Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: January 16, 2015
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

Because of the recent shooting and stabbing spree by Elliot Rodger near Santa Barbara University last Friday, we are once again engulfed in a national conversation concerning what caused the killer to do what he did. When these types of tragic incidents occur, the killer’s destructive behavior is typically blamed on everything from a lack of access to affordable health care, to listening to too much political commentary, to the easy accessibility to firearms. In this particular case, Ann Hornaday, in a column published last Sunday in the Washington Post, opines:

Rodger’s rampage may be a function of his own profound distress, but it also shows how a sexist movie monoculture can be toxic for women and men alike. How many students watch outsized frat-boy fantasies like “Neighbors” and feel, as Rodger did, unjustly shut out of college life that should be full of “sex and fun and pleasure”? How many men, raised on a steady diet of Judd Apatow comedies in which the shlubby arrested adolescent always gets the girl, find that those happy endings constantly elude them and conclude, “It’s not fair”?

Sadly, many even use a tragic event of this nature to advocate a political agenda that calls for greater control of government over our lives. The logic goes something like this: "Since weapons caused this tragedy, weapons must be illegalized." Under such a philosophy, the basic Second Amendments rights of law abiding Americans begins to dissipate. Yet, in the midst of all of this pontification, few have adequately articulated the root cause of the problem.

As tempting as it may be to blame such an unfortunate incident on a person’s environment, the root problem relates to man’s fallen nature. The human heart is sick. Jeremiah 17:9 says, “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?” Ever since the fall of man in Eden, every human being has inherited a sin nature that is at war with his Creator (Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:12; 8:7-8). Thus, Christ explained that the natural state of the human heart is one of violence and murder: “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man" (Mark 7:20-23, italics mine).

James also spoke to the root of the problem when he explained, “What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel…” (Jas. 4:1-2, italics mine). Genesis 8:21 explained the violence (Gen. 6:11) of the pre-flood world as follows: “…for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth…” The millennial kingdom will amply illustrate the truth that man’s evil emanates from his nature rather than his environment. Although the kingdom will start with believing mortal, tribulation survivors (Matt. 25:31-46), they will have children, and their children will have children, etc…until the entire earth is again repopulated. During this 1000 year period Christ will rule the world from David’s Throne in Jerusalem (Isa. 2:2-3), consequently ushering in a perfect environment for the earth’s inhabitants (Isa. 2:1-5; 11:6-9; 65:17-25). Yet at the end of this glorious era, when given the opportunity, mankind will participate in a universal revolt against God (Zech. 14:16-18; Rev. 20:7-9).

Quite clearly, man’s appetite for sin cannot be blamed on his environment since he had been living in a perfect environment for 1000 years before deciding to rebel against God. For those that blame man’s evil propensity on adverse economic conditions, they need only remember that crime statistics actually fell during the Great Depression. From all accounts, Elliot Rodger was a child of privilege. For those that think a lack of education is the problem, they need only recall that one of the most educated societies of all time according to literacy standards was none other than Nazi Germany. ((John Eidsmoe, God & Caesar (Westchester, Ill: Crossway, 1984), 141.)) In fact, Elliot Rodger was a college student in the process of pursuing higher education. As the old saying goes, “if you educate a thief, you only increase his capacity to steal.” For those that believe that a lack of government spending on social programs is the problem, they need only recall that we have spent trillions on social spending thanks to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. Despite these massive expenditures, violence, similar to what we have witnessed recently, continues unabated in our society. The only meaningful solution to violence that emanates from man’s depraved nature is an internal transformation that only God can provide. People must trust in Christ (John 3:16) and consequently experience the new birth (John 3:3-6), receive the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9), and participate in the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4). Only such an internal restraint on man’s wicked heart will provide him with the internal conviction that he needs to deny his natural proclivity for violence.

America’s founding fathers well understood that if man will not externally be restrained by the bayonette (the threat of punishment from the state) then he must be internally restrained by the Bible. As speaker of the House of Representatives Robert Winthrop articulated in 1849:

All societies of men must be governed in some way or other. The less they may have of stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint. Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet. (Robert Winthrop cited in David Barton, Original Intent (Aledo, TX: Wall Builder Press, 1996), 329.)

 Should such internal restraint be removed, our ability to govern ourselves becomes impossible, thereby leading to the end of the unique American experiment in liberty, independence, and limited and self government. Given the current drift of our culture away from biblical truth, what surprises me is not the occurrence of violent episodes, like the one that occurred recently near Santa Barbara University. Rather, what surprises me is that these tragic events do not happen with greater frequency. The only lasting solution to man’s wicked heart is an internal transformation that only God can provide, and this is the root cause of man’s problem.

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: May 17, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

A May 13th Houston Chronicle editorial accused and characterized those who oppose Mayor Annise Parker's recent attempt to expand civil rights protection for "gays, homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals" as mere haters and "hateful." In fact the subtitle of the article reads, "There is little value in spreading hatred about the transgender community." Now that the city council vote on Parker's proposed ordinance will apparently be postponed until May 28th, now is the appropriate time to contemplate the genuineness of motivation for opposing civil rights coverage for gays. Are those who oppose affording civil rights minority status to homosexuals (which would be on equal par with the civil rights status already afforded to American racial minorities) purveyors of unbridled and irrational hatred? Or is there a logical and rational basis for opposing civil rights for gays? Another way of asking the question is, "Are Gay Rights Right?" (This was actually the title of a very fine book on the subject. See Roger J. Magnuson, Are Gay Rights Right?: Making Sense of the Controversy (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1990).

I believe that it is wrong to allow those who embrace the gay lifestyle to piggy back upon or to hijack the civil rights movement. It has long been settled law in our country that civil rights protection should be given only to those who can demonstrate an immutable characteristic, such as skin color, and that they have been historically targeted for discrimination based upon this immutable characteristic. American blacks, for example, have no problem demonstrating both of these points. Being born black is not a choice or something that can be changed throughout the course of one's life. Being black is a characteristic of one's being that not only is innate but also is innocuous or harmless or non-destructive in and of itself. American blacks can also easily and readily point to a historical pattern of societal discrimination based solely upon their immutable skin color.

Examples abound in American history, such as from pre-Civil War slavery or the Jim Crow South. Thus, civil rights for blacks make perfect sense. Gays, on the other hand, cannot convincingly make a similar case.   First, the notion of the immutability of one's sexual orientation on par with one's skin color has never been satisfactorily proven. Although much has been written on this subject, suffice to say that there is such a thing as ex-gays. According to "Dr. Robert L. Spitzer–the renowned gay activist psychiatrist who in 1973 successfully managed to have homosexuality removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders– has published results of his new study which shows homosexual orientation can be changed to heterosexual" (Gregg Jackson, Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies: Issue by Issue Responses to the Most Common Claims of the Left from A to Z (Bridgeport, PA: JAJ, 2006), 257). According to Dr. Spitzer's findings, which were eventually published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, 200 homosexuals changed their lifestyle as a response to therapy during the five year duration of the study. (Robert L. Spitzer, "Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation," Archives of Sexual Behavior 32, no. 5 (October 2003), 403-17).

Of course, the possibility of a bonafide change out of the homosexual lifestyle comes as no surprise to the Bible-believing Christian. Two thousand years ago the Apostle Paul spoke of the reality of such a change under the Spirit's guidance and empowerment. He wrote to the Corinthians, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:9-11; italics added). Apparently, homosexuals can change their stripes just as drunkards, adulterers, and thieves can. While there is no such thing as an ex-black, there are multiple cases of ex-gays. Why? The former is an innate and immutable characteristic while the latter is a moral or sinful lifestyle choice!   Second, quite unlike the innocuous or harmless nature of one's skin color, the homosexual lifestyle is a self-destructive one. According to one study:

...up to 55 percent of homosexual men with anorectal complaints have gonorrhea; 80 percent of the patients with syphilis are homosexuals. Chlamydia is found in 15 percent of asymptomatic homosexual men, and up to one third of homosexuals have active anorectal herpes simplex virus. In addition, a host of parasites, bacterial, viral, and protozoan are all rampant in the homosexual population. (Steven D. Wexner, "Sexually Transmitted Diseases of the Colon, Rectum, and Anus: The Challenge of the Nineties," Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 33, no. 12 (December 1990): 1048-62.)

Why should the law, in the form of an elevated legal right, place its approval upon a lifestyle which brings such misery and destruction to those involved in it?   Third, unlike the American historical pattern of discrimination against blacks, no similar pattern exists against gays. In fact, quite the contrary. Homosexuals are among the most affluent members of contemporary American society. According to USA Today:

...homosexual couples who live together may be wealthier than hetero-sexual live-in couples, an analysis of new census numbers suggests...gay male couples appear to be particularly affluent, out-earning even married couples: Gay male couples had a $56,863 household income; Married couples, $47,012; Heterosexual unmarried couples, $37,602. (Margaret L. Usdansky, "Gay Couples, by the Numbers," USA TodayApril 12, 1993, 1A, 8A.)

It is common for gay rights activists to point to the rash of violent attacks supposedly committed against gays as evidence of a societal pattern of discrimination against homosexuals. However, the stark contrast between reality and rhetoric here is as different as night and day:

Set against the so-called epidemic of hate crimes in America are the 1,401,313 total crimes committed against persons or property in 2006. This is compared to the 9,080 "bias motivation" crimes committed in that year. "Hate crimes" account for .08 percent of the total crime problem facing America. But that's not all. Just 1,415 of the 9,080 hate crimes reported to the FBI in 2006 were identified as offenses by prejudice against the victim's sexual orientation. Crimes against homosexuals as an identified class are just .012 percent of all crimes committed in America. (John Aman, 10 Truths About Hate Crime Laws (Fort Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge, 2008), 25-26.)

Contrary to the widespread opinion perpetuated by the liberal media, even the infamous victimization and brutal murder of Matthew Shepard on October 6, 1998 had nothing to do with anti-gay bigotry due to Shepard's homosexual orientation. Separating emotional hype from the actual facts of the case has been well documented by Stephen Jimenez in the Book of Matt. ((Stephen Jimenez, The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepherd (Hanover, NH: Streetforth, 2013).))

Stephen Jimenez went to Laramie to research the story of Matthew Shepard’s murder in 2000, after the two men convicted of killing him had gone to prison, and after the national media had moved on. His aim was to write a screenplay on what he, and the rest of the nation, believed to be an open-and-shut case of bigoted violence. As a gay man, he felt an added moral imperative to tell Matthew’s story. But what Jimenez eventually found in Wyoming was a tangled web of secrets. His exhaustive investigation also plunged him deep into the deadly underworld of drug trafficking. Over the course of a thirteen-year investigation, Jimenez traveled to twenty states and Washington DC, and interviewed more than a hundred named sources. The Book of Matt is sure to stir passions and inspire dialogue as it re-frames this misconstrued crime and its cast of characters, proving irrefutably that Matthew Shepard was not killed for being gay but for reasons far more complicated — and daunting.

Even the alleged rash of teenage gay suicides supposedly brought about by an intolerant society seem to be highly exaggerated. According to USA Today:

Gay and lesbian teenagers are only slightly more likely than heterosexual kids to attempt suicide, contrary to past studies that suggest gay youths have about triple the rate of trying suicide, says a Cornell University psychologist...Studies finding that about 30% of gay adolescents have attempted suicide exaggerated the rates because they surveyed the most disturbed youngsters and didn't separate thoughts from action, says Ritch Savin-Williams. Nearly all research on the topic has drawn teens from support groups or shelters, where the most troubled gather, and has taken at face value the claim of a suicide attempt, he says. Savin-Williams' own two studies...focus on 349 students ages 17 to 25. When they said they had tried to kill themselves, he asked what method they used. He also separated out the small minority that attended support groups...Over half of reported suicide attempts turned out to be "thinking about it" rather than trying anything...The other study of 266 college men and women found that gay youths were not significantly more likely than straight classmates to have tried to take their own lives. Again, the homosexual students were more likely to report "attempts" that further questioning revealed as thoughts...Poorly designed studies that exaggerate their suicide risk "pathologize gay youth, and that's not fair to them," he says.

Thus, comparing civil rights for gays to civil rights afforded to racial minorities represents an apples and oranges comparison. Unlike race, homosexual behavior is neither innate nor innocuous. Nor can the gay rights movement point to a demonstrable societal historical pattern of discrimination that would justify granting it elevated civil rights status.   What happens should we go down the road of granting elevated civil rights status to those that do not fit the traditional civil rights criteria? Inevitably, someone else's rights will be taken away. Within the Bible-believing world, it remains a legitimate opinion that homosexuality, and all other lifestyle choices departing from God's sexual standard, represents sin. After all, God has established heterosexual monogamy (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:18-25; Matt. 19:3-6) rather than homosexuality (Gen. 19:1-19; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Rom. 1:26-27; Jude 7) as the pattern for marriage. What happens to the First Amendment freedom of religion rights to those who hold sincerely to this conviction? The bottom line is that they are told to keep their convictions to themselves and silently sit at the back of the bus. Therefore, granting civil rights to gays would negatively impact the First Amendment rights of Christian ministries and schools as well as Christian owned-and-operated businesses. Stories, such as the following, are becoming far too common place in contemporary American society:

Jack Phillips is a baker who declined to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because his Christian belief is that marriage exists only between a man and woman. Now a Colorado judge has ordered him to bake cakes for same-sex marriages, and if Phillips refuses, he could go to jail.

Is, as the Houston Chronicle editorial board suggests, opposition to gay civil rights nothing more than unbridled bigotry fueled by irrational superstition? Hardly! There remains a logical basis for opposition to Mayor Parker's gay agenda. Homosexual, bisexual, and transgender practitioners simply do not fit the traditional civil rights criteria. Granting them civil rights status despite this reality would damage the existing and well recognized freedoms afforded to those possessing a biblical conviction on the matter. I hope and pray that the Houston city council will consider this side of the argument as they cast an important vote on May 28th.

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: May 9, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

On Wednesday, May 14th 1948, one of the greatest anticipated prophecies of the Bible was fulfilled. Isaiah 66:8 rhetorically asks, "Can a land be born in one day? Can a nation be brought forth all at once?" We now know from history that the answer to these questions is an emphatic and resounding "yes." The Declaration of Independence of the modern State of Israel took place on May 14th sixty-six years ago. Why should today's Christians and believers care about the rebirth of the modern state of Israel? At least four reasons come to mind.  

First, it was a day that caused Bible prophecy teachers all over the world to shout "Hallelujah," because the re-establishment of the State of Israel properly sets the prophetic stage signaling the soon return of Jesus, the long-awaited Messiah and King. For example, the events surrounding the coming Great Tribulation period, such as the coming peace treaty between the Antichrist and unbelieving Israel (Dan. 9:27a), simply cannot be fulfilled without first the national existence of an unbelieving Israel in proper position. Thus, Israel's national rebirth suddenly makes the long anticipated prophetic scenario credible. As explained by the great prophecy teacher William E. Blackstone, "Israel is God's sundial. If we want to know our place in chronology, our position in the march of events, look at Israel." ( William E. Blackstone, Jesus Is Coming: God's Hope for a Restless World (New York: F.H. Revell, 1908; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1909), 238.)  

