpose of throwing off usurping or tyrannical rule, need not, now and here, be defended. That question was settled in England by the Revolution of 1688, when the nation, rising in its might, expelled James II as an enemy to the constitutional rights and liberties of the people. The separate national and independent existence of these United States is the fruit of successful revolution. And where is the American — the American Christian — who does not rejoice in the hope that the principles of liberty will spread and prevail, even though they be ultimately established upon the wreck of thrones demolished or overturned?

Does the Spirit of God here condemn these efforts of the nations to rid themselves of the yoke of despots? Does this passage rivet the chains of the oppressed? Certainly not. God denounces the oppressor. “Woe to him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness and his chambers by wrong,” (Jeremiah 22:13.) “Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness, which they have prescribed.” (Isaiah 10:1) And, to say nothing of the threatenings — repeated and awful — against the ungodly and oppressing powers, symbolized by the “beast” of Daniel and of the Revelation, we have the striking inquiry of Psalm 94:20: “Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with the, which frameth iniquity by a law?”

Now is it credible that notwithstanding these denunciations, the Most High does still forbid, under penalty of his high displeasure, all conflicts for liberty? That he so far takes under his patronage ungodly governments which despise his law and his Son — as to regard any opposition to their authority as opposition made to his own holy “ordinance” of magistracy? To persuade us of this, we may first demand the clearest evidence.

It is evident that the proper interpretation of this passage depends upon the
meaning of the phrase, “ordinance of God.” What then is its import? Does it
mean any and every government? Does it mean Phocas, who “waded to the
throne of the Roman Empire through seas of blood?” Does it mean that Joseph
of Austria, with his government, is the “ordinance of God” to Hungary? Does it
mean the government of the Pope and his cardinals, under which the Papal States groan? In short, is this term applied to any government merely from the fact that it exists?

Clearly not; for, then, the powers just mentioned must be also embraced in it — a conclusion equally repulsive to the Christian and to the friend of human liberty. And, besides, if this be its meaning, the very worst government has the very same right to demand unresisting subjection, as the very best, for both alike exist — exist in the same over-ruling and all-controlling providence; and both would be armed with the same high sanction: to “resist” either, would be to make the same assault upon the “ordinance of God!”

What, then, is its import? The reply has been already anticipated.¹⁰ It denotes God’s moral ordinance of civil government — it refers to such a government as Paul afterwards describes — a government which is “a terror to evil-doers, and a praise to them that do well” — a government that in due measure answers the ends of the institution of civil rule, a government of law, of equity, possessed of moral attributes, and ruling “under God,” by whom it has been “ordered,” for the execution of high and useful functions.

Who, then, resists? The reply is at hand, and conclusive. He who opposes the rightful exercise of civil rule; he who would attempt the overthrow of just and wholesome authority; he who endeavors to weaken the hands of the “higher powers” in their performance of the trust committed to them: he who rises against the restraints imposed upon the lawless, the profane: he who willfully disturbs the peace, and interferes with the regular administration of justice: for such, and such alone, assail “the ordinance of God.” Indeed, we may well ask how this can possibly apply to any but those who invade the good order of the commonwealth by opposing wholesome rule? The end for which governments were established is, surely, more important than government itself, and much more important than the particular form, or the mere fact of the possession of power by this individual or that. How, then, can anyone be regarded as chargeable with the sin and crime of resisting God’s “ordinance,” who refuses to obey an unjust enactment, or who even goes so far as to attempt the overthrow of or remodeling of a government that is, by tyranny, or injustice, or ungodliness, working harm to society, and dishonor to God, and so tends to defeat the very ends for which the “ordinance” of civil rule was established? The commands of a maniac or drunken father may be disregarded — the wife or even the children taking the government into their own hands — much more may institutions and laws be disregarded when these run counter, either in their constitution or administration, to the divine law, and thus tend to the manifest injury of the commonwealth.¹¹

