What happened to Morality?
We live in a world that is changing, and not for the better. Morality has been replaced by character qualities. Character is not a bad thing, but where, how and why we develop that character can be considered bad.
Everyone is defined by their character. The way that other people perceive you as a person is defined by your character. People judge you according to what they see in you, your actions, your speech, your attitude and your temperament to name a few. Your character, as it defines who you are, also defines your nature and can be used to render judgment upon actions attributed to you good or bad to determine if they are within or out of character with your normal actions.
Modern society has tried to move beyond faith based morality into a secular based character trait teaching. As part of a progressive initiative, based upon liberal ideas which reject or minimize biblical teachings, character building through secular based instruction tries to inject a type of secular based copy of morality into society.
The most perceivable differences between morality and character is from the teaching and the focus.
Psalms 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt , they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
When we think of a fool, we tend to define it as people that do foolish things. Those that partake in foolish ventures, act up or even take risks normal people would consider hazardous. But in this verse the word fool is used in a different meaning, The word in Hebrew is nabal from the root word nabel. When used in this verse it means vile or ungodly, morally wicked. The foolishness or folly of this fool is because they have rejected God and show no reverence to him. The world we are living in has become profane and secular, teaching contempt and irreverence for the things of God. This includes the bible and the teachings of God. Morality is only found through the pages of our most sacred text, the word of God. Morality is more than a conditioning or teaching that shows on the outside, but is issued from the heart. True morality, that comes from within, is not something that we have to train ourselves to do in order to act that way, but is the work of the Holy Spirit being active in our lives as we study the word, accept it and surrender ourselves to God.
Character is being taught in schools and businesses and has been since first introduced as training by Kimray Inc. for their manufacturing plant, in 1992. Since then their program has been made available to schools and businesses and is now used worldwide. The company felt that their problems had to do with lack of character of the employees and if character was instilled on a individual basis, then the problems that plagued the company would disappear. The popularity of the program and others like it has grown and has been seen as a way to solve problems in businesses and other organizations because of problems within the companies. Schools have adopted the program because of problems not only in the schools but in society away from the campuses. By instilling character traits in the students they feel that students will live better lives away from the school setting and will in turn improve society.
Why are character traits being taught in the schools? Because of the lack of morality based upon the bible in the past few decades. If biblical based morality was instilled in children and adults like it was in times past then we would have no need for character training away from the church or family.
There are problems with character based teaching in schools. Character based teaching is secular and can only be effective as to your self worth. Morals, biblically based, is not based on self importance but upon pleasing God.
Many of the terms used in the secular based character teaching and in biblical based morality are the same but with different meanings.
Secular based
Faith - Confidence that actions rooted in good character will yield the best outcome, even when I cannot see how
Compassion - Investing whatever is necessary to heal the hurts of others
Discernment - Understanding the deeper reasons why things happen
Honor - Respecting others because of their worth as human beings
Loyalty - Using difficult times to demonstrate my commitment to those I serve
Patience - Accepting a difficult situation without giving a deadline to remove it
Bible based
Faith - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For a Christian, our faith is rooted in God and his word.
Compassion - True compassion is more than just pity or empathy toward others who are suffering. Compassion can be given to every man in all circumstances, not just the hurting and brokenhearted but also to the point of loving your enemies. God's compassion was shown toward us, not because He pitied us or felt sorry for us but because He loved us. When we were without God, we weren't in a state to be pitied in our eyes, we were happy in our sins. God's Love was shown through the sacrifice of His Son. True compassion can only be shown to others because of God's Love for us.
Discernment - Is the judgment of actions, teachings or interpretation of scripture. It is basically judging whether something is good or bad, right or wrong, true or false. Discernment is a gift and we are able to discern through the Spirit according to the word of God.
Honor - is bestowed upon those to whom honor is due. Honor is given to those who have shown themselves worthy of the respect of their authority or position. Honor can also be bestowed because of someone’s character. Honor is only made complete by attention or obedience. We honor God and are obedient to Him because of His great love for us by granting salvation, and we honor Him through our obedience and service.
Loyalty - Faithfulness to God and placing no other above or equal to Him. According to Jesus you can only serve one master. Loyalty is to be undivided and we are to serve God, only.
Patience - is mentioned in the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5 and is of the Spirit and manifest through us as we allow the Spirit to work in our lives. It is enduring through all situations without allowing sin to enter in.
As with all secular, progressive or liberal based teachings it focuses on self importance rather than the importance of someone else. It deals with conditions that you have been trained to follow to market yourself as a valuable member of society. And as a valuable member of society you can gain status because of your good character. In biblical based teachings the focus is on God. Our character which is grounded in the word of God shows in me because of who God is and because He is active in my life.
God has been removed from the places of learning and replaced with a myriad of teachings which encourage growth in society apart from spirituality. Under the disguise of "separation of church and state" biblical based teachings have been removed from the classroom, and secular teachings have entered in; changing definitions and meanings of biblical virtues. If you note the different meanings to the same words above you can see the difference between the biblical and the profane teachings.
