America's Pastors: Preachers of Truth or Promoters of Tyranny?

Who are the REAL "Promoters of Tyranny?"

by Chuck Baldwin
by Chuck Baldwin

Vine & Fig Tree

Once again, the burden of responsibility to help maintain America's liberty rests upon the shoulders of the men in the pulpits. That should not surprise us, because it has always been this way. Part of what made America great was old-fashioned, tell-it-like-it-is, no-nonsense preaching. Most of what we hear today is a bunch of mealy-mouthed, pussyfooting, ear-tickling, don't-offend-anyone preaching, which has largely contributed to America's current slippery slope into the sewer. But if you thought it could not get any worse, guess again. Yale historian Harry Stout has confirmed the fact that the pulpit was the dominant force in Revolutionary America. Puritan preachers publicly applied the Law of God to current events in every area of colonial life.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
2 Timothy 4:3

A startling television news report from Shreveport, Louisiana has revealed a sinister plot hatched deep inside the diabolical brain cells of the Bush administration to use America's pulpits as promoters of tyranny. That is a strong statement, I know. But it is true.  
According to KSLA television in Shreveport, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intends to use America's preachers to help pave the way for martial law in the event of another terrorist attack upon the United States.  
The KSLA report begins, "Could martial law ever become a reality in America? Some fear any nuclear, biological or chemical attack on U.S. soil might trigger just that. KSLA 12 has discovered that the clergy would help the government with potentially their biggest problem: Us."  
The report continued by saying, "[G]un confiscation is exactly what happened during the state of emergency following Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, along with forced relocation. U.S. Troops also arrived, something far easier to do now, thanks to last year's elimination of the 1878 Posse Comitatus act, which had forbid regular U.S. Army troops from policing on American soil.  
"If martial law were enacted here at home, like depicted in the movie, The Siege, easing public fears and quelling dissent would be critical. And that's exactly what the 'Clergy Response Team' helped accomplish in the wake of Katrina."  
The report went on to say: "[C]lergy response teams would walk a tight-rope during martial law between the demands of the government on the one side, versus the wishes of the public on the other. 'In a lot of cases, these clergy would already be known in the neighborhoods in which they're helping to diffuse that situation,' assured Sandy Davis. He serves as the director of the Caddo-Bossier Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness.  
"For the clergy team, one of the biggest tools that they will have in helping calm the public down or to obey the law is the bible itself, specifically Romans 13."  
Dear Reader, are you getting this?  
In order to convince American citizens to surrender their firearms to the government during a time of martial law, DHS is enlisting the assistance of America's pastors. According to the DHS, my job as a church pastor, is to tell my congregation that, according to Romans 13, they must surrender their firearms when the government asks them to do so.  
Of course, faithful readers of this column know that I have already addressed the Romans 13 question. OK, let's go back and look at his answer to "the Romans 13 question":

Romans Chapter 13

See our website: www.Romans13.com

by Chuck Baldwin
by Chuck Baldwin

 
It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.  
No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.  
Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:  
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."  
Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose President Bush or any other political leader really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that. There are two questions.

• Does Bush have "unlimited authority?"
• Are we Biblically obligated to obey Bush when he exceeds his "authority."

The word "authority" is critical. The New Testament Greek word means both "power" and "permission" or legitimacy.

Did Assyria have "authority" to invade Israel and murder, steal, and rape?

Yes. (Isaiah 10)
God authorizes evil
.

Should someone have urged Assyria not to engage in such manifestly unBiblical behavior? Yes. This is the role of the prophet. Assyria was sinning against God, even though God "ordained" them to invade Israel.

For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law? We all have an obligation to denounce evil, and to persuade evil doers to "cease and desist." Jews in Jesus' day were "authorized" to tell Caesar that his invasion of Israel was sinful and to go back to Italy where he came from. Jews were authorized to tell Caesar's representatives that they should not sleep with their brother's wife, even if, like John the Baptist, you end up being beheaded for doing so.

If we're hiking and I order you to carry my backpack for the next mile, you have the authority to tell me you don't want to, and that I was stupid to carry my entire baseball card collection with me on a hike. But if I'm one of Caesar's soldiers, and I order you to carry my backpack for a mile, Jesus says I should obey and carry it for two miles.

So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.) It was not ethically or morally legitimate for Rome to invade Israel, but the New Testament clearly commands us to obey the invaders.
By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." This is description, not prescription. Earlier in his letter, Paul had said that "all things work together for good," and now adds, even the evil things of Assyria, Caesar, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Obama.
Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection. God will not "protect" rapist regimes. God in fact judged Assyria for doing precisely what God "ordained" it to do. (Isaiah 10:12) God does not protect any group who conspire together to do evil, even if they get all their friends to "vote" for them to do so.
Civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a minister of God for evil. This is not an accurate statement. The State is God's minister by doing evil.  God ordains the State to do evil, and the State is God's servant/minister by doing evil.
Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority. Rome's evil is for our good.

