Should Christians Resist Infringements of Their Freedoms?
Those of us who are believers in Jesus Christ know that our war is not with flesh and blood. Paul, in Romans 13, and Peter in 1 Peter 2, admonish us to obey those who have been placed in authority over us. In their time, it was the Emperor who was "supreme", and his Governors below him who were the authorities. Of course, both Paul's and Peter's divinely inspired words presuppose that the commands of authority that we must obey are for good and not evil. Otherwise, should we disobey the commands of our Lord in order to obey the commands of men (Acts 4:19-20)? May it never be.
But we also hold a unique position as compared to believers in other nations and at almost any other point in history. As citizens of this nation, we ARE the government. The Constitution states it succinctly with the words, "We the People", placed at the very beginning of the document. Since this nation was founded on the rule of law and the Constitution in its own words is the Supreme law of the land (Art. VI, Cl 2), then we are to obey the laws subject to the Constitution, thus giving no one cause for accusing of us of being lawbreakers.
Therefore as citizens of the U.S., we have inherited certain responsibilities. Responsibilities that go hand-in-hand with the blessings and benefits we have inherited in this nation from our forefathers (and mothers). There is an oath required to be taken by those who are elected to higher public offices, who serve in the military, and even those are naturalized as citizens of this nation: "I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic... so help me God." Why this is not required of every natural born citizen at the age of majority or before being allowed to register to vote or receiving public assistance is beyond my understanding. It is the oath I took when entering the US Navy and I firmly believe it is rightly the responsibility of every citizen. Who should receive the benefits without being willing to pay a part of the cost?
[Of course, based on that same reasoning, I don't think anyone who doesn't pay taxes, at least some minimal amount, should be allowed to vote. But I digress...]
As citizens of this nation, we have had certain rights and privileges passed down to us by God himself through those who fought and risked everything, and in many cases, gave everything of their earthly possessions and their lives in order to do so. These are rights that we tend to take for granted -- but should not ever, even for a moment. Among them are the rights to elect our leaders, to own and be secure in our property, to speak our minds freely, and to worship our Lord -- by putting our beliefs into practice -- every day of the week in the ways we believe are appropriate. These are rights that very few people, relatively speaking, in very few nations have ever in the history of the World been privileged to exercise freely.
And as we know (at least intellectually, though not fully and actually by experience), those rights didn't come freely. And the same Force who meant to keep them from us originally, still today means to take them from us. Tyranny is very much alive and well. These rights that are so precious are no more ours to keep than we are committed to maintaining possession of them. In other words, the willingness to stand up and resist those who want to take our rights from us (or effectively diminish them) is no less critical than the fight to attain them was in the first place.
Today there are those both outside and within this nation who want to take our freedoms from us and from our children and grandchildren. They believe they know better than the Founders, than us, and yes, than even God Himself. They also seem to be the very ones (or are those who are misleading those) who have dedicated themselves to establishing a society that is free from moral restraint, that accepts corruption as inevitable, that revels in degrading practices and that imposes these "lifestyles" on the rest of us. They seem "hell bent" on dismantling every institution and unraveling every practice of right behavior; and the degree of success they have had to this point is staggering.
The method that these factions have employed so successfully is that of incrementalism, or as they call it, " being progressive". They will, when forced, compromise but only temporarily. They have continuously moved the entire makeup of our government in the direction of direct opposition to those who founded it. And it is always a little step at a time. One little change here, another there. And gradually over just a bit more than the past century, they have steadily gathered tremendous power and influence. They have installed themselves in our institutions of education, both public and parochial, and have thereby usurped intellectual control over our children and grandchildren.
They have done the same in the Courts of Law, right up to, and including, the Supreme Court. Likewise the media. And so we have arrived at a point in history when we seem suddenly overwhelmed by a rapidly moving tidal wave of moral, ethical deterioration. But if you are a student of history and you observe trends, you can see that these changes have been building for a long time.
In the words of that great statesman, Bruce Willis, “I think that you can’t start to pick apart anything out of the Bill of Rights without thinking that it’s all going to become undone... If you take one out or change one law, then why wouldn’t they take all your rights away from you?” Okay, not very eloquent, but I think we can all agree that his statement to the Associated Press was on the right track.
A great deal of infringements on our rights have already been accomplished. The right Mr. Willis was specifically referring to was the right to bear arms, embodied in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Now even though arms, or guns, as we commonly refer to them, are in many eyes a symbol of violence, they can just as easily be seen as a symbol for peace. Peace that is protected by strength. Strength that discourages enemies and lawlessness.
The members of our very first Congress believed so strongly that this right to keep and bear arms needed to be specifically stated and bound up into the Constitution that they included it as the 2nd of the Bill of Rights. What was the purpose of the Bill of Rights and why was it ratified by Congress and the States so soon after the ratification of the Constitution?
Those who opposed an unbridled central government felt the original document was not detailed enough in spelling out protection for certain freedoms. These anti-Federalists essentially forced the Bill of Rights onto the Federalists by threatening a second Constitutional Convention. James Madison, the staunch Federalist who penned all but one of the amendments had one that he favored over all the others: one guaranteeing absolute sovereignty of the Federal government over the States. But the Congress specifically struck that one amendment from the package . Even then, and especially then, our elected leaders were fearful of a powerful central government that could perhaps grow in strength without limitation.
Context is everything. The purpose of the Bill of Rights, in Congress' eyes, was to counterbalance the strength of the Federal government. It was no accident or sidebar that the right to keep and bear arms was included in these amendments. It was not included merely because these arms were commonly used by most everyone as tools for hunting game or for protection against wild animals or lawless individuals. That was a given, and it really didn't fit the context. The general context, again, was to explicitly state and guarantee the rights of individuals and the States over the Federal government and the specific context bears this out: the term "militia" was used. The militias were organized on a local basis and controlled at the State level, though they could be called into service by the President in accordance with the original Constitution. The word "State" in the amendment has particular significance because it replaced the earlier wording, "country".
Should you doubt the point I'm making, read the words of a few of our founders:
"Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." -- Noah Webster, Federalist
"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens." -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -- Patrick Henry, anti-Federalist
Now, as believers, we know we are living in the last days, and we expect deterioration and degradation to come. But the question is: Do we play right along with the game, or do we resist? That is a question each of us now must answer for ourselves. So help us God.
I urge you, if you are then so moved by your conscience and your understanding of God's will for you, to become active in the struggle to protect our freedoms before they are wholly yanked away from us. Become involved immediately by writing, emailing, Tweeting, Facebooking, calling, and if possible, visiting with your elected representatives, and let them know your mind and heart. If we do not do this, many of them have no idea of the true will of the People, so they find it convenient to pay attention only to some of the polls, the liberal mainstream media, the rich and powerful, and the vacuous and dissolute mouths of Hollywood.
And then follow through. Be involved in the caucuses, primaries, and general elections. Cast your vote without failure. Attend school board meetings, even if you have no children in school. Be involved in the education process because it affects our future, and demand that right decisions be made.
Don't necessarily expect immediately positive results. Don't get discouraged when your efforts seem to be ineffective. Enlist the collaboration and cooperation of your friends in following your example. And be faithful without ceasing. These are exactly the methods by which the opposition have achieved what they have.
