by Rev. Gregory "Doc" Lowrey
It may seem odd that many times the biggest issues for churches seem to be with government.
In the United States the two are supposed to be separated.
One cannot attempt to exercise control over the other as that would essentially establish a government religion.
Both are free to address and attempt to persuade the other, but may not go further.
There is a distinction for what seem the majority of churches in the United States that must be noted and that is churches that have bought official government recognition of their (exempt from govt. involvement) status.
When churches do apply for and purchase what is called 501.c.3 status, which is the title in the IRS code that addresses tax exempt organizations; as a condition of that recognition (that the IRS declares they do not even need as their exempt status is declared in the Bill of Rights and is a status that is not claimed to be "granted" by govt. , only "officially recognized" - as if the official recognition of the 1st Amendment was not enough.) - these churches do become the very thing outlawed by the Constitution - Establishment Churches, controlled by the Government - limited and regulated in what they can do or say.
That is a very wrong and illegal thing, sadly participated in willingly by both churches and government.
Presumably the argument is that it is legal because the churches have requested the relationship of government oversight - but even thinking that way violates the 1st Amendment - and regardless of churches asking for it - the Government is prohibited from extending it.
Interestingly, churches are not required to submit to the IRS, but are persuaded by the Government to voluntarily relinquish their Liberty and independent status. (A Govt. appeal to ignorance and greed!)
Weird, huh?
Well, I make the distinction because some churches - (Church of Universal Truth / UBU Ministries being one of them) - do not fall under government control and are able to function as they are led by their beliefs and are able to perform the essential task of persuading people to act and think morally - free from Government meddling, regulation, restriction or oversight.
The best standard of morality is the Golden Rule, stating that we should treat and think about other people just as we would desire them to treat and think about us.
If God and Jesus then, believe in the Law of Liberty, that law must also be part and parcel of the Royal Law; treating others as we would be treated. We honor each individual's right to liberty as well as equality.
But what about those who pick and choose about when and to whom they will apply God's Law?
James also speaks about them.
Infused around verses 8 and 12 (in chapter 2) is also found the following warning about those who don't follow the Royal Law or who think they are aligned with God but don't really understand.
James makes it pretty clear - and even more so in subsequent verses.
James warning to not have respect to persons simply means, not that we fail to respect people, but rather that we do not hold one person's value, rights, interests, equality and liberty to be different - greater or lesser than any other person.
James also makes clear that we can't claim moral or spiritual superiority over anyone because since there really is only one law (The Royal Law) of which all other laws are merely expositions - that if we violate any law of God, we have violated the whole.
It is sad to see so many claim to represent the public interest who have no personal grasp on this one principle that should underpin their every decision and action - but doesn't.
You can't withhold liberty, equality, privilege etc. from one group while extending it to another - and - you can't extend, withdraw or manage liberties that are granted by God.
And the manner with which such a respecter of persons will be judged will not be as in verse 12 (by the law of liberty), but by the same judgement that person exercised - "judgement without mercy".
Jesus explains that this law does not just apply to people we like or approve of.
Just like Jesus says in vs. 40 above, not only must his disciples fail to stray from the principles he taught, but also our Judges, Legislators and Administrators must never stray from the principles laid out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights - their Rule of Law, which are so simply based on God's Royal Law described above.
And as in vs. 39, "Can the blind lead the blind?"
Are we to allow ignorant, immoral pretenders to make and administer our laws?
Are we to have blind and immoral prosecutors and judges victimize us when we have violated no legitimate law?
So, we warn against the evils in government where we find so much is regularly done with both "respect to persons" and "judgement without mercy".
I want to point out today both an obvious evil of government which I believe was intentionally overshadowed by a surprising admission of the real meaning of equality.
That the Court actually comprehends the principle they so clearly espouse is strangely enough highly questionable, unbelievable even.
It appears that the timing of the decision was staged to let the outpouring of good feelings from the second decision weaken the power of the outrage from the first.
As if our collective awe would make us forget the prior insult.
This does not lessen the value of the decision to honor the rights of gay citizens, but does warn against thinking that the best interests of the public and commitment to the rule of law take much part in it.
It's just not believable that the Court could clearly see the message of the Constitution for one civil rights issue and be so blind about it on another - especially when black civil rights have been so thoroughly examined over so many years.
Our governors seem pretty much to be people who do not understand or value equality, liberty or mercy.
So, we celebrate the recognition of Constitutionally Mandated Equal Treatment as it has been established by the United States Supreme Court earlier this week relating to so-called Gay Marriage, especially the clarity that was given in the legal opinions showing that the Constitution really was intended for ALL the people.
The principles taught by Jesus support equality and individuality.
While we are celebrating this victory of official eye opening to the rule that already existed this last 200+ years, we are devastated by the ignorance and/or evil that inspired the eviscerating of the Voting Rights Act as well as a decision that a person's silence is to be considered proof of guilt.
The "Rights" that these judges and legislators play with are "Rights" because they are God-given, not granted, nor could they be granted by man.
Man has no power to grant "rights" to others. If so - man also would have power to withdraw those rights - and they could not be Guaranteed.
They also cannot legally be legislated or modified by man. They are UNALIENABLE!
The only thing man can do with an unalienable right is to declare it, explore it and defend it.
I wonder what part of "Unalienable" the courts, legislatures and administrations could possibly fail to understand?
I have to suppose that they DO understand it. They trample the Constitution on purpose.
When they pledge allegiance to God and the Nation, it is a pretense - mere public relations.
We must not allow ourselves to be victimized by ignorant, immoral profiteers.
They must all be removed from office and replaced by honest leaders who understand and defend that ONE LAW - and keep us Free and Equal.
It may seem odd that many times the biggest issues for churches seem to be with government.
In the United States the two are supposed to be separated.
One cannot attempt to exercise control over the other as that would essentially establish a government religion.
Both are free to address and attempt to persuade the other, but may not go further.
There is a distinction for what seem the majority of churches in the United States that must be noted and that is churches that have bought official government recognition of their (exempt from govt. involvement) status.
When churches do apply for and purchase what is called 501.c.3 status, which is the title in the IRS code that addresses tax exempt organizations; as a condition of that recognition (that the IRS declares they do not even need as their exempt status is declared in the Bill of Rights and is a status that is not claimed to be "granted" by govt. , only "officially recognized" - as if the official recognition of the 1st Amendment was not enough.) - these churches do become the very thing outlawed by the Constitution - Establishment Churches, controlled by the Government - limited and regulated in what they can do or say.
That is a very wrong and illegal thing, sadly participated in willingly by both churches and government.
Presumably the argument is that it is legal because the churches have requested the relationship of government oversight - but even thinking that way violates the 1st Amendment - and regardless of churches asking for it - the Government is prohibited from extending it.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. WikipediaNo means No.
"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." United States Bill of RightsFor example, those churches can no longer "legally" take a public stand against or for public policies or representatives - 501.c.3 ministers legally cannot publicly counsel on social morality!
Interestingly, churches are not required to submit to the IRS, but are persuaded by the Government to voluntarily relinquish their Liberty and independent status. (A Govt. appeal to ignorance and greed!)
Weird, huh?
Well, I make the distinction because some churches - (Church of Universal Truth / UBU Ministries being one of them) - do not fall under government control and are able to function as they are led by their beliefs and are able to perform the essential task of persuading people to act and think morally - free from Government meddling, regulation, restriction or oversight.
The best standard of morality is the Golden Rule, stating that we should treat and think about other people just as we would desire them to treat and think about us.
Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.This Rule, called the Royal Law by the Apostle James, was stated by Jesus to be the entirety of his religion - all the law and all the prophets - meaning that on this principle is built all law and on this principle hang all the teachings of the prophets - everything depends on this concept of equality - and - anything that fails to conform to this Royal Law - does not truthfully represent God or Jesus.
James 2Thank goodness we can legally shout it out here that Equality is the religion of Jesus and the Royal Law of God - and that both judge by the Law of Liberty.
8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: .
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
If God and Jesus then, believe in the Law of Liberty, that law must also be part and parcel of the Royal Law; treating others as we would be treated. We honor each individual's right to liberty as well as equality.
But what about those who pick and choose about when and to whom they will apply God's Law?
James also speaks about them.
Infused around verses 8 and 12 (in chapter 2) is also found the following warning about those who don't follow the Royal Law or who think they are aligned with God but don't really understand.
James makes it pretty clear - and even more so in subsequent verses.
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill.
Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
James warning to not have respect to persons simply means, not that we fail to respect people, but rather that we do not hold one person's value, rights, interests, equality and liberty to be different - greater or lesser than any other person.
James also makes clear that we can't claim moral or spiritual superiority over anyone because since there really is only one law (The Royal Law) of which all other laws are merely expositions - that if we violate any law of God, we have violated the whole.
It is sad to see so many claim to represent the public interest who have no personal grasp on this one principle that should underpin their every decision and action - but doesn't.
You can't withhold liberty, equality, privilege etc. from one group while extending it to another - and - you can't extend, withdraw or manage liberties that are granted by God.
And the manner with which such a respecter of persons will be judged will not be as in verse 12 (by the law of liberty), but by the same judgement that person exercised - "judgement without mercy".
Jesus explains that this law does not just apply to people we like or approve of.
Luke 6Doesn't this sound so much like the protections we have declared in the Bill of Rights?
31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
39 And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?
40 The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.
Just like Jesus says in vs. 40 above, not only must his disciples fail to stray from the principles he taught, but also our Judges, Legislators and Administrators must never stray from the principles laid out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights - their Rule of Law, which are so simply based on God's Royal Law described above.
And as in vs. 39, "Can the blind lead the blind?"
Are we to allow ignorant, immoral pretenders to make and administer our laws?
Are we to have blind and immoral prosecutors and judges victimize us when we have violated no legitimate law?
So, we warn against the evils in government where we find so much is regularly done with both "respect to persons" and "judgement without mercy".
I want to point out today both an obvious evil of government which I believe was intentionally overshadowed by a surprising admission of the real meaning of equality.
That the Court actually comprehends the principle they so clearly espouse is strangely enough highly questionable, unbelievable even.
It appears that the timing of the decision was staged to let the outpouring of good feelings from the second decision weaken the power of the outrage from the first.
As if our collective awe would make us forget the prior insult.
This does not lessen the value of the decision to honor the rights of gay citizens, but does warn against thinking that the best interests of the public and commitment to the rule of law take much part in it.
It's just not believable that the Court could clearly see the message of the Constitution for one civil rights issue and be so blind about it on another - especially when black civil rights have been so thoroughly examined over so many years.
Our governors seem pretty much to be people who do not understand or value equality, liberty or mercy.
So, we celebrate the recognition of Constitutionally Mandated Equal Treatment as it has been established by the United States Supreme Court earlier this week relating to so-called Gay Marriage, especially the clarity that was given in the legal opinions showing that the Constitution really was intended for ALL the people.
The principles taught by Jesus support equality and individuality.
While we are celebrating this victory of official eye opening to the rule that already existed this last 200+ years, we are devastated by the ignorance and/or evil that inspired the eviscerating of the Voting Rights Act as well as a decision that a person's silence is to be considered proof of guilt.
The "Rights" that these judges and legislators play with are "Rights" because they are God-given, not granted, nor could they be granted by man.
Man has no power to grant "rights" to others. If so - man also would have power to withdraw those rights - and they could not be Guaranteed.
They also cannot legally be legislated or modified by man. They are UNALIENABLE!
The only thing man can do with an unalienable right is to declare it, explore it and defend it.
I wonder what part of "Unalienable" the courts, legislatures and administrations could possibly fail to understand?
I have to suppose that they DO understand it. They trample the Constitution on purpose.
When they pledge allegiance to God and the Nation, it is a pretense - mere public relations.
We must not allow ourselves to be victimized by ignorant, immoral profiteers.
They must all be removed from office and replaced by honest leaders who understand and defend that ONE LAW - and keep us Free and Equal.