|
Excerpts
from
Rare Jewel Magazine, Issue 3
October/November 2004
Empowering Christians
to Exercise a Biblical Worldview
Order
the printed issue for the overflowing full contents
of articles, interviews, essays--as well as illustrations,
photos, and cartoons!
SUBSCRIBE
to Rare Jewel Magazine!
Table
of Contents:
ISSUE THEME
In time for the momentous election
of 2004!
Rights and Responsibilities
of Christian Patriots
Welcome to Rare
Jewel Magazine!
How
do I vote?
This is the most important question
that informed voters need to answer before deciding
for whom to
vote. Christian patriots must first try to discern
God's plan for our nation--a priority even more important
than our personal concerns. America is already full
of voters who want to get as much as they can for
themselves; politicians naturally feast upon this
selfish aspect of our sinful natures.
Sad, but true: we citizens have been
"enablers" of candidates who say they will
relieve our personal pain, or promise something from
their ever-burgeoning free-hand-out bags, in order
to earn our vote. Political debate in the United States,
once a noble discipline, has devolved into a battle
of competing Santa Clauses scrambling to convince
constituents of who has the larger bag of better-quality
toys.
Government is not intended to be our
savior nor our provider. The Founding Fathers never
intend such a role, yet our self-centered sinful nature
sure is flattered when a candidate promises to relieve
our burdens and shower us with blessings.
"For where you have envy and
selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every
evil practice." (James 3:16)
There are,
however, issues that scream for our attention... and
our action. Breakdowns in our cultural life are astonishing,
and critical: rampant abortion; sexual immorality;
broken homes; the removal of Christianity from public
life; the establishment of secular humanism as a virtual
national religion; and more. The Bible tells us these
evils are symptoms of a deeper problem, that is, a
worship of self.
Nowhere is the condition of our nation's
heart more exposed than during election season; public
officials, ultimately, are a reflection of ourselves.
Hand-in-hand with national revival,
we must raise up a new generation of public officials.
It begins by changing our expectations of "public
servants." Let us humble ourselves, pray for
forgiveness, re-tool--refine--our attitudes about
why and for
whom we vote,
and dedicate ourselves to preemptively rein in the
over-zealous Santa Claus politicians.
Only when that happens, on a national
scale, will our political leaders reflect such a change.
Rare Jewel Ministries Hits the Road
We are pleased to announce our teaching
and preaching ministry to churches, civic, and cultural
organizations. God wants us all to understand the
truth about our nation's Christian heritage--why we
should, and how we can, restore America to the purpose
God ordained. It is the mission of Rare Jewel Ministries
to spread far and wide these truths, via print, web,
e-mail, radio... and now by personal contacts.
E-mail Truth@RareJewelMinistries.org
(or call 406-463-2343) for more information about
hosting a Rare Jewel Ministries speaking engagement,
or to make a tax-free donation to support this effort.
As always, please let us know if you
have any article ideas, general comments, or suggestions
for how we can continue to help you in our common
efforts to restore our nation's Christian foundation.
Warmly in Christ,
Tim Ewing
Tim@RareJewelMinistries.org
Top of this
Article
Top of this
Page
Telling
The Truth
A Radical Proposal for a "Litmus
Test": Avoid Those Who Practice Falsehood
Column by Tim Ewing
Tim Ewing is the founder and Publisher
of Rare Jewel Magazine. He lives in Power,
MT with his wife and four children. Tim can be reached
at Tim@RareJewelMinistries.org
Revelation
22:14-15 instructs us, "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may
have the right to the tree of life and may go through
the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those
who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the
murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and
practices falsehood." [emphasis added]
These are serious words from our Lord
Jesus Christ in the very last chapter of the Bible.
He wants us to discern between two groups of people:
those who will reign with Him for eternity and those
who will spend eternity separated from God. This verse
is exhilarating -- Oh, the thought of living in Heaven
in the presence of God forever! -- but sobering, too,
is the stark reminder that there will be fellow humans
who, because they reject Christ, literally will spend
eternity in "darkness, where there will be weeping
and gnashing of teeth" (Matt 8:12).
Christ further warns us that practicing
falsehood is dangerous business; He categorizes
it among other sinful that we are tempted to think
of as more serious: occultism; sexual immorality;
murder; idolatry. But, after all, "Thou shalt
not bear false witness" is one of the
Ten Commandments (Ex 20:16). Perhaps practicing
falsehood is something we should pay more attention
to on a personal and national level, for it
is dangerous for individuals and nations.
We must discern
between candidates for all offices who stand for truth
versus those who practice falsehood. Nobody is perfect--"all have sinned
and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23)--yet
we must seek to understand what is at each candidate's
core: Does the candidate generally pursue a lifestyle
(both personal and public) of truth and integrity,
or does the candidate make a habit of twisting the
truth, misrepresenting facts, and deceptively playing
issues from both sides, in order to win votes?
I quickly concede that it is arguable
that all politicians do the latter--the "nature
of the beast" of politics. To the extent this
is true, it behooves us to actively communicate with,
and "train," our leaders to reject such
practices. Even so, informed voters can differentiate
between candidates' established patterns, between
lifestyles and lapses. Pray for guidance, listen to
candidates' speeches -- or, better yet, read the transcripts
(which are usually available on candidates' Websites
or through campaign headquarters). Do not rely on
the sound bites that you hear from the television
media or in read the newspapers!
Our nation's Founding Fathers were very
specific about what is the ultimate source of America's
governing principles and what kind of public officials
we should elect and appoint:
"Providence has given to our
people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty,
as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian
nation, to select and prefer Christians for their
rulers." -- John Jay, appointed by President
George Washington as our first Chief Justice of the
U.S. Supreme Court
"The general principles, on
which the Fathers achieved independence, were the
only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of
young Gentlemen could Unite ... And what were these
general Principles? I answer, the general Principles
of Christianity." Our nation's first Vice
President and second President, John Adams, in an
1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson
"When you become entitled to
exercise the right of voting for public officers let
it be impressed on your mind that God commands you
to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the
fear of God. The preservation of a republican government
depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if
the citizens neglect this duty and place unprincipled
men in office, the government will soon be corrupted;
laws will be made not for the public good so much
as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent
men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public
revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the
rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded."
Noah Webster, Revolutionary War veteran and compiler
of the dictionary that bears his name
The Founders understood the Bible's
teaching that we should be on guard against those
who "suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18) and
have "exchanged the truth of God for a lie"
(Rom 1:25). We are warned in 2 Timothy 4:2-4 that
"the time will come when men will not put up
with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires,
they will gather around them a great number of teachers
to say what their itching ears want to hear. They
will turn their ears away from the truth and turn
aside to myths." We should be wary about imposters
who are "ever learning but never able to acknowledge
the truth...men who oppose the truth" (2 Tim
3:7).
The Bible and our Founding Fathers are
clear that we should be vigilant in our efforts to
maintain the truths of God's Word as the source of
our public policy, and to be diligent to elect and
appoint public officials who will adhere to this standard.
Discerning whether a candidate fundamentally pursues
a lifestyle of truth or practices falsehood is paramount
when we place our votes in the upcoming Presidential
election.
"But select capable men from all
the people--men who fear God, trustworthy men who
hate dishonest gain." Exodus 18:21
Top of this
Article
Top of this
Page
The Upper
Room
Pearls Before Swine
Column by Rick Marschall
The previous issue of Rare Jewel
Magazine featured an article by Pres George W Bush on the subject
of the sanctity of marriage. He closed it with these
statements: "All people deserve to have their
voices heard... American democracy should decide the
future of marriage in America." In a similar
fashion, Vice President Dick Cheney has made comments
about "freedom means being free" in the
context of homosexual conduct, specifically the state's
attitude toward same.
Truth in packaging warning: We at Rare
Jewel Magazine have serious problems (euphemism for revulsion) over
the American culture's elevation of "democracy"
and "freedom" when they become camouflage-terms
for the breakdown of traditional Christian standards,
and for licentiousness. When spoken by friends and
allies, we have particular concern. The Founders were
overwhelmingly disdainful of democracy; and "freedom"
is an amorphous term that has come to mean a freedom
to sin and selfishly offend in our culture.