But does not this tend to the enfeebling of the claims of even legitimate authority? By no means. True, all institutions administered by human hands will, necessarily, bear the marks of human imperfection, and it may be difficult, in theory, to draw the line, and say, this much is requisite to constitute a government on which we may inscribe the title “the ordinance of God;” but, in practice, the difficulty will not be often very great — no greater than in many other departments of duty. Surely, we may go so far as to affirm, with confidence, that every “ordinance of God” will acknowledge his claims — the claims of His Son (we speak of governments in enlightened lands,) and the supremacy of His law, and will seek to promote the welfare of all the subjects or citizens.That this doctrine, moreover, is liable to be abused by the lawless, we admit. The opponents of the principle of “passive obedience” encountered the same objection. Says Bishop Hoadly, “The great objection against this, though it be all founded upon the will of God, who sincerely desires the happiness of public societies, is this, that it may give occasion to subjects to disturb and oppose their superiors. But, certainly, a rule is not therefore bad, because men may mistake in the application of it to particular instances; or because evil men may, under the umbrage of it, satisfy their own passions and unreasonable humors; though these latter, as they are disposed to public disturbance, would certainly find out some other pretence for their behavior, if they wanted this. The contrary doctrine to what I have been delivering, we know, by an almost fatal experience, may be very much abused; and yet that is not the reason why it ought to be rejected, but because it is not true. Every man is to give an account for his sins; and the guilt of those who, under any pretence whatsoever, disturb the government of such as act the part of good rulers, is so great, that there cannot be a stronger motive than this against resistance and opposition to such.”¹² It may be added that every argument on behalf of civil liberty may also be abused, and equally, the doctrines of grace. And yet, after all, we need not much fear any liability to abuse in the application of this principle, provided it be rightly understood; for its very basis and groundwork is that God has ordained civil society and organization, and that existing institutions are only to be resisted when they fail to answer the ends for which government has been established among divine ordinances, while — and this is the apostle’s argument— to “resist” a government which is really an “ordinance of God” is a sin of heinous character. This is plainly taught when Paul proceeds to enforce subjection,

(2.) From the danger of resistance. And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation, ( – condemnation,) v.2. From what quarter? from the government, or from God? That the apostle designed no more than to assert the fact that such as impugn the authority of government, or resist its commands, or oppose themselves to its authority, will meet with civil punishment, does not appear probable. This would be to assert a fact too well-known to require so emphatic and solemn an enunciation. Of course, no government will tamely allow its injunctions to be set at naught, so long as it bears the sword. And, moreover, it seems hardly consistent with the high and religious tone of the entire passage, to understand this clause as having no higher reference than to the infliction of civil punishment upon the disorderly and rebellious. What immediately precedes contains a pretty distinct intimation, as has already been remarked, of the fact that “resistance” to legitimate authority is not only a sin, but a sin of a heinous character. Nor are more express declarations to the same effect wanting elsewhere in the Word of God. We may refer to the case of Korah and the princes of Judah, whom God visited with a most signal token of his wrath for this very sin. “They went down alive into the pit.” (Numbers 16) And all remember the sad story of Absalom, who also died in the same sin in an attempt to overturn a lawful power.¹³

Still, we are not to infer that the sin of resisting civil rule involves necessarily eternal ruin. It deserves “condemnation.” God sees it. It highly offends Him. He will vindicate His own “ordinance.” And why not? If it be, as it certainly is, a most beneficial one — if it promote directly every temporal interest, and, at least, indirectly bears upon the moral and religious welfare of the community — if successful resistance to good government opens the flood gates to violence, irreligion, vice, and misery — if no interest can flourish when good laws are not well administered — can it be regarded as unworthy of the Divine Spirit to attach this emphatic sanction to the institution of civil rule — to assert, in this explicit form, that God will mark with his evident disapprobation every act of resistance to the righteous exercise of magistratical power?

On these high grounds, then, does Paul enforce subjection to the “higher powers.” Government is from God — to resist, is to resist his “ordinance,” and “he that resists receives a righteous ‘condemnation.’”¹⁴

Inferences

1. That civil government is, as an institution, from God. — National organization is not the mere creature of the voluntary action of the inhabitants of a particular country or district. It is their province, indeed, to establish the particular institutions by which they are to be guided and governed; and in this sense, political arrangements are “the ordinance of man,” (I Peter 2:13.) Still, it is not optional with men whether such an institution as civil government exist at all. God has “ordained” it. And it is important to remark, that government once set up, its rights and prerogatives are not wholly determined by the popular will. To some extent they certainly are; but in others they, as certainly, are not. The Most High has fixed the leading ends of all civil rule;¹⁵ and has also defined, to some extent, the means to be employed in effecting these. It is not optional, for example, with any people, whether they shall commit to the magistracy the power of inflicting death upon the murderer — the law of God determines this. It is a subtle question, and one that in some respects possesses a practical importance — whether civil power is, in the aggregate, a collection made up of contributions of rights thrown in by individual members of the commonwealth — each resigning a portion of his own. By no means. No man has a right to take his own life, and yet society has the right to inflict capital punishment, and, moreover, such a notion is entirely inadmissible on another ground. Man was made for society, and, hence, so far is he from being necessarily restricted in his rights in the social state, that it is as a member of society alone, that he can enjoy all the privileges and perform all the duties of manhood.

In short, while the people of a country have in their own hands the setting up of their government, and the choice of rulers — when this is once done, and rightly done— the authority by which the government is administered is to be regarded as derived from the divine institution of the ordinance of magistracy. Hence,

2. The principle standard by which this institution is to be measured is the Word of God. — This may be inferred directly from the fact that the scriptures treat so fully on the subject. It appears in each Testament, and in every form of instruction. There are didactic passages — such as that before us. Of this character are the teachings and the precepts of the moral law, which contains a complete exhibition of all that relates to the ends, the principles, the methods of civil rule — and much of the detail respecting magistratical duties, and their correlates, the duties of subjects and citizens. The narratives of the Bible largely illustrate its didactic rules and precepts. It abounds with exemplifications both of good and bad governments, and the issues of the one and of the other. Much of prophecy, both of the Old Testament and of the New, is designed to shed light upon the subject of civil polity, and the divine administrations respecting it.

