After the Ruling, part 4

This is the fourth and final article in a series of articles about what to do in the wake of the wicked decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to force states to recognize same-sex unions as if they were marriages.  It’s time to stop compromising and get back to doing what is right.  It’s time to stop getting hung up on things that don’t matter and to prepare for what is likely to be a great persecution.

What can a godly statesman or political activist do in these times?

The states can combat the gay marriage ruling by simply refusing to obey it.  If a state chooses to abolish marriage licenses altogether, they might not have to recognize any marriage licenses, including those issued to sodomites.  There are also efforts to call into question the eligibility of two SCOTUS justices Kagan and Ginsburg from the case on the basis of a conflict of interest.  But in the current political climate these are unlikely to succeed.  

Short of that, the best thing to do is to support legislation which reduces the benefits that government hands out as an incentive for marriage.  Get rid of all tax breaks for marriage.  In Ohio, I was part of a successful effort to get rid of our state inheritance tax.  If you have it in your state, urge your representatives to get rid out it or start a ballot initiative to repeal it if that is an option in your state.  If that can’t be done, then support the elimination all exemptions, especially the spousal exemption or allow one to choose any one heir (not necessarily a spouse) to be exempted from the tax.  The only benefit that a married couple needs to receive from the government is the recognition that they have joint custody of their children and that only at the local level.  Try to reduce or get rid of child tax credits, since these now can be had by sodomites.  Support legislation to block same-sex couples from having joint custody of children.  Support state legislation which effectively nullifies unjust federal tax incentives and penalties, by refunding the state’s citizens of their federal income taxes or appropriate portions thereof.

Support legislation to protect parental rights from being taken away by the federal government. 

Do not vote for any candidates unless they refuse to have anything to do with taxpayer funding of sinful behavior.  Do not vote for any candidates for county clerk unless they refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses.  Do not vote for any judges unless they refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies and refuse to participate in awarding same-sex couples joint custody of children.  They should not even have custody of children at all if they are in a same-sex relationship.  It is very harmful to children.  It warps their minds. 

I have reached the point where I think that most of my time would be best spent building up the church and forming biblical congregations as God intended rather than wasting my time trying to convince those in power who do not know God to do what is just and right.  If you do decide to get involved in politics, don’t bother with the federal government.  Try to reverse the damage at the state and local levels. 

Summary

We are in the world, but we are not of the world.  Avoid situations where people can coerce you into participating in sinful behavior.  Avoid any dealing with the government, especially the federal government.  Be prepared for persecution.  Learn to depend on other Christians and on God and try not to be dependent on the wicked for your livelihood or allow them to have any other hold on you.  Be patient with sodomites and other sinners when witnessing to them realizing that past experiences may have led them into their wicked lifestyle.  But also realize that if they don’t repent, they will be damned.  Rid yourself of all hypocrisy which includes condoning unbiblical remarriage after divorce.

Wrong to Issue Marriage Licenses in These Cases as Well

With all of this talk about gay marriage and the issuing of marriage licenses to gay couples, it’s got me to thinking even more about marriage licenses.  Not only should whole concept of marriage license be offensive to a Christian, but it also puts county clerks and justices of the peace in a precarious position if they are true Christians.  There shouldn’t be any law or judicial precedent requiring the government to issue licenses to gay couples.  Maybe a state could get away with not having gay marriage if they didn’t issue licenses at all. 

But what about other instances in which a marriage is unbiblical?  Take for instance, if a Christian marries a non-Christian (I Corinthians 7:39, II Corinthians 6:14).  Or for example, what if a man marries a divorced woman (Matthew 5:31-32, Mark 10:12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2-3, I Corinthians 7:10-11, 39) or a man remarries after having divorced his wife for some reason other than (her) fornication (Matthew 19:9)?  Shouldn’t the same governing officials have a crisis of conscience in these cases?  Shouldn’t they also be willing to go jail in order to refuse to participate in these violations of Scripture as well?

