public acts of conscience

D

DEADn Sep 16, 2015

I have begun to write some blogs on this subject because of the Kim Davis deal. Daniel is where I am at the moment.

I would like to ask everyone to please share other passages that reflect a public or private act of conscience that caused the person to get in trouble with the government but in the OT and the NT. I want to write some more articles just as evidence that it has happened and compare the against what Kim Davis did. Is it the same or very different.

John

This is my first link
http://jw-thoughts.blogspot.com/2015/09/private-and-public-acts-of-conscience.html

T

TMK Sep 16, 2015

Shadrach, Mesach etc

Peter & John

Jesus

Jeremiah

sermonindex Sep 16, 2015

John the Baptist taking a stand against King Herod's sin.

But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead. For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife. Therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him, and would have killed him; but she could not: For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly. And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee; And when the daughter of the said Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod and them that sat with him, the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee. And he sware unto her, Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom. And she went forth, and said unto her mother, What shall I ask? And she said, The head of John the Baptist. And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that thou give me by and by in a charger the head of John the Baptist. And the king was exceeding sorry; yet for his oath's sake, and for their sakes which sat with him, he would not reject her. (Mark 6:16-26)

Esther risking her life before the King:
And Esther spake yet again before the king, and fell down at his feet, and besought him with tears to put away the mischief of Haman the Agagite, and his device that he had devised against the Jews. (Est_8:3)

Samuel, uncovering the King's sin:
And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him. And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die: And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity. And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; (2 Sam 12:4-7)

John the Baptist was a public act of conscience, but the other two were private.

D

dolfan Sep 16, 2015

Sooooo strange you mention this today. My 11 year old and I had a lengthy discussion on this yesterday. She is studying the Reconstruction and the 13th - 15th amendments. She asked me about the 14th amendment in particular. It lead to a long talk about authority, supremacy, the sovereignty of God and the Bible in our lives, and decisions about who we obey when American law conflicts with God. We discussed Kim Davis at length, and how the 14th Amendment is very much part of her life these days. Ultimately, we discussed Daniel, Sharach, Meschach, Abednego, and Peter, James and John and Paul as examples of men who decided to obey God as opposed to human laws and governments and the prices they paid for their loyalty to and love for Christ.

T

TMK Sep 16, 2015

Tim- what is your stance on Kim Davis? It's a tough one for me because I don't think it's wrong to grant marriage licenses. The ones asking for the licenses are the ones in the wrong.

As has been brought out elsewhere, I am sure she granted licenses to Christians who divorced a spouse on unbiblical grounds. I am not sure if that is any "better" than granting licenses to gay couples. Neither marriage would be valid in Gods eyes.

sermonindex Sep 17, 2015

I would just like to interject that she was elected to uphold the Constitution of the State of Kentucky and she was doing that.

Supreme court justices are not supposed to act like philosopher-kings and create law, they are supposed to interpret and uphold the law.

America has 3 branches of government that were created to be separate but equal. What has been taking place in America and what people witnessed take place recently by one of the branches is called "judicial tyranny".

D

dolfan Sep 17, 2015

Tim- what is your stance on Kim Davis? It's a tough one for me because I don't think it's wrong to grant marriage licenses. The ones asking for the licenses are the ones in the wrong.
As has been brought out elsewhere, I am sure she granted licenses to Christians who divorced a spouse on unbiblical grounds. I am not sure if that is any "better" than granting licenses to gay couples. Neither marriage would be valid in Gods eyes.

I don't think the relevant comparison is a potentially biblical marriage -- from her perspective since she does not inquire about the details of earlier marriages and reasons for divorce -- vs a union that can never be a marriage. If that is the comparison, it is an easy answer for the reason I just gave.

The issue is first who God is, what marriage is and who we are to approve or join what He says cannot be. The next issue is the supremacy of His revelation to the government and its laws. The next issue is which of the laws of government is superior -- the constitutional protection of free exercise of religion or the manufactured right of same sex marriage. These are the questions.

Kim Davis the clerk is in no position to judge the last question. She may disagree with the SCOTUS, as I do, but she is not competent to reject the legal grounds for the Obergefell decision and work as if it does not reach her job. The law is now clear: the constitution does not protect free exercise and subjects it to the made up right to same sex marriage.
That is the law.

A related issue is whether the law must accommodate Davis' free exercise while not disallowing same sex marriage licenses from her office. That is an open question, but I doubt such a ruling will occur.

In any event, God's rule is superior to human law. He supersedes civil authority. He contravenes civil authority that conflicts with His authority. It is a conflict with only one resolution. Obedience to Him, even among officials who have sworn to uphold civil law, is paramount. It is not hypocrisy since the civil law of everything inherently speaks against Him; in fact, civil disobedience is more consistent than civil obedience right here.