Where else can this be learned? Not from the light of nature merely. True, the
essential principles of social organization, and even of political regimen, are
contained in the moral law, and that law is the same that was inscribed upon the heart of man at his creation. But the “law of nature” — the law as a complete rule of human duty is man’s primitive condition — the light that is now in man is too feeble to discern it in anything like its holiness and perfection. To reject the Word of God in this, as in any other department of duty, is, to use the words of John Brown of Haddington, “an obstinate drawing back to heathenism.”

There is still another reason why we must refer to the scriptures, and make them the supreme standard. There, and there alone, do we ascertain the now essential principle of right civil rule, the Headship of Jesus Christ: for “He is made head over all things to the church,” (Ephesians 1:22.) To Him “all judgment is committed,” (John 5:22.) He is “Prince of the kings of the earth,” (Romans 1:5.) And not merely do we learn this fact, but having ascertained it, we are led at once to the conclusion that to His own Word must we now address ourselves, if we would become acquainted with that institution itself of which He so plainly claims the supremacy.

3. Disorderly and seditious behavior is here most signally rebuked. — The ordinance of magistracy, rightly set up and administered, ranks among the most important: in some respects, it is first of the institutions with which men have to do. And social order is of itself “of great price.” How wrong to disturb it by disorderly and lawless conduct. It is sometimes, indeed, a matter of no little moment to determine were the guilt lies! We would not style any either disorderly or seditious, who are contending in a right spirit against the corruptions of the State, or of the public administration of affairs. Sometimes the rulers themselves are the disturbers of the peace, and upon them falls the threatening of this passage. However, we now speak of the seditious and disorderly, of those who are such in a community where a scriptural magistracy and wholesome rule are in operation. These are to be regarded as chargeable with an offense of no inferior turpitude; as deserving of the most severe reprobation, and as fit subjects for punitive inflictions. And, it may be added, that the spirit of peace and order should, as far as possible, characterize the conduct of those who dissent from unholy and oppressive governments, and attempt their reformation.

______________________

⁵ “So are fevers, plagues, fires, inundations, tempests, and the like. And yet Almighty God not only permits, but requires us to use all prudent methods of resisting and stopping their fury, but is far from expecting that we should lie down, and do nothing to save ourselves from perishing in such calamities. So likewise are robbers and cut-throats God’s judgments, but this doth not prove that you must submit yourselves and families to be ruined at their pleasure. So again are inferior magistrates, if they make use of their power to fall with violence upon their neighbors, and attempt their lives, or the ruin of their families; and yet they may be resisted, and their illegal violence repelled by violence. And so, lastly, are foreign enemies and invaders, always reckoned amongst God’s judgments, and amongst the most remarkable of them; and yet there is no necessity, I hope, from hence, of tamely submitting ourselves to them: and no argument from hence, against the lawfulness or honorableness of resisting them. Either, therefore, let it be shown, that this objection holds good in other of God’s judgments; or, that there is something peculiar in this to exempt it from the common rule; or let it be acknowledged that it signifies nothing in the present case.” Hoadly’s Submission to the Powers that be. London, 1718, p. 85. Hoadly presents this, it will be seen, as an answer to the objection, that bad government are to be submitted to, and not thrown off, because they are judgments of God. It comes in as well here.

⁶ The marginal translation, “ordered,” is rather better than that of the text.

⁷

⁸*We here quote from the commentary of Andrew Melville. He says, “The third argument is taken from the order divinely constituted under God — for the glory of God; for so I interpret, &c. Not so much ‘from God’ which has already been said, as ‘powers are arranged under God.’ Which with the article —— he calls— as if he had said, &c., ‘which are truly powers’ and deserve the name. Whence, an impious and unjust tyranny, which is not of God,—-as—-such,—-nor accords with the divine order, he excludes, as illegitimate, from this legitimate obedience.” Comment. p. 497.

9 “And this may serve to explain yet farther in what sense these higher powers are from God; viz., as they act agreeably to his will, which is, that they should promote the happiness and good of human society, which Paul all along supposes them to do. And consequently, when they do the contrary, they cannot be said to be from God, or to act by his authority, any more than an inferior magistrate may be said to act by a prince’s authority, while he acts directly contrary to his will.” Hoadly, p. 5.

¹⁰ See page 23.

¹¹ “Now this being the argument of the apostle, all that we can possibly collect from his injunctions in this place is this: That it is the indispensable duty of subjects to submit themselves to such governors as answer the good end of their institution; to such rulers as he here describes; such as are not a terror to good works, but to the evil; such as promote the public good, and are continually attending upon this very thing.” Hoadly, p. 7.

