On the 4th of July, we as a nation reflect on what our founding fathers did to provide us with such amazing opportunities and blessings. We honor our struggle for independence and the dangerous step into a war with Britain to earn that independence. 

Our founders may have claimed independence on the 4th of July, but it took them seven years to prove it true. Thankfully, the war's end justified the Declaration of Independence and started America on a course of becoming a history-changing nation. 

We went from a rag-tag group of colonies to completely changing the face of the world permanently in only 150 or so years. 

Some might say we changed the face of the world the day the Declaration of Independence was signed. 

Either way, on this 4th of July, we at Self-Evident would like to give you a few reasons why we have such a passion for not only America, but its history, foundations, and heroes. 

1) We Were Founded on Liberty 

When King George III chose to ignore the colonies’ last attempt at reconciliation, the floodgates of revolution poured through. Deep within the hearts of the colonists sat a yearning for liberty. After 130 years of increasingly oppressive measures from Britain, the colonies felt they had no recourse but to take up arms. 

Our founding fathers felt so passionate about their rights that they pledged their lives to an ideal in public fashion by signing the Declaration of Independence for all the world to see. These men, coming from all walks of life, quaked the earth with the ink of their pens. The nations of the world felt the tremors and watched with bated breath as a small group of colonies set their face against their own crown. 

Throughout all of it, the call of liberty never waned. Despite being outnumbered and impoverished when it came to food, clothing, weapons, ammo, and soldiers, our ancestors dug deeper and continued to pursue the expansive haven of rights that nestled within the victory of independence. They knew that victory meant striking gold in their excavation of liberty, and the bounty offered at victory meant the possibility of true liberty for their children and future generations.  

Thankfully, when it seemed as though our revolution would fail, the French came to our aid and helped bring the long, protracted war to a close. 

Our desire to create a nation founded not just on the gospel but on God-given rights and liberties inspired the world around us. In the coming years, transformation swept through Europe as people attempted to throw off the shackles of their own oppressive regimes.  

While some of those movements were messy, complex, ill-advised, or downright opportunistic, our own desire for liberty showed the true American spirit. Our heritage did something for us that could not be imitated by most other people who attempted to grasp liberty. After all, the wilderness of the American East Coast, tumultuous global politics, and the correct brew of faith and philosophy forged a truly American identity. 

From the beginning of the colonies until the signing of the Declaration of Independence, American individualism found its form in recognizing individual sovereignty. Personal property, inalienable rights given by God, the prosperity of hard work, and deep faith and reliance on God all shaped the American identity. 

We settled and developed the land. We fought the French and Indian War for Britain. We overcame illness, attack, famine, winter, and hardship. We built a thriving nation that became a light on a hill for the rest of the world.

And liberty made it possible. 

2) We Honored God 

John Quincy Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." 

From the various colonial charters and constitutions that named sharing the gospel our main mission to the words of various founders giving God the glory – our ancestors knew that the divine authority deserved honor, worship, and praise.  

Without God, our nation would not have come to be. From the bluster of hurricanes to the rising of rivers, and the falling of fog – God made His presence known in protective miracles for our nation. As Nathaniel Webster once said, “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”  

While we might consider the creation of the Constitution a miracle in itself (which it was), the decades preceding that document are replete with stories of God’s hand guiding our nation. We witnessed men become bullet-proof. Our allies arrived to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. The land itself fought in our favor.  

Truly, the prayers of both the colonists and our founding generation powerfully moved the machinations of heaven. Anybody who takes a moment to look at history cannot deny the powerful miracles God worked on our behalf. 

Accordingly, our founders knew that days of humiliation and prayer not only petitioned God but joined our nation in a single, prayerful purpose. From the beginning of the colonies, the community knew it must approach God for our daily provision and protection. Those who called for days of prayer and humbled themselves before the Lord fully knew His hand was required for the health of our land.  

Benjamin Franklin himself said, “In this situation of this assembly, groping, as it were, in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of Lights to illuminate our understandings? At the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard — and they were graciously answered. All of us, who were engaged in the struggle, must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend?… I have lived, sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men! And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.”  

But faith in the Lord as the builder of our house did not cease with the ratification of the Constitution. Even when we structured our nation and continued to develop it by adding states, each state constitution gave deference to God. Not only this, but many states enshrined the importance and power of the church and religion in their constitutions as well. 

In other words, God rightfully rested in the foundational identity of America as a nation. 

3) Our Founders were True Men 

They were never perfect. Though neither are we.  

Unlike our leaders today, the founders were men of insight, intellect, and wisdom. We may attempt the sad comparison between ourselves and them, but if we dare try, we may find ourselves sorely lacking. The stain of slavery rests heavily upon the shoulders of our founders. Just as the horrific burden of abortion rests upon us in modernity. 

And while we may attempt some self-righteous superiority, the truth is our founders truly understood governance in a way that may be lost forever. They studied the ancient civilizations as they debated and argued what the best possible structure of government would be. The downfalls and possible weaknesses became obvious to them, and yet they continued to debate on how to best ease the pain of those shortcomings in the system they were creating. 

The beautiful blend of separation of powers, checks and balances, protection of liberty, and respect of rights gave rise to imitation constitutions all around the world. The results of their work proved exponential. 

Unfortunately, most don’t see this. The tireless work of our founders truly is underappreciated when we consider what they went through and the effect they left on generations to come. 

We tend to look at America with the magnifying glass of pride and arrogance, but our ancestors were sober and vigilant in their labors. They weighed it out and debated over every word written in the Constitution. They knew – add a word in one place and it could mar the face of the American experiment forever. Take a word out in another place and it could fundamentally shift the American approach to governance. 

These men didn’t just want to become free. They desired to institutionalize liberty and create a boundary around it that might not fail – even knowing it most likely would eventually fail. 

4) We are Truly Unique as a Nation 

We as Self-Evident do not wear rose-colored glasses. We freely recognize how far America has fallen from the inspirational ideas of our founding fathers. However, we do not lose hope. The heart of America is still there, hidden behind the dark assault of the power-hungry and the wicked. We know our nation’s humility before the Lord lies buried beneath a dirt pile of pride but nonetheless sits ready to awaken. And at the end of it all, we as an organization understand that God can walk us through anything and everything.  

Even if the American experiment collapses to the dust and shudders as it exhales its final breath, the people of God will be ready to carry His will. We will walk as ambassadors of the Kingdom of God, no matter whether the borders and government of the nation hold or not. Our earnest prayers are for our nation. But we simply put our faith in God and lean not on our understanding. 

The beauty of America is in its significance on the historical landscape. Much like the words of Solomon, America may only see a season. But it is the American identity, the American spirit that may still live and thrive throughout the darkness.  

As long as the breath of life remains in America’s church, we can rest assured that the deep truth of liberty and rights is encapsulated and preserved for a generation that will unleash them once again. 

