"Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death!"

In my last post, I wrote about the marriage of the Church and the State under the Emperor Constantine in the early fourth century. As a result, the Church became polluted with paganism and a worldly, rather than eternal, focus. The division between church and state had been removed, and to the shame of both the Church and the State, there has been little separation between church and state in western civilization since Constantine. Throughout most of church history, the Church has controlled the State or the State has controlled the Church. In the Middle Ages, monarchs were often puppets of the Pope, and in 1527, under Henry VIII, the Church-State was simply exchanged for a State-Church.

Now, let's move up to the colonies in America. In all of the education that we have received about the American War for Independence--even us older folks who were not taught the "revised" history the kids are receiving today--few of us have been taught the huge role that the struggle for religious freedom played in the overall struggle for independence in the colonies.

Just like in England, where the Church was controlled by the State, preachers in the colonies had to be licensed by the government. If you refused to take the king's license you were subject criminal prosecution. And as in England, jurors might typically bring back a verdict of not guilty, so preachers were often tried unlawfully.

The Citizens Rule Book is quite an interesting piece of literature. Although the book was originally published anonymously, we now know this book was written and published by Charles R. Olson, a World War II Marine veteran and printer from Boston. The The Citizens Rule Book contains an account of an important event in the life of Patrick Henry, one of our founding fathers:

Young Christian lawyer Patrick Henry saw why a JURY of PEERS is so vital to FREEDOM! It was March 1775 when he rode into a small town of Culpepper, Virginia. He was totally shocked by what he saw! There, in the middle of the town square was a minister tied to a whipping post, his back laid bare and bloody with the bones of his ribs showing. He had been scourged mercilessly like JESUS, with whips laced with metal. Patrick Henry is quoted as saying: "When they stopped beating him, I could see the bones of his rib cage. I turned to someone and asked what the man had done to deserve such a beating as this."

The reply given him was that the man being scourged was a minister who refused to take a license. He was one of twelve who were locked in jail because they refused to take a license. A license often becomes an arbitrary control by government that makes a crime out of what ordinarily would not be a crime. IT TURNS A RIGHT INTO A PRIVILEGE! Three days later they scourged him to death.

This was the incident which sparked Christian lawyer Patrick Henry to write the famous words which later became the rallying cry of the Revolution. "What is it that Gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know no what course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!" Later he made this part of his famous speech at Saint John's Episcopal Church in Virginia.[1]

In his book, In Caesar's Grip, Peter Kershaw writes about Patrick Henry:

As a Common-Lawyer, Henry used his legal prowess to successfully argue the case of numerous "nonconformist" ministers. "Preaching without a license" was held to be a crime, but eager to avoid the stigma of being branded as "religious persecutors," magistrates usually charged unlicensed preachers with some other crime, such as "vagrancy" or "disturbing the peace." Henry won the release of many a preacher from prison, and even posted bail or paid their fines, sometimes anonymously.[2]

Kershaw goes on to quote from A Son of Thunder by Henry Mayer:

Henry, it was said, rode fifty miles out of his way to volunteer his services to the Baptists jailed in Spotsylvania. He walked into the courtroom on the day of the trial and, hearing the charge of disturbing the peace read aloud, asked to see the indictment.

"Did I hear it distinctly, or was it a mistake of my own?" he is supposed to have said. "Did I hear an expression, as of a crime, that those men, whom your worships are about to try for misdemeanor, are charged with,--with what,--preaching the Gospel of the Son of God?"

The lawyer paused, exploiting the silence as only he could. He held the paper high in the air and slowly waved it three times around his head. Then, with face and arms raised toward heaven, Henry simply said, "Great God!" and again, "Great God!" and once more, "Preaching the Gospel of the Son of God--Great God!" The prosecution, the story concludes, could make no rejoinder, and the case had to be dropped. The dissenters celebrated Henry as their Robin Hood."[3]

There was an important undercurrent of thought from religious leaders throughout the colonies that played a large role in the development of our founding documents. I have written previously about Roger Williams (click here to read). Williams came from England to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1631, and he was banished from from the colony in 1636 because he criticized religious intolerance. There certainly was a lot of religious intolerance in Massachusetts Bay. Remember, it was in this colony, in Salem, that the notorious witch trials of 1692 were held.

Roger Williams insisted that the magistrates of Massachusetts had no authority over an individual's religion and he opposed a church-state. Williams' primary concern was not for the State, it was for the Church. He was convinced that the State could not touch anything regarding the Church without corrupting it. There was century upon century of history to prove this!

