Freedom of Speech...?

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!

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.'

What is Liberty of Conscience? - Part 1

What is Liberty of Conscience?

Well, to begin the study one must understand that God works from internal to external. In 1 Samuel, when David is being selected as king, God tells Samuel not to look on the outward appearance, as man does, but to consider that God looks at the heart.

What does this internal 'look' like? Internal includes all that is unseen in the individual. It is considered primary (most important), as we saw above. It is the cause of what we see externally. Intentions, beliefs, values, motives, mind, soul, spirit, heart...all these and more comprise the internal. This internal is, in fact, your individual property. You own it. You are responsible for it. You can neglect it or your can nurture it. The most valuable aspect of this internal property is your conscience.

What then, is conscience? Most of us probably immediately think of Jimminy Cricket, from Disney's Pinnochio. Let's put away this image for a bit and examine the etymology and definition of this word.

Dictionary.com lists 'conscience' as:


1.
the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.
2.
the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.
3.
an inhibiting sense of what is prudent: I'd eat another piece of pie but my conscience would bother me.

Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the American Language lists 'conscience' as:

1. Internal or self-knowledge, or judgment of right and wrong; or the faculty, power or principle within us, which decides on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of our own actions and affections, and instantly approves or condemns them. Conscience is called by some writers the moral sense, and considered as an original faculty of our nature. Others question the propriety of considering conscience as a distinct faculty or principle. The consider it rather as the general principle of moral approbation or disapprobation, applied to ones own conduct and affections; alledging that our notions of right and wrong are not to be deduced from a single principle or faculty, but from various powers of the understanding and will.
Being convicted by their own conscience, they went out one by one. John 8.
The conscience manifests itself in the feeling of obligation we experience, which precedes, attends and follows our actions.
Conscience is first occupied in ascertaining our duty, before we proceed to action; then in judging of our actions when performed.
2. The estimate or determination of conscience; justice; honesty.
What you require cannot, in conscience, be deferred.
3. Real sentiment; private thought; truth; as, do you in conscience believe the story?

Etymologyonline.com lists 'conscience' as:

c.1225, from O.Fr. conscience, from L. conscientia "knowledge within oneself, a moral sense," prp. of conscire "be mutually aware," from com- "with" + scire "to know." Probably a loan-translation of Gk. syneidesis. Sometimes nativized in O.E./M.E. as inwit. Rus. also uses a loan-translation, so-vest, "conscience," lit. "with-knowledge." Conscientious objector first recorded 1916.

The common thread here is "to know", or "with knowledge", or "moral sense of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action or inaction. It is clear in this that the conscience precedes actions. It sets a path and then judges that path. In Scripture, it is said that all Scripture is...able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart (2 Timothy). Hm...sounds awfully close to the definition of conscience.

That's all for now - more later.