Our petitions before the Lord desire that His faithfulness would rest upon our children and our children’s children. We ask Him to give to them the fruits of our sacrifices. We eagerly desire that they would recline beneath the tree of liberty, even if it be nourished by our flesh in a sacrificial gift to secure their blessings for future generations. 

We tell ourselves that if we are in Christ, then we are free. But do we understand what true liberty means? Do we understand that liberty was a gift from God given as a right? 

To show you the development of God-given liberty in Western civilization, I won’t start at the beginning. Instead, we’re going to start with a document that every American should love and cherish. 

The Declaration of Independence 

Our Declaration of Independence makes quite a powerful statement.  

“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. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” 

In other words, our government, put in place by men, derives its justified powers from those same men. More importantly, that government was instituted among men to secure our rights. Not to provide us with welfare. Not to give us safety and comfort. Not to do everything for us. Our founder's most fundamental philosophy about government in America is that government is instituted to protect our rights. However, the government does not give those rights. Their only job is to protect the rights GOD GAVE US! 

Following the truth that our inalienable (non-transferable) RIGHTS come from God and are protected by government is a short list of rights laid out by the founders in the Declaration of Independence. Those vital rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Let’s take a step back and simplify what the preamble means. In summary, it says: 

“There are certain truths that are just ‘duh’ statements.” Those truths include the following: 

1. Men are created equal 
2. God gives men rights that cannot be transferred or stolen 
3. Those rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness 
4. Governments were put there to protect rights. 

This means that it should be a duh thing to all of us that men are equal, God gave all those men certain rights that can’t be taken or transferred, those rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that governments were put in place by men to protect those rights. 

What is the government for? To protect those RIGHTS.  

Included in those rights is liberty. The idea of truly being free in your person, conscience, and action. The right to liberty is the truest sense of freedom within the self and a person’s expression of themselves. 

But how did they get to this idea that liberty mattered? 

Does the church need to concern itself with liberty? 

What is Liberty? 

Plenty of governments across time have provided some sort of recognition of rights. Usually, those rights were not recognized as being given by God but as a blessing from a government viewing itself as a god. 

However, western civilization had a major moment that changed the landscape of governance for all time. A government, which viewed itself as having a divine right to authority, found itself forced to recognize that the people had value and themselves held some form of rights. 

The History of the Magna Carta 

During the early 1200s, King John of England caused quite a stir by warring and feuding with several kings. He pressed for higher taxes on his subjects to support his wars. This forced his officials to become downright oppressive in collecting such taxes. Unfortunately for King John, his barons despised him due to his oppressive and arrogant nature. 

After losing a battle in 1214, the barons had had enough. They forced a meeting with King John. If he wanted to have their support and resources, then he would have to agree to some demands. This was the formation of the Magna Carta. While the document failed, the fact remains that an agreement about rights had been decided between the people and the king. Prior to the Magna Carta, kings had attempted various charters and agreements with their nobles and clergy. However, those charters were a king’s free will promise. 

The elites may have been the first beneficiaries of individual rights, but they were not the only ones. We, as common people today, benefit from the rights the Magna Carta defined. 

Included in the Magna Carta were issues such as: 

• Right to a fair trial 

• Placing the king under the rule of law 

• The property rights of the barons 

The concept of the rights of all people continued to develop over the next several hundred years. After all, the statement “all men are created equal” was not a foregone conclusion throughout Western civilization. 

By the time that statement was written in our Declaration of Independence, the concept of equality of men had been developed by Enlightenment thinkers. Men such as John Locke explored individual sovereignty and individual rights and liberties. 

John Locke and Liberty

Locke became so influential to our founders that his words inspired the Declaration of Independence we cherish today. 

In Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, he begins by arguing that in the natural law or natural state, all men have equality. Locke viewed natural law as that which was the governing law placed into creation by God. To Locke, men under natural law are endowed by God with a state of liberty. However, that liberty ends when it infringes on another man’s rights and liberties. 

Locke said, “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” 

He specifically viewed liberty as the right to steward yourself, what you’ve been given, and what you’ve created. Whatever you think or create, by natural law, is your property. If you take natural resources and mix them with your labor, then you have created private property. Furthermore, liberty is the sovereignty of men over their property, themselves, and their future. 

To protect this concept of liberty, Locke believed governments were put in place to be a protector of our individual rights, which included liberty and possessions. 

Thomas Jefferson said it succinctly by stating, “The policy of American government is to leave its citizens free, neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits.” 

This desire to live under a government that truly protected liberty drove our founders to finally push against the oppressive boot of the British crown. They saw British control of their property as the action of a government no longer concerned with liberty, but the control of its people. 

The Road to Declaring Independence and Liberty 

After 120 years of abuses in which the colonies were continually oppressed with increased restrictions, taxes, and regulations, they finally chose to throw off the yolk of their oppressor. The crown attempted to raise money or control the colonies through their actions which the colonists found extremely offensive. Such gross infringements included (but were not limited to): 

• The Navigation Acts of 1651: Restricted trade for the colonies to only Britain 

• King Charles II: Regulated trade and nullified charters when the colonies opposed 

• Molasses Act of 1733: Forced the colonies to purchase molasses from Britain and not France 

• Sugar Act 1764: Cut duties on foreign molasses, retained high duty on foreign refined sugar, and prohibited foreign rum 

• Stamp Act 1765: Required official stamps to be purchased for lots of common documents. 

• Declaratory Act: Gave full powers over the colonies to parliament 

• Townshend Acts 1767: Placed duties on common useful goods and put in a board of customs in Boston 

• Coercive Acts 1774: 4 Laws used to crush the colonies back into submission 

The colonies pushed back at each turn and argued that their rights as English citizens were being abused. After all, the crown chose to not honor either the British Constitution or the Bill of Rights of 1689. 

These unconstitutional acts perpetrated against the 13 colonies drove them to unite as a single entity, represented by a Continental Congress. The Second Continental Congress sent its final petition to resolve the matter in hopes of staving off a war and restoring peace. However, King George III rejected the Olive Branch Petition, labeled them rebels, and parliament passed the American Prohibitory Act. This banned all trade with the colonies and determined to treat all American ships and cargo as an enemy. 

The colonies knew that the decision had been made for them. They wrote the Declaration of Independence to announce before the world that they were separating from England and establishing their nation in the spirit of liberty. 

The Bill of Rights 

Following the war, America chose to create a constitution for themselves. During these debates, the arguments continually revolved around how to provide a framework for a stable government yet protect the liberties and rights of the people. Do not forget, they saw what a government that did not respect liberty could do politically.  

During those debates, a large discussion regarding the inclusion of a bill of rights boiled over. Some argued that writing down any rights would mean the government felt those were the only rights men had. Others argued that not writing them down would mean a government could then believe men had no rights. After all, men are sinful and wicked. 

