JRH 8/25/20
Your generosity is always appreciated - various credit,
check
& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal
account:
Or support by getting in
the Coffee from home business –
OR just buy some
FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products.
**********************************
Biblical Perspective on Government Mandated Mask
EKKLESIA SPECIAL EDITION
Posted by Daniel Navejas
August 23, 2020
Facebook Group OKLAHOMA CONSERVATIVES FOR FREEDOM
A Biblical Perspective on Government Mandated Mask & The
Doctrine of Lesser Magistrates:
As the government begins to institute mask mandates,
Christians must seriously consider what our response should be. In these
tumultuous times it is even more crucial that we KNOW & LIVE the TRUTH!
The issue of mandating masks is extremely controversial, but
it is also vitally important. We believe the God ordained role of Government is
to PROTECT, not to infringe on the liberties that GOD has given us. Blind
compliance with unjust and tyrannical demands is neither Godly nor biblical,
and the road of compromise and compliance ALWAYS leads to enslavement,
persecution and tyrannical dictatorships.
But in the midst of this we have begun to see the Doctrine
of the Lesser Magistrates, practiced across the nation. (click here to download
a free PDF: https://caperepublic.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/matthew_j._trewhella_the_doctrine_of_the_lesser_magistrate.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1FezEeJ-fUh1lYQtaBQf9g5F8hp8riwvlHwjM1n_eMhekbKPZQCqTDMNA).
Pastor Matt Trewhella, the author of the Doctrine of the
Lesser Magistrates, recently preached a sermon on the issue of mask mandates
explaining biblically and historically why it is no small matter. (Audio: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=72120161361809&fbclid=IwAR3lvj7csU-2dT9kW2_hd__RdTp8T4y_Cv-V6vF23Q0Se1siOk9l6rlBYtQ
[Direct Audio: https://www.sermonaudio.com/saplayer/playpopup.asp?SID=72120161361809])
Here in Oklahoma communities have begun to demand that city
councils and Mayors be held accountable for these unconstitutional orders. The
message is clear, if you are unwilling to listen and represent us, then you
will be RECALLED & REPLACED.
A group called Unite Norman has collected over 2,400 signatures, enough to
place two city council members on a recall ballot. They need 18,000 signatures
to place the Mayor on recall. The link above will take you to the Facebook
group if you would like to get connected to them as more and more communities
began to follow suit.
BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL PRECEDENT
1Pe 2:13-17 “Be subject for
the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as
supreme…”
We do not have an emperor who is supreme. The supreme ruler
of the land is not a person but law—our Constitution. Even the President is
subject to the Constitution. Therefore, in order to honor 1 Pet 2:13, we must
oppose lawlessness. Robbing a convenience store is lawlessness, but it is also
lawless for a politician or policeman to violate the supreme law of the land. It
is my duty as a Christian and a citizen to oppose those who violate the law
which is the Constitution. Laws contrary to the Constitution are invalid and in
order to oppose lawlessness, we must NOT comply with invalid laws. [Blog
Editor: Bold text indicates Blog Editor extreme agreement.]
Rom 13:1-7 “Let every person
be subject to the governing authorities…”
Context is very important here. For the people to whom this
was written, the governing authority was an emperor and ecclesiastical leaders.
Neither of these are elected or in any way beholden to the people they rule.
Our form of government could not be more different.
We literally select and HIRE our leaders, as an employer
does employees, who then work FOR us. When they do not adequately perform the
task for which we have chosen them, they hear from us, and, if needs be, are
removed. It’s government by consent of the governed. When those we have chosen
as leaders abuse their power, our lack of consent to their atrocities is the
first recourse to halting the tyranny, and it is our duty to do so.
Our duty, I repeat, both as citizens of a self-ruled republic, and as Christians obeying the ultimate rule(r) of our country. Indeed, our refusal to consent is the first line of defense against tyranny.
The primary obstruction before a power-hungry politician is,
“The people will not go along with it”.
Sadly, power-hungry politicians have lately discovered that the people will in fact go along will all manner of abuses, even clamoring for more, when they are afraid of a virus. This is a very dangerous precedent.
The duties of the responsible American citizen are vastly
different from those of the Roman or Israeli citizen. Alexander Hamilton said:
“If it were to be asked, what is
the most sacred duty and the greatest source of security in a Republic? The
answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws… It is by
this, in a great degree, that the rich and powerful are to be restrained from
enterprises against the common liberty—operated upon by the influence of a
general sentiment, by their interest in the principle, and by the obstacles
which the habit it produces erects against innovation and encroachment. It is
by this, in a still greater degree, that caballers, intriguers, and demagogues
are prevented from climbing on the shoulders of faction to the tempting seats
of usurpation and tyranny… a sacred respect for the constitutional law is the
vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government… There are indeed
great and urgent cases where the bounds of the constitution are manifestly
transgressed, or its constitutional authorities so exercised as to produce
unequivocal oppression on the community, and to render resistance justifiable.”
James Madison said:
"It is proper to take alarm
at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be
the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late
Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had
strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They
saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by
denying the principle."
Hamilton again, in the Federalist Papers stated:
“If the federal government
should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of
its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they
have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the
Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.”
"What did Jesus do about such ordinances that ran contrary to the HIGHER LAWS?"
This quoting of our nation’s architects could go on for
pages. But to return to Scripture, when Jesus walked the earth, many times He
healed people on the Sabbath. He could certainly have waited one more day, and
been in compliance with the Pharisees’ rules. But He deliberately chose not to.
What is His justification for this “rebellion”? I would suggest that in
Israel’s government of that day, the Torah was their Constitution, and the laws
of the Pharisees were comparable to our city ordinances. What did Jesus do
about such ordinances that ran contrary to the higher laws? In at least some
instances, He defied them to make a point. When He and His disciples were
walking through a grain field on the Sabbath, they began to eat the ears of
grain as they walked. The Pharisees strongly objected; this too was against the
rules. Jesus let them do it, and gave the Pharisees a lesson on Israeli
history.
Paul insisted on his civil rights, and did not comply with
directives to the contrary. Acts 16:36-39 says:
"And the jailer reported
these words to Paul, saying, 'The magistrates have sent to let you go.
Therefore come out now and go in peace.' But Paul said to them, 'They have beaten
us publicly, uncondemned, men who are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into
prison; and do they now throw us out secretly? No! Let them come themselves and
take us out.' The police reported these words to the magistrates, and they were
afraid when they heard that they were Roman citizens. So they came and
apologized to them. And they took them out and asked them to leave the
city."
What about the blacks in the 1960s? Many black Christians
engaged in much civil disobedience. They sat at lunch counters where the
"law" said they could not sit. I can’t see a compelling argument for
this law violating anyone’s conscience. It wasn’t a sin for them to sit
elsewhere. They could have followed the rules and still eaten, gotten to work
on the bus, etc. But the law was unjust and they made a point of defying it in
hopes of changing it. Does Scripture really condemn this stand for justice?
Especially under a government designed to accept such rebukes.
And what of the Jews? If the law says to put this star of
David identification on, there’s nothing immoral about that; the Christian ones
among them should obey, right? In The Boy on the Wooden Box, a memoir of
a Jew on Schindler’s List, the importance of “taking alarm” early on in abuses is echoed:
“Meanwhile, in Krakow, the
Germans tightened their grip on us. Jewish parents could no longer reassure
children with the phrase, ‘It will soon be over,’ and a new phrase surfaced:
‘If this is the worst that happens.’…When forced to hand over our radio to the
Nazis, we silently repeated the words; whenever a German was near, we whispered
to ourselves, ‘If this is the worst…’”
Blind obedience to government, even in America, is
ill-advised. “Perhaps the following historical event, as recorded in Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee
Brown, will serve to illustrate the incompleteness of the obedience perspective
alone.
On November 5, 1864, Major Scott J. Anthony assured Black
Kettle and a party of approximately 600 Cheyenne Indians that if they returned
to their camp, they would be safe under the protection of nearby Fort Lyon.
Black Kettle had been to Washington, D.C., met President Lincoln, and been
given a large American flag which he flew over his tent with the promise from
Col. Greenwood that no soldiers would fire on him as long as he flew this flag.
Black Kettle and his tribe went peacefully to Sand Creek, obediently remaining
under the umbrella of the authority of the United States government.
On November 26, 1864, Major Anthony and the Fort Lyon
troops, along with Col. Chivington and 600 reinforcements, attacked Black
Kettle and his people at sunrise. As the soldiers opened fire on the sleeping
Indians, women and children rushed to huddle around Black Kettle’s tent which
flew the American flag. The soldiers paid no attention to flags or cries for
peace, but proceeded to massacre the Indians in a most brutal manner, killing
105 women and children and 28 men. (All but 35 of the men were gone on a
hunting party, leaving the camp unprotected.) Black Kettle was
under...authority...The Indians who didn’t believe Major Anthony and refused to
camp [under authority] were unmolested. Black Kettle was not an advocate of
war, but a voice for peace among his people. [Blog Editor: Here is the Thoughtco.com account
that differs only Chief Lean Bear met with President Lincoln]
Thomas Jefferson once said:
“If a nation expects to be
ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and
never will be. The functionaries of every government have propensities to
command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no
safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe
with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to
read, all is safe.”
It is the duty of responsible citizens to do their own
research and not to trust the “government experts”. Men, with power,
usually have ulterior motives, and it is for our safety that we must determine
to the best of our ability (and with the internet we have greater powers than
ever before) whether their advice is valid or tainted with ulterior motives and
self-interest. The necessary action taken after such knowledge is gained is not
the foot-stamping of rebellious teenagers but the responsible action of adults
who are not gullible.
“All men having power ought to
be distrusted to a certain degree.”—James Madison
We at the Ekklesia believe government instituted
mask mandates are ENTIRELY outside their jurisdiction and is nothing less than
TYRANNICAL. While individuals and private business have every right to choose
to wear and enforce masks on their own property, the government DOES NOT have
that right. Let us
therefore consider carefully and prayerfully how we ought to interpret passages
such as Romans 13 in light of context, additional Scriptures, historical
precedent, and present times.
To learn more about The Ekklesia of Oklahoma or donate to
further our efforts visit our website: www.ekkok.com
To learn more and even discuss what you can do to protect
the rights of your community and city you can send a private message or email
Pastor Daniel Navejas directly at daniel.navejas@gmail.com
______________________________
Edited by John R. Houk
Embedded links by the Editor.
Direct links (except direct audio sermon with embed by Matt Trewhella) are by Pastor
Daniel Navejas.
No comments:
Post a Comment