This article posted on Worldnetdaily has so many things wrong that I don’t know where to start. This all transpires because some paramedic has been indoctrinated into thinking HE is responsible for the welfare of the child…doesn’t matter whose rights are trampled on. Remember, it takes a village to raise a child…right?
Think about the following points:
The father is a paramedic…the ER physician found nothing wrong with the boy…the paramedic checked out the child, found nothing wrong, but STILL wanted to take the child to the hospital, just in case…even the sheriff said that he would want to have the right to make these types of decisions for his children…
I think the comment here that most concerns me is the following one…The sheriff said the decision to use SWAT team force was justified because the father was a “self-proclaimed constitutionalist” and had made threats and “comments” over the years.
So, if a citizen understands the rights and protections guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, he is a potential threat that requires a SWAT team?
Winding down from a day of joyous celebration of the birth of the Savior of the world with family and food, my wife and I made the mistake of tuning in CBS’s 48 Hours: Mystery. The mystery being investigated in this episode is, appropriately, the events surrounding the birth of Jesus Christ. Go here for a transcript of the program.
Why a mistake you ask? First, have you ever noticed that news outlets seem to think that the “balance” provided in a “balanced report” is three to five scholars and/or experts who represent the side the reporter or producer of the report have already chosen as the correct presentation versus usually one scholar, expert or ranting lunatic (depending on how much bias the reporter/producer feels comfortable revealing)? CBS’ 48 Hours is certainly no exception to this unwritten but undeniable rule. On the side of the those who deny that there was anything miraculous about the birth of Jesus were noted apostate “scholars” John Dominick Crossan (Jesus Seminar member), Elaine Pagels, the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University and an adherent to second century Gnostic heresies and Michael White a “New Testament scholar” from the University of Texas who thinks that the 4 Gospels contain lots of “creative writing.” On the side of biblical truth was Ben Witherington, Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary.
As could be expected Crossan, Pagels and White got the bulk of air time. That’s not necessarily a bad thing since much of what they proposed was contradictory, not to mention openly heretical, at least to anyone passingly familiar with the Bible and specifically the Christmas narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Witherington, on the other hand gave a thoughtful and reasonable explanations for supposed “contradictions” in the narratives. These “contradictions” were never actually listed or presented in any coherent form, their existence was merely asserted. He also debunked legends associated with famous sites associated with the birth of Christ. Crossan, Pagels and White could not agree where and when Christ was born. Witherington showed that the “where” of Christ’s birth was well documented and the when was also fairly well known.
The “contradictions” that the three Nativity doubters cite include the fact that shepherds appear in the story only in the Gospel of Luke while the magi appear only in the Gospel of Mark. Michael White put it this way
“When you start looking at them and realize that you can’t make the way you heard it come out the same way, you have to ask, ‘Wait a minute, what’s going on here?’â€
Of course, what’s going on here is that this is the same story told from different perspectives. There’s nothing that excludes Luke’s details in Mark’s Gospel or vice versa. But it’s interesting to see how the CBS producers twist facts to create the illusion of “contradictions.” From the transcript-
And most scholars agree that each Gospel author tailored his argument to fit his target audience.
Of course this is true but there’s another, better explanation for this than the conspiratorial fantasy proposed in the program. As anyone who has listened to eyewitness testimony will tell you, different people who were in different places with different vantage points and different ways of memorizing things give testimonies with different levels and types of detail. Matthew was a Jew, a Levite and a tax collector (a pariah in Jewish society). John was a very young Jew. Luke was a Greek physician and Mark was apparently a North African whose Gospel is thought to have been taken from Peter’s teaching. Why would anyone expect these diverse human beings, inspired by God, to tell exactly the same stories with exactly the same details? As parents, if we got testimonies like this from our children about some incident at home, we would instantly suspect that the stories had been harmonized before being told to us, wouldn’t we? What we should realistically expect is the same basic facts with very different detail, exactly what we see in the Gospels.
Crossan and, judging from this interview, White are working from a viewpoint that the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) were written from the fictional but nevertheless legendary (at least amongst certain biblical “scholars”) Q document. The Q document is supposedly a lost text from which the three writers who call themselves Matthew, Mark and Luke took their accounts. This is textual criticism carried out to its logical absurdity. Since Crossan and White (and obviously Pagels) believe that neither Matthew, Mark, Luke or John could possibly have been written the Gospels attributed to them then it follows that ALL manuscripts must have been taken from a theoretical single account with “creative writing” elements adding details. All three of these scholars, based on their presuppositional rejection of Christ as Son of God, reject the idea that these may be actual eyewitness accounts of Christ’s disciples (Matthew, John and possibly Luke) or transcripts of eyewitness accounts (Mark and Luke).
All three of the anti-Nativity scholars use their rejection of the biblical accounts as the pivot point on which revolves their rejection of Christ as Son of God. Crossan and White question whether Christ was born in Bethlehem and believe He was born in Nazareth. They offer no real proof but speculate openly on the basis of their rejection of the truthfulness of the Gospel accounts. Elaine Pagels, for instance said-
The Gospel of Phillip basically implies that Jesus had biological parents as we do. It’s not a literal truth that Jesus was born from a mother impregnated by the Spirit. But, rather, one has to understand that as a metaphor for the divine process of rebirth that takes place when we’re born again spiritually.
The Gospel of Phillip is not a Gospel at all, of course. It is a Gnostic forgery dating from somewhere between the second and fourth centuries. Much of the DaVinci Code heresies are pinned to the Gospel of Phillip. Pagels insists that it be given the same weight as the New Testament Gospels and Epistles because she is invested in second and third century Gnostic feminism, not because she can prove that they were contemporaneous to the Gospel accounts. She believes she doesn’t need to do this because she rejects scholarship placing the writing of the New Testament in the mid to late first century.
On and on these Christ doubters go, questioning everything, not based on eyewitness accounts or other concrete evidence but upon their materialistic presuppositions that these things just could not have happened as they were told to us in the Gospel accounts. Dr. Witherington does a stand up job defending the Gospel accounts and it seems that perhaps CBS erred in presenting only one conservative scholar. Under these circumstances the conservative viewpoint was presented as coming from a unified front, while the skeptical claims were presented as being haphazard and random, the result of scholarly infighting and ego driven insistence regarding whose theory of the real story was the more scientifically plausible and in the case of Elaine Pagels more politically correct in its Gnostric feminist approach.
All in all, it was a wretched thing to run on Christmas night (or any night, for that matter) but a Christian voice for truth, in the form of Dr. Ben Witherington, rung out loud and clear in contrast to the sour notes of the baseless criticisms of the naturalistic naysayers and feminist fault finders. CBS should be ashamed, not just for for attempting to deliver a black eye to Christianity, but also for doing it so ineptly. We serve a sovereign and almighty God who will not be mocked.
An editorial in January’s Christianity Today reveals that, uncharacteristically, CT gets it! Surprisingly, CT asks all of the right questions about the motivations of Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley in his “investigation” into the finances of famous health and wellness gospel preachers and seems to get all of the right answers.
That is, they see that this a sitting Senator’s attempt to directly interfere in a church doctrine (health and wellness doctrine) that he does not like. We agree that the health and wellness doctrine, that teaches that monetary wealth and health are direct indicators of the measurement of a persons faith, is aberrant.
We disagree with Senator Grassley, that the federal government has any jurisdiction in the matter at all. Don’t misunderstand. We think fraud is a crime. There is no fraud involved in health and wellness doctrine teaching. We think these preachers believe what they are teaching, to their eternal peril. The first amendment to the Constitution is very clear on the subject; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” Doctrinal discipline is for Christ’s Church to perform, not an overreaching federal leviathan. Grassley is attempting to make political hay by implying a threat of force to change church doctrine.
This is a very dangerous precedent. It’s time for Christians to speak out on this now!
It is difficult to imagine where else a Christian activist, in a single weekend no less, could-
Explain what’s wrong with the laughably misnamed “fair tax” to an otherwise well informed and viable candidate for Congress
Watch as a group of well-known pastors and Christian activists completely fail to answer the question “can you define existentialism and cultural Marxism?”… at a Christian worldview conference!
Engage in a spirited discussion with a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination about whether or not the President and Congress can surrender US sovereignty to the UN via the treaty mechanism described in article VI of the US Constitution (They can’t. The candidate disagrees)
Sell a respectable number of Reformed and Covenantal Theology themed books (not to mention having one stolen- from a church foyer) in a gathering overwhelmingly populated by self-described hyper-Arminian Open Theists, full and semi-Pelagians and Pre-millenial Dispensationalists
That is only some of what I recently experienced at the recent Gathering of Eagles event in Warsaw and Coshocton OH, December 14 & 15, 2007.
While part of this meeting was a leadership summit involving several Christian groups, the Institute For Principled Policy was not a direct participant in these activities, nor were we invited to be a part of any of the leadership summit activities. Institute representatives were there as observers.
Being both a veteran attender and teacher at Christian worldview seminars and conferences, I had rather high expectations regarding what I would see and hear. To be sure there were some excellent presentations on subjects that one would expect to see at a Christian worldview event. But also be sure that there were probably at least an equal number of presentations that could only be described as “fire and brimstone” revival sermons, complete with high-decibel (not to mention high dudgeon) bellowing for repentance and Finney-ish alter calls. Not the usual fare at worldview events.
One excellent presentation was given by E. Ray Moore of the Exodus Mandate Project. Moore’s Power Point presentation on the rapidly fading Christian worldviews of Christian children educated in public schools vs. those educated in home and Christian schools was an eye-opening presentation. The Institute For Principled Policy is currently working to make closer ties with the Exodus Mandate. Watch for details.
Other fine presentations in the Christian worldview category were given by Mark Harrington of the mid-western office of the Center For Bioethical Reform, who informed us of his efforts related to the GAP (Genocide Awareness Project) and his “truth trucks.”
Pastor Joe Larson of What’s Right What’s Left Ministries also gave an all too quick survey of Christian worldview education and understanding competing worldviews.
Another excellent presentation was given by Pastor Rick Scarborough of Vision America. It was his testimony of the circumstances which drug him into the political arena and demonstrated to him that there is no neutrality in issues which effect our homes, families, communities, states and nation. Every pastor should hear Dr. Scarborough give this testimony!
James Hartline gave testimony regarding his journey into the depths of homosexuality, drug abuse and addiction, disease and prison followed by his salvation and his calling of God to help guide others out of the lifestyle of disease, depravity and death by the light of Jesus Christ. James has been very active in the San Diego homosexual community, managing to be a leader in closing several bath houses and other sexually oriented businesses in his community. He is also active in helping to save the Mt. Soledad Cross.
Pastor Mark Holich gave a presentation on the use of the IRS as a gag for the mouths of pastors and para-church ministries through the abuse of the 501(c)3 “rules.”
Finally, Dr. Alan Keyes, the headliner of the conference who also happens to be a Republican presidential candidate, gave a presentation in which he pointed out that the US is currently rapidly changing from a republic to a democracy. Unfortunately, Dr. Keyes revealed that his understanding of the definition of a republic is at least somewhat flawed. He began at the Declaration of Independence as the philosophical underpinnings of the US Constitution. In this he is correct. The Constitution cannot be understood except in the context of what is written in the Declaration. Where Keyes went astray was his insistence on quoting Abraham Lincoln, the President who, arguably, fashioned the democratic noose with which the founders’ republic has been strangled. He insisted in building a bridge between the Declaration of Independence and Lincoln’s prevarication regarding his purpose in waging the War Between The States from the Gettysburg Address
…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth (emphasis added).
Can there be a better definition of government unchained from the rock anchor of higher authority and replaced with “the will of the people” in the guise of a just avenger bringing a “new birth of freedom?” Rhetoric sound familiar? Isn’t that nearly identical to the spiel coming from the current occupant of the White House about events in Iraq even now?
We will further discuss Dr. Keyes presentations in the light of dinner conversation in a moment but we must endeavor to complete a report on the second day of the Gathering of Eagles.
In the afternoon presentations were delivered by several well known and not so well known Christian activists. Peter La Barbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality talked about efforts to expose what actually happens at San Francisco’s infamous Folsom St. Festival. He explained that local, state and national authorities have worked diligently to keep the details of this sanctioned public street debauch from the public at large, knowing the revulsion that would be generated.
Lt. Col. James Klingenschmidt gave a blow-by-blow description of his ordeal over praying in the name of Jesus Christ while in his Navy uniform. The story is quite stunning in its entirety, involving his disobedience of direct orders from superiors up to and including the Chief of Naval Operations. Klingenschmidt is currently petitioning for reinstatement. Please contact the Institute if you are interested in signing one of these petitions.
Pastor Ernie Sanders of What’s Right What’s Left Ministries gave an excellent summary of the Marxist worldview, how it remains alive, well, active and entrenched in many institutions, both public and private. Ernie always gives a great presentation and is a perfect example of leadership by doing. He is pastor of a large congregation in Geauga County OH, is head of the Geauga County Right To Life, is a radio talk show host and is quite active in his community.
Tom Condit, an Ohio attorney in private practice for the Rutherford Institute gave a presentation on his and the Rutherford Institute’s efforts to help protect free speech. Condit has been involved in several important cases involving suits against Planned Paenthood’s provision of abortions to minors without parental consent, defending Christians who protest against strip clubs and porn shops, etc.
Following this presentation There were several that I listened to from our booth in the foyer. Essentially, they were the same presentation, slightly rearranged, delivered in a variety of tones, from fiery to mild. All called for repentence and a national return to Christ. The presenters included the Rev. Flip Benham of Operation Save America, author and independent presidential candidate Peter Grasso and Dr. Mark Kiser, president of Asleep kNOw More Ministries. Dr. Patrick Johnston of the Association of Pro-life Physicians gave another excellent presentation his efforts to promote the pro-life cause and educate physicians so that they will no longer perform abortions.
What followed was one of the most interesting dinner breaks in memory. It was relatively uneventful until nearly the end. Many of the participants in the rally were seated together in a buffet style restaurant. Towards the end of the meal it became quite obvious that Dr. Keyes was becoming agitated about his participation in the recent Republican presidential debate in Iowa, and rightfully so. This exchange may shed some light on what was eating Keyes. Listen to the exchange on global warming and especially the “Doctor, heal thyself” comment beginning around the 4:00 mark. Several claim that Dr. Ron Paul made this remark while others claim it was Tom Tancredo. In any case it clearly agitated Dr. Keyes and he was still feeling the sting 3 days later.
I was sitting with an Institute colleague in the next table. My colleague was wearing a “Ron Paul for President” t-shirt over his sweater and Dr. Keyes, who was sitting with Lt. Col. Klingenschmidt, began getting louder and louder in editorializing about Ron Paul to other members of the group. It was the standard Republican Party Ron Paul name calling mantra- “isolationist,” “foreign policy amateur,” “doesn’t understand the Constitution” and possibly the worst, that Dr. Paul was “not really pro-life” because he is a federalist on the abortion and euthenasia question. Both Keyes and Klingenschmidt insisted that Paul said he would have allowed Terri Schiavo to “starve and dehydrate” rather than to intervene based on his Values Voters Debate answers. Of course, they missed the point that Paul’s answers could only be understood in light of Paul’s legislative efforts like the “Sanctity of Life Act” which declares unborn infants to be human beings then returns the questions of abortion and euthanasia to the states and strip federal judges of the authority to hear cases on the subject, thus no longer would abortion be a constitutionally protected “right.”
Finally, Dr. Keyes approached our table and my colleague asked him if he thought we should be in the UN and whether the UN should be in the United States. Keyes said he thought that we probably shouldn’t be in the UN but that there was nothing that we could do to get out nor were we able to evict them from US soil due to treaty obligations and the fact that treaties become the highest law of the land. I pointed out that article VI of the Constitution militated against his position, since no treaty could be legally made except that they be subordinate to the constitutional rights, duties and obligations as outlined in the Constitution itself. Dr. Keyes implied that I didn’t know what I was talking about and I asked if he’d read Madison on the subject, since Madison was clear that no treaty could supercede the Constitution (at this point, clearly out of his element, Lt. Col. Klingenschmidt beat a hasty retreat). Dr. Keyes admitted that this was true but said it was simply not a practical interpretation of the Constitution for today’s world. In other words, he adopted a “living document” interpretation of article VI of the US Constitution. Keyes constitutional interpretation gets very interesting in light of events as the evening progresses.
Frankly, I did not listen closely to several of the speakers after the dinner break, since much of what was said was more of the same revival style presentation. I don’t have any problem with revivals. I don’t think that worldview seminars are where they should be held. I think you would have been hard pressed to find anyone in the audience that did not think that America needs repentence and a return to the message of Christ to regain God’s favor as a nation. I would be willing to wager however, that there were plenty of people in the audience who desperately needed to know how to combine efforts to spread the Gospel of Christ while being an influence in steering the culture in a Christlike manner and the biblical basis for doing so.
I did pay attention to Dr. Alan Keyes closing speech. What made this speech so interesting was Dr. Keyes made an impassioned and complex logical argument against the income tax based on original intent of the Constitution’s framers, especially the 10th amendment. Note that I said “original intent.” During Dr. Keyes demonstration of his logical capabilities I leaned over to my colleague and pointed out that it was too bad that he had been unable to apply the same logic or constitutional hermeneutic in our discussion of the UN and article VI of the Constitution. Two diametrically opposite methods of interpreting the Constitution, original intent and “living document approach,” in a 4 hour period is pretty bad, even for an accomplished politician like Alan Keyes and it says a lot of what you could expect from him as president.
All in all, it was a good but not a great conference, as it could have been.
There are just some things that are guaranteed in life. Death and taxes are two that come to mind frequently. Another one, just as guaranteed, is that some anti-Christian group will raise a fuss about someone displaying a crèche or praying in public using the “J-wordâ€. Sure enough, one of our favorite “religious liberties†groups has been kind enough not to disappoint this year.
The Board of Commissioners in Delaware County has been notified by the good folks and true at “Americans United for Separation of Church and State†that they are being terribly un-American in how they conduct their business. This group, headed by the Reverend Barry Lynn, has been sending letters to many governmental bodies in an attempt to muzzle elected officials from offering invocations before legislative sessions. The letter sent to Commissioners Glenn Evans, Kris Jordan and James Ward warn that Americans United expects a reply within 30 days of the letter, dated December 10.
Reading into this “threat letter†is not very difficult. While couching their iron fist in a velvet glove, feigning their undying devotion to upholding the Constitutional rights of all, the joyless Grinches at AU in essence telegraph their message that uttering a prayer in public by an elected official should be verboten.
They first claim that there is a constitutional requirement to keep prayers nonsectarian, which is not true, misquoting a key US Supreme Court decision Marsh v. Chambers which rejected a challenge brought against the practice of opening legislative sessions with a prayer from a chaplain paid for by taxpayer dollars. Playing the old game of only telling a partial truth, AU leaves out two pertinent parts of the decision, one that shows that the majority opinion was favorable to the idea of prayer as a part of a legislative session, and another that specifically spoke to the fact that the concern was to the context, not the content of the prayer.
Indeed, in Marsh, one finds this from the opinion: “The opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country. From colonial times through the founding of the Republic and ever since, the practice of legislative prayer has coexisted with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom.â€
Then AU’s crack team of religious liberty defenders say that what they really want is the elimination of all future prayers by the commissioners, and say as much in their letter. I must assume that in their burning desire to read into the First Amendment something that is not there, they also selectively ignore the unambiguous clause in that particular text that directly prohibits the abridgement of the freedom of speech.
Obviously, Americans United needs a refresher course in American history, not to mention in reading the Constitution of the United States. Legislative sessions at the national, state and local levels have been opened by invocations and asking of favor from God since our first assemblies in the Colonies. Even our Continental Congress in 1774 began with a three hour prayer session led by the Reverend Jacob Duche. Indeed, the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights left local governments free to address the issue of faith in government, as the First Amendment restricts the ability of the federal Congress to make a law respecting an “establishment of religionâ€, and the Tenth Amendment reserves rights not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states or to the people.
Maybe someday (and no, I’m not holding my breath) the valiant defenders of liberty at Americans United for Separation of Church and State will realize that in order to preserve religious liberties, one cannot target Christianity for elimination. Until then, we will just have to be prepared for the annual drive-by.
Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a multi-faceted Christian apologetics ministry, recently reviewed the speech given last week by presidential candidate and former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney.
Dr. White is an expert in the Mormon religion and his insights and analysis of the speech in light of his knowledge of Mormon doctrine are quite informative. This analysis is taken from Dr. White’s live streaming program The Dividing Line. The actual program lasts about 1 hour and this is an excerpt from it.
We think this analysis speaks for itself and so here it is-
Dr. White’s Blog is currently running a series on Mormon Doctrine and has just run an entry on the current controversy on Mike Huckabee’s question regarding whether or not Mormon doctrine teaches that Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers. While Mormon leaders are leading news outlets like NBC to believe that they do not, Dr. White’s documentation makes it clear that official church doctrine does teach this. The article is headed Does the LDS Church Teach Lucifer is a Spirit Offspring of Elohim, and Hence the Spirit-Brother of Jesus?
Over this past weekend (Friday December 7, 2007) while on a trip to Annapolis MD for a family activity, I took some time to visit the folks whom I have begun to look on as my second family. I visited the offices of Michael Peroutka in Pasadena MD.
The occasion was Michael’s annual staff and friends of the Institute On The Constitution (IOTC) Christmas party (note: not a “holiday” party) and quite a party it was! Michael played guitar and was accompanied by several talented musicians and also some budding talent in the children there who played various percussion instruments. The emphasis of the party was on the coming of Jesus Christ, family and fun. We sang Christmas carols, listened to Christmas hymns sung by incredibly talented singers and received generous gifts. This celebration of Christ and family was part of the “First Friday” program run by IOTC. Oddly enough, “First Friday” happens on the first Friday of each month and features speakers on various subjects from Buddy Hanson on developing a comprehensive Christian worldview to Coach David Daubenmire. You can buy DVD or Audio copies of “First Friday” presentations and a number of very good books related to IOTC’s mission of training citizens in the US Constitution here.
I was able to catch up with friends from the old Constitution Party National Committee (pre-Tampa, before it became a pathetic derelict of a party, smashed on the rocks of pragmatism and devoid of all of its best thinkers and workers) like Scott Whiteman (there with his lovely wife and 4 sweet, beautiful and well-behaved children), other friends like John Lofton co-host of The American View radio show and IOTC’s Susan Scanlon who I’ve talked to several times on the phone but never met. I also met several folks I knew of but had not met like Pastor David Whitney, who is very involved in IOTC, having served as co-host with Michael on radio presentations on the US Constitution. Pastor Whitney has a great “pastor’s voice” and if you have listened to any of the IOTC audio materials on the Constitution, you’ve very likely heard it. It is one of those very recognizable voices.
Michael was a most kind, gracious and generous host, and I had a wonderful time and was uplifted by being there.
I thank the Lord for men like Michael Perouka, John Lofton, David Whitney, Scott Whiteman and the many contributors to the efforts of IOTC. They don’t just talk a good game they play it, and they play it to win! May God grant us more such men!
To listen to The American View radio program in central Ohio tune to WLRY FM 88.9 MHz on Saturday mornings at 11:00 AM (available online, as well). You can also get it on iTunes or at The American View website.
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) apparently believes that he has the constitutional authority to oversee church finances. Watch as he does the quick shuffle to explain where his power to conduct such investigations comes from.
Grassley attempts to equivocate- “Well, this is not a first amendment issue…We’re not interested in doctrine.” This is, of course, a patent falsehood. The churches chosen to be investigated have a core doctrine, aberrant though it may be. They believe that they can create wealth with the spoken word, that Christ intended for His faithful to be wealthy and the degree of wealth achieved will depend on the depth of faith. Does this ignore the true teachings of Christ? Clearly. But who appointed Grassley to be the Archbishop Laud of the United States? Grassley’s own attempts to justify his foray into constitutionally forbidden territory reveal his real aim. To subjugate the government of Christ’s Church to civil authority.
Twice Grassley is asked if he intends to investigate the Catholic Church, one of the largest landholders in the country and one of the richest church entities in the world and twice Grassley quickly sidesteps the question. The fact is that Grassley knows that the Catholic Church has the status of not only a church but that of a foreign nation and too much probing could cause an international furor, not to mention create problems with Roman Catholic neighbors and allies.
Grassley further “explains” that his committee has jurisdiction because it oversees “…tax law. We have tax exemption to encourage charitable giving.” Well, no Senator Grassley, that’s wrong. You have tax exemption because it used to be understood by government servants that the tithe is a tax collected by the church and mandated by God for the operation of His Church including the feeding of the poor and that failure to exempt the amount tithed amounted to a double tax on an independent entity. The sudden requirement for churches to obtain Internal Revenue Service 501(c)3 “tax exempt status” in 1953 (thanks to another Senatorial swindler Lyndon Johnson who didn’t like the fact that several Texas churches had openly opposed his election effort, and so used the tax code as a gag for the pastors’ mouths) is nothing more or less than a club that is hung over the head of churches to bring them into submission to the state. Grassley makes it abundantly clear that he is now prepared to swing that club in order to assert the authority of the state over the Church. Submit or let your congregation be double taxed, a sure way to de-fund a church.
Grassley has demonstrated that he has a predators heart regarding getting the prey he wants. He chooses the weakest member of the herd, cuts them out then mercilessly chases them down and eviscerates them. The word-faith pastors he has chosen are clearly the weakest members of the herd. Having abandoned the true core teachings of Christ in favor of the health and prosperity gospel wherein they enrich themselves from the givings of their flock, they are an easy target. Many orthodox Christians are torn about what to think about the investigation because they do not understand the separate roles of the Church and state and they revile these pastors as con men. They therefore hesitate to step in to defend the pastors, not realizing that their own churches are going to be next on the list for any infraction Grassley and his ilk can pull from their grab-bag of unconstitutional tricks. This is how all totalitarian governments handle matters. First go after the unpopular groups then, as they fall, go after members of successively less popular groups until none are left to band together for defense.
Grassley, who knows he is on shaky constitutional ground, doesn’t hesitate to play the class envy card. If the Church should happen to awaken to this attack as a call-to-arms, he will have a ready made set of allies in the class envy crowd. When asked if he thought it mattered if a pastor of a large successful church drove a Rolls Royce vs. a Buick, Grassley wasted no time in saying “…for a person like me it’s simple. Jesus came into the city on a simple donkey. To what extent do you need a Rolls Royce to expand the ministry of Jesus Christ? I speak this as a Christian…” And there you have it. As a representative of the civil authority he is going to invade the realm of church authority to fix what he perceives to be a problem in certain ministries because he doesn’t like the way those ministries run their affairs. Grassley wants the Church to answer to the state before answering to Christ.
Senator Grassley needs to realize that disciplining individual members of the Body of Christ is up to the Body of Christ as a whole, not a meddling outside authority which has clearly demonstrated that it has an ulterior motive in doing so. He also needs a little remedial training in the US Constitution which explicitly prohibits ANY government interference in the free exercise of religion. Perhaps he should take Michael Peroutka’s Institute On The Constitution class. The word-faith pastors are clearly engaging in the practices of their faith, as flawed as they are. The Body of Christ has been doing a pretty good job of exposing the false teachings and practices of these pastors and it’s also doing a pretty good job of picking up the pieces and repairing the human damage they’ve done inside the Body.
Thank’s Senator, but the Church doesn’t need any help.
Christians Should Stop Begging the State to Teach ‘Our’ Children Morality
Since his election in 2006, Ohio’s Democratic Governor Ted Strickland has been working to eliminate funding for abstinence education in state schools. In response, Christian organizations throughout the state have been urging citizens to write to the governor and ask him to reinstate this funding. In a recent email, for example, the Ohio Christian Alliance wrote
“We want our children to be exposed to the truth that it is in their best interest — physically, emotionally and spiritually — to abstain from sex until marriage!”
My first thought upon reading this was, “Well then folks… They’re YOUR children, so TEACH THEM already!”
When Christians send their children away to humanistic government schools and allow the state to take their money through taxation to fund “education” we should not be surprised that these non-Christian bureaucrats want to teach immorality.
The solution is not to keep sending the children to the humanist schools where they are being taught evolution, pluralism, and situational “ethics” and then BEG the bureaucrats to spend MORE money to teach morality on the side. What a waste of effort!
We’re fighting the wrong battle here! The solution is to take God’s children out of Satan’s schools and separate the school from the state. That is, we should PRIVATIZE education! Let’s demand that our elected representatives stop taking our money and spending it on “public education” – period! We cannot expect a humanist school system to effectively teach morality.
Nathan Radcliffe is a former Christian school teacher and a long-time advocate for home education and limited government. He is a husband and father of two young girls. Nathan and his wife, Rachel, live in Lancaster, Ohio and attend a local Vineyard Church.
We would simply ask that instead he make it effective immediately and that he take Voinovich, Specter, Warner, Snowe, McCain, Lugar, Hutchinson, Hatch, Hagel, Grassley, Dole on the Republican side and everybody else on the other side of the aisle with him.
In fact how about they all resign en masse and we get a complete do over. Too much to ask for, we know. But we can all have our dreams!
Promoting The Steady Hand of Biblically-Based Christian Statesmanship on Public Policy
This article posted on Worldnetdaily has so many things wrong that I don’t know where to start. This all transpires because some paramedic has been indoctrinated into thinking HE is responsible for the welfare of the child…doesn’t matter whose rights are trampled on. Remember, it takes a village to raise a child…right? 