¹² Hoadly, pp. 10, 11.

¹³ Hodge says, “Paul does not refer to the punishment which the civil magistrate may inflict, for he is speaking of disobedience to those in authority as a sin against God, which he will punish.”

¹⁴ See Appendix C.

¹⁵ The fact, and what these ends are, will be the subject of our next section.

Review of: Grant R. Jeffrey, “The Global-Warming Deception: How a Secret Elite Plans to Bankrupt America and Steal Your Freedom” (Colorado Springs, CO: WaterBrook Press, 2011).

Posted on March 21, 2011 by ccpastormike

Far too many writers of books dealing with the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) attempt to mask their bias’ and personal presuppositions under the proclaimed guise of neutrality and objectivity. Such a perspective is a fool’s errand and indicates that the writer in question is either naïve or deliberately deceptive. Jeffrey is neither.

The author announces his bias and presuppositional basis immediately in the first paragraph of the introduction. While this might discourage some readers and could potentially cause some to not read this book, I nevertheless applaud the author for his candidness and encourage readers who may not share Jeffrey’s bias’ to press on.

Jeffrey’s alerting his readers to the fact that he is writing from an evangelical Christian perspective is important for a number of reasons. It is important in the first instance because the political debate surrounding AGW has been framed recently by advocates of all persuasions as being one with an underlying moral nature. This naturally invites and encourages people of religious faith to participate in the process of debate. Second, there has been a concerted effort by proponents of global legislation aimed at combating AGW to co-opt evangelical Christianity. The desired implication being that THE evangelical Christian position on AGW is consistent, homogenous and supportive. The fact is that among evangelical Christians there exist varied and heterogeneous viewpoints. Third, in order to respond in a consistent and compassionate manner evangelical Christians must look beyond the sometimes heated rhetoric that occupies too much of the current AGW debate.

While it is necessary to understand the myriad rules, regulations, and legislation being proposed as a means to combat AGW the real questions for the evangelical Christian are (1) what are the consequences of adopting the proposed rules, regulations, and legislation on the poor? This is the most reasonable and compassionate starting point for the evangelical Christian. Advocating for AGW legislation without understanding what effects the implementation of said legislation will have on the poor globally is nothing short of shallow and superficial religious faith. Can denying the poorest people of Africa the basic necessity of electricity for fear of raising the levels of CO₂ really be called moral and compassionate from a Christian viewpoint? It appears to be more than inconsistent with the Christian faith to deny the poor in other nations what is considered to be a basic necessity of life in America. From this specific concern for the ramifications of AGW legislation Jeffrey asks a much broader question, namely, (2) what are the implications for all human beings if AGW legislation is passed? It is the author’s contention that “those who lead the effort to combat AGW are not primarily motivated to reduce future global temperature increases. Instead, they are bent on forcing the capitalist, free enterprise economies of the West to submit to a global socialist-Marxist government” (Introduction, p.5).

On this basis then, Jeffrey lays out his argument in twelve chapters. His theses appear to be three-fold. One, AGW is a Trojan Horse of sorts, meant to undermine sovereign governments and to establish a global government in their place (chapter 1). Two, that the vehicle to perpetrate the AGW hoax is the plethora of rules, regulations, and proposed legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions. These rules, regulations, and legislation are based on myths (chapter 2), propaganda (chapter 3), false claims (chapter 4), flawed data (chapter 5), outright lies (chapter 6), the recent “Climategate” revelations that demonstrated the ideology over fact perspective of AGW enthusiasts (chapter 7), the truth that modeling not empirical data is behind the AGW temperature change “proof” (chapter 8), the fact that international treaties are more about surrendering national and sovereign rights to international unelected bodies instead of establishing environmentally beneficial and economically feasible action plans (chapter 9), and that AGW enthusiasts are partnering with population control advocates to not only reduce carbon emissions but to also reduce the world’s population through abortion, sterilization, and birth control (chapter 10). Jeffrey argues that AGW proponents have turned their activism into a religion that rivals even Christianity in terms of dedication to their “faith” (chapter 11). The author concludes this book by explaining what must be done to escape the AGW exaggerations, deceptions, and manipulations of governments and people (chapter 12).

Together these chapters argue that there is more to the AGW legislation than the public is hearing and understands. There is in fact a very cynical, sinister, and evil effort underway to turn the world into one global government under the control of “enlightened” elites. Jeffrey suggests that this turn of events was foretold long ago in the Bible. In this the author sees biblical prophecy being fulfilled. He therefore bookends his evaluation of the AGW movement within the context of the Daniel and Revelation passages describing a one world government that will rise in the days immediately preceding the return of Jesus Christ to earth. While this identification of a clear biblical parallel is important the author does not get sidetracked into a deep investigation of the Christian Scriptures, relying instead on a concise and cogent analysis of what drives the AGW agenda and the implications of its propositions. This makes the book an enjoyable read for people of any religious faith or none. Let’s turn now to a brief chapter by chapter review.

