His name’s John Locke.

Born 1632, died 1704. English physician and political theorist. One of the most prominent thinkers of the Enlightenment.

America’s Founding Fathers, people like Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, cribbed heavily from Locke’s work when they were building the moral and philosophical basis for the United States of America and writing the Declaration of Independence and The Federalist Papers and the Constitution and whatnot. And so did the 1st United States Congress when they were ratifying the Bill of Rights.

Locke wrote extensively on the topics of natural rights, the balance of power, and the origin and purpose of government. His liberal ideas were used as building blocks by America’s Founding Fathers to craft their new nation—the freest, purest, and most just republic the world had ever seen.

How did Locke come into these revolutionary ideas?

He built upon the work of philosophers who had gone before him, of course. Hobbes and Machiavelli and the like.

But in addition, some interesting things happened during Locke’s lifetime.

One of these was the English Civil War (1642–1651).

This was a war between the king of England (Charles I) and his royalist supporters (“Cavaliers”) vs. the English Parliament and their supporters (“Roundheads”). Charlie wasn’t a very good king, you see, and Parliament became unhappy with his repeated abuses of his royal powers.

Back in those days, Parliament didn’t really have the powers it has now. It was basically a cabinet the king convened at his sole discretion. But it did have the power to levy taxes, which came in handy for a total spendthrift like Charles I.

But anyway, Charlie got to feeling a bit too free and easy for Parliament’s liking. He went and married a French (and Roman Catholic) princess named Henrietta Maria in 1625. Then Charles decided to send an expeditionary force to France to relieve the French Huguenots besieged at La Rochelle in 1627. Parliament began to breathe easy—despite marrying a Catholic, the king was showing support for the Protestant Huguenots. Then Charles went and ruined everything by giving command of the expedition to the hugely unpopular Duke of Buckingham. The expedition was a complete shambles. Parliament opened impeachment procedures against Buckingham. King Charles responded by dissolving Parliament—which was the king’s prerogative at the time.

But now Charlie was in a bind—Parliament was the only way he could raise taxes to support his extravagant lifestyle. So he went ahead and convened a new Parliament. This new bunch (which included Oliver Cromwell) drew up a Petition of Right, which was basically a list of rights the king was forbidden from infringing upon.

Sound familiar, my fellow Americans?

Parliament submitted the Petition of Right for Charles’ approval. Charles approved it, but only so Parliament would give him his royal subsidy. Then he dissolved Parliament.

Charles avoided calling a Parliament for the next eleven years. He practically bent over backward to make sure he didn’t have to reconvene it, in fact. He went so far as to make peace with France and Spain so he wouldn’t have an expensive war on his hands. He also resorted to some fairly tricky means to raise money for himself. He started fining people who failed to show up at his coronation and receive a knighthood. “Ship money” was a tax traditionally levied against English citizens in coastal districts, and which funded the Royal Navy’s anti-piracy efforts. Charles started charging inland English counties for anti-piracy and anti-privateering measures. Naturally, this illegal and arbitrary tax made a lot of people angry, and some of them refused to pay it.

Once again, my fellow Americans—doesn’t this sound familiar?

For these and various other reasons, those eleven Parliament-less years were called “the personal rule of Charles I” or more bluntly, the “Eleven Years’ Tyranny.”

An emergency in Scotland caused Charles to reconvene Parliament in 1640. A majority of this new body decided to use Charles I’s desperate need for money against him. They pressured him to redress Parliament’s grievances against him and to abandon the war in Scotland. Charles, outraged, again dissolved Parliament. It had lasted only a few weeks. It came to be known as “the Short Parliament.”

Without Parliament’s approval, Charles I attacked Scotland. He suffered an embarrassing defeat. The Scots turned right around and invaded England, eventually occupying almost the entire northern region. Charles was soon forced to pay the Scots £850 a day to keep them from advancing further.

Well, this put Charles back in desperate financial straits, so he had no choice but to reconvene Parliament. As you may imagine, this new Parliament—the Long Parliament, as it came to be known—was even more hostile to him than the Short Parliament had been. And this time, they really had him over a barrel. They forced the king to agree to all kinds of demands. A raft of new laws was passed. Henceforth, Parliament would convene at least once every three years—whether or not the king had summoned them. The king could no longer impose taxes without Parliament’s express consent. Parliament could now review and censure the conduct of the king’s ministers. Oh, and here’s the kicker: the king could no longer dissolve Parliament without its consent, even after the three years were up.

My fellow Americans, does this sound familiar yet? (I’ll give you a hint: the phrase “checks and balances” should be running through your head right about now.)