Among those who framed our founding documents, there were some who were primarily concerned with protecting the State from the Church, and some more concerned with protecting the Church from the State. The upshot of the whole thing was the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Although Dominion Theologians will try to convince you that the First Amendment does not separate the church and state, the powers of each are clearly recognized as being separate. Thank God for First Amendment!

Footnotes:1. The Citizens Rule Book.
2. Peter Kershaw, In Caesar's Grip, (Branson: Heal Our Land Ministries, 2000), p. 33.
3. Ibid.

"Hi, I'm From the Government and I'm Here to Help You!"

In the earliest centuries, the Church, despite its many problems, did not seek to be licensed by Rome, even though religious organizations were required by law to incorporate and apply for the State's approval. The early Christians recognized that worship is not to be authorized, controlled or regulated by civil government. In the first three centuries of Christianity, many believers in Christ were persecuted. By A.D. 302, Emperor Diocletian instituted the "pinch of incense" offering. Those who would not bend the knee and offer a pinch of incense to Caesar were persecuted.

However, in A.D. 313, there was a sudden and radical change in the way that Rome did business. Emperor Constantine issued what historians have come to call "the Edict of Milan." Religious persecutions were abolished. Liberty of worship was declared for all, and Constantine himself professed faith in Christ and invited his subjects to join him.

You see, in the previous year (according to the historian Eusebius), on the afternoon of October 26, A.D. 312, Constantine claimed to have had a vision in which he saw a flaming cross in the sky accompanied by the Greek words en toutoi nika, meaning: "In this sign, conquer!" Rome was in a civil war with six different men claiming the title of Emperor. Constantine achieved victory over all of them, and in 313, he issued the Edict of Milan, which ended three centuries of the barbaric persecution of Christians.

It looked like the human race had finally recognized and endorsed the principle of freedom to obey God without interference. But, not so fast... Constantine was the quintessential politician. He seized any and every opportunity to gain the political support of both Christians and pagans throughout the Empire. Pagans were encouraged to profess faith in Christ--but concessions were made to make Christianity more appealing to the heathens. Sunday, the first day of the week (named for the sun god) had been the weekly holiday of the pagans. So, Sunday was declared to be a legal holiday ("holy day"). Work on Sunday was outlawed, with the exception of farming when necessary. The pagans throughout the Empire were happy campers!

But there were goodies for the Christians, too. By proclaiming Sunday the "Christian Sabbath," Constantine showed his favor for Christianity. More and more legislation provided privileges for Christians. The Church was provided with financial support from the State: huge financial support. The state financed lavish church buildings (which happened to resemble pagan temples). There were tax exemptions, political appointments, exemptions from military proscription and other benefits to those who converted to Christianity. According to Albert H. Newman, in A Manual of Church History, Constantine promised 20 pieces of gold to every person who converted to Christianity, plus a nice, white baptismal robe.[1] Needless to say, there were suddenly many "converts" in the Empire! By A.D. 346 the pagan temples were ordered to close, unless the pagan priests who ran them converted to Christianity. Of course many of them professed a new-found faith in Christ. The upshot of whole thing was that these priests, who "converted" because of the pressure and the money, introduced the Church to all of their idolatry and superstitions. Paganism had the last laugh: The Christian church had become thoroughly paganized! This never would have happened had the Church and State remained separate.

To make matters worse, the ancient Roman practice of persecuting those whose religions were not permitted was suddenly applied in a different way: In A.D. 380 Emperor Theodosius I issued an edict that established Christianity as the exclusive religion of the Empire. Those who deviated from the form of worship approved by the State were designated as "heretics" and punished accordingly. Perhaps this is why Peter Kershaw, in his book, In Caesar's Grip, said:

Constantine is the original and best example of the statement, "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you!"[2]

The merging of church and state under Constantine resulted in some profound changes in theology within the Church, especially in the area of eschatology. The way the 1000 year reign of Christ (mentioned six times in Revelation 20) was perceived changed drastically--a change which has continued into the Church of the present day. I'll be writing more about that in future posts to this blog.

The nation of Israel was originally established by God as a theocracy. However during the "times of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:34), the period from the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar until the Second Advent of Jesus Christ, the Bible recognizes the Church and the State as two separate entities. Jesus implied this in his reply to some of the Jews who were attempting to trap Him:

Then the Pharisees went and counseled together how they might trap Him in what He said.
And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any.
Tell us therefore, what do you think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?"
But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, "Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites?
"Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax." And they brought Him a denarius.
And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?"
They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."
And hearing this, they marveled, and leaving Him, they went away. (Matthew 22:15-22)

The coin was especially offensive to the Jews, and rightly so, because it was engraved with the head of Emperor Tiberius and the inscription, divus et pontifex maximus: "God and Highest Priest."[3] Jesus was acknowledging that the tax was due Caesar, because Caesar and his government were in place under the sovereignty of God, fulfilling the laws of divine establishment (Daniel 2:21; Romans 13:1-7). But what was not due Caesar was the recognition of Caesar as God and highest priest! In other words, render taxes to Caesar and render worship to God. Caesar, by extension, represents human government during the "times of the Gentiles," which includes the time in which Christ spoke, as well as the present dispensation. The Church and the State are recognized as separate entities, with separate powers.

The marriage of church and state, which contradicts what God intended, has been the status quo for most of church history. The clear separation of church and state expressed by our nation's founders and the principle of religious freedom we enjoy are really quite unique to our heritage. The birth of our nation was a shocking departure from the fourteen hundred years of world history that preceded it. Few of us in the U.S.A. are really aware that the religious freedom we are blessed with, after century upon century of tyranny in western civilization, was recognized and protected in our founding documents. Few of us are aware of it, because few of us have been taught it.

Footnotes:
1. Albert H. Newman, A Manual of Church History, quoted by Peter Kershaw, In Caesar's Grip (Branson: Heal Our Land Ministries, 2000), p. 51.
2. Peter Kershaw, In Caesar's Grip, p. 50.
3. Robert H. Mounce, New International Biblical Commentary, Matthew (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1991), p. 208.

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB. http://www.lockman.org/

The Great Con Job

In my last post, Worship Freely--With Permission, Of Course (click here to read), I suggested that the early Christians in the Roman Empire were persecuted not only because they were believers in Christ, but because they refused to apply to the state for permission to gather together and worship. While the Romans were very tolerant of diverse religious cults, one thing they would not allow was meetings of any kind that were not authorized by the State. The Christians during New Testament times recognized that to seek approval from the State to worship Christ would have been a public acknowledgement of Caesar's dominion over Christ! Did you ever wonder why the earliest Christians met in homes? A building for meetings could not be purchased, or even rented, by a group that was not incorporated and authorized by Rome.

The founding of our nation, the United States of America, was something quite unique and truly wonderful. Our founding fathers recognized that the powers of civil government are completely separate from the powers of the church. Most Christians in present-day America have not been taught how awful it has been, historically, when the church and state have been united or have been partners--and unfortunately, church and state have been affiliated with each other in western civilization for most of the centuries since Constantine joined the church to the state in the fourth century.

Although we are blessed to live in a nation whose constitution has clearly recognized the separation of church and state, most churches in the United States have eagerly accepted government control over their assemblies by incorporating and applying to the IRS for status as 501(c)3 organizations. In his excellent book, In Caesar's Grip, Peter Kershaw exposes this phenomenon, calling it "the most cunning and diabolical con job ever perpetrated on the churches of America."[1] Kershaw estimates that 90% of churches in America have incorporated, and he points out that, "By the incorporation of churches, government has become the great franchiser of religion."[2] Kershaw notes that a corporation:

• Is a creature of the State.
• Seeks the permission of the State for its existence.
• Cannot exist without the expressed sanction of the State.
• Is subordinate and under the control of the State.
• Is answerable and accountable to the State.
• Is a special privilege of the State.
• Is a franchise of the State.[3]

Why do churches incorporate? Incorporation is necessary in order for a church to be able to apply to the IRS to be approved as a 501(c)3 organization per the IRS tax code. Church administrators think that approval as a 501(c)s will give them tax-exempt status so that contributions to the church will be tax deductible. What those conducting church business usually do not know is that, according to the IRS's own publication, Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations (click here to read), churches that meet the requirements of IRC section 501(c)3, which most churches do (included are such things as not intervening in political campaigns), "are automatically considered tax-exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS."[4]

Why, then, would a church apply to a tax-exempt status that it already has? Ignorance of the law is probably the main reason. Also, church administrators think that obtaining the status of 501(c)3 somehow legitimizes them, so that they are viewed as being "official."

Given the nature of the new White house administration and Congress in Washington, I would venture to say that within a few years there may be some interesting requirements for 501(c)3 organizations. As a pastor, I'm glad I saw the handwriting on the wall before our church completed the incorporation process.

Footnotes:
1. Peter Kershaw, In Caesar's Grip (Branson: Heal Our Land Ministries, 2000), p. V.
2. Ibid., p. 70.
3.Ibid., p. 87.
4. IRS publication 1828, Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations, publication # 1828, p.3.

Worship Freely--With Permission, Of Course!

In the ancient world, the Romans were very unusual in the way they conquered and subjugated nations. Each great world empire that preceded the Romans would typically impose its own language, religion, and entire political system on a nation it conquered. Rome was different. When the Romans conquered a nation, they were careful to preserve its culture: its traditions, language, trades, businesses and religions. They even left the conquered nation's political system in tact, to a degree. An example of this is the relationship Rome maintained with Judea.

