"Standing in the gap" through democratic means

[This is an exerpt from a book I'm writing on social justice in the Old Testament.]

Throughout history, Christians have been at the forefront of social issues, advocating on behalf of the weak and oppressed, and doing what they could to right wrongs through peaceful means. More often than not, these Christians worked for good against established authorities and powers, just as the Old Testament prophets often stood against the rich and powerful on behalf of the poor and weak. In the New Testament, James provides one of the earliest examples of Christian advocacy of social justice. Citing the Law of Moses, James launches into a prophetic condemnation, typical of Old Testament prophets, of entrenched interests who exploit the working poor:

Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.[1]

This type of strident advocacy was sure to upset comfortable people who probably otherwise would have given little thought to their unjust business practices. Several centuries later, John Chrysostom, the famous preacher and bishop of Constantinople, used his pulpit to warn against the excesses of the rich and powerful in that capital city. Speaking on Jesus’ parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25:31-46, Chrysostom delivered a lyrically beautiful, but terrible message to the elite of the empire:

You eat in excess; Christ eats not even what he needs. You eat a variety of cakes; he eats not even a piece of dried bread. You drink fine Thracian wine; but on him you have not bestowed so much as a cup of cold water. You lie on a soft and embroidered bed; but he is perishing in the cold … You live in luxury on things that properly belong to him … At the moment, you have taken possession of the resources that belong to Christ and you consume them aimlessly. Don't you realize that you are going to be held accountable?[2]

John Chrysostom confronting Empress Aelia Eudoxia, a painting by Jean-Paul Laurens (1880s).

In speaking up for people who lived on the margins of society, Chrysostom earned the wrath of Empress Eudoxia. Unwilling to blunt his message, Chrysostom was soon banished to the Caucasus where he died from the rigors of travel and climate. Christians who disrupt the norm by speaking out against injustice can expect the same type of critical response today. While leading non-violent protests against segregation in Birmingham, Alabama, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was publically denounced by several Christian ministers who characterized his actions as too radical and disruptive.[3] In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Dr. King responded, explaining the need for strident but peaceful advocacy on the part of Christians.

There was a time when the church was very powerful. It was during that period when the early Christians rejoiced when they were deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. … They brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial combat.[4]

Writing from his jail cell, Dr. King argued that Christians must not stand by idly as witnesses to injustice. Besides civil disobedience, Dr. King relied on democratic means to effect change. Quoting Micah 6:8 in a later speech, he urged civil rights protesters to vote for God-fearing government representatives for the overall good of society.

Let us march on ballot boxes until we send to our city councils, state legislatures, and the United States Congress men who will not fear to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God. Let us march on ballot boxes until all over Alabama God’s children will be able to walk the earth in decency and honor.[5]

Dr. King’s sentiment is the same as the Apostle Paul writing to Timothy and the church at Ephesus:

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercessions and thanksgiving be made for everyone—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.[6]

Although Paul wrote at a time when Christians did not have the right to vote for their leaders, Christians living in democracies today can apply this advice to themselves first by praying for their elected government officials, but then also by praying for God to help the electorate decide who to vote into office and what policies to support or oppose. The renowned New Testament scholar C.E.B. Cranfield writes that Christians today can find guidance for their democratic responsibilities in verses such as 1 Timothy 2:1-4 quoted above, even though the historical context is much different than the situation for many believers today. Commenting on Romans 13:1-5, Cranfield writes:

The proper exposition of Paul’s words involves for the Christian living in a democracy the translation of them into the terms of a different political order. Such a Christian can, and therefore must, do much more for the maintenance of the state as a just state. His “subjection” will include voting in parliamentary elections responsibly, in the fear of Christ and in love to his neighbor, and, since such responsible voting is only possible on the basis of adequate knowledge, making sure that he is as fully and reliably informed as possible about political issues, and striving tirelessly in the ways constitutionally open to him to support just policies and to oppose unjust.[7]

Expounding on 1 Timothy 2:1-4, Cranfield notes that “the purpose of civil government and of the state in God’s intention is a purpose of mercy toward men,” specifically individual men, women, and children for whom Jesus died. [8] This scope of this mercy is not limited to a single country, but extends throughout the entire world. In each person in need of assistance, Jesus is present to be either honored or neglected. The realization that the government exists for the sake of precious people should cause the Christian to soberly consider his or her democratic responsibility. Measuring policies and legislation against God’s merciful purposes in government, Christians will remember that “persons are infinitely more precious than property.” In practical terms, this means the Christian voter will not limit his or her concerns to the local sphere, but will side with generous and unselfish policies that look to alleviate global hunger or ensure the personal liberty and dignity of those without a voice—“the underprivileged, the misfits, and the lame dogs of society,” as Cranfield puts it. And, while not a pacifist, in times of war the Christian will never forget that even the lives of the enemy are precious to God.

Social justice advocacy is not a replacement for the gospel of Christ. Certainly, Christians must transform society by promulgating the gospel of Jesus Christ, which leads to an inner change in people that is incomparably more effective than outward coercion. Yet, once the inward change takes place, spiritually reborn people will then become God’s representatives in society, speaking and working on His behalf. They have the same anointing, or divine authority, of Jesus, who came to preach good news to the poor, bind up the brokenhearted, proclaim freedom for the captives, release from darkness for the prisoners, and proclaim a day of vengeance for God against both spiritual and physical oppression.[9] Christians’ reborn nature compels them to take action for a more just society, the Bible guides them, and the Holy Spirit empowers them to do so.

[This post is an excerpt of my work-in-progress book on social justice in the Old Testament. Feedback is welcome! More on Learning to Do Right.] 

---

[1] James 5:1-6, where James echoes the law in Deuteronomy 24:14-15, “Do not take advantage of a hired man who is poor and needy, whether he is a brother Israelite or an alien living in one of your towns. Pay him his wages each day before sunset, because he is poor and is counting on it. Otherwise he may cry to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty of sin.”

[2] On Matthew, Homily 48:8

[3] The U.S. Civil Rights movement led by Christians such as Dr. King may provide an example where the advocacy against injustice may have averted divine retribution. Although it is true that the movement stirred violence resulting in deaths, including that of Dr. King himself, it could be argued that the success of the civil rights movement avoided greater bloodshed and societal disruption. Had the Civil Rights Bill, Voting Rights Bill, and Fair Housing Act never passed into legislation, can anyone doubt the severe societal repercussions that would have followed?

[4] Martin Luther King Jr., April 1963, Letter From a Birmingham Jail

[5] Martin Luther King, Jr., March 1965, Our God Is Marching On!

[6] 1 Timothy 2:1-4

[7] C.E.B. Cranfield, Romans: A Shorter Commentary, p. 321

[8] This paragraph and the following quote drawn from Cranfield’s essay, “The Christian’s Political Responsibility According to the New Testament,” first published in Scottish Journal of Theology 15, (1962), pp. 176-192.

[9] Luke 4:16-21

Advocating a "Christian position" for social good

Recognizing the need to maintain their unique role in society and the limitations of earthly governments to change hearts, Christians still have compelling reasons to advocate political causes. Unlike the Israelites in the Old Testament or Christians in past centuries, many Christians today live in secular democracies where they have the privilege of electing representatives in government. For example, citizens of the United States aspire to have a government that is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” As such, every citizen has a civic responsibility to educate themselves, engage in public discourse, and to vote according to their best judgment. On this basis, Christians advocate a “Christian position” for the social good. Although many secular critics may accuse Christians of wanting to impose theocracy, or religious government, most politically active Christians do not advocate the enforcement of religious legal code—there is no Christian equivalent for Muslim Sharia law. Rather, they advocate policies and platforms that they believe are just and right based on God’s standard of justice and righteousness depicted in the Bible.

Not only Christians but all people who vote in a representative democracy do so according to their conscience, or what they think is just and moral. Whether they acknowledge it or not, all voters decide issues based on moral beliefs or principles. That able-bodied people should work to earn the food they eat, for example, is a moral belief that may influence how a citizen votes. Every political philosophy is predicated on some fundamental moral principles. For some, legal precedent lends moral legitimacy to their position. The fathers of the American Revolution saw the Magna Carta in 1215 A.D. as the forerunner of the Constitution of the United States, for example. For Karl Marx, history legitimized his moral positions. In his Communist Manifesto, Marx pointed to a long and repeated history of class antagonism as the justification for communist revolution. The Communist regime currently in power in China increasingly relies on the pragmatism and moral tenets of Confucianism to justify its undemocratic rule, its Marxist idealism tempered by the failures of the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. The philosopher Ayn Rand claimed to have based her extremely individualistic, amoral brand of politics on reason alone, but even her reasoning led her to moral beliefs—namely, that selfishness is good and state coercion is evil.

What differentiates the Christian moralist from the non-religious moralist is that the former claims revelation from God through the Bible whereas the latter appeals to other authorities. For the Christian, the Bible reflects the character of God who is Himself the standard of justice and righteousness. The principles of justice and righteousness found in the Bible are not simply a “Judeo-Christian heritage” equal in status to other cultural heritages. They are not legal precedent, historical norms, or philosophy. Instead, these principles are collectively a divinely revealed standard of right and wrong. The Christians’ task is to search out God’s standard of justice in the Bible and to give it preference over political ideology, popular sentiment, and personal benefit. Certainly, both the Christian and non-religious voter naturally tend toward self-interested political positions. But for the Christian, God’s principles found in the Bible serve as a bulwark against greed and selfishness. Their attitude should be the same as the Psalmist, who wrote, “Turn my heart toward your statutes and not toward selfish gain.”[1] Ideally, the Christian voter can be counted on to vote and advocate for what is right according to God’s standard and not just for what benefits them personally.

[This post is an excerpt of my work-in-progress book on social justice in the Old Testament. Feedback is welcome! More on Learning to Do Right.] 

---

[1] Psalm 119:36

How the early church related to society

The early Christians who lived before Emperor Constantine understood what it meant to be salt and light and to operate according the principles of God’s kingdom. They stood in stark contrast to the rest of Roman society. Whereas it was common practice for pagans to abandon their unwanted infant children, leaving them to die in the wilderness or trash heaps, or to take strong drugs to abort their unwanted unborn babies, Christians not only disapproved of such practices but even actively rescued abandoned children and took them into their homes. They refused to take part in public celebrations of cruelty and debauchery. The Epistle to Diognetus, a Christian apology written sometime toward the end of the second century, describes the unique role of Christians in society in dramatic terms:[1]

For Christians are no different from other people in terms of their country, language, or customs. Nowhere do they inhabit cities of their own, use a strange dialect, or live life out of the ordinary. They have not discovered this teaching of theirs through reflection or through the thought of meddlesome people, nor do they set forth any human doctrine, as some do. They inhabit both Greek and barbarian cities, according to the lot assigned to each. And they show forth the character of their own citizenship in a marvelous and admittedly paradoxical way by following local customs in what they wear and what they eat and in the rest of their lives. They live in their respective countries, but only as resident aliens; they participate in all things as citizens, and they endure all things as foreigners. Every foreign territory is a homeland for them, every homeland foreign territory. They marry like everyone else and have children, but they do not expose them once they are born. They share their meals but not their sexual partners. They are found in the flesh but do not live according to the flesh. They live on earth but participate in the life of heaven. They are obedient to the laws that have been made, and by their own lives they supersede the laws. They love everyone and are persecuted by all. They are not understood and they are condemned. They are put to death and made alive. They are impoverished and make many rich. They lack all things and abound in everything. They are dishonored and they are exalted in their dishonors. They are slandered and they are acquitted. They are reviled and they bless, mistreated and they bestow honor. They do good and are punished as evil; when they are punished they rejoice as those who have been made alive. They are attacked by Jews as foreigners and persecuted by Greeks. And those who hate them cannot explain the cause of their enmity.[2]

To use Jesus’ analogy, the Christians described in this passage were like a city on a hill that could not be hidden. To society, the way in which they lived seemed paradoxical. They lived peaceably everywhere, following local customs and laws, but refusing to murder their children or participate in licentious behavior. They fulfilled all their civic duties, but remembered that they were foreigners in this world and citizens of the God’s kingdom. Moreover, as representatives of the kingdom of God, they operated according to the principles of submission and service—even if it meant death. Because of their unique message and shining examples, an increasing number of people from across all spectra of society came to have a transforming relationship with Jesus.[3]

Following the example of Jesus, these early believers avoided identifying the Christian faith with political movements and nations. In 66 A.D., possibly just several years after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome and before the close of the New Testament canon, Jews in and around Jerusalem rebelled against Roman authority, provoked by the sacrilegious actions of the procurator Florus. Jewish Christians refused to join in the rebellion and fled the city before Roman legions under Vespasian and Titus besieged and finally destroyed it in 70 A.D. These Christians followed the teachings of Jesus, who taught that the kingdom of God was established through submission and service, not by subjugation and coercion. They remembered Jesus’ words recorded in the gospel, “Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.”

Throughout the second and third centuries, Christian apologists reasoned with Roman authorities that Christianity taught people to live as peaceable, submissive, and even patriotic citizens, and therefore posed no threat their rule. These Christians understood that God’s kingdom is not established in opposition to earthly kingdoms. Sometime around 150 A.D., Justin Martyr appealed to Emperor Antoninus Pius:

And everywhere we, more readily than all men, endeavor to pay to those appointed by you the taxes both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Him; for at that time some came to Him and asked Him, if one ought to pay tribute to Caesar; and He answered, ‘Tell Me, whose image does the coin bear?’ And they said, ‘Caesar's.’ And again He answered them, ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.’ Whence to God alone we render worship, but in other things we gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men, and praying that with your kingly power you be found to possess also sound judgment.[4]

Again, in 176 A.D. or 177 A.D., Athenagoras wrote to Emperor Marcus Aurelius:

For who are more deserving to obtain the things they ask, than those who, like us, pray for your government, that you may, as is most equitable, receive the kingdom, son from father, and that your empire may receive increase and addition, all men becoming subject to your sway? And this is also for our advantage, that we may lead a peaceable and quiet life, and may ourselves readily perform all that is commanded us.[5]

Tertullian, writing in 197 A.D., described the prayers offered for the empire:

Without ceasing, for all our emperors we offer prayer. We pray for life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection to the imperial house; for brave armies, a faithful senate, a virtuous people, the world at rest, whatever, as man or Caesar, an emperor would wish.[6] [7]

Even as they grew more numerous, Christians refused to operate according to the principles of subjugation and coercion by seeking political power. Later in the same apology cited above, Tertullian said that Christians were by then numerous enough to topple the Roman government that persecuted them simply by withdrawing from society, but that they instead helped to maintain Roman rule:

We are but of yesterday, and we have filled every place among you—cities, islands, fortresses, towns, marketplaces, the very camp, tribes, companies, palace, senate, forum—we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods. For what wars should we not be fit, not eager, even with unequal forces, we who so willingly yield ourselves to the sword, if in our religion it were not counted better to be slain than to slay? Without arms even, and raising no insurrectionary banner, but simply in enmity to you, we could carry on the contest with you by an ill-willed severance alone. For if such multitudes of men were to break away from you, and betake themselves to some remote corner of the world, why, the very loss of so many citizens, whatever sort they were, would cover the empire with shame; nay, in the very forsaking, vengeance would be inflicted. Why, you would be horror-struck at the solitude in which you would find yourselves, at such an all-prevailing silence, and that stupor as of a dead world. You would have to seek subjects to govern. You would have more enemies than citizens remaining. For now it is the immense number of Christians which makes your enemies so few—almost all the inhabitants of your various cities being followers of Christ.[8]

These examples shed some light on how Christians in the first three centuries practiced a peaceful type of insurrection, one not directed against the Roman empire but against sin and rebellion in the human heart. They corrected identified their enemy, which was not flesh and blood, but rather evil spiritual powers and sin that held people captive. By following the principles of submission and service they overcame their true enemy while winning over their human persecutors. As Tertullian wrote at the end of his apology, “The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed.”[9]

By living as illuminating examples of God’s righteousness and justice, these Christians helped to preserve society. Again, Tertullian argued that Christians acted as mediators between God and society by the virtue of their lives and their prayers. He wrote: “And, for all that is said, if we compare the calamities of former times, they fall on us more lightly now, since God gave Christians to the world; for from that time virtue put some restraint on the world's wickedness, and men began to pray for the averting of God's wrath.”[10]

[This post is an excerpt of my work-in-progress book on social justice in the Old Testament. Feedback is welcome! More on Learning to Do Right.]

---

[1] An apology is a “defense of the faith,” defending Christianity as true and good against its critics.

[2] Epistle to Diognetus 5:1-17, Bart D. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. 2

[3] Read Paul’s letter to the mixed church at Colosse to see how people from all backgrounds set an example for society. Colossians 3:11 reads “Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.”

[4] Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 17

[5] Athenagoras, A Plea for Christians, Chapter 32

[6] Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 30

[7] 1 Timothy 2:1-2 specifically teaches, “I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession, and thanksgiving be made for everyone—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.”

[8] Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 37

[9] Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 50

[10] Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 40

Jingoism vs. the love of God

I had heard about the Back to Jerusalem (BTJ) movement when I read The Heavenly Man, an account of the ministry of Brother Yun in China. Today, I came across an article on BTJ in the Washington Post and couldn't help but see the stark contrast between how Chinese Christians view the Islamic world and how U.S. Christians view the Islamic world.

Chinese Christian missionaries are training for jobs in Muslim lands, learning Arabic, and relocating their families to these areas in order to build churches and train disciples. There is no word among them about the threat of Muslims in China or elsewhere. No doubt they would strongly condemn terrorism and have no affinity for extremists such as Al Qaeda, but if they do, that's not the story they lead with. You never feel that these Christians view Islam as a threat or Muslims as enemies. Instead, the only sense you get is that these people feel deeply the love of God for the lost. They are acting as true salt and light to the world.

Compare that with much of the alarm among U.S. Christians that Islam is taking over the Western world. Legislation barring Sharia Law in Oklahoma (what the heck?!), rumors that the President is covertly a Muslim, and threats to burn the Koran are the most extreme examples of this alarm. If U.S. Christians do acknowledge the need for evangelism to the Muslim world, they do so only quietly after catching their breath, having wasted it screaming about the Islamic threat. It's hard to imagine these people conceiving a vision similar to BTJ. They certainly are not salt and light as Jesus described.

In my opinion, the basic difference between Chinese and U.S. Christians in how they view the Islamic world is the definition of the kingdom of God. Instead of framing their worldview in terms of the universal kingdom of God against a general world system (selfishness, hatred, and rebellion against God), they conflate the kingdom of God with earthly kingdoms, much as Christians did after the Emperor Constantine embraced Christianity in 312 A.D. Many U.S. Christians conflate Christianity with America, democracy (as long as it doesn't elect Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood), Second Amendment rights, and capitalism. This is wrong and unbiblical.

Roman coin (c. 350 A.D.) showing the military standard first adopted by Emperor Constantine containing the Chi-Rho, or the first two Greek letters of Christ.

Jesus was clear about his distinction apart from the Roman emperor, the king Herod, the Sanhedrin, and every other worldly governmental power at the time. When cross-examining Jesus to determine if he was guilty of sedition, the Roman governor Pilate asked if Jesus claimed to be a king. Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

What Jesus understood, and many U.S. Christians do not, is that God’s kingdom is uniquely over and above, and not in competition with, any earthly kingdom. God’s kingdom is not in opposition to worldly kingdoms because they exist on different planes. Later when Pilate asked Jesus, “Don’t you realize I have the power either to free you or to crucify you?” Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.” All authority belongs to God, and there is no earthly authority that God has not established. The rise and fall of governments and nations will always be in God’s hands. In contrast to the impermanence of worldly governments, God’s kingdom even today continues to expand and brighten, like the rays of the sun breaking at dawn, and no power, earthly or spiritual, can stop it.

Jesus warned against salt that lost its flavor and against light hidden under bowls. When Christians cannot distinguish between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world then they mistakenly believe that God favors one nation over another, or one political party over another. They compromise their unique message by thinking “It’s my country, wrong or right” or otherwise excusing the ways in which their nation or party deviates from God’s standard of righteousness and justice. They self-servingly highlight scriptures from the Bible that support their partisan viewpoints while ignoring or misinterpreting those that might undermine their ideology.

Moreover, they see the success of their nation or party as the success of God’s kingdom—and see their rivals as opposed to God’s kingdom. This view leads Christians to label nations or political opponents as “heathen” or as opposed to the kingdom of God. But, if they do that, then they misidentify their enemy. As Paul wrote, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” Like Jesus, Paul emphasized the otherworldliness of God’s kingdom—that it was not set up in opposition to earthly kingdoms, but rather existed on a completely different plane over and above them.

On conviction and civility in political discourse

"We are both evangelical Christians who believe that our treatment of the poor, weak, and most vulnerable is how a society is best biblically measured. Yet we usually find ourselves at opposite poles politically and often differ with each other. We believe these political differences are normal and even to be expected among citizens expressing their faith in the public arena, for God is neither a Democrat nor a Republican."

So begins an incredibly needed article by Chuck Colson, the social conservative advocate that helped spearhead the Manhattan Declaration, and Jim Wallis, the left-leaning founder of Sojourners Magazine. The article doesn't tout a left or right position, but explains the need for civility in public discourse, especially when coming from Christians.

I receive a lot of email that quite honestly makes me nauseous in its hyperbolic rhetoric, but it comes from people that I love. This article from Colson and Wallis puts perfectly the reason why I react so strongly to those over-the-top messages. Please read it!

"When we disagree, especially when we strongly disagree, we should have robust debate but not resort to personal attack, falsely impugning others' motives, assaulting their character, questioning their faith, or doubting their patriotism."

Writing a new book on social justice in the Old Testament

So I've been working on a new book examining the principles of social justice in the Old Testament. The first couple chapters are pretty much done (see the first chapter below) and I've got some good idea of what the next four or five chapters will consist of. So far, I've been writing it on the bus to and from work and at nights (with our new baby daughter in the bouncer beside me). If you have any experience self-publishing a book, please give me ideas! My goal is to create something that I'll be proud of and that will add something to our collective understanding of God's principles of justice and righteousness, and the Christian role in advocating those principles.
The Unique Role of Christians in Society

"That I may not only be called a Christian, but be found to be one ..."

I've been thinking about the situation of our brother Abdul Rahman in Afghanistan. It just reminded me how Christians ought to be truly mindful of their position in Christ. When we are found in Christ, we are not of this world, and the world will hate us. I guess in places like Afghanistan, Christians are well aware of their position, but what about here in America? It's so easy to forget that we are called to be radically different than the majority of society.

In some ways, I envy Rahman and others who have a chance to make clear their commitment to Jesus. Without a doubt, if he is actually killed (whether by the government or by vigilantes after his trial), his example will be a tremendous example for us in the western world that we "may not only be called a Christian, but found to be one." Those were the words of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who was sent to be executed in Rome near the end of the first century. In his letter to the Roman church, Ignatius asked they not try to free him, but allow his death in the imperial coliseum to be a powerful witness. He wrote, "For if you are silent about me [allowing me to be executed], I am a word of God; but if you love my flesh, I shall again be only a voice."


"I am the wheat of God and I am ground by the teeth of wild beasts so that I may be found the pure bread of Christ." ~ Ignatius of Antioch

Separation of church and state: The real meaning

I really couldn't have said it any better:

When the laws were written to maintain a seperation of church and state there were good reasons behind them. They were designed to allow people to worship or not worship as they saw fit and to keep the government out of their religious beliefs and business. The law was designed to prevent national laws on what religion you can and cannot practice. Over the years we have completely lost sight of this purpose and have morphed the law into in some ways the opposite of its original intention, especially were Christians in America are concerned.
From the c y b e r :: e c o l o g y blog

The idea of separation of church and state was put forward by Thomas Jefferson to explain the First Amendment, which says this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Jefferson's phrase was used in a speech he gave as president to a meeting of Baptists:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

How people translate this to mean you can't exercise your religion is really beyond me.