Anyway, tensions between Charles I and Parliament eventually reached their breaking point. Charles resented all the concessions he’d been forced to make to Parliament, and the Long Parliament suspected Charles of wanting to shut Parliament down and rule by military force. (They were also worried that he wanted to reintroduce Catholicism—okay, more like episcopalian Anglicanism, but close enough—to England.)

So the English Civil War broke out.

The outcome was pretty interesting. The Parliamentarians won. King Charles was put on trial and executed and his son Charles II exiled. England ceased to be a monarchy and became the Commonwealth of England, and then the Protectorate (ruled over by Cromwell as “Lord Protector”—essentially a military dictator). Then, finally, the monarchy was restored in 1660 when Charles II returned from exile. But it was restored only with Parliament’s consent. Constitutionally, a new day had dawned for England. Monarchs could only rule if Parliament gave them the green light. Britain was now on course to become the constitutional monarchy it is today.

The English Civil War, its causes, and its outcome were all extremely interesting to John Locke, that gaunt and mournful-looking fellow whose picture you may have seen (hopefully) in history books.

Locke’s most influential work, perhaps, was his First and Second Treatise of Civil Government. The treatises were written in 1689, in defense of the Glorious Revolution the year prior, during which Mary II and her Dutch husband William of Orange deposed Mary’s father King James II and VII of England, Scotland, and Ireland (that’s, uh, just one guy, by the way—yeah, I know it’s confusing). William and Mary then turned right around and accepted Parliament’s invitation to become joint sovereigns of England and gave their royal assent to the English Bill of Rights, which finally established the authority of Parliament over the Crown.

(If you’ve ever wondered why Queen Elizabeth II doesn’t actually rule the United Kingdom, and Parliament and the prime minister are the ones who make all the important decisions, the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution are the reasons.)

Contained within the English Bill of Rights were a couple of things that Americans might find hauntingly familiar—the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, the banning of taxation without Parliament’s assent (taxation without representation, in other words), and the right of Protestants to keep and bear arms for their defense.

You’re beginning to see where I’m going with this, aren’t you?

In his defense of the Glorious Revolution, John Locke philosophized that men and women, back in the savage days, had the anarchistic freedom to pursue their own interests, which resulted in violent and brutal warfare. To put a stop to this chaos and protect people’s inalienable rights, governments were established to keep the peace. This peace was maintained by laws. This principle is something Locke referred to as the “social compact”—governments are established by mutual agreement of individuals for the purposes of protection and the security of their individual liberty.

The so-called first principle of the social compact is this: since governments are instituted by the people, governments necessarily derive their power from the consent of the governed. Since the government’s purpose is to protect people’s inalienable rights, a government has no power beyond what’s necessary to protect those rights. A just government is, therefore, a limited government.

Locke argued that the definition of liberty is freedom from restraint or violence by other people, and this cannot be accomplished without laws. Anarchy repulsed him. But tyranny repulsed him even more. A just government, in Locke’s view, was one with checks and balances—where the legislative branch of government had the power to check the executive, and the people were armed and ready to defend themselves against tyranny from either the legislative or executive branches. Or both.

I’m currently reading a book called The Philosopher’s Handbook (edited by Stanley Rosen). In his introduction to Part One (Social and Political Philosophy), Paul Rahe wrote something about Locke that I found rather interesting. (Emphasis mine.)

Locke was perfectly prepared to acknowledge the horrors of anarchy, but he doubted very much that they so exceeded those of tyranny that human beings could be persuaded to give up the right to organized self-defense. A well-ordered government would include a monarchical executive armed with a prerogative enabling him to execute the laws, defend the realm, and respond to emergencies; it would include a representative assembly empowered to lay taxes, make laws, and examine the conduct of the executive's ministers. But it would rest ultimately on an enlightened citizenry prepared, in the face of executive and legislative abuse, to take up arms in defense of the right to life, liberty, and property.
 
MY FELLOW AMERICANS, DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR YET?

Like I said, America’s Founding Fathers borrowed a lot of Locke’s ideas. They used Locke’s principles of the social compact, consent of the governed, and the right to keep and bear arms to form a near-perfect union—to shape (and philosophically defend) the fledgling United States of America. The Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” It also says that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

And the Second Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution), says “A well‑regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That’s not something the 1st United States Congress pulled out of thin air. It comes straight from Locke.

And at long last, ladies and gentlemen—that is why America “allows the general public to keep guns.” Because the right to keep and bear arms was seen as being necessary to the security of the free state envisioned by John Locke, and early American statesmen, heavily influenced by Locke’s writings and philosophy, saw fit to enshrine the inalienable right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights.