Eventually, the Constitution was ratified with the promise that a bill of rights would be written by the first Congress. Our nation’s founders held to their word and drafted the Bill of Rights. This document included the first 10 amendments we know today. These rights are considered to be given to us by the divine authority and were written to ensure the government never attempts to infringe on those rights (as well as others not written.) 

Included in the list of 10 amendments are rights such as: 

• Freedom of religion 

• Freedom of speech 

• Freedom of press 

• Freedom of assembly 

• Right to petition the government 

• Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure 

• Right to speedy trial 

• Right to not self-incriminate 

• and more 

   

Our Role in the Fight for Liberty 

For 248 years, our nation has said it values God-given liberty and the government’s role in protecting that liberty. 

However, what happens if no one actively works to protect against infringement of those rights? While we may believe that our rights are self-evident and therefore will always be protected, the truth is a different matter. We must proactively defend the right to liberty and demand our government do the same. 

Today, our fellow Americans deal with unconstitutional steps from our government at every level. The temptation of new laws, programs, regulations, and personal agendas has rendered the Constitution and the Bill of Rights moot in many situations. People pay lip service to the Constitution as they destroy it. These days, our Bill of Rights seems to be more of an obstacle in the way of government “progress” than it does a bulwark to protect our liberties and rights given to us by our Creator.  

But the church can become the voice upholding our liberties. We as the church should understand freedom and liberty better than any other body or organization. We have the opportunity to uphold God’s law without fear of standing against our nation’s founding documents precisely because the founders wrote the inalienable nature of rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness into our nation’s founding documents. 

This means that we as the church may move forward in our protection of liberty for the defenseless without concern or worry that we may be stepping against a righteous authority. We owe those who are oppressed by men not following our nation’s foundational principles of liberty. We as the church hold the duty to defend liberty, as spelled out by our founding documents and given to us by God. 

You thought the worst of it was over. 

We watched the protests on college campuses and allowed the news of it all to blend in with the noise surrounding our everyday lives. After all, we have a 24/7 news cycle that continually brings things to our attention and then erases that with the next big story. 

However, the college campus protests and colonization (see what I did there?) are not subsiding. Instead, they are growing and spreading as students reach their last days of school before summer break. 

It Gets Worse 

Even though we may hope for a burn-out of this “pro-Palestine” fire, we will be sorely disappointed. Not only will the fire continue to spread and grow in the summer months, but the government is now getting more and more involved. 

This will not end well for the American citizen. 

Antisemitism Monitors 

Within the past few days, Congressman Mike Lawler (R-NY) and Congressman Ritchie Torres (D-NY) introduced legislation that would bring the federal government into the action. In their proposed legislation, the federal government would have the ability to track incidents of antisemitism through the use of monitors on college campuses. 

Any college that refuses to hire the government-mandated monitor would see their federal funding stripped. The bill also requires the colleges to cover any expenses related to the monitor’s work. If they refuse the Department of Education’s requirements, then federal funding will disappear. 

Representative Torres said the bill was written “in response to the ongoing demonstrations at Columbia University that have created an environment that many Jewish students view as hostile to their well-being and safety.” 

“Campus antisemitism is at an all-time high, and American universities are not capable of handling it when left to their own devices,” Torres said. “Jewish students have told my office that they feel completely abandoned by their university administrators and they view Congress as the only avenue for accountability and safety.” 

However, Torres is no stranger to antisemitism bills. In December of 2023, Torres introduced a bill that would have included antisemitism in the DEI Act of 2023. He helped sponsor a resolution recognizing Israel as America’s democratic ally. Not only that, but Torres also sponsored the Antisemitism Awareness Act. Within that act, antisemitism is defined to include “the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.” 

This Isn't the First Time 

House Speaker Mike Johnson energetically came out against the protests and colonization (encampments) on college campuses. He not only condemned antisemitism but also gave credit to the possibility of bringing National Guard troops onto campuses to break up the students. 

Johnson was not done. 

He and other lawmakers met with Columbia University’s president, Minouche Shafik, and shortly after called on her to resign. 

But Johnson still was not done. 

He not only called for the National Guard but also stated the next step during a press conference. Johnson said, “There is a nexus to federal funding. If these campuses cannot get control of this problem, they do not deserve taxpayer dollars. That’s a very serious issue.”  

Bringing it All Together 

On our April 26, 2024 podcast, we discussed the problem with these protests. With names that include things like “People’s Revolution” and “Solidarity”, it’s not hard to recognize the lens through which these students are seeing their role in this mess. 

Some of them probably understand the truth – that a protest will not result in divestment from Israeli companies or the nation of Israel. They most likely get that an encampment on a college campus will not end the war or bring about a ceasefire.  

Then again, that was not the goal of the entire movement. This is revolution. It is agitation. It is passion. The few (who know what they are doing) continue to whip up the useful idiots for their cause of communism/Marxism. The organizers and leaders of these movements know exactly what they are doing. They prey on the college students supporting the cause. 

Most students desire to be a part of something bigger than themselves. They want to make a change. Many of them likely did not know anything about Palestine before the past few months. However, the leaders saw the opportunity. They incited passion, drew in the sold-out believers, and shifted them with subtle moves into a Marxist movement. 

Our Government is not Helping 

Meanwhile, our government never ceases to take advantage of a bad situation to make things worse. We just watched the FISA Section 702 extension get passed, setting up an obliteration of Constitutional protections. Now, they are doubling down on the idea of hate speech by setting up antisemitism monitors. 

The cure will be worse than the sickness. 

While speech and thought control made great gains with the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the war against thought has been raging since this nation was founded. 

A Quick History of Government Speech Control 

Even before the founding, colonists ran into trouble for writing disparaging things about King George III. Their houses were ransacked searched, and all of their personal writings taken. Due to their own opinions, they found themselves at the center of a royal investigation. 

During the tenure of John Adams, American citizens were prosecuted and imprisoned for being critical of the American government’s actions and attitudes during a tenuous time in the relationship between America and France. Adams became so despotic that even the sermons of the clergy were not outside the scope of his dragnet. 

Abraham Lincoln made moves to arrest journalists, politicians, and private citizens if their opinions on the Civil War became too inflammatory for the likes of the American government.  

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became law, a whole segment of thought and belief became outlawed. While racism is abhorrent, the government saw fit to force people to act against their conscience in governmental, business, and even private affairs.  

Now, we watch the movement-du-jour attach itself to the Civil Rights Act, inspiring each small collective to glue their identity to the “protected classes” of the Civil Rights Act. Whether gay, transsexual, Israeli, Palestinian, physically disabled, or any of the infinite classes of people: a Civil Rights protection designation is priceless. 

The Results 

By attaching the idea of “hate speech” to “discrimination”, a new level of speech control may make its way around the First Amendment and over every way we communicate. 

Adding antisemitism to this idea of “hate speech” clearly shows the government’s hand. Controlling speech by determining whether it is “hate speech/antisemitism” allows the government to further tighten the noose around the neck of the American citizen. 

