The Separation of Church and State

May 17, 2012

“The American Papacy” The American Sentinel 1, 12, pp. 92, 93. A.T. Jones

DURING the past year, (1886) there has been largely circulated a book entitled “Our Country,” that has excited a great deal of attention throughout the United States. The book was written for the American Home Missionary Society, its object being to present “facts and arguments showing the imperative need of home missionary work for the evangelization of the land.” In a startling, as well as splendid, array of facts, it presents the growth, the size, the resources, and the perils of our country. {AMS December 1886, p. 92.1}

Among these perils the author rightly places Romanism, and by many excellent quotations proves that it is indeed a peril. We quote a passage or two:— {AMS December 1886, p. 92.2}

“The Constitution of the United States guarantees liberty of conscience. Nothing is dearer or more fundamental. Pope Pius IX., in his Encyclical Letter of August 15, 1854, said: ‘The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty of conscience, are a pestilential error—a pest, of all others, most to be dreaded in a State.’ The same Pope, in his encyclical Letter of December 8, 1864, anathematized ‘those who assert the liberty of conscience and of religious worship,’ also ‘all such as maintain that the church may not employ force.’” {AMS December 1886, p. 92.3}

“The pacific tone of Rome in the United State does not imply a change of heart. She is tolerant where she is helpless. Says Bishop O’Connor: ‘Religious liberty is merely endured until the opposite can be carried into effect without peril to the Catholic world.’ ... Archbishop of St. Louis once said: ‘Heresy and unbelief are crimes; and in Christian countries, as in Italy and Spain, for instance, where all the people are Catholics, and where the Catholic religion is an essential part of the law of the land, they are punished as other crimes.’” {AMS December 1886, p. 92.4}

“Cardinal Manning advises Romanists throughout the world to enter polities as Romanists, and to do this especially in England and the United States. In our large cities the priests are already in politics, and to some purpose... We are told that the native Catholics of Arizona and New Mexico are not as energetic as the Protestants who are pushing into these territories. True, but they are energetic enough to be counted. The most wretched members of society count as much at the polls as the best, and too often much more.” {AMS December 1886, p. 92.5}

All this and much more is true of Romanism. And although there is just cause for fear that Romanism will yet wield civil power here, and that the principles of Romanism will yet be allowed by the laws of this nation, yet we are certain that it will never accomplish this of itself nor in its own name. We are perfectly assured that if ever Romanism gains such power in this Government, it will be through the mediumship and by the instrumentalities of the National Reform party; for, as crafty, as cruel, as bitterly opposed to our free institutions as Rome is, as this book shows she is, and as men know that she is, yet the National Reformers are willing and even anxious to join hands with her, and enlist her in the promotion of their scheme of so-called reform. {AMS December 1886, p. 92.6}

We are not in this bringing against the National Reformers a railing accusation; we simply deal with facts, and the logic of facts. And in saying that the National Reformers are willing and even anxious to join hands with Romanism in America, we only state the sober truth. Please read the following statement from an editorial in the Christian Statesman, of December 11, 1884:— {AMS December 1886, p. 92.7}

“Whenever they [the Roman Catholics] are willing to co-operate in resisting the progress of political atheism, we will gladly join hands with them.” {AMS December 1886, p. 92.8}

What the Statesman designates as “political atheism,” is nothing more nor less than the present form of Government, and the present Constitution, of the United States. To oppose National Reform is to them sheer atheism; and to oppose the kind of Government which they indorse is political atheism. That no religious test shall be required of a civil ruler, is declared by Rev. M. A. Gault to be “the infidel theory of Government.”—Statesman, December 24, 1885. The “theory of Government taught in our National Constitution” is declared by Rev. A. M. Milligan to be “the infidel theory.”—Speech, in the New York Convention. {AMS December 1886, p. 92.9}

Again the Statesman says:— {AMS December 1886, p. 92.10}

“We cordially, gladly, recognize the fact that in South American Republics, and in France, and other European countries, the Roman Catholics are the recognized advocates of National Christianity, and stand opposed to all the proposals of secularism.... In a world’s conference for the promotion of National Christianity, many countries could be represented only by Roman Catholics.”—Editorial before quoted. {AMS December 1886, p. 92.11}

It is beyond question, therefore, that what the Statesman means is that, whenever the Roman Catholics are willing to co-operate with the National Reformers in the scheme of the establishment of National Christianity in the United States, the National Reformers “will gladly join hands with them.” But the Roman Catholics are always ready to co-operate in that thing. That is one of Rome’s clearest characteristics. Rome hates our present form of Government and our present Constitution as heartily as do the National Reformers. Rome, too, would readily enough brand our present system of Government as “political atheism,” if the National Reformers had not already done it for her. And everybody may rest assured that the National Reformers will have the pleasure of “gladly” joining hands with Rome, just as soon as they shall have gained a position of sufficient importance to make it to the interest of Rome to join hands with them. In fact, this is exactly what Roman Catholics are commanded to do. In his Encyclical published only last year, Pope Leo XIII. says:— {AMS December 1886, p. 92.12}

“All Catholics should do all in their power to cause the constitutions of States, and legislation, to be modeled on the principles of the true church, and all Catholic writers and journalists should never lose sight, for an instant, from the view of the above prescriptions.” {AMS December 1886, p. 92.13}

May 17, 2012

Informative article ... insteresting how the "play" is progressing

May 17, 2012

Uh, written 126 years ago?

May 17, 2012

Informative article ... insteresting how the "play" is progressing

Exactly, slowly but surely and definitely behind the scene's. It will surprise most but those that are awake.

May 17, 2012

NATIONAL REFORM AND ROMANISM IDENTICAL

From the above quotations from the Statesman it is seen that in European and South American countries the Roman Catholics are the recognized advocates of National Christianity. National Christianity is the object of the National Reform movement; our Constitution and legislation have to be re-modeled before this National Christianity can be established; to re-model our Constitution and legislation is the aim of National Reform; but this is exactly what “all Catholics” are by the Pope ex-cathedra commanded to do, and not to lose sight of it for an instant. Therefore, what the National Reformers propose to do with our Constitution and legislation is precisely what the Roman Catholics in this country are commanded by the Pope to do. Therefore the aim of National Reform and the aim of Rome are identical, and why should they not “gladly join hands”? {AMS December 1886, p. 92.14}

But that the National Reformers will gladly join bands with Rome, is not all of the story—not near all. They actually and deliberately propose to make overtures to Rome for co-operation. They actually propose to make advances, and repeated advances, and even to suffer rebuffs, to gain the help of Rome in their Romish scheme of “National Christianity.” Now to the proof of this. In the Christian Statesman of August 31, 1881, Rev. Sylvester F. Scovel, a leading National Reformer, says:— {AMS December 1886, p. 92.15}

“This common interest [‘of all religious people in the Sabbath’—Sunday] ought both to strengthen our determination to work, and our readiness to co-operate in every way with our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens. We may be subjected to some rebuffs in our first proffers, and the time is not yet come when the Roman Church will consent to strike hands with other churches—as such; but the time has come to make repeated advances and gladly to accept co-operation in any form in which they may be willing to exhibit it. It is one of the necessities of the situation.” {AMS December 1886, p. 92.16}

Notice, the advances are all on the side of the National Reformers. They are not only willing to make the advances, but are willing to be subjected to “rebuffs,” and, being rebuffed, to make “repeated advances” to overcome the coquetry, and gain the treacherous favor of “the mistress of witchcrafts,” “the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth”! And why this willingness? Because, “It is one of the necessities of the situation”—and the italics are his. Shades of Wickliffe, and Luther, and Zwingle, and Milton, and Wesley, and of all the martyrs! was there ever in the world a more humiliating, a more contemptible surrender to the Papacy? How many of the American people are ready to join in it? But know of a surety that every one who joins in the National Reform movement thereby joins in a scheme for the delivery of this free land into the bloody hands of the Papacy. Just here please read again the quotations from Dr. Strong’s book, at the beginning of this article, and see whether the National Reformers in joining hands with Rome do not equally with Rome show themselves the enemies of the United States Government, and of American institutions—the enemies of human right and human liberty. {AMS December 1886, p. 92.17}