Second, Israel's national rebirth also discredited the longstanding perspective within Christendom known as "Replacement Theology," which argues that the biblical prophecies concerning the nation of Israel have been symbolically transferred to the church and are therefore not to be construed in a literal or denotative sense. For example, back in the sixth century B.C., the exilic prophet Ezekiel predicted, "For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.

Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God" (Ezek. 36:24-28). Although the spiritual regeneration component of this prophecy is yet to be fulfilled, when we tangibly see a regathered Israel in national existence in the Middle East, we begin to see that God means what He says and says what He means regarding Israel's national future. God is more than capable of moving heaven and earth so that the specific details of His Word are fulfilled. Such a national regathering vindicates a national and literal approach to these prophecies rather than approaching them in an overly mystical or symbolic manner.

Third, Israel's Declaration of Independence also vindicated God's gracious character by demonstrating His faithfulness to an unfaithful nation. The national regathering of the Jews, in spite of their many years of rebellion against God, demonstrates that God is unilaterally and unconditionally committed to His promises. Thus, God is faithful even when His people are not. This attribute of God is heartening to us as Gentile Christians since it reveals that God will similarly keep His promises to us as well. For Him to fail to do so would be for Him to deny and violate His very character. Second Timothy 2:13 says, "If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself." God is a covenant-making and covenant-keeping God. He is the only true promise keeper.  

Fourth, May 14, 1948 also showed that God is still in the miracle-working business. Never in the history of mankind has a nation been removed from its land and yet restored to that very same land 2000 years later with its own unique culture, religion, and language all intact! Typically when a nation is removed from its homeland, its people simply assimilate into the surrounding host cultures within a few generations. After all, have you ever met any modern-day Amalekites or Jebusites? Interestingly, it was a Latin-speaking Rome that pushed the Jews out of their land and into worldwide dispersion back in A.D. 70. Yet, today, the Roman Empire as a viable political entity is long gone all while Israel still remains. Moreover, Latin is a dead language and Hebrew is a living language. What a contrast!

"Israel is God's sundial. If we want to know our place in chronology, our position in the march of events, look at Israel."  ~William Blackstone

God is wrapping up this present age of human history. Israel's prophecies are meant to be understood in their normal sense. God is faithful even when His people are not. God still performs miracles. Let us pause on this very special day to reflect upon these and many other spiritual lessons that are taught to us as we contemplate the restored state of Israel.

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: January 16, 2015
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

Thanks to the sponsorship of my state representative in the TX House Rick Miller, I was afforded the privilege of opening the legislative session in prayer on Thursday. Here is a copy of my prayer before the TX House of Representatives.  

Invocation Before the TX, House of Representatives on Jan. 15, 2015 By Dr. Andy Woods:

Shall we pray? Father in heaven we acknowledge that this legislative body and its members and leaders would not exist were it not for your gracious hand. Your Word states, "For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God" (Rom. 13:1) and it is you who "removes kings and establishes kings" (Dan. 2:21). We also acknowledge that governments are instituted among men to accomplish your purposes upon the earth. “Governors [are] as sent by [God] for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right" (1 Pet. 2:14; Rom. 13:3-4). We are also mindful of our responsibilities as citizens to pray for those in government who rule over us. "I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity" (1 Tim. 2:1-2). We further acknowledge that we are to pray for those in government because "The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes" (Prov. 21:1). So today Father we specifically pray for the Texas House of Representatives. We thank you for the gifted men and women that you have called to serve in this body. We specifically pray for their protection and encouragement. We ask that you would be intimately involved in their decision-making. We ask that this body would accomplish your purposes for its existence. We ask that they would seek your will, your Word, and your face as they shape laws and policies for generations to come. We also ask that these legislators and all who assist them would be ever mindful of the fact that first and foremost that they are your servants. “For rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing" (Rom. 13:4). We also ask that these legislators would be ever that mindful that they are also servants of those that have elected them and have entrusted political power, decision making authority, and influence to them. And finally Father help us all, as citizens and governors alike, to recognize the futility of governing without you. As Benjamin Franklin said during America’s Constitutional Convention, "I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that 'except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age" (See James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, 3 vols., ed. Henry D. Gilpin [Mobile, AL: Mygatt, 1842], 2:984-85). We ask all of these things Father in the name of your precious Son, Jesus Christ. Amen. 

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: December 26, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

The holiday season comes and goes very quickly. Sometimes the hectic nature of the Christmas season provides us little time to adequately reflect upon the true meaning of Christmas. What then is the true meaning of Christmas? The true meaning of the holiday is the celebration of the superintendence of a sovereign God who allowed His prophesied redeemer, God the Son, to be born into the world. A seldom considered Christmas passage is Rev 12:4b, which says, "And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child." Here, the dragon or Satan (Rev 12:9) is pictured as standing before the woman or Israel (Rev 12:1; Gen 37:9-10) so that he might preempt the birth of Jesus Christ (Rev 12:5; Ps 2:9; Acts 1:9). This passage represents the angelic perspective on Herod's attempt to prevent the birth of the Messiah by murdering all of the male infants in Bethlehem (Matt 2:1-8, 16). Although Matthew 2 depicts this event from the human perspective of Herod's insecurity over his own throne, Rev 12:4b describes the same event from the point of view of the fallen angelic realm. In actuality, it was Satan who used Herod's insecurity in an effort to prevent the birth of the Messiah. Such a preemptive effort was not Satan's first attempt to prevent the birth of the Messiah.

All the way back in Gen 3:15, we find the first biblical, messianic prophecy. It is often referred to as the protoevangelium. Here, Satan was put on notice of a coming redeemer. This critical verse says, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." Not only does this verse predict a coming one who would crush the serpent's (or Satan's) head, but it also predicts the serpent's bruising of the heel of this coming redeemer. Much of this bruising occurred through Satan's attempt to prevent the Messiah from being born. Thus, Rev 12:4b and Gen 3:15 when taken together furnish an angelic commentary or perspective on the repeated near extinction and jeopardy experienced by the messianic lineage as recorded throughout the pages of the Old Testament. For example, because Abel's sacrifice was accepted, Satan figured that the messianic lineage would come through him. Thus, Satan prompted Cain to murder Abel (Gen 4; 1 John 3:12). Yet, God circumvented Satan's effort through the continuation of the messianic line through the birth of Seth (Gen 4:25-26; 5:1-32).

Satan again sought to prevent the birth of the Messiah through the contamination of humanity's pre-flood gene pool (Gen 6:1-4) so that the human race could never give birth to a Messiah who must not only be fully God but also fully human. God again got around this Satanic attempt through the preservation of Noah and his sons (Gen 6:9; 1 Pet 3:19-20). Through this line, the Messiah would ultimately come (Gen 9:26; 11:10-26). In the days of Moses, Satan again tried to thwart the birth of the Messiah by enslaving the nation through which the anticipated redeemer would come from (Exod 1). Yet, God again circumvented Satan's effort through the Exodus event. We see the same pattern re-manifesting itself in the famous Saul-David narratives (1 Sam 16‒31). First Samuel 16:13-14 says, "Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon David from that day forward...Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him." Unlike Saul, who was a Benjaminite (1 Sam 9:21), David came from the tribe of Judah (2 Sam 2:1), which was the prophesied tribe that the Messiah was ultimately to emanate from (Gen. 49:10). David's anointing and proper tribal identity caused Satan to reason that the Messiah would come thru David's line. This conviction was no doubt later confirmed through the Davidic Covenant that God entered into with David promising an eternal dynasty through his lineage (2 Sam 7:12-16). Thus, Satan through Saul did everything he could during the Saul-David narratives (1 Sam 16‒31) to prematurely murder David so that these prophecies could never be fulfilled. However, God again circumvented Satan's effort through the miraculous preservation of David during this time period.

The same pattern again repeated itself when the usurping queen Athaliah sought to exterminate all of the royal offspring of the house of Judah. Yet, God again thwarted this Satanic attack through the preservation of baby Joash, the sole surviving Davidic descendant, in the temple throughout the duration of Athaliah's rampage (2 Chron 22‒23). This pattern again emerged when wicked Haman developed a plot to exterminate all the Jews (Esth 3:5-9, 13). Yet, God again circumvented this Satanic effort to preempt the birth of Christ by sovereignly working through Mordecai and Esther in order to preserve the Jewish race from annihilation as recorded in the Book of Esther. God's protection of his people during this time period was ultimately commemorated through a feast day added to the Jewish calendar known as Puriim, which means "lots." This holiday was given this designation since Haman initially cast lots for the day that Israel was to be annihilated.

Thus, Herod's ambition to kill all of the male Bethlehem infants (Matt 2) is yet another chapter in the ongoing attempt by Satan to preempt the birth of the Messiah. Once again, God sovereignly intervened by causing the royal family to flee to Egypt until Herod's death. Despite these numerous attempts to thwart the Messiah's mission by preventing His birth, God sovereignly protected the messianic line thereby allowing the redeemer to be born and eventually fulfill His earthly mission of paying the world's sin debt. God's faithful protection of the messianic line leading to the birth of Christ is what we are to remember and celebrate at Christmas time. During this holiday season let us continually praise God for how He has worked faithfully and sovereignly in history so as to allow the redeemer to come into the world so that He could accomplish His great mission on humanity's behalf.

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: December 20, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

Because the Christmas season is upon us, it is fitting to reflect upon the true meaning of this time of the year, which is God's entrance into our world. Specifically, at this time, we celebrate the Incarnation. Within this word "Incarnation," we recognize the word carne, which means meat or flesh. (Someone who is carnivorous is a meat eater). Thus, the doctrine of the Incarnation represents the enfleshment of God. Here, God the Son added humanity to His eternally existent Deity so that He could become a man and dwell among us (John 1:1, 14). But why was it necessary for Christ to become man? At least seven reasons come to mind (Adapted from Hal Lindsey, Amazing Grace (Palso Verdes, CA: Western, 1995), 107-14).

First, God became man to pay the penalty for man's sin. The penalty for sin is death (Rom 6:23). In other words, an innocent scapegoat must die in the place of the guilty in order for a holy God to unconditionally forgive sinful man (Gen 3:21; Heb 9:22). Yet the sin of Adam and Eve brought eternal consequences and permanent separation from God (Rom 5:12, 14). Thus, only eternal God could die to pay the penalty for the eternal barrier between God and man. How can God die since Deity cannot be subject to death? The only way for God to die is for Him to become a man. Second, God became man to reverse man's sinful condition. The first Adam through his one act of disobedience involving the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil universally cursed humanity and the world (Rom 5:12; 8:20-22). By contrast, Christ through His one act of obedience involving death on a tree or the cross of Calvary (Deut 21:22-23; Gal 3:13), brought universal blessing to the world. However, the only way for God to reverse the consequences ushered in by the first man was to become man Himself. Because Christ became a man to bring universal blessings and undo the universal damage ushered in by the first man, the Scripture consistently refers to Christ as the "last Adam" (1 Cor 15:45; see also Rom 5:18-19).

"God became man to pay the penalty for man's sin."

Third, God became man to exemplify how we are to treat each other. When we study the servant attitude and humility of God as He condescended to become a man, we see a prototype for how God wants us to treat each other. Thus, the strongest biblical statement of the Incarnation is found in a context where Paul seeks to use this doctrine to stop warring factions within the Philippian assembly (Philip 2:5-8; 4:2-3). When we see the role model of true service to others through the Incarnation, this informs us regarding the self-sacrificial attitude we are to have toward others (Mark 10:42-45). Fourth, God became man to reveal the Father. Prior to the Incarnation, sinful man had corrupted the true understanding of God (Rom 1:18-19). In fact, humanity in general had never seen God (Exod 33:18-20; John 1:18a). There was no better way for God to restore the proper concept of God to man than by becoming one of us. Thus, the Scripture portrays the Incarnate Christ as the exact image of God (John 1:18b; 14:8-9; Heb 1:3; Col 1:15).

Fifth, God became man to be our Kinsman Redeemer. In the Old Testament, the redeemer was always the next of kin or the nearest relative known as the kinsman redeemer. For example, if someone's property went into foreclosure, it was the responsibility of the nearest relative to pay the mortgage so that the property could remain in the family (Lev 25:25). Similarly, if a childless woman was widowed, it was the responsibility of her unmarried brother-in-law who was the nearest relative to marry and impregnate her so that the family line of his deceased brother could continue (Deut. 25:5-10). This arrangement, known as Levirate Marriage (Gen 38:8-9; Matt 22:23-33), explains why Boaz married Ruth. He did so because he was the next of kin or the nearest willing relative (Ruth 2:20; 4:4, 6). Christ's Incarnation richly fulfills this Old Testament typology. As a man, He is a close relative to us and thus is qualified to be our kinsman redeemer.

Sixth, God became man to become our merciful High Priest. The function of a priest is to minister to those under His authority. Christ's Incarnation qualified Him to do so since He has stood in our shoes and experienced both trials (Heb 2:18) and temptations (Heb 4:15) as a man. In His Incarnation, He experienced all of the limitations of humanity including labor (Mark 6:3), extreme distress (Luke 22:44), trouble (John 12:27), thirst (John 19:28), hunger (Matt 4:2), fatigue (John 4:6), grief (John 11:35), and even lack of understanding (Matt 24:36). As a man, He was also pushed to the furthest degree a human being has ever been pushed in the only three ways that temptation comes: lust of the flesh, lust of the eye, and the pride of life (1 John 2:16; Gen 3:6; Luke 4:1-13). Thus, Christ's Incarnation qualified Him to minister to us as a high priest in the midst of tribulations and temptations since He has gone through what we experience and far worse.

Seventh, God became man in order to become the mediator between God and man. A mediator represents both parties in a dispute. In the midst of his adversities, Job's complaint was that He could not represent his interests adequately before God since He was not God himself. He complained, "For He is not a man as I am that I may answer Him, that we may go to court together. There is no umpire between us, who may lay his hand upon us both" (Job 9:32-33). Yet because Christ's incarnation made Him both man and God, He alone is qualified to be our Mediator to God (1 Tim 2:5). He is the unique God-Man who alone is capable of bridging the gap between God and man.

Thus, God became man to pay the penalty for our sins, to reverse man's sinful condition, to exemplify how we are to treat each other, to reveal the Father, to be our Kinsman Redeemer, to become our merciful High Priest, and to become the mediator between God and man. During the hectic nature of this Christmas season, let us take time to reflect upon the true meaning of the season: the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: December 13, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com 

Now that we are well into the Christmas season, I would like to take a momentary break from the cultural and political wars that are currently consuming our nation to instead reflect upon the ultimate political ruler who made His way into our world a little over two millennia ago. I call Him the ultimate political ruler since He not only presently rules in the hearts of those who are submitted to His will, but He will also one day rule over the only successful government in human history that will ever come to our war-torn planet. As we enter the Christmas season, we celebrate Christ’s entrance into the world. Yet, Christ’s birth was anything but normal since He was born of a virgin (Matt 1:18-25). We might ask, “Is it really necessary to believe in the virgin birth?”

Why was it so important for Christ to have been virgin-born? At least six reasons come to mind. First, the virgin birth was necessary to fulfill Old Testament prophecy. Isaiah 7:14 predicts that when the Messiah shows up, He will be born of a virgin. The Hebrew word used here is almah and it can mean either a virgin or a young maiden. As one studies this word as it is used throughout the Old Testament (Gen 24:43; Exod 2:8; Ps 68:25; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8; Prov 30:18-19), it is found in contexts that apply to virgins. The Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament created two centuries before the time of Christ) translators understood well the significance of this since they translated the Hebrew word almah with the Greek word parthenos, which always means virgin. Matthew also used parthenos in his Spirit-inspired translation of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23. Simply put, Isaiah’s prophecy given 700 years before Christ was born demands that the coming Messiah be born of a virgin.