Do not forget, after 9/11, we put up with threats of criminalizing “islamophobia” and saw movement in that direction. Now, the government is using our tax dollars as a threat against the college campuses to get them to play along with a tried-and-true system of government control: the government monitor/agent. 

This is Not a Defense of Campuses 

Our college campuses have harbored this type of stuff for decades. For too long, no one lifted a finger as protesting students poured out wrath over the idea of whiteness or even masculinity. Being white became not okay, and the faculty and administration supported it. When universities had the chance to stand up to insanity and tell their students to get back in line, they balked. Some say the universities were afraid of their own customers. 

When men were railroaded before kangaroo courts and their lives were spilled before the world, the universities looked the other way. Prosecuting a drunken hook-up became a blood sport for angry feminist administrators and faculty. 

But plenty of us know the truth. They did not want to stop the students or the movement downhill. The student bodies turned progressive, and we are witnesses to the results. Remember, these people in faculty and administration were steeped in progressive, revolutionary, Marxist thinking. They became the next generation of institutional foot soldiers. They were the next disciples of Karl Marx. 

The funny thing about disciples? They believe in the religion they follow. They dedicate their life to it. So, the universities never batted an eye because they were getting the results they were looking for. 

What About These Protests? 

While some college campuses may make some moves to calm down their students, the overarching motive is not to restore the constitutionalist, liberty-minded approach of the Founders. Instead, the problem is in their wallet. High-level donors do not like the imagery of Hamas-scarf-wearing students chanting things like “From the river to the sea” and talking about death to various peoples. The donors are frustrated and threatening to pull their funding. 

We watched this occur with the TikTok divestment bill. What many do not realize is that the TikTok divestment bill was pushed by wealthy donors who saw the algorithms change in favor of Palestine. All of a sudden, TikTok was flooded with pro-Palestine content while pro-Israel content got swept under the rug. Eager to protect those dollars, democrats began going to bat for divestment. All this, despite them fighting Trump about the idea a few years ago. 

The Columbia Act 

This act, the College Oversight and Legal Updates Mandating Bias Investigations and Accountability Act, does nothing but put more power in the hands of the government to police and control the thoughts of their citizens. While public universities are unfortunately funded by us, they do not need a government monitor assigned to them.  

This act reeks of moves the Chinese Communist Party makes in assigning party observers to ensure the party values are always upheld. 

Here in America, the best disinfectant for bad ideas is sunshine. Let the horrible ideas be put forward, and let the American public decide. 

Not long after, President Biden signed the bill into law. 

Extension of FISA Section 702 

FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides the government with the ability to conduct surveillance on foreign actors for national security. It allows the government to use technology and various means to collect information, data, and evidence. 

In 2008, Congress passed Section 702 of the FISA, which gives the intelligence community the green light to “collect, analyze, and appropriately share foreign intelligence information about national security threats.” 

This bill, FISA Section 702 extension, reauthorizes the government to surveil without requiring a warrant. While this bill will be up for another debate in two years, the general consensus of Americans who care about the Constitution is that a two-year extension provides no comfort or respite. 

However, due to some political wrangling and gamesmanship, the bill allows surveillance to continue until April 2025, even if Congress chooses not to reauthorize the law in two years. 

Did Anybody Fight the FISA?

The House chose not to pass an amendment that would have added some needed reforms to the FISA under Section 702. A few days later, six different amendments were defeated in the Senate. Those six amendments would have put some boundaries on the powers to spy. The amendments considered those powers to be “too broad.” The Senate obviously begged to differ. 

Unfortunately, Section 702 allows the NSA to collect all kinds of intelligence on foreign actors. Even though certain restraints are supposedly placed on the intelligence community regarding US citizens, questions are raised about what happens with incidental information. 

However, that is not the greatest concern in this new law. 

What’s The Problem with the FISA 702 Extension? 

Senator Ron Wyden said it best, “If you have access to any communications, the government can force you to help it spy. That means anybody with access to a server, a wire, a cable box, a wi-fi router, a phone, or a computer. … If this provision is enacted, the government can deputize any of these people against their will and force them, in effect, to become what amounts to an agent for Big Brother.” 

While the bill originally was intended to deal with the collection of foreign intelligence through warrantless searches, it collects plenty of American citizen’s private phone calls, emails, texts, and other electronic communications. The Brennan Center reports that over 200,000 warrantless “backdoor” searches happen every year. And those searches are with Americans’ private communications. 

Even though the government may tell us that they follow the rules, the truth bears repeating: they are not following the rules. Declassified documents have proven time and time again that the private communications of anybody from activists to Congressmen have been swept up in FBI backdoor searches. 

Not only that, but the intelligence community routinely gives themselves a nice end-around to the pesky 4th amendment. By using data brokers who sell data lists and information, the FBI and other intelligence agencies can bypass the necessity for a warrant and of course: that whole foreign actor issue. 

Unfortunately, Section 702 is a collection of some of the nastiest attempts to destroy American citizen’s civil liberties. 

When the bevy of amendments was shot down, Congress told us that they A) Didn’t see the need for warrants to protect the citizen’s rights B) Felt it was necessary to force Americans to become impromptu spies on their customers, consumers, patrons, family, and friends C) Saw no reason to stop the brokering of sensitive data to intelligence agencies and D) Had no interest in ACTUALLY protecting the American citizen’s God-given rights. 

This is Unprecedented...Right? 

No, sadly this is not the first time something like this has happened. Even though the typical American can recite plenty of events that curtailed our rights (Patriot Act for one…), we may look to something farther back in history and learn from our founding fathers. 

As far back as at least 1604, the idea of unlimited access to the private materials and communications of a citizen was a questionable practice. 

In 1604, during Semayne’s case, Edward Coke argued, “The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defense against injury and violence as for his repose.” 

Writs of Assistance 

While English common law continued to make strides in recognizing the danger of unlimited governmental authority, it failed to truly protect the colonist's rights and liberties. 

The British struggled to control smuggling and attempts to get around their regulations and restrictions on trade. By using Writs of Assistance, inspectors could take a general form and use it to search any property or space and seize anything that was a “prohibited and uncustomed” good.  

However, the colonists hated such an open-ended document. Until 1750, the only warrants even defined in the handbooks of the Justices were general warrants. These gave little to no oversight for authorities. 

In 1756, Massachusetts passed a law banning general warrants as a response to the Excise Act of 1754, which gave tax collectors unlimited powers to interrogate colonists over goods subject to customs. 

When King George II died in 1760, all Writs of Assistance expired six months later, as determined by law. This event led to a major case brought forward by 50 merchants. 

James Otis and The Writs Case

James Otis came to the defense of the merchants in the colonies and fought against the idea of general warrants. 

Despite losing, Otis’ involvement in the case was so important that John Adams viewed the case as “The spark in which originated the American Revolution.” 

Otis’ remarks during the case were beautifully and forcefully argued. They provided a strong philosophical foundation for the concept of rights and liberties versus the tyrannical power of an authoritarian government.  