Chapter 1

Deception and manipulation have proven over time to be the devices of choice for those intent on bending mankind to their desires when democratic processes fail. The author believes that unless AGW advocates and their manipulators are stopped free citizens of the world and especially those in the West “will lose their standard of living and the economic, political, and religious freedoms they value” (p.13).

Governments, scientists, and their mouthpiece, the media, have all conspired to present a false picture of the earth’s environmental state. The tool of choice presently is CO₂emissions. The utilization of fossil fuels is responsible for global warming and therefore the solution is to dramatically curtail their usage according to the AGW script.

In an attempt to construct a legitimate basis for reducing carbon emissions the Obama administration and many Senators of both parties recently introduced the American Power Act. This was a blatant attempt on the part of the US government to create obedience to upcoming AGW legislation through subversion.

It is a historical fact that AGW was an invention of the Club of Rome. This group saw in the promotion of a global environmental crisis the one vehicle for herding all of mankind together under an umbrella of control. Their own internal documents tell the story:

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together . . . All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself” (p.10).

Chapter 2

The author points out that the only scientifically verifiable variance in global temperature since 1900 indicates a 1 degreeF rise. Is a 1 degree rise in temperature reason for panic? Jeffrey dedicates parts of nine pages to exploring temperature changes and concludes rightly that the earth has experienced temperature change normally and cyclically.

Why then are governments and organizations expending such energy and resources to create alarm over cyclical temperature change? The answer is not to save mankind from a coming environmental apocalypse as advocates of AGW suggest but is instead a naked attack on the freedom of mankind around the world. If allowed to continue unchallenged AGW elitists will “take control of the political, economic, financial, and military institutions of every nation on earth” (p.29).

Myths and obfuscation have and are being used to paint the “green” movement as rational, compassionate, and worthy of the best efforts of humanity to join in the cause of saving the planet. The truth is that the “green” movement is really “Red” or socialist at its core. President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus wrote in his book “Blue Planet, Green Shackles,” that “Green is the new red,” meaning that the AGW movement has been hi-jacked by socialist-Communists displaced when the Soviet Empire imploded.

Jeffrey’s cites H.L. Mencken who explained why otherwise rational and intelligent citizens are willing to be lead into political, economic, and social bondage: “civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary” (p.32).

Chapter 3

Propaganda is the art of selling something, be it an idea or product that appears beneficial while simultaneously hiding the negative consequences inherent within the idea or product. Propaganda relies for its success on slight of hand and gradual acceptance by an unsuspecting populace. The AGW movement has masterfully applied these principles and is seeing much fruit for its labor.

Jeffrey argues here that AGW legislation is promoted as beneficial to all humanity. That façade is enough to enlist countless uninformed people to the cause. While everyone is focused on the right hand that holds the baton and leads the choreographed orchestra of now familiar “green” choruses, the left hand is busy developing iron-fisted mandates that pave the way for socialism, enrichment of international financial leaders and private bankers, and the intentional degradation of the economies of industrialized nations most especially in the West.

Chapter 4

This is one of the better chapters in the book. Advocates of AGW demand social, economic, and individual lifestyle changes on the basis of perceived harmful climate change. The truth is that in the past 150 years there has been a 1 degree F increase in the earth’s temperature. This is easily accounted for as a cyclical change.

Research shows that climate disaster alarmists have attempted to create hysteria many times in the past. For example in 1895 the New York Times newspaper trumpeted the coming of a new ice age. In 1912 the London Times announced that this same ice age would soon cripple the civilized world. After the new ice age failed to materialize the media fell silent. That changed on the inaugural Earth Day in 1970 when environmental alarmist Kenneth Watt sang the same tired song of an impending ice age because of human mismanagement of the environment:

If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder in 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age (p. 66).

At about the same time Professor Paul Ehrlich said with a straight face, “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish (p. 66). This same man of great vision and understanding also opined in 1970 that, “Five years is all we have left if we are going to preserve any kind of quality in the world” (p. 66). Perhaps Ehrlich was attempting to repair his damaged reputation, for in 1968 he had assured the world that if the global population was not slowed dramatically the available food supply would dwindle until people would starve to death in global famines. Not to be outdone Time magazine announced with foreboding the coming ice age and Newsweek jumped on the global-cooling bandwagon with headlines of its own.

The problem for AGW advocates that cannot be overcome is they have no real scientific data on which to base their claims of a coming environmental disaster. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) offered chilling statistics indicating that immediate action needed to be taken to avert the impending crisis. Investigation has revealed that the IPCC scenario is based on computer modeling and not climate research. In other words scientists created computer models based on the data they input not on actual empirical climate data. Accountants go to jail for “cooking the books” but thus far AGW scientists in the IPCC have avoided the same well deserved jail time.