In the secular world, men focus upon who they are according to their abilities to prosper in society. The number one goal is to be all they can be at whatever the cost, to elevate themselves beyond others and to achieve a place in society of some importance. Sometimes to achieve that goal involves self-sacrifice, and sometimes the sacrifice of others. In the Christian world, we should focus upon Christ and through Him we become who we are. Our goal should be to glorify God through our actions, our speech and our testimony. The most important place we can be, is in the service of God.
Biblical morals are not dead, but they are being replaced. Replaced by teachers and trainers that want to try to mend a broken world where people have no regard for themselves or others. Morals can only be taught in the church or the home by people that understand what true character is and how it can affect the world. Sound teaching from the word of God that instills virtue and character and sets the nature of a person. Wisdom and knowledge that prepares a person to face any problem or situation and knows that anything is possible through God. a person that allows the Holy Spirit to be active in their lives and to discern what is false and not of God. People that place their faith in God and not their confidence in actions rooted in good character.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Separation of Church and State
Separation of Church and State
Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony
This is the headline for the news story I read. I was shocked by several statements I read concerning the case and of the outcome.
The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by Christa and Danny Schultz. Their son is among those scheduled to participate in Saturday’s graduation ceremony. The judge declared that the Schultz family and their son would “suffer irreparable harm” if anyone prayed at the ceremony.
What started as a complaint by the parents of one student has escalated into a ban of prayer by a district judge which is now being fought against by the school district and the Texas Attorney Generals office. The consequences for violating the order is incarceration and other sanctions for contempt of court.
The Texas attorney general called the ruling unconstitutional and a blatant attack from those who do not believe in God -- “attempts by atheists and agnostics to use courts to eliminate from the public landscape any and all references to God whatsoever.”
“This is the challenge we are dealing with here,” he said. “(It’s) an ongoing attempt to purge God from the public setting while at the same time demanding from the courts an increased yielding to all things atheist and agnostic.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/02/prayer-prohibited-at-graduation-ceremony/#ixzz1OBRTxU1X
This is not a new problem, it has been happening all over the country for many years. People that oppose Christianity, and therefore oppose Jesus, have been using the Bill of Rights and a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to place a gulf between the US government and the church. It has been interpreted that any institution that is city, state or federally supported can not be tied to any religious organization. Schools, court houses, state parks, federal grounds, city owned properties and many others have been targeted by individuals to ban or remove any religious references from them. It is just a matter of time before sharing the gospel on a city street will become illegal.
The name that is given to this term or idea, which has been misconstrued, is "The Separation of Church and State". Many organizations have been created over the years to further the chasm between the government and the church. Through the media and progressive tactics, justices on the district level and supreme court level accept a misrepresented view of a separation and vote according to this information.
Can we expect a different outcome from people in a country that have lost their morality. According to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott “Part of this goes to the very heart of the unraveling of moral values in this country,”
In Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, he mentions the term "separation between church and state". From this court rulings have been made to remove God from the government. Freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof is in the hands of the same government that claim they want no part of it. Control of our freedom is in the hands of those in judicial authority, chosen by the government and given the right to rule as their beliefs dictate.
All decisions which pertain to religion are decided by judges which are representatives of the U.S. government, and almost all are decided against religious institutions and religious beliefs. These decisions are made based upon false interpretation of laws which deal with an individuals freedom. History has been misrepresented to interpret laws therefore individual liberties are compromised because when religion is involved those that support it are not seen individually but as a group or organization.
The judge above decided the case based upon his beliefs and according to the freedom of one individual which protested against prayer because he didn't believe in God. The judge, ignoring the individual freedom of all those that supported prayer, decided in favor of one individual and removed the first amendment freedom from all others. This in effect caused the government to go against the first amendment by prohibiting the free exercise of their religious beliefs.
According to the Bill of Rights the First Amendment: written 3/4/1789
"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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The first part of this is the part that we are concerned about:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
This, which seems to be the simplest to understand and to interpret, has caused the biggest problem for Christianity. This clause has been interpreted by many liberal scholars according to another text which was written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association.
Below are both letters. The first written to Thomas Jefferson by the Danbury Baptist Association concerning religious liberty and his reply.
The Danbury Baptists' letter to Thomas Jefferson
The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of
Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson,
Esq., President of the United States of America.
Sir,
Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration,
to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others
clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah
and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson
To mess. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th. Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
The Danbury Baptists started their second paragraph telling the president they believe that at all times and places religion is a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer because of his religious opinions and that the legitimate powers of the civil government extend no further than to punish the man who works ill toward his neighbor.
The question that the Danbury Baptists had, dealt with the constitution not being specific and seeming that freedom was granted as a favor by the government and not as an inalienable right of freedom. Which was a valid question then and still is today. If religious freedom was a privilege granted by the state or country and was freedom based upon a favor granted and that that freedom was only received through proclamation or by law and not because it is the inalienable right of an individual to have religious freedom. If religious freedom was granted to individuals then there is no freedom apart from what is allowed by the government, and can be controlled or removed as seen fit by government agents or representatives.