Otis stated, 

“I will to my dying day oppose, with all the powers and faculties God has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villainy on the other as this Writ of Assistance is. It appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law book” 

“Now, one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one's house. A man's house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient.” 

Even though Otis lost the case, he made such an impact on his fellow colonists that he went on to become a member of the MA legislature and passed legislation requiring special Writs of Assistance be “granted by any judge or justice of the peace upon information under oath by any officer of the customs” and banning all other Writs. However, the governor overturned it, seeing it as contrary to English law. 

Two Years Later 

A case was brought before the English courts involving two political authors who wrote critical materials about King George III. Both John Entick and John Wilkes had their houses searched in the investigation, with all kinds of papers and writings being seized by the authorities. The men sued the government for wrongfully collecting private materials and won. 

While in the Entick affair, the government at least carried a warrant with Entick’s name on it, no such papers existed for Wilkes. His home was involved in a sweep of 49 suspects (without his name being listed as a search target.) 

Chief Justice Pratt, who presided over both Entick and Wilkes cases, said, “Papers are the owner's goods and chattels: they are his dearest property; and are so far from enduring a seizure, that they will hardly bear an inspection; and though the eye cannot by the laws of England be guilty of a trespass, yet where private papers are removed and carried away, the secret nature of those goods will be an aggravation of the trespass, and demand more considerable damages in that respect..” 

He further stated, "[O]ur law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour's close without his leave.” 

Eventually, Pratt addressed the jury and said, “The defendants claimed a right, under precedents, to force persons' houses, break open escrutores, seize their papers, &c. upon a general warrant, where no inventory is made of the things thus taken away, and where no offenders' names are specified in the warrant, and therefore a discretionary power given to messengers to search wherever their suspicions may chance to fall. If such a power is truly invested in a secretary of state, and he can delegate this power, it certainly may affect the person and property of every man in this kingdom, and is totally subversive of the liberty of the subject.” 

 He saw the danger in a government with unlimited access to the private communications and belongings of its citizens. He also took note of the danger of open-ended warrants and general searches. 

The 4th Amendment 

By 1784, eight state constitutions contained some provisions against general warrants. 

The MA Declaration of Rights stated, “Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities, prescribed by the laws.” 

When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the 4th amendment survived the ratification process. Interestingly enough, a slight language change has provided debate within courts. 

The original version, authored by James Madison, stated, “The rights to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.” 

The phrase “warrants issued without probable cause” was modified to “no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause.” 

In England, there were lawful warrantless searches. However, the language has been read to mean that the only reasonable searches and seizures are those that meet the requirements of issued warrants. 

This has divided courts as to whether searches and seizures can be done without a warrant, or a warrant must be required. The division especially concerned the difference between searching for a suspect incident to arrest vs. searching areas within and without the control of the suspect. 

So Back to Section 702 

The government now has the right to force private citizens to hoover up any information that passes through a wi-fi router, cable box, server, phone, tablet, etc. under threat of punishment. They do not have to worry about the 4th amendment. Instead, we become their spies...much like the Soviet Union did with their own citizenry. 

Sadly, our 4th amendment has lost most of its teeth, and Section 702 is one more punch in the face. The power of the intelligence community (especially the NSA), the power of hidden courts, warrantless searches, oppressive investigations into private citizens, and the chilling effect of the government’s coercive tactics have all laid waste to our rights. 

Our founding fathers, such as Otis, passionately fought the idea that the government had free reign over a private citizen’s personal possessions (which included communications.) The question is: when they recognized such a gross destruction of their rights and liberties...what did they do? 

Differing Views 

Some of us hold a general understanding of the Declaration of Independence. This group views the preamble as proof we have some rights, such as Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. While this first group may come to a consensus that rights are good and we should all have them, they miss more important meanings from the passage. 

 Others believe that rights such as Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness are provided to us by God. Therefore, the government cannot take those rights from us. If only God can give us rights, then surely, He is the only one who can take them. 

 This group certainly stands on truth. If you get them talking long enough, they will most likely point out that governments may not give us rights, but their job is to protect those rights for us. We the people allow ourselves to be governed because of our belief that governments are justly created to secure our rights. 

 However, this second group has a blind spot. 

The Deeper View

It is true. Governments were instituted among men to secure our rights, which include Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. These rights are not exhaustive but certainly create the foundation of rights that have been granted to humans by God. Our founders named these specific rights to give a clear understanding of what the government could NOT touch in our lives. After all, protecting something means ensuring its health and well-being. 

 Unfortunately, the government of today seems to have forgotten its primary role in the American experiment. It was not to regulate every step of our lives, make us safe through the use of bubble wrap, or take our money to spend on their pet projects. 

 Our government truly lost its way and must return to its original calling. 

 Even though we as a people may claim this from the rooftops, we must bear our portion of the responsibility. We missed our own presence in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence. 

Our Role. Our Failure. 

We tend to believe a few lies regarding the government, our rights, and our responsibilities. We believe that our responsibility is to vote for our politicians, and they must then do the work of staving off all matters of evil from their tyrannical opponents. We believe that the government’s role is to protect our rights so that we may passively go about our days. 

Our hearts tell us that we are slipping down the pathway into an oppressive, destructive tyranny.
And we may be. But we must help shoulder the blame.

Our government failed and continues to fail. But did we not permit it to do so? While we may trumpet the truth of the rights we have from God, we so often fail to use our consent to be governed as the acknowledgment that the government MUST lead a restrained life. That restraint requires knowledgeable people who understand that government is a tool of defense, NOT a means to fulfill every desire and support every opinion.  

 We turned our government from a bodyguard into our hitman. 

It’s Our Fault. 

For some reason, even the most ardent supporters of individual rights and the “leave me alone” culture seem to have bought into the idea that government must control people on all levels. Especially if those people do not do what we like. We clamor for the government to rezone an area to keep business out. We vote for candidates based on how they vote for new housing projects or apartment buildings. They know they can get our support as long as they promise the new community program or school project. 

When our neighbor’s grass gets too long, we seek out the HOA or the city council to do our dirty work and fine the person. We do not wrestle with what might happen to our neighbors if they refuse to pay the fines or go along with the regulations. 

We created mayhem by deciding that government bodies must compel our neighbors to follow our desires, and yet somehow attempt to stay consistent with our cries of “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness!” 

It Starts with Individual Rights 

That simple list of three foundational rights has become known around the world. We say them over and over to each other while losing their true grasp and meaning. We fail to recognize our own limitations in upholding those rights, instead viewing them through our own lens and our own reception of such rights. 

Thomas Jefferson said, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” 

When we use the law, regulation, or codes, we run a powerful risk of producing the exact opposite effect of our supposed attachment to liberty. While that Declaration clearly rebuked the crown for all of how the government had oppressed people’s rights, we failed to keep ourselves accountable. 