It is true, as Mr. Scovel says, the National Reformers do now receive somewhat cool treatment, and perhaps some rebuffs. The Catholic Church does not to any considerable extent directly aid in the National Reform movement. She is too crafty for that. She knows as well as they, that “it is one of the necessities of the situation,” and she is determined to have the surrender come from them. We personally know a gentleman, who, riding on the railroad not long since, fell into conversation with a Catholic priest, and finally said to him, “What is your church going to do with the Religious Amendment movement? are you going to help it forward? are you going to vote for it?” “Oh,” said the priest, “we have nothing to do with that. We leave that to the Protestants, we let them do all that. They are all coming to us, and we only have to wait.” {AMS December 1886, p. 94.1}

Such is the attitude of the Catholic Church at present; and such it will to all appearances remain until the National Reformers have done the work; till they, by repeated advances and in spite of repeated “rebuffs,” have come to her and made the proper surrender. Because she knows that were she now to actively engage in the enterprise, it would arouse suspicion, and the success of National Christianity would be seriously compromised. But let the Reformers do the work, as they are doing, and bring the matter to the point of being voted upon, then there will be found at the polls every Catholic voter in the United States, casting his ballot for the Religious Amendment, which, in the words of the Pope, will “cause the Constitution of” the United “States, and legislation, to be modeled on the principles of the true church,” and by which, as the Archbishop of St. Louis says, “heresy and unbelief” will become “crimes,” and will be “punished as crimes,” as in the “Christian countries” of Italy and Spain. {AMS December 1886, p. 94.2}

It may be of interest to inquire, What was the subject which drew from Mr. Scovel this expression of willingness, if not anxiety to gain the co-operation of Rome?—He is writing of a movement of the Catholic Church in Europe, for the strict observance of Sunday, or, as Macaulay says of the Puritan reign under the Commonwealth, Mr. Scovel “will call it Sabbath.” It is to compel everybody to keep Sunday that the National Reformers want the Constitutional Amendment, and legislation under it. Now, as the Catholics in Europe are earnestly engaged in this enterprise, and as the National Reformers in America are engaged in it, the question occurs to the National Reformers, “Why shall we not join hands with the Catholics in America, so that we can win? True it is, we may be subjected to some rebuffs in our first proffers, for the time has not come when the Roman Church will strike hands with other churches—as such; but the time has come for us to make repeated advances and gladly accept co-operation in any form in which they may be willing to exhibit it. It is one of the necessities of the situation. For without the help of Rome, we cannot amend the Constitution; without the help of Rome, we cannot compel people to keep Sunday. But if we can enlist with us the powerful hand, and the masterly organization, of Rome, our success is assured.” That is the sum and substance of this proposition of the National Reformers. {AMS December 1886, p. 94.3}

May 19, 2012

SOLD INTO THE HANDS OF ROME

Although the Catholic Church apparently takes no very active interest in this movement itself, we may rest assured that there is not a single writer, nor a single official, of the Catholic Church, from the Pope to the lowest priest in America, wbo ever “for an instant” loses sight of the movement, or of the “prescriptions” which the Pope has given in view of it. {AMS December 1886, p. 94.4}

Then when the matter comes to the enforcement of the laws, what is to hinder the Catholics from doing it, and that, too, in the Catholic way? Every priest in the United Slates is sworn to root out heresy. And Monsignor Capel, in our own cities and at our very doors, defends the “Holy Inquisition.” And when, by Constitutional Amendment, the refusal to observe Sunday becomes heresy that can be reached by the law, what then is to hinder the Catholics from rooting out the heresy? Certainly when the National Reformers shall have been compelled by the necessity of the situation to surrender to the Catholics, it would not be in their power, even were it in their disposition, to repeal the laws; so there would then be nothing left but the enforcement of the laws—by Catholics, if by nobody else. This view of the case, alone, ought to be sufficient to arouse every Protestant and every American to the most uncompromising opposition to the National Reform party. {AMS December 1886, p. 94.5}

It is of no use for the National Reformers to say that they will not allow the Catholics to do these things. For when the National Reformers, to gain the ends which they have in view, are compelled by “the necessities of the situation,” to unite with Rome, having, by the help of Rome, gained those ends, it will be impossible, without the help of Rome, either to make them effective, or to reverse them, or to hinder Rome from making them effective in her own way. When the thing is done, it will be too late to talk of not allowing this or that. The whole thing will then be sold into the hands of Rome, and there will be no remedy. {AMS December 1886, p. 94.6}

Lord Macaulay made no mistake when he wrote the following:— {AMS December 1886, p. 94.7}

“It is impossible to deny that the polity of the church of Rome is the very masterpiece of human wisdom.... The experience of twelve hundred eventful years, the ingenuity and patient care of forty generations of Statesmen, have improved that polity to such perfection that, among the contrivances which have been devised for deceiving and oppressing mankind, it occupies the highest place.”—Essays, Von Ranke. {AMS December 1886, p. 94.8}

And it is into the hands of this mistress of human deception and oppression that the National Reformers deliberately propose to surrender the United States Government and the American people. But just as surely as the American people allow the National Reform party, or anything else, out of seeming friendship for Christianity, or for any other reason, to do this thing, they are undone. {AMS December 1886, p. 94.9}

We know that a good people have regarded the AMERICAN SENTINEL as exerting itself to no purpose, because they think there is no danger of the success of National Reform. But in the National Reform party a link with Rome, there is danger. Then put with this the almost universal demand for more vigorous laws, more vigorously enforced, for the stricter religious observance of Sunday—the very thing above all others at which the National Reform movement aims—the danger is increased and is imminent. In view of these facts there is great danger that through the sophistry of the National Reform arguments, the ill-informed zeal of thousands upon thousands of people who favor Sunday laws, will be induced to support the National Reform movement, and so they and the whole nation be delivered into the hands of Rome. There is danger in the National Reform movement. We know it, and by the evidences we here give in their own words, it is high time that the American people began to realize it. {AMS December 1886, p. 94.10}

We say that if the National Reformers and the Catholics, or any others, want to keep Sunday, let them do it. If they have not religion enough to lead them to do it without the aid of civil laws to compel themselves to do it, then let them have laws to compel themselves to do it. But Heaven forefend that they shall ever succeed in securing the laws that they ask by which they will compel others to do it. And we do most devoutly pray, God forbid that they shall ever succeed in their scheme of putting into the hands of Rome the power to enforce religious laws, and to correct heresy. God forbid that they shall ever succeed in making free America a slave to Rome. {AMS December 1886, p. 94.11}

The success of the National Reform movement will be the success of Rome. Therefore to support the National Reform movement is to support Rome. How many, then of the American people are ready to enter into the National Reform scheme? {AMS December 1886, p. 94.12}

A. T. J.

May 25, 2012

Anti-Gay Marriage Legislation is an Example of An Overextended Church in Decline, part 1

by Ian Ebright Thursday, May 24th, 2012

No longer content to govern itself, the church has spread out to rule the culture through legislative force, attempting to use the tools of government to order the lives of consenting adults. Like an empire, the church finds itself on patrol beyond its rightful territory, which is shocking when one considers how much space the church has been given, by God first and this country second.

The church already possesses the freedom to engage the culture through dialogue, art, the marketplace of ideas, hospitality, care, and robust teaching. We have the right to share and live the good news of Christ resurrected. We have the reach to notice, defend, and love the orphans, the widows, the poor, the hungry, the outcast, the falsely condemned, the unjustly treated, and victims of violence and coercion. We have the liberty to love our neighbors and our enemies. We have Micah 6:8:

And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Why is it not enough?

The state of discontent in our faith is not the fault of the GLBT community. Perhaps we have become discontented with the humility and quietness of actual faith and ministry. If so, this is tragic. In a culture embracing unhinged consumerism, it is not surprising that the church would grow bored of the feast of ministry, moving on to snack on private affairs within the broader culture.

In a quest for church strength and national longevity, our cultural conquests are making the church and the nation weaker and more divided. In a crusade for a more wholesome culture, we have injected pride, arrogance, hostility, and vitriol. Even those who respectfully stand against an issue that is at most a symbolic victory have contributed to the creation of unnecessary foes.

May 25, 2012

Justice for the abused and disadvantaged rather than the consensual

I have heard gay marriage argued against with the example of Nazi Germany, by people asking “where was the church then?” They say genocide is what happens when we fail to act on our morals as a church. I find it troubling that this is even considered a valid comparison to the GLBT community’s wish to marry. One is force, the other is consensual. Force turns sex into rape and employment into slavery. This is why the church is universally applauded when it combats sex trafficking, and esteems people otherwise harmed, neglected or left behind, because in those moments the church is elevating the individual rather than trying to restrict it.