Thomas Jefferson’s answer in his second paragraph agrees that religion is a matter which lies solely between a man and his God, that man owes no account to none other for his beliefs, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, and that the American people declared that no legislature be passed respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
This last statement, "thus building a wall of separation between church and state", has been used to interpret the first amendment. These 10 words taken from a letter and not used in context has been misinterpreted. In order to understand and to interpret the true meaning of the statement by Jefferson you have to research when the term was first used and in what context, and the beliefs of the writer to know the meaning of the term.
It has been established that the civil government is limited to actions only and not to opinions, according to Jefferson, when answering about the legitimate powers of the government. In the context of the Danbury letter, which deals with religion and the government, man is not accountable to no one but God for his beliefs not to the government or even to his fellow man.
Religious freedom in America started with what was called the "lively experiment". The colonies originally were not separated from the Church of England and were still under its control. In 1663 Roger Williams obtained a charter from King Charles to start a colony with the intention of creating a civil state which had full religious freedom.
Within this colony there was a separation of church and state which Williams called a "wall of separation", this term coined by Roger Williams was later used by Jefferson. He believed that soul liberty freedom of conscience, was a gift from God, and that everyone had the natural right to freedom of religion. Religious freedom demanded that church and state be separated. Williams was the first to use the phrase "wall of separation" to describe the relationship of the church and state. He called for a high wall of separation between the "Garden of Christ" and the "Wilderness of the World." He also called for separatism, which was the complete separation from the Church of England for true and pure worship of God.
Because of these beliefs; separatism, freedom of religion and separation of church and state, he was labeled a heretic and found guilty of sedition and heresy by the General Court for spreading new, diverse and dangerous opinions. His biggest complaint was against the state church and believed that the state had no business in religious matters and that the state should only concern itself with civil matters.
Many ideas have been proposed concerning Jefferson and his response to the Danbury Baptists. In order to understand Jefferson and his ideas and convictions. Whether or not he was Christian as some have suggested, whether he was devout in his worship of God or if he worshipped a false god is of no consequence. What matters is what he believed according to religious freedom when he answered the letter. This is important because a term he used has been quoted to determine what religious freedom is and how much liberty there is concerning the exercise thereof.
In order to understand with more clarity what Jefferson meant when he used the term “wall of separation” we must establish what Jefferson believed concerning the church and state.
Written in 1777, introduced in 1779 and adopted in 1789 by the Virginia General Assembly, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was written by Thomas Jefferson and sets the standard for religious liberty in Virginia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom
Jefferson included in this statute concerning his opinions.
“Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;” (emphasis mine)
“that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,” (emphasis mine)
“that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;” (emphasis mine)
“that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;” (emphasis mine)
“that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;” (emphasis mine)
The entire text can be read at the link above.
Jefferson didn’t intend for the government to sit as judge over matters of religious freedom. This intrudes his powers into the field of opinion and in turn destroys religious liberty, which is against the first amendment. For a court judge to rule against a religious expression of faith, no matter the location, is against what Jefferson believed in and had expressed in this document. For a court judge to assume that an expression of faith or a profession of faith would have ill tendencies is a hazardous and mistaken idea. The decision will be based on opinions only and according to the beliefs of the magistrate. This is mainly because all decisions regarding this topic is according to the interpretation of the First Amendment by the sitting judge.
The Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, heavily influenced later documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. It was the first constitutional protection of individual rights.
“XVI That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.”
This article of the Declaration of Rights promises freedom to exercise your religion and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity towards one another. A standard was set for all people in Virginia to practice as Christians and to express Christian virtues towards each other.
When this was drafted and accepted Thomas Jefferson was a delegate from Virginia to the Second Continental Congress and helped to draft the Virginia Constitution. He also served in the legislature and also as Governor of the state of Virginia, upholding the documents that were adopted by the state, many he helped to write.
A thorough search through documents and letters of Jefferson’s, it is easy to see that his ideas do not match the ideas of the civil authorities today. Jefferson stated that civil authorities provide actions and not opinions, but today we have civil authorities violating the letter of the amendment and changing what the American people wanted.
The first amendment does not provide for non-religious groups or beliefs, but only for those with a religious view; whatever that religion may be. It is only natural for non-religious people to oppose rights for those with a religious view. The first amendment provides individual freedom for Christians by not supporting another religion as a state sponsored religion. It provides freedom for a Christian to exercise their beliefs as is the normal manner for them, between them and God. It gives a Christian freedom of speech without fear of persecution or prosecution as long as it doesn’t promote illegal activities. Freedom of the press to report with truth or with bias without fear of reprisal. Christians the right to assemble peacefully, for any reason, without fear of government interference. It doesn’t specify where or when or for how long, for example it doesn’t say, except of government property. And a Christian has the right to petition the government when their rights have been violated.