If we truly honored and respected individual rights, we would be careful to restrain ourselves when reaching that dividing line between our “sphere” and our neighbor’s. Even though we have a right to voice our opinion on the matters of what our neighbor does, we should hold such terrible power of coercive law and tax with a somber and sacred honor. Their rights to their person, their life, their property, and their sphere should only be infringed upon when the due process of law determines they forfeited those rights through their own instances of infringing on other’s rights. 

A righteous law provides consequences for those who infringe on the rights of their neighbors. An unjust or wicked law restricts the liberties of the individual. We must take an account of our own view of government. Have we decided government is our personal attack dog in the local sphere? Do we “hire” the government to provide protection from inconvenience? Or worse yet, do we hire the government to steal funds from our neighbor to support our own pet project? Is our government the action arm of our own ideas of what constitutes an “enjoyable” community?  

The Truth 

We bungled the job. We the people scream in frustration with a tyrannical government crushing us through legislation, tyranny, and obscene theft of our own hard-earned money. But we are to blame. We practiced the same thing in our local communities and came to believe that the bigger circles of government must act accordingly. 

The HOA’s, county commissions, city councils, and school boards all became a massive popularity contest with our neighbors. People looking to get elected realized they could thread the needle between no new taxes and shiny new programs. They gave us what we wanted instead of saying “No,” like the responsible representatives they should have been. 

But I do not blame them. We made it clear to them: give us what we want, or we will not vote for you next time. So, like any sensible human being, they changed their tactics. And the ones who just wanted power were all too happy to oblige us. 

On the other hand, we suffered the immoral and wicked politicians who only chased positions to climb the ladder into the federal government. They never felt the wrath of the people for stomping on our rights. Instead, we shrugged our shoulders and patted ourselves on the back, saying “At least it wasn’t the other guy.” They walked away with the election victories because we bought into the game of Democrats vs. Republicans. 

We watched the eroding of individual rights because we were the culprits. We promised ourselves all kinds of shiny new laws, regulations, programs, and projects...through our representatives. They told us they would protect us, and we cheered. 

In Reality 

In reality, we were greedy and undisciplined. Plenty of people did not know, but too many of us did not care. Our personal desires were too important. The new park, the new school, the new regulation, or the new street development all glittered before us. We never thought about the theft of funds from our neighbors. We only thought about whether our wallet could handle the increase or whether our lifestyle could avoid the law. 

After all, who would vote for a law that crushes them? Who would vote for a tax that left them destitute? We compromised in degrees, but it burned us in the end. 

Now, the train is running full steam down the tracks, and we are frantically fumbling for the brakes.  

What Now? 

We at Self-Evident do what we do because we have hope. A new generation is rising rapidly, and we believe that they and those who follow them can begin to undo the damage. It will not happen overnight, but instilling the foundations in them WILL reap rewards for our grandchildren. 

More importantly, our faith determines whether the current state (and future state) of this world affects us or not. When fully submitted to Christ, we can find hope, faith, and love in any situation. We can carry the peace of God with us everywhere we go. We can overcome any brutality this world throws at us and know that His kingdom is not of this world. This is living a true life of liberty. When we are free in Christ, we are free indeed. 

 Not just that, but we can love our neighbor as ourselves and can protect their liberty...just as much as our own. 

Imagine that: Loving God with our whole heart, mind, body, and strength opens us up to liberty of conscience. Loving our neighbor as ourselves means protecting our neighbor’s liberty. 

If you enjoy blogs such as these, be sure to check out the Self-Evident blog page for weekly updates!

This is our curated list of 7 great missionaries who changed the world.

Most people do not hear about the work and effect missionaries have across the world, and we felt it was time to shine a light on the legacy just a few dedicated Christians have left on the world at large.

1) George Muller: Faith For All Our Needs

George Muller was a missionary, evangelist, and caretaker whom would found the Ashley Down New Orphanage Houses, also known as the Mueller Homes, between 1849 and 1870. When he began taking care of orphans in 1836 there were very few orphanages in Britain, and those that existed were run with slave labor. Muller was a man who walked the faith we are called to have for our provisions, demonstrating this faith in his daily life, and relying on God to truly provide for all his needs and those he cared for. At any one time, the five Mueller homes held over 2,000 orphaned children and approximately 17,000 had lived in the homes before the buildings were later sold to the Bristol City Council in 1958. Over the course of Mueller’s lifetime, he parted with over $700,000 for the personal needs of others (worth substantially more in today’s value). In addition to the homes, he established 117 schools offering a Christ-centered education to more than 120,000 students. The famous Charles Dickens once referenced Mueller in an article he wrote called “Household Words” dated November 1857 in which he described his extraordinary work. In addition to the orphanage homes, Mueller traveled a total of 200,000 miles in the course of his missionary work and visited a total of 42 countries as an advocate for bible literacy. He paid for the printing of Bibles and tracts, eventually giving away 280,000 bibles, and funded tuition for hundreds of children to go to school. Relying on prayer as the primary function to fund ministerial care, he raised and gave away the equivalent of $129,000,000 in todays money, with only a small amount remaining for himself before he died. The trust funds established in his day continues to support missionaries around the world. Many accounts of God’s miraculous provision surrounding his life remain available today for further reading, in which Mueller offered nothing but prayer and trust to God for food to be provided for the children around him.

2) Amy Carmichael: Sheltering the Vulnerable

Amy Carmichael was a missionary to India for 55 years, in which she focused on rescuing girls from temple prostitution. After departing to India she never returned home to Ireland. Carmichael founded the Dohnavur Fellowship In Tamil Nadu, South India, that became a sanctuary for over 1,000 children. The facility grew and came to include nurseries, education buildings, housing for boys and girls, a house of Prayer, and a hospital. Amy had a conviction against asking people for money, preferring to rely on prayer: “If we are about our Father’s business, He will take care of ours. There is no want in the fear of the Lord, and it needeth not to seek help”. According to Carmichael her ministry of rescuing temple children began in 1901 with a seven-year-old girl named Preena, who had become a temple servant prostitute against her wishes. Preena escaped and was provided shelter by Carmichael, withstanding threats of those who demanded that the girl be returned to the temple to continue her assignment as a prostitute. Previous escape attempts resulted in Preena’s hands being branded with a hot iron. This was a common cultural practice at that time in India as part of Hinduism, in which young children were sold to ‘marry’ the Brahmin temple priests. Similar incidents continued surrounding Carmichael which naturally established her ministry of rescue. The Dohnavur Fellowship, settled on 400 acres with 16 nurseries and a hospital, continues to this day which actively supports 500 people at any given time. Temple prostitution in India was eventually outlawed in 1948.