This is why Christians must find that tension between being completely disengaged from the broader culture, or consumed by it, and consumed can come in different forms. One form tries to water down personal faith to the extent that he or she is indistinguishable from the broader culture. Another tries to fashion the culture to look like his or her faith. The latter is what we see in the anti-gay marriage movement.

The church has been here before (and survived)

The reason no one will be making the argument against gay marriage in twenty years is the same reason the average person would not be in agreement with Christians advocating for laws against all alcohol consumption, tattoos, or cursing, even though some Christians sincerely view those as sins and have what they feel are the verses to back it up.

Go with me a step further, those of you who are against gay marriage in the broader culture, and let me attempt to discuss this on your terms over the next three paragraphs.

Remember the fight against pornography? The Religious Right lost that battle too. But while pornography rakes in billions of dollars in the U.S. annually, the church has not been silenced. In fact, the church has quite a multifaceted approach to the problems stemming from porn. The dangers of pornography are still preached from the pulpit, churches offer counseling or connection with counseling services for porn and sex addicts, some churches exist solely to befriend those within the adult industry as well as those men and women recovering from their participation in the production or consumption of porn, and non profits are built to walk with women who have been harmed by their experience in the adult industry. It’s by no means a perfect example, but I hope those of you who disagree with gay marriage in the broader culture see this point and will reconsider your approach: while porn is here, so too is the church. Sometimes, I think losing the culture battle is the best thing for the church, so that it can remember its place and then get back to its calling.

May 25, 2012

Justice for the abused and disadvantaged rather than the consensual

I have heard gay marriage argued against with the example of Nazi Germany, by people asking “where was the church then?” They say genocide is what happens when we fail to act on our morals as a church. I find it troubling that this is even considered a valid comparison to the GLBT community’s wish to marry. One is force, the other is consensual. Force turns sex into rape and employment into slavery. This is why the church is universally applauded when it combats sex trafficking, and esteems people otherwise harmed, neglected or left behind, because in those moments the church is elevating the individual rather than trying to restrict it.

This is why Christians must find that tension between being completely disengaged from the broader culture, or consumed by it, and consumed can come in different forms. One form tries to water down personal faith to the extent that he or she is indistinguishable from the broader culture. Another tries to fashion the culture to look like his or her faith. The latter is what we see in the anti-gay marriage movement.

The church has been here before (and survived)

The reason no one will be making the argument against gay marriage in twenty years is the same reason the average person would not be in agreement with Christians advocating for laws against all alcohol consumption, tattoos, or cursing, even though some Christians sincerely view those as sins and have what they feel are the verses to back it up.

Go with me a step further, those of you who are against gay marriage in the broader culture, and let me attempt to discuss this on your terms over the next three paragraphs.

Remember the fight against pornography? The Religious Right lost that battle too. But while pornography rakes in billions of dollars in the U.S. annually, the church has not been silenced. In fact, the church has quite a multifaceted approach to the problems stemming from porn. The dangers of pornography are still preached from the pulpit, churches offer counseling or connection with counseling services for porn and sex addicts, some churches exist solely to befriend those within the adult industry as well as those men and women recovering from their participation in the production or consumption of porn, and non profits are built to walk with women who have been harmed by their experience in the adult industry. It’s by no means a perfect example, but I hope those of you who disagree with gay marriage in the broader culture see this point and will reconsider your approach: while porn is here, so too is the church. Sometimes, I think losing the culture battle is the best thing for the church, so that it can remember its place and then get back to its calling.

May 25, 2012

Justice for the abused and disadvantaged rather than the consensual

I have heard gay marriage argued against with the example of Nazi Germany, by people asking “where was the church then?” They say genocide is what happens when we fail to act on our morals as a church. I find it troubling that this is even considered a valid comparison to the GLBT community’s wish to marry. One is force, the other is consensual. Force turns sex into rape and employment into slavery. This is why the church is universally applauded when it combats sex trafficking, and esteems people otherwise harmed, neglected or left behind, because in those moments the church is elevating the individual rather than trying to restrict it.

This is why Christians must find that tension between being completely disengaged from the broader culture, or consumed by it, and consumed can come in different forms. One form tries to water down personal faith to the extent that he or she is indistinguishable from the broader culture. Another tries to fashion the culture to look like his or her faith. The latter is what we see in the anti-gay marriage movement.

The church has been here before (and survived)

The reason no one will be making the argument against gay marriage in twenty years is the same reason the average person would not be in agreement with Christians advocating for laws against all alcohol consumption, tattoos, or cursing, even though some Christians sincerely view those as sins and have what they feel are the verses to back it up.

Go with me a step further, those of you who are against gay marriage in the broader culture, and let me attempt to discuss this on your terms over the next three paragraphs.

Remember the fight against pornography? The Religious Right lost that battle too. But while pornography rakes in billions of dollars in the U.S. annually, the church has not been silenced. In fact, the church has quite a multifaceted approach to the problems stemming from porn. The dangers of pornography are still preached from the pulpit, churches offer counseling or connection with counseling services for porn and sex addicts, some churches exist solely to befriend those within the adult industry as well as those men and women recovering from their participation in the production or consumption of porn, and non profits are built to walk with women who have been harmed by their experience in the adult industry. It’s by no means a perfect example, but I hope those of you who disagree with gay marriage in the broader culture see this point and will reconsider your approach: while porn is here, so too is the church. Sometimes, I think losing the culture battle is the best thing for the church, so that it can remember its place and then get back to its calling.

May 25, 2012

When you look at Christ, do you see Him forcing teaching or standards of living on everyone? He taught people to seek- as Rev. Earl F. Palmer said so correctly- seek is a freedom word. That means ministry is intended to grant people the dignity of choice as well as our patience. These ideas can be held along with the charge to go and make disciples.

Jesus also told stories. He was silent at times, refusing to answer. Or he answered questions with other questions. He went where he was welcomed, and often retreated from the crowds or the mobs. Hardly an in your face kinda guy. When Jesus did chide, it was most often reserved for the religious know-it-alls and fruitless trees. Christ also raged when he witnessed a perversion of the church, and if you see gay marriage in the broader culture as the same thing, you are forgetting to remember that this nation is not your personal house of worship. That’s what your house of worship is for. It’s time to stop trying to force other people to eat your vegetables. Gay marriage is no more a threat to your marriage than the divorced neighbor or the guy down the street who just had an affair. The greatest threat to your marriage is what you and your spouse do or don’t do with it.

“You’ve confused a war on your religion with not always getting everything you want. It’s called being part of a society. Not everything goes your way.” -Jon Stewart

The point of it all: fruit, not culture feuds

Belief in Christ is a transformative journey, producing fruit and a sincere effort in obedience, and while the fruit, or goodness does not save us, it is a sign of Christ’s transformation in those who believe. Belief must produce a new motion in our lives, and not towards every endeavor we happen to bless, but towards actions which bring glory to God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. -Galatians 5:22-23

The church mistakes earnestness for righteousness. “Well as long as I’m using scripture to back it up.” Did Jesus accept that justification from the religiously earnest who knew their religious law and used it as a disproportionate weight on the backs of others? The epidemic problem in the American church is that we have become “position people,” swapping faith for a mental concept, and mistaking ministry for being on the correct side of an issue. This is my guess as to why the church is so often absent on matters where it is actually needed, because we have become satisfied with the notion that we just need to think correctly and tell others to do the same and God will smile down on us all.

We can know The Good Book like a pro, and still fail to live the point of it all. The Bible, if mishandled, can further a person’s quest for power and control. So what is the fruit of fighting against gay marriage in the broader culture? Because the anti-gay marriage culture warriors are making enemies whether they mean to or not. This isn’t to say those who oppose gay marriage are incapable of producing fruit elsewhere; it is to say that the church movement to stop gay marriage in the broader culture has been a largely fruitless campaign.

I once saw a photo of a protest sign at a pro-equality rally in Seattle that read “focus on your own family.” That is Biblical advice. It is the work of God through his spirit that changes hearts, not the church as the Morality Police, especially not when we focus on the deeds of consenting adults in the broader culture, and most certainly not when we try to enforce it by way of legislation. We’re getting our kingdoms confused, and that is not salt nor light.

http://www.redletterchristians.org/anti-gay-marriage-legislation-is...

May 25, 2012

When you look at Christ, do you see Him forcing teaching or standards of living on everyone? He taught people to seek- as Rev. Earl F. Palmer said so correctly- seek is a freedom word. That means ministry is intended to grant people the dignity of choice as well as our patience. These ideas can be held along with the charge to go and make disciples.

