Created Life?

“Artificial Bacteria” — Have Scientists Created Life?

Not once have scientists ever observed it happening—but almost all of them hold fast to the concept that nonliving material gave rise to living material. If their cherished evolutionary theory is correct, then spontaneous generation must have occurred at some point in the distant past. George Wald, Nobel Laureate of Harvard University, once stated: “Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation” (see Bowen, 1979, pp. 287-306, emp. added). As such, our classrooms and textbooks still contain the false idea that scientists have created life.

The most famous example is the 1953 experiment carried out by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey. Using a system of glass flasks, Miller and Urey attempted to simulate “early atmospheric conditions.” They passed an electrical spark through a mixture of water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. However, their experiment was carried out in the absence of oxygen (something evolutionists now admit does not reflect the early Earth’s atmosphere), because they knew that oxygen quickly would oxidize any amino acids that were formed. At the bottom of the apparatus was a trap to capture any molecules produced by the reaction. This trap prevented the newly formed chemicals from being destroyed by the next electrical discharge. On the first attempt, after a week of electrical discharges in the reaction chamber the sides of the chamber turned black and the liquid mixture turned a cloudy red. The predominant product was a sticky, black substance made up of countless carbon atoms strung together in what was essentially tar (a common nuisance in organic reactions). Miller was able to produce a mixture containing two simple amino acids—the building blocks of proteins. Yet the highly praised Miller-Urey experiment did not produce any of the fundamental building blocks of life itself. It produced 85% tar, 13% carbolic acid, 1.05% glycine, 0.85% alanine, and trace amounts of other chemicals.

One article on this subject in the respected Encyclopaedia Britannica affirmed that modern findings “pose grave difficulties” for spontaneous generation theories once supported by the Miller-Urey experiment. The article went on to state: “…due to a rapid and efficient photochemical consumption of CH4 and NH3, a methane-ammonia atmosphere would have a maximum lifetime of about 1,000,000 years. This finding is of interest because it has been suggested that life originated from mixtures of organic compounds synthesized by non-biological reactions starting from methane and ammonia. Recognition of the short atmospheric lifetimes of these materials poses grave difficulties for such a theory” (see Encyclopaedia Britannica). Many scientists now believe that the Earth’s early atmosphere would have made the synthesis of organic molecules virtually impossible under conditions simulated in the Miller-Urey experiment. For example, NASA has reported that a “reducing atmosphere” never has existed, although the experiment assume one (Levine, 1983). Scientists also now realize that the ultraviolet radiation from sunlight is destructive to any developing life. Regarding the products of the Miller-Urey experiment, evolutionist Robert Shapiro stated: “Let us sum up. The experiment performed by Miller yielded tar as its most abundant product. There are about fifty small organic compounds that are called ‘building blocks.’ Only two of these fifty occurred among the preferential Miller-Urey products” (1986, p. 105).

However, more recent discoveries once again have evolutionists clamoring that life has been “created.” In the June 16, 2000 issue of Science, Gerard Wong and colleagues reported a mechanism by which chemicals can spontaneously self-assemble themselves into ribbon-like tubules that resemble bacterial cell walls (288: 2035). This discovery has led some to suggest that “artificial bacteria” were created—when, in fact, they were not! The researchers simply mixed actin with special liposomes to make actin-membrane capsules, which is a gargantuan step from “creating life.” Actin is a protein that provides the structural framework for cells. The actin molecule does not possess DNA, it does not actively metabolize, and it does not reproduce. It is therefore a far cry from being “living.” Spontaneous organization does not equal spontaneous generation. So while this composite membrane is indeed similar to the plasma membrane that surrounds most cells—due to the fact that it can organize itself into three different layers, including a middle lipid layer—it has none of the qualities scientists use to identify life.

In a similar study, Jeffrey Hartgerink and colleagues reported that they had made self-assembling synthetic bone (2001). Using pH-induced self-assembly, these scientists have been able to form a composite that may one day be able to replace diseased bone tissue. These synthetic molecules assemble into fibers that “coax” minerals into growing on top of them—bringing us closer to better prosthetic devices. News services were quick to describe this discovery as “man-made bone.” However, even if scientists were able to manufacture bone tissue, that in and of itself is not “life.” A bone lying on a stainless steel table is of little use in the quest to form living material from nonliving material. Artificial bone is not able to reproduce itself, and without a blood supply it quickly dies. A close inspection of the report reveals that the bonds within this fibrous matrix can be reversed (by reducing the disulfides back into thiols). Does this sound like any living tissue with which you are familiar? The fact is, life always comes from life—a fact that nails the lid shut on the coffin in which evolutionary theory rests.