No they shouldn’t, because they shouldn’t be put in that position in the first place.

Many politicians, some even who claim to be conservatives, say that Christians who are county clerks or justices of the peace must take off their “Christian hat” and put on their “public official hat” when they are acting on behalf of the government.  This type of compartmentalization is completely unbiblical and unacceptable.  This type of thinking should completely rejected by all Christians.

Another option for a Christian who is a county clerk or justice of the peace would simply be to resign from the position.  But this is also a very undesirable alternative especially in a nation founded on biblical principles.

Another way to avoid situations where there is a crisis of conscience is to simply ban all unbiblical marriages.  But, marriages that are mixed by religion being unbiblical for a Christian, this would mean that the government would have to make a judgment as to who is a Christian and who isn’t.  Yes, the marriage is unbiblical even if the non-Christian spouse is a churchgoer but not really a true believer in his/her heart.  Thus, the government would have to judge the heart of a man.  It is way beyond the scope of government to make this type of judgment.  It would give the governing authority power which belongs to the Church and it would be deleteriously abused from the get-go.  It is for this same reason that all Christians should oppose hate and thought crime legislation.

Jesus says that it is adultery for a man to marry a woman who is divorce or for a man to remarry after divorcing his wife for any reason except fornication.  But Jesus indicates that these teachings are for Christians only and that God does not expect unbelievers to follow them.  The Pharisees correctly pointed out that these things were permitted under the Law of Moses.  Jesus said that this was because the hearts of the people were hard.  The Old Testament teaches that the hearts of the Israelites were hard as stone, but in the future their hearts would be replaced with hearts of flesh (Ezekiel 11:19).  Surely, Christ has fulfilled this passage in us (true believers) through the work of the Holy Spirit and we do not live by the inferior standard of Deuteronomy 24 which was preferred by the Pharisees.  By the power of Christ in us we can and must receive Jesus’ teaching and live by the higher standard.  Jesus indicated this further by saying, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it” (Matthew 19:12 (KJV)), implying that not everyone is able to receive it.  So why then should we try to force it on the unwilling?

Having eliminated all other alternatives as being unbiblical, the only one left is to abolish marriage licenses.  I am not saying that the government should have no records or recognition that a marriage has taken place.  Giving someone a license to something implies that you condone the action.  Marriages that are mixed by religion and marriages after divorce are sinful, but nevertheless they are real marriages in God’s eyes.  If it is sinful for a couple to be married, then if you grant them a marriage license for a fee, you are quite literally selling them a license to sin!  The issuing of a license to do something necessarily comes before the action, by definition of the word license.  If that action is sinful then it is the same thing as the indulgences that used to be sold to parishioners in Roman Catholic Church before the sin was even committed!  A marriage can be a real marriage in God’s eyes even though the decision to enter into it was sinful.  Thus for purposes of questions arising before a court about child custody and other similar issues, it is prudent for the government to recognize that marriage has taken place even though it was a sinful decision to enter into the marriage covenant.  But that does not mean that they have to sell licenses before the covenant is sealed.  When a Christian couple is married, it should only be the family and the Church that is involved in the joining.  The civil government should not be involved in that process.  In their official capacity, no Christian county clerk should ever have to make a judgment about the rightness or wrongness of the decision to marry.  Originally the justice of the peace had nothing to do with marriage and that is the way it should be.  Originally they were only charged with keeping the peace (thus the name).  At most the civil authorities should only be charged with the responsibilities of deciding whether a marriage covenant has taken place and protecting the God given rights of the couple if it is the case that they are married.  And this determination should be solely based on God’s Word and the facts of the case in question.  Obviously no government official should ever recognize a union of a same-sex couple as being a marriage.