Chapter 5

In 1989 the previously mentioned United Nations IPCC was born. Its charter was to create a theory that could be proven related to AGW. Specifically the scientists were looking for data to prove that (1) an increase in global temperature that threatened life on earth is occurring; (2) that this increase in temperature is not mere cyclical variation; and, (3) that the environment, animals and humans are being threatened. The IPCC settled upon carbon dioxide as the reason for AGW and targeted Western industrialized nations as the major contributors to its creation.

The evidence AGW advocates use is varied but is condensed every few years into a United Nations IPCC report that utilizes projections from 23 computer models. In order to advance their green agenda the IPCC must ignore the empirical data that suggests zero warming has occurred. In spite of the continued insistence among environmentalists that the “science of AGW is settled,” data continues to arise that clearly indicates the opposite.

The truth is that the IPCC is not conducting scientific research but is instead a propaganda mouthpiece of statists, leftists and globalists who have elevated care for the earth above every other consideration including tragically human life. Dr. Vincent Gray echoes the growing fact-based resistance to the AGW alarmists: “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” (p. 83). Dr. John Brignall is even more scathing in his evaluation of the United Nations IPCC and AGW alarmists:

Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship . . . New circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. “Peer review” developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list (p. 83).

It is not just those opposed to the AGW agenda that are challenging the green orthodoxy. Scientists involved in the analysis of computer modeling data are blowing the whistle on the IPCC as well. Dr. Phillip Lloyd, an IPCC AGW report contributor revealed “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said” (p. 84).

Christopher Landsea of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was both an author and reviewer of the IPCC reports to the United Nations in 1995 and 2001. He resigned from the most recent IPCC report committee after accusing the United Nations and the IPCC of playing politics with hurricane science stating that, “I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized . . . I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound” (p. 85).

Chapter 6

The reader of the literature on AGW will be very familiar with Al Gore’s pronouncements. That he has become the punch line of every standup comic and late night talk show host in America is enough commentary. I leave it to readers of Jeffrey’s book to be reminded of Gore’s many outright lies, exaggerations, and gaffes.

Chapter 7

In this chapter Jeffrey analyzes the fallout from Climategate, the November 2009 revelation that scientists working at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglica in the United Kingdom deliberately distorted the truth of AGW and intentionally did not include climate data that would refute their pro-AGW ideology. The most prominent example of this intentional deception is the now infamous “Hockey Stick” graph created by then University of Virginia professor Michael Mann. Mann claimed that his graph proved that continual use of fossil fuel by humans was producing an environmental crisis. One of the many things that Climategate exposed was Mann’s deliberate manipulation of his graph’s outcome by the exclusion of pertinent data from both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. Scientists who peer reviewed Mann’s calculations and conclusions determined that Mann “had manipulated the data in order to support a predetermined conclusion” (p. 107).

The deliberate obfuscation of the truth by AGW advocates is a fact of public record thanks to the individual(s) who published thousands of internal documents including damaging emails. Take for example this email from CRU scientist Phil Jones to Michael Mann in which Jones was giving advice on how to not reveal their treachery: “If they (investigators and scientists not supportive of AGW) ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind . . . Tom Wigley . . . has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that” (pp. 111-12).

Jeffrey addresses three critical areas of concern as a result. (1) The deliberate hiding of data; (2) Altering historical temperature data; (3) Silencing critics of AGW. Clearly, the so-called consensus on AGW is a deliberate and manufactured illusion meant to siphon off financial resources from the West as well as erode jobs, raise taxes, and curtail economic growth. Of course this is seen as a positive development among AGW proponents as they believe that would necessarily curtail the growth of the earth’s enemy – carbon dioxide.

Chapter 8

Jeffrey argues here that instead of using computer modeling that is clearly self-serving and easily manipulated (Climategate, Phil Jones, and Michael Mann), real climate and temperature data that is available should be used.

The author discusses the relationship between solar activity and the earth’s temperature, the human contribution of CO₂ and the actual temperature data concluding that climate change is a natural occurrence and that the minimal increased levels of carbon dioxide is not harmful as AGW alarmists maintain but is instead good for the environment and especially agricultural products.

Chapter 9

The author details in this chapter the disastrous effects of implementing climate treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Copenhagen Accord. This is a must read chapter for those interested in keeping American jobs in America as well as keeping trillions of dollars here instead of sending them to Third World countries to prop up despots and dictators. AGW advocates Amory Lovins and Paul Ehrlich see poverty as a means of protecting the planet and insist that Third World nations not be given the necessary energy to lift them out of poverty. The real goal of AGW advocates is exposed in this chapter as a transfer of wealth that would render a majority of Americans impoverished.

In spite of Climategate and the now recognized fabrication of data and manipulation of people (chapter 7) and scientific/empirical data that demonstrates AGW is nothing but hot air (pun intended), the United Nations and many governments around the world are marching forward to the Pied Piper of AGW alarmists thinking that the world is still blind to their charade.

