Showing posts with label Leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leadership. Show all posts

Monday, November 11, 2024

Shocking News You've Never Heard!

It's one of the greatest stories never told. Though it is true, and perhaps because it is true, you will not hear it in any news reports or read about it in most history textbooks. It is never mentioned by any modern politician, in any political party, at any level of local or national leadership. The silence is deafening.

Let's begin with a question. What did our great nation’s original states say about the Christian faith in their founding documents? What did they require of their lawmakers religiously?

You haven’t heard? You don't know? Get ready for a surprise.

Andrew Schwartz wrote the following article, from which I will quote directly. Using a broad definition of the term “Christian,” he has compiled this information from the state constitutions of our nation’s foundational thirteen colonies.

If you have not seen this before, probably neither have others in your family and in your circle of influence. They likely do not realize how the nation began and what the colonies once required of their lawmakers. Consider forwarding this link to them so that they will be informed. Now get ready. Here's the shocking news you've never heard. Pass it on!

---

Delaware—1776—On legislators’ required oath of office: Delaware is explicitly Christian, requiring an oath or affirmation of faith in the Trinity and acknowledging the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture—both the Old and New Testaments. Article 22 reads, “I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”

Pennsylvania—1776—On legislators’ required oath of office: Similar to Delaware, Pennsylvania requires an oath unto God (although leaving out the trinitarian formula) and the acknowledgement of the divine nature of Holy Scripture. Pennsylvania uniquely affirms God as the consummate governor, reminding lawmakers of their due submission unto him and his word. Section 10 reads, “I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.”

New Jersey—1776—On qualifications for legislative office: New Jersey goes a step beyond Pennsylvania, requiring not simply a profession of faith in God as part of the universal church, but more specifically a belief in any Protestant sect, in order to meet the requirements for public office, as well as to be protected in their civil rights. Article 19 reads,

[T]here shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.

Georgia—1777—On qualifications for legislative office: Georgia, too, explicitly required Christian Protestantism as a staple for public office. Article 6 states, “The representatives… shall be of the Protestant religion, and of the age of twenty-one years, and shall be possessed in their own right of two hundred and fifty acres of land, or some property to the amount of two hundred and fifty pounds.”

Connecticut—1818—On preference of worship and civil rights: Connecticut guarantees religious liberty for “any christian sect,” and guarantees equal rights,
powers, and privileges for “each and every society or denomination of christians.” But it does not guarantee religious liberty, nor even equal rights and treatment,
to non-Christians in the state. Article 1.4 reads, “No preference shall be given by law to any christian sect or mode of worship.” And Article 7.1 says, “each and every
society or denomination of christians in this state, shall have and enjoy the same and equal powers, rights and privileges.”

Massachusetts—1780—On religious rights: Like Connecticut, Massachusetts establishes equal protection of the law only for denominations of Christians. Likewise, those who did not profess Christianity were disqualified from public office. Part 1, Article 3 states, “every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to an other shall ever be established by law.” Part 2, Chapter 2, Article 2 declares, “no person shall be eligible to this office [of governor]… unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.” Lastly, Part 2, Chapter 6, Article 1 proclaims, “Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative…shall…make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.: ‘I, A.B., do declare that I believe in the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth…”

Maryland—1776—On religious liberty: Though historically Roman Catholic in culture, the state of Maryland generalized its protection of religious liberty to those “professing the Christian religion,” but did not grant that same protection to those who did not make the same profession. Declaration of Rights, 33 reads, “That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty… the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax for the support of the Christian religion.”

South Carolina—1778—On the establishment of a religion: South Carolina is as explicitly Christian as any of the original states. The introduction below speaks for itself, but the entire resolution in Article 38 is even more prescriptive in its state Christianity. Article 38 declares,

“[A]ll persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated. The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State. That all denominations of Christian Protestants in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges.”

