The Coming Reformation

Historians typically date the start of the Protestant Reformation on October 31, 1517 with the publication of Martin Luther’s “95 Theses.” The key ideas of the Reformation were: (1) A call to purify the church; and (2) The Bible, not tradition or church councils, is the sole source of spiritual authority.

Martin Luther (1483-1546) was an Augustinian monk and university professor in Wittenberg when he composed his “95 Theses,” which included his protest against the pope’s sale of indulgences. He initially wanted to encourage renewal from within the church by advancing what Augustine had taught in the late 300s—that the Bible was the central authority to discern the will of God and that salvation was granted by faith alone, which meant that good works and the purchase of indulgences were unnecessary--this would not be the result.

Luther was not trying to create a public furor by any means, but within a month, his theses, meant to be items of debate, had spread like wildfire and the Protestant Reformation was birthed. The last thing Luther wanted was a major controversy, but nonetheless major controversy he received. The Roman Church eventually maneuvered Luther into publicly proclaiming that the Pope and the church councils were not infallible. In 1520 Pope Leo X issued a papal bull condemning Luther as a heretic. Luther, protesting the decree, burned the document in a public bonfire, making his defiance a matter of public record. 

In 1521, Luther was summoned to the Diet of Worms, an authoritative meeting that involved the princes of the church and called by the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. At this point in time, Luther was an outlaw to the church and nation for preaching and writing against the pope and the Roman Church. For him to appear in Worms was to risk his very life. Emperor Charles V, therefore, gave him safe passage to attend. When Luther appeared the people were amazed and commenced throwing their hats in the air, blowing trumpets, and creating all the fanfare of the arrival of a national hero.

At his trial, his books and writings were stacked on a table, and he was asked, then ordered to recant his writings. Such a demand surprised Luther because he thought he was to have a chance to defend his writings; but this was not the case. He dropped his chin on his chest, muttering something, and when asked to speak up said, “May I have 24 hours to think about it.” Granted a reprieve, Luther wrestled for 24 hours over what to do and say. He cried in loneliness to God,  “O Lord, I am Thine, and the cause is Thine, give me the courage to stand.”

The next day, Luther shocked the court with these words, “Unless I am convinced by sacred Scripture or by evident reason, I cannot recant, for my conscience is held captive by the Word of God, and to act against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.” And with that there was an instant uproar—some cheering; some dismayed; some angry. The Emperor regretted giving him safe passage and immediately put a price on his head. To prevent him from being assassinated, Luther’s friends staged a kidnapping to protect him and secretly hid him for a year in Wartburg at the castle disguised as a knight. During that year, he undertook the task of translating the Bible from the biblical languages into German, which made possible the availability of the Bible to common folk. And with that the Reformation was kindled, nurtured, and spread throughout Europe.

Neighborly Invite

Now that September is upon us and children are back in school, the yearly routine begins again. We get caught up with all the activities, the seasonal holidays, and the church calendar. What we normally neglect is thinking about our neighbors and inviting them to church. Why is it so hard for us to ask another to the church we dearly love?

According to the National Back to Church website, 82% of the unchurched are somewhat likely to attend a church if invited. Yet, only 2 % of church members actually extend an invitation to an unchurched person. 56% of the unchurched are receptive to information about a local church if given by a friend or neighbor. The percentage increases to 66% if a relative offers the information. Of the formerly churched, 62%, although not actively looking, are open to the idea of returning to church. The problem therefore is not the attitude of the unchurched, but the failure of church members to invite friends and family to church.

Professor Chuck Lawless of Southeastern Seminary list a number of reasons he believes people don’t invite others to church. I have taken a few and readdressed them. Let’s see if we fall into any of the categories.

           (1) “I hardly think about it.” We have contact with many unbelievers, but we just don’t think about inviting them to church. Paul told us not to disassociate ourselves with unbelievers, for then we would be isolating ourselves from the world (1 Cor. 5:10). We are not “of the world” but we are “in the world” (John 17:16; 18). This means that as believers we are Christ’s representatives to those around us and need to start thinking and praying for our unchurched neighbors. Rather than seeing them as goats, maybe we should view them as lost sheep.

           (2) I’m afraid of the rejection.” We have the tendency to rationalize that unbelievers will reject our invitation; so why ask in the first place? Silence avoids the pain of someone saying “no” to us. Statistics, however, show that a large majority will not rebuff us. Although we may be rejected at times, our neighbors hardly ever do so with rudeness and unkindness. But even then, our Lord said we are blessed when others revile us on account of him (Matt. 5:11). And who are we to fear? If Christ is for us, who can really be against us (Rom. 8:31)?

           (3) “I’m embarrassed about my church.” Some don’t like the worship style. Others fear that their friends will find the church unfriendly and lacking warmth. Still others see problems in the church that leaders have not addressed. Churches are not perfect, but that is not an excuse for not inviting people. Church members should convey their feelings or their issues to leadership; and then pray for the leaders who seek God’s will for the church. Complaining without being involved in the church is not a constructive attitude. We need to love the church in which God has placed us and support it prayerfully, financially, and productively, which then gives us the right to be heard.

           (4) “The preacher is boring.” Although church members may love their pastor, they may not be overjoyed with his preaching. They won’t leave the church, but they will not invite neighbors because the preaching is poor. The pastor does have the responsibility of delivering God’s truth in a way that is whimsical, inspiring, and easy to understand. Yet, the pastor needs his flock to consistently pray for him as he prepares, researches, and writes his sermons. There is also more to the local church than the preacher. People make up the church and a loving and gracious congregation is more attractive than a smooth-talking pastor.

           (5) “Nobody ever challenged me to invite my neighbor.” This may be a church leadership problem. Outward thinking churches are constantly looking for ways to extend their influence into the local community. One way is to have a friend’s Sunday and invite neighbors on the Sunday that lunch is served after the service. Socializing around food makes it easier for visitors to meet others in the church, especially if a friend or neighbor invited them.

           (6) “I don’t know how to ask someone to come to church.” In a culture where talking about religion is offensive to many, opening a conversation about church is difficult. What makes it easier is a social atmosphere where unchurched neighbors are invited to dinner along with some church friends. An informal social gathering allows the unchurched to meet friendly church people, hopefully destroying biased attitudes toward the stereotypical Christian. Such an atmosphere makes it more conducive for inviting neighbors to church.

           (7) “It’s the Holy Spirit’s job to attract people to church.” God works through his people to accomplish his purpose. We don’t know whom God is drawing to himself, but we will never get glimpses of his sovereignty in action if we refuse to ask people to church. Gratitude for our own salvation demands we extend God’s grace to others. People who are attracted to us will most likely be attracted to our church if we just reach out and touch them with the love of Christ.

State Farm Insurance Company’s slogan is: Like a Good Neighbor, State Farm is There! That should be the slogan of the local church. Like a Good Neighbor, My Church is There! The church is God’s instrument for serving people, for bringing compassion to those in need, and for extending the gospel to the lost. May we as the church be a good neighbor and reach out to the community, inviting them to our services and ministering to their needs.

A Unique Land

           Whatever we may think of modern Israel and the struggles she has with the surrounding Arab nations, believers should at least comprehend the importance of the land from a scriptural perspective. In order to more fully understand the Bible, it is helpful for Christians to become familiar with the land of the Bible. As we study the form of the land as well as the function of God’s chosen topography we are enabled to contextually unpack God’s revelation to us. A recurring theme throughout Scripture is the election of God—a chosen land, a chosen people, and a covenantal relationship that he provides with those he has chosen from the foundation of the earth (Eph. 1:4).

And the Lord appeared to Abraham and said, “To your descendants I will give this land” (Gen. 12:7 NASB). When God made this promise to Abraham, he revealed to him a specific territory. Although God is the legal owner of all the earth, he chose a relatively tiny portion of land in the Middle East to bequeath to an undeserving, but a unique people. Of course, there is no one that is deserving of God’s beneficence, for all of us are sinners (Rom. 3:10-12). Yet, just as God chose a certain man, Abraham, to be the progenitor of a special people, he also chose a certain piece of ground to be the staging area of his revelation to mankind through the ages.

Why did God pick this narrow portion of land, once called Canaan, now Israel, as an inheritance to Abraham’s descendants? First, this stretch of ground is important for its geocentric location. In the ancient world, it was the bridge between two major civilizations and, as such, it became the connection between the nations and the scene for the most important events of history.  The people who walk in darkness will see a great light; those who live in a dark land the light will shine on them (Isa. 9:2). Messiah would emerge from this land; but not only would the Hebrew people be impacted through His ministry, but also the Gentiles. From this stage God would broadcast his word, promising a Liberator for those who came to understand the nature of their captivity and the need for a Redeemer.

People from every nation, from various ethnicities and from all walks of life were confronted with the gospel message. History has shown that this small piece of land from the time of Abraham to the present era has always been the epicenter of religious turmoil and upheaval. Even today three of the major religions–Judaism, Christianity, and Islam–vie for the land. The struggle, although often times bloody, causes the world to refocus on the centricity of this land and the history of its people. 

A second reason why God evidently chose this land is due to its topographical uniqueness. The contour of this area not only made it desirable for the various trade routes traversing through it but also very difficult to defend. As a gateway to three continents—Africa, Asia, and Europe—it became the center point to controlling the ancient world. From each of the continents came conquering hordes: Egyptians and Ethiopians from Africa, Babylonians and Assyrians from Asia, and Greeks and Romans from Europe. Against these conquerors, the people living in the land of Canaan were virtually helpless. Because of the land’s physical characteristics and central location, Canaan was destined to be dominated rather than to rule. The vulnerability of the Israelites to foreign domination resulted in continued dependence on Jehovah and thus deepened their faith and left an indelible lesson for all mankind. As an indefensible nation, Israel’s only hope against certain annihilation and potential extinction was reliance on God, for, in reality, he is a peoples’ only refuge in time of trouble (Ps. 46:1).

The land still seems indefensible, for militant Arabs have vowed to annihilate Israel and push her into the Mediterranean Sea. It seems unlikely that Israel will accept a partitioned land and agree to a Palestinian state, for with the recent discovery of intricate tunnels into her land, Israel cannot afford a long cease-fire or a separate nation of Arabs that could rebuild tunnels to eventually strike at the heartland of Israel.

A third reason for God’s selection of this land is its meteorological variants. The climate was a powerful incentive to the development of faith in the unseen God. With no great river like the Nile or the Euphrates to bring an unfailing supply of water, the land had to rely on the water from heaven to replenish it and to provide this essential for life. If the rains failed to fill the cisterns during the rainy season and enrich the springs and the rivers, then drought was inevitable. Other calamities, which frequently occurred, were earthquakes, locust invasions, and pestilence. In a land like ancient Canaan, it was natural for men to look to God for security and sustenance. Pagans, however, worshipped nature and created deities that personified a particular aspect of their environment, such as rivers, trees, and springs. The Israelites, however, through God’s initiative, power, and love came to depend upon the true God of weather and climate change. Although not often faithful, their reliance on Elohim always deepened their devotion as they learned they could not depend upon the land alone for their provision. When they understood the lessons of the Lord the proclamation of Amos was the voice that came behind them:

And furthermore, I withheld the rain from you while there were still three months until harvest. Then I would send rain on one city and on another city I would not send rain;…I smote with scorching wind and mildew; and the caterpillar was devouring your many gardens and vineyards, fig trees and olive trees…I sent a plague among you after the manner of Egypt…Yet you have not returned to me,’ declares the Lord. Amos 4:7-10

To ancient Israelites the climate was seen as God’s instrument for advantage and for calamity. Understanding this principle helped to solidify their faith in a sovereign God. A land like Israel, therefore, served as the environmental classroom to nurture the chosen race into a deeper sense of Jehovah’s presence—a presence that was personal and relational.

            A fourth reason God chose this “Land of the Covenant” was its geopolitical location. Unlike our own, ancient civilizations had no difficulty with the integration of religion and politics. In fact history shows us that the two were closely intertwined. The mix of religion and politics provided a context for the Israelites to easily accept a theocratic state with God as the ultimate King. On many occasions and with many of Israel’s leaders, political decisions were decided based upon God’s Word and direction. 
            Although politics still play a major role in the affairs of Israel and its surrounding Arab nations, God has, for the most part, been left out of the decision making. Although not consulted, God is still sovereign and will accomplish his will for the Middle East. The land of Israel is still the center of the world, for how goes the Middle East will determine what happens in the rest of the world. Although world politicians demand peace, they will not find it without the intervention of the peace of God--who is the Messiah, the Christ of Scripture. 

Revolutionary Pastors

In commemoration of the Boston Massacre John Lathrop of Old North Church preached on the subject Innocent Blood Crying to God from the streets of Boston. In the same year the Rev. Samuel Cooke, with Governor Hutchinson present as well as the Massachusetts House of Representatives preached on the text, “He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.”  Alice Baldwin in her book, The N. E. Clergy and the American Revolution, said of the pastors, “With a vocabulary enriched by the Bible, …(they) made resistance and at last independence and war a holy cause,” and through their influence, gave the Revolution support.

On April 18, 1775 the new governor of Boston sent detachment of soldiers first to secure the arms of the patriots at concord and second to capture three rebel leaders who were stirring up most of the trouble. On the morning of April 19, 1775 Jonas Clark, a preacher, John Hancock, his cousin, and Sam Adams, his distributor of sermons were awakened to escape the British. Adams and Hancock were visiting for the night, unaware that the British were sending troops to Lexington. Clark was asked by one of his guest if his congregation would fight if necessary. Clark, who had preached the duty of self-defense of inalienable rights for years through his sermons, responded confidently, “I have trained them for this very hour!” The shot heard round the world providentially occurred on the lawn of his church.

“Throw down your arms, you damn rebels and disperse,” was the command of the British officer.  Some started to disperse, but Captain John Parker, a deacon in Clark’s church yelled, “Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they want war, let it begin here.” The British fired first and 8 men fell and died on the spot. The Americans fired back, and you know the rest of the story. Or do you? One bystander writes about Jonas Clark who was watching from the church steps. He walked up and took in his arms the head of one of the young men who had been killed. The man’s wife walked up and said, “Jonas, Jonas, look what you have done.” His reply, “Ma’am, I have no regrets, for from today the death knell of tyranny shall be heard throughout the world and the bell of liberty shall ring into eternity.”

At the Galloping Hill Bridge, during the Battle of Springfield, American artillery ran low on wadding to feed their cannons. Rev. James Caldwell, an Army chaplain who had lost his wife during the Battle of Connecticut Farms, carried a load of hymn books published by English clergyman, Issac Watts. Caldwell was heard yelling to the artillery men, “Give ‘em Watts, boys! Give ‘em Watts.”

When General George Washington asked Lutheran pastor John Peter Muhlenberg to raise a regiment of volunteers, Muhlenberg did more than agreed. After he delivered a powerful sermon from Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 that concluded with these words: “The Bible tells us there is a time for all things and there is a time to preach and a time to pray, but the time for me to preach has passed away, and there is a time to fight, and that time has come now. Now is the time to fight! Call for recruits! Sound the drums!” Muhlenberg then stripped off his clerical robe, revealing the uniform of a Virginia colonel. Grabbing his musket from behind the pulpit, he donned his colonel’s hat and marched off to war. And as he did, more than 300 of his male congregants followed him.

When the war began many ministers became known as “fighting parsons.” Ministers also exerted influence in raising volunteers to join the cause. At Windsor, VT, David Avery, on hearing the news of Lexington, preached a farewell sermon, then called the people to arms and marched away with 20 men, recruiting others as they went. John Cleaveland of Ipswich is said to have preached his whole parish into the army and then to have gone himself. These preachers were known as the Black Regiment—a term describing the color of their clerical robes. Besides acting as recruiting agents, chaplains, officers and fighters, many ministers supported the war with their pens, and gave of their meager salaries to support the cause. This took character – “O where, O where have the clergy gone.”

The Christian Nature of the United States

If the atheists and progressives had their way, God would be eliminated from all facets of life. However, they are content for the moment to have God eliminated from the public forum. These same people quote the Constitution, pointing out that there is complete separation of Church and State. This is the law of the land since the Supreme Court decision in the Case of Everson vs. The Board of Education in 1947. We may argue the rationale behind the decision is flawed, but it is the law of the land. In fact, whatever the Supreme Court decides is “constitutional” is therefore “constitutional.” Yet, the intent of the Founding Fathers should matter if one is a “strict constitutionalist. The question should be asked, “Did the founding fathers want God removed from the public forum? Modernity says “yes,” but history says “no!”

God was not to be separated from the daily operation of government. How do we know this? First, prayer was a constant activity during the Continental Congress. The Constitution, itself, implicitly regards Sunday as a day of rest by excluding Sunday from the days to be counted in the period that the President has to veto a Congressional bill. And by common consent, Thanksgiving and Christmas were recognized holidays although they are now under attack in our post Christian culture.

Second, Christian mottoes on coins, currency, public buildings, and monuments were commonly accepted. “In God We Trust” was stamped on our coins of old and is etched over the south entrance to the Senate Chamber in the U.S. Capitol. Over the west entrance is engraved Annuit Coeptis, which the Colonials interpreted to mean that God had favored their undertakings. In 1782 Sam Adams and the third Congress commissioned an artist to create a national seal. The artist, William Barton of Philadelphia, suggested a 13-layered pyramid underneath an eye, which stood for the Eye of Providence. He chose the motto, Deo Favente (“with God favoring). The final version, suggested by Charles Thomson (a former Latin teacher) retained the pyramid and eye, but replaced the motto with Annuit Coeptis. His explanation for the change was that the eye over the pyramid and the motto Annuit Cœptis indicated the many “signal interpositions” or ways that Provide favored the American cause.

Third, judicial oaths ended with the phrase, "So help me God!"

Fourth, early Court decisions pronounced the place of God in the early growth of our nation. In People v. Ruggles, an 1811 Supreme Ct. of New York decision, Ruggles was indicted for calling Christ a bastard and his mother a whore. He was fined $500 and served a 3-month imprisonment term. Part of the prosecutor’s argument was that while the Constitution of the State of New York preserved the right of conscience and has allowed for the free discussion of religion, it has nevertheless left the principal engrafted in our common law that Christianity is part of the laws of the State, untouched and unimpaired. Justice James Kent said that, “Nothing could be more offensive to the virtuous part of the community, or more injurious to the tender morals of the young, than to declare such profanity lawful…We are a Christian people and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions].”  Basically, he said that cursing Christ is cursing the State of New York.

In Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, an 1824 Pennsylvania case, Abner Updegraph on December 12, 1821, with intent to scandalize, vilified the Christian religion by saying, “That the Holy Scriptures were a mere fable: that they were a contradiction, and that although they contained a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies.” He was found guilty of blaspheming and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld it.

In Vidal v. Girard’s Executors (1844) the U.S. Supreme Ct. stated that Christianity was not to be openly and maliciously denigrated. Stephen Girard, a native of France, died in 1831 leaving $7 million dollars to the city of Philadelphia to construct an orphanage and college where the “purest principles of morality” are to be instilled. He stipulated that no clergyman or missionary shall ever hold any positions in the college nor were they allowed on campus as visitors. In allowing Philadelphia to retain the bequeath, Court pointed out that although no clergy were allowed, Christian religious principles could still be taught by laymen. In fact, the City Attorney argued, “The purest principles of morality are to be taught. Where are they found? Whoever searches for them must go to the source from which a Christian man derives his faith--the Bible. ...There is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system of morality.” Justice Joseph Story, an appointee of James Madison, the major architect of the Constitution, delivered the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court. He said, “Christianity…is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against…It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider the establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of…Deism, or any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country.” 

In Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) immigration law was interpreted to an absurd degree by the U.S. Attorney’s office to accuse the church of hiring a foreigner as pastor. The Supreme Court ruled, “No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people…This is a Christian nation.” The reasoning in this case cited the above three cases.

In Davis v. Beason (1889) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against bigamy and polygamy among Mormons. Justice Stephen Field (a Lincoln appointee who also sat for the Holy Trinity Case) delivered the Court’s ruling by saying, “Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries….” By commenting so, he virtually declared that America was a Christian nation. Such a declaration was also made in U.S. v. Macintosh (1931) in which the reasoning said, “We are a Christian people.”

Fourth, Early Supreme Court Justices made statements and rendered opinions supporting the notion that the United States was a Christian nation. Note the following:

(1)   John Jay (the First Chief Justice) said, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

(2)   James Wilson (signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) articulated, “Christianity is part of the common-law.”

(3)   Joseph Story (in his Commentaries on the Constitution) noted, “Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the Amendments to it…the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State…An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.” He also said, “It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape.”

(4)   John Marshall (who served on the Supreme Court for 34 years) was a captain during the Revolutionary War and served with Washington at Valley Forge. Later in life, while staying at a roadside tavern, he politely listened to arguments for and against the Christian religion by younger men from 6:00PM to 11:00PM. Finally one of them turned to Marshall and said, “Well, my old gentleman, what think you of these things?” Marshall then proceeded to talk for an hour answering, “every argument urged against” the teachings of Jesus. The listeners were captivated by his eloquence and energy. Some thought him a preacher and were astonished to find out he was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Atheists may try to rewrite the history of America and recreate the thoughts of the founders, but facts are facts and truth is truth. Those who suppress the truth will discover to their peril the wrath of a holy God (Rom. 1:18). God has made it plain to all that his power and divine nature is clearly seen in his creation (Rom. 1:19-20). There is no excuse for those who live on the earth God created, for his witness  abounds. In fact, Paul says that the creation makes God known, but atheists do not honor the God they know through the intricacies and beauty of creation. God therefore darkens their foolish hearts; and although they claim to be wise, they are in fact fools (Rom. 1:21-22), for it is the fool that says, “There is no God!” (Psalm 14:1)