Ultimately, the one thing that matters is God's own revelation of Himself.

D

dohzman Sep 17, 2015

I think you are right about judicial tyranny. I thought , and you guys can correct me if I am wrong, that the Supreme Court was only supposed to rule on laws as they relate to the Constitution, but their primary purpose was to uphold the Constitution and to keep a balance between all 3 branches of government so that not any one branch could rule this Country. When they decided a law it was to be weighted against the Constitution and deemed to fit or not fit with in toughs guidelines. Is that their purpose?

sermonindex Sep 17, 2015

The issue in this case is that it has been presented by the liberal media as Kim Davis is against SSM. That is not what this case is about. From the beginning, Kim Davis has been for the protection of religious and moral beliefs. The government, based on the Constitution, has always given exemptions for deeply-held religious convictions. Conscientious objectors were given an exemption. Doctors that are government employees can not be forced to perform abortions. A prison employee can not be forced to perform an execution. The doctor or the prison employee is not threatened with "do your job or you will be fired".

Kim Davis has asked for the same consideration. All she has ever asked is to have her name and title taken off the licenses. She has been consistent in her argument. She has never said she would stop her clerks from issuing the licenses as long as her name and title are not on the license. If a Muslim working for the DMV decided to deny women a driver's license (for religious reasons), then they could be given "reasonable accommodation". If the courts decided that it was a reasonable accommodation and that women were not denied driver's licenses because other DMV workers could issue them, no one is negatively affected. This boils down to liberals wanting to break this woman. It is similar to the racists and bigots that were determined to break MLK and the civil rights activists. They will give in and abandon their beliefs or they will go to jail.

Accommodation by the government has been given to the FT. Hood shooter to grow a beard. And many accommodations have been given to Gitmo detainees. This is not a foreign concept to the government.

D

dolfan Sep 18, 2015

Julius, from the legal and political perspective, this is true. It also isn 't good enough for the powers that be. That is why I said earlier that one of the issues is which of the rules of law and constitutional authority win? The one right specifically expressly stated in the constitution? Or the one invented by the courts? Well, I believe that answer is crystal clear. The invented right wins.

From the perspective of life in Christ, Kim Davis takes the position she must take, IMO: you can force the law upon me, but you can only take my life, liberty and property which I will trade for the glory of Christ; yet, you cannot force me to do that which I am free to do when I refuse to do it.

The cost of this only increases with time, y'all. Davis's price here is a pittance. A few days in jail. A lot of notoriety. A possible politically motivated orchestration to remove her from her job. We will look back on her stand, should she hold fast to it, as one drip in a river of unleashed hatred of Jesus and His sheepfold.

A question remains in all this that I have not heard anyone address. A marriage license does not create a marriage. We get that, right? A license is simply state permission to enter a regulated contract. It is a state recognition that the parties may legally execute the marriage contract. In most every state, it is the sole means of that recognition. In the small handful of common law marriage states, an implied contract of marriage may be recognized as having been formed and executed ex post facto without a license. Is granting recognition of the parties' eligibility to enter that contract and the granting of permission to do so also a personal recognition of the validity of the prospective marriage?

That, it seems to me, is where this will boil down to legally. If the courts, when this shakes out a bit more, go in that direction and say "no" to it, where are we biblically should we simply disagree? Is our disagreement enough, or don't we have a "burden of witness" to state clear, biblically correct reasoning for our disagreement?

sermonindex Sep 18, 2015

I agree dolfan, and yes the subject of the need for a marriage license has not come up and thanks for bringing it up. I have known several Christians who were married who did not ask the State for permission. There is no law that stops two people from marrying in the "eyes of God".

Here are 5 reasons why you should not get a Marriage License.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/FamilyLaw/Marriage/5ReasonsNoMarrLicense.htm

Remember, any license, or "benefit" you receive from the State always has strings attached and you end up being giving up some rights and being bound to them.

D

dolfan Sep 18, 2015

I know of more than one denomination that does not consider common law marriages valid. Only licensed marriages are valid in their eyes. And, to them, a license when issued trumps all other concerns.

I will share this. I actually helped someone once in an ecclesiastical rule case that centered on this issue. A woman wanted to be free remarry after a divorce in this denomination that did not allow it. She was convinced that their position on remarriage was correct, but she also was convinced that her first marriage was not valid. Her first marriage was a sham arranged by compulsion of her grandparents who lied to authorities about her age and who lied saying they were her legal guardians but were not. The lady -- a young teen then -- lived with her actual parents. The denomination also had a rule against accepting annulments. True fact.

Other facts in the story are compelling but irrelevant here. Point is that a license was issued after several deceptions by people with no authority to consent to the marriage, and a sham marriage was entered. The church said she was married. Plain and simple.