We must obey God rather than man.

Romans 13 does not limit the State. The State's evil reach is unlimited. More important, Romans 13, which is addressed not to the State, but to the oppressed, does not limit our requirement to submit to the State's evil. We must become martyrs if necessary.

Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Yes.
Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? If the State passes a law requiring everyone to wear polka-dot shirts, and threatens to punish us violently if we do not, we are authorized by God to rebuke the arrogance and violent threatenings of the State. But Romans 13 commands us to wear the polka-dot shirt. It is not a sin to violate fashion law.
Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Could be. Did he sin with Bathsheba? Did he sin when he murdered Uriah?
Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's law to not pray audibly to God? No. We must obey God rather than man.
Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? No. We must obey God rather than man.
Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? No, discussed above.
Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? No, they were commanded by God to preach.
Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail. Why didn't Paul avail himself of "Second Amendment remedies" in order to prevent his unauthorized arrest?
Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority? Pacifist non-resistance is not a violation of any Biblical principle. Romans 13 commands it.
So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority – even civil authority – is limited. Human authority is not limited. Nor is the degree to which we are to submit to it. We are to be killed rather than kill.
Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation. Matthew 17:24-27

     24. And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
     25.   He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
     26.   Peter saith unto Him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
     27.   Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for Me and thee.

The children are free, but they pay to avoid offense.

"conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other:

(Acts 24:16)   And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.

(1 Pet 3:16)   Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

More verses.

Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that discussion for another time. There is no such thing as an "abuse of power." Government is unBiblical because it is the power to abuse.

We resist the State only when it commands us to sin or prohibits us from obeying God. We do not resist the State simply because it requires something it has no authority to require -- like collecting taxes or compelling us to carry a soldier's backpack for a mile.

Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so. The phrase "supreme Law" is in quotes. Who is being quoted?

 

 

I don't understand the significance of this distinction. If Obama requires us to pay a tax which is wholly unwarranted by a piece of paper called a "constitution," Romans 13 commands us to pay the tax. Caesar was no Howard Jarvis.

This means that in America the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans: In Paul's day the "higher powers" was the nexus between Roman civil authorities and demonic angelic powers. Romans 13 is not talking about the Constitution of 1787.
"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." This interpretation is pure fiction. Did Caesar have a Constitution? But it was Caesar that Christians were commanded to obey. It was the jackbooted thug that conscripted Israelis to carry his provisions that Christ told us to obey. It was confiscatory taxation collected by collaborators in the service of a pagan regime that had invaded our homeland and set up a military occupation dictatorship that Romans 13 commands us to pay.

 

How does one "fear" a constitution?

Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, as per the teaching of Romans Chapter 13. Nope.
Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this column, Biblical principles form the foundation of all three of America's founding documents: The Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution, and The Bill of Rights. Our desires are not the same as our obedience to undesirable thugs.
As a result, Christians in America (for the most part) have not had to face the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and defy their civil authorities.  
The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to violate their oaths of office and to ignore, and blatantly disobey, the "supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution. True, but we will still obey their unconstitutional demands.
Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?  

August 11, 2007

Back to the first article in progress:
For those who are ignorant of Romans 13, let me address the issue bluntly: According to Romans 13, every citizen is only bound to obey his or her governing official to the degree that the governing official does not violate the duty of the citizen to obey the "higher powers" which, for Americans, are God and the U.S. Constitution. In other words, no Christian can be ordered to disobey God, and no American citizen can be ordered to disobey the U.S. Constitution. Properly understood, Romans 13 teaches that each and every governing official (including the President of the United States and all those under him) must submit to the U.S. Constitution.  

The "higher powers" are not good. They are evil., We are to "wrestle against" them.

 

Was Nero commanded by Romans 13 to obey the U.S. Constitution? Romans 13 was no limit at all on Nero's depravity. (Except insofar as every verse of the Bible is an indictment of human archism.)

Article VI, Paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." Romans 13 commands us to obey statists who lie when they take an oath to obey any constitution.
So, what does the Constitution say regarding the disarmament of American citizens? The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution could not be clearer: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." As a Christian, I repudiate my Second Amendment rights.
Did you get that? "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." [Emphasis added] But if jackbooted thugs infringe on a "right," I must submit.
Therefore, any attempt to disarm the American people must be viewed as an act of tyranny and must be resisted. Romans 13 says give them your money and your guns.
The right to keep and bear arms is rooted deep in American history. I remind readers that it was the attempted gun confiscation of the colonists' arms, which had been cached at Concord, Massachusetts, that directly precipitated the beginning of America's fight for independence. www.Would Jesus Celebrate Independence Day.com ?

I would rather give my arms cache to a Red Coat than leave a Red Coat's wife a widow. April 19 has turned out to be a particularly grisly day.

America's founders were clear on this subject. Our first President, George Washington, called our firearms "the people's liberty teeth." Our third President and author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, said, "No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Jesus, on the other hand, said "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.Matthew 26:52

Romans 13 denies us the "right" to protect ourselves against Caesar.

America's founders spoke unanimously on the subject. Patrick Henry said, "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." Samuel Adams said, "The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."  
And what did the Lord Jesus Christ tell His followers on this subject? Jesus said in Luke 11:21, "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace." Did you see that? Jesus said that in order for a man's goods to be "in peace" it was necessary that he be ARMED. Now, I don't know about you, but I will take the word of Jesus over the word of a DHS official anytime. Good grief, read the very next verse:

22 But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.

Never Read a Bible Verse

The armed strong man is Satan. Jesus came to violate Satan's Second Amendment rights.

Furthermore, Jesus told his disciples in Luke 22:36, "[H]e that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Self-Defense in Luke 22?

Does Jesus Command His Followers to Take Up a Sword?

Upon hearing the words of Jesus, Simon Peter responded by saying, "Lord, behold, here are two swords." (vs. 38) That means at least two of Jesus' disciples were armed with swords (the 1st Century equivalent of a modern handgun, something used for personal protection), and Jesus did not rebuke them or ask them to surrender their swords. He merely said, "It is enough." The disciples didn't get it.

Matthew 16:23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Jesus said, "I've had enough."

I realize that after Simon Peter used his sword to cut off the ear of the man as soldiers came to arrest Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus told him to "put up thy sword." But notice, He did not tell him to "give up" his sword; he merely told him it was not time to use it, because it was in the plan and providence of God that Jesus be taken to Pilate, that He might be crucified for our sins. And we are explicitly commanded to follow Christ at this point.

Read 1 Peter 2:11-24

Don't tell me that the Bible teaches pacifism, because it doesn't. I am a Christian, and I am a pastor. And I agree with Charlton Heston who said that they could have his guns "over my cold, dead hands." If DHS believes that I will ask my congregation to give up their firearms, they are grossly mistaken. The Bible teaches pacifism and everyone knows it.
It also needs to be pointed out that, apparently, DHS must already be planning to declare martial law in the United States or else this kind of advanced strategy would not even be necessary. Why would they already be asking pastors to be prepared to request their church members give up their guns if they did not intend to declare martial law? We are already under martial law. Probably since November 22, 1963. Go to an airport, and see the soldiers. Get groped by someone who's a part of the Nazi-sounding "Department of Homeland Security." Your luggage is opened, proving that the Fourth Amendment has been suspended. Try to get meaningful cuts in the military budget. American martial law has been popularized, marketed, and packaged by Madison Avenue and MTV. Don't look for the Hollywood stereotyped madman general. Look for your neighbor, who says "I just need to feed my family" as he administers martial law against you. The Pastors Baldwin complains about are administering martial law. Duh.
Now, what every single church-going Christian in America should immediately find out for themselves is, What does my pastor intend to do? Will he ask me to surrender my guns, or not? I highly encourage every reader who currently attends church to ask your pastor this question RIGHT NOW. I wouldn't join a church whose pastor tells me not to give up my guns. I don't have any guns.
Of course, the next question Christians need to ask themselves is, What will I do if my pastor says he would ask me to surrender my guns to the government? I suggest that every church member in America settle this matter right now. And if you discover that your pastor would indeed ask you to surrender your guns (or equivocate by saying he would have to "pray about it") if asked to do so, you should immediately leave that church and find a pastor who believes the Bible and supports the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, if you do not currently own a firearm, you might want to heed the words of Jesus and go buy one. Only a fool is going to fight a nuclear-armed martial law with his "guns." Drop the cowboy delusions.

The Constitution is dead meat. We are not a Republic, we are an "Administrative State" under martial law.

So, once again, the burden of responsibility to help maintain America's liberty rests upon the shoulders of the men in the pulpits. Will we be preachers of truth or promoters of tyranny? It is Baldwin's position that leads to tyranny. It has already led to tyranny. Every single person who signed the Constitution would say that the Bush-Obama regime is the most monstrous tyranny in the history of the world, worse than any they could have imagined, worse than the tyranny they thought they were preventing with their "checks and balances" and "separation of powers" and "Bill of Rights."

The Constitution is a massive failure.

The Founders were laboring under the mistaken idea that the Bible requires men to form governments. It doesn't. It forbids the formation of "governments." From Genesis to Revelation.

August 23, 2007

Baldwin believes governments are morally legitimate. Sure, they have some moral obligation to observe "constitutions," etc. But by legitimizing the monopoly of violence which the state represents, Baldwin seals our fate.

Chuck Baldwin [send him mail] is a talkshow host and pastor. Here is his website.

We must abolish "the State" and de-legitimize its existence. The entire concept is evil.

Copyright © 2007 Chuck Baldwin

Baldwin will not do this.