Jesus also told stories. He was silent at times, refusing to answer. Or he answered questions with other questions. He went where he was welcomed, and often retreated from the crowds or the mobs. Hardly an in your face kinda guy. When Jesus did chide, it was most often reserved for the religious know-it-alls and fruitless trees. Christ also raged when he witnessed a perversion of the church, and if you see gay marriage in the broader culture as the same thing, you are forgetting to remember that this nation is not your personal house of worship. That’s what your house of worship is for. It’s time to stop trying to force other people to eat your vegetables. Gay marriage is no more a threat to your marriage than the divorced neighbor or the guy down the street who just had an affair. The greatest threat to your marriage is what you and your spouse do or don’t do with it.

“You’ve confused a war on your religion with not always getting everything you want. It’s called being part of a society. Not everything goes your way.” -Jon Stewart

The point of it all: fruit, not culture feuds

Belief in Christ is a transformative journey, producing fruit and a sincere effort in obedience, and while the fruit, or goodness does not save us, it is a sign of Christ’s transformation in those who believe. Belief must produce a new motion in our lives, and not towards every endeavor we happen to bless, but towards actions which bring glory to God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. -Galatians 5:22-23

The church mistakes earnestness for righteousness. “Well as long as I’m using scripture to back it up.” Did Jesus accept that justification from the religiously earnest who knew their religious law and used it as a disproportionate weight on the backs of others? The epidemic problem in the American church is that we have become “position people,” swapping faith for a mental concept, and mistaking ministry for being on the correct side of an issue. This is my guess as to why the church is so often absent on matters where it is actually needed, because we have become satisfied with the notion that we just need to think correctly and tell others to do the same and God will smile down on us all.

We can know The Good Book like a pro, and still fail to live the point of it all. The Bible, if mishandled, can further a person’s quest for power and control. So what is the fruit of fighting against gay marriage in the broader culture? Because the anti-gay marriage culture warriors are making enemies whether they mean to or not. This isn’t to say those who oppose gay marriage are incapable of producing fruit elsewhere; it is to say that the church movement to stop gay marriage in the broader culture has been a largely fruitless campaign.

I once saw a photo of a protest sign at a pro-equality rally in Seattle that read “focus on your own family.” That is Biblical advice. It is the work of God through his spirit that changes hearts, not the church as the Morality Police, especially not when we focus on the deeds of consenting adults in the broader culture, and most certainly not when we try to enforce it by way of legislation. We’re getting our kingdoms confused, and that is not salt nor light.

http://www.redletterchristians.org/anti-gay-marriage-legislation-is...

May 25, 2012

When you look at Christ, do you see Him forcing teaching or standards of living on everyone? He taught people to seek- as Rev. Earl F. Palmer said so correctly- seek is a freedom word. That means ministry is intended to grant people the dignity of choice as well as our patience. These ideas can be held along with the charge to go and make disciples.

Jesus also told stories. He was silent at times, refusing to answer. Or he answered questions with other questions. He went where he was welcomed, and often retreated from the crowds or the mobs. Hardly an in your face kinda guy. When Jesus did chide, it was most often reserved for the religious know-it-alls and fruitless trees. Christ also raged when he witnessed a perversion of the church, and if you see gay marriage in the broader culture as the same thing, you are forgetting to remember that this nation is not your personal house of worship. That’s what your house of worship is for. It’s time to stop trying to force other people to eat your vegetables. Gay marriage is no more a threat to your marriage than the divorced neighbor or the guy down the street who just had an affair. The greatest threat to your marriage is what you and your spouse do or don’t do with it.

“You’ve confused a war on your religion with not always getting everything you want. It’s called being part of a society. Not everything goes your way.” -Jon Stewart

The point of it all: fruit, not culture feuds

Belief in Christ is a transformative journey, producing fruit and a sincere effort in obedience, and while the fruit, or goodness does not save us, it is a sign of Christ’s transformation in those who believe. Belief must produce a new motion in our lives, and not towards every endeavor we happen to bless, but towards actions which bring glory to God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. -Galatians 5:22-23

The church mistakes earnestness for righteousness. “Well as long as I’m using scripture to back it up.” Did Jesus accept that justification from the religiously earnest who knew their religious law and used it as a disproportionate weight on the backs of others? The epidemic problem in the American church is that we have become “position people,” swapping faith for a mental concept, and mistaking ministry for being on the correct side of an issue. This is my guess as to why the church is so often absent on matters where it is actually needed, because we have become satisfied with the notion that we just need to think correctly and tell others to do the same and God will smile down on us all.

We can know The Good Book like a pro, and still fail to live the point of it all. The Bible, if mishandled, can further a person’s quest for power and control. So what is the fruit of fighting against gay marriage in the broader culture? Because the anti-gay marriage culture warriors are making enemies whether they mean to or not. This isn’t to say those who oppose gay marriage are incapable of producing fruit elsewhere; it is to say that the church movement to stop gay marriage in the broader culture has been a largely fruitless campaign.

I once saw a photo of a protest sign at a pro-equality rally in Seattle that read “focus on your own family.” That is Biblical advice. It is the work of God through his spirit that changes hearts, not the church as the Morality Police, especially not when we focus on the deeds of consenting adults in the broader culture, and most certainly not when we try to enforce it by way of legislation. We’re getting our kingdoms confused, and that is not salt nor light.

http://www.redletterchristians.org/anti-gay-marriage-legislation-is...

May 26, 2012

"Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves" (Romans 14).

May 27, 2012

RH November 17, 1917

Religious Liberty Department

PRESBYTERIAN MEMORIALS IN VIRGINIA

IT was about 1774 that the agitation in behalf of religious liberty carried on by Baptists and Presbyterians, ably seconded by such men as Madison, Jefferson, and Mason, began noticeably to disturb the ministry and officials of the established church.;

"The zealots for the old order were greatly embarrassed," remarks Sample. "'If,' say they, 'we permit them [the agitators] to go on, our church must come to nothing; and yet, if we punish them as far as we can stretch the law, it seems

not to deter them; for they preach through prison windows, in spite of our endeavors to prevent it.'"—"Life and Times of Madison," Vol. I, p. 53.

It was in this year (1774) that the Presbyterians first memorialized the Virginia Assembly. But so far was this petition from being a plea for religious liberty that it conceded the right of the Dominion to require all ministers, including dissenters, to take the same oath of allegiance required of civil officers, and " to have all our churches and stated places of public worship registered," and asked that as churches they might have conferred upon them the authority" to take and to hold lands and slaves." This they desired for the purpose of aiding them in the support of their ministers. Thus these churches asked practically that they might be incorporated.

May 27, 2012

The prayer of the petitioners was not granted, and matters went on as before until 1776, when the Presbytery of Hanover, instead of asking authority to hold lands and slaves, presented a memorial setting forth some of the genuine principles of religious liberty.

This memorial was addressed "To the Honorable the General Assembly of Virginia." In this memorial the position was boldly taken "that religious establishments are highly injurious to the temporal interests of any community;" "neither can it be made to appear that the gospel needs any such civil aid."

"We would also humbly represent," continued these Presbyterian divines, " that the only proper objects of civil government are the happiness and protection of men in their present state of existence, the security of life, liberty, and the property of the citizens, and to restrain the vicious and to encourage the virtuous, by wholesome laws equally extending to every individual; but that the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can only be directed by reason or conviction, and is nowhere cognizable but at the tribunal of

the universal Judge.

"Therefore we ask no ecclesiastical establishment for ourselves, neither can we approve of them and grant it to others: this, indeed, wonld be giving exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges to one set (or sect) of men, without any special public services, to the common reproach or injnry of every other denomination. And, for the reasons recited, we are induced earnestly to entreat that all laws now in force in this commonwealth which countenance religious domination may be speedily repealed,— that all of every religious sect may be protected in the full exercise of their several modes of worship, and exempted from all taxes for the support of any church whatsoever, further than what may be agreeable to their own private choice or voluntary obligation. This being done, all partial and invidious distinctions will be abolished, to the great honor and interest of the State, and every one be left

to stand or fall according to merit, which can never be the case so long as any one denomination is established in preference

to others.

May 27, 2012

"That the great Sovereign of the universe may inspire you with unanimity, wisdom,'and resolution, and bring you to a just determination on. all the important concerns before you is the fervent prayer of your memorialists.

"Signed by order of the Presbytery,

"JOHN TODD, Moderator.

"CALEB WALLACE, Presbytery clerk."

—"Old Churches and Families of Virginia,'' by Bishop Meade, Vol. II, Appendix, p. 440 et seq.

This memorial bears the date of Oct. 24, 1776. Another of similar import followed it April 25, 1777, with another in May,

1784, and still another in October of the same year. In the latter memorial occurs this brief declaration of principle, which is fairly representative of the tenor of the entire document:

May 27, 2012

"We conceive that human legislation ought to have human affairs as they relate to this world alone for its concern."

And again it is said:

"Religion, therefore, as a spiritual system, and its ministers in a professional capacity, ought not to be under the direction of the state."

The final memorial from the Presbyterians "To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia," bears date of Aug. 13, 1785, and is a protest against the bill then pending " for establishing a provision for the teachers of the Christian religion and the act for incorporating the Protestant Episcopal

Church," etc.

This bill was opposed by the Presbyterians :

"Because it is a departure from the proper lines of legislation;

"Because it is unnecessary, and inadequate to its professed end — impolitic, in many respects— and a direct violation of the Declaration of Rights.

"The end of civil government is security to the temporal liberty and property of mankind, and to protect them in the free exercise of religion. Legislators are invested with powers from their constituents for these purposes only, and their duty

extends no further. Religion is altogether personal, and the right of exercising it unalienable; and it is not, can not, and

ought not to be, resigned to the will of the society at large; and much less to the legislature, which derives its authority

wholly from the consent of the people, and is limited by the original intention of civil associations."— Journal 0f the General Assembly of Virginia for 1785.

Nor was this memorial altogether negative. These Virginia Presbyterians not only protested against the proposed bill,

but they said:

"We regret that full equality in all things, and ample protection and security to religious liberty, were not incontestably fixed in the Constitution of the government. But we earnestly request that the defect may be remedied, as far as it is possible for the legislature to do it, by adopting the bill in the revised laws for establishing religious freedom."

May 27, 2012

That those memorials had great weight in securing the defeat of the one bill and in the passage of the other, there can be no

doubt. True, the Presbyterians were a little more slow than the Baptists to take their stand for religious liberty instead of

mere toleration, but when they did it, they were even more aggressive in their warfare and more insistent in their demands.

Posterity owes them a debt of gratitude for what they achieved, even if the achievement came a little late.

0. P. BOLLMAN.

May 31, 2012

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." - James Madison

Mixing the church and state is like mixing ice cream with cow manure. It may not do much to the manure, but it sure messes up the ice cream.

~ Tony Campolo

June 1, 2012

By A. T. Jones

“A Political Gospel” The American Sentinel 1, 10, pp. 74, 75.

MRS. MARY A. WOODBRIDGE, recording secretary of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, and vice-president of the National Reform Association, made the principal National Reform speech, at Chautauqua Assembly on National Reform Day, July 23. Among many other such like things in her speech we find the following:— {AMS October 1886, p. 74.1}

“Shall we not amend our National Constitution, that the world shall know that we acknowledge Christ as Ruler? as the Head of our Nation? and in his name, and for his glory, shall not ‘We, the people, in order to form a more perfect union,’ thus ‘ordain’? While we render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar’s, shall we not render unto God the things that are God’s?” {AMS October 1886, p. 74.2}

To render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s, is eminently sound and practical Christian doctrine. But the practice of that principle is not at all what the National Reformers want the people of this Nation to do. The National Reformers not only want us to render to Cesar that which is Cesar’s, but they want to compel us to render to Cesar that which is God’s. This we, under Christ, deny their right to do; and by his help it is what we will never submit to do. {AMS October 1886, p. 74.3}

In these words Christ established a clear distinction between Cesar and God, between that which is Cesar’s and that which is God’s; that is between the civil and the religious power, and between what we owe to the civil power and what we owe to the religious power. We owe to Cesar, the civil power, that which is civil: we owe to God, the religious power, that which is religious. This is the distinction which God, in Christ, has absolutely fixed. Whoever seeks to confound this distinction is against God and against Christ; to join, or to seek to join, the religious with the civil power is to confound the distinction; and to join the religious with the civil power is precisely what the National Reform party proposes to do. The logical conclusion from this is clear, and we do not hesitate to say that it is strictly according to Scripture and, therefore, perfectly true. {AMS October 1886, p. 74.4}

For the State to enforce religious duties it thereby demands that to Cesar shall be rendered that which is God’s, and therefore it usurps the place of God, and so far as it is obeyed, it destroys the true worship of God. We know the claim that these men make, as of all of their kind in the dreadful history of persecution everywhere, that is, that it is the true worship of God and of Christ which they ask that the civil power shall enforce, and this according to the Bible. But no such thing can be done. Christ did not say that we should render to Cesar that which is God’s; neither did he say that we should render to God by Cesar that which is God’s. That which is God’s is his, and we are to render it to him direct, without any of the meddling mediumship of Cesar. When we have rendered to Cesar that which is Cesar’s, we have rendered to Cesar all his due and he has no right to demand any more. And when he has so received his just due on all his proper claims, then what business is it of Cesar’s how we render to God that which is God’s or whether we render it at all or not?—It is just none of his business. And when he seeks to make it his business he is meddling with that which in no wise concerns him. One of the unbecoming and irreverent results of such action is well expressed by Gibbon, in speaking of Constantine and his sons:— {AMS October 1886, p. 75.1}

“Those princes presumed to extend their despotism over the faith, as well as over the lives and fortunes of their subjects; .... and the prerogatives of the King of Heaven were settled, or changed, or modified, in the cabinet of an earthly monarch.”—Decline Fall, chap 21, par. 16. {AMS October 1886, p. 75.2}

Could anything possibly be more incongruous! It is just such incongruity that these words of Christ are intended forever to prevent. Yet history is full of it, and, while our own Government has escaped it so far, now the National Reform party seeks by the subversion of the Constitution to inflict it upon this great Nation. {AMS October 1886, p. 75.3}

Whenever the civil power steps between a man and God and proposes to regulate just what shall be rendered to God and just how it shall be rendered, then Cesar is entirely out of his place. George Washington was a man for whose opinions we suppose there is yet remaining some respect on the part of Americans, and he said:— {AMS October 1886, p. 75.4}

“I have often expressed my opinion, that every man who conducts himself as a good citizen is accountable alone to God for his religious faith, and should be protected in worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience.” {AMS October 1886, p. 75.5}

We say again, that in the words, “Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s; and unto God the things which are God’s,” Matthew 22:21, Christ separated forever the civil from the religious power. And the National Reform party in its endeavor to join them, clearly sets itself against the word of Christ. {AMS October 1886, p. 75.6}

But the National Reform idea of the work of the gospel is as crude as its idea of the relation of the civil and the religious power. Mrs. Woodbridge says further:— {AMS October 1886, p. 75.7}

“An amendment to the National Constitution requires the endorsement of two-thirds of the States, to become law. Although the action must be taken by State Legislative bodies, let such an amendment be submitted, and it would become the paramount issue at the election of legislators, and thus God would be in the thought, and his name upon the lip of every man. May not this be the way opened to us? How to bring the gospel of Christ to the masses, has been, and is, the vexing problem of the church. Would not the problem be solved? ... In considering the submission of such an amendment, we may use the very argument used by Moses, in his song containing these words of Jehovah, ‘For it is not a vain thing for you; because it is your life: and through this thing ye shall prolong your days in the land.’ How prayerfulness would be stimulated! Conscience would press the words, ‘If the Lord be God, follow him, but if Baal, then follow him.’ Then would there be searchings of heart, as David’s, of which we learn in the fifty-first Psalm. Prayer would bring faith and the power of the Spirit: and when such power shall rest upon the children of God, there will be added to the church daily such as shall be saved.” {AMS October 1886, p. 75.8}

Oh yes! to be sure! What a most excellent method of bringing the gospel (?) to the masses! Most assuredly the problem would be solved. This scheme has been tried, and the problem solved, before, and in much the same way. By making the subject of the Trinitarian controversy a national and governmental issue the name of God and of Christ was “upon every lip,” clubs, stones, or military weapons, in the hands, and murder in the heart, of every man. Thus the gospel was brought to the masses, and so there was added to the church daily such as should be——. Especially in the city of Rome, by this means, the masses became so devout, that in the most exciting and decisive moment of a horse-race, the whole multitude in the vast circus could in an instant turn their minds to the gospel (?) and shout “One God, One Christ, One Bishop.” And, by the way, the women were among the leaders, and were the main help in bringing about this triumph of the gospel among the masses at a horse-race in the Roman circus. Thus, in that age, was the gospel brought to the masses; thus, then, was the problem solved. And “history repeats itself,” even to the part the women play in the political project of bringing the gospel to the masses.—See Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, chap. 21, par. 35. {AMS October 1886, p. 75.9}

But the illustrations are hardly needed to show how entirely foreign to the gospel of Christ are such propositions and such arguments as we here present from the Chautauqua National Reform Speech. {AMS October 1886, p. 75.10}

Such stuff needs but to be read to be condemned utterly by every one who has any respect for the gospel or for its Author. But if the reading of this is not enough to condemn both it and the cause in behalf of which it must be used, then we shall insert just one more sentence from the very midst of whence these are copied. Immediately following the words, “Would not the problem be solved?” are these:— {AMS October 1886, p. 75.11}

“Yea, Christ would then be lifted up, even as the serpent in the wilderness, and would we not have right to claim the fulfillment of the promise, that ‘He will draw all men unto himself?’” {AMS October 1886, p. 75.12}

To think of a political campaign managed by ambitious clerics, political hypocrites, ward politicians, and city bosses, and call that bringing the gospel of Christ to the masses, and the means of adding to the church daily such as shall be saved, is certainly a conception of the gospel of Christ which is degrading enough in all conscience. But when to cap such a conception, it is avowed that such would be the lifting up of Christ, even as the serpent in the wilderness, and the fulfillment of the promise that he will draw all men unto him, the whole idea becomes one that is vastly nearer to open blasphemy than it is to the proper conception of the gospel of Christ. But such, and of such, is the gospel of National Reform. {AMS October 1886, p. 75.13}

A. T. J.

June 1, 2012

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nwa/dyer.html

Mary Dyer

Quaker martyr, Mary Barrett Dyer left little record of her early life, which may have led to a much bally-hooed and totally unfounded speculation that she was the estranged daughter of Lady Arabella Stuart by her secret marriage with her cousin, Sir William Seymour. (Click here for a recap of this "legend.")

Mary DyerIn St. Martin-in-the-Fields, London, on 27 October 1633, Mary married William Dyer, a milliner in the New Exchange, a member of the Fishmongers' Company, and a Puritan. Mary's maiden name was recorded as "Barrett" in the parish record (NEHGR Vol. 94, p. 300, July 1940). In late 1634 or early 1635, the Dyers emigrated to Massachusetts where, on December 13, 1635, they were admitted to the Boston church. They were numbered among the intelligent citizens, being above reproach and above the average in education and culture. Mary's detractors and defenders alike describe her as "fair" and "comely." William became a freeman of the Massachusetts Bay Colony on 3 March 1635/6 and he held many positions of public importance. In 1638 he was elected clerk, and on 14 Dec 1635 and 16 Jan 1637/8 William was granted land at Rumney Marsh (Chelsea, MA).

William and Mary were open supporters of Anne (Marbury) Hutchinson and the Rev. John Wheelwright during the Antinomian controversy. Mary and Anne were friends, and when Mary went into premature labor on October 17, 1637, Anne, an experienced midwife, was called to her side. After hours of agonizing labor, Mary's body gave forth a stillborn daughter. The child was badly deformed. Also present at the stillbirth were the midwife Jane Hawkins, and at least one other unnamed woman, who was reputed to be the source of the information later spread about the monstrous birth that, one observer later wrote, was "whispered by s[ome] women in private to some others (as many of that sex as[semble] in such a strang business)." William Dyer and Anne agreed that the birth must remain a secret, knowing that the unfortunate birth could play into the hands of the Boston magistrates. Mary herself could be personally blamed for the malformed baby.

While English law permitted a midwife to bury a child in private, a midwife could not lawfully deliver or bury a child in secret. Anne Hutchinson immediately sought the counsel of Rev. John Cotton about whether the stillbirth should be publicly recorded. Although he had betrayed her politically, Anne felt she could count on him in this crisis. Cotton, with a flash of nonconformity, dismissed the ancient folk wisdom that held that infant death was conspicuous punishment for the parents' sins and advised her to ignore the law and to bury the deformed fetus in secret.

Acting on this special dispensation, Jane Hawkins and Anne buried the stillborn child - exactly as they had always done in old England where custom-imbedded law dictated to the midwife: "If any child be dead born, you yourself shall see it buried in such secret place as neither hog nor dog, nor any other beast may come unto it, and in such sort done, as it may not be found or perceived, as much as you may." The birth and burial remained a secret for five months.

Gov. John WinthropIn November, 1637, William was disenfranchised and disarmed along with dozens of other followers of Anne Hutchinson. On March 22, 1638, when Anne Hutchinson was excommunicated from the church and withdrew from the assemblage, Mary Dyer rose and accompanied her out of the church. As the two women left, there were several women hanging around outside the church and one was heard to ask, "Who is that woman accompanying Anne Hutchinson?" Another voice answered loud enough to be heard inside the church, "She is the mother of a monster!" Governor Winthrop heard this and was excitedly questioned Cotton, who broke down and confessed that "God, Cotton and Anne Hutchinson" had buried a deformed child five months ago. Although the child had been buried "too deep for dog or hog," it was not too deep for Winthrop who ordered it exhumed. Winthrop and the clergymen who examined it showed an inordinate interest in the physical characteristics of the "monster." According to John Winthrop's Journal, Mary Dyer, who was "notoriously infected with Mrs Hutchinson's errors," was divinely punished for this sinful heresy by being delivered of a stillborn "monster." Winthrop included gruesome, detailed descriptions in his journal and in letters sent to correspondents in England and New England:

It was a woman child, stillborn, about two months before the just time, having life a few hours before; it came hiplings [breach birth] till she turned it; it was of ordinary bigness; it had a face, but no head, and the ears stood upon the shoulders and were like an ape's; it had no forehead, but over the eyes four horns, hard and sharp, two of them were above one inch long, the other two shorter; the eyes standing out, and the mouth also; the nose hooked upward all over the breast and back, full of sharp pricks and scales, like a thornback; the navel and all the belly, with the distinction of the sex, were where the back should be; and the back and hips before, where the belly should have been; behind, between the shoulders, it had two mouths, and in each of them a piece of red flesh sticking out; it had arms and legs as other children; but, instead of toes, it had on each foot three claws, like a young fowl, with sharp talons.

Excommunicated and banished in their turn, the Dyers followed Anne Hutchinson to Rhode Island where William became one of the founders of Portsmouth. On 7 March 1638 he was one of the eighteen who signed the companct and he was elected Clerk. The Dyers ultimately settled in Newport where by 19 March 1640 William had acquired 87 acres of land. He served as Secretary for the towns of Portsmouth and Newport from 1640-47; General Recorder 1647; Attorney General 1650-1653.

In 1652 William and Mary Dyer accompanied Roger Williams and John Clarke on a political mission to England. Mary remained for five years, becoming a follower of George Fox, founder of the Society of Friends, whose doctrine of the Inner Light was not unlike Mrs. Hutchinson's "Antinomianism."

Mary's return to New England in 1657 was ill-timed. John Endicott had succeeded John Winthrop as Governor in 1649 and he was far more intolerant of religious dissention. He feared that if he permitted the Quakers to express their views in Massachusetts Bay Colony, the whole structure of the Church-State partnership might collapse.

Mary Fisher and Ann Austin were the first Quakers to arrive in Boston. No sooner did they disembark than they were led to the Boston jail for three weeks before being sent back to England. On August 9, 1656, the port authorities were alerted to search the Speedwell as it entered Boston Harbor before anyone landed. The passenger list had "Q's" beside the names of four men and four women, and Endicott ordered these eight brought directly to Boston court. Christopher Holder and John Copeland led the group and they dumbfounded Endicott and the local ministers with their familiarity with the Bible. More irritating to Endicott was Christopher Holder's knowledge of the law. When they were marched off to jail, Holder and Copeland made immediate demands for their release, stating that there was no law that justified their imprisonment.

Governor Endicott knew this was true. There was nothing in the Massachusetts Bay Colony Charter which permitted the imprisonment of anyone merely on grounds of their religious beliefs, and so he devised a tactic to get rid of the Quakers. The Massachusetts General Court met in mid-October of 1656 and 1657 and succeeded in passing several laws against "the cursed sect of heretics ... commonly called Quakers" which permitted banishing, whipping, and using corporal punishment (cutting off ears, boring holes in tongues). On October 14, 1656 the Court ordered:

That what master or commander of any ship, barke, pinnace, catch, or any other vessel that shall henceforth bring into any harbor, creeks, or cove without jurisdiction any known Quaker or Quakers, or any other blasphemous heretics shall pay ... the fine of 100 pounds ... [and] they must be brought back from where they came or go to prison.

Gov. John EndicottAfter trying to cover all the loopholes in any possible entry to Boston, the Court addressed what it would do with anyone who persisted successfully. It was decided that such a person should go to the House of Correction and be severly whipped, kept constantly at work, and not allowed to speak to anyone. They set up certain fines: 54 pounds for having any Quaker books or writing "concerning their devilish opinions," 40 pounds for defending any Quaker of their books, 44 pounds for a second offence, and the "House of Corection for a third offence ... until there be a convenient passage for them to be sent out of this land." These laws were read on the street corners of Boston with the beat of drums for emphasis.

Christopher Holder and John Copeland sat in their cells where they could hear the rattling of the drums and realized they were going to have to leave on the next available ship departing for England.

June 1, 2012

Mary Dyer and Anne Burden, unaware of the new laws, arrived on the third ship and were at once arrested. Despite their protests, they were kept in jail incommunicado in darkened cells with boarded up windows. Mary's books and Quaker papers were confiscated and burned. Mary finally was able to slip a letter out through a crack to someone outside the jail, but it took a long time to reach William Dyer in Newport.

Two and a half months later, Governor Endicott was startled when William Dyer barged into his home, demanding that his wife should be freed immediately. While Endicott knew that William had been disenfranchised by Boston, he was still highly respected by the Boston authorities for his prominent position in Rhode Island. They would have to free Mary Dyer because of William's prestige, but only on a condition. William was put under a heavy bond and made to "give his honor" that if his wife was allowed to return home, he was "not to lodge her in any town of the colony nor to permit any to have speech with her on the journey." Under no condition should Mary ever return to Massachusetts.

How galling for Mary to be silenced like a misbehaving child as she returned to her home! Back in Rhode Island, Mary became a prominent Quaker minister, traveling over the new country. Preaching "inner light," Mary rejected oaths of any kind, taught that sex was no determinant for gifts of prophecy, and contended that women and men stood on equal ground in church worship and organization. In 1658 she was expelled from New Haven for preaching.

Meanwhile, Christopher Holder and the seven other banished Quakers had returned to England. Christopher wasted no time in getting in touch with George Fox in order to secure a ship for a return trip to New England. While Mary was being rebuked in New Haven, Christopher Holder and John Copeland were being ordered to leave Martha's Vineyard. Hiding in the sand dunes for several days, they met up with friendly Indians who volunteered to help them cross over to Massachusetts.

They landed in Sandwich where they found a community of people unsettled in their religious affiliations and had who had just lost their minister. Holder and Copeland were received with enthusiasm by about eighteen families who were ready to become Quakers. Finding a beautiful dell by a quiet stream in the woods, they called their enchanted hideaway "Christopher's Hollow," a name which has remained with the place. A circle of Friends gathered together and sat on a circle of stones to share their religious convictions. It was the first real Friends meeting in America, and the start of regular meetings.

Happy with this success, Holder and Copeland moved from Sandwich to Duxbury, from town to town in Massachusetts, leaving fifteen converted Quaker "ministers" in their wake. Eventually, Governor Endicott got wind of their activities and alerted scouts throughout New England to arrest them, but they remained free until they walked into Salem, Endicott's home town.

When Holder arrived at the Salem Congregational Church, he listened to the sermon of the day, then arose from the rear of the church to challenge what had been said and present Quaker alternatives. One of Endicott's men seized Holder, hurled him bodily to the floor of the church and stuffed a leather glove and handkerchief down his throat. Holder turned blue, gagged, and gasped for life. He was close to death when Samuel Shattuck, a member of the congregation, pushed Endicott's man aside and retrieved the glove and handkerchief from Holder's throat and worked hard to resuscitate him. A lifelong friendship between Shattuck and Holder started at that moment.

Holder, Copeland and Shattuck were all taken to Boston prison. Shattuck was freed by paying a 20 shilling bond. Holder and Copeland were brought before Endicott who ordered that each should have thirty lashes. After several months, they were released from prison, but were soon to return.

On April 15, 1658, Holder and Copeland returned to Cape Code. Despite a joyouse reunion in Sandwich, Endicott's spies arrested them in the middle of a meeting and marched them to Barnstable where they were stipped and bound to the post of an outhouse. With the standard three-corded rope, they were each given 33 lashes until the bodies ran with blood. The Friends of Sandwich stood in horr as "ear and eye witnessses" to the cruelty."

After recovering from the scourging, Holder and Copeland returned again to Boston on June 3, 1658 where they were once again arrested. On September 16, 1658 by the order of Governor Endicott, Christopher Holder, a future son-in-law of Richard Scott, had his right ear cut off by the hangman at Boston for the crime of being a Quaker. Richard's wife, Katherine Marbury Scott (Anne Hutchinson's sister), was present, and remonstrating against this barbarity, was thrown into prison for two months, and then publicly flogged ten stripes with a three-corded whip.

On October 19, 1658, the Massachusetts authorities during a stormy session had passed by a single vote a law banishing Quakers under pain of death. In June 1959, Quakers William Robinson of London and Marmaduke Stephenson of Holderness, now in Rhode Island, felt a call to enter Massachusetts. They were accompanied by Patience Scott, a young girl who later became a sister-in-law of Christopher Holder, and Nicholas Davis. They were all promptly thrown in jail. Learning of her Friends' incarceration in Boston, Mary Dyer went there in the summer of 1659 to visit them and was herself again imprisoned.

William Dyer wrote a letter to the Massachusetts authorities, dated August 30, 1659, chastising the magistrates for imprisoning his wife without evidence or legal right. "You have done more in persecution in one year than the worst bishops did in seven, and now to add more towards a tender woman," wrote William, "... that gave you no just cause against her for did she come to your meeting to disturb them as you call itt, or did she come to reprehend the magistrates? [she] only came to visit her friends in prison and when dispatching that her intent of returning to her family as she declared in her [statement] the next day to the Governor, therefore it is you that disturbed her, else why was she not let alone." (Click here to read full text of William's letter.)

On September 12, the Quakers were released from prison and banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony under threat of execution should they return. Nicholas Davis and Mary Dyer obeyed, but Robinson and Stephenson felt it their duty to remain and continue their ministry, deteremined to "look [the] bloody laws in the face." Within a month they were again arrested. When it was learned Christopher Holder was again in jail and threatened with further torture, Mary Dyer, Hope Clifton and Mary Scott (future wife of Christopher Holder and Anne Hutchinson's niece) walked through the forest to Boston from Providence to plead for his release and that of others. Mary Dyer was arrested while speaking to Holder through the prison bars.

There was no mistaking the moves of Holder, Robinson, Stephenson and Mary Dyer. They deliberately challenged the legal right of Endicott to carry out the death penalty. Doing what their compatriots were doing in England, they returned to the field as soon as they were released, willing to lay down their lives, if necessary, yet never striking a blow in retaliation. Passive non-resistance and religious appeals constituted the ammunition and weapons of this Colonial Quaker army. They had all been banished with the assurance that if they returned death awaited them.

On October 19 Mary Dyer was brought before the General Court with Robinson and Stephenson. Asked why they had returned in defiance of the law, they replied that "the ground and cause of their coming was of the Lord." When Gov. John Endicott pronounced sentence of death, Mary Dyer replied, "The will of the Lord be done." "Take her away, Marshal," commanded Endicott. "Yea and joyfully I go," responded Mary Dyer.

That week in jail, Mary, William Robinson and Marmaduke Stephenson sat in their cells writing pleas to the General Court to change the laws of banishment upon pain of death. (Click here to read the full text of Mary's letter.)

On October 27, the three Quakers were led through the streets to the gallows with drums beating to prevent them from addressing the people. Robinson and Stephenson were hanged, but Mary Dyer, her arms and legs bound and the noose around her neck, received a prearranged last-minute reprieve as a result of intercession of Gov. John Winthrop, Jr. of Connecticut, Gov. Thomas Temple of Nova Scotia and her son.

Hanging of Mary Dyer

Back in her cell, Mary composed another letter to the General Court, from which comes the inscription on her statue at Boston: "Once more the General Court, Assembled in Boston, speaks Mary Dyar, even as before: My life is not accepted, neither availeth me, in Comparison of the Lives and Liberty of the Truth and Servants of the Living God, for which in the Bowels of Love and Meekness I sought you; yet nevertheless, with wicked Hands have you put two of them to Death, which makes me to feel, that the Mercies of the Wicked is Cruelty." (Click here to read this second letter in its entirety.)

June 1, 2012

On October 18, 1659, William Dyer, Jr.'s petition on behalf of his mother to MA authorities, was thus answered: "Whereas Mary Dyer is condemned by the General Court to be executed for her offence; on the petition of William Dyer, her son, it is ordered the said Mary Dyer shall have liberty for forty-eight hours after this day to depart out of this jurisdiction, after which time being found therein she is to be executed."

Mary returned unwillingly back to Rhode Island. She was accompanied by four horsemen who followed her fifteen miles south of Boston. From there she was left in the custody of one man to escort her back to Rhode Island.

Once home, Mary longed for the companionship of other Quakers. She busied herself across Long Island Sound on Shelter Island where a group of Indians had approached her, asking if she would hold Quaker meetings with them. Although Mary was out of danger in this environment, she was not content. She made it known that she must return to Boston to "desire the repeal of that wicked law against God's people and offer up her life there." In late April, 1660, in obedience to her conscience and in defiance of the law and without telling her husband, she returned once more to Boston.

It took a week for the news to reach William Dyer that Mary had left Shelter Island. Quickly, he wrote again to the magistrates of Boston. (Click here to read William's moving letter.) Governor Endicott received the letter and presented it to the General Court. Too bad if William was having trouble with his wife. She was giving them trouble, too. She had no right to come back and defy their orders. The General Court summoned Mary before them on May 31, 1660.

"Are you the same Mary Dyer that was here before?" Governor Endicott asked her.

"I am the same Mary Dyer that was here at the last General Court," she replied.

"You will own yourself a Quaker, will you not?"

"I am myself to be reproachfully called so," Mary said stiffly.

Governor Endicott said, "The sentence was passed upon you by the General Court and now likewise; you must return to the prison and there remain until tomorrow at nine o'clock; then from thence you must go to the gallows, and there be hanged till you are dead."

Mary Dyer did not flinch. "This is no more than what you said before."

"But now it is to be executed," said Endicott. "Therefore prepare yourself tomorrow at nine o'clock."

"I came in obedience to the will of God to the last General Court desiring you to appeal your unrighteous laws of banishment on pain of death," said Mary, "and that same is my work now, and earnest request, although I told you that if you refused to repeal them, the Lord would send others of his servants to witness against them."

"Are you a prophetess?" asked the Governor.

"I speak the words that the Lord speaks in me and now the thing has come to pass."

Endicott reached his saturation point and, waving to a prison guard, yelled, "Away with her! Away with her!"

At the appointed time on June 1, 1660, Mary was escorted from her prison cell by a band of soldiers to the gallows a mile away. Apprehensive that a gathering crowd might become uncontrollably compassionate, the Magistrates took every precaution to cut off communication between Mary Dyer and her followers. Led through the streets sandwiched between drummers, with a constant rat-a-tat-tat in front and behind her, Mary Dyer walked to her death.

Despite these precautions, some of the followers were able to get close enough to appeal to her to acquiesce in banishment. "Mary Dyer, don't die. Go back to Rhode Island where you might save your life. We beg of you, go back!" "Nay, I cannot go back to Rhode Island, for in obedience to the will of the Lord I came," Mary said, "and in His will I abide faithful to the death."

At the place of execution the drums were quieted and Captain John Webb spoke, trying to justify what was about to happen. "She has been here before and had the sentence of banishment upon pain of death and has broken the law in coming again now," he said. "It is therefore SHE who is guilty of her own blood."

Mary contradicted him. "Nay, I came to keep bloodguiltiness from you, desiring you to repeal the unrighteous and unjust laws of banishment upon pain of death made against the innocent servants of the Lord. Therefore, my blood will be required at your hands who wilfully do it." Mary then turned towards the crowd and continued, "But, for those who do it in the simplicity of their hearts, I desire the Lord to forgive them. I came to do the will of my father, and in obedience to this will I stand even to death."

Pastor Wilson cried, "Mary Dyer, O repent, O repent, and be not so delued and carried away by the deceit of the devil." Mary looked directly at him and said, "Nay, man, I am not now to repent."

John Norton stepped forward and asked, "Would you have the elders pray for you?" Mary responded, "I desire the prayer of all the people of God." A voice from the crowd called out, "It may be that she thinks there is none here." John Norton pleaded, "Are you sure you dont' want one of the elders to pray for you?" Mary answered, "Nah, first a child, then a young man, then a strong man, before an elder in Christ Jesus."

Someone from the crowd called out, "Did you say you have been in Paradise?" Mary answered, "Yea, I have been in Paradise several days and now I am about to enter eternal happiness."

Captain John Webb signalled to Edward Wanton, officer of the gallows, who adjusted the noose. Mary needed no assistance in mounting the scaffold and a small smile lighted her face. Pastor Wilson had his large handkerchief ready to place over her head so no one would have to see that look of rapture twisted to distortion - only the dangling body. As her neck snapped, the crowd stood paralyzed in the silence of death until a spring breeze lifted her limp skirt and set it to billowing. "She hangs there as a flag for others to take example by," remarked an unsympathetic bystander. That was indeed Mary Dyer's intention - to be an example, a "witness" in the Quaker sense, for freedom of conscience.

Despite all the frantic attempts of the Boston magistrates to rid themselves of the challenging Quakers, they failed. Mary's death came gradually to be considered a martyrdom even in Massachusetts, where it hastened the easing of anti-Quaker statutes. In 1959 by authority of the Massachusetts General Court, which had condemned her nearly 300 years before, a bronze statue was erected in her memory on the grounds of the State House in Boston. A statue of her friend, Anne Hutchinson, stands in front at the other wing. The words of my 9th great grandmother, Mary Barrett Dyer, written from her cell of the Boston jail are engraved beneath:

My Life not Availeth Me

In Comparison to the

Liberty of the Truth

Sources:

Austin, John Osborn. Genealogical Dictionary of Rhode Island; Comprising Three Generations of Settlers Who Came Before 1690. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., Reprint, 1995.

Boorstin, Daniel J. The Americans: The Colonial Experience. New York: Vintage Books, a Division of Random House, 1964.

Hollowell, Richard. The Quaker Invasion of Massachusetts. Maryland: Heritage Books, Reprint 1987.

Norton, Mary Beth. Founding Mothers & Fathers: Gendered Power and the Forming of American Society. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996.

Moriarty, G. Andrews, A.M., LLB., F.A.S.G., F.S.A. "The True Story of Mary Dyer," The New England Historical and Genealogical Register 104, (January, 1950): 40-42.

Plimpton, Ruth. Mary Dyer: Biography of a Rebel Quaker. Boston: Branden Publishing Company, Inc., 1994.

Williams, Selma R. Demeter's Daughters: The Women Who Founded America, 1587-1787. New York: Atheneum, 1976.

Williams, Selma R. Divine Rebel: The Life of Anne Marbury Hutchinson. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1981.

Winsser, Johan "Mary (Dyre) Ward: Mary (Barrett) Dyre's Missing Daughter Traced," The New England Historical and Genealogical Register 145, (January, 1991): 22-28.

Further Reading: (Available at Amazon.com)

Mary Dyer: Biography of a Rebel Quaker

The Antinomian Controversy, 1636 - 1638: A Documentary History

Daughters of Light: Quaker Women Preacher and Prophesying in the Colonies and Abroad, 1700-1775

First Among Friends: George Fox and the Creation of Quakerism

June 5, 2012

According to the article. Pope Pius IX said

“The Constitution of the United States guarantees liberty of conscience. Nothing is dearer or more fundamental. Pope Pius IX., in his Encyclical Letter of August 15, 1854, said: ‘The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty of conscience, are a pestilential error—a pest, of all others, most to be dreaded in a State.’ The same Pope, in his encyclical Letter of December 8, 1864, anathematized ‘those who assert the liberty of conscience and of religious worship,’ also ‘all such as maintain that the church may not employ force.’” {AMS December 1886, p. 92.3}

Is this before the Pope's claimed to be infallible or is this view of "liberty of conscience" still held by Catholic church leaders today?

Sign In

The Separation of Church and State

Recommended Posts

teresaq

Naomi

doug yowell

phkrause

teresaq

teresaq

teresaq

teresaq

teresaq

teresaq

teresaq

teresaq

teresaq

olger

teresaq

teresaq

teresaq

teresaq

teresaq

teresaq

teresaq

teresaq

teresaq

teresaq

Mario-One

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity