{"id":19172,"date":"2016-08-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2016-08-14T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sugar-land-bible-church.local\/sermon\/the-bible-and-voting-part-6\/"},"modified":"2016-08-14T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2016-08-14T05:00:00","slug":"the-bible-and-voting-part-6","status":"publish","type":"sermon","link":"https:\/\/slbc.org\/es\/sermon\/the-bible-and-voting-part-6\/","title":{"rendered":"The Bible and Voting – Part 6"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","book":[65],"series_event":[466],"sermon_service_type":[472],"speaker":[6],"class_list":["post-19172","sermon","type-sermon","status-publish","hentry","book-proverbs","series_event-the-bible-and-voting-2016","sermon_service_type-main-service","speaker-dr-andy-woods","no-post-thumbnail"],"acf":{"sermon_title":"The Bible and Voting - Part 6","sermon_date":"20160814","sermon_month":"8","sermon_year":"2016","sermon_notes":3819,"sermon_slides":3818,"sermon_mp3":3821,"sermon_id":"8141693435","series_or_event":466,"service_type":[472],"speaker":6,"books_of_the_bible":65,"chapter_and_verse":"14:34","sermon_transcript":"Andy Woods\n\nSUGAR LAND BIBLE CHURCH\n\nAugust 14, 2016\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Bible and Voting, Part 6\n\nGood morning everybody.\u00a0 If we could take our Bibles and open them to the Gospel of Mark, chapter 16 and verse 15.\u00a0 The title of this message is The Bible and Voting, Part 6.\u00a0 We started this on Independence Day weekend. \u00a0I want to thank Gabe Morris for subbing in last week, I trust you appreciated his ministry.\u00a0 My family and myself, we were in Southern California which is where both Anne and I grew up.\u00a0 I had a chance to speak at a conference out there and visit my family as well.\u00a0 And one of my sessions out there was The Bible and Voting, what a coincidence, except I had to take six parts and cram the whole thing into an hour.\u00a0 But the good people of California really enjoyed it.\u00a0 In fact, they\u2019d never heard anything like this before.\u00a0 [Laughter]\u00a0 And people were saying is all that stuff in the Bible?\u00a0 Yeah, it\u2019s in the Bible!\n\nIn fact, one gentleman was so impressed with this he said I want to put you on my show, it goes out to about 500,000 to 1,000,000 people on his channel and it\u2019s called The Greenberg Report, I\u2019ll let you know when it airs, and it\u2019s just me and him walking on the beach; I had to get up at 5:30 in the morning to do this so I have a few bitterness issues I\u2019m working through with him.\u00a0 But it was just me and him walking on the beach and they insisted that it had to be on the beach, but the problem Mr. Greenburg comes up to about here on me, so they found a ridge so he was walking on the hill and I was walking on the beach and the camera didn\u2019t get our feet so you couldn\u2019t tell, it looked like we were the same size.\u00a0 So if you turn on the TV sometime and see me walking on the beach with some guy about 6:00 in the morning talking about political things from the Bible that\u2019s what that\u2019s all about.\u00a0 You never know what God is going to do.\u00a0 As Proverbs says, Blessed are the flexible for they shall never be broken.\u00a0 I don\u2019t know what God\u2019s going to do, it\u2019s always interesting to find out.\n\nAnyway, we\u2019re here in this sermon series continuing to take a look at The Bible and Voting.\u00a0 As I\u2019ve mentioned before I\u2019ve tried very hard, I didn\u2019t succeed very well in the last hour but I\u2019ve tried very hard to stay out of the political current fray, current candidates, current poles, those kinds of things, and really stick with the biblical text.\u00a0 And sort of my desire in this series is really to give you a set of principles from the Scripture that will inform us on how to exercise this right that we\u2019ve been given in this country in terms of voting.\n\nWhen the Scripture indicates that it equips us \u201cfor every good work,\u201d one of the things it equips us with is a worldview; it\u2019s a way of looking at the culture, looking at the political world, not through the Republican lens or a Democrat lens, a left lens or a right lens, but really a biblical lens.\u00a0 And that\u2019s really the heart and soul of this series.\n\nIn fact, there\u2019s so many issues in the Bible most people are stunned to discover this and most of the feedback that people really enjoyed were the economic issues that I brought up.\u00a0 But we\u2019ve divided this into economic issues, social issues and foreign affairs issues, having worked through what the Bible says about economics.\u00a0 We move from there into social issues; we\u2019ve seen that the Bible speaks to many of the really hot items that are on the radar screen today, things like legal protection for the unborn, legal protection for the elderly, heterosexual monogamy in terms of marriage as the standard for society.\u00a0 The Bible actually advocates capital punishment.\u00a0 It advocates how we should think about certain things like pornography.\u00a0 The last time we were together it took us the whole sermon to develop this.\u00a0 It has a great deal to say about the relationship between parents and children; who is to have the authority in the nurturing of children.\u00a0 And we saw that the authority is vested in parents according to God.\u00a0 And I\u2019ve tried to phrase these all as questions that you can ask candidates in terms of what they think about these things.\u00a0 What is their worldview?\n\nOne of the things that I\u2019d like to talk about today, Number 7 and Number 8 is public expressions of Christianity.\u00a0\u00a0 Notice, if you will, Mark 16:15.\u00a0 Here\u2019s the basic question: Will the candidate use the force of government to restrict expressions of Christian in public places, the airwaves, the internet, social media, or through the imposition of so-called hate speech quotes.\u00a0 When it comes to the public expression of Christianity, whether it be on the internet, social media, in public places, what does a candidate think about that?\u00a0 Now how would that relate to us and the Scripture?\u00a0 Well, the fact of the matter is we\u2019re given a command by Jesus, aren\u2019t we?\n\nMark 16:15, it says this, \u201cAnd He said to them, \u2018Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 We are obligated under God to go everywhere, every place trumpeting the good news of Jesus Christ and the gospel.\u00a0 If I\u2019m not doing that I\u2019m in disobedience to a basic command of God.\u00a0 And this becomes difficult to do, doesn\u2019t it, when your own government begins to restrict when and where and how we can do this.\u00a0 We have something that\u2019s been galloping in our society that I like to call militant secularism; some would call it religious cleansing or Christian cleansing, where Christianity itself has to be banned from the public schools; Christianity itself has to be taken off of public places, the Ten Commandments can\u2019t be posted on public walls, giant crosses on public property have to be taken down because that may be offensive to somebody.\u00a0 And this has been a relentless assault for decades in this culture if you\u2019ve been following it.\n\nThe fact of the matter is, America\u2019s Founding Fathers had absolutely no problem whatsoever with Christian expression in public life.\u00a0 We know this simply by looking at the Liberty Bell itself.\u00a0 Most people are shocked to discover that on the Liberty Bell itself is inscribed Leviticus 25:10, which says, \u201cProclaim liberty throughout all the land to its inhabitants,\u201d it\u2019s a Scriptural citation on one of America\u2019s most important pieces of our history, the Liberty Bell itself.\u00a0 Had the Founding Fathers of America bought into this idea that Christianity cannot be expressed publicly why in the world would they put a Scripture verse on the Liberty Bell?\n\nThis is what used to be said in public schools, and in fact, since I just got back from California visiting my parents, some of these subjects came up as I was talking with them and my mother told me, and she grew up in this Houston area, that in Houston, in fourth grade, now I\u2019m pausing because I said fourth grade and she listens to the sermons and she says it wasn\u2019t fourth grade it was some other grade so she corrected me, and I can\u2019t remember how she changed it, but any way, fourth grade, sixth grace, second grade, one of those grades, she indicated that her own public school teacher would read to her every morning from the Psalms.\u00a0 And I asked my mother, I said what year was that and she gave me the exact year, 1948.\n\nIn other words, prior to some very radical Supreme Court cases in the 1960\u2019s it used to be very normal in America to study the Bible in public schools, read the Bible in public schools, no big deal at all, in fact, it was part of the culture.\u00a0 In fact, America\u2019s Founding Fathers, as we have seen, would have no problem with such a practice.\n\nIn 1962, this comes from Supreme Court language in a case called Engel versus Vital, this is what used to be said\u00a0 regularly every morning by public school children.\u00a0 \u201cAlmighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country.\u201d\u00a0 I mean, as I look at that little prayer it doesn\u2019t really sound like a very radical prayer to me at all; I don\u2019t see any jihadist language in here.\u00a0 It was just a simple acknowledgement that America had a wonderful Christian beginning and a wonderful Christian heritage and we in the public schools are going to continue to acknowledge that and we are going to continue to ask for God\u2019s blessings upon our country, our families and our schools.\u00a0 And we acknowledge, just as the Declaration of Independence indicates, our dependence upon\u00a0 You.\n\nBut what happened in 1963 is that was deemed unconstitutional, that longstanding practice.\u00a0 This is a quotation from the Supreme Court case itself, called School District of Abington Township vs. Schempp, 1963; this is what the Supreme Court said.\u00a0 \u201cBut if portions of the New Testament were read without explanation they could be, and in his specific experience with children Dr. Grayzel\u201d that\u2019s the expert witness, the psychologist, the psychologist, \u201cDr. Grayzel observed, had been, psychologically harmful to the child<\/u> and had caused a divisive force within the social media of the school.\u201d\n\nOne day the United States Supreme Court, almost with the stroke of a pen, said this longstanding practice of acknowledging Christian truth in public schools is psychologically harmful.\u00a0 They based their ruling on something called the strict wall of separation between church and state.\u00a0 They supposedly found this in our First Amendment which reads as follows: \u201cCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.\u201d\n\nThe First Amendment, you\u2019ll notice, has two clauses related to religion.\u00a0 The first is called the establishment clause.\u00a0 Congress is not to make a law establishing a religion (that is called the establishment clause) nor is Congress to interfere with the free exercise of religion (that is called the free exercise clause).\u00a0 And it\u2019s in that establishment clause that the Supreme Court began to indicate that there was something called a strict wall of separation between church and state.\n\nNow when\u00a0 you look up the word religion, not in a modern day dictionary but in a dictionary back to the founding era what you\u2019ll discover is their definition of religion is very different than ours.\u00a0 When they used the word \u201creligion\u201d and as you probably know words change meanings over time, when our Founding Fathers used the word religion they were using it as a synonym for denomination.\u00a0 What our Founding Fathers were against is a denominational country; this is a Baptist country, this is a Methodist country, this is a Presbyterian country.\u00a0 It\u2019s quite obvious that that\u2019s what our Founding Fathers thought because they put a Scripture verse on the Liberty Bell itself.\u00a0 As long as it\u2019s not advocating a particular denomination they had no problem with the generic principles of Christianity (which our Founding Fathers called trans denominational) being taught in the public school.\n\nThis is the clear record of history.\u00a0 And what began to happen it the Supreme Court began to change the definition of religion to not just anti-denominational language but they began to say any form of Christianity is no longer acceptable in the public school.\u00a0 That is a perversion of what the First Amendment says.\u00a0 And the reason that this ruling is so outrageous is because once you arrive at the Supreme Court you are appointed for life; the people themselves cannot vote against you because you are life tenured.\u00a0 So America has always understood that the proper role of the Supreme Court is not to make things up, not to read things into the document that simply are not there; that is the job of the legislators and legislatures which are accountable to the people through the ballot box.\u00a0 The function of the Supreme Court is simply to derive the Founder\u2019s intent and apply that intent to the facts that come before them when they are adjudicating matters.\n\nBut what happened is the Supreme Court converted itself into a legislature.\u00a0 They converted themselves into a Constitutional convention and they switched the meaning of the word and in the process they invented this expression, a strict wall of separation between church and state.\u00a0 Now as I read this did you find the word \u201cstrict\u201d in this amendment.\u00a0 Do you see the word \u201cwall\u201d there?\u00a0 No.\u00a0 Do you see the word \u201cseparation\u201d there?\u00a0 No, I don\u2019t see it.\u00a0 Do you see the word \u201cchurch\u201d there?\u00a0 No, I don\u2019t see it.\u00a0 Do you see the word \u201cstate\u201d there?\u00a0 No, I don\u2019t see it.\u00a0 Other than that I guess they\u2019re pretty close, right?\n\nThe whole thing is invented.\u00a0 The good people of America never acknowledge this or wanted this or voted for it.\u00a0 It was the judicial branch of government that imposed it upon us.\u00a0 In fact, here is a case called Baer v. Kolmorgen around the same period of time; it\u2019s a New York case, New York Supreme Court, and this is what the New York Supreme Court said: \u201cMuch has been written in recent years concerning Thomas Jefferson\u2019s reference in 1802 to \u2018a wall of separation between church and state...\u2019 [It] has received so much attention that one would almost think at times that it is to be found somewhere in our Constitution.\u201d\u00a0 As the old saying goes, if you repeat a lie long enough people eventually believe it.\u00a0 You just keep saying it over and over again and people actually think that the strict wall of separation between church and state is part of our heritage as Americans.\u00a0 In fact, it is not!\u00a0 It is made up.\n\nHowever, you will find it in the Constitution of atheistic countries.\u00a0 You\u2019ll find it in the Article 124 of the Constitution of the former Soviet Union, a communist country, a Marxist country, a country that does not acknowledge God.\u00a0 It says this: \u201cIn order to endure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the USSR is separated from the state,<\/u> and the school from the church.\u201d\u00a0 Atheist countries have a strict wall of separation between church and state but you don\u2019t find that language or that verbiage anywhere in America\u2019s founding documents.\n\nAnd this whole thing is attributed to something that Thomas Jefferson wrote; he was one of the first to use this expression, a wall of separation between church and state in his private writings.\u00a0 Now when Jefferson used this expression he was not applying it to the establishment clause of the First Amendment but he was applying it to what?\u00a0 The free exercise clause.\u00a0 Jefferson, when you read his 1802 letter was basically saying look, the government can\u2019t interfere with the business of the church, there\u2019s a strict wall of separation between church and state.\u00a0 He was speaking there to some Baptists in Danbury who were nervous that should Jefferson get his way that their religion and their practice of their religion would be outlawed.\u00a0 And Jefferson wrote a letter to them in 1802 and said you don\u2019t have to worry about that, we have a free exercise of religion in this country and we have a strict wall of separation between church and state.\n\nThe Supreme Court in 1963 took that identical language from Thomas Jefferson and applied it not to the free exercise clause but they applied it to the establishment clause and banished in the process with the stroke of a pen a long standing Christian practice in America.\u00a0 Most of these things happened under the radar screen without Americans even knowing what took place.\u00a0 But that, in my opinion, indicated or moved us into a fundamental change in this country where our heritage and our foundation was no longer to be God or the Bible but it was going to be something different.\u00a0 And today, and I went through this as a high school student, try starting up a Bible club, a prayer club, wanting your teacher to say something about the Scripture in class, giving some kind of book report publicly that promotes the Bible, the phrase, and it was thrown at me as a very young Christian, will be thrown back at you is there is a strict wall of separation between church and state.\u00a0 The whole thing is a con, the whole thing is a scam, the whole thing is a tool used by Satan to move a nation away from its history and it roots.\n\nIn fact, most people don\u2019t know this but Thomas Jefferson, although he was the author of the Declaration of Independence, 1776, had almost nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States which was passed around 1787.\u00a0 Thomas Jefferson writes this in one of his letters.\u00a0 \u201cOne passage, in the paper you enclosed me, must be corrected. It is the following, \u2018and all say it was yourself more than any other individual, that planned and established it,\u2019 i.e<\/em>., the Constitution.\u201d\u00a0 He\u2019s not disavowing his role from the Declaration of Independence, which is earlier but he is disavowing his role in the Constitution which came about a decade or so later.\u00a0 He says this, \u201cI was in Europe when the Constitution was planned, and never saw it till after it was established.\u201d [Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson<\/em>, 20 vols., ed. Albert Ellery Bergh (Washington D.C: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), 10:325, to Dr. Joseph Priestly on June 19, 1802.]\n\nThe Declaration of Independence is America\u2019s birth certificate; the Constitution is something completely different, it\u2019s the by-laws, if you will, thinking of this in corporate terms, showing the new government how it\u2019s to function.\u00a0 Thomas Jefferson had everything to do with the Declaration of Independence, but when it came time to put together the Constitution over a decade later he had no influence over it whatsoever according to his own admission in his own writings. In fact, he was America\u2019s ambassador to France at the time.\n\nJohn 8:44 tells us that Satan is the Father of lies.\u00a0 [John 8:44, \u201cYou are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.\u201d]\u00a0 Essentially what happened is the Supreme Court attributed a phrase to Thomas Jefferson; number 1, they took it completely out of context.\u00a0 Jefferson made the statement relative to the free exercise clause and not the establishment clause.\u00a0 And number 1, Jefferson himself had no real influence over our United States Constitution.\n\nAnd yet through the stroke of a pen this has become the law of the land.\u00a0 In fact, most attorneys, if you question them, think that a strict wall of separation between church and state is somewhere found in the First Amendment because that\u2019s the way they\u2019re trained, that\u2019s the way they\u2019re taught.\n\nBar exam questions deal with that issue; very few of them have actually gone back and read the First Amendment themselves and in fact most of them, if you were to pull out a copy of the First Amendment and ask them can you please point to this doctrine of separation between church and s state they are startled and stunned to discover that the phrase that has been used more than any other to secularize America is not even present in the First Amendment.\n\nIn fact, when the Supreme Court issued that ruling they did it without citing a single precedent.\u00a0 Now what is a precedent?\u00a0 A precedent is you look back in history and you see what prior courts have done.\u00a0 Any lawyer worth their salt when they argue before a judge, particularly a federal judge, particularly before the United States Supreme Court, will try to anchor their argument in precedent, looking at what similar courts have done with a similar set of facts.\u00a0 How many precedents were actually cited in these 1962-1963 decisions?\u00a0 The answer is no precedents at all!\u00a0 They admit this in the language of the decision: \u201cFinally, in Engel v. Vitale<\/em>, only last year, these principles\u201d what principles? The strict wall of separation between church and state of course.\u00a0 \u201cFinally, in Engel v. Vitale<\/em>, only last year, these principles were so universally recognized that the court, without the citation of a single case<\/u><\/em>\u2026 reaffirmed them\u201d (italics added).\n\nThis is an interesting chart that I got from David Barton, in his book, the Myth of Separation<\/em>, and you\u2019ll notice various cases that began to be handed down after these 1962 and 1963 rulings.\u00a0 You\u2019ll see those on the far left;\u00a0 you\u2019ll see the date after that, and then you\u2019ll see two columns pre 1947 and post 1947.\u00a0 And it\u2019s documenting the number of precedents that were cited in these subsequent cases coming before 1947 and after 1947.\u00a0\u00a0 You say well, what\u2019s so significant about 1947?\u00a0 1947 is the first time the expression the strict wall of separation between church and state entered the judicial fabric of America.\u00a0 It was an interesting case called Board of Education,\u00a0 Everson versus The Board of Education, it dealt with one of these scenarios where Catholic students at a public school could have release time and they could go and have some Catholic training on school time and then be readmitted to school grounds.\u00a0 And eventually the Supreme Court upheld that arrangement but they said the governments of America, state governments need to be careful that they don\u2019t violate the strict wall of separation between church and state.\u00a0 And so for the very first time in this case the language, the strict wall of separation between church and state enters an official Supreme Court opinion and is applied to the establishment clause.\u00a0 And all the 1962 and 1963 courts did is reach back to that 1947 decision and apply it to this longstanding practice of prayer and Bible reading in public schools.\n\nNothing earth shaking happened in 1947 other than the language becoming the official legal language in the United States of America.\u00a0 What happened that was earth shaking in nature happened in 1962 and 1963.\u00a0 But this is an interesting chart and that\u2019s why 1947 is mentioned here.\u00a0 How many precedents do you have pre-1947, post 1947?\u00a0 There was a case called Levitt v. Committee, 1973, notice how many precedents you have, 1947\u2014zero!\u00a0 How many precedents do you have after 1947?\u00a0 18.\u00a0 Committee versus Nyquist, 1973, 1 precedent prior to 1947, 99 precedents after 1947 cited in official Supreme Court rulings.\n\nThen came Stone versus Graham, 1980, now Stone versus Graham is very critical because that\u2019s when the Ten Commandments, you know, don\u2019t murder, don\u2019t steal, really dangerous things, right, are banned totally from public schools.\u00a0 There was a copy of the Ten Commandments hanging on a public school wall and the Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom said\u00a0 you know, if people read these, they might obey them;\u00a0 it\u2019s almost a direct quote from the case.\u00a0 So we need to get rid of this.\u00a0 They based their rulings on a strict wall of separation between church and state.\u00a0 Notice how many precedents you have prior to 1947\u2014zero!\u00a0 Every precedent in that case happened after 1947.\u00a0 Then came along a similar case.\u00a0\u00a0 Marsh versus Chambers, 1982, one precedent before 1947, 32 precedents after 1947.\n\nAnd I want you to understand how this game is played.\u00a0 The other side gets a ruling that they like and they pretend that American history started with that ruling.\u00a0 And you see this whole conversation taking place with the infamous Roe verses Wade decision when conservative jurists are put up as possible jurors to the Supreme Court, all of the left and all of the liberals they like to say well, are you going to respect settled law?\u00a0 And what they\u2019re talking about is are you going to respect the 1972-1973 Roe versus Wade decision or are you going to overturn it.\u00a0 The fact of the matter is Roe versus Wade in the 1972-1973 did that decision respect settled law?\u00a0 No it didn\u2019t.\u00a0 It overturned almost everything.\n\nAnd the same game is played here with the strict wall between separation between church and state.\u00a0 You get a ruling that you like and you just pretend that American history started with the language that you like.\u00a0 It\u2019s almost as if we had the American revolution, 1776 and then we flash forward to 1947 and all of that history, from 1776 to 1947, is blocked out of memory.\u00a0 Most people don\u2019t even know it exists. \u00a0And in fact, when I went through law school and began to study the establishment clause in my Constitutional Law class guess where the text book started?\u00a0 Not with 1776, not with 1787 with The United States Constitution, not with The Bill of Rights, 1789, not with the writings of Thomas Jefferson or any of our other Founding Fathers, not with the Liberty Bell, but the text books started with the very first case on the subject, 1947.\u00a0 And that in essence is what you\u2019re dealing with politicians, attorneys, most of the American population, that whole section of America\u2019s history has been removed; most people don\u2019t know anything about it, most people don\u2019t even know it exists.\n\nSo you get the ruling that you like and you keep building on a godless ruling and anything that preceded it\u00a0 you just pretend that it never happened.\u00a0 I\u2019m simply trying to explain the strategies of Satan and how he has worked strategically to remove us from our Judeo-Christian foundation underpinnings and heritage.\u00a0 It\u2019s to the point now where if you begin to talk about the Christian roots of America most people think you\u2019re crazy or insane or illiterate or untaught.\u00a0 That\u2019s how severely we have been propagandized.\n\nI run the risk here of quoting Ann Coulter, some of the thing she says I like, some I don\u2019t and maybe it\u2019s dangerous to even quote her in church but she did say something very good.\u00a0 She said,\n\n\u201cFirst they claim there is no place for religion in the public square, and then they expand the public square to include everything.\u201d\u00a0 [Ann Coulter, \u201cForeword,\u201d in Speechless: Silencing the Christians<\/em>, ed. Donald E. Wildmon (Minneapolis, MN: Vigilante, 2009), xiii.]\n\nIsn\u2019t it interesting that the voices that are loudest in terms of separating Christianity from government are also the loudest telling us that the government needs to be bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger.\u00a0 And as the government grows Christianity shrinks in influence, and because we have bought into this separation between church and state jargon we are in the midst of a culture and a civilizations that is developing or creating a society without God.\n\nI want to know from a candidate what they think about this?\u00a0 What do they think about public expressions of Christianity in public life?\u00a0 Are those tolerable?\u00a0 Are those allowed?\u00a0 Are those acceptable within our nation\u2019s heritage, design and founding charters or are these things that need to be consistently pushed out and removed?\n\nIt\u2019s not just the establishment clause that has been perverted in our day but so has the free exercise clause.\u00a0\u00a0 You might remember the IRS scandals of around 2010, when the IRS began to look very carefully at organizations looking for tax exempt status, and it began to look for labels, like constitution, patriot.\u00a0 And then the investigation of the IRS went even deeper and they began to look into things like what kind of prayers do you all pray in your meetings?\u00a0 What kind of Bible version do you use?\u00a0 And they began to use this as a basis upon which tax exempt status should be granted or not granted.\n\nI quote James Dobson here because most people acknowledge him as a fairly respected Christian leader; he was trying during that time to start a tax exempt organization that was put on hold by the IRS because of his religious point of view.\u00a0 Dobson says:\u00a0 \u201cI have to be honest. It\u2019s a very scary time for our nation right now. We\u2019re kind of at a watershed moment...We\u2019re just trampling the Constitution. It\u2019s bulling. It\u2019s just a straight bully tactic\u2026that\u2019s not the country our forefathers foresaw.\u201d\u00a0 [http:\/\/www.theblaze.com\/stories\/2013\/05\/17\/trampling-the-constitution-famed-christian-claims-irs-bullied-ministry-threatened-to-deny-tax-application-over-criticism-of-obama\/]\n\nI remember the good old days when I would dialogue with liberals; they used to tell me this: I may not agree with what you say but I will defend you to the death to say it.\u00a0 In other words, liberals of the old days used to believe in free speech.\u00a0\u00a0 They used to believe in the free exercise of ideas.\u00a0 May I tell you something?\u00a0 The new generation coming up does not believe in free speech; they do not believe to a very large extent in the free expression of ideas.\u00a0 All you have to do is take a look at your typical university today where they have what are called free speech zones, which is some remote little part of the campus where you can speak your mind, everything else, to a very large extent is put on hold, something they call hate speech codes.\u00a0\u00a0 You can\u2019t say anything that someone would object to; you can\u2019t say anything that may be offensive, and think what that does to free speech.\u00a0 If you want to speak your mind you can go over here in some remote corner somewhere, into your free speech zone and articulate your thoughts.\n\nAnd what I\u2019m saying is we\u2019re in the midst of a shift where the good old days where the left would by and large acknowledge free speech, that is gone.\u00a0 And let me, if you want to investigate this further let me recommend a very good book to you, I read it last summer, it\u2019s written last summer, it\u2019s written by Kirsten Powers and I quote her because she is an interesting person, I don\u2019t really agree with her on a lot of things.\u00a0 She\u2019s one of the cable channel pundits but she is what I would call an intellectually honest liberal.\u00a0 She still believes the old school and how they thought, that free speech is for everybody even if that free speech is objectionable.\u00a0 She wrote a whole book about this.\u00a0 The title of this book, you can find it easily on Amazon or the internet, it\u2019s called The Silencing<\/em>.\u00a0 And here she is not taking on conservatives the way she normally does; she\u2019s taking on her own.\u00a0 She is documenting through these speech codes and what the left is doing and how they are demolishing free speech.\u00a0 She is taking on her own and she is basically saying you all are not standing by the original principles of liberalism.\u00a0 It\u2019s a fascinating book called The Silencing,<\/em> written by someone that I really don\u2019t agree with on an awful lot of things but I think she nails it here.\n\nAnd you see, all of these things that I\u2019m bringing up have a bearing on the preaching of the gospel.\u00a0 If I am being told by my government that I can\u2019t say certain things or when I say certain things I can only do it in some remote part somewhere else then that hampers and that hinders my ability to preach the gospel to every creature, which is what the Bible commands me and tells me to do.\u00a0 In fact, I have friends that are professors and when they post their syllabi online in Canada the Canadian government will come in and they will remove parts of that syllabi references to Romans 1, references to condemning the practice of homosexuality, you can talk and teach on all kinds of things but this part about homosexuality we don\u2019t want taught and the Canadian government comes in almost like a sensor, in fact, it is a sensor editing, removing, theological documents.\u00a0 How far do you think we are from that kind of thing happening here?\u00a0 Canada, the last time I checked, is not that far away; that\u2019s just on our northern border and we need to think very seriously about this issue of free speech, particularly in election cycles like we are in.\u00a0 Will the candidate use the force of government to restrict expressions of Christianity in public places, airwaves, the internet, social media and through the imposition of hate speech codes.\n\nLet me take you to another issue and this one I think you\u2019ve been looking forward to.\u00a0 In fact, is Ron Brown here this morning?\u00a0 There we go, Murphy\u2019s Law at work; he\u2019s been saying when are you going to get to number 8, and I get to number 8 and he\u2019s not here.\u00a0 He wants to know about the right to keep and bear arms.\u00a0 Take a look, if you can, at Luke 22:36.\u00a0 Another key question, in fact, the final social issue question to ask of a candidate is this: will the candidate support the right of the private citizen to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their family from private or government aggression.\u00a0\u00a0 Let me say that one more time: will the candidate support the right of the private citizen to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their family from private or governmental aggression.\n\nAs you probably know there\u2019s a great battle that\u2019s taking place in our culture.\u00a0 I mentioned the First Amendment earlier, this one is about the Second Amendment.\u00a0 The Second Amendment mentions a right to keep and bear arms; I believe that that is an individual right, many voices today are saying no, that\u2019s not an individual right, that\u2019s what they call a collective right, that\u2019s just talking about the ability to have an army, a state militia and things of that nature; it\u2019s not talking about what you actually own or possess in your own private home.\n\nNow you get into an issue like this and people immediately say you know, you\u2019re really starting to espouse your own philosophy, I thought you were a Bible teacher.\u00a0 But that\u2019s why I had you turn to Luke 22:36, these are the words of Jesus Christ and this is what he said to his disciples as He was sending them out.\u00a0 It says this, Luke 22:36: \u201cAnd He said to them, \u2018But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag,\u201d watch this, \u201cand whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.\u201d\u00a0 Let me repeat that, as Jesus is sending out His disciples, \u201cand whoever has no sword\u201d now what do you do with a sword?\u00a0 You defend yourself, \u201cwhoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.\u201d\u00a0 Putting this 21st<\/sup> century language back into the first century He\u2019s basically saying to His disciples arm yourself so that you can protect yourself.\n\nNow the Bible does not teach progression through the sword.\u00a0 Anybody that seeks to convert people to Christianity through the sword has misread the Bible because Jesus, in Matthew 26:52 said this of Peter.\u00a0 Remember what Peter did?\u00a0 They came to arrest Christ, they came to take him away, Peter did not like what he was seeing, he grabs his sword and he takes a swing and he actually missed, I believe, the head of the Centurion who ducked out of the way and Peter zipped off his ear with his sword.\u00a0 Jesus said to Peter on that occasion, Matthew 26:52, \u201cThen Jesus said to him, \u2018Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 So unlike Islam, that to a very large extent believes in converting people through military force, that is not what the Scripture teaches, it\u2019s not what the Bible teaches.\n\nWell, if all of that is true then why did Jesus, over in Luke 22:36 say \u201cwhoever has no sword it to sell his coat and buy one.\u201d\u00a0 [Luke 22:36, \u201cAnd He said to them, \u2018But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.\u201d]\u00a0 When you put these Scriptures together what you begin to discover is the Bible never teaches vigilantism, it never teaches conversion through the sword; it never teaches intimidating people through the force of arms.\u00a0 What it does teach is the ability for reasonable self-defense.\u00a0 If somebody comes into your house and threatens your life and your wife and your children then biblically you have not just the right but the responsibility to defend yourself.\u00a0 I have to say this over and over again because many people, through their abuse of the Scripture, will put you on a guilt trip simply because you have an armament, an arm of some sort in your home for self-defense.\n\nNow in the book of Esther, chapters 8 and 9, it\u2019s very interesting what happens.\u00a0 The Persian King, Xerxes allowed the children of Israel to defend themselves; he in essence reversed the decree which had been given earlier and he allowed the children of Israel, when you study those chapters very carefully, Esther 8 and 9, he allowed them to defend themselves against Haman\u2019s wicked plot in Persia to eradicate the Jews, He gave them the right to self-defense.\u00a0 And guess what?\u00a0 They exercised that right; they defended themselves against the onslaught of Haman.\u00a0 The Jews were miraculously spared and in fact there is a whole holiday in Judaism commemorating this event called Purim, which simply means lots; Purim is plural, lots, because Haman cast lots to determine the day when the Jews would be annihilated.\u00a0 And God providentially, through Esther and Mordecai worked in history to such an extent that a decree was reversed allowing the Jews to defend themselves and that is the basis, that is the origin, if you will, of Purim.\n\nSee, this concept of self-defense when you start to look for it in the Bible you\u2019ll start to discover it.\u00a0 Now I know what many of you are thinking: what kind of church is this?\u00a0 What kind of pastor are\u00a0 you?\u00a0 You\u2019re not supposed to talk about guns in church, I mean, Jesus was loving and kind to everybody, He never spoke of swords and guns and self-defense.\u00a0 Let me tell you something, the way I\u2019m talking now a hundred years ago was normal talk.\n\nIn fact, let me introduce you to an individual named Granville Sharpe.\u00a0 Most people have heard the name Granville Sharpe, particularly if you study the Greek language because Granville Sharpe was a Greek scholar.\u00a0 He was a Greek grammarian.\u00a0 In fact, Granville Sharpe invented or discovered a law of language that Greek students all know as the Granville Sharp rule.\u00a0 That rule simply states that when you have one definite article in front of two nouns and those two nouns are joined by a conjunction, like and, then those two nouns are equal.\u00a0 People use the Granville Sharpe rule to defend the deity of Jesus Christ, because some verses using that construction call Jesus both Lord and God.\u00a0 Greek students all know the name Granville Sharpe.\n\nHere\u2019s the part of the equation that most people know very little about.\u00a0 Granville Sharpe was not just a Greek scholar but he was a political activist.\u00a0 In fact, Granville Sharpe, who lived from 1735 to around 1813 worked diligently alongside a man named William Wilberforce.\u00a0 Do you recognize the name William Wilberforce?\u00a0 William Wilberforce was the evangelical Christian in parliament who spoke out against the slave trade.\u00a0 He said it\u2019s immoral and it is unethical for one race to enslave another.\u00a0 William Wilberforce, there\u2019s an entire movie actually made about the life and times of William Wilberforce using his conviction as a Bible believing Christian to eventually outlaw the slave trade in that part of the world.\u00a0 And right there at his side every inch of the was this man, Granville Sharpe.\u00a0 Granville Sharpe was not the kind of guy that just developed grammar laws in his private study; he read the Bible and he applied it to culture.\u00a0 And the two of them, William Wilberforce and Granville Sharpe became the most vocal critics of the slave trade, simply on the basis that such a practice violates the laws and the principles of God.\n\nAnd do you want to know what Granville Sharpe said about private arms.\u00a0 Here\u2019s what he said, a direct quote: \u201cNo Englishman can be truly loyal who opposed the principles of English law whereby the people are required to have arms of defence in peace, for mutual as well as private defence\u2026 The laws of England always required the people to be armed, and not only armed, but to be expert in arms.\u201d\u00a0 [Les Adams, The Second Amendment Primer: A Citizen\u2019s Guidebook to the History, Sources, and Authorities for the Constitutional Guarantee of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms<\/em> (NY: Skyhorse, 2013), 63.]\n\nGranville Sharpe, this Greek scholar who became a political activist said if you really are a true patriot and you love Jesus and you love the Bible you will not only possess private arms but you will become an expert in the use of those private arms.\u00a0 Isn\u2019t it interesting how much of our history has been exorcised and removed.\n\nLet me introduce you to another individual named Joseph Story.\u00a0 The reason I bring up Joseph Story is because we are in a great debate in our society today about the Second Amendment; does the Second Amendment protect the right of the individual to have arms or is it just some sort of nebulous collective right.\u00a0 Joseph Story, just a few facts on him, if you will indulge me: he was a prolific writer in the United States Supreme Court; he actually authored 286 opinions, 269 of those opinions became majority opinions.\u00a0 He was on the Supreme Court as an associate justice for 34 years.\u00a0 He lived from about 1779 to 1845; he was very dominant on the Supreme Court in what we call the Marshall era.\u00a0 Chief Justice John Marshall was our third Chief Justice to the United States Supreme Court.\n\nAnd there was Joseph Story, right alongside John Marshall, shaping the direction of that judicial branch of government.\u00a0\u00a0 And in the process, in 1833, which is not that far removed from our War of Independence and the beginning of our own Constitution, in 1833 he authored what is called an authoritative commentary on the United States Constitution.\u00a0 The United States Constitution created in 1787, the Bill of Rights came into existence around 1789, and along comes Joseph Story to offer a commentary explaining what the Constitution means, similar to a Bible scholar coming alongside the Scripture and writing a commentary explaining the book of Daniel, the book of Esther, the book of Romans.\u00a0 This is what Joseph Story was doing during his tenure, long tenure and productive tenure on the\u00a0 United States Supreme Court.\n\nAnd in the process Joseph Story started to comment on the first Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and notice what he says here about the Second Amendment.\u00a0 It\u2019s very interesting.\u00a0 \u201c\u2026since it,\u201d now what is \u201cit\u201d?\u00a0 \u201cIt\u201d is the Second Amendment.\u00a0 \u201c\u2026since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers<\/u>;\u201d let me actually give you the whole quote, this is what he says, \u201cThe next amendment\u201d and he is working his way through the ten amendments to the United States Constitution, \u201cis: \u2018A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\u201d\u00a0 Joseph Story goes on, actually there\u2019s the quote I was looking for, \u201cThe next amendment is: \u2018A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\u2019\u00a0 The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject\u2026\u201d\u00a0 Look at this next line, \u201cThe right of the citizens<\/u> to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the,\u201d now here\u2019s a word I had a hard time pronouncing it, I didn\u2019t even know its meaning, \u201cthe palladium of the liberties of a republic...\u201d\u00a0 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States<\/em> (Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray, 1833), 3:746-747, sections 1889-1890.\n\nI had to go look up the word palladium; what does that mean?\u00a0 It\u2019s the image of the Goddess Athena on which the city of Troy was believed to depend.\u00a0 Joseph Story said just as the image of Athena was necessary for the survival of the city of Troy in ancient literature and mythology, that\u2019s the Second Amendment.\u00a0 He said the Second Amendment will dictate whether this culture, the American culture, survives.\u00a0 He mentions here \u201cThe right of the citizen to keep and bear arms,\u201d there\u2019s no talk here of a collective right; there\u2019s no talk here of the military having the right to keep and bear arms.\u00a0 He clearly anchored this right in the citizen itself.\u00a0 And doesn\u2019t that make sense.\u00a0 Go through the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution and you\u2019ll see that all of those amendments, including the second, protect the individual.\n\nThe first amendment protects the right of the individual to free speech from possibly being taken away from the government.\u00a0 The fourth amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures from the government.\u00a0 The fifth amendment protects our property from being willfully taken away by the United States government.\u00a0 The sixth amendment protects the right to a fair and impartial trial conducted by who?\u00a0 The government.\u00a0 The eight amendment protects me from cruel and unusual punishment from who?\u00a0 The government.\u00a0 All ten amendments protect the individual from the government.\u00a0 Now if that\u2019s true why would the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, be any different?\n\nHe goes on describing this Second Amendment and he says, \u201c\u2026since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers<\/u>; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them\u2026There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights<\/u>.\u201d\u00a0 [Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States<\/em> (Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray, 1833), 3:746-747, sections 1889-1890.]\n\nWhat are we told today?\u00a0 Well, the Second Amendment is just there to enjoy hunting and things of that nature.\u00a0 May I just say to you that is not why the Second Amendment was given.\u00a0 I don\u2019t have any moral objections of people using weapons to hunt but very clearly what Joseph Story is indicating is the Second Amendment is a protection against runaway government.\u00a0 The Second Amendment is protection against a totalitarian state.\u00a0 In fact, that is the last vestige of defense that a free people have to resist the totalitarian impulses of their own government.\u00a0 There\u2019s nothing here about hunting, there\u2019s nothing here about a state militia, it\u2019s all about the individual having this right.\u00a0 And Joseph Story is very clear that if this right disappears guess what happens to all the other rights?\u00a0 They disappear as well.\u00a0 The First Amendment is not going to do you a lot of good folks, if you don\u2019t have the arms to protect your First Amendment rights.\u00a0 The Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, those aren\u2019t going to do you a lot of good folks if you don\u2019t have the arms to protect those rights.\u00a0 And this is the beginning of America.\n\nHow have most of the people in the world died?\u00a0 Have\u00a0 you ever asked that question.\u00a0 We think that most people in the world have died from natural causes, famines, droughts, tsunamis, earthquakes; the fact of the matter is though most of the people in the world have died through their own governments.\n\nLet me introduce to a scholar by the name of R. J. Rummel, who wrote a book called Death by Government<\/em>.\u00a0 And in this particular book he coins a term for the harm and the murder governments have done to their own people.\u00a0 He calls it democide.\u00a0 This is what he says of democide:\u00a0 \u201cR. J. Rummel, Death by Government<\/em>, calculates democide at two hundred and sixty-two million.\u201d\u00a0 In other words, two hundred and sixty-two million people in human history have died, not through natural causes but have died at the hands of their own state or their own government.\n\nNow how big is two hundred and sixty-two million people.\u00a0 In fact, in this book he says the most deaths that have ever been attributed to a single source is not death through natural causes but death committed by people\u2019s government against the individual.\u00a0\u00a0 Two hundred and sixty-two million people!\u00a0 How big is two hundred and sixty-two million people?\u00a0 Rummel says just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all of the bodies were laid head to toe, of these two hundred and sixty-two people with the average height being about five foot then two hundred and sixty-two million people laid head to toe with the average height being about five foot would circle the earth ten times.\u00a0 It\u2019s a staggering statistic.\n\nAnd so one of the questions I have for anybody that\u2019s running for office is do you support the right to keep and bear arms.\u00a0 I find it a biblical idea; I find it a Constitutional idea and what we\u2019re being told today is gun control works, just ask the experts.\u00a0 Hitler, Castro, Gaddafi, Stalin, Idi Amin, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-<\/strong>Il, what do all of these dictatorships have in common?\u00a0 It doesn\u2019t take rocket science to figure this out.\u00a0 The first order of any dictatorship is to disarm its own citizens.\u00a0 And the argument goes something like this: we need to register where all the weapons are, we\u2019ll use some kind of policy argument, safety, whatever the case may be but once we figure out through data bases where the weapons are through registration then we will move into confiscation.\u00a0 Any dictatorship that arises to power the first order of business is to disarm the people because if you disarm the people they are powerless.\u00a0 You can have your way with them. This is why white southerners sought to disarm the slave black population in America to make them in a state of dependency and helplessness, and yet Jesus, the Bible, the Constitution is calling for the exact opposite.\n\nThis business of the right to keep and bear arms is actually a biblical idea, as I\u2019ve tried to defend it.\u00a0 And what we\u2019re being subjected to today is these areas that are called gun-free zones.\u00a0 If I had my way every time I saw the word gun-free zone I would change the wording and it would say self-defense free zones.\u00a0 Because let me have a little contest with you; can I do that?\u00a0 I\u2019m going to put a sign in front of my house that says I am a gun owner.\u00a0 You put a sign on your house that says you\u2019re not a gun owner. Which one of\u00a0 us do you think are going to be robbed first?\u00a0 The answer to that is easy.\u00a0 The criminals, the sick people of this world are looking for areas where they can target people that cannot fight back.\u00a0 And that\u2019s why one of the greatest\u00a0 bulwarks or defenses against not just criminal behavior but totalitarian government is the right to keep and bear arms.\n\nMr. and Mrs. Candidate, what do you think about this?\u00a0 Or are you instead interested in endless background checks, licensing requirements, perpetually imposed upon law abiding citizens, thereby ultimately paving the way to total gun confiscation.\u00a0 See, these are things we need to be thinking about when we vote.\u00a0 We need to be looking at candidates and we need to be looking at the Bible.\n\nTwo things we talked about today are public expressions in Christianity and the right to keep and bear arms.\u00a0 That ends the discussion on social issues and next week we\u2019ll be looking at foreign affairs issues.\u00a0 Don\u2019t worry, we only have four to cover so that may take a month or so I guess.\u00a0 [laughter]\u00a0 But I hope you\u2019re enjoying this sermon series; I can guarantee this, you\u2019re not hearing this from most churches.\n\nClapping.\n\nLet\u2019s have a word of prayer.\u00a0 Father, we\u2019re grateful for Your truth and Your Word and how it speaks not just on how to get to heaven but it deals with the culture and the times in which we live.\u00a0 Make us people, Father, not loyal to one party or the other or to the left or to the right but loyal to the principles of\u00a0 Your Word and\u00a0 Your truth.\u00a0 Help us to stand out, Father, like lights in this difficult and nebulous and immoral and sometimes amoral time period that we live in.\u00a0 We\u2019ll be careful to give You all the praise and the glory.\u00a0 We ask these things in Jesus name.","series_sermon_number":""},"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t