In summary, a Christian should never recognize or declare a relationship to be a marriage when it isn’t.  The most obvious example of pseudo-marriage is a homosexual relationship.  A Christian should never be involved in the process of joining a couple in matrimony if such a marriage is a violation of Scripture, even though it may be a real marriage in God’s eyes.  It follows from this that the concept of a marriage license is inherently sinful or at least bars any genuine Christian from certain public offices.  But it is prudent and necessary for a Christian to record or recognize the fact that a marriage has taken place when the Christian is properly acting in an official capacity for purposes of protecting the parental and marital rights of the married couple even though the decision to enter into that marriage covenant may have been sinful.

Ohio's Religious Freedom Restoration Act Withdrawn From Consideration - H.B. 376

From the Ohio Christian Alliance:

In a matter of hours after Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed Arizona's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, S.B. 1062, sponsors of Ohio's Religious Freedom Restoration Act H.B. 376, withdrew it from consideration. Co-sponsors of the legislation were not notified of the motion to withdraw until they read it in the papers this morning. H.B. 376 had enjoyed bipartisan support and had 43 co-sponsors. The bill's sponsors, Rep. Timothy Derickson (R-53) and Rep. Bill Patmon (D-10), withdrew the bill from consideration with the following statement,

"The intent of HB 376 was to ensure Ohioans' religious freedom by protecting their ability to freely worship and preventing any laws from burdening the free exercise of religion."

"However, with the controversy that is occurring in Arizona, we feel that it is in the best interest of Ohioans that there be no further consideration of this legislation," the statement says. "Protecting people's personal liberties – religious or otherwise – is of the upmost importance to members of the Ohio House, and we want to ensure that no law that we pass in this chamber is misconstrued to be discriminatory in any way."

The statement says the bill "stemmed from a well-meaning place," but that they don't want to allow for "confusion" around the issue.

"Discrimination of any kind was never the intent of this legislation. While our commitment to religious freedom remains constant, it is in the best interest of all Ohioans that no further consideration be given to HB 376."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Butler (R-Dayton) said in a statement, "I respect the sponsors' wishes on this matter, and as such, no future consideration will be given to HB 376."

Members of the House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to "indefinitely postpone" consideration of the bill later Wednesday.

After the committee meeting, Butler told Hannah News that indefinitely postponing the bill "effectively kills it."

OCA President Chris Long made the following statement, "The Ohio Christian Alliance, along with Citizens for Community Values, is dismayed by the actions of the legislators to so quickly scuttle this legislation that would assure people of faith in Ohio that they would not face discrimination by practicing their religious faith and convictions."

"As Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, in an interview with Megyn Kelly, stated 'Where do Christians now go to receive protection under the law?"' Mr. Perkins had referenced in his interview Christian bakers and photographers who were targeted with lawsuits as a result of exercising their religious right of conscience. State entities have actually injoined lawsuits against individuals who declined to participate in homosexual weddings by either baking and serving the cake or by being the wedding photography coordinator."

Long continued, " The action by Governor Jan Brewer and the action by some Ohio legislators does not end the issue. Our First Amendment rights of freedom of religion are far too important and fundamental to all rights of individuals under the Constitution. To so lightly toss them aside with little regard is a crime against the ideals of freedom itself. This issue is sounding the alarm for all freedom-loving Americans. If religious people can be compelled against their will to perform acts and services against their conscience, where does the tyranny end?"

Israeli Government Contemplates Eliminating Conscription Exemption for Ultra-Orthodox Jews

Ultra-orthodox Jews are exempt from serving in the Israeli military.  The Israeli government is considering eliminating the exemption.  The other Israeli citizens are saying that it is unfair that they are forced to join the army while the ultra-orthodox Jews are not.  They are right that it is not fair, but it wrong for anyone to be conscripted.  In a free country anyone should be allowed to chose not to serve in the armed forces.  Otherwise the rights of conscience and religious freedom are violated.  Anyone should be allowed to refuse to participate in a war regardless of the reason why and regardless of what country you are from.  In the United States, we have the 13th amendment to our constitution, which forbids involuntary servitude.