REFERENCES

Bowen, M.E., and J.A. Mazzeo (1979), Writing About Science (New York: Oxford).

Encyclopaedia Britannica “Atmosphere: Photochemical Reactions” [On-line] URL: http://members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=118221&sctn=9.

Hartgerink, Jeffrey D., Elia Beniash, and Samuel I. Stupp (2001), “Self-Assembly and Mineralization of Peptide-Amphiphile Nanofibers,” Science, 294:1684-1688, November 23.

Levine, J. (1983), “New Ideas About the Early Atmosphere,” NASA Special Report, No. 225, Langley Research Center, August 11.

Shapiro, Robert (1986), Origins—A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth (New York: Summit).

Wong, Gerard C.L., Jay Tang, Alison Lin, Youli Li, Paul Janmey, and Cyrus Safinya (2000), “Hierarchical Self-assembly of F-Actin and Cationic Lipid Complexes: Stacked, Three-Layer Tubule Networks,” Science, 288:2035-2039, June 16.

Apologetics Press originally posted this article at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1037

Posted in Brad Harrub | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Created Life?

In Heaven…

Will Christians Know One Another in Heaven?

If we are to see those who we love and are faithful to God no more, who have left the land of the living, who have passed beyond the door of death never to return to earth again, if there is no future recognition, then the moment of parting at the grave becomes the hour of final separation. Furthermore, if there is no recognition in Heaven, then all faithful souls will be total strangers, every memory we now possess will be obliterated, and every bond severed, and as strangers, we will enter Heaven and live forever and ever. It cannot be, that when our loved ones leave our physical hands, and our hearts make testimonies to the love and affection we feel for them, and the memories that are deeply established in our hearts, that it is all for vain. The fact is that, the soul longs for the assurance of a happy reunion beyond the door of death. Therefore, we search for evidence in the scriptures that such a longing is not a delusion nor a fantasy. And it is in the Bible where it tells us that heaven is a place of reunion.

Notice the expression, “and he was gathered to his people” as it is mentioned in regards to the death of: Abraham (Gen. 25:8), Ishmael (Gen. 25:17), Isaac (Gen. 35:29), Jacob (Gen. 49:33), Aaron (Numb. 20:24) and Moses (Numb. 27:12-13). Now while some say that this just means that they died and were buried together, this does not fit the facts because Abraham was buried in a cave at Machpelah (Gen. 25:9) which was not the burial place of his ancestors! They had been buried in Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. 11:26) which at the time, was on the other side of the known world (roughly 900 miles by foot). Also, Moses died by himself on the mountain by which no man knew the place where he was buried (Deut. 34:6).

Next, notice David’s reaction to the death of his son in which he says, “Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me” (2 Sam. 12:23). David was showing that he would be reunited with his son showing personal recognition.

Then, notice the mount of transfiguration where Peter, James and John recognized the identity of Moses and Elijah whom they had never seen before. (Lk. 9:33) Interestingly, Luke records that they were called “men,” not spirits.

Then, there is the Rich man and Lazarus. Now, some say that this is just a parable and not fact. Yet, whether a parable or fact is irrelevant. It shows mankind what happens at death otherwise, it would be worthless for these truths (Jn. 17:17) to be mentioned in the Bible. Notice that the Rich man knew Lazarus, he knew Abraham, he remembered his brothers, he had sight, he cried, and Abraham told him to “remember his life that he had lived” (Lk. 16:25).

Finally, notice Matt. 8:11: Jesus said, “That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.” Now, what would be the point of sitting with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob if we had no idea of who was who in Heaven? No, This further proves full recognition.

When faithful Christians come together in Heaven, we will know each other by name including all those we have never met from the beginning of time until the very end of it. Therefore, when we die, it is never goodbye because there will be a day, when we will gather together once again in Heaven with God, forever to stay.

Posted in Robert Notgrass | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on In Heaven…

Spiritual Security

We have all heard of Social Security – the system whereby the government withholds money from our income and places it in a trust fund so that when we reach retirement age, currently age 62, we can receive a government check. Social Security was put in place by the Roosevelt administration during the depression in August, 1935 and has for the last 70 years provided income for millions of retired and elderly people. For many, Social Security is their sole source of income to meet their daily needs.