We have sat idle while our freedom is being taken from us. It seems as if what the Danbury Baptist Association had worried about is true. That our religious freedom was just a favor granted, by the government, and it is being taken away from us. Separation between Church and State, which meant to keep the state from having control and sponsoring a religion, has been used to try to keep the church out of civil affairs. Federal and state properties have been declared separated from any expression of religious belief or exercise, in the confines of private offices. Prayer is condemned between co-workers of like beliefs in public buildings or public grounds.
Separation of church and state is not meant to protect the state from the church, but to protect the church from the interference of the state.
Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony
This is the headline for the news story I read. I was shocked by several statements I read concerning the case and of the outcome.
The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by Christa and Danny Schultz. Their son is among those scheduled to participate in Saturday’s graduation ceremony. The judge declared that the Schultz family and their son would “suffer irreparable harm” if anyone prayed at the ceremony.
What started as a complaint by the parents of one student has escalated into a ban of prayer by a district judge which is now being fought against by the school district and the Texas Attorney Generals office. The consequences for violating the order is incarceration and other sanctions for contempt of court.
The Texas attorney general called the ruling unconstitutional and a blatant attack from those who do not believe in God -- “attempts by atheists and agnostics to use courts to eliminate from the public landscape any and all references to God whatsoever.”
“This is the challenge we are dealing with here,” he said. “(It’s) an ongoing attempt to purge God from the public setting while at the same time demanding from the courts an increased yielding to all things atheist and agnostic.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/02/prayer-prohibited-at-graduation-ceremony/#ixzz1OBRTxU1X
This is not a new problem, it has been happening all over the country for many years. People that oppose Christianity, and therefore oppose Jesus, have been using the Bill of Rights and a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to place a gulf between the US government and the church. It has been interpreted that any institution that is city, state or federally supported can not be tied to any religious organization. Schools, court houses, state parks, federal grounds, city owned properties and many others have been targeted by individuals to ban or remove any religious references from them. It is just a matter of time before sharing the gospel on a city street will become illegal.
The name that is given to this term or idea, which has been misconstrued, is "The Separation of Church and State". Many organizations have been created over the years to further the chasm between the government and the church. Through the media and progressive tactics, justices on the district level and supreme court level accept a misrepresented view of a separation and vote according to this information.
Can we expect a different outcome from people in a country that have lost their morality. According to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott “Part of this goes to the very heart of the unraveling of moral values in this country,”
The ruling was overturned by an appeal court judge that ruled the original court ruling was unconstitutional. The student was allowed to pray during the graduation ceremony.
In Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, he mentions the term "separation between church and state". From this court rulings have been made to remove God from the government. Freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof is in the hands of the same government that claim they want no part of it. Control of our freedom is in the hands of those in judicial authority, chosen by the government and given the right to rule as their beliefs dictate.
All decisions which pertain to religion are decided by judges which are representatives of the U.S. government, and almost all are decided against religious institutions and religious beliefs. These decisions are made based upon false interpretation of laws which deal with an individuals freedom. History has been misrepresented to interpret laws therefore individual liberties are compromised because when religion is involved those that support it are not seen individually but as a group or organization.
The judge above decided the case based upon his beliefs and according to the freedom of one individual which protested against prayer because he didn't believe in God. The judge, ignoring the individual freedom of all those that supported prayer, decided in favor of one individual and removed the first amendment freedom from all others. This in effect caused the government to go against the first amendment by prohibiting the free exercise of their religious beliefs.
According to the Bill of Rights the First Amendment: written 3/4/1789
"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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The first part of this is the part that we are concerned about:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
This, which seems to be the simplest to understand and to interpret, has caused the biggest problem for Christianity. This clause has been interpreted by many liberal scholars according to another text which was written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association.
Below are both letters. The first written to Thomas Jefferson by the Danbury Baptist Association concerning religious liberty and his reply.
The Danbury Baptists' letter to Thomas Jefferson
The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of
Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson,
Esq., President of the United States of America.
Sir,
Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration,
to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others
clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah
and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson
To mess. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th. Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
The Danbury Baptists started their second paragraph telling the president they believe that at all times and places religion is a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer because of his religious opinions and that the legitimate powers of the civil government extend no further than to punish the man who works ill toward his neighbor.
The question that the Danbury Baptists had, dealt with the constitution not being specific and seeming that freedom was granted as a favor by the government and not as an inalienable right of freedom. Which was a valid question then and still is today. If religious freedom was a privilege granted by the state or country and was freedom based upon a favor granted and that that freedom was only received through proclamation or by law and not because it is the inalienable right of an individual to have religious freedom. If religious freedom was granted to individuals then there is no freedom apart from what is allowed by the government, and can be controlled or removed as seen fit by government agents or representatives.