New Hampshire—1792—On the support of religion for the security of government: New Hampshire again sponsors equal protection of the law, but only for denominations of Christians. New Hampshire also grounds its civil and moral philosophies on evangelical [i.e., gospel] principles, and authorizes the legislature publicly to support only “protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality.” Article 6 states,

As morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as a knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated through a society by the institution of the public worship of the Deity, and of public instruction in morality and religion; therefore, to promote those important purposes the people of this State have a right to empower, and do hereby fully empower, the legislature to authorize, from time to time, the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies within this State, to make adequate provisions, at their own expense, for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality…[E]very denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves quietly and as good subjects of the State, shall be equally under the protection of the law.

New Hampshire is explicitly Protestant Christian and evangelical (Christian gospel), and it does not authorize the legislature to support non-Christian religions.

Virginia—1776—On religious liberty: Virginia is the first state on our list (in state order) that does not explicitly make itself a Christian state. While it does apply an obligation of religion to “our Creator,” it also goes out of its way to place “reason and conviction” and “the dictates of conscience” as the governors of that duty. One can infer an implicit call to Christianity at best in the Declaration of Rights. Section 16 reads, “it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.” We can conclude that this was not explicitly Christian.

New York—1776—On religious liberty: Similar to Virginia, New York protects religious liberty, while never calling for a Christian preference in worship or establishment. It does briefly allude to traditionally Christian virtues, but also calls the state to guard against “the bigotry of weak and wicked priests,” and calls Christian preference “repugnant to this constitution.” New York was explicitly not a Christian state. Article 38 reads, “this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare, that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed, within this State, to all mankind: Provided, That the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.”

North Carolina—1776—On qualifications for office: While not as explicitly establishmentarian as her Southern Sister, North Carolina similarly holds Protestant Christianity in legal preference, requiring its affirmation for public office. Article 32 states, “That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.”

Rhode Island—1843—On religious liberty: Rhode Island, our thirteenth state, is a strange case, since it didn’t formally adopt a constitution until 1843. Their charter of 1663 is explicitly Christian, and they were technically governed by this charter even after independence in 1776, but it is questionable whether that religious governance was in practice or in name only. In its 1843 constitution, it turned decidedly a-Christian, requiring no religious test for public office, and speaking only of a general God, rather than a Christian or Protestant God. Article 1.3, Section 3 states,

We, therefore, declare that no man shall be compelled to frequent or to support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever, except in fulfillment of his own voluntary contract; nor enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods; nor disqualified from holding any office; nor otherwise suffer on account of his religious belief; and that every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and to profess and by argument to maintain his opinion in matters of religion; and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect his civil capacity.

So, of the thirteen original states to ratify the Constitution, ten states were indisputably and explicitly Christian states either at the time of ratification, or shortly thereafter. Hypothetically, had they bullied their position, they as states could have amended the federal Constitution to provide equal protection only to Christians, and required adherence to Christianity as a qualification for office.

---

Again, my sincere thanks to Andrew Schwartz for compiling and publishing this vital information. Let us not merely bemoan what once was. Let us show up, stand up, and speak up for what one day may be!

Thursday, April 30, 2020

Dependable Discipleship 10 – Daily Study Themes and Questions – 2 Timothy 4


To receive future posts free by email, enter your email address in the “FOLLOW BY EMAIL” box.
To see this and other lessons presented on YouTube, go here:
 https://www.youtube.com/user/CoryHCollins
Let’s choose seven themes from this chapter, one for each day of the week, for personal study. We’ll add a parallel passage each day for further consideration. Then we’ll pose some questions for thought and discussion.
DAY 1 – A Solemn Charge: Preach the Word! (2 Tim 4:1-2). 
See Tit 2:15.
DAY 2 – An Itching Church: Do Your Job! (2 Tim 4:3-5). 
See 2 Tim 3:14-17.
DAY 3 – An Imminent Change: I am Leaving! (2 Tim 4:6-8). 
See 2 Pet 1:12-15.
DAY 4 – A Timely Call: Come to Me! (2 Tim 4:9-13). 
See Phil 4:10-20.
DAY 5 – An Urgent Care: Beware of Foes! (2 Tim 4:14-15). 
See Acts 13:44-52.
DAY 6 – A Clear Course: Give God Glory! (2 Tim 4:16-18). 
See John 16:32.
DAY 7 – A Fitting Close: Greet and Meet! (2 Tim 4:19-22). 
See Tit 3:12-15.
Questions for Thought and Discussion
Why would Paul refer to God, Christ Jesus, His coming, and the judgment, the living and the dead, His appearing, and His kingdom in giving this charge?
What is the preacher’s primary job?
What may distract a preacher from doing “the work of an evangelist”?
Why do people abandon clear, biblical preaching? Where do they turn instead?
What popular, non-biblical ideas and doctrines today “tickle itching ears”?
Does this reality make Timothy’s role more difficult, or more urgently needed?
Describe Paul’s attitude toward his life and death. See Acts 20:24; 21:13.
Discuss “poured out like a drink offering.”
How is the Christian life similar to a fight and a race? How will the winners be crowned?
Does Paul sound lonely? Who or what does he miss most in prison?
How eager is Paul for Timothy to visit him? Who needs whom?
Why would he want “the scrolls, especially the parchments?”
Was Demas once faithful? See Col 4:14; Phm 1:24.
What is there in “this present world” that may have drawn Demas (or may draw us) to forsake God’s way?
Check a Bible dictionary for articles on Crescens, Titus, Luke, Mark, Tychicus, Carpus, Alexander, Priscilla, Aquila, Onesiphorus, Erastus, Trophimus, Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, and Claudia.
Why might the New Testament not give us more detail about some of these characters?
Compare Paul’s desire for divine justice (“The Lord will repay Alexander.”) with his plea for divine grace (“May it not be held against them.”). How can these attitudes both coexist in a Christian?
Paul was deserted by all. How discouraging! Why didn’t he quit preaching?
“Rescued from the lion’s mouth” – see Daniel 6. Compare 1 Cor 15:32.
In the past the Lord delivered Paul from death. Now He will deliver Paul through death. Which is better? See Heb 11:32-40.
“I left Trophimus sick.” What does this indicate about healing miracles in the New Testament?
Note: the “you” in the closing “Grace be with you” is plural in Greek, as also in 1 Tim 6:21. These letters, written specifically to Timothy, were also intended to be read to the entire church.
----
Cast of Lesser-Known Characters (Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary)
DEMAS Companion and coworker of Paul the apostle (Col 4:14). Though in Phm 24 Paul identified Demas as a “coworker,” 2 Tim 4:10 indicates that this man later deserted Paul, having “loved this present world.”
CRESCENS Personal name meaning “growing.” Christian worker with Paul who had gone to Galatia when 2 Timothy was written (2 Tim 4:10).
TYCHICUS Personal name meaning “fortunate.” One of Paul’s fellow workers in the ministry. A native of Asia Minor (Acts 20:4), he traveled with the apostle on the third missionary journey. Tychicus and Onesimus carried the Colossian letter from Paul (Col 4:7–9) and were to relate to the church Paul’s condition. Paul also sent Tychicus to Ephesus on one occasion (2 Tim 4:12) and possibly to Crete on another (Tit 3:12). Tradition holds that he died a martyr.
CARPUS Personal name meaning “fruit.” A Christian friend with whom Paul left his cloak in Troas. He asked Timothy to retrieve it for him (2 Tim 4:13).
ALEXANDER Five NT men including the son of Simon of Cyrene (Mark 15:21), a relative of Annas (Acts 4:6), a Jew of Ephesus (Acts 19:33), a false teacher (1 Tim 1:19–20), and a coppersmith (2 Tim 4:14).
ONESIPHORUS Personal name meaning “profit bearing.” Ephesian Christian praised for his effort to seek out the place of Paul’s arrest, his disregard of the shame connected with befriending one in chains, and his past service in Ephesus (2 Tim 1:16–18). The greeting of and prayer for the household of Onesiphorus (2 Tim 1:16; 4:19) has suggested to some that he was already dead. All that can be assumed is that Onesiphorus was not at Ephesus.
ERASTUS Personal name meaning “beloved.” 1. Disciple Paul sent with Timothy from Ephesus to Macedonia to strengthen the churches during his third missionary journey (Acts 19:22). 2. City financial officer of Corinth who joined Paul in greeting the church at Rome (Rom. 16:23). He may have been a slave or a freed slave working for the city government; he may well have been a high-ranking and influential government leader—city treasurer. If so, he would have political power, prestige, and probably some wealth. 3. Disciple who remained at Corinth and was not with Paul when he wrote Timothy (2 Tim 4:20). He may have been identical with either of the other men named Erastus or may be a separate individual.
TROPHIMUS Personal name meaning “nutritious.” Gentile Christian from Ephesus who accompanied Paul to Jerusalem for the presentation of the collection (Acts 20:4; 21:29). Paul’s free association with Trophimus led to the false charge that Paul had defiled the temple by bringing a Gentile within the Court of Israel (Acts 21:19). The Trophimus whom Paul left in Miletus (2 Tim 4:20) is either another Trophimus or else evidence for a second Roman imprisonment. According to Acts, Paul did not pass by Miletus on his way to Rome.
EUBULUS Latin name meaning “good counsel.” Companion of Paul who sent greetings to Timothy (2 Tim 4:21).
PUDENS Latin name meaning “modest.” Roman Christian who greeted Timothy (2 Tim 4:21). This Pudens is sometimes identified with the friend of the Roman poet Martial.
LINUS Latin name possibly meaning “linen.” Paul’s companion who sent greetings to Timothy (2 Tim 4:21). Early church tradition identified him as the first bishop of the church at Rome, but it is doubtful Rome had only one bishop that early in its history.
CLAUDIA Woman who sent greetings to Timothy (2 Tim 4:21).

Thursday, April 23, 2020

Dependable Discipleship 09 – Daily Study Themes and Questions – 2 Timothy 3


To receive future posts free by email, enter your email address in the “FOLLOW BY EMAIL” box.
To see this and other lessons presented on YouTube, go here:
 https://www.youtube.com/user/CoryHCollins
Let’s choose seven themes from this chapter, one for each day of the week, for personal study. We’ll add a parallel passage each day for further consideration. Then we’ll pose some questions for thought and discussion.
DAY 1 – Terrible Times in These Last Days (2 Tim 3:1-5). See 1 Tim 4:1-3.
DAY 2 – Opponents of the Truth (2 Tim 3:6-9). See Tit 1:10-16.
DAY 3 – An Example Worth Following (2 Tim 3:10-11). See 2 Cor 11:23-28.
DAY 4 – Godly People to be Persecuted (2 Tim 3:12). See John 15:18-16:3.
DAY 5 – Evil Deceivers to Become Worse (2 Tim 3:13). See Tit 3:9-11.
DAY 6 – Timothy to Continue in the Faith (2 Tim 3:14-15). See 1 Cor 15:1-5.
DAY 7 – Scripture to Supply Every Need (2 Tim 3:16-17). See Ps 19:7-14.
Questions for Thought and Discussion
Is the world becoming worse as time passes? Is evil winning?
Is it harder to follow Christ now than in the past?
“Troublesome times are here.” Does that mean Jesus must return in the very near future?
How do verses 1-5 make clear that “the last days” had already begun?
How does Scripture describe human nature apart from the gospel?
Why do you think that “lovers of self” is named first?
Which of these sins may seem less “sinful” than the others?
Is ingratitude really that bad?
How could one have a form of godliness, but deny its power? How could we?
Why should a man of God “have nothing to do” with certain people?
How do some, who profess godliness, exploit and take advantage of the weak?
Jannes and Jambres were two Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses. Though they are not named in Exodus, their names were preserved. How did their contest with Moses and the LORD turn out? How does this illustrate what will happen to those who oppose the truth today?
What should Paul’s example and experience teach Timothy about the Christian life?
If we measured our godliness by the hardships we have faced, the persecution we have suffered, and the sacrifices we have made for Christ, what kind of score would we receive?
What difference does it make whether we believe that all / every Scripture is God-breathed?
Since every Scripture is God-breathed, is it necessarily accurate in all that it says regarding every subject that it addresses?
Since the Bible came through fallible men, is the Bible also fallible?
How does postmodernism challenge and reject Scripture’s claim to be without error? What answer would you give?
How does Scripture provide rebuke, correction, and training for God’s man?
Why do people – even we, perhaps – resist rebuke and correction?
Could this be a major reason that many people reject the Bible as well?