Climate summits such as Kyoto in 1997 and the largely entertaining spectacle of diplomats flying into Copenhagen in 2009 (burning millions of gallons of fossil fuels in the process) for the Climate Change Accord demonstrate the obtuseness or worse the evil intentions of world leaders who continue to press for global serfdom for the world’s people.

While some may scoff at that analysis Jeffrey rightly points out that the end game of all international climate-control agreements is “to legitimize and legalize a future global government (p. 138). In a moment of candidness the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, said that the Copenhagen summit was specifically “Another step towards the global management of our planet” (p. 138).

Chapter 10

Researching the AGW reveals that in addition to fabricating information and data to support their ideology, the AGW movement has integrated various misanthropist organizations. It is difficult for rational, emotionally balanced individuals to understand the self-loathing and human species-hating that characterizes population control advocates. What started out as a radical idea (Margaret Sanger and her eugenics theology of only the fittest are worth preserving) has morphed into a main stream (among the AGW crowd) group-think. Consider for example the following “rational” statements from human species-hating human beings:

Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First (perhaps the most radical human hating organization): My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full compliment of species, returning throughout the world.”

Sir James Lovelock: The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil . . . Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.

Prince Philip (husband of Queen Elizabeth II): If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.

John Davis: I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems. (All quotes pp. 150-151).

Clearly the goals of AGW advocates include far more than the cleaner air and purer water our school children are being taught.

Chapter 11

The worship of Gaia or Mother Earth is a well documented fact and is on the rise. Many once Christian churches having rejected historical biblical faith have embraced eco-religion. They are joining with earth worshippers and pagans of all stripes forming what adherents believe to be a sustainable moral basis for loving the earth while simultaneously hating human beings.

Author Michael Barone fleshes out the theology of the green eco-religionists:

The secular religion of global warming has all the elements of a religious faith: original sin (we are polluting the planet), ritual (separate your waste for recycling), redemption (renounce economic growth), and the sale of indulgences (carbon offsets). We are told that we must have faith (all argument must end, as Al Gore likes to say) and must persecute heretics (global warming skeptics are like Holocaust deniers, we are told). [p.159]

Of course all religions seek converts and the AGW crowd suffers no shortage of evangelists. While Al Gore might be the most prominent in the minds of many people, the most persuasive and successful AGW evangelists are undoubtedly the hundreds of thousands of elementary, high school, and college teachers and professors in America who preach the green gospel and teach its theology to unsuspecting students.

One of the most dangerous aspects of the AGW religion is the venom spewed toward unbelievers. Consider the comments of one of the key climatologists employed by the Weather Channel. Dr. Heidi Cullen suggested that anyone questioning global warming should lose their meteorological license. Dave Roberts thinks that: “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full world wide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war-crimes trials for these [expletive deleted] – some sort of climate Nuremburg” (p. 166).

Brandishing the same Nazi-theme for Green Theology infidels CBS’s 60 Minutes commentator Scott Pulley “suggested that global warming skeptics were equivalent to people who deny that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews during World War II” (p. 166).

Jeffrey then proceeds to describe three dire consequences of allowing eco-fundamentalism to continue. He lists (1) the threat to governments and economies; (2) its hostility to capitalism and free market economies; (3) the abandonment of Judeo-Christian principles that built Western civilization.

Chapter 12

Despite previous pronouncements that the science is settled in relation to global warming, institutions such as the Royal Society in the UK now admit that “any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect – there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements” (p. 180).

The once claimed unanimous consensus by the United Nations IPCC of 2500 climate scientists is quickly unraveling. One member of the alleged 2500, Professor Mike Hulme said recently that the 2500 number was really “only a few dozen experts” and that “claims such as 2500 of the worlds’ leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate are disingenuous” (p. 182).

The tearing down of the curtain to expose the fraud and lies of the AGW has not stopped their propaganda machines from continuing to churn out lies. The new weapon of choice is concern for the so-called biodiversity of species throughout the earth because of human population growth and the alleged loss of the natural habitat of the earth species. The vehicle to promote the latest deception is a new international organization formed in 2010 and initially named The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). It is being modeled after the disgraced United Nations IPCC. Americans especially need to wake up. Jeffrey states the problem concisely from a civic perspective first:

The eco-fundamentalists, radical environmentalists, AGW movement leaders, and now the biodiversity camp care nothing for rights and freedoms that are guaranteed in the US Constitution. Unfortunately, the vast majority of citizens are unaware of the global-warming deception and the hidden political agenda to radically transform our economy and our way of life (p.184).

And then from an evangelical Christian perspective:

As we awaken to the grim results of this struggle – the lies and deception, the confusion, the guilt and fear-mongering – Christians need to be reminded that we are not alone. We have access to God’s truth and His Holy Spirit to give us spiritual discernment. While the AGW movement continues to resort to manufactured environmental “crises” to gain political support, the Bible reassures us that the earth’s climate is under God’s benevolent control (p. 186).