3) Saint Patrick: Slave, Shepherd, Missionary

Nearly everyone in our modern world has heard of the legacy of Saint Patrick. Patrick was a fifth century Christian missionary that brought the message of Christ to Ireland, returning after being held captive there for six years. At the age of sixteen he was captured by Irish pirates and served as a slave and animal herder before escaping to unite with his family once again. In his written account The Confession detailing his mission work there, he credits his time in captivity as essential for his spiritual development, that God had mercy on him despite youthful ignorance and gave him the opportunity to be saved. It was his time working as a shepherd, a role so appropriate given the description of Christ as the Good Shepherd, that initiated his relationship with God through prayer. According to the primary source of his own account he baptized thousands of people in Ireland, refused to accept gifts from kings, and was put on trial at one point to await execution. We see this mirrored in the persecution of many other missionaries in the past as well as today. Patrick's attitude toward God made evident in his missionary work was his reliance and faith in God to provide for his sustenance coupled with a desire to share the Gospel with the very people whom had once enslaved him. Even while starving in the wilderness after sailing home from his captivity, its recorded in his work Declaration that after he had urged his party to have faith and prayed, they finally encountered animals to hunt. Such stands today of an example of what can be accomplished in a missionary carrying the forgiveness of Christ and the spirit of faith.

4) Jackie Pullinger: Faith Against All Odds

Jackie Pullinger was a missionary to Hong Kong and the infamous Kowloon Walled City, founding the St. Stephen’s Society, which provided rehabilitation homes for recovering drug addicts, prostitutes, and gang members. The charity's work was eventually recognized by the Hong Kong government who donated land for the rehabilitation homes. At the age of 22 she wrote to various missionary organizations and was unable to find support, then seeking advice from a minister named Richard Thomson. She at first desired to go to Africa, but then had a dream of being sent to Hong Kong. She departed in 1966, however when she arrived she knew no one there and had only $10 in her possession. Immigration officers allowed her in only because her mother's godson was a police officer there.  Regarding her decision to go alone, she writes in her book Chasing the Dragon: “Abraham was willing to leave his country and follow Jehovah to a promised land without knowing where he was going,” she argued. “In the same way thousands of years later Gladys Aylward journeyed in faith to China.” Within the Kowloon Walled City, known for its immense density of people, lack of policing, drug proliferation, and prostitution, she found work as a school teacher. Kowloon in the 1960s produced massive amounts of opium run by the Chinese Triad gangs. She went on to create a youth center helping addicts and also taught music at the St. Stephen's Girls' College. The tiny apartments in the city lacked even basic amenities such as running water. At first she struggled in her ministry and learning the language, however she directly credits the power of the Holy Spirit through speaking in tongues that enabled the Gospel to really take hold in its hearers. Over the years, as her influence grew, many former gang members and drug addicts came to be saved and saw their lives transformed. Many could not understand why she prayed for and loved them until she preached that Jesus died even for his enemies. Eventually the Kowloon Walled City would be demolished in 1993 but her legacy lives on with the St. Stephen’s Society and those lives who were transformed by the Gospel during that time.

5) John G. Lake: Faith to see God’s Power

John G. Lake was a charismatic church leader, missionary, and evangelist in the Pentecostal movement of the early 20th century who went on to co-found the Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa. Writing such books as Heavenly Authority: the Right of the Believer and Divine Healing: A Gift From God, he advocated for a theology that expressed walking in the power and authority of Christ which included divine healing for the sick. He viewed disease as an enemy and physical healing as something Christ paid for at the Cross and whipping post. Lake played a pivotal role in the spread of Pentecostalism and the Gospel in South Africa. After five years he departed the African ministry, having raised up 1,000 preachers, 100,000 documented converts and many accounts of the miraculous. After his work in Africa, he ministered for 20 years along the west coast of the United States in dedication for praying for the sick and establishing churches. Along the way he taught many others to minister exampled in the way Christ ministered in the Gospels and to see the results of Christ’s power. These he referred to as Divine Healing Technicians. Lake was influenced by the healing ministry of John Alexander Dowie and his ministry lives on today with John G. Lake Ministries, pastored by Curry Blake. Many attest to experiencing the power of Christ today through his ministry in their lives with over 100,000 documented healings since 2003. JGLM went on to raising up small group homes across the world dedicated to praying for the sick and afflicted.

6) Francis Xavier: Bringing the Gospel to Hostile Lands

Francis Xavier was an evangelist, missionary, and co-founder of a group called the Society of Jesus, or the Jesuits. In 1534, he and six other men made a vow of poverty and chastity, dedicating their lives to preaching the Gospel. He soon became instrumental in Asia and the Portuguese Empire East of India . On his 35^th birthday he set sail for Goa on the West Coast of India. In India he showed compassion to prisoners and the sick, taught groups of children about Christ, and adopted the common lifestyle of the people in the region. Often he lived only on rice and water and slept in a hut with a dirt floor. Almost 40 churches were eventually built along the coast of India. Together with his fellow Jesuits he spent extensive time in Portugal caring for the sick and teaching. Among Xaviar’s missionary efforts he encountered opposition and persecution from both Hindus and Muslims. Muslims had initially expanded into India many years prior. In 1545 he proceeded to Malaysia before leading the very first mission to Japan in 1549. Before this he was also the first major missionary to journey into the Maluku Islands. Francis Xavier reached Japan on July 1549 and was given a friendly welcome by the Shimazu Takahisa, the daimyo of Satsuma, however the daimyo outlawed his people from converting to Christianity under penalty of execution the next year. Francis would spend years struggling to learn the difficult language and processing how to best connect with the Japanese leaders, bringing expensive and appealing gifts. Many Japanese placed their faith in Christ and underwent severe persecutions and massacres as Christianity was eventually completely outlawed in Japan, forcing the church to go underground. There was even a “stepping stone” test devised to “root out” Christians in which lines of people were forced to step on an image of Christ. When someone refused, that would be an indication they were a Christian and were summarily executed. These events would culminate in the Shimabara Rebellion.

7. Eric Lidell: Walking Away to Run the Race of Faith

Known as the “Flying Scotsman” and featured in the movie Chariots of Fire, Lidell was an extremely talented Scottish Olympic-level athlete for most of his life. He competed for the Scottish International Rugby team and Scotland’s Olympic team. He became known for his uncompromising passion for God, choosing God as more important than running races and winning medals. He shocked the world when he refused to compete in a race held on Sunday during the 1924 Paris Olympic Games, sacrificing two gold medals by refusing to run. He regarded Sunday as truly a day of rest, holy unto God, and not be used for games. He had never run competitively on Sunday and continued to never do so. Going on to achieve great success, he collected wins in the Scottish Amateur Championships in the 100-meter, 220-meter, and quarter-mile running events, becoming known as the fastest runner in Scotland. At the peak of his success he walked away from it all to pursue becoming a missionary to China. He ministered there as a missionary teacher from 1925 to 1943 in Tianjin and the town of Xiaozhang, a very poor era that became dangerous due to the invasion of Japan in WWII. Additionally he taught at the Anglo-Chinese College for wealthy Chinese students. In 1941 Lidell said goodbye to his wife and children as they left for Canada, deciding to stay and continue God’s call for his life. In 1943 the Japanese eventually captured the mission station he resided at and was placed in the the Weihsien Internment Camp. Lidell naturally became a leader in the camp, continuing to do good works and assisting with morale in any way he could. This included helping the elderly, teaching bible classes, playing games, and teaching the children. It is recorded that one internee noticed his worn down sneakers and referred to him as “Jesus in running shoes.” Lidell became ill and died of an undiagnosed brain tumor at the camp, being buried in a simple grave in the camp marked only with a cross. As this was later discovered and his life and legacy became widely known, he forever stands as a testimony to what God can do with one wholly consecrated to him and willing to leave everything behind.