Thomas Jefferson’s answer in his second paragraph agrees that religion is a matter which lies solely between a man and his God, that man owes no account to none other for his beliefs, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, and that the American people declared that no legislature be passed respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
This last statement, "thus building a wall of separation between church and state", has been used to interpret the first amendment. These 10 words taken from a letter and not used in context has been misinterpreted. In order to understand and to interpret the true meaning of the statement by Jefferson you have to research when the term was first used and in what context, and the beliefs of the writer to know the meaning of the term.
It has been established that the civil government is limited to actions only and not to opinions, according to Jefferson, when answering about the legitimate powers of the government. In the context of the Danbury letter, which deals with religion and the government, man is not accountable to no one but God for his beliefs not to the government or even to his fellow man.
Religious freedom in America started with what was called the "lively experiment". The colonies originally were not separated from the Church of England and were still under its control. In 1663 Roger Williams obtained a charter from King Charles to start a colony with the intention of creating a civil state which had full religious freedom.
Within this colony there was a separation of church and state which Williams called a "wall of separation", this term coined by Roger Williams was later used by Jefferson. He believed that soul liberty freedom of conscience, was a gift from God, and that everyone had the natural right to freedom of religion. Religious freedom demanded that church and state be separated. Williams was the first to use the phrase "wall of separation" to describe the relationship of the church and state. He called for a high wall of separation between the "Garden of Christ" and the "Wilderness of the World." He also called for separatism, which was the complete separation from the Church of England for true and pure worship of God.
Because of these beliefs; separatism, freedom of religion and separation of church and state, he was labeled a heretic and found guilty of sedition and heresy by the General Court for spreading new, diverse and dangerous opinions. His biggest complaint was against the state church and believed that the state had no business in religious matters and that the state should only concern itself with civil matters.
Many ideas have been proposed concerning Jefferson and his response to the Danbury Baptists. In order to understand Jefferson and his ideas and convictions. Whether or not he was Christian as some have suggested, whether he was devout in his worship of God or if he worshipped a false god is of no consequence. What matters is what he believed according to religious freedom when he answered the letter. This is important because a term he used has been quoted to determine what religious freedom is and how much liberty there is concerning the exercise thereof.
In order to understand with more clarity what Jefferson meant when he used the term “wall of separation” we must establish what Jefferson believed concerning the church and state.
Written in 1777, introduced in 1779 and adopted in 1789 by the Virginia General Assembly, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was written by Thomas Jefferson and sets the standard for religious liberty in Virginia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom
Jefferson included in this statute concerning his opinions.
“Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;” (emphasis mine)
“that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,” (emphasis mine)
“that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;” (emphasis mine)
“that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;” (emphasis mine)
“that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;” (emphasis mine)
The entire text can be read at the link above.
Jefferson didn’t intend for the government to sit as judge over matters of religious freedom. This intrudes his powers into the field of opinion and in turn destroys religious liberty, which is against the first amendment. For a court judge to rule against a religious expression of faith, no matter the location, is against what Jefferson believed in and had expressed in this document. For a court judge to assume that an expression of faith or a profession of faith would have ill tendencies is a hazardous and mistaken idea. The decision will be based on opinions only and according to the beliefs of the magistrate. This is mainly because all decisions regarding this topic is according to the interpretation of the First Amendment by the sitting judge.
The Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, heavily influenced later documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. It was the first constitutional protection of individual rights.
“XVI That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.”
This article of the Declaration of Rights promises freedom to exercise your religion and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity towards one another. A standard was set for all people in Virginia to practice as Christians and to express Christian virtues towards each other.
When this was drafted and accepted Thomas Jefferson was a delegate from Virginia to the Second Continental Congress and helped to draft the Virginia Constitution. He also served in the legislature and also as Governor of the state of Virginia, upholding the documents that were adopted by the state, many he helped to write.
A thorough search through documents and letters of Jefferson’s, it is easy to see that his ideas do not match the ideas of the civil authorities today. Jefferson stated that civil authorities provide actions and not opinions, but today we have civil authorities violating the letter of the amendment and changing what the American people wanted.
The first amendment does not provide for non-religious groups or beliefs, but only for those with a religious view; whatever that religion may be. It is only natural for non-religious people to oppose rights for those with a religious view. The first amendment provides individual freedom for Christians by not supporting another religion as a state sponsored religion. It provides freedom for a Christian to exercise their beliefs as is the normal manner for them, between them and God. It gives a Christian freedom of speech without fear of persecution or prosecution as long as it doesn’t promote illegal activities. Freedom of the press to report with truth or with bias without fear of reprisal. Christians the right to assemble peacefully, for any reason, without fear of government interference. It doesn’t specify where or when or for how long, for example it doesn’t say, except of government property. And a Christian has the right to petition the government when their rights have been violated.
We have sat idle while our freedom is being taken from us. It seems as if what the Danbury Baptist Association had worried about is true. That our religious freedom was just a favor granted, by the government, and it is being taken away from us. Separation between Church and State, which meant to keep the state from having control and sponsoring a religion, has been used to try to keep the church out of civil affairs. Federal and state properties have been declared separated from any expression of religious belief or exercise, in the confines of private offices. Prayer is condemned between co-workers of like beliefs in public buildings or public grounds.