Second, the virgin birth emphasizes both Christ’s humanity (Luke 2:52) and deity (John 1:1). Christ was both, since He was the unique God-man. He was one hundred percent God and one hundred percent man (also called the Hypostatic Union). The fact that Christ was born of a woman (Gal 4:4) emphasizes His humanity, and the supernatural element of His virgin birth emphasizes His deity. Third, Christ’s virgin birth emphasizes His eternality. Christ has always existed (John 8:58; 17:5; Rev 22:13). There never was a time in which He was not. This point is emphasized in the Nicene Creed, which says Christ was “begotten and not made.” Had Christ experienced a natural conception, He would have had a beginning point. Yet the eternal Christ had no beginning point, thus necessitating His supernatural conception through the virgin birth.

Fourth, the virgin birth was necessary in order to maintain Christ’s sinlessness. The Bible indicates that Christ was the only sinless man to ever live (John 8:46; 2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 1 Pet 2:22; 1 John 2:1; 3:3). If Christ had a biological father, then the Adamic sin nature, which is passed down to all of us, would also have been passed down to Him at the point of conception (Ps 51:5; Rom 5:12). Yet, because Christ was sinless, His conception had to be supernatural rather than natural. Fifth, the virgin birth was necessary in order to protect Christ’s bodily atonement. Only an eternal God could pay the eternal penalty for man’s sin (Rom 6:23). As explained above, Christ’s virgin birth protects His eternality. Also, only a perfect substitute could pay the penalty for man’s sin (1 Pet 1:19). God will only accept a perfect sacrifice in the place of the guilty. Such an emphasis on perfection explains why an Old Testament sacrificial animal had to be unblemished (Exod 12:5). As explained above, Christ’s virgin birth protects His sinlessness. Thus, the virgin birth protected both Christ’s eternality and sinlessness. Both of these elements are required for Christ to atone for the world’s sin debt.

Sixth, the virgin birth was necessary in order to circumvent Jeconiah’s curse, which God had placed upon Jeconiah’s lineage (Jer 22:30). Christ was a candidate to be cursed since He and His legal father Joseph were in Jeconiah’s line (Matt 1:12). However, the virgin birth took Christ out of this cursed line since Joseph was not Christ’s biological father. The Holy Spirit used Mary’s womb, and Mary was not in Jeconiah’s line. It is indeed amazing to consider all that was accomplished through the Messiah’s virgin birth: the fulfillment of the prophetic Scripture regarding the virgin birth, the uniqueness of the God-Man's deity and humanity, the effect on His eternality and sinless humanity that qualified Him to bodily atone for the sins of man, and the bypass that God provided for Christ to be born outside of Jeconiah's cursed lineage. In the midst of the hectic Christmas season, let us routinely reflect upon these profound truths. After all, He is the reason for the season.

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: August 1, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

Recently, TV political commentator, columnist, and professing evangelical Christian Kirsten Powers offered a troubling and controversial perspective related to the issue of homosexuality and Christianity. Because her point of view seems to be representative of some within the evangelical movement, and also seems to be gaining ground. See evidence of that in this article here, (accessed 22 July 2014). I decided to respond to it through a series of blog posts. In a recent USA Today column, while claiming to “hold a ‘high view’ of Scripture, meaning it is the final authority on all matters of faith and life,” Powers simultaneously endorses the homosexual relationships as long as they are committed and monogamous. Powers invites the church to reverse two thousand years of moral thinking on this issue when she writes, “The church has done this before on issues ranging from slavery to the solar system,” in her article here, (accessed 6 June 2014)

However, does the Bible really promote slavery and a geocentric solar system with the same clarity that it condemns homosexuality? As explained in a prior post, the bottom line is that, contrary to Powers' insinuation, the Bible nowhere clearly advocates either slavery or geocentricity. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter. Biblical prohibitions against homosexual relationships, even of the monogamous sort that Powers endorses, are crystal clear. The Bible condemns homosexuality from beginning to end. In a prior post, we briefly surveyed what the Old Testament reveals concerning homosexuality. The New Testament is equally clear in its affirmation of heterosexual monogamy as the divine standard and in its condemnation of homosexuality. In a prior post, we noted how heterosexual monogamy is clearly affirmed in the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. In last week's post, we began examining what the Apostle Paul taught about this important subject. In this week's post, we conclude our series as we complete our look at the Apostle Paul's treatment of homosexuality. Paul continues his condemnation of homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (Emboldening added.))

Two points are worth noting here. First, notice how Paul equates homosexuality with the sins of fornication, idolatry, adultery, theft, covetousness, and drunkenness. In other words, just as all of these sins epitomize unbelievers, homosexuality is equally a sinful lifestyle that characterizes unbelievers rather than believers. At this point, Powers seeks to convince her readers that the Scripture is not condemning monogamous, committed, homosexual relationships but rather only homosexual acts taking place outside of this lifelong bond. She writes:

"In evangelical gay Christian Matthew Vines' new book, God and the Gay Christian, he examines the six passages on same-sex behavior and argues that they do not address today's long-term gay relationships. New Testament scholar James Brownson, who wrote the 2013 book Bible, Gender, Sexuality, concurs. He told me, "Male-male sex in the ancient world was episodic. It was mainly young boys with older men or male slaves and masters. It was not mutual. These were not relationships, they were not marriage and they were not meant to turn into marriage." Brownson said to compare what ancient writers viewed as heterosexual "sexual excess" — akin to gluttony — with the modern concept of sexual orientation is misguided." (Kirsten Powers, "Christianity's New Look on Gays," 1.)

However, while quoting left-leaning authors in an attempt to find support for her worldview, Powers ignores the standard Greek lexicon. The Greek word translated "homosexuals" in this passage is arsenokoitēs. This lexicon defines this word as follows:

"‘...one who has intercourse w. a man as w. a woman’...a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex...1 Cor 6:9...rendering of...w. the single term ‘sexual pervert’ is lexically unacceptable...Paul’s strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution...or limited to contract w. boys for homoerotic service... (Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. Frederick William Danker, 3rd ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000, 135.)

Thus, far from condemning only homosexual behavior outside of a lifelong, monogamous relationship, Paul was condemning all homosexuality, which also includes homosexual behavior taking place within a marital commitment. Second, notice that Paul at the conclusion of his condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle says, "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” Here, Paul teaches that a bonafide change out of the homosexual lifestyle is entirely possible under the Spirit’s guidance and empowerment. Apparently, homosexuals can change their stripes just as drunkards, adulterers, and thieves can. Powers ignores this verse and instead states, "...there is plenty of new evidence to consider, including the fact that same-sex orientation is not a choice." ((Kirsten Powers, "Christianity's New Look on Gays," 1.)) Not only does her assertion contradict Paul's teaching that homosexuality emanates from a rejection of God (Rom. 1:18-19, 26-27) and that homosexuals can change (1 Cor. 6:11), it also ignores a lot of contrary scientific findings. According to “Dr. Robert L. Spitzer–the renowned gay activist psychiatrist who in 1973 successfully managed to have homosexuality removed from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental disorders–has published results of his new study which shows homosexual orientation can be changed to heterosexual.” ((Gregg Jackson, Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies: Issue by Issue Responses to the Most Common Claims of the Left from a to Z (Bridgeport, PA: JAJ, 2006), 257.)) According to Dr. Spitzer’s findings, which were eventually published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, 200 homosexuals changed their lifestyle as a response to therapy during the five year duration of the study. ((Robert L. Spitzer, "Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Particiapants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation," Archives of Sexaul Behavior 32, no. 5 (October 2003): 403-17.)) The final place in Paul's writing where the Apostle condemns homosexuality is found in one of his pastoral letters. In 1 Timothy 1:9-10, he writes:

...realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching. (Emboldening added.))

Because the Greek word translated "homosexuals" in this passage is again arsenokoitēs, it carries the identical lexical meaning mentioned earlier. If Kirsten Powers is indeed a believer, I am elated if only for the sake of her eternal destiny. However, when she opines about biblical matters, especially the gay issue, I do not trust her point of view. As an immature believer, she speaks from the perspective of the world and not God. The divine point of view on the subject of gay marriage is crystal clear. The clarity of the Scripture on this matter explains why the church for the last two thousand years has opposed the normalization of homosexual marriage on equal par with heterosexual marriage. The Book of Genesis, the Mosaic Law, Christ's teachings, Paul's letters, and the General Epistles all speak with one voice: heterosexual monogamy is the divine standard and homosexuality of any sort contradicts and diminishes God's standard. My hope and prayer is that today's American Christians will stand strong on God's Word and not follow the pattern exhibited by Kirsten Powers, who has allowed her reading of the Bible to be warped through the lens of a politically correct and humanistic culture. As forcefully articulated by Jonathan Merritt, "And mark this down: If the battle over same-sex relationships being fought among conservative Christians is won by the pro-gay advocates among them, the larger cultural war is all but over" (Accessed 14 August 2014).

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: August 1, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

Recently, TV political commentator, columnist, and professing evangelical Christian Kirsten Powers offered a troubling and controversial perspective related to the issue of homosexuality and Christianity. Because her point of view seems to be representative of some within the evangelical movement, and also seems to be gaining ground. See evidence of that in this article here, (accessed 22 July 2014). I decided to respond to it through a series of blog posts. In a recent USA Today column, while claiming to “hold a ‘high view’ of Scripture, meaning it is the final authority on all matters of faith and life,” Powers simultaneously endorses the homosexual relationships as long as they are committed and monogamous. Powers invites the church to reverse two thousand years of moral thinking on this issue when she writes, “The church has done this before on issues ranging from slavery to the solar system,” in her article here, (accessed 6 June 2014)

However, does the Bible really promote slavery and a geocentric solar system with the same clarity that it condemns homosexuality? As explained in a prior post, the bottom line is that, contrary to Powers' insinuation, the Bible nowhere clearly advocates either slavery or geocentricity. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter. Biblical prohibitions against homosexual relationships, even of the monogamous sort that Powers endorses, are crystal clear. The Bible condemns homosexuality from beginning to end. In a prior post, we briefly surveyed what the Old Testament reveals concerning homosexuality. The New Testament is equally clear in its affirmation of heterosexual monogamy as the divine standard and in its condemnation of homosexuality. In last week's post, we noted how heterosexual monogamy is clearly affirmed in the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. In this post, we will begin to examine what the Apostle Paul taught about this important subject.

The Apostle Paul
 In addition to Jesus, the Apostle Paul also held up heterosexual monogamy as the divinely established norm. Paul is clear that the proper venue for the expression of the God-given sex drive is within the confines of the heterosexual marital relationship. In 1 Corinthians 7:2-5, he explains:

But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Not only is there no hint of any same sex unions in this injunction, such intimation is also omitted from any other scriptural citation where Paul outlines the divine standard for marriage (Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-19, etc...). Beyond merely promoting heterosexuality, divine condemnation of homosexuality is also evident in Paul's letters. His most well-known condemnation of homosexual relations is found in Romans 1:18-19, 26-27:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them...For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

 Note that these verses portray homosexuality (Rom. 1:26-27) as a result of rejecting the clear revelation of God as given in creation (Rom. 1:18-19). Then, without a proper relationship to His creator due to this rejection, the roles that God has established, such as parental authority over children (Rom. 1:30) and God's sexual norms (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:24) become confused (Rom. 1:26-27) in the minds of fallen human beings. Life makes sense only under God's authority, who, after all, created all of these relationships. On the other hand, relational confusion naturally results without God's will present to properly define the boundaries of all of these relationships that He has created. Thus, in these verses, Paul portrays the homosexual lifestyle as the natural by-product of rejecting God (Rom. 1:19-20). Paul continues his condemnation of homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (Emboldening added).

Notice how Paul equates homosexuality with the sins of fornication, idolatry, adultery, theft, covetousness, and drunkenness. In other words, just as all of these sins epitomize unbelievers, homosexuality is equally a sinful lifestyle that also characterizes unbelievers rather than believers. The rest of Paul's teaching on this important subject, as well as exactly how Powers and other like-minded liberals seek to explain away the clear import of these passages, will be the subject of next week's post.

(To Be Continued)

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: August 1, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

Recently, TV political commentator, columnist, and professing evangelical Christian Kirsten Powers offered a troubling and controversial perspective related to the issue of homosexuality and Christianity. Because her point of view seems to be representative of some within the evangelical movement and also seems to be gaining ground. See evidence of that in this article here, (accessed 22 July 2014). I decided to respond to it through a series of blog posts. In a recent USA Today column, while claiming to “hold a ‘high view’ of Scripture, meaning it is the final authority on all matters of faith and life,” Powers simultaneously endorses the homosexual relationships as long as they are committed and monogamous. Powers invites the church to reverse two thousand years of moral thinking on this issue when she writes, “The church has done this before on issues ranging from slavery to the solar system.” in her article here, (accessed 6 June 2014).

However, does the Bible really promote slavery and a geocentric solar system with the same clarity that it condemns homosexuality? As explained in a prior post, the bottom line is that, contrary to Powers' insinuation, the Bible nowhere clearly advocates either slavery or geocentricity. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter. Biblical prohibitions against homosexual relationships, even of the monogamous sort that Powers endorses, are crystal clear. The Bible condemns homosexuality from beginning to end. In our last post, we briefly surveyed what the Old Testament reveals concerning homosexuality. The New Testament is equally clear in its affirmation of heterosexual monogamy as the divine standard and in its condemnation of homosexuality. In this week's post, we will briefly note how heterosexual monogamy is clearly affirmed in the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.  Interestingly, in Matthew 19:3-6, Christ Himself appealed to the first two chapters of Genesis when He was questioned about marriage and divorce.

"Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

In verse 4, Jesus quoted Genesis 1:27 and in verse 5 He quoted Genesis 2:24. In so doing, Christ obviously affirmed the heterosexual standard announced by God at the very beginning. The support of Christ for heterosexual monogamous marriage is also evident in how He selected a wedding ceremony at Cana of Galilee to be the venue for His first public miracle of turning water into wine (John 2:1-11).   It is common to hear homosexual apologists claim that Christ nowhere condemned homosexuality. Although this is true, as argued above, He clearly affirmed heterosexuality and never homosexuality. Furthermore, this type of argument represents a logical fallacy known as an "argument from silence." Such fallacious reasoning occurs when it is falsely assumed that Christ's failure to speak against an issue represents His tacit approval of it. By way of analogy, just because Christ did not directly condemn spousal abuse, are we therefore to incorrectly assume that His failure to condemn spousal abuse represents His tacit approval of it? Such argumentation is nonsensical.  

Furthermore, Christ never claimed that His teaching was exhaustive or complete. In fact, in the Upper Room, He specifically explained to His disciples, "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth..." (John 16:12-13). In other words, by His own admission, His incomplete teaching would have to be supplemented with what was revealed later through the Spirit-inspired epistles of His disciples. This reality explains why the Apostle Paul when giving commands sometimes states, "But to the rest I say, not the Lord..." (1 Cor. 7:12). Thus, Paul, while writing as an apostle, sometimes supplemented vacancies or omissions in Christ's teachings. In doing so, Paul spoke with the same divine authority that Christ spoke with (2 Thess. 3:14; 2 Tim. 3:16). Both the teachings of Christ and the writings of Paul need to be considered in harmony with one another in order to gain the comprehensive divine perspective. While Christ did not directly condemn homosexuality in His incomplete teachings, Paul, as will be shown in our next post, certainly did do so in the supplemental teachings that the Spirit gave him.  

In general, when it comes to Christ's condemnation of sin, liberals, like Kirsten Powers, love to point out Christ's love. They quickly note how Jesus failed to condemn the woman caught in adultery. However, while we all are grateful for God's grace, let's not forget the end of the paragraph or pericope (A pericope comprises a biblical paragraph or a literary unit) where Christ said, "Go. From now on sin no more" (John 8:11b). After healing the lame man at the pool of Bethesda, Jesus similarly said, "Behold, you have become well; do not sin anymore, so that nothing worse happens to you” (John 5:14). While God is love (1 John 4:8), He is also holy (Isa. 6:3; Rev. 4:8). Christ epitomizes both "grace and truth" (John 1:14). Therefore, Christ would be just as quick and clear in His condemnation of the sin of homosexuality as He would be in affirming His love for the homosexual. While liberals focus exclusively on the latter, an accurate portrait of Christ involves comprehending both the former and the latter.  

In addition to Jesus, as will be explained in next week's post, the Apostle Paul also held up heterosexual monogamy as the norm. Also, as we shall see, beyond merely promoting heterosexuality, divine condemnation of homosexuality is also evident in Paul's letters.

(To Be Continued)    

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: July 25, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

Recently, TV political commentator, columnist, and professing evangelical Christian Kirsten Powers offered a troubling and controversial perspective related to the issue of homosexuality and Christianity. Her point of view seems to be representative of some within the evangelical movement, and also seems to be gaining ground. See evidence of that in this article here (accessed 22 July 2014). I decided to respond to it through a series of blog posts. In a recent USA Today column, while claiming to “hold a ‘high view’ of Scripture, meaning it is the final authority on all matters of faith and life,” Powers simultaneously endorses the homosexual relationships as long as they are committed and monogamous. Powers invites the church to reverse two thousand years of moral thinking on this issue when she writes, “The church has done this before on issues ranging from slavery to the solar system,” (in her article here; accessed 6 June 2014).  

However, does the Bible really promote slavery and a geocentric solar system with the same clarity that it condemns homosexuality? As explained in last week's post, the bottom line is that, contrary to Powers' insinuation, the Bible nowhere clearly advocates either slavery or geocentricity. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter. Biblical prohibitions against homosexual relationships, even of the monogamous sort that Powers endorses, are crystal clear. The Bible condemns homosexuality from beginning to end. In this post, we will briefly survey what the Old Testament reveals concerning homosexuality.   At the dawn of human history, heterosexuality is established as the norm for marriage. In Genesis 1:26, 28, God said, “'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness'...God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply'.” ((All scriptural citations, unless otherwise noted, are taken from the NASB.)) Such a command excludes homosexuals who obviously have no ability to reproduce. God's pattern for heterosexual marriage receives greater clarity in Genesis 2, which is an amplification of the sixth day of creation.

Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Not only does Moses in Genesis describe what is normal in terms of marriage between a man and a woman, but he also depicts what is abnormal. Genesis 18:20 says, “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave." The sin of this city is found in Genesis 19:4-5: "Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.'” The King James Version translates the end of verse 5 as, "that we may know them." The knowledge spoken of here is carnal knowledge or sexual intimacy. In fact, the Hebrew construction is analogous to Genesis 4:1, which also speaks of sexual union: "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord." Thus, the sin of Sodom entailed a gross deviation from God's monogamous heterosexual standard. On account of this sin, God purposed to destroy the city.

It is common for gay rights apologists to note that the sin of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality but rather indifference toward the poor. They quickly point to Ezekiel 16:49: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy." However, this verse mentions carelessness toward the poor as a sin of Sodom, but not its only sin. Genesis 19:4-6 describes homosexuality as yet another sin of Sodom. Jude 7 even amplifies this latter sin, when it says, "just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." ((Italics and emboldeni added.))   In addition to being condemned in Genesis, homosexuality is also condemned in the Mosaic Law. Although it is true that the Law was given only to national Israel (Ps. 147:19-20) and therefore is not binding upon the New Testament church in the exact same way that it was legally binding upon the nation, the Law still represents a perfect revelation of God's moral character. Thus, the Law serves notice regarding the types of behaviors that are both pleasing and displeasing to God. Leviticus 18:22 says, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Leviticus 20:13 adds a punitive element that was to be imposed within Old Testament Israel for those involved in homosexual relations: "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them."  

These Levitical injunctions against homosexuality are interesting for at least two reasons. First, in the larger context of these chapters, the practice of homosexuality is mentioned right alongside other practices that most would deem detestable, such as incest (Lev. 18:6-18; 20:10-12, 14, 17, 19-21), adultery (Lev. 18:20; 20:10), child sacrifice (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5), bestiality (Lev. 18:23; 20:15-16), witchcraft (Lev. 20:6, 27), and disrespect for parental authority (Lev. 20:9). Second, in both chapters, God clearly states that these detestable practices (including homosexuality) constitute the reason that He is expelling the Canaanite nations from the land (Lev. 18:24-28; 20:22-23). Thus, homosexuality should be considered a transnational sin warranting divine judgment not just for Israel but also for the Gentile-Canaanite peoples.   Beginning with next week's post, we will also see that the New Testament is equally clear in its affirmation of heterosexual monogamy as the divine standard and in its condemnation of homosexuality.  

(To Be Continued)

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: July 18, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

Ever since I can remember, TV political commentator and columnist Kirsten Powers can always be relied upon to provide the knee-jerk liberal point of view to virtually any issue under discussion. That is why when Powers went public with her conversion to Christianity in 2014 (accessed 6 June 2014), I remained hopeful that an alteration in her leftist worldview would soon follow. However, as explained in the previous post, my hopes soon began to fade the more I scrutinized Powers' new-found spirituality. Serious question marks exist in terms of whether she has truly been saved. Moreover, if she is an authentic child of God, more questions can be raised in terms of whether she has made sufficient progress in terms of spiritual growth or maturity (sometimes called "progressive sanctification") so as to be trusted to pontificate accurately on spiritual matters.   Nowhere is Powers' non-biblical point of view more apparent than in her recent USA Today column where she claims to “hold a ‘high view’ of Scripture, meaning it is the final authority on all matters of faith and life” and yet, she simultaneously endorses the homosexual relationships as long as they are committed and monogamous. You can read about that in her article here. (accessed 6 June 2014). Powers invites the church to reverse two thousand years of moral thinking on this issue when she writes, “The church has done this before on issues ranging from slavery to the solar system.”  

However, does the Bible really promote slavery and a geocentric solar system with the same clarity that it condemns homosexuality? This assertion, to my mind, is an apples and oranges comparison since no clear biblical teaching promotes slavery. In actuality, the opposite is true. At least this was the perspective of many of the Christian leaders mentioned in last week's post, such as Theodore Weld, William Wilberforce, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Because the Scripture teaches that all human beings regardless of ethnicity are image bearers of God (Gen. 1:26-27; 9:6-7; Jas. 3:9) and are descendants of Adam (Acts 17:26), it is thus morally wrong for one race to enslave another. In fact, in the Book of Exodus, God condemned the Egyptians for enslaving His chosen nation Israel (Exod. 2:23-25; 9:1, etc...).   Although Powers fails to cite any biblical proof for the proposition that Scripture endorses slavery, she might be referring to Paul's injunction for slaves to submit to their masters (Eph. 6:5). However, for many reasons, commentators of all stripes typically take this Pauline biblical language as descriptive language (merely describing a first-century reality) rather than prescriptive (placing a divine stamp of approval on slavery and contending for the institution's continued existence).

Here are just a few reasons why most take Paul's slavery injunction descriptively rather than prescriptively. First, had Paul openly condemned slavery, then Rome would have taken away his freedom thus inhibiting his ability to evangelize. Second, Paul’s ministry involved the salvation of souls rather than social reform and abolition of slavery. In other words, Paul "stayed in his own lane" rather than getting side tracked into something outside the sphere of his divine calling and ministry (Acts 9:15-16; Gal. 2:7-9). Third, perhaps Paul knew that the gospel, with emphasis upon human rights, would one day indirectly lead to the abolition of slavery. After all, how did Paul drive the idol makers in Ephesus out of business? Not through top down social reform or by calling for "regime change." Rather, he did so indirectly by evangelizing the masses in Asia Minor, which had the net effect of shrinking the demand for idols (Acts 19:10, 23-27). Fourth, Paul did speak out against masters mistreating their slaves (Col. 4:1; 1 Pet. 2:18-20).

Fifth, Paul supported emancipation whenever possible (1 Cor. 7:21; Phlm. 21). All of these points demonstrate that Paul's injunction for slaves to submit to their masters must be understood descriptively rather than prescriptively. In the fact, the Bible is so opposed to racial prejudice of any kind that it even portrays Moses' (one of God's premier servants) marriage to a Cushite woman (Num. 12:1). Because Moses was a Hebrew, his marriage to a Cushite constituted interracial marriage.   In addition to the Bible not clearly promoting the institution of slavery, neither does it clearly promote a geocentric solar system. If there is a verse in Scripture that clearly presents the earth as the center of the solar system and therefore the Sun revolves around the earth, then I would like to know where this verse is. The Bible simply remains silent upon this matter. Probably the closest one could come toward finding biblical justification for a geocentric solar system is scriptural language indicating that the sun rises and sets (Isa. 45:6; Eccl. 1:5). However, most do not understand such phraseology in denotative, literalistic, scientific terms but rather as a mere figure of speech narrated from man's perspective. The technical designation for such terminology is phenomenological language where an event is described from the anthropological or man-centered point of view. In the 21st century, we also frequently uses phrases such as the sun rises or the sun sets and nobody in the process of communication misunderstands this as contending for the geocentricity of our solar system.

All of this to say, the Bible employs the same connotative figure of speech. For the same reason, when either the Scripture or modern vernacular uses the expression "the four corners of the earth" (Rev. 7:1) nobody thinks that such language conveys a flat earth. The bottom line is that, contrary to Powers' insinuation, the Bible nowhere clearly advocates slavery or geocentricity.   Homosexuality, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter. Biblical prohibitions against homosexual relationships, even of the monogamous sort that Powers endorses, are crystal clear. As will be explained in subsequent posts, the Bible condemns homosexuality from beginning to end.  

(To Be Continued...)

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: July 11, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

Ever since I can remember, TV political commentator and columnist Kirsten Powers can always be relied upon to provide the knee-jerk liberal point of view to virtually any issue under discussion. That is why when Powers went public with her conversion to Christianity last year I remained hopeful that an alteration in her leftist worldview would soon follow. I hoped and prayed that she would not follow in the pattern of Jane Fonda, whose alleged born again-experience had little, if any, discernible impact on her far left perspective.   However, my hopes soon began to fade the more I scrutinized Powers' new found spirituality. While I certainly desired that Powers was an authentic believer, doubts began to surface in my mind, however, when I read the account of her conversion. (Kirsten Powers, "Fox News Highly Reluctant Jesus Follower,” online: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/november/fox-news-highly-reluctant-jesus-follower-kirsten-powers.html, 22 October 2013, accessed 6 June 2014).

It seemed devoid of what the New Testament teaches regarding by what means a person is genuinely saved, which always involves personal faith or a trust response in Christ based upon a clear proclamation of the gospel predicated entirely upon God's Word (John 3:16; Acts 16:30-31; Rom. 10:17; 2 Tim. 3:15). In the place of this clear scriptural reality, Powers' testimony seemed littered with personal experiences and visions. She narrates:

"I woke up in what felt like a strange cross between a dream and reality. Jesus came to me and said, ‘Here I am...It felt so real. I didn’t know what to make of it...I tried to write off the experience as misfiring synapses, but I couldn’t shake it. When I returned to New York a few days later, I was lost. I suddenly felt God everywhere and it was terrifying. More important, it was unwelcome. It felt like an invasion. I started to fear I was going crazy (Ibid., 2.)"

In this same testimony, Powers describes the contribution of Pastor Timothy Keller to her new spiritual understanding (Ibid.). This too raised red flags for me since Keller's ministry has been criticized for being heavily swayed and influenced by both market-driven and mystical practices. ("Another Popular Christian Leader, Tim Keller, Takes Church into Contemplative," online: http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=872, 28 June 2009, accessed 6 June 2014).   However, because I prefer to give folks the benefit of the doubt and I certainly cannot see what is in her heart, let's go ahead and assume, for the sake of argument, that Powers is indeed a bonafide sister in the Lord. That being said, I still do not trust her perspective on spiritual matters. Why? Every new believer must go through a maturity or growth process. Despite the fact that the Christian is a new creature in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17), all of us drag baggage from our old life into our new one. This baggage does not affect our position in Christ, but it does affect our practice. Old mental patterns and habits will continue to exert power over the new believer until we allow our thought life to be regularly transformed by God's truth (John 17:17; Rom. 12:2; Phil. 4:8). Paul went through this maturation process following his Damascus Road experience. He spent three years in Arabia being taught by the Lord after he was saved but before he entered the ministry that God had for him (Gal. 1:17-18). Moses similarly spent forty years on the backside of the desert, largely going through the same process (Acts 7:29-30) before being used by God as Israel's deliverer and Law giver. In other words, believers who have made little progress in their progressive sanctification, maturity, and growth, still think and sound a lot like unbelievers. It is because of this spiritual reality that Paul warned Timothy not to elevate a new convert into a place of spiritual leadership within the church (1 Tim. 3:6).  

Almost every time I have had the recent opportunity either to hear Powers speak or read her work, she sounds more like an unbeliever than a believer. She is on record, sadly along with mega church pastor Andy Stanley (the son of evangelical luminary Charles Stanley), favoring laws forcing Christian-owned and operated businesses (such as bakeries, florists, caterers, and photographers) to provide their services for homosexual weddings on the grounds that Jesus ate with sinners and served all people, including those He disagreed with. (Kirsten Powers, "Jim Crow Laws for Gays and Lesbians," online: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/02/18/gays-lesbians-kansas-bill-religious-freedom-christians-column/5588643/, 19 February 2014, accessed 6 June 2014). Of course, accepting sinners is one thing, but legally coercing someone of biblical convictions to endorse sin is an entirely different matter. I fail to see how Jesus would endorse the latter.  

Photo credit (featured image): laverrue / Foter / Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)    

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: May 24, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

In the last fourteen posts, we have presented a series on the "separation between church and state" supposedly found in the First Amendment. It is because of this phrase, which was first introduced into the fabric of our culture through errant Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s, that Christianity has generally been purged from public life. ((For the latest documentation on this purging, see Kelly Shackelford, Justin Butterfield, and Bryan Clegg, eds., Undeniable: The Survey of Hostility to Religion in America, 2013 ed. (Plano, TX: Liberty Institute, 2013).)) We noted that we can trace the origin of the modern understanding and application of separation between church and state to the following two Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s: Engle v. Vitale ((Engle v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).)) and School District of Abington Township v. Schempp. ((School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).))

Yet, an honest appraisal of these decisions shows them to be out of harmony with the vision of the Constitution’s authors. The purpose of this series of posts has been to demonstrate how out-of-step these decisions are with the express wishes of America’s founding fathers. In conclusion, what the last fourteen posts on this topic have demonstrated is that the introduction and application of the “Separation Between Church and State” doctrine into the fabric of American culture is one of the greatest acts of fraud and deception ever to be perpetrated upon the American people. The doctrine is nothing more than a legal fiction brought into existence only by committing tremendous violence against the founders’ original vision for the country. In its march to separate Christian influence from government, the high court in Engle and Schempp read words into the First Amendment that simply are not there, relied upon and took out of context a letter written by Thomas Jefferson more than a decade after the Constitution was created, ignored the legislative activities of those who authored the First Amendment, applied the First Amendment to the states in spite of the fact that the First Amendment describes itself only as a limitation upon federal power, ignored the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, failed to cite a single precedent, erroneously believed that Christianity causes psychological damage, acted as the Constitution’s amender rather than its interpreter, and selectively applied their newly created separation doctrine only to Judeo-Christian truth while giving alternative non-Christian religions a virtual free pass.

While this criticism may sound strong, it is not mine alone. None other than former Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist leveled a similar harsh critique of the “Separation Between Church and State” concept in his dissenting opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree. ((Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 106-7 (1985).)) There, Rehnquist used the following phrases to depict this new doctrine: “the absence of a historical basis for this rigid theory of separation”, “not wholly accurate”, “can only be dimly perceived”, “its lack of historical support”, “all but useless as a guide to sound constitutional application”, “it illustrates all too well Benjamin Cardozo’s observation that ‘metaphors in law are to be narrowly watched, for starting as devices to liberate thought, they end often in enslaving it’”, “mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights”, “no amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true”, “a metaphor based on bad history”, “a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging”, and “it should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.” Most troubling is that the decision to remove America from its Judeo-Christian heritage did not come through a vote by the American people or even the people’s elected representatives. Rather, it originated from the actions of the unelected, life tenured federal judiciary. Even then, the judiciary was able to render such a ruling only by twisting the Constitution and American history into a pretzel. Perhaps all of this would be easier to stomach if the electorate wanted to remove America from Christianity and re-anchor the nation upon humanism. Yet, the people have never formally consented to such a transition.

Equally troubling is the notion that those voices that are the loudest calling for the Separation Between Church and State are also the loudest for radically expanding the role of government into every area of daily life. Certainly the Obama Administration fits this pattern since it has proposed unprecedented government spending. ((Byron York, “Obama’s Trillions Dwarf Bush’s Dangerous Spending,” online: www.washingtonexaminer.com, accessed 13 October 2009, 1.)) If Christianity has no place in government and government must perpetually expand, then the formula is in place for a country with no Christianity at all. As the government grows, Christianity shrinks. Ann Coulter well summarizes the matter when she says, “First they claim there is no place for religion in the public square, and then they expand the public square to include everything.” ((Ann Coulter, "Foreword," in Speechless: Silencing the Christians, ed. Donald E. Wildmon (Minneapolis, MN: Vigilante, 2009), xiii.))

All of this to say that if the historical error of Separation Between Church and State is not soon corrected, then American Christians may soon find themselves in a country whose national motto is “freedom from religion” rather than “freedom of religion.”

(End of Series)

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: May 03, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

In the last thirteen posts, we have presented a series on the "separation between church and state" supposedly found in the First Amendment. It is because of this phrase, which was first introduced into the fabric of our culture through errant Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s, that Christianity has generally been purged from public life. ((For the latest documentation on this purging, see Kelly Shackelford, Justin Butterfield, and Bryan Clegg, eds., Undeniable: The Survey of Hostility to Religion in America, 2013 ed. (Plano, TX: Liberty Institute, 2013).)) We noted that we can trace the origin of the modern understanding and application of separation between church and state to the following two Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s: Engle v. Vitale and School District of Abington Township v. Schempp.  Yet, an honest appraisal of these decisions shows them to be out of harmony with the vision of the Constitution’s authors. The purpose of this series of posts is to demonstrate how out-of-step these decisions are with the express wishes of America’s founding fathers. This purpose has been accomplished through a consideration of nine historical and legal facts.

First, we observed that the words “separation between church and state” never appear in the actual wording of the First Amendment. The so-called "separation between church and state" terminology was not part of America's foundation and was never even used to limit Christian expression in government until after most of our nation's history had already transpired. Second, we noted that although Thomas Jefferson later used the phrase in a private correspondence, he actually used the phrase “wall of separation of church and state” as a one-way wall preventing the government from interfering with Christianity rather than preventing Christianity from influencing government. Third, the legal test that is used today to completely separate God from government is inconsistent with the beliefs of the founding fathers whose legislative record demonstrates that they contemplated no such separation.

Fourth, the Engle and Schempp courts applied the First Amendment’s prohibition of a government-established religion to religious activity taking place at the state level in spite of the fact that the express wording of the religion clauses of the First Amendment are only a limitation on federal power rather than state power. Fifth, for the Engel and Schempp courts to make the First Amendment applicable to the states through the vehicle of the Fourteenth Amendment they not only ignored the Fourteenth Amendment’s historical context, but it also contradicted the intent of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment. Sixth, by banning voluntary prayer in public schools, the Engel court made the radical move of overturning a long-standing tradition in American educational history without citing a single precedent. Seventh, the Engle and Schempp courts reached the decisions that they reached regarding prayer and Bible reading in the schools because of their a priori belief that such activity is psychologically harmful. Eighth, the Engel and Schempp courts seemed to have followed more of a legislative philosophy rather than a judicial philosophy. In our last four posts, we began our ninth point, which is that the court has been highly selective in terms of which religions are to be removed from government based upon the "separation of church and state" principle. In this post we will continue our examination of this point.

Although Christianity has been banished from the public schools, we observed that New Age practices and Islam have not been given the same level of scrutiny. We also observed that one notices a far more aggressive enforcement of the Separation of Church and State principle whenever conservative Christianity is the target as opposed to liberal Christianity. The courts have refused to aggressively enforce the Separation of Church and State doctrine against Humanism. In prior posts, we have seen how Humanism is a belief system embraced by many societal leaders. The beliefs of Humanists are expressed in the following three documents: Humanist Manifesto I (1933), Humanist Manifesto II (1973), ((Paul Kurtz, ed. Humanist Manifestos I and II (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1973).)) and Humanist Manifesto 2000. ((Paul Kurtz, ed. Humanist Manifesto 2000: A Call for a New Planetary Humanism (Ameherst, NY: Prometheus, 2000).)) We noted that Humanism is a religion because it involves faith propositions and furnishes answers to life's most basic and fundamental questions. Moreover, Humanism calls itself a religion. The American Humanist Society also possesses of 501(c)3 tax-exempt status and is classified by the IRS as a church. ((David Noebel, J.F. Baldwin, and Kevin Bywater, Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism, 3d rev. ed. (Manitou Springs, CO: Summit, 2007), 159.)) The United States Supreme Court has even called Humanism a religion on occasion. ((Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, n. 11 (1961).)) Like New Agers, Humanists are also transparent in their conviction that the public school classroom represents an appropriate pulpit for indoctrinating the next generation into the Humanist faith. Humanist Charles Francis Potter divulged:

"Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday-schools, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?" ((Charles Francis Potter, Humanism: A New Religion (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1930), 128.))

Because of religious Humanism’s dominance in public education, some have even referred to government schools as seminaries, which are busy training the next generation of Humanist priests. This potency of public schools to disseminate Humanism is especially true given the fact that "During twelve years of schooling a child spends more than 11,000 hours in the classroom." ((Orley Herron, Who Controls Your Child: Preparing Your Children to Win the Battle for Their Minds (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1980), 60.)) Despite Humanism’s religious influence in public education, the Supreme Court has done little, if anything, to disestablish this religious system from the taxpayer-funded classroom. Thus, it is incorrect to believe that the court threw religion out of the schools in the 1960’s. In actuality, what the high court did in Engle and Schempp was to exchange religions. Christianity was banished and the religion of Humanism took its place. Sadly, most people are unable to recognize this reality since Humanism masquerades as religiously neutral. In actuality, today’s public schools are just as religious as ever. The only difference is that the Christian religion no longer reigns supreme.

Rather, religious Humanism has become the state sponsored religion of the United States of America. Thus, the preceding discussion involving the New Age, Islam, Christian leftism, and Humanism in the public schools clearly communicates that “Separation Between Church and State” has nothing to do with removing religion from government schools. Rather, this phrase is employed in order to injure Christianity and simultaneously elevate non-Christian religions in public schools. A similar philosophy is at work behind other issues such as feminism. For example, feminists sat by silently while former President Bill Clinton harassed, groped, and even raped multiple women. In order to remain intellectually honest, the objective observer to these events was forced to conclude that modern feminism is not really concerned about protecting women. Rather feminism is used selectively to further liberalism by injuring conservative office holders, such as Clarence Thomas, all while simultaneously promoting liberal office holders and sexual harassers such as the late Ted Kennedy and former President Bill Clinton. The issue of racism is also used in a highly selective manner in order to promote one side of the political spectrum. For example, the charge of racism is employed by the left in order to marginalize, and in some instances derail, conservatives such as jurist Charles W. Pickering and the late Senator Jesse Helms. Yet, these same accusers simultaneously turn a blind eye to racism coming from the left. The anti-Semitic, and generally racist, statements and philosophies of leftists such as Robert Byrd, ((Michelle Malkin, Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild (Washington, DC: Regenery, 2005), 124.)) Louis Farrakhan, ((Larry Elder, The Ten Things You Can't Say in America (New York: St. Martin's, 2000), 21, 128.)) Jesse Jackson, ((Ibid., 19, 31, 127.)) Jeremiah Wright, ((Charles C. Johnson, “The Gospel According to Wright,” online: http://spectator.org/articles/36529/, 11 December 2011-January 2012 issue, accessed 02 May 2014.)) and Al Sharpton ((Jesse Lee Peterson, Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits America (Nashville, TN: Word Net Daily, 2003), 126-27.)) are well documented.

Once again, the intellectually honest observer is forced to conclude that the left is really unconcerned about the issue of racism. Rather, their real ambition is to use the race issue selectively in order to advance their leftist ideology all while marginalizing the competing conservative ideology. In other words, the feigned concern over feminism or racism really masquerades as an agenda to advance liberalism. The same can be said regarding the Separation Between Church and State. This phrase does not refer to the removal of religion from public life. Rather, the phrase is used today in order to mitigate the Christian religion while simultaneously promoting non-Christian or non-biblical religions in its place. In our next post, we will wrap up our thoughts by summarizing the main points made in this series as well as observe how the strong criticism against the Separation Between Church and State expressed in this series is not mine alone but also emanates from one of America's most respected legal voices. We'll also briefly note the anti-Democratic manner in which the Separation of Church and State became a reality in the United States of America.

(To Be Continued...)

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: April 25, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

In the last twelve posts, we have presented a series on the "separation between church and state" supposedly found in the First Amendment. It is because of this phrase, which was first introduced into the fabric of our culture through errant Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s, that Christianity has generally been purged from public life. We noted that we can trace the origin of the modern understanding and application of separation between church and state to the following two Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s: Engle v. Vitale and School District of Abington Township v. Schempp.  Yet, an honest appraisal of these decisions shows them to be out of harmony with the vision of the Constitution’s authors. The purpose of this series of posts is to demonstrate how out-of-step these decisions are with the express wishes of America’s founding fathers. This purpose has been accomplished through a consideration of nine historical and legal facts.   First, we observed that the words “separation between church and state” never appear in the actual wording of the First Amendment. The so-called "separation between church and state" terminology was not part of America's foundation and was never even used to limit Christian expression in government until after most of our nation's history had already transpired.

Second, we noted that although Thomas Jefferson later used the phrase in a private correspondence, he actually used the phrase “wall of separation of church and state” as a one-way wall preventing the government from interfering with Christianity rather than preventing Christianity from influencing government. Third, the legal test that is used today to completely separate God from government is inconsistent with the beliefs of the founding fathers whose legislative record demonstrates that they contemplated no such separation. Fourth, the Engle and Schempp courts applied the First Amendment’s prohibition of a government-established religion to religious activity taking place at the state level in spite of the fact that the express wording of the religion clauses of the First Amendment are only a limitation on federal power rather than state power.

Fifth, for the Engel and Schempp courts to make the First Amendment applicable to the states through the vehicle of the Fourteenth Amendment they not only ignored the Fourteenth Amendment’s historical context, but it also contradicted the intent of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment. Sixth, by banning voluntary prayer in public schools, the Engel court made the radical move of overturning a long-standing tradition in American educational history without citing a single precedent. Seventh, the Engle and Schempp courts reached the decisions that they reached regarding prayer and Bible reading in the schools because of their a priori belief that such activity is psychologically harmful. Eighth, the Engel and Schempp courts seemed to have followed more of a legislative philosophy rather than a judicial philosophy. In our last three posts, we began our ninth point, which is that the court has been highly selective in terms of which religions are to be removed from government based upon the "separation of church and state" principle. In this post we will continue our examination of this point.

Although Christianity has been banished from the public schools, we observed that New Age practices and Islam have not been given the same level of scrutiny. We also observed that one notices a far more aggressive enforcement of the Separation of Church and State principle whenever conservative Christianity is the target as opposed to liberal Christianity. The courts have refused to aggressively enforce the Separation of Church and State doctrine against Humanism. In prior posts, we have seen how Humanism is a belief system embraced by many societal leaders. The beliefs of humanists are expressed in the following three documents: Humanist Manifesto I (1933), Humanist Manifesto II (1973), and Humanist Manifesto 2000.  We noted that Humanism is a religion not only because it involves faith propositions, but also because it furnishes answers to life's most basic and fundamental questions. Moreover, humanism claims to represent the advancement of a religion. ((Kurtz, ed., Humanist Manifestos I and II, 8, 10.)) Humanists even describe themselves as “religious humanists” and their worldview as “religious humanism.” ((Ibid., 8-9.)) Evangelical apologist Dr. Norman Geisler was called as an expert witness in a case sometimes referred to as “Scopes II” since it dealt with the constitutionality of a state statute mandating that creation science be taught alongside evolution in Arkansas public schools. ((McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255 (1982).)) While on the stand, Geisler was asked if he believed that Humanism is a religion. Here is how he answered according to the court transcript:

"First of all, this is the Humanist Manifestos I and II, which were published in 1933 and 1973 respectively, and this particular edition comes from Crometheist [Prometheus] Books, which publishes a lot of humanistic material. In the preface it says on the very first line of page 3, “Humanism is a philosophical religious and moral point of view as old as human civilization itself.” Then without reading more of this part I counted some 28 times in the first manifesto the use of the word religion, most of which was a positive use describing a humanist point of view. Then if you note on page 4 in the last paragraph there about four lines down, it says, “They are not intended as new dogmas,” referring to this manifesto, “for an age of confusion, but as the expression of a quest for values and goals that we can work for and that can help us to take a new direction. Humanists are committed to building a world that is significant, not only for the individual’s quest for meaning but for the whole human kind.” I think that’s a good description of what I discovered a religion to be. They describe it as a religion. It is a commitment to something that is of transcendent value for them. Then I noted on the first page, page 7 really, Humanist I on the bottom, it speaks several times on that page, line 2, religion, line 5 religion, down through the page about six times, and the last line refers to abiding values. Then on the next page, page 8, the first full paragraph, at the end of that paragraph the third line from the end of the paragraph reads, “To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is the responsibility which rests upon this generation. We, therefore, affirm the following.” And then they give their humanistic beliefs. So, the Humanistic Manifesto claims to be an expression of a religion called Humanism that has certain component parts that they describe." ((Norman Geisler, Creation & the Courts: Eighty Years of Conflict in the Classroom and the Courtroom (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2007), 155-56.))

In addition, Humanism’s status as a religion is also evidenced by the American Humanist Society’s possession of 501(c)3 tax-exempt status and its classification by the IRS as a church. ((David Noebel, J.F. Baldwin, and Kevin Bywater, Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism, 3d rev. ed. (Manitou Springs, CO: Summit, 2007), 159.)) Even the Supreme Court has referred to Humanism as a religion. In Torcaso v. Watkins the court noted, “Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others” (italics added). ((Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, n. 11 (1961).)) In sum, Humanism has all of the characteristics of a religion. ((For an in-depth demonstration of Humanism’s religious status, see Noebel, Baldwin, and Bywater, Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism.))

In our next post, we will continue to examine how Humanism became the established religion in America in lieu of Christianity through our judiciary's selective approach to the judge-made doctrine known as the "Separation Between Church and State."

(To Be Continued...)

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: April 11, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

In the last eleven posts, we have presented a series on the "separation between church and state" supposedly found in the First Amendment. It is because of this phrase, which was first introduced into the fabric of our culture through errant Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s, that Christianity has generally been purged from public life. We noted that we can trace the origin of the modern understanding and application of separation between church and state to the following two Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s: Engle v. Vitale and School District of Abington Township v. Schempp. Yet, an honest appraisal of these decisions shows them to be out of harmony with the vision of the Constitution’s authors. The purpose of this series of posts is to demonstrate how out-of-step these decisions are with the express wishes of America’s founding fathers. This purpose has been accomplished through a consideration of nine historical and legal facts. First, we observed that the words “separation between church and state” never appear in the actual wording of the First Amendment. The so-called "separation between church and state" terminology was not part of America's foundation and was never even used to limit Christian expression in government until after most of our nation's history had already transpired. Second, we noted that although Thomas Jefferson later used the phrase in a private correspondence, he actually used the phrase “wall of separation of church and state” as a one-way wall preventing the government from interfering with Christianity rather than preventing Christianity from influencing government. Third, the legal test that is used today to completely separate God from government is inconsistent with the beliefs of the founding fathers whose legislative record demonstrates that they contemplated no such separation. Fourth, the Engle and Schempp courts applied the First Amendment’s prohibition of a government-established religion to religious activity taking place at the state level in spite of the fact that the express wording of the religion clauses of the First Amendment are only a limitation on federal power rather than state power. Fifth, for the Engel and Schempp courts to make the First Amendment applicable to the states through the vehicle of the Fourteenth Amendment they not only ignored the Fourteenth Amendment’s historical context, but it also contradicted the intent of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment. Sixth, by banning voluntary prayer in public schools, the Engel court made the radical move of overturning a long-standing tradition in American educational history without citing a single precedent. Seventh, the Engle and Schempp courts reached the decisions that they reached regarding prayer and Bible reading in the schools because of their a priori belief that such activity is psychologically harmful. Eighth, the Engel and Schempp courts seemed to have followed more of a legislative philosophy rather than a judicial philosophy. In our last two posts, we began our ninth point, which is that the court has been highly selective in terms of which religions are to be removed from government based upon the separation of church and state principle. In this post we will continue our examination of this point.

Neutrality is a myth. If Christianity will not reign supreme as the underlying worldview in public life and education, then another religious worldview will inevitably take its place. Those that seem the most intent to purge Christianity from the public schools have no intention of the schools remaining neutral regarding religion and worldview. Rather, they desire to use these same educational institutions to promulgate an alternative religion or worldview.   As we saw in our last two posts, despite the court’s willingness to violate the intent of the Constitution in removing Christianity from public school classrooms, the same court has shown reluctance toward applying the same standard to pagan religious practices. Although Christianity has been banished from the public schools, New Age practices and Islam have not been given the same level of scrutiny. We also observed that one notices a far more aggressive enforcement of the Separation of Church and State principle whenever conservative Christianity is the target as opposed to liberal Christianity.

Besides New Age, Islam, and Christian leftism, the courts have refused to aggressively enforce the Separation of Church and State doctrine against Humanism.

Such selective enforcement of the Separation of Church and State principle is not only true with New Age, Islam, and Christian leftism. In addition to New Age, Islam, and Christian leftism, the courts have refused to aggressively enforce the Separation of Church and State doctrine against Humanism. Humanism is a belief system embraced by many societal leaders, including educator John Dewey, scientist and author Isaac Asimov, and R. Lester Mondale, who is the brother of former Vice-President Walter Mondale during the Carter Administration. The beliefs of Humanists are expressed in the following three documents: Humanist Manifesto I (1933), Humanist Manifesto II (1973),¹ and Humanist Manifesto 2000.² Humanists embrace the following six core tenets: the non-existence or irrelevancy of God, man as the center of all things, the reality of evolution, man as an evolved animal rather than a special creature made in the image of His creator, the absence of any absolute morals or values, and confidence in the scientific method to solve the world’s problems.³ Many will recognize these beliefs since they are taught unabashedly in public schools today.   What is critical to understand is that Humanism is just as much a religion as is Christianity.⁴ For example, because Humanism’s tenets are unprovable, they must be accepted by faith. How can one prove the non-existence of values or of God? Because it is impossible for an atheist to investigate every part of the universe or to be in all places at the same time, perhaps God resides somewhere where the atheist has not visited. Thus, the notion of God’s non-existence must be accepted by faith. Evolution must also be accepted by faith. Since the evolutionary process allegedly transpires over millions or billions of years, evolution lies outside the powers of human observation. Because no one has actually observed evolution taking place, or one species turning or changing into another, it also must be accepted as a matter of faith.

Humanism, like Christianity, also attempts to answer life’s most important questions such as “who am I?” (answer: a biological accident), “where did I come from?” (answer: from the primordial soup), “why am I here?” (answer: to fulfill self), “where am I going?” (answer: toward a planetary new world order), and “how can I get there?” (answer: the scientific method). Of course, the Christian answers these questions differently: “who am I?” (answer: a special creation of God), “where did I come from?” (answer: from God’s design), “why am I here?” (answer: to know and glorify God), “where am I going?” (answer: to heaven), and “how can I get there?” (answer: only through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone). In other words, just as Scripture seeks to answer life’s fundamental questions, so does the religion of Humanism.   In sum, Humanism is a religion not only because it involves faith propositions, but also because it furnishes answers to life's most basic and fundamental questions. In our next post we will continue to explore the religious nature of Humanism. We will also explore how it became the established religion in America in lieu of Christianity through our judiciary's selective approach to the judge-made doctrine known as the "Separation Between Church and State."  

(To Be Continued...)

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: April 4, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

In the last ten posts, we have presented a series on the "separation between church and state" supposedly found in the First Amendment. It is because of this phrase, which was first introduced into the fabric of our culture through errant Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s, that city councils are sued for placing manger scenes on the steps of city hall, public schools are prohibited from teaching scientific creationism alongside evolution, copies of the Ten Commandments are stricken from government walls, teacher-led prayer and Bible reading is prohibited in public schools, and Christianity has generally been purged from public life.   We noted that we can trace the origin of the modern understanding and application of separation between church and state to the following two Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s: Engle v. Vitale and School District of Abington Township v. Schempp. Yet, an honest appraisal of these decisions shows them to be out of harmony with the vision of the Constitution’s authors. The purpose of this series of posts is to demonstrate how out-of-step these decisions are with the express wishes of America’s founding fathers. This purpose has been accomplished through a consideration of nine historical and legal facts.   First, we observed that the words “separation between church and state” never appear in the actual wording of the First Amendment. The so-called "separation between church and state" terminology was not part of America's foundation and was never even used to limit Christian expression in government until after most of our nation's history had already transpired. Second, we noted that although Thomas Jefferson later used the phrase in a private correspondence, he actually used the phrase “wall of separation of church and state” as a one-way wall preventing the government from interfering with Christianity rather than preventing Christianity from influencing government. Third, the legal test that is used today to completely separate God from government is inconsistent with the beliefs of the founding fathers whose legislative record demonstrates that they contemplated no such separation. Fourth, the Engle and Schempp courts applied the First Amendment’s prohibition of a government-established religion to religious activity taking place at the state level in spite of the fact that the express wording of the religion clauses of the First Amendment are only a limitation on federal power rather than state power. Fifth, for the Engel and Schempp courts to make the First Amendment applicable to the states through the vehicle of the Fourteenth Amendment they not only ignored the Fourteenth Amendment’s historical context, but it also contradicted the intent of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment. Sixth, by banning voluntary prayer in public schools, the Engel court made the radical move of overturning a long-standing tradition in American educational history without citing a single precedent. Seventh, the Engle and Schempp courts reached the decisions that they reached regarding prayer and Bible reading in the schools because of their a priori belief that such activity is psychologically harmful. Eighth, the Engel and Schempp courts seemed to have followed more of a legislative philosophy rather than a judicial philosophy. In our last post, we began our ninth point, which is that the court has been highly selective in terms of which religions are to be removed from government based upon the separation of church and state principle. In this post we will continue our examination of this point.

Neutrality is a myth. If Christianity will not reign supreme as the underlying worldview in public life and education, then another religious worldview will inevitably take its place. Those that seem the most intent to purge Christianity from the public schools have no intention of the schools remaining neutral regarding religion and worldview. Rather, they desire to use these same educational institutions to promulgate an alternative religion or worldview. During the 1972 International Education Seminar, Harvard psychiatrist Chester M. Pierce, speaking as an expert in public education, said:

Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It's up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well by creating the international child of the future.¹

This is an amazing quote. Basically what Pierce is arguing is that the schools are necessary to erase Christian thinking from the minds of the youth. What Pierce here is openly admitting is that kids come into these schools mentally ill. Why, because they believe in nationalism, and not globalism. They also believe in the principles of America's founding fathers. They are loyal to their parents, to God, and to their own country. Because such thinking is out of harmony with the coming new world order of the future, it is deemed a mental illness. Thus, the goal of public education becomes to reverse this mentality or illness and sickness in people so as to make them compatible with tomorrow's globalism. This assertion and agenda hardly sound neutral.   As we saw in our last post, despite the court’s willingness to violate the intent of the Constitution in removing Christianity from public school classrooms, the same court has shown reluctance toward applying the same standard to pagan religious practices. Although Christianity has been banished from the public schools, New Age practices and Islam have not been given the same level of scrutiny.   One also notices a far more aggressive enforcement of the Separation of Church and State principle whenever conservative Christianity is the target as opposed to liberal Christianity. People are quick to cite the "Separation between Church and State" in order to limit the influence of a member of the “religious right,” such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell and James Kennedy, while failing to apply the same standard when the religious figure in question happens to be a member of the “religious left,” such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, Jeremiah Wright, or Louis Farrakhan. For example, when leftist religious leaders organized to voice their solidarity behind President Barack Obama’s health care plan,² the usual voices opposing political activity involving conservative religious leaders on Separation of Church and State grounds, such as the ACLU or Americans United for Separation of Church and State or People for the American Way, were inconsistently silent. 

There was similar deafening silence when Catholic and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi seemingly appealed to John 1:14 to advance leftist ideology of Obamacare and Amnesty. On May 6 of last year, at a Catholic Community Conference on Capitol Hill, Pelosi said:

They ask me all the time, ‘What is your favorite this? What is your favorite that?...’ And one time, ‘What is your favorite word?’ And I said, ‘My favorite word? That is really easy. My favorite word is the Word, is the Word. And that is everything. It says it all for us. And you know the biblical reference, you know the Gospel reference of the Word. And that Word is, we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word. The Word. Isn’t it a beautiful word when you think of it? It just covers everything. The Word. Fill it in with anything you want. But, of course, we know it means: ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us. And that’s the great mystery of our faith. He will come again. He will come again. So, we have to make sure we’re prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up' (italics added).³ 

Why is it that when the right uses the Bible to promote public policy everyone screams "separation of church and state," but no one does so when members of the religious left also use the Bible to promote public policy?   Such selective enforcement of the Separation of Church and State principle is not only true with New Age, Islam, and Christian leftism, the courts have refused to aggressively enforce the Separation of Church and State doctrine against humanism as we will see in our next post.  

(To Be Continued...)    

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: March 28, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

In the last eight posts, we began a series on the "separation between church and state" supposedly found in the First Amendment. It is because of this phrase, which was first introduced into the fabric of our culture through errant Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s, that city councils are sued for placing manger scenes on the steps of city hall, public schools are prohibited from teaching scientific creationism alongside evolution, copies of the Ten Commandments are stricken from government walls, teacher-led prayer and Bible reading is prohibited in public schools, and Christianity has generally been purged from public life.   When did all of this insanity begin? We noted that we can trace the origin of the modern understanding and application of separation between church and state to the following two Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s: Engle v. Vitale  and School District of Abington Township v. Schempp. Yet, an honest appraisal of these decisions shows them to be out of harmony with the vision of the Constitution’s authors. The founders would have been horrified at the prospect of removing the influence of Christianity from the functioning of public schools and government. The purpose of this series of posts is to show how out-of-step these decisions are with the express wishes of America’s founding fathers. This purpose will be accomplished through a consideration of nine historical and legal facts.   First, we observed that the words “separation between church and state” never appear in the actual wording of the First Amendment. The so-called "separation between church and state" terminology was not part of America's foundation and was never even used to limit Christian expression in government until after most of our nation's history had already transpired. Second, we noted that although Thomas Jefferson later used the phrase in a private correspondence, he actually used the phrase “wall of separation of church and state” as a one-way wall preventing the government from interfering with Christianity rather than preventing Christianity from influencing government. Third, the legal test that is used today to completely separate God from government is inconsistent with the beliefs of the founding fathers whose legislative record demonstrates that they contemplated no such separation. Fourth, the Engle and Schempp courts applied the First Amendment’s prohibition of a government-established religion to religious activity taking place at the state level in spite of the fact that the express wording of the religion clauses of the First Amendment are only a limitation on federal power rather than state power. Fifth, for the Engel and Schempp courts to make the First Amendment applicable to the states through the vehicle of the Fourteenth Amendment they not only ignored the Fourteenth Amendment’s historical context, but it also contradicted the intent of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment. Sixth, by banning voluntary prayer in public schools, the Engel court made the radical move of overturning a long-standing tradition in American educational history without citing a single precedent. Seventh, the Engle and Schempp courts reached the decisions that they reached regarding prayer and Bible reading in the schools because of their a priori belief that such activity is psychologically harmful. Eighth, the Engel and Schempp courts seemed to have followed more of a legislative philosophy rather than a judicial philosophy. We now move on to our ninth point.

Ninth, the court has been highly selective in terms of which religions are to be removed from government based upon the separation of church and state principle. Despite the court’s willingness to violate the intent of the Constitution in removing Christianity from public school classrooms, the same court has shown reluctance toward applying the same standard to pagan religious practices. Neutrality is a myth. If Christianity will not reign supreme as the underlying worldview in public life and education, then another religious worldview will inevitably take its place. Because "nature abhors a vacuum," pagan religious practices quickly filled the void created by the banished Judeo-Christian value system. Consequently, many public school children are still exposed to religious practices despite the Engle and Schempp rulings.   However, these practices are now in the form of New Age visualizing and channeling.¹  In fact, New Agers are quite open in their conviction that the public school classroom is an appropriate venue for proselytizing and evangelizing the next generation with the New Age worldview. Note the words of New Ager John Dunphy.

I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of “love thy neighbor” will finally be achieved….humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive.²

Regarding such practices, the court suddenly turned a deaf ear to its cherished Separation of Church and State doctrine. While one religion was pushed out of government, another religion was allowed in. Thus, the "Separation of Church and State" metaphor has been selectively used to drive Christianity out of the public square while simultaneously paving the way for tax subsidized New Age and occultic practices.   The courts have also refused to show the same zeal in policing Islam in the public schools in comparison to how they regulated Christian expression. According to one recent newspaper account:

In the wake of Sept. 11, an increasing number of California public school students must attend an intensive three-week course on Islam, reports ASSIST NEWS SERVICE. The course mandates that seventh-graders learn the tenets of Islam, study the important figures of the faith, wear a robe, adopt a Muslim name and stage their own jihad…students must memorize many verses in the Koran, are taught to pray “in the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful” and are instructed to chant, “Praise to Allah, Lord of Creation.” “We could never teach Christianity like this,” one outraged parent told ANS… “We can’t even mentioned the name of Jesus in public schools…but…they teach Islam as the true religion, and students are taught about Islam and how to pray to Allah. Could you imagine the barrage and problems we would have from the ACLU if Christianity were taught in the public schools, and if we tried to teach about the contributions of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the Apostle Paul? But when it comes to furthering the Islamic religion in public schools, there is not one word from the ACLU, People for the American Way or anybody else. This is hypocrisy.”…“This is not just a class of examining culture…This course is entirely too specific. It is more about indoctrination.”…The textbook used for the Islamic course, “Across The Centuries,” is published by Houghton-Mifflin and has been adopted by the California school system. In it according to ANS, Islam is presented broadly in a completely positive manner, whereas the limited references to Christianity are “shown in a negative light, with the events such as the Inquisition, and the Salem witch hunts highlighted in bold, black type. ANS notes the portrayal of Islam leaves out word of “the wars, massacres, cruelties against Christians and other non-Muslims that Islam has consistently perpetrated over the centuries.”³ 

Such selective enforcement is not only true with New Age and Islamic proselytizing in public schools, but it is equally true of the Christian left and Humanism, as we will see in our next post.

(To Be Continued...)

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: February 28, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

In the last eight posts, we began a series on the "separation between church and state" supposedly found in the First Amendment. It is because of this phrase, which was first introduced into the fabric of our culture through errant Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s, that city councils are sued for placing manger scenes on the steps of city hall, public schools are prohibited from teaching scientific creationism alongside evolution, copies of the Ten Commandments are stricken from government walls, teacher-led prayer and Bible reading is prohibited in public schools, and Christianity has generally been purged from public life.   When did all of this insanity begin? We noted that we can trace the origin of the modern understanding and application of separation between church and state to the following two Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s: Engle v. Vitale and School District of Abington Township v. Schempp. Yet, an honest appraisal of these decisions shows them to be out of harmony with the vision of the Constitution’s authors. The founders would have been horrified at the prospect of removing the influence of Christianity from the functioning of public schools and government. The purpose of this series of posts is to show how out-of-step these decisions are with the express wishes of America’s founding fathers. This purpose will be accomplished through a consideration of nine historical and legal facts.   First, we observed that the words “separation between church and state” never appear in the actual wording of the First Amendment. The so-called "separation between church and state" terminology was not part of America's foundation and was never even used to limit Christian expression in government until after most of our nation's history had already transpired. Second, we noted that although Thomas Jefferson later used the phrase in a private correspondence, he actually used the phrase “wall of separation of church and state” as a one-way wall preventing the government from interfering with Christianity rather than preventing Christianity from influencing government. Third, the legal test that is used today to completely separate God from government is inconsistent with the beliefs of the founding fathers whose legislative record demonstrates that they contemplated no such separation. Fourth, the Engle and Schempp courts applied the First Amendment’s prohibition of a government-established religion to religious activity taking place at the state level in spite of the fact that the express wording of the religion clauses of the First Amendment are only a limitation on federal power rather than state power. Fifth, for the Engel and Schempp courts to make the First Amendment applicable to the states through the vehicle of the Fourteenth Amendment they not only ignored the Fourteenth Amendment’s historical context, but it also contradicted the intent of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment. Sixth, by banning voluntary prayer in public schools, the Engel court made the radical move of overturning a long-standing tradition in American educational history without citing a single precedent. Seventh, the Engle and Schempp courts reached the decisions that they reached regarding prayer and Bible reading in the schools because of their a priori belief that such activity is psychologically harmful. We now move on to our eighth point.

Eighth, the Engel and Schempp courts seemed to have followed more of a legislative philosophy rather than a judicial philosophy. It is interesting to observe that most of the jurists on these courts had political rather than judicial experience. Historian David Barton makes the following important observation:

For example, Chief Justice Earl Warren had been the governor of California for ten years prior to his appointment to the court; Justice Hugo Black had been a U.S. Senator for ten years prior to his appointment; Justice Felix Frankfurter had been an assistant to the Secretary of Labor and a founding member of the ACLU; Justice Arthur Goldberg had been the Secretary of Labor and ambassador to the United Nations; Justice William Douglas was chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission; all the justices except Potter Stewart had similar political backgrounds. Justice Potter Stewart, having been a federal judge for four years prior to his appointment, was the only member of the court with extended federal constitutional experience before his appointment. Interestingly Justice Potter Stewart was the only justice who objected to the removal of prayer on the basis of precedent. He alone acted as a judge: the rest acted as politicians.¹ 

Justice Potter Stewart, 1976

Unless the legislative and executive backgrounds of the members of the Engle and Schempp courts are considered, it is virtually inexplicable how our highest court could have re-written the First Amendment so as to banish Christianity from the public square. As we have seen in this series, the original intent of the First Amendment must be twisted beyond recognition in order to arrive at the modern understanding of the "Separation of Church and State." However, when jurists no longer see their role as that of a discoverer of a law's intent but rather its amender or author, then the original intent of the First Amendment means very little, if anything, when adjudicating such matters. Simply put, the Engle and Schempp courts back in 1962 and 1963 did not function the way our judiciary is designed to function. They had no ambition to do what jurists are supposed to do by deriving the original intent of the First Amendment and then applying that intent to the case before them. Rather, they decided to amend the Constitution from the bench and alter or rewrite the First Amendment in order to make their novel interpretation fit a preconceived progressive social agenda. Although this type of activity is a permissible role for the legislative branch of government, which is directly accountable to the people through the ballot box, our judicial branch instead left its proper role and impermissibly took upon itself a task reserved only for the legislature.   Such a scenario threatens America’s democratic ideals because it places the awesome power of amending the Constitution in the hands of nine life tenured, unelected justices. Only five of these nine justices need to agree with one another in order to hand down a majority opinion. Thus, the expression “With five votes we can do anything” has become a famous quip amongst judicial activists.²  Because these justices are appointed for a life term, they are completely insulated from the electorate and thus totally unaccountable to the people for the decisions that they render. At any time, these five justices can circumvent the democratically controlled amendment process and alter America’s most deeply cherished constitutional protections. This method of altering the Constitution reverses the founders’ design, which envisions the amenders of the Constitution being held directly accountable to the people during the next election cycle for any Constitutional alterations that they make. Thus, if five life tenured, unelected judges alter the Constitution in a way that is unagreeable to the people, there is no political recourse against these decision makers through the ballot box.   Such a system does not comprise a democracy, or even a republican form of government, but rather an oligarchy. The English word oligarchy is derived from the Greek word oligos, which means “few.” Under an oligarchical form of government just a few people rule the masses. America’s current judiciary resembles an oligarchy because it places the authority of guiding or rewriting the Constitution, and thus the power to amend the Constitution, in the hands of five unelected and unaccountable philosopher kings. Ironically, such repeated judicial activism has transformed the judiciary from, according to Alexander Hamilton’s words in Federalist Number 78, the least dangerous branch of government into government’s most dangerous branch. Thomas Jefferson warned that the judiciary had the potential of transforming into such an oligarchy when he said:

You seem…to consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so…and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal…³ 

Once the judiciary departs from the Constitution’s plain language, the Constitution, in the words of Jefferson, becomes “…a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”⁴ 

(To Be Continued...)    

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: March 14, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

In the last seven posts, we began a series on the "separation between church and state" supposedly found in the First Amendment. It is because of this phrase, which was first introduced into the fabric of our culture through errant Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s, that city councils are sued for placing manger scenes on the steps of city hall, public schools are prohibited from teaching scientific creationism alongside evolution, copies of the Ten Commandments are stricken from government walls, teacher-led prayer and Bible reading is prohibited in public schools, and Christianity has generally been purged from public life. When did all of this insanity begin? We noted that we can trace the origin of the modern understanding and application of separation between church and state to the following two Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s: Engle v. Vitale and School District of Abington Township v. Schempp.  Yet, an honest appraisal of these decisions shows them to be out of harmony with the vision of the Constitution’s authors. The founders would have been horrified at the prospect of removing the influence of Christianity from the functioning of public schools and government. The purpose of this series of posts is to show how out-of-step these decisions are with the express wishes of America’s founding fathers. This purpose will be accomplished through a consideration of nine historical and legal facts. First, we observed that the words “separation between church and state” never appear in the actual wording of the First Amendment. The so-called "separation between church and state" terminology was not part of America's foundation and was never even used to limit Christian expression in government until after most of our nation's history had already transpired. Second, we noted that although Thomas Jefferson later used the phrase in a private correspondence, he actually used the phrase “wall of separation of church and state” as a one-way wall preventing the government from interfering with Christianity rather than preventing Christianity from influencing government. Third, the legal test that is used today to completely separate God from government is inconsistent with the beliefs of the founding fathers whose legislative record demonstrates that they contemplated no such separation. Fourth, the Engle and Schempp courts applied the First Amendment’s prohibition of a government-established religion to religious activity taking place at the state level in spite of the fact that the express wording of the religion clauses of the First Amendment are only a limitation on federal power rather than state power. Fifth, for the Engel and Schempp courts to make the First Amendment applicable to the states through the vehicle of the Fourteenth Amendment they not only ignored the Fourteenth Amendment’s historical context, but it also contradicted the intent of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment. Sixth, by banning voluntary prayer in public schools, the Engel court made the radical move of overturning a long-standing tradition in American educational history without citing a single precedent. We now move on to our seventh point.

Seventh, the Engle and Schempp courts reached the decisions that they reached regarding prayer and Bible reading in the schools because of their a priori belief that such activity is psychologically harmful. An a priori is belief is a conviction that one arrives at ahead of time even before all of the facts are considered thereby causing the decision maker to work backward in order to force the selectively examine evidence to fit into a preordained outcome. The fact that the court majorities perceived these practices of prayer and Bible reading as harmful is evidenced by the Schempp court’s willingness to rely on expert testimony indicating that psychological damage could be inflicted on a child if portions of the New Testament were read without explanation. The court observed:

"But if portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be, and in his specific experience with children Dr. Grayzel observed, had been, psychologically harmful to the child and had caused a divisive force within the social media of the school."¹ 

Rather than considering additional testimony of how prayer and Bible reading might be emotionally beneficial, the court had already made up its mind that such practices were detrimental. I would contend that the Bible, with its exhortations to avoid unforgiveness, bitterness, anger (Eph. 4:26-32), worry and anxiety (Matt. 6:25-34; Phil. 4:6-7), self-centeredness (Phil. 2:3-4), a poor self-image (Gen. 1:26-27), etc.. and any other number of mental attitudes negatively impacting one's emotional well being, actually contributes positively to a person's psychological health. However, when the court fails to acknowledge this side argument and instead embraces one-sided testimony that the Bible causes psychological harm, it is no wonder that the Schempp and Engle courts reached the decision that they did. After all, if it is a foregone conclusion that the Bible is psychologically harmful, then you would be forced to do whatever was necessary to remove its influence from the schools regardless of what the Constitution actually says.  

(To Be Continued...)    

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: March 7, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

In the last six posts, we began a series on the "separation between church and state" supposedly found in the First Amendment. It is because of this phrase, which was first introduced into the fabric of our culture through errant Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s, that city councils are sued for placing manger scenes on the steps of city hall, public schools are prohibited from teaching scientific creationism alongside evolution, copies of the Ten Commandments are stricken from government walls, teacher-led prayer and Bible reading is prohibited in public schools, and Christianity has generally been purged from public life.   When did all of this insanity begin? We noted that we can trace the origin of the modern understanding and application of separation between church and state to the following two Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s: Engle v. Vitale and School District of Abington Township v. Schempp. Yet, an honest appraisal of these decisions shows them to be out of harmony with the vision of the Constitution’s authors. The founders would have been horrified at the prospect of removing the influence of Christianity from the functioning of public schools and government. The purpose of this series of posts is to show how out-of-step these decisions are with the express wishes of America’s founding fathers. This purpose will be accomplished through a consideration of nine historical and legal facts.   First, we observed that the words “separation between church and state” never appear in the actual wording of the First Amendment. The so-called "separation between church and state" terminology was not part of America's foundation and was never even used to limit Christian expression in government until after most of our nation's history had already transpired. Second, we noted that although Thomas Jefferson later used the phrase in a private correspondence, he actually used the phrase “wall of separation of church and state” as a one-way wall preventing the government from interfering with Christianity rather than preventing Christianity from influencing government. Third, the legal test that is used today to completely separate God from government is inconsistent with the beliefs of the founding fathers whose legislative record demonstrates that they contemplated no such separation. Fourth, the Engle and Schempp courts applied the First Amendment’s prohibition of a government-established religion to religious activity taking place at the state level in spite of the fact that the express wording of the religion clauses of the First Amendment are only a limitation on federal power rather than state power. Fifth, for the Engel and Schempp courts to make the First Amendment applicable to the states through the vehicle of the Fourteenth Amendment they not only ignored the Fourteenth Amendment’s historical context, but it also contradicted the intent of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment. We now move on to our sixth point.

Sixth, by banning voluntary prayer in public schools, the Engel court made the radical move of overturning a long-standing tradition in American educational history without citing a single precedent. Yet a court following established precedent from previous courts is one of the cornerstones of American jurisprudence. Legal scholars call this time honored principle stare decisis, which is a Latin expression meaning, “Let precedent stand.” Without respecting precedent, our system lacks the stability and predictability necessary to function properly. Interestingly, a year later, even the Schempp court called attention to the non-existence of any precedent cited in Engel when it noted, “Finally, in Engel v. Vitale, only last year, these principles were so universally recognized that the Court, without the citation of a single case…reaffirmed them” (italics added).¹ 

Today when courts cite prior authority in order to remove some vestige of Christianity from public life, they typically fail to cite anything prior to the 1947 Everson case.²  In other words, the Everson and Engle courts not only created new case law by failing to cite precedent, but they also became precedent themselves since they are now routinely cited when modern courts want to pursue a similar course of action in removing Christian expression from government. The same practice is followed in the abortion debate. In 1973, the Roe court created a constitutional right to procure an abortion out of nothing since no such right actually exists in the text of the Constitution.³  Today, courts look to Roe as settled law and precedent when protecting and furthering the right to have an abortion. The very liberal voices that so easily discarded precedent in Everson, Engle, and Roe, are the very same liberal voices that now want the precedent established in these radical cases respected. What a racket! First you reject settled law to get the new and progressive result and precedent that you want and then you suddenly argue that this new precedent established from these radical cases must now be honored. Such "reasoning" is obviously contradictory. Yet this is exactly how today's commonly used "Separation of Church and State" entered the fabric of American culture.  

(To Be Continued...)

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: March 02, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

In the last five posts, we began a series on the "separation between church and state" supposedly found in the First Amendment. It is because of this phrase, which was first introduced into the fabric of our culture through errant Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s, that city councils are sued for placing manger scenes on the steps of city hall, public schools are prohibited from teaching scientific creationism alongside evolution, copies of the Ten Commandments are stricken from government walls, teacher-led prayer and Bible reading is prohibited in public schools, and Christianity has generally been purged from public life.   When did all of this insanity begin? We noted that we can trace the origin of the modern understanding and application of separation between church and state to the following two Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s: Engle v. Vitale and School District of Abington Township v. Schempp. Yet, an honest appraisal of these decisions shows them to be out of harmony with the vision of the Constitution’s authors. The founders would have been horrified at the prospect of removing the influence of Christianity from the functioning of public schools and government. The purpose of this series of posts is to show how out-of-step these decisions are with the express wishes of America’s founding fathers. This purpose will be accomplished through a consideration of nine historical and legal facts.   First, we observed that the words “separation between church and state” never appear in the actual wording of the First Amendment. The so-called "separation between church and state" terminology was not part of America's foundation and was never even used to limit Christian expression in government until after most of our nation's history had already transpired. Second, we noted that although Thomas Jefferson later used the phrase in a private correspondence, he actually used the phrase “wall of separation of church and state” as a one-way wall preventing the government from interfering with Christianity rather than preventing Christianity from influencing government. Third, the legal test that is used today to completely separate God from government is inconsistent with the beliefs of the founding fathers whose legislative record demonstrates that they contemplated no such separation. Fourth, the Engle and Schempp courts applied the First Amendment’s prohibition of a government-established religion to religious activity taking place at the state level in spite of the fact that the express wording of the religion clauses of the First Amendment are only a limitation on federal power rather than state power. We now move on to our fifth point.

Fifth, as noted in the previous post, the Engle and Schempp courts followed the precedent set by the Everson court in using the Fourteenth Amendment as the vehicle for making the First Amendment’s religion clauses applicable to the states. However, the Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with religion. Historically speaking, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868 in the post-Civil War era in order to guarantee certain rights to the recently emancipated slaves. Thus, to turn the Fourteenth Amendment into a commentary on religion in public life is to force it to say something that it was never intended to say.  

"The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with religion. Historically speaking, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868 in the post-Civil War era in order to guarantee certain rights to the recently emancipated slaves."

  Moreover, just seven years after the Fourteenth Amendment passed, a legislative attempt known as the Blaine Amendment was made to allow the First Amendment to become binding upon the states through the vehicle of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Blaine Amendment was so named after Representative James Blaine of Maine. Yet, the very Congress, which was comprised of many of the same individuals who helped form the Fourteenth Amendment, voted down all attempts to link the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment together in this manner.¹ Judge William Brevard Hand commented many years later that the Blaine Amendment’s defeat was a “stark testimony to the fact that the adopters of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended to incorporate the establishment clause of the First Amendment against the states…”² Thus, for the Engel and Schempp courts to make the First Amendment applicable to the states through the vehicle of the Fourteenth Amendment not only ignores the Fourteenth Amendment’s historical context, but it also contradicts the intent of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment. In sum, for the judiciary to bring the “strict wall of separation between church and state” into the fabric of the American culture, they had to not only discard the original intent of the Constitution's First Amendment, but they similarly had to trample upon the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment in order to make the newly created separation doctrine applicable to state governments.  

(To Be Continued...)    

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: February 28, 2024
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

In the last four posts, we began a series on the "separation between church and state" supposedly found in the First Amendment. It is because of this phrase, which was first introduced into the fabric of our culture through errant Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s, that city councils are sued for placing manger scenes on the steps of city hall, public schools are prohibited from teaching scientific creationism alongside evolution, copies of the Ten Commandments are stricken from government walls, teacher-led prayer and Bible reading is prohibited in public schools, and Christianity has generally been purged from public life.   When did all of this insanity begin? We noted that we can trace the origin of the modern understanding and application of separation between church and state to the following two Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s: Engle v. Vitale and School District of Abington Township v. Schempp. Yet, an honest appraisal of these decisions shows them to be out of harmony with the vision of the Constitution’s authors. The founders would have been horrified at the prospect of removing the influence of Christianity from the functioning of public schools and government. The purpose of this series of posts is to show how out-of-step these decisions are with the express wishes of America’s founding fathers. This purpose will be accomplished through a consideration of nine historical and legal facts. First, we observed that the words “separation between church and state” never appear in the actual wording of the First Amendment. The so-called "separation between church and state" terminology was not part of America's foundation and was never even used to limit Christian expression in government until after most of our nation's history had already transpired. Second, we noted that Jefferson used the phrase “wall of separation of church and state” as a one-way wall preventing the government from interfering with Christianity rather than preventing Christianity from influencing government. Third, the legal test that is used today to completely separate God from government is inconsistent with the beliefs of the founding fathers whose legislative record demonstrates that they contemplated no such separation. We now move on to our fourth point.

Fourth, the Engle and Schempp courts applied the First Amendment’s prohibition of a government-established religion to religious activity taking place at the state level. Such an application contradicts the express wording of the religion clauses of the First Amendment, which say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (italics added). The First Amendment places the prohibition of establishing a religion on Congress rather than upon the state governments. The American political system has at least two levels of government: federal government and then the many state governments. This unique governmental structure creates multiple layers of government (national, state, and local) operating over the same geographical expanse. Mansfield explains the rationale behind such a deliberately inefficient system. “When the founding generation of Americans turned to the business of creating a country, they had just fought a war against a centralized and controlling government. They had no intention of creating an American version of the same evil.” [See Mansfield, Ten Tortured Words: How the Founding Fathers Tried to Protect Religion in America...And What Has Happened Since, 38].   Based upon the specific language of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of”) the founders only intended the First Amendment to apply to the federal government rather than the many states and localities. In fact, Chief Justice John Marshall, America’s third Supreme Court Chief Justice, spoke for a unified court on this matter in 1833. He noted, “The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states.” Therefore, the Bill of Rights “…contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments.” [See Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247, 250 (1833). For similar statements from early American jurisprudence showing that the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the First Amendment applied only to the national government rather than to the state governments, see Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the City of New Orleans, 44 U.S. 589, 609 (1845)].   However, it is worth noting that the Engle and Schempp courts were able to apply the First Amendment to the activities of state governments because fifteen years earlier the court in Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 had made the First Amendment applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868 to guarantee rights to recently emancipated slaves. Unlike the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment's expressed wording makes it binding upon state government. It reads:

After this amendment was passed, over time the Supreme Court used it as the vehicle to gradually make the Bill of Rights, which were originally intended to be binding only upon the federal government, binding upon state governments as well. Legal scholars call this legal maneuver the doctrine of incorporation.

Thus, the Everson decision was ground breaking in two respects. First, it associated the Jeffersonian “wall of separation between church and state” from his 1802 letter with the First Amendment’s prohibition against an establishment of religion. Earlier courts that cited Jefferson’s 1802 letter in full did not connect this “wall of separation of church and state” to the First Amendment’s establishment clause prohibiting a state establishment of religion but rather used it only in connection with the issue of how much government could regulate the free exercise of religion. [See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1878)]. The Everson court declared, “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State’.…The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” (See Everson v. Board of Education) Second, the Everson court made the separation of church and state concept supposedly found in the First Amendment applicable to the individual state governments despite the fact that the actual wording of the First Amendment indicates that it applies only to Congress at the federal level. Thus, Everson laid the essential groundwork for the eventual separation between God and government well over a decade in advance of the Engle and Schempp rulings. The Engle and Schempp courts simply took the precedent and sweeping language already established in Everson and merely used it to officially remove Bible reading and prayer from state government public schools. Why did the Everson court make such a radical move? Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion in Everson. According to Mansfield, Black struggled early on as a Supreme Court justice after being appointed to the bench by Franklin Roosevelt in 1937. “His opinions sounded like Senate speeches and were unevenly reasoned. Justice Harlan Fiske Stone complained openly about Black to members of the press and even wrote Felix Frankfurter at Harvard Law School suggesting that he give Black some needed tutoring.” (See Mansfield, Ten Tortured Words: How the Founding Fathers Tried to Protect Religion in America...And What Has Happened Since, 59-60). Another interesting feature of Black’s background includes his former membership in the Ku Klux Klan, [Ibid., 55-60; William A. Donohue, Secular Sabotage: How Liberals Are Destroying Religion and Culture in America (NY: Faith Words, 2009), 119.] which is a racist organization known for its hostility against blacks, Jews, and Catholics. Everson involved the Constitutionality of a New Jersey law that required school boards to reimburse parents for the transportation expenses that they incurred in sending their children to Catholic schools. Although the court ultimately upheld this arrangement, Black’s Klan background and resulting hostility against the Catholic Church may explain the sweeping “separation of church and state” language that he chose to incorporate into his majority opinion. In sum, the Everson, Engle, and Schempp courts applied the First Amendment’s prohibition of a government-established religion to religious activity taking place at the state level in spite of the fact that the express wording of the religion clauses of the First Amendment are only a limitation on state power rather than federal power.

(To Be Continued...)

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: February 14, 2024
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

In the last three posts, we began a series on the "separation between church and state" supposedly found in the First Amendment. It is because of this phrase, which was first introduced into the fabric of our culture through errant Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s, that city councils are sued for placing manger scenes on the steps of city hall, public schools are prohibited from teaching scientific creationism alongside evolution, copies of the Ten Commandments are stricken from government walls, teacher-led prayer and Bible reading is prohibited in public schools, and Christianity has generally been purged from public life.   When did all of this insanity begin? We noted that we can trace the origin of the modern understanding and application of separation between church and state to the following two Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s: Engle v. Vitale and School District of Abington Township v. Schempp. Yet, an honest appraisal of these decisions shows them to be out of harmony with the vision of the Constitution’s authors. The founders would have been horrified at the prospect of removing the influence of Christianity from the functioning of public schools and government. The purpose of this new series of articles is to show how out-of-step these decisions are with the express wishes of America’s founding fathers. This purpose will be accomplished through a consideration of nine historical and legal facts. First, we observed that the words “separation between church and state” never appear in the actual wording of the First Amendment. The so -called "separation between church and state" terminology was not part of America's foundation and was never even used to limit Christian expression in government until after most of our nation's history had already transpired. Second, we noted that Jefferson used the phrase “wall of separation of church and state” as a one-way wall preventing the government from interfering with Christianity rather than preventing Christianity from influencing government. We now move on to our third point.

Third, regarding the issue of religious practices in public schools, the Engle and Schempp courts confidently asserted that the framers would have been opposed to such a practice. However, the court conveniently ignored the legislative activities of the First Congress, which was comprised of those who wrote and adopted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. An obvious way to determine the meaning of a document is to observe the prior and subsequent legislative history of those who authored the document. The First Congress, made up largely of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights including the First Amendment, also passed the Northwest Ordinance, which was signed into law by President Washington in 1789. Article III of the Northwest Ordinance says, “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged” (italics added). ((Henry S. Commager, ed., Documents of American History, 8th ed. (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968), 131.)) Apparently, the framers of the First Amendment believed that schools and educational institutions were the proper place to encourage religion and morality. Any fair minded reading of American history demonstrates that our founding fathers had no problem with the generic principles of Christianity being expressed in government as long as one Christian denomination was not favored over another. If anyone was qualified to comment on the true meaning of the First Amendment, it was Joseph Story:

On November 18, 1811, President James Madison nominated Story to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Senate confirmed the appointment on February 3, 1812. At the age of thirty-two, Story was the youngest person ever appointed to the Supreme Court. While on the Supreme Court, Story served as a delegate to the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1820 and was a Professor of Law at Harvard, where he wrote a series of nine commentaries on the law, each of which was published in several editions.

In fact, according to Joseph Story:

"Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration [the First Amendment], the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation. [See Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States: With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and the States Before the Adoption of the Constitution, 5th ed., 2 vols., ed. Melville M. Bigelow (Boston, MA: Little and Brown, 1891; reprint, Buffalo, NY: Hein, 1994), Sec. 1874, p. 2:630-31.]

Based upon the legislative activities of those who framed the First Amendment, it would seem that they understood the prohibition against the establishment of a religion as forbidding only government-sponsored denominationalism. The framers would have been perfectly comfortable with governmental sponsoring of the general principles of Christianity that were applicable to all Christian denominations. After all, it was those who wrote the First Amendment who also placed government-subsidized chaplains into the congress and the military. We might ask ourselves why so many of our older public buildings from the founding era are inscribed with Scripture verses and other Christian sentiments if our founding fathers designed a Constitution that illegalized such a practice? To argue that the First Amendment’s prohibition against an establishment of religion removes all vestiges of Christianity from public life leads to the ridiculous conclusion that the First Congress violated the very Constitution and First Amendment that they themselves had authored and adopted. Similarly, the question needs to be asked, “If Christianity in the public schools is blatantly unconstitutional according to the intent of the founding fathers, why did it take the judiciary nearly two hundred years to figure this out and apply the Constitution properly so as to eradicate public school sponsored prayer and Bible reading?”

Based upon modern Supreme Court decisions dealing with prayer and Bible reading in school, the court has subsequently developed a three-part test for determining if religious expression in government is permissible. The activity must have a secular purpose, must not advance nor inhibit religion, and must not excessively entangle government with religion.  This is the test that has been consistently used to push much of Christianity out of the public schools and government on the grounds that such activity does not pass constitutional muster. Yet this test is out of harmony with the views of the founders who favored the general, non-sectarian principles of Christianity in government as long as one Christian denomination was not favored over another.   Thus, legal scholar John Eidsmoe suggests another test that the courts should instead use that is far more harmonious with the beliefs of the founders when determining if religion in government violates the First Amendment. According to Eidsmoe, Christian activity in government is impermissible if it compels attendance at religious services or activities, prefers a particular “church or denomination above others,” and penalizes those who do not support a specific government involvement with religion such as by “depriving them of the right to vote or hold office.” [See John Eidesmoe, The Christian Legal Advisor (Milford, MI: Mott, 1984), 147.] The bottom line to this whole discussion is that the legal test that is used today to completely separate God from government is inconsistent with the beliefs of the founding fathers whose legislative record demonstrates that they contemplated no such separation.  

(To Be Continued...)