| Editor: David E Marlett Th.D. | |
| February 17, 2001 | Vol II #13 |
Day 92 - The day they finally came
** The battle has just begun.
After the rally downtown, the trip to Chicago (the seventh circuit court of appeals), and all the exhaustive measures that were taken to try to secure religious liberty, it was hard to believe that the battle was just beginning.
Who knew that the same freedoms our forefathers fought and died for would be the same freedoms we would be fighting for in our society today!
** What will IBT do now?
The church will go on! The church will continue to serve Jesus Christ wherever they may go! They will continue to spread the truth about Jesus Christ, and will continue to claim Him Lord of all. The church is the people, and a "true" church is the Lord's. Jesus Christ is, and will remain, head over the Indianapolis Baptist Temple.
From this stand of 92 days, the church has become stronger. Their faith has been tested, and from that they have grown. They have put it all on the line for Christ, and were persecuted for "righteousness" sake. How astonishing to think that Jesus Christ found IBT worthy. "He has found His remnant few."
The only thing the IRS has gotten is a 50-year-old building. The government failed in its conquest. They have not conquered the church. They have not silenced the preachers. They have only brought judgment on themselves, and their families.
For the first time, the Indianapolis Baptist Temple has become an underground church! In America? How could this be? What about the Constitution? What about the First Amendment? What about our forefathers who fought and died for freedom? What about them?..."They are all dead!"
Read the entire account of the seizure of IBT at their web site: http://www.indianapolisbaptisttemple.com/index2.html
** Is President Bush tempting churches to violate the commandments of God?
By Greg Moeller
Sometimes it seems that there is no one left in Washington who does not believe that big government involvement is not the solution to everything. What ever happened to freedom? Now we have a President who may be well-intentioned, but who would like to have us believe that acting "compassionately" is equivalent to having the government tax money from us by force to fund the faith-based charitable organizations that government bureaucrats deem are most worthy. Great, that's all we need, allowing the federal government to determine which faith-based approaches are "better" in solving issues of human need. I think we all need to reconsider what charity is supposed to be about.
What makes some Christian faith-based charitable efforts so successful is that they are first and foremost based on Biblical faith and only secondarily social welfare programs. They are operated under Biblical principles, not government regulations. The fact that the Christian faith, both in doctrine and in practice is inextricably mixed with the act of caring for others is what makes them unique. Another part of their uniqueness is how they are funded.
According to Biblical precepts, caring for others in genuine need is a duty of individuals, families and the church and the financial resources that are needed for such are supposed to be freely and voluntarily given out of love. Money taken by force to "help" other people in "need" is not charity it is theft. Morally, it's pretty simple to understand. If you see someone in need, you are free to take money out of your own pocket to try and help them. However, although it is okay to try to encourage me to do the same, it is not right to take money from my pocket without my permission to help that other person. Such an act would be called stealing, a violation of the Eighth Commandment–"Thou Shalt Not Steal." This basic moral principle applies regardless of whether the theft occurs between two individuals, or if it is a government forcibly extracting money from individuals and families via taxation to fund "charitable" endeavors. Such money is stolen money and the use of it not only violates the moral principle against theft, but the principle of free will giving out of love that is supposed to be at the heart of true Christian charity.
Rather than expand the corrupting influence of illicitly obtained government money to the church, why not instead set the people of American free to support a return to genuine Christian charity? The solution to the mess caused by the ever-expanding government welfare state is not more federal government involvement. Instead the federal government should focus on the areas it legitimately should be involved in like, national defense while cutting taxes significantly and shutting down the government welfare establishment that has robbed those truly in need of real Christian charity. Once the oppressive tax burden is lifted, people will be free to give more of their time and financial resources to the churches and/or private faith-based organizations of their choice so that they can be empowered to engage in providing real, loving, godly charity to those who truly need it.
This is not what is being proposed by the Bush administration. Present at the recent ceremony launching President Bush's Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives were clergy from varied religions ranging from Roman Catholic and Muslim to Orthodox Jew. Is it right to force people to subsidize faith-based organizations whose fundamental faith precepts are contrary to their own? The answer that was given by President Bush was, "We will not fund the religious activities of any group, but when people of faith provide social services, we will not discriminate against them." In other words, only social services will be funded, not religious activities. But isn't that what has made faith-based social welfare programs work? Is a Christian social welfare program really Christian if it is not Christ centered? Is it really "faith-based" if religious activities are not integrated into the social welfare services? Will government funding only such organizations that keep their "faith" compartmentalized and separate from their charitable activities drive true "faith" out of social welfare? With government funding has always come government control in one form or another. The seeds that are being planted here are plain to see for those who want to see it.
Churches and faith-based organizations should be at liberty to carry out their duties free from government control and regulation. People should also be free to contribute to whatever faith-based organizations or causes they want to. They should not be forced to do so by way of taxation.
The question that now lies before us, however, is what will we personally do about all this? Will we stand for what is right and resist things like this that violate the principles of religious liberty and financial freedom? Or will we, under the banner of "compassionate conservatism" work to lay the temptation of illicitly obtained government money at the door of churches and faith-based organizations nationwide?
Our decision may end up making a bigger difference than we think.
[ Greg Moeller is Constitution Party Regional Co-Chairman - Central States ]
Legislation protecting parental rights when an underage, pregnant girl is considering abortion in another state has been reintroduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The Child Custody Protection Act would make it a crime for an adult to transport a minor to another state for an abortion without a parent's involvement when the state in which the girl lives requires either parental notification or consent before such a procedure. The bill would enable parents to sue those who violate the law.
The House easily adopted the bill in 1998 and 1999, but the measure died in the Senate both times. In both years, the White House refused to endorse the legislation as passed by the House. Supporters of the bill are hopeful President Bush will back the measure and increase the likelihood of congressional adoption.
The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission is one of many pro-life organizations supporting the bill.
Twenty-four states have laws in effect that require the notification or consent of at least one parent or guardian, or authorization by a judge, before a minor can have an abortion, according to the National Right to Life Committee.
Some studies have shown a majority of minors who become pregnant are impregnated by men 18 or older. Supporters of the Child Custody Protection Act say such a man has an incentive to keep the pregnancy hidden by means of a secret abortion, since he is vulnerable to a statutory rape charge.
In the best-known example of such an incident, a Pennsylvania eighth-grader was secretly transported to New York in 1995 for an abortion by the stepmother of the 18-year-old man who impregnated her. Such occurrences may not be uncommon. In 1995, abortion-rights lawyer Kathryn Kolbert of the New York-based Center for Reproductive Law and Policy said thousands of adults are helping minors travel from states with parental involvement laws to obtain abortions, according to a news report.
Opponents of the bill have argued in part it will cause girls to obtain unsafe abortions in order to avoid informing their parents or seeking a judicial bypass.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R.-Fla., is the chief House sponsor, as she was in the last two congressional sessions.
[ Baptist Press ]
What does the word of God say about being in the ministry if you have been divorced? Is it all right to be a pastor, evangelist, or missionary if you have been divorced? Do the callings of God change with divorce? What if you were divorced before you were saved . . .? How is a church affected when the pastor, evangelist, or missionary, who preaches the Word of God, remains in the ministry. This is an issue that it will be hard to pump the well dry on, although it is a simple issue muddied by our personal relationships and preconceived ideas.
First, are preachers of the Word of God given qualifications that they must meet in order to remain in the ministry? We know that they are . . . those are given in, I Tim, 3:2-7: Let's conclude this first: the office of bishop is important, and the man that holds it must be qualified. Our Constitution gives qualifications for a man to hold the office of president, and the Old Testament gave qualifications for a man to hold the office of priest. Detailed study will reveal the qualifications of a priest were in many ways more stringent than that of a bishop in the New Testament. Please note Leviticus 23: 17-21: that man could not have any blemish, that man could not be a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, 19 or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, 20 or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; 21 no man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire:" Obviously God is concerned about this most important office and He has always set up qualifications in the Word of God for those who would hold office in his work.
Second, when the qualifications given state, "a bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife . . ." does that mean one wife at a time? If you say it does mean this as A.T. Roberson said, in Word Pictures in The N.T. , then what God is saying is that a bishop cannot be a polygamist. Was polygamy an issue at that time? Detailed study will reveal that it was not. But for the sake of argument let us say it was and this is what is meant. Would this be the only qualification that would disqualify a bishop? I do not think so, note: "blameless . . . one that ruleth well his own house . . . having a good report of them which are without." Is a divorced preacher blameless, did he rule his home well, has his marriage situation caused him to lose a good report of them that are without? The honest answer is yes, and these short-comings will inhibit his ability to preach the full counsel of the Word of God.
Third, Ro. 11:29 says, "for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." If God's call is not going to change, would a man be disobedient to not answer that call on the basis of divorce? No he would not be disobedient at all, in fact he would be honoring the Word of God by obeying it in its entirety. The statement made is, no matter who you are and how big your ministry is, you are going to obey the Word of God.
Fourth, if you were divorced before you were saved, should that be held against you when considering qualifications to preach? Let me answer that by first saying that we believe God forgives all sins when a person truly repents and asks forgiveness. However, God makes a distinction about marriage, God set marriage up and recognized it as a holy institution whether a couple is saved or lost. If a person says "My divorce did not count because I was not saved at the time," then he must also say "My children conceived previous to salvation were illegitimate and my whole marriage did not exist in the eyes of God." You cannot say your marriage was God-sanctioned and yet did not count in the eyes of God. "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder."
Finally, many say there should be a difference of qualification to be a pastor, a missionary, or an evangelist. Some would never agree to a divorced pastor, but would agree to a divorced missionary or a divorced evangelist. Is this consistent with the Word of God? First let's remember that their are two offices in the church, bishop and deacon. Both of these are given qualifications. The Bible requires that a deacon, according to I Tim. 3:10-12 must be, " 12 the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." How can we conclude that a deacon office-holder, who according to Acts 6:2-3 was created only for the purpose of meeting the daily ministration needs of the church, must be qualified, but an evangelist or a missionary does not have to meet a set of Bible qualifications? The only way is say these are not part of the Bible office of bishop. Some take this position and say evangelists do not oversee in the house of God. We will find though, that Judas in Acts 1:20, fell from his Bishoprick (the same word used in I Tim 3:10), and he never pastored a single church. He was an Apostle, though, and the Word of God says in Ephesians 4:11, "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers." I would conclude these are the office gifts that comprise "bishop," if this be the case then an evangelist and missionary, and a Pastor must all be qualified.
In conclusion, the effects of using double-married preachers will be to lessen the sanctity of marriage, weaken and dilute the office of bishop, and to less-than-honor the Word of God. Will this be just another precept of the Word of God we practice "doing that which is right in our eyes" with? I hope not.
Steven E. Mays,
Pastor - Faith Baptist Church, Laurens, South Carolina
BroMays@FaithBaptistTrumpet.org
To be removed from this mailing list you can unsubscribe
through the homepage
or send your request to
Unsub-tccn@wilderness-cry.net
If this newsletter was forwarded to you and you would like a free subscription simply send an e-mail to subscribe-tccn@wilderness-cry.net