Separation of church and state is not meant to protect the state from the church, but to protect the church from the interference of the state.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Women Pastors
Can a woman be a Pastor of a church?
Here is my thoughts on the matter. It is rather long, preachers seem to do things long sometimes. If it seems like I am getting off topic, be patient, it deals with the subject or one of the topics. If it seems that I am trying to argue, please understand that I am not. Just stating my opinion according to my interpretation of scripture.
Many today have not understood the roles of women according to the scriptures. And like many other things in the churches today, it has become decided upon according to the world and what is acceptable to the world.
I do not want to be accused of being a chauvinist or being sexist in what I am writing. And is not just things that I haven't said before to others in churches and in classes. I feel that women are the glory of a man and through the wife a mans character can be assessed and his nature can be seen. A women’s place is a place of honor because through marriage she completes a man when the two become one flesh. A wife should be shown the utmost respect by the husband and not be placed in a position where she feels threatened or like she is a slave to her husband. I have been married 28 years and our marriage has lasted, first because of God being first in our lives and also because even though I am the head of the home I understand how she is to be treated. She also understands her role as she ministers with me, and my role in the ministry and the home.
First as we discuss the word of God on this, as Christians, we have to keep in mind that we are in two different worlds; one spiritual and the other secular. We have to live in the secular world but we have to abide in the spiritual one. The bible is a collection of spiritual writings that have been conveyed to man through the Holy Spirit by God. Many times we get the two confused and try to interpret the word of God according to today’s society. People may not see it but the world is on a downhill run out of control and headed for a tree. We have lost the morals that were in place for so long because we have ignored the word of God, and now we try to fit God and His word in our lives instead of placing our lives in it. Is it the women's fault? no, the blame can't be placed on the woman. Society has taken the women out of the home and placed her in the work force. Now it takes more than one salary to make it. Now a new pickup costs what a house would cost 20 years ago. Many women work because that is what they have to do to make the family survive. Do the children suffer? yes, they also suffer because their dad goes fishing when he's off work, or when he gets home he's watching TV instead of being with his children.
In the secular world I have worked for women as my boss. I have sat in seminars and conferences where there were women speakers. If a women ran for president that held the same views I do and I felt would be a good choice according to the issues, I would vote for her. But this is in the secular world and not in the church. The scriptures deal with the church and the spiritual part of our lives as well as how we should live our lives in the secular world.
Galatians 3:28-29
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
According to the scriptures, man and woman were created in the image of God. Not man after the image of God and woman after the image of man. We have the same worth to God because we were both created in the image of God. Because of that we both are equal as heirs of salvation. Neither receives anything different because of their gender but are both the same in the eyes of God in that respect. Just as the Jews didn't receive a better type of salvation that the gentiles, they are equal in Gods eyes as heirs of the promise.
1 Corinthians 14:33-35
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Timothy 2
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
I once heard a women televangelist say that this shouldn't be in the bible and should be ignored because Paul was a crusty old bachelor and didn't like women. But we have to look at it for what it says and what it means. Even Peter said that Paul's writing should be held as scripture. (2 Peter 3:15-16)
From what it states in 1 Corinthians, which is taken by many to mean asking questions in the church, Paul refers to the law which had to be a reference to the Mosaic law. No matter the reason the verse still stands today. Does this mean a women is to remain quite in church. No, but her role is to be modeled after scripture and she is to be under obedience while in the service. Paul himself has even said that women can prophesy in the church, but the verse deals with confusion in the congregation that can be from their actions, speech, manner, or even against the scriptures or the law. If something may cause confusion or trouble it is best, in the church, to avoid it altogether.
The verse in 1 Timothy relates to spiritual things and the church. And gives the reason why, because woman was deceived and transgressed. Because of this women are restricted in their role in the church. Women are not to teach men or to be in authority over a man. This includes pastors, and teachers of groups that puts them in a authorative position over men. To say that this doesn't apply to the church today because times have changed, is invalid because Paul went to creation and the fall of man to show the reason why.
We must remember that more than a few of the cults have been started by women:
“It is one of the strange historical peculiarities of the saga of cultism that some cults were either started by women or were influences in a major way by the allegedly weaker sex: Christian Science, Mary Bakker Eddy; the Unity School of Christianity, Myrtle Fillmore; Spiritism, the Fox sisters; Jehovah's Witness, Maria Russell; Theosophy, Helena Blavatsky and Annie Besant; the Peace Mission Movement (Father Divine), Sister Penny and Faithful Mary (Viola Wilson)
Walter Martin - Kingdom of the Cults - (p. 284)
Where is a women’s place in the ministry of the church?
Titus 2:3-5
The aged women likewise, that they be in behavior as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
Women have a role of teaching in the ministry of the church as well as in life. To teach women and children. Women can minister to others according to what the bible says. In teaching the bible all the things above will come into play in their lives. Teaching children the word of God will develop morals and character in them that they will also teach others. And carry into their future in the secular world and as Christians. Women have a very important role in the ministry because through them people are shaped and their lives are formed. Women are taught how to be biblical wives that will enhance a marriage and will make it last. Boys are taught what is expected of them as men of God and how they are to treat their wives and how to perform the work of the ministry. Pr 22:6 - "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." This training is provided by the women that care for not only the child but also the future. Am I saying that women can't ever minister to a man? no, many times a women can be the only one that can effectively minister to a man. But it is not in a position of authority, and can't include doctrine or other topics that lead the woman into a teaching role during the ministering. But advice and other topics that are affecting them in life. Women can spread the gospel message to others; men and women. But this is not a position, but is commanded for all to do so. Women did have roles in the bible where they heard from God and did relay a message to men, this was in the role of prophetesses, which can't be denied because of scripture but that was not an authoritive role in any ministerial calling. Even Phoebe in the NT was active in the ministry but in a servant position as many men were, as other women were also.
What about the role of a wife?
Proverbs 31 describes the model for a perfect wife. The first place a woman should be able to minister is to her husband.
Ephesians 5:21-33
Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 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. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
1 Peter 3:1-7
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
This is the woman’s role as a wife according to the scriptures. It gives specific guidelines to women on how they should be in the homes, and with their husbands. Submit and be in subjection, to your husbands. But if we look into the verses even further we see that men or the husbands are to be to their wives as Christ was to the church. The main responsibility in the wives behavior to the husband is not due to her actions alone but according to the husbands actions toward her. He is to love her so much to be willing to give himself for her. He is to cherish, nourish her and honor her. He is to treat her with respect and dignity befitting the position she is in. But it starts with the two of them placing God first in their lives, then all else comes into place. But one thing that is important to remember this is about Christ and believers. Non-believers can't be subject to or understand the way a believer understands the scriptures, but can act in the same respect.
The largest amount of blame can't be placed on women alone. Many have been forced into a position of leadership in the homes and the churches by the lack of men participating actively. The economy and 6 day work weeks are a partial reason, as well as many men placing other interests ahead of God. Men have been falling out of attendance and out of the ministry because of not just confusion of what God expects. But goes back to bass boats and campers, Sunday football and other sports games, being the only time to rest after a long week. These have placed women into positions that they were not to be scripturally. What of men sitting under women pastors and teachers? Many men have placed themselves willingly under a woman's authority, it wasn't forced on them. that they will be held accountable for. I myself have never sat under a woman’s teaching, even under any of my wife’s teachings.
Here is my thoughts on the matter. It is rather long, preachers seem to do things long sometimes. If it seems like I am getting off topic, be patient, it deals with the subject or one of the topics. If it seems that I am trying to argue, please understand that I am not. Just stating my opinion according to my interpretation of scripture.
Many today have not understood the roles of women according to the scriptures. And like many other things in the churches today, it has become decided upon according to the world and what is acceptable to the world.
I do not want to be accused of being a chauvinist or being sexist in what I am writing. And is not just things that I haven't said before to others in churches and in classes. I feel that women are the glory of a man and through the wife a mans character can be assessed and his nature can be seen. A women’s place is a place of honor because through marriage she completes a man when the two become one flesh. A wife should be shown the utmost respect by the husband and not be placed in a position where she feels threatened or like she is a slave to her husband. I have been married 28 years and our marriage has lasted, first because of God being first in our lives and also because even though I am the head of the home I understand how she is to be treated. She also understands her role as she ministers with me, and my role in the ministry and the home.
First as we discuss the word of God on this, as Christians, we have to keep in mind that we are in two different worlds; one spiritual and the other secular. We have to live in the secular world but we have to abide in the spiritual one. The bible is a collection of spiritual writings that have been conveyed to man through the Holy Spirit by God. Many times we get the two confused and try to interpret the word of God according to today’s society. People may not see it but the world is on a downhill run out of control and headed for a tree. We have lost the morals that were in place for so long because we have ignored the word of God, and now we try to fit God and His word in our lives instead of placing our lives in it. Is it the women's fault? no, the blame can't be placed on the woman. Society has taken the women out of the home and placed her in the work force. Now it takes more than one salary to make it. Now a new pickup costs what a house would cost 20 years ago. Many women work because that is what they have to do to make the family survive. Do the children suffer? yes, they also suffer because their dad goes fishing when he's off work, or when he gets home he's watching TV instead of being with his children.
In the secular world I have worked for women as my boss. I have sat in seminars and conferences where there were women speakers. If a women ran for president that held the same views I do and I felt would be a good choice according to the issues, I would vote for her. But this is in the secular world and not in the church. The scriptures deal with the church and the spiritual part of our lives as well as how we should live our lives in the secular world.