Recently, there have been news reports that Social Security is failing and that in its current form it will be out of funds by the year 2041. This news is not so bad to those who are at or nearing retirement age now. However, those who will not be contemplating retirement for another 30-40 years (the twenty and thirty-something’s) had better begin making other plans with regard to retirement! Even if Social Security does not completely fail as predicted – it still does not provide much relief to our elderly and retired friends and family. At best, Social Security only provides for the most basic of needs and in reality it is truly Social IN-Security!

Our national system of Social Security is far from perfect. This is true even just within its scope! Its scope does not even address the most important of all human needs – the need for SPIRITUAL Security. We must not look to the United States government or any other government to provide for our spiritual needs – because human does not have the answer. We must look to God and to God alone for the Spiritual Security that we need in this Spiritually insecure world.

The apostle Paul was one who realized that in God he had true Spiritual security. In his second letter to the young evangelist, Timothy, written during his final imprisonment – not long before he was put to death – Paul wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, “For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.” (2 Timothy 1:12)

In this verse, Paul expresses his trust in God in spite of all the things that he suffered for the cause of Christ in the past (See 2 Corinthians 11:23-28) and in spite of his current imprisonment and impending execution. Why was Paul so secure in the Spirit? He knew the power of the One in whom he believed and in whom he put his trust. He knew, as should we, that God is in control and that as long as he was faithful God would deliver on His promise of eternal life. Paul, by the Spirit, wrote, “For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:38-39) From this we learn that no outside force can separate us from God. Notice, however, that this passage does not say that we cannot separate our selves from God! There are many passages that teach that a Christian can fall from grace (e.g. 1 Corinthians 10:12; 2 Peter 2:20).

Why was Paul so secure in the Spirit? Because he had committed himself to God’s keeping. He had made his life a living sacrifice unto God. “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” (Romans 12:1) Paul knew that as long as he just kept doing the will of God and kept pressing forward in the Lord’s work he would never fall. “Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 3:13-14)

What about you, are you Spiritually secure as was Paul? Or, are you placing your trust somewhere else, unsure as to whether that in which you have it will be eternally sufficient? If you are not Spiritually secure, then why don’t you give yourself fully to God? You can be sure that in God you will have Spiritual security for all of eternity, if you will but be faithful!

We may or may not be persuaded that the Social Security Administration is able to keep that which we have committed (i.e. our Social Security withholdings) against the day of our retirement. But we can and should be assured that God is ABLE to do so!

 

Posted in Jack McNiel | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Spiritual Security

Christian Value System

Rebuilding the Christian Value System

The great debate between the liberal and the conservative political positions is easy to describe. To describe the liberal position in politics seems to be taking the anti-biblical position. By that I mean the liberal politicians generally take the position that infanticide (i.e. abortion) is an acceptable norm, that homosexuality is not to be censured but that these people are ok, that marriage between two men or two women are to be accepted as ok, that the mention of God, the Bible, or discussions of true religion are to be extinguished in government and in all institutions that accept money or aid from the government. These politicians that consider themselves to be liberal generally do not believe the Bible or anything pertaining to it; they believe in humanism as defined by the great humanistic thinkers (i.e. evolution, the big-bang, and do-you-own-thing, etc) of the past and in our current time.

One of the most revealing statements in recent years is a statement by one of our politicians after a journey to Africa where that politician was so overcome with their circumstance that she wrote that “it takes a village to raise a child.” Actually, it takes a father and mother (i.e. a family) to raise children. You see, there is a lack of respect for God’s instruction regarding the family unit that God approves and the composition of that family unit. God; in His sacred Book (i.e. the Bible) says that the family cares for the children that the husband cares for the wife, and children, and that the man is the leader in the family unit; please note the following facts regarding the family unit that God approves:

The election is over, now let us pick up the pieces and attempt to reclaim the Biblical lifestyle that is slipping away from the masses of humanity. It is up to us, those of us who still follow the Holy Bible and its teaching.

Rom 7:2-3, 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. (KJV)

1 Cor 7:2-4, 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

Eph 5:23-25, 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; (KJV)

Col 3:21, 21 Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

Eph 6:4, 4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. (KJV)

1 Cor 6:18, 18 Flee fornication, Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. (KJV)

1 Cor 7:2, 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. (KJV)

Gal 5:19-21, 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (KJV)

Whether you are a man or a woman as part of a family God speaks to you about your role. If you are a child in the family God speaks to you and to your mother and father about their and your responsibilities in that family. God addresses the grandparents in the family unit and gives instructions that indicate they ought to teach and set examples of godly conduct and living for the grandchildren – cf. 2 Tim 1:2-5, To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. 3 I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day; 4 Greatly desiring to see thee, being mindful of thy tears, that I may be filled with joy; 5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois , and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also. (KJV)  — November 4, 2008

Posted in Garreth L. Clair | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Christian Value System

The Role of Politics in the Church

First Century Politics and the Church

In the first century, Roman politics played a disastrous role on the new testament church.  In July of 64 AD a huge fire raged through 10 of the 14 districts of Rome.  Nero was the emperor then and public support of him was at an all time low.  In an effort to divert attention from himself for the disaster, he chose to blame it on the Christians.  He ordered Christians to be thrown to the dogs and burned alive as lights for the streets at night.  Nero used politics to save his own skin and countless innocent Christians died because of it.

Emperor Domitian, son of Vespasian declared himself a God on earth.  He entrusted the imperial cult, sometime known as the Concilia, to enforce worship of himself.  This was done as a political move to help bolster his popularity among the citizenry of Rome.  This was not a big deal to the poly-theistic culture of Rome, but to a Christian, worship of anyone but Jehovah was the equivalent of spiritual fornication against God and was forbidden.  The pagan Roman Citizenry simply viewed the worship of Domitian as just another god among many and the attempts to force the worship of him on the citizenry was met with little resistance.  Except for the Christians.

The Jews hated the Christians and ever vigilant for the opportunity to persecute them saw this as an opportunity to rid themselves of them.  They were all too happy to report the Christians to the Roman authorities and many many innocent Christians paid for this with their lives.  Roman and Jewish politics working together very nearly destroyed the Lord’s church from the face of the earth.

This all happened after the establishment of the church.  So what about before the church came into existence?  What did the political scene look like then?  Jesus Christ was on earth and working His earthly ministry among the Jewish nation.  It had political factions as well.  There were three major political parties.

The Essenes:

The Essenes owned no private property, but that they had pooled all of their resources into a common fund that was distributed to the individual members as each had need. Members labored daily for wages that were contributed to the common treasurer to buy the necessary provisions for the group. Not only was food for the entire group purchased from the common fund, but also clothing, which continued to be the property of the group.

All Essenes were dressed with garments made of only one kind of material. Furthermore, those who were ill or aged were treated at the common expense and given the same thoughtful care that parents might expect of children. Hence it was possible for Essenes with no children to live to a comfortable old age.

Some Essenes insisted that marriage was forbidden.  They were happy to raise children given to them from others.  Many of them thought that marriage led to unrighteousness, and that no woman was faithful. Women were said to divert an Essene’s attention from his primary concern.  Those who did marry limited their relations with their wives to only that which was necessary to produce children.

They were the strictest of all the sects on keeping the Sabbath.  They were so strict that even going to the bathroom on the Sabbath was discouraged.  They would often times never get out of their beds on the Sabbath unless they absolutely had to.

One very interesting characteristic they had was that slavery was strictly forbidden.  They believed in the equality of all men therefore they would not personally own slaves.  This is only a thumbnail view of their beliefs.  A full review would take more time than we have.  The point that we are making with this topic is that this party of individuals held beliefs and practices which were contrary to the law of Moses and to the gospel age which was coming on the scene at the time of Christ.

The Sadducees:

SADDUCEES
The Sadducees were essentially aristocrats. They dominated the higher echelon of the priesthood, and many Sadducees who were not priests held positions of authority as lay elders in the Sanhedrin. Thus the difference between the Sadducees and the Pharisees was not a simple one of priests versus laymen Many Pharisees were also priests — mostly of the lower ranks, but probably some even in the upper levels. Rather, the Sadducees derived their power from their class, while the Pharisees derived theirs from learning.  Josephus characterized the Sadducees as “men of the highest standing”  As a result of their high social status the Sadducees were dominated by political interests, and in these areas they were rigidly conservative, it naturally being in their best interest to maintain the status quo. Maintaining the status quo necessarily entailed collaboration with the Roman occupiers, by whom their power was delegated, and for this self-serving policy the people generally despised the Sadducees. The Sadducees’ strict policies of law and order, described as “heartless” or “savage”  in contrast to the “leniency” of the Pharisees, appeased the Romans and kept the Sadducees in power. Understandably they found any popular movement threatening, especially if it had political overtones as in the frequent messianic uprisings.   Jesus’ statements about a Kingdom (and Himself as king in any sense) was highly alarming to the Sadducees because it was understood as a call for radical changes in life-style.

In contrast with the Pharisees, the Sadducees’ rejected the authority of oral tradition. As priests they insisted on strict observance of the law of Moses as it was recorded.  Oral tradition meant nothing to a Sadducee.

One big difference between the Sadducees and the Pharisees was that the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the body.  They believed there was not such thing as an angel or a spirit.  cf. Acts 23:8, “For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.”

The Pharisees were better schooled in the law than the Sadducees but they also insisted that oral tradition which had been passed down from Moses was as authoritative as scripture.

PHARISEES
Many of the Pharisees were scribes also, though most were not. This accounts for the NT reference to two groups, scribes and Pharisees, along with occasional mention of “scribes of the Pharisees” (Mark 2:16; Acts 23:9). A Pharisee was usually a layman without scribal education, whereas a scribe was trained in rabbinic law and had official status. The Pharisees and scribes observed and perpetuated an oral tradition of laws handed down from the former teachers and wise men of Israel. This oral law, or Halakah, was highly venerated by the Pharisees and scribes. They taught that it had been handed down from Moses and was to be given the same respect as the written laws of the Pentateuch. The Pharisees sought to fulfill the injunction of Leviticus 11:44 and Exodus 19:6: to be a holy nation and a kingdom of priests. Their goal was to replicate the laws of temple purity in the home.

As interesting as this is, the one thing we need to get from this is that none of them were scriptural.  All of the ones mentioned and others were corrupted with the ideals and opinions of men.  There were more than three sects but for this lesson, we are looking at these three.  All three of these sects and the others exercised political power to get what they wanted.  They used whatever political means at their disposal in order to gain power.  It was all about power.  Power was sought by each group and the pursuit of it was more important to them than the truth.  They were willing to compromise what is right in order to gain what they want.  Is this starting to sound a little bit familiar?  One group is in power and they don’t want anything to change.  The other group wants to be in power so they are all about radical changes and somewhere along the line, truth is compromised, lies emerge and the way of God is somewhere in background.  They’ll call on God if it serves their purpose but they don’t really care about serving Him, what they really want is power and control.

These are all human ideals and there are literally hundreds of them who either have existed in the past or still exist to some degree or exist in full force.  None of them align completely with the word of God. None of them put God first.  None of them have any authority whatsoever to direct the life of a Christian.  Why?

Christians live by a simple set of rules.

1 Peter 2:9
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
KJV

Christians are a nation of people to themselves.  We have a king who is already in absolute power: Matthew 28:18, Jesus says, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.”  No need to try and make power grabs because Jesus Christ is already in charge and that’s not going to change.

So what happens when politics enters into the church?  One glaring result too easy to pass up is Roman Catholicism.  That is what happens when people who want to grab power enter into the church.  You suddenly start having people who claim more authority than Jesus gives them.  Who has all authority?  Jesus.  So where does that leave the leaders of churches like the Roman Catholic church and others who have earthly leaders who are never mentioned in scripture?  It leaves them outside the authority of God.

Christians serve Christ who is the king in absolute authority.  The law of Moses was more than a religious law.  It was also the Jewish constitution or Jewish civil law as well.  That has been done away with in the present age and Christians are expected to abide by the civil laws of whatever country they live in so far as they do not conflict with the law of God.  That’s where the line is drawn.

Titus 3:1
Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work,

Romans 13:1-2
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

1 Peter 2:13-15
Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme,
14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.
15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.

We are to live under the authority of whatever government we live under.  But what if that government wants us to do something that is contrary to God’s law.  That is very simple.

The Jewish High Council ordered the Apostles not to teach about Jesus in Jerusalem and Peter and all of the apostles said in Acts 5:29
“We ought to obey God rather than men.”  So when a conflict arises between the laws of man and the law of God we must choose to obey God.

1 Peter 2:17
Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.

Going back to Titus 3:1 lets look at verse 2
3 Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work,
2 to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men.

So does this mean we cannot speak evil of the leader of our country?

Acts 23:2-5
2 And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth.
3 Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?”
4 And those who stood by said, “Do you revile God’s high priest?”
5 Then Paul said, “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'”

Paul was quoting the old covenant, but we must acknowledge and be aware that Paul was not living under the old covenant.  This event happened well after the cross and Paul called him a whitewashed wall and apologized for it after he was told who he was speaking to.

John the Baptist looked Herod right in the eyes and told him his relationship with his brothers wife was wrong.  That admonition cost him his life but he did not sin in doing that.  Peter faced the Jewish high council and refused to obey them.  Paul faced Herod Agrippa and very nearly converted him to Christianity.

There is a proper way to do things.  Christians must speak against sin.  Christians are expected to point it out and rebuke it whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.  2 Timothy 4:2, “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.”  And we certainly must teach against sin in our assemblies.  Our assemblies are when one man stands up and teaches from the word of God and that cannot be done without conflicting with the policies of civil government from time to time.  No civil government on earth is completely scriptural.  No manmade ideal or political party is scriptural either.  They all fall short somewhere because they are manmade.  Our duty as Christians is to oppose evil wherever it is but to do it in a proper fashion.

Ephesians 6:10.
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.”  We cannot just bury our heads in the sand and ignore it.  We are in conflict with the powers of of this earth where they are in opposition to the will of God.

But this can be, and must be done without reviling or evil speaking about those who are in leadership roles.  For example to say an administration is wrong to endorse things like homo-sexual marriage and abortion is not speaking evil of them.  That’s the truth and every Christian’s duty is to the truth.  John the baptist did it, Peter did it, Jesus did it and we must do it too.  That’s not politics, that’s Christianity.  That’s obeying God rather than man.

Now there is a line that must not be crossed.  While identifying and rebuking error are scriptural practices, we can go too far and transgress God’s word in this respect.  An example of going too far would be “Those Sadducees are just ruining our way of life.  Did you know those stupid idiots are so conservative that they refuse to give up the power granted them by the Romans.”  We don’t call our leaders out by name and revile them publicly.  We don’t call them names or refer to them derogatorily.  They are appointed to power by the providential workings of God.  He has a plan and he is executing it.  Our duty is to accept that and to go about our lives as Christians.  We are to exercise self restraint, patience and virtue wherever we go.  We are to render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar’s, giving honor where it is due.

When the time comes for a rebuke of a policy of government such as abortion or same sex marriage, we do it gracefully, honorably and factually.  We leave politics out of it entirely and we certainly do not use reviling speech and engage in conduct unbecoming a Christian.

Politics are nothing more than man made ideals.  In the Lord’s church, we do not engage in manmade ideals.  Those who have in the past do not even resemble the new testament church any more.  politics have been the cause of untold havoc within the church and unspeakable atrocities on human kind.  In the Lord’s church, we abandon all manmade creeds, ideals and opinions and we adhere to the word of God only.  The word of God is our only authority for what we believe, what we practice and how we live.

As individuals we all have our own ideas on how a secular government should be run.  That’s not religion, that’s something secular and we as Christian must live under the authority if both God and man where man does not conflict with God.  As such, Christians are strangers living in a foreign land.  Think of it like this.  An American who travels to Europe is still an American but while in Europe that American is subject to European law.  Christians have their citizenship in heaven, (Philippians 3:20), We are sojourners in a foreign land  (1 Peter 2:11).  This world is not our home, we’re just a passing through.  But while we are here, we must obey and honor the laws of this land in so far as they do not conflict with the word of God.  We live in this world for now, but we are not of this world.  We do not identify ourselves with secular manmade ideals.  There’s no such things as Christ-ocrats or Christ-apublicans.  We may identify to some degree with a man made ideal as to how secular government should be run but we must never ever allow that to come between us as members of the Lord’s body.

People are sensitive about their ideals.  Maybe too sensitive sometimes.  I’m guilty of that and I have been taught better by members of my very congregation.  I have learned not to allow my ideals to get between me and my brothers in Christ.  As a citizen of heaven, I’m not going to get into an argument with a fellow Christian on how things ought to be run here on earth.  That’s not my concern.  I’m a Christian only.  My job is to live right and do what I can to reach the lost.  I’m not interested in converting anyone to my ideals.  I am interested in converting my ideals conform with God’s.  And in helping others to do the same.

Christians should work together as a family to try and reach the lost.  Let’s check our ideals at the door and try not to be too sensitive about them if someone else steps on ours.  Let’s strive to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.  And be sensitive to the feelings of others as well and do everything we can not to hurt one another.  We are Christians.  We have something that no one else in the world has.  We have hope.  We have love.  We have Christ.  Therefore we have everything we will ever need.  Let us not become entangled again in the affairs of this world.

I said this lesson would be on the role of politics in the Lord’s church.  I said that could be answered with a single word.  That word is…  Nothing.

Posted in David Hersey | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Role of Politics in the Church