Most who are even somewhat familiar with apologetics and debate concerning political history may recall the common assertion: “the Founders certainly weren’t Christians! They were only diests!” Such is a phrase often repeated with zealous gusto. It seems the only time the term “deist” even appears in contemporary conversation is in the context of the United States Founders specifically somehow being averse to Christianity. It is interesting that secularists that have pushed this claim do not use the term “theist” as if to intentionally avoid a reference to theism directly. Such a reference to “theism” might imply that the Founders connected the God they spoke of with the God of the Bible, or at the least were inspired by Him. Such would be a reasonable implication and concession, but why stop there? We are after the whole truth. Were the US founders simply “deists”, only vaguely acknowledging a loosely defined and distant “higher power” that set the world in motion than vanished, never again to govern the affairs of men?

The simple definition of what deism actually is simply does not accurately describe the Founders, even those that may have been considered general skeptics at certain points in their life. There is no evidence that most of the Founders were either deists, rejected Christian beliefs, or that “God set the world in motion and then abstained from human affairs”.ⁱ Concerning the civic leadership as a whole at that time in the United States, there are very few occasions, examples, or evidences of them embracing deism or rejecting Christianity.ⁱⁱ Regarding the general populace, there were few non-Christians in late 18^th century America.ⁱⁱⁱ In 1776, each and every colonist, with the exception of approximately two thousand Jews, identified as Christian.^iv About 98 percent of them were protestants, and 2 percent were Roman Catholics.^v During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the vast majority of colonists were Reformed or Calvinist denominations.^vi The “diest” label is frequently applied to only a few of the most famous Founders, treated almost as flags to be captured, while the names of the rest of the Founders are rarely mentioned at all and generally go forgotten in historical discussions. Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Roger Sherman, and John Witherspoon all expressly held orthodox Christian ideas and beliefs.^vii Additional Founders frequently left out of the discussion whom held traditional Christian faith include Elias Boudinot, Eliphalet Dyer, Oliver Ellsworth, Matthew Griswold, John Hancock, Benjamin Huntington, Samuel Huntington, Thomas McKean, William Paterson, Tapping Reeve, Jesse Root, Oliver Wolcott, and Robert Yates.^viii

        Concerning the abundance of evidence related to the Christian faith and religious conviction of none other than George Washington, an entire volume could be written. Here we can examine just a few records of his personal writing that bring his faith to light. A 1790 letter to a Jewish congregation in Newport, Rhode Island alone contained no less than nine scriptural references.^ix The use here of Micah 4:4, which some have called his favorite verse, is further referenced 40 times elsewhere.^x Washington frequently referred to God in invocations of “Providence, Heaven, the Supreme Being, the Great Architect, the Author of all Good, and the Great Ruler of Events”. George Washington referred to “Providence” alone at least 270 times in his writings and thanked Providence for literally saving his life through divine protection.^xi This directly contradicts the assertion that he was simply a vaguely detached diest, whom merely credited a non-benevolent and unknown force that had no divine interference or direction in the affairs of men.^xii Furthermore, in 1791 Washington signed a letter drafted by Jefferson to the emperor of Morocco that offered a prayer by “God...under his holy keeping”. A French friend of his once noted of Washington that “every day of the year, he rises at five in the morning; as soon as he is up, he dresses, then prays reverently to God.” One of his most beautiful expressions of conviction regarding Christianity was made in his General Orders on May 2^nd, 1778. It is recorded as follows: “While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion—To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian—The signal Instances of providential Goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labours with complete Success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of Gratitude & Piety to the Supreme Author of all Good.” Washington used the word "God" 146 times in his personal writing and public speeches. A popular secularist myth persists that Washington never mentioned or referenced Jesus Christ specifically, despite having clearly done so several times in his General Orders and in his "Circular Letter to the Governors" of 1783: “…and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.”

Much has been made of the beliefs of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson which require their own dedicated article, though even a brief examination of their expressions display an attitude inconsistent with mere deism. Franklin noted during the Constitutional Convention that “in the beginning with the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible with danger, we had daily prayer in this room for divine protection…Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered…the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God governs the affairs of men”^xiii. Jefferson went to significant lengths to keep his opinions of personal faith private in his letters^xiv, however it is clear that he respected the bible’s moral teaching in general (a far cry from new age non-moralism in the vein of Nietzsche) indicated by an 1816 letter where he wrote, “the ten commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my Religion”.^xv Jefferson is quoted in his first inaugural address “may the infinite power which rules the destines of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them favorable issue for your peace and prosperity.”^xvi

A claim persists that Thomas Paine’s philosophically diest work The Age of Reason provided direct influence on the Founders or was at least a positive contribution to their way of thinking. However, the historical record shows this as patently false. American civil leaders held extremely negative reactions to the book^xvii and Paine was subsequently vilified. When he returned to the US he was abandoned by all his friends with the exception of Jefferson. Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Witherspoon, William Paterson, John Jay, Benjamin Rush, Charles Carroll, Zephaniah Swift, Elias Boudinot, and Patrick Henry openly criticized the book.^xviii  Only six people came to his funeral, in which he was buried on a farm because of the Quakers refusal to allow him a grave with the church cemetery.^xix 

The common deist assertion appears to be primarily used in the past by proudly atheistic secularists as an apologist angle of discrediting Christianity’s heritage. It is as if the bible having a foundational influence on the United States founding was not acceptable. One can understand their reason for zeal- the reality of Christianity’s influence conflicts directly with their insistence that godless atheism, lumped together with the concept of “enlightenment humanism”, produced the freest nation in the world. The fact of the matter is that unrestrained rejection of morality and militancy towards Christianity produced the chaos of the French Revolution and the massacres of the Reign of Terror. In contrast, the Founders typically targeted as being detached deists are on record as either being outright Christians, embracing Christianity’s moral influences, or in the least wrote concerning God’s direct intervention in the affairs of men and the world.^xx The typical rebuttal to all this is usually “well, everyone was religious back then!” Well, if everyone was indeed religious back then (being mostly part of various Christian denominations) then does that not show that religious men built the foundations of the modern world rather than a-religious men?

“It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors.”

-George Washington

Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, Issued by President George Washington, at the request of Congress, on October 3, 1789 

References: