It Is Your Watch!
Note: The politically correct approach is not biblical.
(It is related to the measuring of ourselves or the justifying of ourselves by comparing our actions to that of others, while forgetting there are moral absolutes.)
Unfortunately this political approach began in those organizations we most often refer to as "the Church."
In the very first book of the bible there are several principles laid out in very clear, hard to misunderstand, language. Again, unfortunately organized religion, of all forms and fashions, found among those who call themselves Christian, has bent and twisted these principles to where they are no longer recognizable.
In Genesis the 4th chapter God gives a wayward son of Adam and Eve some advice.
"If you do what is acceptable you will be received, other wise sin is wanting you, however, it is up to you to over come it."
This is the message, not a quote. Read it for your self.
We, humans, each of us are being held responsible for our own doings, not Adam or Eve or anyone else. Abel, the other son, got it right. What ever it was they were to do, they both knew what it was. One followed orders, the other tried to do it his own way.
Before I go on, let me say, nothing in the bible has changed these principles. They were given during an age of grace. They are fixed in heaven and we are to be held accountable just as Cain and Abel were.
Now on down in that 4th chapter God asks Cain about his brother Abel. Cain answers God saying .. "... am I my brothers keeper?"
I ask you this - are you your brother's keeper? You might add ... "I do not know where he is?" Should you know?
The political answer to this is "no." When it comes to morality keep your mouth shut. If a neighbor is breaking a law forget it. If they are doing something that is injuring their physical or mental or spiritual health forget it, say nothing to them, but do pray for them...
Here is the text -
Gen 4:7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it." 8 Cain said to Abel his brother, "Let us go out to the field." And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him. 9 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" He said, "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?" 10 And the LORD said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. (RSV)
In this text we have two brothers who are close. They offer their sacrifices around the same time and they go into the field together. They obviously are close associates. They do not live miles apart. Their lives are entwined, they are both neighbors and close relatives. This has some bearing on their responsibility toward each other.
The "Church," is set as a watchman on the wall.
Each individual Christian, of age, has some for whom they bear some amount of responsibility. We are not living in a vacuum.
It used to be that the "Church" was politically active. Religious leaders urged their people to vote and most often told them for whom, or what, and why. They did not necessarily command them, but they did try to persuade them. They made sure their people were provided with written material which detailed the pros and cons relative to upcoming elections, bonds, etc. You used to have pro life material in abundance available in the "Church." There was very often a rack with articles on display that covered information not available in the evening news in the local News papers. It was material that had the backing of the leadership of that Christian fellowship.
This information is no longer available in "Churches." (It better not be, if it is incorporated!)
Why? They are now under the control of the state. They have traded watchman status for an income tax exemption status. This means Christian leaders have sold their soul to the state. The state is now the head of these Churches.
I remember when we heard about the terrible conditions in Communist Russia. The Churches had been placed under the control of that government. The religious leaders had to have sermons approved by the state. Government officials attended Church services and many religious leaders were sent to prison for preaching things that were not approved by the government. True Christians went underground and many were hunted down and killed. China is now doing this again.
In this country Christian leaders willingly gave their allegiance to the state for less then a bowel of porridge. None of them were threatened and forced to incorporate their churches. They were just given recognition for being a bona fide non profit organization. They may have just wanted to look respectable.
A Church can have an out side audit to verify the fact that they are a not for profit situation and this would be more reliable then being recognized by the government.
(Non profit status and tax exemption is given to all kinds of evil groups.)
Now most any message, or written material, that is politically charged is against the law. This especially applies to any information that is against governmentally approved activities, such as homosexuality, abortion, feminism, etc.
I have had people say ."well my pastor speaks out on these things and we have articles passed out in Church." Sounds good, but that religious leader is breaking a law that he said he would keep. During his ordination or in signing incorporation papers for a Church he agreed to up hold the laws of his state, etc.
A Christian leader is not forced to break any laws relative to incorporation. No one has a gun in his back. He breaks the law willingly and will be judged accordingly.
Churches are not being forced to incorporate. If they want to incorporate and be legally free of government intervention they can do so as being a lobbying organization. Which they are. They are lobbying for the Gospel.
If they are interested in doing this they need to get an attorney that specializes in such things. Yes, it is my understanding they will lose their tax exemption status.
They can also walk away from their incorporation and start an underground Church. They may still be susceptible to spending time in jail for some minor infraction, if the government can find them doing something, such as speeding or violating a zoning law. (They are to be examples, so they should act accordingly.) However, in a general sense they will not be placing the state as their head. They will be instead coming back under the head ship of Christ.
Meanwhile, www.peacekey.com is trying to be a watchman. This web site is attempting to warn Christians, both theologically and via hard to find news articles.
What it is doing is nearly worthless relative to what Churches should be doing.
However, the web site manager knows it is his watch.
He will be held accountable for his neighbors.
Please understand it is also your watch. You are your brother's keeper!
V. M. Wednesday, July 21, 2004
In connection to this is the uneven ground the Church has moved to relative to political activities. Liberal politicians attend Church sponsored rallies and money is raised for them by passing the plate. Nothing is said about this by the IRS. Those Churches are also incorporated, but they are not harassed. Bill Clinton took advantage of this disparity and Jesse Jackson has done this for years.
God fearing Churches have placed themselves at a disadvantage, for they want to obey the law. By not being incorporated they have the ability to say what they want. The leader is then unfettered by government restrictions on their free speech. All kinds of politically active organizations are supposedly non profit yet they say and do what they want, while the Church keeps its mouth shut, and yes, many Christians believe this is right. They have swallowed the myth of the "separation of Church and state."
Links to related the above articles
Organization spying on Churches to catch political activities.
Democrats agree that Churches should not be politically active.
1. What about the way the Church actively supports a pagan religion that 2. has stood against Christianity and our ethics for centuries?
3. Is this not traitorous?