Galatians 3:28-29
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
According to the scriptures, man and woman were created in the image of God. Not man after the image of God and woman after the image of man. We have the same worth to God because we were both created in the image of God. Because of that we both are equal as heirs of salvation. Neither receives anything different because of their gender but are both the same in the eyes of God in that respect. Just as the Jews didn't receive a better type of salvation that the gentiles, they are equal in Gods eyes as heirs of the promise.
1 Corinthians 14:33-35
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Timothy 2
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
I once heard a women televangelist say that this shouldn't be in the bible and should be ignored because Paul was a crusty old bachelor and didn't like women. But we have to look at it for what it says and what it means. Even Peter said that Paul's writing should be held as scripture. (2 Peter 3:15-16)
From what it states in 1 Corinthians, which is taken by many to mean asking questions in the church, Paul refers to the law which had to be a reference to the Mosaic law. No matter the reason the verse still stands today. Does this mean a women is to remain quite in church. No, but her role is to be modeled after scripture and she is to be under obedience while in the service. Paul himself has even said that women can prophesy in the church, but the verse deals with confusion in the congregation that can be from their actions, speech, manner, or even against the scriptures or the law. If something may cause confusion or trouble it is best, in the church, to avoid it altogether.
The verse in 1 Timothy relates to spiritual things and the church. And gives the reason why, because woman was deceived and transgressed. Because of this women are restricted in their role in the church. Women are not to teach men or to be in authority over a man. This includes pastors, and teachers of groups that puts them in a authorative position over men. To say that this doesn't apply to the church today because times have changed, is invalid because Paul went to creation and the fall of man to show the reason why.
We must remember that more than a few of the cults have been started by women:
“It is one of the strange historical peculiarities of the saga of cultism that some cults were either started by women or were influences in a major way by the allegedly weaker sex: Christian Science, Mary Bakker Eddy; the Unity School of Christianity, Myrtle Fillmore; Spiritism, the Fox sisters; Jehovah's Witness, Maria Russell; Theosophy, Helena Blavatsky and Annie Besant; the Peace Mission Movement (Father Divine), Sister Penny and Faithful Mary (Viola Wilson)
Walter Martin - Kingdom of the Cults - (p. 284)
Where is a women’s place in the ministry of the church?
Titus 2:3-5
The aged women likewise, that they be in behavior as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
Women have a role of teaching in the ministry of the church as well as in life. To teach women and children. Women can minister to others according to what the bible says. In teaching the bible all the things above will come into play in their lives. Teaching children the word of God will develop morals and character in them that they will also teach others. And carry into their future in the secular world and as Christians. Women have a very important role in the ministry because through them people are shaped and their lives are formed. Women are taught how to be biblical wives that will enhance a marriage and will make it last. Boys are taught what is expected of them as men of God and how they are to treat their wives and how to perform the work of the ministry. Pr 22:6 - "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." This training is provided by the women that care for not only the child but also the future. Am I saying that women can't ever minister to a man? no, many times a women can be the only one that can effectively minister to a man. But it is not in a position of authority, and can't include doctrine or other topics that lead the woman into a teaching role during the ministering. But advice and other topics that are affecting them in life. Women can spread the gospel message to others; men and women. But this is not a position, but is commanded for all to do so. Women did have roles in the bible where they heard from God and did relay a message to men, this was in the role of prophetesses, which can't be denied because of scripture but that was not an authoritive role in any ministerial calling. Even Phoebe in the NT was active in the ministry but in a servant position as many men were, as other women were also.
What about the role of a wife?
Proverbs 31 describes the model for a perfect wife. The first place a woman should be able to minister is to her husband.
Ephesians 5:21-33
Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 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. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
1 Peter 3:1-7
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
This is the woman’s role as a wife according to the scriptures. It gives specific guidelines to women on how they should be in the homes, and with their husbands. Submit and be in subjection, to your husbands. But if we look into the verses even further we see that men or the husbands are to be to their wives as Christ was to the church. The main responsibility in the wives behavior to the husband is not due to her actions alone but according to the husbands actions toward her. He is to love her so much to be willing to give himself for her. He is to cherish, nourish her and honor her. He is to treat her with respect and dignity befitting the position she is in. But it starts with the two of them placing God first in their lives, then all else comes into place. But one thing that is important to remember this is about Christ and believers. Non-believers can't be subject to or understand the way a believer understands the scriptures, but can act in the same respect.
The largest amount of blame can't be placed on women alone. Many have been forced into a position of leadership in the homes and the churches by the lack of men participating actively. The economy and 6 day work weeks are a partial reason, as well as many men placing other interests ahead of God. Men have been falling out of attendance and out of the ministry because of not just confusion of what God expects. But goes back to bass boats and campers, Sunday football and other sports games, being the only time to rest after a long week. These have placed women into positions that they were not to be scripturally. What of men sitting under women pastors and teachers? Many men have placed themselves willingly under a woman's authority, it wasn't forced on them. that they will be held accountable for. I myself have never sat under a woman’s teaching, even under any of my wife’s teachings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)