Being citizens of the United States carries with it the responsibility to be civically engaged. We must hold our elected representatives responsible to vote their constituents’ conscience not their own. It is imperative that we be energized and well-read on the subject of AGW. In this way only will we correct error and educate our families and friends to the true agenda behind AGW alarmism. For Christians it is most imperative that we pray. We must pray for our nation and for our leaders that God will grant wisdom and will guide the activities of such that lead to freedom and liberty from the dangers of the AGW agenda.

* I received this book free for review from Waterbrook Multnomah Publishing Group.

Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” Speech

Posted on January 17, 2011 by ccpastormike

In honor of Martin Luther King Jr. I am posting his “I Have a Dream” speech delivered at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington DC, August 28, 1963.

“I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we’ve come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.”

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.

We cannot turn back.

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: “For Whites Only.” We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until “justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.”¹

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest — quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of “interposition” and “nullification” — one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; “and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.”²

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

And this will be the day — this will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim’s pride,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that:

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”³

¹ Amos 5:24 (rendered precisely in The American Standard Version of the Holy Bible)

² Isaiah 40:4-5 (King James Version of the Holy Bible). Quotation marks are excluded from part of this moment in the text because King’s rendering of Isaiah 40:4 does not precisely follow the KJV version from which he quotes (e.g., “hill” and “mountain” are reversed in the KJV). King’s rendering of Isaiah 40:5, however, is precisely quoted from the KJV.

³At: http://www.negrospirituals.com/news-song/free_at_last_from.htm

Also in this database: Martin Luther King, Jr: A Time to Break Silence

Audio Source: Linked directly to: http://www.archive.org/details/MLKDream

External Link: http://www.mlkmemorial.org/

External Link: http://www.thekingcenter.org/

Guarding Our Eyes As Well As Our Hearts

Posted on January 12, 2011 by ccpastormike

I received the following question recently:

“What is the difference between porn and art or movies or writing or photos that affirm and communicate very frankly that making love in a loving marriage is something that glorifies God? What about art that communicates that the human body is a beautiful thing that glorifies God because we are fearfully and wonderfully made?”

Here was my response:

“Your question appears to cover a couple of different categories and therefore a broader answer is provided. Let’s start by defining our terms.

Art can be defined as a creative expression that attempts through various mediums to capture a person’s understanding of and response to the physical universe as well as the artist’s experiences within this universe. Pornography can be defined as any sexually explicit expression that has as its primary intent, the arousal of sexual desires within human beings, and results in the degradation of the human body, reducing it to little more than an instrument of self-centered pleasure.

So how do we determine if what is called art by some is actually art or is rather instead pornography?

Christian responses to the question of whether or not art that contains expressions of nudity or sexual activity are in fact art or are really pornography have generally fallen within three categories: Prohibition, abstinence, and moderation. Prohibition results in legalism and total rejection of all forms of art that contain any type of nudity or suggestiveness. Abstinence is the same as prohibition in practice. The difference is that those who abstain from viewing any form of art do so as a willing choice and not necessarily because they have rejected every category. Moderation seeks to find a balance in viewing art forms and relies on the Holy Spirit for guidance.

Scripture does speak to this issue rather clearly. For example in 1 Corinthians 6:18-20 (NASB) we read: “Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.”

We are informed in Romans 12:1-2 (NASB) that this includes our mind: ^“Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.”

The Apostle Paul encouraged the Philippian Christians with these words: “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things” (4:8, NASB).

Difficulty arises when people appeal to a pluralistic approach to values, i.e., one person’s pornography is another person’s art. Christians must reject this because we have a responsibility to guard ourselves from any influence detrimental to our spiritual wellbeing.

Another argument that is often appealed to on this subject is framed along the lines of “God created our bodies and therefore they are beautiful.” It does not follow however, that because God created our bodies and gave mankind the gift of sexuality that this beauty and its sexual expression are free to be manifested for any and all to observe. The story of Michelangelo and his first venture into painting people nude is a fitting illustration. When the artist’s instructor challenged him to defend his decision to paint people in this way Michelangelo is said to have responded, “I want to see man as God sees man.” His wise instructor offered the needed corrective, “But you are not God.”

Christians must understand that the world system is intent on twisting and disfiguring all that God has declared good. The human body and sexuality are things that God has created and determined to be good. With renewed, transformed, and Spirit filled minds we are able to see the difference between what God has declared good and what the world system has perverted.

Ravi Zacharias in his book Deliver Us From Evil makes this point succinctly. “If an artist seeks to portray the unclothed human body as art while bringing to that rendering his or her own lustful and vile intentions, the unworthy motive of the artist cannot be denounced by the unthinking canvas” (p. 63). It remains for the Christian who has the mind of Christ to discern those things. It is not art or pornography that is morality’s sovereign. God has declared what is right and it is the Christian’s responsibility to agree with His declaration.”

Your thoughts?