Stop Kasich's Murderous Medicaid Expansion

From Citizens for Community Values:

Ohio ProLife Action - No Medicaid Expansion
Federal Monies Attached to Anti-Life Policies

March 8, 2013--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Ohio ProLife Action Statement on Ohio Participation in Federal Medicaid Expansion

Ohio Pro-Life Action is concerned that Ohio not accept federal monies which are attached to anti-life policies and regulations, nor encourage the federal government to incur greater debt to fund this expansion of federal control over Ohio citizens and their health care decisions.

Whereas, those states that participate in federal Medicaid expansion will be governed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) individual mandate requiring individuals to obtain insurance, thus legislating increased Medicaid recipients subject to the so-called HHS Mandate and entrenching Medicaid in these states as an arm of the federal government...1,2

Whereas, Medicaid has covered for years, under states' limited discretion, the same measures that citizens are protesting in the HHS Mandate as a violation of conscience--surgical abortions (in Ohio in restricted cases),3 contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilizations... 4,5,6

Whereas, Medicaid expansion will expand these tax-funded practices to the underprivileged, which not only violate the conscience rights of many taxpayers, but are elective and medically unnecessary procedures and drugs...

Whereas, leading abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, is a recipient of Medicaid funding for so-called "family planning" measures,7 and funds for non-abortion procedures frees an abortion provider for its other programs....

Ohio ProLife action calls upon Governor John Kasich, the Ohio House of Representatives, and the Ohio State Senate to decline Ohio participation in federal Medicaid expansion and work instead for Medicaid reform for best use of taxpayer funds and essential medical care for the underprivileged.
 
1 HHS clarifies exemptions from individual mandate in states that buck Medicaid expansion

2 "The Individual Mandate requires people to pay for what the HHS mandate covers (because the HHS Mandate applies to all plans)..."
Alliance Defending Freedom, ObamaCare and Its Mandates Fact Sheet, p.1

3 Guttmacher Institute: State Policies in Brief - State Funding of Abortion Under Medicaid

4 The Kaiser Family Foundation: State Medicaid Coverage of Family Planning Services

5 "...it is worth noting that state Medicaid programs are already required to cover family planning services without cost-sharing..."
The Kaiser Family Foundation Issue Brief: State Coverage of Preventive Services for Women Under Medicaid

6 ohiofamilyplanning.org/services.html

7 For example, in Ohio, plannedparenthood.org/swoh

Contact: Linda Theis, President, Ohio ProLife Action, 419/957-6632

Conscience, Compromise and the Sacredness of Your Vote

I had a conversation a few days ago with some Republicans about voting your conscience.  I argued that I could not vote for any Republican except Ron Paul and would vote for a third party or independent candidate or no one at all if the Republican Party did not nominate Ron Paul.  I told them that I had not voted for any Republican or Democrat for President in the general election since Bob Dole (and that I would even take that vote back if I could because it was an unacceptable compromise).  We argued about whether there is a real difference between Obama and the Republican establishment candidates.  We argued about whether the United States would last as nation longer with the Republicans in power or the Democrats.  I argued that the Republican establishment has supported No Child Left Behind, Medicare part D, and even the funding of Planned Parenthood while they had control of all federal branches of government. I challenged them to tell me even one instance where they repealed a bad law previously enacted by the Democrats during those six years. The Bush tax cut law was the only thing that they could come up with.  But I argued that this is meaningless if spending is not also cut (and in fact, it wasn't).  If spending is not cut, then you (or your grandchildren) are eventually going have pay back that extra money anyway.  I also contended that God is in control, he is more powerful than Obama, so we don't have worry about him being reelected.  Just do the right thing, and let God manage the consequences.

