Uncommon History

A place where history never rests

A Knocking on the Door

Martin Luther

Martin Luther

As many millions of parents and children prepare any number of costumes, from angels to zombies, a highly significant part of history is being forgotten. While October 31 has become widely accepted as a day and night to illicit questionable behavior, it was in the year 1517 that one man went knocking on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany.

On October 31, 1517, a man named Martin Luther attached a document to the doors of this church in the purpose of rebelling against his perceived distortions of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

It is an interesting comparison to the traditions practiced on this day in modern times. Children wanting to satisfy their sweet tooth go from door-to-door seeking generous neighbors willing to part with some amount of sugar confection. Martin Luther too sought to satisfy a particular part of himself, but rather than a selfish desire of material satisfaction, Luther sought to bring to himself, and others, a spiritual satisfaction.

Without going into great detail, Martin Luther had experienced the teachings of the church first-hand, but these rituals and rights seemed to have little-to-nothing to do with the actions and sayings of the savior and apostles in the bible. What followed was a revolution in religious thought and paved the way to a new future throughout the entire world.

The following is the translated text of the controversial points that Luther nailed to the door:

95_theses_sm

95 Theses

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

    1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

    2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.

    3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.

    4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

    5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.

    6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God’s remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.

    7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.

    8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

    9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.

    10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.

    11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.

    12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

    13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.

    14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.

    15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.

    16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.

    17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.

    18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.

    19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.

    20. Therefore by “full remission of all penalties” the pope means not actually “of all,” but only of those imposed by himself.

    21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;

    22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.

    23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.

    24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.

    25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.

    26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.

    27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].

    28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.

    29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.

    30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.

    31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.

    32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.

    33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;

    34. For these “graces of pardon” concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.

    35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.

    36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.

    37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.

    38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.

    39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.

    40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].

    41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.

    42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.

    43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;

    44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

    45. 45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

    46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.

    47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.

    48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.

    49. Christians are to be taught that the pope’s pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.

    50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter’s church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.

    51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope’s wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.

    52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.

    53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.

    54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.

    55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

    56. The “treasures of the Church,” out of which the pope. grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.

    57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.

    58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.

    59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church’s poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.

    60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ’s merit, are that treasure;

    61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.

    62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.

    63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.

    64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

    65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.

    66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.

    67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the “greatest graces” are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.

    68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.

    69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.

    70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.

    71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!

    72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!

    73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.

    74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.

    75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God — this is madness.

    76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.

    77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.

    78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.

    79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.

    80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.

    81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.

    82. To wit: — “Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial.”

    83. Again: — “Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?”

    84. Again: — “What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul’s own need, free it for pure love’s sake?”

    85. Again: — “Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?”

    86. Again: — “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?”

    87. Again: — “What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?”

    88. Again: — “What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?”

    89. “Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?”

    90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.

    91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.

    92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace!

    93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Cross, cross,” and there is no cross!

    94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;

    95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.

Trial of John Brown

Related Posts

celtic_bar_brown_3

October 27, 1859

John Brown’s Statement:

I will add, if the Court will allow me, that I look upon it as a miserable artifice and pretext of those who ought to take different course in regard to me, if they took any at all, and I view it with contempt more than otherwise. As I remarked to Mr. Green, insane persons, so far as my experience goes, have but little ability to judge of their own sanity; and, if I am insane, of course I should think I know more than all the rest of the world. But I do not think so. I am perfectly unconscious of insanity, and I reject, so far as I am capable, any attempt to interfere in my behalf on that score.

Further requests were entered to delay the proceedings, but these were denied by the Court.

October 28, 1859

The defense pleaded their case and after several attempts to locate his own witnesses, John Brown made the following statement:

May it Please the Court: I discover that, notwithstanding all the assurances I have received of a fair trial, nothing like a fair trial is to be given me, as it would seem. I gave the names as soon as I could get at them, of the persons I wished to have called as witnesses, and was assured that they would be subpoenaed. I wrote down a memorandum to that effect, saying where those parties were; but it appears that they have not been subpoenaed as far as I can learn; and now I ask if I am to have anything at all deserving the name and shadow of a fair trial, that this proceeding be deferred until to-morrow morning; for I have no counsel, as I before stated, in whom I feel that I can rely, bat I am in hopes counsel may arrive who will attend to seeing that I get the witnesses who are necessary for my defence. I am myself unable to attend to it. I have given all the attention I possibly could to it, but am unable to see or know about them, and can’t even find out their names; and I have nobody to do any errand, for my money was all taken when I was sacked and stabbed, and I have not a dime. I had two hundred and fifty or sixty dollars in gold and silver taken from my pocket, and now I have no possible means of getting anybody to go my errands for me, and I have not had all the witnesses subpoenaed. They are not within reach, and are not here. I ask at least until to-morrow morning to have something done, if anything is designed if I am ready for anything that may come up.