Blessings,
Pastor Danny
 
---------------------------------------------------------
   [i] Various historical printed resources

“If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be one nation gone under.”
– Ronald Reagan
 
President Reagan, and many presidents before him, understood the divine blessing that God had bestowed upon America. This brings to mind two of the most significant words in the Bible, “But God…” We are at a “but God” moment in the history of our country, and unless we humble ourselves and turn to Him, we will perish. (James Dobson).

I want to thank everyone for your great support of the tent revival in Stanley this past week. To lead in a community, one must be present; so proud of you all. Our nation has so many issues facing it just now - we have nowhere to turn - But … to God. Let’s stay connected to God, to our church, and to our community.

Many blessings,
Pastor Danny.

Hello everyone,

Take some time today to view the notes from my sermon from yesterday entitled "What is a Mother?"
You can click the button below to view and download the notes.

Blessings,
Pastor.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on May 2 that Boston’s decision to allow national flags and flags about historic events, causes, and organizations to fly outside its city hall while refusing to raise a Christian flag is an unconstitutional example of government censorship.

The court’s opinion in the case, Shurtleff v. Boston, court file 20-1800, was written by outgoing Justice Stephen Breyer, 83, who is expected to retire and will be replaced by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson when the court’s current term ends. Oral arguments in the case, an appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, came Jan. 18.

Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch each filed a separate opinion concurring in the judgment of the court.

Mat Staver, founder and chairman of public interest law firm Liberty Counsel, weighed in on the court’s latest opinion.

“This 9-0 decision from the Supreme Court strikes a victory for private speech in a public forum,” said Staver, who represented the petitioners in oral arguments.

“This case is so much more significant than a flag. Boston openly discriminated against viewpoints it disfavored when it opened the flagpoles to all applicants and then excluded Christian viewpoints. Government cannot censor religious viewpoints under the guise of government speech,” he said in a statement provided to The Epoch Times.

Petitioner Harold Shurtleff runs Camp Constitution, which offers classes and workshops on U.S. history and the Constitution. Camp Constitution, also a petitioner, was formed “to enhance understanding of the country’s Judeo-Christian heritage, the American heritage of courage and ingenuity, the genius of the United States Constitution, and free enterprise,” according to the petition filed with the court.

Three flagpoles adorn Boston City Hall’s entrance. Atop one flies the U.S. flag, and below it is a flag honoring missing soldiers and prisoners of war. The Massachusetts flag is on a second flagpole. A third flagpole usually flies Boston’s flag, but sometimes flags are hoisted to honor or commemorate causes, individuals, historic events, and foreign countries such as the People’s Republic of China or Turkey. Sometimes, the tertiary staff hosts flags about military battles, victims of crime, or the LGBT community.

But in 2017, Boston refused to let Camp Constitution display a flag containing a Christian cross, claiming it would be a constitutionally impermissible endorsement of Christianity by the city. The petition states that Boston official Gregory Rooney told the group the city “maintains a policy and practice of respectfully refraining from flying non-secular flags.”

Rooney said the policy was created out of concern for “the so-called separation of church and state or the Constitution’s establishment clause.” He worried that the Camp Constitution flag “was promoting a specific religion” and “didn’t think that it was in the city’s best interest to necessarily have that flag flying above City Hall.”

In the high court’s opinion, Justice Breyer wrote that when the government “encourages diverse expression—say, by creating a forum for debate—the First Amendment prevents it from discriminating against speakers based on their viewpoint.”

“But when the government speaks for itself, the First Amendment does not demand airtime for all views.”

“The line between a forum for private expression and the government’s own speech is important, but not always clear. This case concerns a flagpole outside Boston City Hall. For years, Boston has allowed private groups to request use of the flagpole to raise flags of their choosing. As part of this program, Boston approved hundreds of requests to raise dozens of different flags. The city did not deny a single request to raise a flag until, in 2017, Harold Shurtleff, the director of a group called Camp Constitution, asked to fly a Christian flag. Boston refused.”

Boston even conceded that it denied Shurtleff’s request “solely because the Christian flag he asked to raise promot[ed] a specific religion,” Breyer wrote.

“Under our precedents, and in view of our government-speech holding here, that refusal discriminated based on religious viewpoint and violated the Free Speech Clause.”

The Supreme Court concluded that “on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech. That means, in turn, that Boston’s refusal to let Shurtleff and Camp Constitution raise their flag based on its religious viewpoint ‘abridg[ed]’ their ‘freedom of speech,’” Breyer wrote, quoting the First Amendment.

Blessings, Pastor.

Hello everyone,

What do you do when the culture seems more and more antagonistic toward our faith, how do you respond?

When we're labeled intolerant or narrow-minded or even dangerous, the way we respond speaks volumes about what we truly believe.

And we've been given both instructions and precedence on living fruitfully in an anti-Christian culture.

That's one reason I encourage you to request your copy of our latest book, How to Bless God by Blessing Others: Words of Wisdom from the Early Church to Christians Today.

We're hardly the first generation to wrestle with what it means to live out our faith and advance God's kingdom in a culture that has little interest in helping us do either.

Whether it was the Christians who lived under the Roman Empire or those who helped to spark an awakening of America's dying relationship with God in the past, the key to their approach was learning to be a blessing to the culture without requiring the culture to bless them in return.

What can we learn from their example? How can we apply their wisdom today? That's the insight, even the blueprint in Dennison’s Book: How To Bless God By Blessing Others

Blessings, Pastor.

In Christianity, Holy Week is the week just before Resurrection Sunday (Easter). This is also the last week of Lent. Technically, Easter Sunday is not included in Holy Week, however, many traditions tend to overlap and run into each other. It begins on Sunday and ends on Saturday.

PALM SUNDAY
Palm Sunday celebrates the Triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem while riding on a donkey. This fulfills the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9

HOLY MONDAY – HOLY WEDNESDAY
While Bible scholars do not completely agree on the exact order of the following events, there is general agreement that these things happened during these days.
~ Anointing of Jesus at Bethany
~ Jesus Cleansing the Temple
~ Various Teachings of Jesus
~ Judas Arranging the Betrayal of Jesus

FIG TUESDAY OR THE DAY OF CONFRONTATION
Fig Tuesday was Christ’s day in Jerusalem talking with the people and the religious leaders. It was a day of confrontation. Christ dealt with for questions that day: first he answered by one authority he did his work; second he answered the question about taxes to Rome; third he dealt with the question of marriage in heaven; and forth he answered what is the greatest commandment. It is called a fig Tuesday because Christ cursed the fig tree on this day because it did not bear fruit.

Betrayal Wednesday
Betrayal Wednesday marks the day that Judas betrayed our Savior to the religious leaders; Jesus remained in Bethany throughout this day.

MAUNDY THURSDAY
Maundy Thursday remembers the celebration of the Passover feast by Jesus and His disciples. This is also the meal where Jesus institutes what we refer to as the Lord’s Supper (or Communion, or the Eucharist).

GOOD FRIDAY
This day remembers the crucifixion and death of our Savior and his burial; it is only Good Friday because it was the day that marked our redemption through Christ’s death on the cross.

HOLY SATURDAY
During the year Jesus was crucified, this was the Sabbath and was observed as such with much grief and questioning of the followers of Jesus.

RESURRECTION SUNDAY
The first day of the Jewish week (and why most Christians now hold church services on Sunday rather than Saturday). The day Jesus rose from the dead.

Blessings, Pastor.

Please take a moment to click the link included with my article this week to you. Prager University said the following this week: “Executives and producers at the Walt Disney Company said during a recent internal meeting that there will be a renewed effort to make leading characters in films and shows gay or transgender, with one talking about how she (Karey Burke, president of Disney General Entertainment Content) has been working to enact a “not-at-all-secret gay agenda” in several programs.” [Zachary Stieber covers U.S. and world news. He is based in Maryland. Prager News]

We are not only in a Cultural War in our day, but we are in a life and death struggle in the Morality War as well for the minds and souls of our children. I feel called of the Lord to inform our church as much as I can about what is going on in our world and what you can do, as Christians, to protect your families and to lead your children in truth and righteousness before the Lord.

Thank you for taking a look at the following article from Denison Forum as you protect your households and lead your families in these dangerous times

Blessings, Pastor.

We are now just a few weeks away from Easter. Our community here in Stanley meets together every Wednesday leading up to Easter to prepare our hearts and ourselves for this most important time. The attendance has been good, the hosting churches have all been gracious, and the Lord has been most faithful. So the question: Why is Easter important?

The answer is simple. Easter is so important because all of Christianity revolves around the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Jesus did not die for our sins, or if Jesus did not rise again after three days, then the entire hope of Christianity is based upon nothing but lies and falsehoods. In short, Christianity would be meaningless as a religion, because our sins would not be forgiven by Christ. If it wasn’t for Easter we would have to continue living as the Jews of old and offering animal sacrifices to the Lord for our sins.

Easter is at the center of our faith. It is just as important for us today as it was 2000 years ago in the early church. It is just as important because it represents the truth that Jesus saved us from our sins by dying and rising again after three days. Remember His birth, Remember His Cross, and especially Remember His Empty Tomb! God bless you as you prepare for Easter.

Blessings, Pastor.

(Endnote: Faith at Work: James Bruyn).