We err. Licensing marriage and church treatment of marriage can become messy. Our answers are imperfect and sometimes seriously flawed. Kim Davis is in a mudhole she did not create. More of us will be, too. We need the Spirit of God.

sermonindex Sep 18, 2015

The people that I know who were married in the sight of God and the Church, and forsook the permission of the State or the approval of a denomination, were not of any particular denomination. They also did not believe in divorce. They belonged to a house church and viewed marriage as seriously as entering into covenant with Jesus Christ.

sermonindex Sep 20, 2015

What Should We Do?

Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses.

See http://famguardian.org/Subjects/FamilyLaw/Marriage/5ReasonsNoMarrLicense.htm

Some have said to me, "If someone is married without a marriage license, then they aren’t really married." Given the fact that states may soon legalize same-sex marriages, we need to ask ourselves, "If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license - who’s really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license? In reality, this contention that people are not really married unless they obtain a marriage license simply reveals how Statist we are in our thinking. We need to think biblically.

You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone anymore than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent, which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law.

When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. What’s recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their Family Bibles. So should we.

(Pastor Trewhella has been marrying couples without marriage licenses for ten years. Many other pastors also refuse to marry couples with State marriage licenses.

D

dolfan Sep 20, 2015

You know, Julius, as to this last post of yours, YEARS ago I was arguing for this (marriage minus license) among people I know. Christians. They looked at me like I had a horn growing out of my head.

I am more and more amazed, although I should stop it within myself, that Christians remain largely uninformed and unconcerned with being uninformed. The voice of the prophet in the church has been so silent, suppressed and marginalized for so long that a significantly large number of the Body of Christ is almost wholly ignorant.

Now, it is not true that "what's recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America" because most of America abandoned common law marriage long ago. But, that is not to argue against the point of the man's urging about licenses. Just know that he is inaccurate right here and avoid legal advice from pastors as a general rule, however well intended. :)

Pastor Trewhella's use of case law is misapplied to a large extent. I do not want to emphasize his errors of law here. I only want to borrow his citations to make a point he does not make. If anyone reads the page Julius links to, if you don't care to read anything else read the box that contains underlined, bolded quotes from case law, especially the 1990's case that says a marriage is a contract between the spouses and the State. I believe this language monumentally important to the point that it show how we have supplanted God as the "first person" in a marriage and substituted the State. When you read the statements by Justice Kennedy in the Obergefell case that same sex marriage is an essential part of our national community, a clearer picture of the government as supreme moral arbiter presents itself.

I humbly point to a more detailed statement of what marriage really is ( https://someonehastosay.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/a-letter-to-my-young-friend-paul/ ) as a contrast to the boxed quotations from Trewhella's website in the link shared by Julius.

sermonindex Sep 20, 2015

Sure, I understand. I completely agree with your assessment. Unfortunately, 501(c)3 pastors have stopped a long time ago, informing their congregations of the truth about being married to the state, since they themselves are.

I am keenly aware that as Christians, we have so many "hooks" into the world and the world has so many "hooks" into us, that bringing up things like this seem so strange and foreign to so many. It seemed foreign and strange to me, when I first heard about it. The more I meditated on it, the more I understood.

It would be interesting to let everyone contribute to creating a list of "hooks, snags and traps" the world has in our lives. Everything from debt, credit cards, various types of licenses, public education systems, ad nauseum. This list might be a scary picture of the state of the church's dependence and relationship with the world and I wonder how easy would it be to extricate oneself from these unholy alliances. And they may not all be unholy, but many of them bring with them sorrows, later in life? Now, I am only speaking in very, very general terms, and every Christian has amazing liberty in Christ and we should not judge one another as each man is led by the Holy Spirit and answerable to God, himself. But, I think far too often when the Holy Spirit is telling us to "turn right", we may rationalize and "turn left". I myself have made bad decisions in my early years based on logic and reason and most importantly, training (the way I was raised), instead of the Holy Spirit. It is a process in our lives to understand what the world offers is not always a benefit to us.

There are many, many worldly vehicles that entrap us and bring along with them, many sorrows (later).

I do recognize that I can use knowledge gained from my mistakes to teach my children, a better way. It may not be the most convenient way to the flesh, but in terms of spiritual peace and freedom, it may be an option they would like to know about. Whether they choose it or not, does not change my fellowship with them. We all have to live in this world, and it is certainly not godly to control another man's life. Interesting that the world wants only to provide what is "convenient" for us, yet with this convenience, we do not see the hidden control that the world is exerting over us. The way of the cross is onerous to the flesh and certainly not convenient.

I do appreciate your continued input and stimulation of my mind and spirit.

sermonindex Sep 20, 2015

Christianity is a matter of the heart, and therefore we must receive others in love

1Cor_10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

...and not to doubtful disputations (for that would not be love)
Rom_14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.