What do we do--as Christian patriots,
and as publishers? Do we soft-pedal the transgressions
(as we see them) of those with whom we are allied
on so many other issues? Does that serve our core
beliefs; does that serve our readers? As voters, if
we are impressed by, say, the platform and candidate
of the Constitution Party, but fear that breaking
an anti-Kerry bloc would allow the Massachusetts liberal
to sweep into the White House, do we "hold our
noses and vote" for candidates with whom we mostly agree? California conservatives recently had intense
debates within their ranks over whether to boost Arnold
Schwarzenegger: was it acceptable to vote for someone
pro-abortion and liberal on homosexual "marriage"
in order to oust Gray Davis, who was weaker on economic
and other issues dear to conservatives' hearts?
This is a dilemma as old as the concepts
of voting and majority rule. But the new American
culture gives the dilemma a whole new face, and an
aroma of crisis. Surely there were major issues facing
the American public in earlier days--slavery and foreign
interventionism chief among them--but, at our core,
we were one people disputing issues around the edges.
We shared a common heritage, we agreed on basic values,
ours was an organic culture. "My country, right
or wrong," and a shared definition of patriotism,
animated our debates. "Motherhood, the flag,
and apple pie" was not a joke: soldiers in every
conflict, no matter what their American backgrounds,
shared common assumptions about what they defended,
and what sort of future for which they were willing
to sacrifice themselves.
Christian patriots probably are the
largest segment of the population eager to cling to
the Stars and Stripes as a battle standard, and proudly
shed a tear for Old Glory. Having just painted a miniature
portrait of an America that used to be,
however, let me describe a hypothetical American culture
that might come to pass. Would Christian patriots
rethink their fierce loyalties if the American flag
were to come to represent, let's say, the rejection
of traditional Christian values in society; if the
Bible were outlawed in classroom exercises and banned
from public displays; if schools were to teach evolution
and proscribe the mention of Divine Creation; if public
education were to mean instruction about premarital
sex but suspension of students who display the slogan
"Homosexuality is Wrong"; if the courts
were to call vile pornography "free speech protected
by the Constitution" but outlaw public displays
of the Ten Commandments; if Christians continuously
were to be mocked by the entertainment media but reading
of passages from the Bible in public were to become
a crime under "anti-hate" laws.
Who can imagine such a culture? How
many years in the future could this come to pass,
if ever, in America? Is it more absurd to envision
the following?--content of television so offensive
that scarcely a program at any time of day on any
channel in any category is decent, traditional, polite?
--"music" with lyrics featuring everything
from perverted sex to racial hatred to incitements
to suicide and murder, at every place you turn, on
car radios, music videos, stores' loudspeakers? --how
about a "culture of death" that promotes
infanticide, euthanasia, and homosexuality, arguing
that AIDS is a civil right, not a disease, whose elimination
should come through medical miracles and not application
of traditional morality? --or a political society
where the virus of Marxian analysis--cradle-to-grave
governmental paternalism--has reasserted itself, even
in the councils of the Party of Reagan?
Is there any chance that these visions
can come to pass? How far away can this nightmare
become a reality? A year? A decade? Ever, in the land of the free and the home of the brave?
How about... now. Does any reader of
these words deny that we are already "there"
in each item from this checklist of abominations?
Will the time ever come when Christian
patriots see the American flag, and wonder whether
the Pledge means allegiance to an anti-God, Christ-hating,
perversion-affirming, culture of death that actively
attacks everything we believe? God forbid! Will the
time ever come when Christian patriots see the US
Constitution and wonder whether it has been transformed
into a legal enabler for pornographers, censors, Marxists,
Darwinians, and anti-nationalists? God forbid!
x x
x
"Hold our noses and vote."
On a point of personal privilege, I will testify that
I am a former political-science major; I have always
had a love for American history; I went to college
in Washington DC to be close to our civic heartbeat;
I have been a political columnist and editorial cartoonist;
I have written books and articles on America's cultural
and historical heritage. Keep the NFL; I'm happy with
C-SPAN. Politics and public policy are passions of
mine.
Yet for years I didn't vote.
All the repellant social, political,
and cultural situations listed above, of course, I
saw cascading towards us. I saw Christians ceasing
to defend their faith against liberalism and persecution.
I saw patriots acquiescing in the decay of sovereignty.
I saw moguls in entertainment, the media, and fashion--unnamed,
unelected, unaccountable--exert more influence on
our lives than entire houses on Congress. We didn't
vote them in; we can't vote out; what's the use? I
saw America invaded by alien systems, alien people,
alien values, and no levers in a voting booth to register
dissent.
All my life I had heard adults I respected,
at election times, talk about voting for "the
lesser of two evils." So did I, when I got involved
in politics and as a young voter. Then, one, day,
feeling particularly downcast over the drift of affairs--realizing
for the umpteenth time that my vote was inevitably
to be cancelled out by an illiterate pickpocket on
welfare who barely spoke English (these were my cynical
days, but I was learning the implications of democracy,
indeed that most pernicious of systems)--I realized
if I were voting for the "lesser" of two
evils, I was still casting my support for someone,
so to speak and to a degree, whom I considered evil.
I opted out. I would support a candidate,
in a blue moon, whose values I shared or whose integrity
impressed me. Otherwise, politics for me became a
spectator sport. "Why should I vote?" was
my challenge to friends; "It only encourages
the candidates." When challenged by friends with
the classic "You have no right to complain if
you don't vote," I'd answer the non sequitur
with my own challenge: "You complain about judges
who allow abortion; many of those judges were appointed
by Republicans for whom you voted." I didn't
accuse friends of thereby having blood on their own
hands... but I was convinced of the futility of it
all.
We are
losing, clearly. Legislative victories are achieved
in small corners of controversial areas that never
would have been talked about in polite company two
generations ago. We fight for the Ten Commandments
to be kept on courthouse walls--as we should!--when the Commandments themselves are being flouted
by the very judicial branch as a whole, not to mention
by the larger culture. And so forth.
x x
x
I "returned to the fold,"
ultimately feeling embarrassed, even shameful, about
the "sabbatical." Why? Briefly: Old heroes--the
"ghosts" of our history--and contemporary
people of integrity, yelled at my conscience. Reading
the Bible. Being infected by the passion of spiritual
and political activists. Examples like Phyllis Schlafly,
institutions like Rare Jewel Magazine.
Being stirred by the martyrdom of believers around
the world, dying for their faith at the greatest rate
since Christ's day. Reminders of anguished and lonely
patriots like ex-spy Whitaker Chambers who had revelations
about their times, themselves, and their God. Watching
the news, becoming aware that we are in a time of
crisis like none other in our history. Mostly, pride:
the realization that I--we--are letting third-rate
pretenders, atheistic charlatans, and wolves in sheeps'
clothing steal our values, our children, our culture,
our birthright.
We cannot let that happen; we cannot
bear the shame of doing nothing while enemies romp
in the open. We must not merely make individual decisions;
we must adopt a worldview.
One of my favorite stories about Gen
Ulysses S Grant concerns a gathering of soldiers after
dinner, when under the tent on a battlefield, cigars
were passed out and someone said--by way of introducing
a dirty joke--"I see there are no ladies present."
Grant stopped him, saying: "No.
But there are gentlemen present." So it is with our attitude about getting
dusty in the political arena when our culture is at
stake. Some say, "We'll have to look God in the
face some day and answer for our activities."
Some day, assuredly; but in the meantime we have to
look at ourselves in the face every day and answer for our activities.
Do we have the pride to get busy against the outrages?
In this issue we have two articles,
by Paul Mehrens and Rob Tong, articulating the reasons
to shun my erstwhile affection for "rejectionism"
and "isolationism." In our instructive interviews
with D James Kennedy and Phyllis Schlafly we asked
them to address directly whether being "in the
world," and to what extent, conforms to God's
will. Dr Gary Cass's career to this point has been
a template for believers who want--and need--to get
involved. Publisher Tim Ewing, in his book essay,
presents a profile of a modern-day hero of faith whose
prescriptions to act should inspire us all. In a way,
this issue's entire contents speak to involvement
vs inactivity on the part of Christian patriots.
Just as there is a "scarlet thread
of redemption," we must all realize that we are
a part of a vast cultural, organic body. The mystical
body of Christ, yes, but also consider brothers and
sisters who devoted their lives, their fortunes, their
sacred honor--when "sacred honor" actually
meant something to society--so that we could be where
we are now. We are indebted to martyrs for the faith
and dreams of liberty, to soldiers in Valley Forge,
to statesmen who made selfless courageous decisions,
all very much aware of generations yet unborn. Cannot
we, then, be aware of generations who went before, and honor them?
Pray. Vote. Pray.
Top of this
Article
Top of this
Page
Exclusive
Interview with Dr D James Kennedy (Excerpts)
"To Impede the Corruption And
Sustain the Society"
RJM: It seems now, like never before,
that the culture in America is making war on Christians.
Do you think that "pluralism" is working
any more? How can we reassert ourselves in a culture
like this? Are you optimistic that we can?
DR KENNEDY: Well, there's no doubt we
are involved in what is often called a culture war,
and I think that at its base, the culture war is a
spiritual war. And ultimately that war is between
Christ and Satan: Christ and His followers; Satan
and his followers on the other side. And I believe
that it is a war that Christians need to take very,
very seriously, and we have been negligent for the
past century.
We have been negligent in not obeying
the Great Commission, and being actively engaged in
winning people to Jesus Christ. Consequently, a large
number of people today in America are not real Christians,
though about 85 per cent profess to be at least nominal
Christians. The culture has become increasingly non-Christian
and, unfortunately, ever more anti-Christian, so that
Christianity has almost come to be seen some sort
of alien-enemy in America.
This is very dangerous. Its repercussions
could be devastating to our whole way of life in America.
Therefore, it is important that, first of all, in
my opinion, that Christians become obedient to the
Great Commission--all of us being involved in sharing
the Gospel with people and winning people to Christ.
And secondly, that Christians be obedient to obeying
the Cultural Mandate: Christ said we are to render
unto God the things that are God's and unto Caesar
the things that are Caesar's. Well, we actually haven't
been doing either one of those very well...and we've
been doing the second worse than the first, in my
opinion.
So we not only need to obey the Great
Commission, we need also be involved in the culture
and render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.
This means at the very least we that we would be involved
in getting registered and voting. And millions of
Christians have done neither of those in recent years...
The Bible says that we are to be both
salt and light. We bring the light of the Gospel,
and then we bring the teachings of Christ for every
aspect of culture to impede the corruption and to
sustain the society in a Godly fashion.
RJM: Can you describe for our readers
your battle plan? Not just the issues you focus on,
but deciding between strategies and tactics?
DR KENNEDY: We try to understand what
the most crucial issues facing our society are from
a Christian and Biblical perspective. Then we try
to see what we can do to help bring about that Christian
perspective--bringing that also to the people in power
in our country who make the decisions. And it is decisions,
unfortunately--many of them made by courts--that have
so negatively impacted our country. But I believe
that that, too, can be changed.
If 60 per cent of the Senate were conservative
Christians, the courts would change rather quickly.
And that is, I think, a very encouraging thing--Christians
can impact and change these elections if we get the
people registered and get them to vote...
RJM: Which is the bigger challenge to
Christian America: culture or politics?
DR KENNEDY: Well, I think that there
are an number of very powerful forces in our country
that, unfortunately, for the last 40 or 50 years have
all been going in the liberal, anti-Biblical, anti-moral,
anti-Christian direction, for the most part; not entirely,
of course. And they would be our courts--especially
our Supreme Court--and our judiciary in general; and
our media.
RJM: We can change politics and we can
vote, and as the electoral dominoes fall our way,
the courts can be changed. But we cannot change, we
cannot vote out, studio heads, sitcom writers, or
music producers who pollute the culture.
DR KENNEDY: Well, actually, I've given
that a lot of thought over the years. We can. You
don't do it in a voting booth, you do it at a ticket
counter.
It all comes back to the Great Commission,
that the society increasingly demonstrates its displeasure
with these kinds of pictures by not buying tickets
to them. And if, you know, a studio continues to make
the kind of trash that most have been making lately,
the income drops off precipitously, and we will reach
the heads of those studios through the board of directors
that are losing money.
RJM: I want to ask you about EE, your
media ministry, the Center for Reclaiming America,
the Center for Christian Statesmanship: it must be
awesome and humbling to you as well as energizing,
at this point in your career as an ambassador for
Christ--do you ever pause and look at the effect that
you and your ministry have had on the world, on saved
and unsaved people as well? Can you give a midcourse
assessment?
DR KENNEDY: Well, I have text for that:
"This is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous
in our eyes"... You know, I started out to teach
one person how to lead someone else to Christ. I didn't
expect that they in turn would be leading thousands
of people, many thousands of people, to Christ in
Indonesia, and China, and other places like that around
the world. So I really rejoice in that; 4,200,000
this year. Again, multiplication is the key to reaching the world.
RJM: That's a great principle. Thank
you very much for this time, Dr Kennedy. God bless
you for all the work you've done.
DR KENNEDY: Well, thank you, sir, for
the work you're doing through your magazine, which
I have heard good reports about! (read
the complete article)
Top of this
Article
Top of this
Page
Exclusive
Interview with Phyllis Schlafly (Excerpts)
"A Woman Had To Do It"
RJM: It must be a source of satisfaction
when you look back and see how many of your disciples
and activists on the landscape who are doing what
they're doing in large part because of your work,
your example, your inspiration.
PS: Well, every week I meet somebody
who says, "I came into the conservative movement
passing out A Choice, Not an Echo [the campaign biography of Republican Presidential
candidate Barry Goldwater] in 1964."
RJM: As a leader with a great track
record of identifying causes, building coalitions,
and navigating the waters of public debate, do you
have advice for our readers about how to strategize
a battle worth fighting? Let's say in the homosexual
marriage debate: Do you favor DOMA or the Federal
Marriage Amendment [FMA]--how do you make judgments
on which way to proceed?
PS: Well, I think we can walk and chew
gum at the same time... what I mean is that I favor
all methods
to protect the institution of marriage. This is a
fundamental issue of our time, and we should do everything,
and all at once, in all varieties.
RJM: Will Roe v. Wade
be overturned?
PS: Roe's going to be overturned someday,
I don't know when, but I'm sure it will be. It's such
a bad decision, and it has no grounding in American
Constitutional law, and it must be overturned sometime.
But I don't know when.
RJM: Christian patriots are developing,
from many sources, a leadership pool, isn't that right?
PS: And it hasn't been enough to change
minds and hearts; it was political problems that needed
to be dealt with. Now we find that we've developed
a lot of ways of electing people who commit to be
pro-life, who go out and defeat people who are pro-abortion.
But it took years to get that into place. When Roe
v. Wade was passed,
the polls showed that it was not reflecting what the
American people wanted. The majority of American people
thought abortion was wrong, and were absolutely shocked
with idea of legalizing it. So it required a political
movement immediately. That movement, although it is
now quite large and effective, just took them years
to get going.
RJM: There's
a casting call for our readers! What advice can you
give to Christian patriots when they step into the
voting booth--perhaps focusing on individual candidates
and single issues? The litmus test has a place, right?
PS: Well, I think each of us has to
make up our minds. What are the issues that are important
to you? Abortion is a good litmus test. If you don't
believe in safeguarding human life, chances are you're
going to be wrong on a lot of other things. And I
think [that sort of litmus test] is a pretty good
guide; those who are pro-life are right on most other
issues that we care about.
The marriage issue is certainly an issue
where you make up your mind what's important to you,
and then you make your decisions. And it's not all
that difficult to find out what members of Congress
are for or against. And decide that way.
I think it's terribly important that
you do decide and that you do get in there and vote
in this election. All the indications are that it's
going to be very close. Now, if it's very close, this
causes a great deal of challenges. And the Democrats
have got a battery of lawyers ready to challenge anything
that's close. It's terribly important that our candidate
have a significant victory. (read
the complete article)
Top of this
Article
Top of this
Page
An Exclusive
Interview with Dr Gary Cass, Executive Director of
the Center for Reclaiming America (Excerpts)
"A Matter of Stewardship and
Faithfulness"
RJM: Is America a Christian nation?
GC: It was founded upon a Christian
vision. That's why the Pilgrims came, that's why the
Puritans came. Candidly, I think we are living on
the borrowed baggage of Puritanism that we don't even
affirm anymore, but that brings blessing to us because
they were Biblical. But because of what we have become,
we have historical amnesia. We act as if this country
were not founded by Pilgrims and Puritans. In fact,
many people are embarrassed by that [heritage]. And
they don't understand that we have enjoyed the great
benefits of liberty and freedom. We are as a culture
unwilling to affirm that it was good theology that
gave us America.
RJM: Have you ever had trouble talking
politics from the pulpit? Do you cite Biblical principles
or passages when you encourage believers to get active
in the civic arena?
GC: Candidly, we have to account for
our lives before the Lord and we've got to be able
to understand His word and walk in it. And what we're
doing is absolutely nothing new at all. All we've
done is rediscovered the great Puritan vision of America.
The Puritans understood what the scriptures said--that
God is not indifferent to public policy; that He cares,
not just for the individual's soul nor just for a
particular family or church, but that He has the whole
world in His care. It's when we obey His precepts,
and honor His word, that we will be blessed--and it's
neglect of them and violation of His laws that brings
heartache and judgment upon us.
It's not that hard to conceive of, except
that, I believe that there have been two big hindrances:
Number one, the reaction to liberalism. In the late
part of the 1800s, the early part of the 1900s, there
was this huge emphasis on Pietism, individuals' salvation
in reaction to the liberalism of the German "higher
critics" who had essentially eviscerated much
of the church, reducing it to social Gospel organizations.
And so they denied individual redemption, and said
that all we needed to do was work on making the institutions
of life a little bit more just, and therefore that
would be the Christian Cause... although, I don't
know how they could justify anything once they've
denied the authority of Scripture. But there was a
reaction against all that [social emphasis], and the
reaction was towards Pietism.
The second hindrance, candidly--I think
there were massive doses of bad eschatology. And because
of the overemphasis on the imminent return of Christ,
then people essentially minimized the value of Christian
citizenship here on earth. Therefore, you know--we
knew all the clichs--is, "Well, it's all going
to burn." In other words, everything on this
life is transient; implicit in that is that it's all
going to burn soon, so you don't have any time to
do anything except that which is eternal, which is
evangelism. Therefore, forget about trying to redeem
a culture.
RJM: In your incarnation as a Christian
activist, did you have concerns about our cultural
crisis that led you to the church, or did faith lead
to activism?
GC: People generally don't get involved
in something until they see how it's going to impact
them personally in a very direct way. In my case,
I was a pastor, and one day I felt constrained in
my conscience. I thought, "If I'm going to be
minister in the community, I need to be on the local
school board."
Dr. D James Kennedy understands this
is not going to be won in Washington D.C. The culture
war has to be fought in every community in America.
And it's the people of God who have to get involved.
And so he was encouraged by our grassroots ability
to organize, get people elected, get control of school
boards, city councils, and those sorts of things.
And that's what I'm being brought here to the Center
For Reclaiming America, Dr Kennedy's organization,
to help make happen in other communities.
RJM: What is the mission and the goals
of the Center for Reclaiming America?
GC: Well, I can give you the mission
as defined by Dr. Kennedy very clearly: We are basically
called to do two things. We are to inform, equip,
motivate, and support Christians. Those four verbs.
Inform, equip, motivate, and
support Christians as they endeavor to implement the Biblical
values in a culture. Implement the Biblical
values on which this nation was founded
is the full wording. We have five areas that Dr. Kennedy
has called us to work on making a difference. The
five areas are abortion; the homosexual family issues;
religious liberties; pornography; and creation and
evolution.
One of the problems that we're seeing
in the pro-family movement is that we haven't paid
the price of investment in strategy. We've all become
very proficient in what I call being the Christian
Fire Department, responding to the fires that the
liberals are starting. But now we want to go in a
more proactive way and get our agenda happening on
our own terms.
But that means investing in strategy.
And so my goal is by the end of about three years
to have five full-time strategists: one person whose
whole job is to work on strategies, building networks,
cooperative networks among all the pro-family groups,
serving them and helping them in strategy. We have
a lot of wonderful success stories on the statewide
level. People are doing great work and we're going
to try to champion them and help them. And if there
are ways that what they're doing can be applied nationally,
then we're going to try to help them to be able to
do that. We're going to build affiliate groups around
the nation.
We're going to start by trying to identify
activists in every Congressional district in America,
to begin with. We hope, by next year, to have 435
bona fide Christian
activists who will be leaders in their Congressional
districts. And then we're going to build infrastructure
under them, so that they can, you know, not only start
influencing Washington D.C. with direct lobbying efforts
from that Congressional district, but then also build
a team within that Congressional district that will
help raise up candidates, equip Christian activists
to run for office, and to be effective in their own
locality, because it starts there.
And then there's networking, for instance
on national issues. Like last July, in cooperation
with other pro-family organizations, we were able
to turn in 3.5 million petitions to the Congress on
the Federal Marriage Amendment [FMA], as well as in
an unprecedented way, we melted down their switchboard
for three days. That's never happened.
RJM: Some Christians and conservatives
recall the Goldwater campaign [for the presidency
in 1964], where ideologues knew they likely were going
to crash and burn, but also reckoned--correctly--that
the "movement" could transform a political
party for generations to come. Is it wise sometimes
to take a "hit" in order to purify the core...
or to look at a ballot, sometimes, and say "none
of the above"?
GC: I understand the sentiment and the
frustration. I've been there, where I just wanted
to throw up my hands and say, "We're almost taken
for granted on the right as the Blacks are on the
left," and "We don't have anywhere else
to go," you know. Do I join the Constitution
Party and be pure and right on the issues?
My advice would be: We cannot disengage. My biggest concern is not about Bush getting re-elected,
per se. If
you think about it, the Republicans have won the White
House, the Senate, the House--the Republicans have
majorities. But where we're getting hammered is in
the courts.
To think that we might have the most liberal Senator in America bringing forward judicial
appointments, means that if Kerry wins I'm not going
to give up, I'm not going to go home!
Being involved in the culture is not
a win/lose proposition. It's a matter of stewardship
and faithfulness. Taking our marbles and going home
would be a complete abdication of our responsibilities.
So we must stay engaged. (read
the complete article)
Top of this
Article
Top of this
Page
The 3
Top Issues in the Campaign
How Do I Pick the Right Candidate?
by Rev. Rob Schenck
Rev Rob Schenck, the "Missionary
to Capitol Hill, is co-founder of Faith and Action
(www.faithandaction.org)
The Sanctity of Life, The Sanctity of Marriage, and the Public Acknowledgement
of God in Our National Life.
The Sanctity of Life
reflects God's regard for every human person, from
conception until natural death. It also explains the
listing of the Right to Life as first among those granted to us by our Creator and
enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas
Jefferson considered his arguments and deftly chose
his words. The Right to Life, listed before any others,
was no doubt deliberate: How can anyone enjoy any
other rights if they don't first enjoy the Right to
Life?
The Sanctity of Marriage
reflects God's moral mandate that it is a "man"
who shall leave "his father and his mother"
and cling to "his wife"--masculine and feminine
terms indicating the complementary dynamic of the
marital relationship. It also reflects the clear,
unambiguous, moral instruction in Holy Scripture prohibiting
a man from "lying" with a man, or a woman
"lying" with a woman. These distortions
are called "abominations,' one of the strongest
denunciations in any language.
The Public Acknowledgment of God
in our National Life is the concept of the Founders that acknowledged governmental
accountability to a higher moral authority than itself.
The King of England had arrogated to himself divine
authority, but our Founders declared ["We are
endowed by our Creator... with rights"] that
even the highest earthly potentates are morally accountable
to an Almighty God. Once this concept is removed from
a nation's conscience, human authorities become the
be-all and end-all of right and wrong. Objective standards
no longer apply; instead, they are replaced by the
whim and fancy of man. So-called "purely secular
states" like the former Soviet Union, the People's
Republic of China and Castro's Cuba have abysmal track
records of human rights, because they recognize no
transcendent authority to whom they are accountable.
Compare the positions of the candidates
to the things that matter most to you. If they are,
as I suggest, the big three--Sanctity of Life;
Sanctity of Marriage; and the Public Acknowledgement of God in
our National Life--take
a look at the candidates' statements, their records,
and their parties' positions on these three key issues.
Ask yourself, "Which candidate is most likely
to work for policies and practices that will promote
and advance my paramount moral principles?"
The answer should be clear. (read
the complete article)
Top of this
Article
Top of this
Page
Candidates
and Their Political Worldviews
How the Candidates' Faith Informs
Their Politics
by Michael J. Reitz
Michael J. Reitz is an attorney and
legal analyst for a free-market public policy organization
in Olympia, Washington.
In a recent Gallup poll, 64 per cent
of voters cite faith as a factor in their decisions
for whom to vote in the upcoming presidential election.
Both George W. Bush and John F. Kerry claim to be
men of faith, yet there are major differences in how
each man's personal faith affects his politics.
As Christian patriots we want our politicians
to be committed individuals--men and women who hold
deep beliefs and act accordingly, in a manner consistent
with their private faiths, as we ourselves try to
do.
On the other hand, we must recognize
the American Dilemma: we ask public servants to legislate
and moralize in a free society comprised of individuals
with free wills. Instinctively we quickly would reject
any governmental move to institutionalize a faith
that is not our own; and we are suspect of a politician's
use of religion to manipulate our personal lives.
How do we resolve this dichotomy?
In the current campaign the American
people have been provided with radically polarized
perspectives on how (if at all) politicians should
integrate their faith with their politics. John Kerry
argues that his ability to disengage his faith from
his political views is a positive strength, while
George Bush's view of a God-ordered society is acknowledged
to be incorporated in his political decisions. Ultimately,
the American people will decide whether our leader
will be one who talks of faith, or one who acts it
out. (read
the complete article)
Top of this
Article
Top of this
Page
Why Christians
Should Not Shun The World
The Ostrich Effect
by Rob Tong
Rob Tong is the Moody Church liaison
to CareFirst Pregnancy Centers.
The most common perception of ostriches
is that they stick their heads in the sand when danger
approaches. Apparently, the ostriches think that if
they can get low to the ground and "hide,"
then danger will pass them by. Whether this belief
is under the category of a rural legend or not, it
nevertheless has a practical application in the world.
Consider what is happening in society
today. The ban on partial-birth abortions has been
overturned. Same-sex marriages were granted in Massachusetts,
and the Federal Marriage Amendment seems to be on
its deathbed. Homosexual organizations are collaborating
with public schools to integrate homosexual-friendly
curriculum in classes. Groups now sell T-shirts publicizing
that the wearer had an abortion. Movies are so bold
that one recent mainstream film is best known for
a graphically explicit sexual act, with more such
films on the horizon. Appeals for embryonic stem cell
research are getting louder, and more respectable,
as are the cries to attack anything even remotely
resembling an association between church and state.
And when Christian patriots speak against
the darkness, we are labeled "hateful,"
"intolerant," "ignorant," or (in
the case of speaking against homosexuality) "homophobes."
It's enough to tell the ostrich to move
over and make room for us.
In support of head-burying, Christians
use the oft-cited expression "we are in the world,
not of the world."
Unfortunately, it is also an oft-misunderstood
expression.
Not being "of the world" hardly
equates with isolationism. Instead, this refers to
not being like the world.
Christians should be encouraged to be
mayors, governors, senators and presidents; to be
screenwriters, producers and editors; to be teachers,
principals, and administrators. When we aren't, unbelievers
gladly fill the void. And they will do so with their
own agenda in mind; note the recent boldness of homosexual
legislators and media celebrities.
If we stick our heads in sand, don't
be surprised if society, with its own agenda in mind,
decides to build an ostrich farm around us in preparation
for the equivalent of turning us into food and leather
products. (read
the complete article)
Top of this
Article
Top of this
Page
A Worldview
That Includes Political Involvement
Disillusionment and Duty
by Nathan Paul Mehrens, Esq
Nathan P Mehrens practices law, and
is General Council to conservative watchdog organization,
in the Washington DC area.
"When the righteous are in authority,
the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth
rule, the people mourn." Proverbs 29:2
(KJV)
The dust will settle on the 2004 presidential
campaign that seemed to subsist on pure bile, overly
exuberant rhetoric, and overheated hyperbole. Through
it all, it became easy to become disillusioned, to
drift into apathy. There is such a thing as sensory
overload.
Made uncomfortable by the heat of the
election season, how should Christians properly respond?
Should we get involved and work the process, or should
we shun it altogether and come out of hiding the day
after the election?
On the surface, many Christians could
list seemingly good reasons why they are not--or should
not be--politically active. Many feel that the system
has become corrupted to the point where a Christian's
involvement is futile. Others feel that involvement
with such a corrupt system corrupts the very morals
of the individual. Some believers think the End Times
are nigh, and Christians would best spend their time
in other pursuits.
However, most of these reasons evaporate
upon inspection.
We must recognize that there have been
times when Christians have been betrayed, taken for
granted, and cynically used. Even these facts should
not keep us from activity in politics... Further,
while it is important for every elected official to
be responsive to the needs and concerns of their constituents,
our duty is not conditioned upon fulfillment of these
needs and concerns. Rather, our duty transcends any
response or lack thereof from elected officials.
In politics, just as in life, there
will be times when our expectations are not fulfilled.
There will be times when we feel betrayed--even when
we are betrayed.
There will be times when we are utterly disheartened
by failure. In every other area of life, an unfulfilled
expectation, a betrayal, or failure does not relieve
us of duty; just the opposite. In all earthly institutions
one can find flaws. For instance, no one can honestly
say that they attend the perfect church; no one can
honestly claim that they have the perfect job; and
few can claim that they have the perfect marriage.
Yet in each case our duty is to be faithful--we have
the duty to be faithful not only when it is convenient,
not only when it is comfortable, but faithful in all
circumstances.
And, being faithful, we will remain
the "light of the world" set on a hill for
all to see. Be faithful before and after 2004's state
and national elections, and on a continual basis,
whether during election cycles or not. Prayerfully
consider options, investigate positions, learn about
the candidates, then vote. (read
the complete article)
Top of this
Article
Top of this
Page
The Marriage
Protection Act (H.R.3313)
"Jurisdiction-Limiting"
Legislation That Will Change Politics
by Michael Schwartz
Michael Schwartz is Vice President
for Government Relations of Concerned Women for America.
The Marriage Protection Act is an insurance
policy that will protect the Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA) from reckless federal judges who exceed their
authority. It invokes procedures spelled out in the
Constitution to withdraw from the federal courts jurisdiction
over cases that might arise under DOMA. The Marriage
Protection Act, sponsored by Rep. John Hostettler
(R-IN), passed the House 233-194 on July 22, 2004,
and is now before the Senate.
What is the purpose of the Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA)?
The federal Defense of Marriage Act,
enacted in 1996, does two things. First, it defines
marriage "for all purposes of federal law"
as the union of one man and one woman. Second, it
protects states, under the Constitution's "full
faith and credit" clause, from being forced to
recognize as a marriage any "union" other
than that of one man and one woman. (This presumes
that one or more states would legalize phony "marriages.")
What does the Marriage Protection
Act do?
It prevents federal courts from hearing
any case challenging the right of Congress to prescribe
that the "full faith and credit" clause
may not be used to force a state to recognize a pseudo-marriage
performed in another state.
So, what would happen to these cases?
Cases that arise under the "full
faith and credit" clause will be decided in state
courts, which is exactly what Congress intended under
DOMA. Again, even a bad court decision would have
limited impact and could not set a precedent that
would redefine marriage for the whole country.
What impact does the Marriage Protection
Act have upon state matters?
It does not affect the states at all
(nor does DOMA), so it will have no effect on challenges
to state marriage laws currently in progress in Massachusetts
(Goodridge v. Department of Public Health), New Jersey (Lewis v. Harris) and Indiana (Morrison v. Sadler). But even if one of those cases should result in the
establishment of same-sex unions, the Marriage Protection
Act would guarantee that this tragic decision could
not be exported to other states via the federal courts.
How does the Marriage Protection
Act compare to a Federal Marriage Amendment?
A constitutional amendment would probably
be required to prevent a state from redefining marriage.
Passing a constitutional amendment, however, requires
two-thirds "supermajorities" in the House
and the Senate, plus ratification by three-fourths
of the states. The Marriage Protection Act requires
only "simple" majorities [50 per cent +]
in both Houses of Congress, plus a presidential signature.
Amending the Constitution is a long-term process,
but the Marriage Protection Act can provide immediate
protection against the most imminent threat to the
definition of marriage--judicial overreach. (read
the complete article)
Top of this
Article
Top of this
Page
The "Religious
Test" and Its Role In Choosing Candidates for
Public Office
by Tim Ewing
"No religious Test shall ever
be required as a Qualification to any Office or public
Trust under the United States."
--Article VI, Section 3, United States
Constitution
How do we reconcile this proscription
in the Constitution with contrary sentiments expressed
by Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution?
For instance, America's first Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, John Jay, said, "Providence has
given to our people the choice of their rulers, and
it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest
of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians
for their rulers."
Before unpacking the Framers' original
intent concerning the Religious Test clause, we must
first understand the second (of only two) references
to "religion" in the Constitution. The First
Amendment declares that "Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Extensive notes and records, official
and informal, have survived from the deliberations
of the Constitutional Convention. They reveal the
Framers' intention that the First Amendment prevent
the establishment of a single Christian denomination
as a national religion. Their intention was not to restrain the influence of Christianity in public
policy or the choosing of public officers.
There never was a hint of the idea--prevalent
today in the courts--that Christianity should be separate
from public institutions. Neither the First Amendment
nor any other part of the Constitution advocates such
an attack on Christianity. On the contrary, Fisher
Ames, author of the final language of the First Amendment
noted that the Bible "should be the principal
text in our schools."
Thus, the correct interpretation of the First Amendment is that it was meant only to
prevent the establishment of a single Christian denomination
as a national religion; and the correct jurisdiction for the First Amendment is that it limits only the Federal Government
from doing so (while allowing the States).
The Founding Fathers not only allowed
for, but expected, that "We the People"
would determine the worthiness of our candidates for
public office by whether or not they would govern
under the authority of Biblical Christian guidelines.
"...In this age there can be no
substitute for Christianity; that, in its general
principles, is the great conservative element on which
we must rely for the purity and permanence of free
institutions. That was the religion of the founders
of the republic, and they expected it to remain the
religion of their descendents." (U.S. House Judiciary
Committee, 1854)
Why did the Founders evince such a fervent
commitment to building our nation upon Christian principles,
that it be governed by Christian leaders who adhere
to such principles both personally and professionally?
One answer is found in their understanding that law,
and most religions, attempt only to control acts.
Christianity, on the other hand, addresses the internal
problems of mankind's heart that give rise to unlawful
acts and anti-social problems.
The Founders understood that a free
society can only survive when grounded upon an unchanging
moral ethic; otherwise freedom unchecked would become
the very evil that would destroy its own culture and
government.
Of all the possible standards for morality,
the Founders chose Biblical Christian principles,
the essence of their Great Experiment...not only a
government established to preserve freedom, but to
preserve freedom protected by Christian principles
for law and public policy.
Clearly, the Framers of the Constitution
and the Founders of this nation strongly desired that
a Christian worldview inform the citizens of the United
States. Where are their spiritual and civic descendents
today? (read
the complete article)
Top of this
Article
Top of this
Page
Curbing
the Courts
The Hottest Issue on the Political
Horizon
by Virginia C. Armstrong, Ph.D.
Dr. Armstrong is the president of
the Blackstone Institute and National Chairman of
Eagle Forum's Court Watch. She writes and speaks widely
on the Constitution, jurisprudence, and Christian
apologetics.
"...a lawless, rogue institution
capable of the most monstrous of injustices in the
name of law, with a smugness and arrogance worthy
of the worst totalitarian dictatorships of all time."
This view of the U. S. Supreme Court,
expressed by contemporary legal scholar Michael S.
Paulsen, is spreading among Americans who hold a high
view of the Constitution and its Judeo-Christian foundations.
At the opposite pole in America's Culture War are
the nation's judicial elite and their off-the-court
allies who extol the role now played by federal judges.
Author and professor Arthur S. Miller
is among the admirers of the recent state of judicial
affairs: "The [Justices of the Supreme Court
function] as a de facto
Council of Elders [and] may be likened to the oracles
of ancient Greece.... The Constitution is a theological
document ... and the Justices are the High Priests
who keep it current with each generation of Americans."
Who is right? A thorough, objective,
scholarly analysis of the evidence reveals that Paulsen's
position is correct. The Supremes and their lower
court minions must be dethroned; and the 2004 elections
are an essential step in this process. Truly, "curbing
the courts" is "the hottest issue of the 2004 elections."
Perhaps the greatest barrier to curbing
the courts is the widespread assumption that, as institutions,
courts should not be curbed nor even examined regarding the rightness
or wrongness of their actions...
How can it be that in a nation whose
Constitution still begins with the words "We,
the People," that we have an effective situation
where the people and their elected representatives
are often virtually expelled from policy-making/legislating
processes?
The answer is that the courts have declined
to show self-restraint, instead arrogantly appropriating
jurisdiction which they have neither the authority
nor the ability to exercise...
We must
make... the encouragement of Congressional court-curbing
a central election issue, now and in the future. Write
to Congressmen, surf the Web. Pray. Be informed.
We find in the Scriptures (Esther 4:14)
our motivation for reclaiming our courts, our Constitution,
and our culture: "Who knows but that we
are called to the kingdom for just such a time as
this?" (read
the complete article)
Top of this
Article
Top of this
Page
Do's,
Don'ts, and Lessons Learned
A Case Study of Christian Involvement
by Linda Holloway
Linda Holloway is the Education Specialist
for Concerned Women for America-Kansas, and an educator who
taught in public schools for 20 years and currently
the Director of Grace Christian Academy in Shawnee,
KS. She was elected to the Kansas State
Board of Education, serving as Chair in 1999. She
is a Republican Precinct Committeewoman.
A clash of worldviews competes for the
hearts and minds of our nation as we face another
contentious Presidential election. Razor-thin elections,
in recent headlines and polls, should remind Christian
activists that important causes can be won or lost
by a few votes. "Involvement" is crucial.
In my home state of Kansas the battle
over the sanctity of marriage, and enshrining it in
legislation, stirred Christians across the state to
pray and take action. Our battle ultimately was lost
in the Legislature, but it was a battle worth fighting
and one that continues. The story of its waging, its
ups and downs, strategies and tactics, will be instructive
to Rare Jewel Magazine
readers, for these are the types of challenges we
must take up on our home turfs, and we must learn
from each others' successes and setbacks.
Action steps were taken in Kansas this
summer, and they are actions applicable in other states
where other issues are at stake. As always, prayer
should be the foundation of every plan of action.
Christians in Kansas who rarely paid
attention to politics finally got involved this campaign
season. Many churches provided Voter Registration
opportunities. Kansas primaries are held in August,
and conservatives increased their numbers. In my county,
which has almost 800 precinct positions, more than
600 conservatives were recruited; approximately 400
were recruited by the other side. People who faithfully
worked to recruit candidates for years said they have
never seen such motivation for people to run for office.
The conservatives took back my county Republican Party.
Candidates emerged to run against those legislators
who opposed the Marriage Amendment (and the three
senators who orchestrated the original tactical defeat
in the Senate chose not to seek re-election).
Concerned Women for America-Kansas reports
an increase in prayer chapters. Other people got involved
with activist organizations like Kansans for Life.
It appears that the sleeping church is awake.
Lessons learned in Kansas: never relax
and assume victory; get educated and vote in every
election--especially primaries; never quit trying
to make a difference.
Being politically involved takes time
and effort. You already choose how to spend your time
and how much effort to devote to projects. Ask God
what to do; then just do it. (read
the complete article)
Top of this
Article
Top of this
Page
A
Checklist for Activists
An Action Agenda With a Place, a
Job, an Activity For Impacting the Culture!
- Prayer must be the foundation for
action. Pray for our nation and our leaders, even
those leaders you do not like. Paul lived in an
evil day, and he reminds us "...our struggle
is not against flesh and blood, but against the
rulers, against the authorities, against the spiritual
forces of evil in the heavenly realm."
(Eph. 6:12, NIV)
- Register to vote, and vote in every
election. If you turned 18, changed your name, or
moved since the last election, register. If you've
never registered to vote, register. Many states
require you to register as Republican or Democrat
in order to vote in the primary election. Check
with your county election office about your state's
laws. Primaries often determine the election, and
voter turnout can be low. Every vote
is significant.
- Work for a candidate whose platform
most closely fits with your worldview. To find out
your candidate's contact information, call your
local election office, the candidate's party headquarters,
or look in the phone book. Hopeful candidates do
want to be contacted, sometimes even at home. If
you could give one hour, offer to help with a mailing,
which includes putting labels on mailer pieces and
stuffing envelopes. Put your candidate's sign in
your yard and find five others who will do the same.
Talk to five people about your candidate, encouraging
them to vote for him/her. Call those five on voting
day to remind them to vote. Take a few minutes to
write a check to a campaign or two. Expenses for
printing, signs, stamps, etc., add up.
- If you have more hours to give a
candidate, invite 10-20 friends to your home for
a coffee to meet him/her. Walk in a parade with
your candidate. Volunteer for a literature drop.
This activity requires you to walk two or three
streets and leave printed information at known voters'
homes. Campaigns have other jobs that need to be
done, and one is likely to appeal to you.
- Run for office yourself. God will
equip whom He leads. Precinct committee leaders
exert great influence on their parties--foundation
stones determining which worldview will be found
in state and national platforms. These positions
do not require much campaigning or a lot of time
if you win.
- Are you passionate about an issue
you want to see changed? Contact the local or state
chapter of an organization that is dedicated to
your cause. It will inform you about candidates
and issues. Perhaps you could fill needs the organization
has, e.g., answering the phone a few hours a week,
helping with a mailing, or even cleaning the facility.
- Communicate with elected officials.
Letters, e-mails, and phone calls are all effective,
but phone calls tend to carry the most weight. Let
your representative know your view on an issue or
bill. See them in person if possible. Encourage
them when they take a stand you appreciate, whether
they win or not. Thank your opponents when they
vote correctly!
U.S. House of Representatives: http://www.house.gov
- Speak out on cultural issues. Thousands
of people were outraged and spoke out when a rock
star exposed her breast during the Super Bowl halftime.
They contacted the Federal Commission on Communication
as well as their US senators and representatives.
Quick, clear public action caused government leaders
to scramble to change policies and to dramatically
increase fines. Action produced action; officials
cited the public's outrage.
- It is important to take time to go
to your state capitol to talk with your elected
representatives and to testify at public hearings.
- Write a letter about an issue to
the editor of your local paper. Make your case logical
and coherent. Passion, even anger, is a great motivator,
but edit your letter for clarity, spelling, grammar,
and appropriate language. (Are you speaking the
truth in love?) It is best to keep letters short,
under 150 words, because opinion editors are more
likely to publish them and less likely to edit them.
Endnotes
1 Wallbuilders, Democrats
& Republicans In Their Own Words: National Party
Platforms on Specific Biblical Issues, www.wallbuilders.com/resources/misc/Platforms.pdf
See also quotations from our Founding
Fathers in Importance of Voting at
www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detailpf.php?ResourceID=22
2 To view the resolution,
go to "Quick Search"; click on "Full
Text of Bill"; enter "HCR 5033";
enter "2003/2004" for year; click on "Search"
at www.KSlegislature.org
3 The Kansas Marriage
Amendment defines marriage as between one man and
one woman only. No other relationship will be recognized
by the state as being entitled to the rights, benefits,
and privileges of marriage. Two-thirds of the
Senate and the House must vote to place any Constitutional
amendment on a ballot for a vote of the people.
Top of
this Article
Top of
this Page
Which
Are
We, Anyway?
Democracy vs. Republic
by David Barton
David Barton is the Founder and President
of WallBuilders, a national pro-family organization
which distributes historical, legal, and statistical
information.WallBuilders seeks to energize the grassroots
today to rebuild that which makes America strong-its
constitutional, moral, and religious foundations.
Americans have grown accustomed to hearing that
this nation is a democracy, but such was never the
intention of the Founders. They entrusted us with
a republic, not a democracy.
Our Founders had an opportunity to
establish a democracy in America and chose not to.
More important, the Founders made clear that the
United States was not, and was never to become,
a democracy:
[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles
of turbulence and contention; have ever been found
incompatible with personal security, or the rights
of property; and have, in general, been as short
in their lives as they have been violent in their
deaths. James
Madison.
Remember, democracy never lasts long.
It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There
never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. John
Adams, first vice president, and second president,
of the United States of America.
A democracy is a volcano which conceals
the fiery materials of its own destruction. These
will produce an eruption and carry desolation in
their way....
The known propensity of a democracy is
to licentiousness [excessive
license] which the ambitious call, and
ignorant believe, to be liberty.
Fisher Ames, author of the House Language for the
First Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States of America.
[T]he experience of all former ages had
shown that of all human governments, democracy was
the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived. John Quincy Adams, sixth president of the United States
of America.
Many Americans today seem to be unable to define
the difference between the two, but there is a big
difference between a democracy and a republic. That
difference rests in the source of authority.
A pure democracy operates by direct majority vote
of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the
entire population votes on it; the majority wins
and rules.
In a republic, the general population
elects representatives who pass laws to govern the
nation.
The transcendent values of Biblical
natural law were the foundation of the American
republic. Consider the stability this provides:
in our republic, murder will always be a crime,
for it is always a crime according to the Word of
God. In a democracy, however, if the majority of
the people decide that murder is no longer a crime,
murder would no longer be a crime.
[T]he law...
dictated by God Himself is, of course,
superior in obligation to any other. It is binding
over all the globe, in all countries, and at all
times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary
to this. Alexander
Hamilton, signer of the Constitution, first Secretary
of the Treasury.
[T]he...
law established by the Creator...
extends over the whole globe, is everywhere
and at all times binding upon mankind. ... [This] is the law of God by which
he makes his way known to man and is paramount to
all human control.
Rufus King, signer of the Constitution.
The Founders understood that Biblical values formed
the basis of the republic and that the republic
would be destroyed if the people's knowledge of
those values should ever be lost.
A republic is the highest form of government devised
by man, but it also requires the greatest amount
of human care and maintenance. If neglected, it
can deteriorate into a variety of lesser forms,
including a democracy (a government conducted by
popular feeling); anarchy (a system in which each
person determines his own rules and standards);
oligarchy (a government run by a small council or
a group of elite individuals): or dictatorship (a
government run by a single individual).
As John Adams explained: [D]emocracy
will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy
that every man will do what is right in his own
eyes and no man's life or property or reputation
or liberty will be secure, and every one of these
will soon mould itself into a system of subordination
of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities,
all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science,
to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and
the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very
few.
Only by understanding
the nature of the American republic's foundation
can citizens begin to effectively protect it. (read
the complete article)
Top of
this Article
Top of
this Page
Rediscovering
Our Foundations
Do Laws and Standards Evolve?
by Doug Phillips
Douglas W. Phillips is a constitutional
attorney, the president of Vision Forum Ministries,
and the founder and director of the Witherspoon
School of Law and Public Policy, which for five
years has been responsible for training law students,
judges, pastors, and attorneys in biblical principles
of jurisprudence and statesmanship.
Every intellectual and cultural battle
is won or lost in the "assumptions": He
who defines, wins.
The controversy between evolution
and Biblical creation, for instance, is concerned
less with fossils and ape-men than with basic presuppositions
by which society answers questions about life, law,
and human relationships. Most importantly, it is
a battle over lordship: Who is Lord--God or man?
For much of the past century, Darwinian
evolution1 has advanced victorious in
the cultural battle. The theory of evolution has
done far more than just reshape America's biology
textbooks--it redefined the nature of the debate. Darwin offered modern man the same question
the serpent posed to Eve: "Hath God said?"
By assumption humans
were declared the ultimate source of authority.
The results have been devastating.
Our society has declined to the point where Christianity
is excluded from the public arena; parents may kill
their own nine-month baby in the womb; and the legality
of homosexual "marriage" is openly debated
by legislators. Many Christians disapprove, but
when challenged to defend their position, they frequently
are cowed to silence and inaction when challenged
that "morality is not the proper domain of
politics."
A society's manner of accepting such
challenges about controversies like this directly
relates to its attitude toward three foundational
questions:
- Can morality be legislated?
- If so, by what standard?
- Does this standard evolve?
Every person's answers to these questions
are determined by a basic attitude toward our origins.
By convincing large numbers of Christians that law
is morally neutral, that human reason is the arbiter
of truth, and that standards change as cultures
mature, Darwinism has neutralized the restraining
influence of Biblical Christianity on culture. While
many Christians resist formal acceptance of the
evolutionary hypothesis, they have implicitly accepted
the assumptions
on which the theory rests.
Standards can never evolve, because
the Lawgiver never changes (Hebrews 13:8). His moral
law for man can never change because it reflects
the immutable character of a righteous, holy God.
This standard was established from the beginning,
is revealed in Scripture, and is eternally binding
on civilizations. While specific application of
these principles may change from culture to culture,
the principles do not.
Consequently, debates pertaining to
separation of morality and politics, children's
rights, overpopulation, environmentalism, homosexual
"marriage," education, capital punishment,
the purpose of the criminal justice system, and
so much more, can only properly be addressed by
building upon a Genesis foundation.
Only armed with this foundation can
Christians speak authoritatively to the defining
issues of our day. (read
the complete article)
Top of
this Article
Top of
this Page
Required
Reading
Citizen Legislators:How
Voters Can Reclaim America from Professional Politicians
Book Essay by Tim Ewing, Publisher
Tim Ewing is the founder and Publisher
of Rare Jewel Magazine. He lives in Power,
MT with his wife and four children. Tim can be reached
at Tim@RareJewelMinistries.org
Breach of Trust: How Washington
Turns Outsiders into Insiders
Tom A. Coburn, M.D.
Nashville, TN: WND Books, 2003. 254
pages. $17.99
www.ChristianBook.com
Since the birth of the American Republic--since
the stated ideals of Jeffersonian democracy were
observed in practice by Alexis deTocqueville--the
model Civic Everyman has been the "Citizen
Legislator." The solid individual who laid
aside the tools of a career to serve the state and
fellowmen; then--importantly--return home to one's
field or shop, and resume a useful occupation; has
had its most recent incarnation in the term-limit
movement, much honored but barely breathing at the
moment. But if "We, the People" desire
that the United States of America continue to be
a special place of unique institutions and a culture
of liberty, we dare not lose the service of people
willing to be Citizen Legislators.
The most recent example of this admirable
type has written a valuable book; is running for
the US Senate; and served three terms in the US
House of Representatives: Dr Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
In Breach of Trust,
Dr Coburn explains the conflict between public service
(1994-2000 in the House) and the lure of "professional
politics." Dr Coburn provides readers with
a rare, yet crucial, glimpse of the machinery that
is our federal government, of the temptations to
be a power-broker and "insider."
In the book's foreword, Robert D.
Novak writes, "Without question, life on Capitol
Hill corrodes the most principled of legislators.
As the years go by, they are no longer the persons
they were when they arrived in Washington. It is
the very rare member of Congress who improves with
time, and most lose their focus and indeed their
principles as the years go by. ...This book provides
a rare, invaluable portrait of life as it really
is on Capitol Hill that should open the eyes of
ordinary citizens."
Dr Coburn is a practicing family physician
in Oklahoma. In 1994 he decided to run for Congress,
defeating a 16-year incumbent, riding the wave of
the "Contract with America." Coburn was
a member of that legendary freshman class that dramatically
took Republican-party control of the House for the
first time in 40 years, during Bill Clinton's first
term as president.
During his six years as a Congressman
in Washington, Coburn returned to his family in
Oklahoma every weekend and maintained his medical
practice as a reminder that it
was his permanent job and someday soon he'd be a
"civilian" again. Coburn, like others
in that freshman class, campaigned on the promise
to pass term limits once elected; he was one of
the few, however, who actually kept his word and
returned to his pre-Congressional life after three
two-year terms (even though the term-limit legislation
was never passed). This act of integrity was one
of many factors that set Coburn apart from typical
politicians.
After a four-year absence from Congress,
Coburn is running for a US Senate seat in a hotly
contested race against the man who succeeded him.
So what, exactly, is a Citizen Legislator?
One way to define the term is to consider what qualities
are not exemplified: Dr Coburn identifies what "is still preventing Congress
from making the tough choices necessary to preserve
our freedoms in these perilous times: careerism,
the self-centered philosophy of governing to win
the next election above all else."
Dr Coburn has concluded that true
statesmen--those who war against the effects of
political careerism--exhibit five character traits
or "key commitments":
- a commitment to principles above
politics
- an ability to compromise without
abandoning principle
- a commitment to truth over spin
- a commitment to courage over cowardice
- a commitment, or willingness, to
give up power
Dr Coburn encourages us to embrace
civic virtues such as personal responsibility, and
he rejects the notion that we are entitled to free
money from the public treasury. "We must also
remember that, in America, the civic virtues are
built on a more permanent foundation--a belief that
our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable
rights."
Read this book and you will be alarmed (considering the stakes, a good thing). You will discover
how our government was designed to function and
how current political philosophy is failing us.
You will learn how best to communicate with your
elected representatives, and you will have more
confidence to speak up and challenge them to lead
our nation with integrity. An equipped citizen with
a virtuous worldview and a commitment to act, is
one step away from the admirable Citizen Legislator
described in Breach of Trust. (read
the complete article)
Top of
this Article
Top of
this Page
Truth
on Trial
War of the Worldviews... Continued
Column by Virginia C. Armstrong,
Ph.D.
Dr. Armstrong is the president
of the Blackstone Institute and National Chairman
of Eagle Forum's Court Watch. She writes and speaks
widely on the Constitution, jurisprudence, and Christian
apologetics.
"Yesterday we suffered from crimes;
today we suffer from laws."
So wrote Tacitus, the great Roman historian
of the first and second centuries A.D. The same
lament can be uttered for America today, where we
suffer from the edicts of Humanistic judges whose
runaway rulings have eroded our Constitution and
our culture...
Judges have seized the power to declare
and define our basic legal philosophy, a generally
invisible process. But this invisible judicial philosophizing
is the nefarious impetus behind the courts' highly
visible attacks on marriage, the sanctity of human
life, public acknowledgements of God, etc.
The responsibility for repelling this
judicial assault on our God and our Constitution
falls squarely on us--"We, the people."
Most important, God still holds His people accountable
to be the "watchmen on the walls" of America.
We, the people, must understand our enemy--the
evil legal theory with which Humanistic judges are
battering our Constitution and our culture...
Will America tomorrow continue to suffer
from the laws imposed on us by Humanistic judges
and their off-the-bench allies? How America votes
in the elections of 2004 will provide answers to
that question. (read
the complete article)
Top of
this Article
Top of
this Page
|
