Ok, so this guy was preaching at the Liberty Bell. I don't know who he is, or what he was preaching (a little study could answer that question). I only know what the report in World Net Daily gave. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67190 There's a You Tube included in the report.
This made me think, again, about 'freedom of speech.' What does it mean, really? What did it mean in previous generations? And, once again, I find that it relates directly to LOC. Can I speak whatever I want, wherever I want to speak it? What restrictions, if any, are to be put on what the individual speaks, and who is to put those restrictions in place?
Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks...
Matthew 12 says that we'll be held accountable for every careless word...Oh! So God is the one who holds us accountable...but does man also have a position of holding us accountable? Does the government?
As a matter of conscience, sometimes I must remain silent (wish I could get that one figured out!) and sometimes I must speak up. Well, ok, I don't always figure this one out either. To speak, or not to speak, that is the question...! The Bible is clear on some of it. And we must dig deeper to find the principles that lay the foundation for all of speech.
But, again, who is responsible for the regulation of speech? I submit that it is NOT the government. The purpose of government is to protect the God-given rights we have of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It's actually not that broad of a responsibility. It doesn't cover every little action of the individual, but ONLY those that violate the liberty of others. So the government has the position of stepping in when there is a violation, and the people cannot manage the resolution of the issue. (And what's wrong with us if we can't agree to disagree or if we won't treat others with respect, I ask you!?) There is a judicial branch for that...
So who, then? In order to answer that question, we must have an understanding of personal responsibility. One of the main reasons we have a law for every little thing is because we are abdicating our responsibilities. Who is responsible for what I say? Me! If I lie about someone, or assassinate their character by my speech, then I must answer for it and make restitution. If I speak out of turn or speak without thinking, I must make amends for that. Kind of makes me want to be careful what I write.
Here's another question: When my children come to me and say "So-and-So said...!" should I step in and drop a hammer on the problem? Hm. We teach our children about the role of authorities by how we respond. I hate to second guess every action I take in parenting. I think there is cause here for examining it before it happens.
In LOC, we can, perhaps, conclude very simply regarding the issue of freedom of speech by this: "Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial." And I could add Eph. 4:29 and suggest that we post that on the wall somewhere in our homes. If everyone followed these principles, freedom of speech would not require so much legislation.
Did I just say that the Bible is the best foundation for understanding freedom of speech? I guess I did!
Monday, June 16, 2008
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Continuation of LOC
Just to let you know, I'll continue this blog - it is part of our project of writing a book. If you have feedback, I'm interested.
Instantly Swayed
So we studied 1 John 5:4-12 today.
One of the main points that came out of this passage is the idea that we trust the testimony of eye witnesses. If someone was there, we tend to trust their description of the event. Consider a car accident. If I only heard it, but someone else saw it, the one who saw it might be called to testify. But not me, necessarily. My testimony will carry less weight.
The Gospels are an eyewitness account of Christ's life, teaching, death and resurrection. Differences in the testimony can be attributed to viewpoint, such as the fact that Luke was a doctor. John was one of Jesus' best friends.
When considering who Jesus is, the recent movie, The DaVinci Code, made some pretty serious statements about who Jesus was and what kind of character he had. It amazes me that some will jump on this band wagon and believe the testimony of an interpretation of art over the testimony of those who were there.
It also stands to reason that the eyewitness accounts of America's founding are a more trustworthy source for accurate information than recent texts. An example of this is the Boston Tea Party. Many texts will report the event as a mob, a riot, an unruly bunch of hooligans. But if you look at the eyewitness accounts, which are easily found on the web and have sources provided, these recent texts are the opposite of the eye witness accounts.
How many of these newer accounts have been rewritten to teach an opposite viewpoint of the actual event? And what has this done to our understanding of our founding? What has it done to our understanding of God?
Many of us who teach the Principle Approach use source documents to establish the truth of an event. If I could use a megaphone on this blog I would shout out the necessity of taking this action. How can we know the truth that will set us free if we cannot find the truth?
Scripture tells us that, in the last days, we would be 'ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.' Taking the testimony of men over the testimony of God is one reason this is true - now. Taking the testimony of men who were not eyewitnesses is another reason. How many of us, Christians!, will accept every 'wind of doctrine' that comes along and allow ourselves to be swayed? How many times have I done it? I shutter to think. How can we be light and salt, if this is true? The early believers 'turned the world upside down' because they SAW it - they touched Him, they listened to Him, they watched Him.
Liberty of conscience addresses this issue quite clearly. We are free to operate according to conscience - the determination of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action or choice. That being the case, we can believe what we will. But isn't it better to trust the testimony of eye witnesses? How can our conscience properly lead us if it is deceived?
Take care, believers! Guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus, so that you will not be 'instantly swayed' by words that simply 'sound right.'
One of the main points that came out of this passage is the idea that we trust the testimony of eye witnesses. If someone was there, we tend to trust their description of the event. Consider a car accident. If I only heard it, but someone else saw it, the one who saw it might be called to testify. But not me, necessarily. My testimony will carry less weight.
The Gospels are an eyewitness account of Christ's life, teaching, death and resurrection. Differences in the testimony can be attributed to viewpoint, such as the fact that Luke was a doctor. John was one of Jesus' best friends.
When considering who Jesus is, the recent movie, The DaVinci Code, made some pretty serious statements about who Jesus was and what kind of character he had. It amazes me that some will jump on this band wagon and believe the testimony of an interpretation of art over the testimony of those who were there.
It also stands to reason that the eyewitness accounts of America's founding are a more trustworthy source for accurate information than recent texts. An example of this is the Boston Tea Party. Many texts will report the event as a mob, a riot, an unruly bunch of hooligans. But if you look at the eyewitness accounts, which are easily found on the web and have sources provided, these recent texts are the opposite of the eye witness accounts.
How many of these newer accounts have been rewritten to teach an opposite viewpoint of the actual event? And what has this done to our understanding of our founding? What has it done to our understanding of God?
Many of us who teach the Principle Approach use source documents to establish the truth of an event. If I could use a megaphone on this blog I would shout out the necessity of taking this action. How can we know the truth that will set us free if we cannot find the truth?
Scripture tells us that, in the last days, we would be 'ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.' Taking the testimony of men over the testimony of God is one reason this is true - now. Taking the testimony of men who were not eyewitnesses is another reason. How many of us, Christians!, will accept every 'wind of doctrine' that comes along and allow ourselves to be swayed? How many times have I done it? I shutter to think. How can we be light and salt, if this is true? The early believers 'turned the world upside down' because they SAW it - they touched Him, they listened to Him, they watched Him.
Liberty of conscience addresses this issue quite clearly. We are free to operate according to conscience - the determination of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action or choice. That being the case, we can believe what we will. But isn't it better to trust the testimony of eye witnesses? How can our conscience properly lead us if it is deceived?
Take care, believers! Guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus, so that you will not be 'instantly swayed' by words that simply 'sound right.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