October 30, 1859

Very near 2:00pm, the jury returned from their deliberation.

Gentlemen of the Jury, what say you, is the prisoner at the bar, John Brown, guilty Or not guilty?

Foreman–Guilty.

Clerk–Guilty of treason, and conspiring and advising with slaves and others to rebel and murder in the first degree?

Foreman–Yes.

———————————————————————-

With these last few words, the fate of John Brown was almost certain. The just punishment for treason, murder and conspiracy to commit these crimes was none less than hanging. John Brown had convictions that led him to commit a very serious act.  This fact continues to ignite emotion and debate from all quarters. Was he right in what he did? Was he a crazy lunatic? Read more about John Brown and decide for yourself.

For a much more thorough review of the proceedings and testimonies of John Brown’s trial, please visit the following link:

Trial and Execution of Captain John Brown

Congress Gets It – Battlefield Preservation

Over the past several years, urban sprawl combined with increased industrial and commercial demands in our nation have exacted a toll on one of our most precious commodities, our history.  I have witnessed first-hand the encroachment, purchase and destruction of what was once considered hallowed ground. On October 28, 2009, the US Congress made an unprecedented step to help revers some of those trends.The following is a press release from Civil War Preservation Trust announcing the latest actions of our congress to protect Civil War Battlefields:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Civil War Preservation Trust

Civil War Preservation Trust

October 28, 2009

For more information, contact:
Jim Campi, CWPT, (202) 367-1861 x7205
Mary Koik, CWPT, (202) 367-1861 x7231

CONGRESS ALLOCATES $9 MILLION TO PRESERVE AMERICA’S ENDANGERED CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELDS

CWPT praises Congress for its unprecedented commitment to protecting America’s hallowed grounds

(Washington, D.C.) – The Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT) today applauded members of the U.S. House and Senate for including the largest ever single-year allocation for the federal Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Interior Appropriations Act Conference Report (H Rept 111-316).

The conference report, scheduled for a final vote in both chambers later this week, includes $9 million for the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program, a mechanism that utilizes government matching grants and private funds to permanently protect historic Civil War battlefields throughout the nation.

“This is tremendous news that could not come at a more critical time,” said CWPT President James Lighthizer. Each day 30 acres of hallowed Civil War battlefield ground are paved over and lost forever. This money will allow us to preserve historic land that would otherwise be lost to development and urban sprawl.”

The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program targets priority unprotected Civil War sites outside National Park Service boundaries. The program’s matching grants formula encourages state and private sector investment in historic land preservation. For example, in 2008 the Virginia General Assembly set aside $5.2 million to match federal Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program monies. Grants from the program are competitively awarded by the American Battlefield Protection Program, an arm of the National Park Service.

Since its creation in 1999, the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program has been used to protect more than 15,000 acres of hallowed ground at 60 battlefields in 14 states. Among the sites saved as a result of this program are historic properties at Antietam and South Mountain, Md.; Champion Hill, Miss.; Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg, and Manassas, Va.; Chattanooga and Fort Donelson, Tenn.; and Harpers Ferry, W.Va. The program is funded through the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Although numerous members of the House and Senate have played important roles in ensuring the program’s continued success, the following individuals were pivotal in securing this year’s unprecedented federal commitment to battlefield preservation: Interior Appropriations Subcommittee Chairs Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Norm Dicks (D-WA); Senators Jim Webb (D-VA), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), and Jeff Sessions (R-AL); and Congressmen, Bart Gordon (D-TN), Steve Israel (D-NY), Gary Miller (R-CA) and C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger (D-MD). In addition, 16 Senators and 29 Member of Congress signed letters of support for the program earlier this year.

“It is welcome news that our $9 million funding request for battlefield preservation was accepted in the Interior Appropriations bill,” said Senator Webb. “As America prepares for the 150th anniversary commemoration of the Civil War, it is more important than ever that we preserve these landmarks for future generations to learn about the history of our nation.”

Senator Alexander concurred, saying, “The Civil War was a heartbreaking time in our history that we should never forget. Protecting our Civil War battlefields and historic sites is important both to honor the thousands who fought and to allow future generations to learn their heritage by visiting sites like Shiloh, Lookout Mountain, Fort Donelson and Parker’s Crossroads. I’m glad to see that this funding was included to support this important program.”

“America’s Civil War battlefields are part of our nation’s rich heritage, but sadly thousands of acres of battlefields are being lost every year. It is incumbent upon all of us to ensure our children and grandchildren have the opportunity to visit these sacred grounds and experience part of history,” remarked Congressman Ruppersberger.

This vision was also shared by Congressman Miller, who first introduced legislation authorizing the program in 2002. Miller noted, “I have been a long time advocate for preservation of our nation’s historic battlefields. These battlefields offer a porthole to the past. The vivid imagery of an epic conflict can remind visitors of the struggles our country has gone through to preserve the banner of liberty and justice for all.”

Like Senator Webb, Lighthizer also stressed that the upcoming 150th anniversary of the Civil War presents an ideal time to redouble efforts to protect this hallowed ground. “I can think of no more fitting – and lasting – tribute during this sesquicentennial commemoration than to preserve the places where these brave soldiers fought and bled.”

The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program was reauthorized in March 2009 as part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (PL 111-11). The legislation, introduced in the Senate by Senators Webb and Sessions and in the House by Congressmen Miller, Israel and Gordon, reauthorized the program for $10 million a year for five years. The popular bill enjoyed considerable bipartisan support, earning 33 cosponsors in the Senate and 108 cosponsors in the House.

With 55,000 members, CWPT is the largest nonprofit battlefield preservation organization in the United States. Its mission is to preserve our nation’s remaining Civil War battlefields and to promote appreciation of these hallowed grounds through education and heritage tourism. The CWPT website is located at www.civilwar.org.

###

For more information about the program’s congressional supporters, visit CWPT online at www.civilwar.org/aboutus/news/news-releases/2009-news/congress-allocates-9-million.html.

Political Activism and the Social Gospel

Other entries related to this topic:

celtic_bar_brown_3

In relation to my study of the issue of Separation of Church and State, much more should be said. Both for the purpose of clarifying my own views as well as bringing to light some uncommonly known historic facts of the issue itself.

Mankind in general has always been inclined to either join into the religious, intellectual and political endeavors of others, or to bring others into line with their own. This is neither proper or improper, it just is a fact of the human condition. We are created beings of want for community and justice with varied degrees of participation and philosophy. It is just this sense of motivation and selfish desire for common ground at any cost that has driven the governments and economies of the nations since the beginning of time.

No less affected has been the democratic government of the United States of America. Our government was designed to be shaped over the centuries by opinion, persuasion and debate. It is no great suprise that since the ratification of the US Constitution that our citizenry has been engaged in the perpetual swing of fluctuating thought.

The first great swing of this pendulum hinged on the subject of African Slavery in the United States and was led primarily by religious, moral philosophers, preachers and teachers. When the issue was ultimately resolved at the end of the US Civil War, these same thinkers continued their combined drive to bring equality to the new population of freedmen.

Politics had always been a welcome place for groups and individuals to debate their concerns and interests. Up to that point however, religion remained a largely separate venue; not that men of religion were not given to political service, but specific issues of religious and moral debate were not commonplace in the new government. Most issues centered on foreign relations, economic concerns and territorial ambition.

As the nineteenth century drew to a close, the political landscape became the new home for religious activism and promotion of what would become known as the “social gospel.” This social gospel took the moral tenets of the bible and applied them to common societal woes such as assisting the poor as well as increased pressure upon the population at large to accept the teachings of the church and in doing so to promote social righteousness.

In a sense, the initial leaders of this movement were driven with good intentions, but it seems that somewhere along the way they lost an integral part of the very message they were trying to promote. Their methods focused on educating government officials of the laws, commandments and rituals of holy scripture rather than understanding the separate roles laid out by the very savior they wanted to emulate.

This blog format is limited in its ability to maintain a reader’s attention for a lengthy discourse and deep research. Because of this, I implore anyone interested in this subject to search out these facts and implications for themselves in the Word of God and derive their own interpretation based wholly therein.

With that said, I believe what anyone willing to look with due diligence, will find that Jesus Christ did not go to the temples of government in order to induce the leadership to accept and endorse his teachings. Instead, Jesus was found teaching in the religious centers of the day imploring those leaders to rescind their grasp on political power and instead hold tightly to the teachings of liberty, grace and compassion. Over the three year course of his ministry, Jesus came in contact with many individuals involved in varying degrees of the political and governmental processes. Jesus did not instruct these men to go back to their respective caucuses and implore them to accept his ways. Instead, Jesus drew these men to Him, taught them his ways and they themselves, by their own convictions and instincts allowed his teachings to inform their decisions. This, in a sense, was the activism of Jesus Christ. It was not intended to instruct political leaders to enforce and protect grace. It was intended to lead mankind into His grace and protection and from there spread to the masses from which leaders emerged with their own ability to discern the Christian precepts of leadership.

So when did this radical shift in civic-religious activism really kick into high gear? I believe the best place to start is with the Men and Religion Forward Movement that began around 1912.

One such example of this rise in political activism can be found in Volume 2 of “The Messages of the Men and Religious Forward Movement” (1912)

Messages of The Men and Religion Forward Movement – Volume 2 (Social Service):

The subject was the rising issue of prostitution in Chicago, but the call to action was unlike any recorded in Holy Scripture. The following is the preacher’s call to action:

” The new publicity in regard to prostitution in itself forces the church into radical action; understanding of the sinner has ever been essential to his forgiveness, knowledge of conditions has ever preceded social reforms. If it is discovered that the brothels are filled with over-fatigued and underpaid girls, procured by young men ‘too poor to marry,’ then it is obviously the business of the church to secure legal enactment which shall limit the hours of labor, fix a minimum wage, and prescribe the conditions under which young people may be permitted to work.”

The sermon delivered goes on to say:

“If it is found that degenerate children born of diseased and viscious parents, become and easy prey for the brothel, it is clearly the obligation of the church to challenge all applicants for marriage and to work out through modern eugenics the admonitions of the Hebrew teachers as to the responsibility unto the third and fourth generation.”

The plight of the exploitation of children, that continues even today, is without a doubt a travesty, but I believe this message approaches the problem with incorrect theology.

In the beginning of this message, the love and forgiveness of Christ for sinners is pronounced and most evident, but by the end of the sermon, the legalistic practices of the Hebrew nation are invoked. These are the very entanglements that Jesus Christ came to reverse the Children of God from. It comes as no surprise to the scholar of this movement to realize that it put into high gear, the manipulation of politics, moral codes and methods of business designed for capitalistic success in order to bring about a religious segment’s social views into fruition through legislation.

It is my view that it is beyond for Christians to embrace the founding father’s view of Separation of Church and State and set about doing the Lord’s work in the harvest fields and not in the halls of government bureaucracy.

Separation of Church and State – Overview

Other entries related to this topic:

celtic_bar_brown_3

My research and paper are not yet complete, but already I am coming to my own conclusions in this area.

The abridged version of my opinion is simply this: The founders of the United States set up a civic democracy, not a religious theocracy. Most of these men practiced differing degrees of the Christian faith, but they were very worldly wise.

This civic democracy was not void of religious Christian thought, but it was not designed as a way to ensure the longevity of Christianity itself. Many of the founders did believe that without the tenets of the Christian faith indwelled among the citizens, that this form of government could not endure.

However, they believe heavily upon acts of faith and devotion of the people to remain devout to their spiritual calling. Without this devotion they knew faith would flounder and eventually the government they designed would fall with it.

Liberty can only be exercised when it is free to be performed and exercised. When a government entity begins to dictate actions, beliefs and morals, liberty is extinguished. The founding fathers surely hoped that liberty would expand and religious freedom would endure.

It is evident throughout our history that the more citizens that fought to entwine the laws of this nation with religious rhetoric, the hands of power sought to control it. This spiral of laws and litigation has continued and is proof that the more religious dogma that placed in the hands of a civic government, the less liberty exists in the exercise of religion.

Jesus himself spoke upon this very principal when the Pharisees attempted to drag him into politics. His answer was brief and simple:

Mark 12: 13-17

13 And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk. 14 And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone’s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” 15 But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16 And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” 17 Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him.

It is my growing conclusion that if anyone of religious and spiritual character desires to see those around them filled with the same spirit, it is not bills, laws, regulations and legislation through which this will be acheived.

There are indeed moral issues at stake in our land, but grace is given as a gift of the Father, not of the Congress. In order to establish Christian grace, love and purity, the followers of Jesus Christ must take up His cross daily and teach about His love and liberty to their neighbors.

The heart of God cannot come from the top down, it must come from the bottom to the top.

Thanks for Visiting!

ss_blog_claim=09e347992b56cdec407bc8ca90829985