Perhaps the Romans were the first "multiculturalists," because they felt that diversity of culture helped to strengthen the Empire, not weaken it. Yet the Romans were not naive! They recognized that allowing such diversity created the potential for unrest and rebellion--so, their solution was Roman law. If there is one word that best characterizes the Romans, it is law. The Romans ruled the lands they occupied with zero-tolerance for any who would break the law.

While the Romans tolerated all kinds of religions, one thing they would not tolerate is an unlicensed, unauthorized operation of anything--including a religion. Private meetings of any kind had to be authorized by the state. (The Romans recognized that plots to overthrow Roman rule and plans for rebellions and assassinations could come from private meetings.) All private associations, including religious organizations, were required to receive licet from Caesar. Licet is Latin for, "It is permitted." The present participle of licet is the word from which we get our English word, "license."

Here was the catch: Licet could only be received when Caesar was acknowledged as sovereign. The sovereignty of the emperors, beginning with Augustus Caesar, was profound. According to John Weaver:

Augustus Caesar proclaimed himself to be the sovereign God in 17 B.C. A strange star shone in the heavens, and he inaugurated a twelve day advent celebration and declared himself savior. Because of his successes militarily and economically, he was worshipped as the divine savior king, born in the historical hour ordained by the stars. Hence, he inaugurated the cosmic hour of salvation. It was proclaimed throughout the Roman Empire. "Salvation is to be found in none other name given to men in which they can be saved."[1]

I must tell you that in my opinion, the media's portrayal of our recent Presidential inauguration bore some striking resemblance to the above. In any case, God's answer to the proclamation of Augustus came through the Apostle Peter, who spoke of the name of Jesus Christ:

And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

The sovereignty of Caesar was not merely legal sovereignty: Caesar was the supreme deity! In fact, in later years (A.D. 302), Emperor Diocletian imposed an offering whereby Christians who refused to bend the knee to Caesar and offer a pinch of incense were persecuted.

During the times in which the New Testament was written, incorporation was mandatory for religious cults. The Romans had inherited the practice of incorporation from the Greeks, and our modern corporations are the legal descendant of the Roman corporation. In the Roman Empire, incorporation was a public acknowledgement of the Roman government's prerogative to authorize or prohibit the association of persons who incorporated. Once the charter was granted, that charter publicly declared the corporation's subservience to the authority of the State. Had the local assemblies of the early church incorporated and been approved by the State, they would probably not have been persecuted by Rome. Believers in Christ suffered martyrdom rather than ask for authorization from Caesar. Why? They recognized that to seek approval from the State to worship Christ would have been a public acknowledgement of Caesar's dominion over Christ!

Was the refusal of these believers to apply for government approval civil disobedience? Not by dictionary definition of the term. Here are definitions of "civil disobedience" from two dictionaries:

...the refusal to obey certain governmental laws or demands in order to influence legislation or policy, characterized by nonviolent methods as nonpayment of taxes and boycotting.[2]

...the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest.[3]

I have always taught, and I continue to teach, that Christian activism and civil disobedience are wrong. Christian activism seeks to force spiritual issues upon unbelievers. Civil disobedience is wrong because we are clearly instructed to obey civil authority (Romans 13:1-7). However, the refusal of the early Christians to obey the requirement to apply for licet was not political protest and it was not disobedience to influence legislation or policy. These believers were put into a position where to obey the civil authorities would be to disobey God--and in that position, the only honorable thing to do is to obey God. Two apostles of Jesus Christ put it like this when the Sanhedrin had commanded them to stop preaching Christ:

But Peter and John answered and said to them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:19-20)

The equivalent of seeking to receive licet in the Roman Empire is the modern church in America incorporating and applying to the IRS for status as a 501(c)3 organization. It is estimated that about 90% of the churches in the United States have bought into this.[4] The irony is that when a church applies for 501(c)3 status, it is usually applying to receive benefits that churches already have, according to the current IRS code. I will expound on this in my next post.

Footnotes:
1. John Weaver, The Sovereignty of God and Civil Government, quoted by Peter Kershaw, In Caesar's Grip (Branson: Heal Our Land Ministries, 2000), p. 30.
2. Random House Webster's College Dictionary (New York: Random House, 1997), p. 240.
3. The Oxford American College Dictionary (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 2002), p. 254.
4. Peter Kershaw, In Caesar's Grip (Branson: Heal Our Land Ministries, 2000), p. 70.

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB. http://www.lockman.org/