They argued that you don't have to endorse everything that a candidate believes in order to vote for that candidate.  I agreed because no two people on earth are going agree on everything, but where do draw the line?  What if Hitler was the Republican nominee?  Would you still be saying, "That Hitler is really bad, but we just can't let that Obama get back in office!!!"  The only sensible place to draw the line is this:

If a candidate has clearly demonstrated that he intends to use the power of his office for evil in any instance, then voting for this candidate should be out of the question.

Very simple, isn't it?  You may not agree with everything that a candidate believes, but if you vote for a candidate that intends to use his power to promote sin, then you are participating in the evil that is accomplished if that candidate takes office.  The Bible teaches us not to be "unequally yoked with unbelievers" and "Be not ye therefore partakers with them."  Clearly, there is no difference between voting for such a candidate, and doing these evil things yourself.  This does not mean that the candidate must be in favor of the particular punishment that you think is fit for particular sin, or even if that particular sin should be against the law at all, as long as the minimum standards of Biblical justice are upheld.  This does not even mean that you can't vote for candidate who has used his power for evil in the past--for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  But if a candidate has clearly demonstrated a pattern of using his power to promote wicked behavior, and shows no remorse for what he has done and does not even acknowledge that what he has done is evil, but instead defends it--it is then unreasonable to vote for that candidate regardless of how wicked any opposing candidates may be.

Violating the Constitution is a form of lawlessness and lawlessness is sin. I am not saying to vote for Ron Paul--I am struggling with this decision myself--he is a borderline candidate.  But please, please do not vote Santorum, Gingrich, or Romney in the primary or the general election.  There is no question that they are unacceptable.  They have no respect for the Constitution.  They have all supported legislation which funds abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.  Send them a message that they can't get away with it!  Please, stop and think about this before voting!

Using Common Sense to Debunk Evolution

I don't agree with the 700 Club or Pat Robertson on many issues, but Ray Comfort is awesome. I hope the people who regularly watch this show see what real Christianity and real witnessing is all about. And what a great title for the book (You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think). No matter how brilliant you are at giving sophisticated scientific proofs of creationism, the sinner is rarely converted by these types of arguments. Pride has hold on sinner's hearts and to admit that they're wrong about something like that is humiliating. The pride factor needs to be torn down first. You need to appeal to the conscience. You need to use the Ten Commandments! You only need to use a little common sense along with it like the watchmaker argument or the other simple ones that you can find on Ray's website.

Taxes and Conscience

Someone in my church came forward this past Sunday and confessed some sins. He said that his business partner had been illegally writing off cell phones as a business expense when some of them were only being used for personal use by the families of the employees. He just let this slide rather than risk ending the partnership or losing employees. I agree with him that what he did was theft. He said that his conscience bothered him about this and it led him to commit worse sins.

Also this week I watched an old Billy Graham television special in which he discussed the conscience. He talked about how a person can dull his conscience to the point where worse sins can be committed without any guilt. He talked about how a person can accept Christ and restore a pure conscience from a corrupted state. He also mentioned that there is a conscience fund box (located at post offices) from people who have remorse for having cheated the government.

The fact that there are tax exemptions for business expenses causes compromising situations like the one my fellow congregant described. The cost of government using money to manipulate how people spend their money is the devastating consequence of corruption and lawlessness. People who know that they can get away with cheating the government and don’t care will likely do it. This amounts to a tax on conscientiousness. The tax code is so huge and complicated that people don’t even know if they’re cheating the government or not.

Every special interest needs to give up their sweetheart deals. I am even in favor of getting rid of tax exemptions for churches. Simplicity and restraint of taxation is not just an economic issue, it a moral issue. The higher the tax rates, the more temptation there is to cheat. If I really had my way I would get rid of the IRS altogether, drastically cut spending (starting with stopping the war in Iraq), get rid of all of the free trade agreements, and increase tariffs and excise taxes.

Why should people who spend more of their money on a business get favorable treatment from the government? What gives the government the right to do this anyway? Even though the government cheats us in this and many other ways in regard to taxation, I don’t believe in taking the law into your own hands by cheating the government to make up for it.