HEART RELIGION

Jonathan Edwards

    In Matthew 22 we are told that Jesus was approached by one of the Pharisees, a lawyer, who asked Him, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" (vs. 35), the type of sharply analytical question one would expect a lawyer to ask. Jesus responded by referring him to two different commandments. The first one was part of the famous "Shema," the great creedal affirmation of the Jewish Torah: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind" (vs. 37; cf. Dt. 6:4,5). "This," said Jesus, "is the first and great commandment" (vs. 38). But then there was one other thing as well. "And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (vs. 39). This commandment was also in the Torah, in Lev. 19:18. Jesus then added the comment, "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets" (vs. 40).
    Here it will be observed that a personal relationship between God and His people is presupposed. He is "the Lord your God." (The word "your" is singular in the Hebrew, making it especially personal; cf. "thy God" in KJV). Furthermore, in this relationship we are to love Him, and love Him, moreover, "with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." In other words, true religion is heart religion. It must include a strong personal attachment to God that involves our entire inward being.
    Furthermore, we have a duty toward our fellow man as well. We are to "love our neighbor as ourselves." Here we have stated for us in the simplest terms possible the "Golden Rule". Whatever we desire for ourselves, we should wish for others also. We should be willing to sacrifice our personal well-being for the sake of others in greater need than ourselves. These two commandments, then, sum up our whole duty toward both God and man.
    It will be noted in this connection that mere orthodoxy, by itself, is not enough. The demons believe that there is one God, and even tremble (Jas. 2:19), and yet they are not saved. Our aim rather ought to be to "know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings. . ." (Phi l. 3:10). Moreover, we are to be "doers of the word, and not hearers only" (Jas. 1:22). We must not be content merely to recite doctrine, but to live it. To a great extent, then, the essence of true religion consists of experience and practice, and the great value of doctrine is found in its usefulness as a guide to the practical side of the Christian life.
    By the same token more than just a mere external observance of religious duties is required. We can be baptized, join a church, attend services regularly, and even tithe, and not be saved at all. We can even sing in the choir, teach a Sunday school class, and help out with the youth program, and yet not know Christ Himself. "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing" (I Cor. 13:3). In a word, if doctrine does not have a practical effect on our lives, then we have missed the whole point of Christianity.
    Our forefathers in the faith used to call this "experimental religion," that is, the actual experience of God's grace in our hearts and lives, as opposed to a merely speculative theology or sectarian dogma. It was the religion of the Puritans and the Scottish Covenanters in the seventeenth century, of the "New Light" Congregationalists and the "New Side" Presbyterians of the Great Awakening, of the Separate Baptists in the late eighteenth century and of the Methodists in the early nineteenth. It was the religion of the German Pietists and of the Moravian Brethren. Under it untold millions were converted and entire nations transformed. These various groups differed from each other, often sharply, over points of doctrine and church government, but they all agreed on this one fundamental point: " . . . I count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I might gain Christ . . ." (Phil. 3:8).
    Today, however, this glorious heritage of ours has largely been forgotten. It has been nearly a century and a half since the United States experienced a nationwide revival, and the Modernist / Fundamentalist controversy of the 1920's and '30's left Evangelicalism orthodox but spiritually dead and powerless. "Standing for the truth" had come to take the place of practicing the truth, of actually knowing Christ in a personal way. Today we largely have "a form of godliness but deny its power" (II Tim. 3:5). Perhaps nowhere is the spiritual bankruptcy of the modern church seen more clearly than in the demise of the midweek prayer meeting. A lack of interest in prayer betrays a lack of interest in God Himself, and yet tragically this is precisely the situation today in church after church.
    Christians are concerned about trends in society today, and rightly so. Yet we will not make the impact on society we want until we first take stock of ourselves. We think we are "wealthy, and have need of nothing," yet, like the lukewarm church of Laodicea we are in fact "wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked. . ." (Rev. 3:17). Jesus stands (outside!) of the door of this church, and knocks. He waits for someone to hear His voice and open the door, so that He can come inside and dine with us (vs. 20). Let us open the door now, and restore our Savior to His rightful place within our hearts.
Adapted from Chapter 1 of The Road to Heaven: A Practical Guide to the Faith of Our Fathers, © 2004, by Robert W. Wheeler      

You might also want to read:
The Church Needs God  

 
 

 

 

 

 

    

Unchristian

Review:
Unchristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity  . . .and Why It Matters
David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons
BakerBooks, 2007
hc., 255pp., $17.99
 
In their provocative book Unchristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity . . . and Why It Matters, authors David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons describe and analyze the negative image that Evangelical Christianity has in American society today, especially among the younger generation. Christians are perceived as being hypocritical, anti-homosexual, sheltered too political, and judgmental. The authors point out that part of the reason for this perception is a shift in attitudes in society – the younger generation has a relativistic morality – but they also note that part of the problem lies within the church itself: we simply fail to live up to God's standards. As a result, we often come across as a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites. Even young people who were raised in the church often complain that the religious faith of their elders is shallow and phony. The authors then ask a pointed question: "What if millions of us are living for ourselves, even while we are going through the motions of religion?" (p. 219). The problem, they suggest, is that we lack a genuine care and compassion for others.
    If we look at ourselves honestly, we will have to admit that they are largely right. Today in the church there is very little holiness, very little evangelism, and very little prayer. The underlying cause of this is painfully apparent: there is something lacking in our own relationship with God. We are living for ourselves and not for Him, and , as a result, we care little about others. And the unsaved call tell it.

    So what should be our attitude towards those outside of the faith? Paul gives us a good idea in Titus 3:1-8. Writing to Titus, who was helping to organize the church on the island of Crete, Paul instructs him to tell the Cretan believers what they should do. He says that they should obey the civil authorities, and then he tells them "to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men" (vv. 1,2; NKJV). In other words, the behavior that is expected is the very opposite of the angry, shrill discourse that many people have come to associate with Christians today.
    The church cannot be governed by polls. Its aim must be to please Christ, not the world. But a charge of hypocrisy, coming from whatever quarter, is serious indeed, because it implies that we are not living up to our own standards. And in our present situation there is far more truth to the accusation than we dare to admit. A visit to a Wednesday evening prayer meeting is all that it takes to see what has gone wrong. Few are gathered there, and their focus is almost exclusively on the physical needs of their friends and loved ones. There is rarely any prayer at all for the success of the ministry or the salvation of the lost.
    Or to look at it from another angle, the problem, ironically, arises from a lack of true evangelism. We have become so complacent and self-satisfied that we have ceased to care about the eternal destinies of those around us. The church has become a social club for nice, middle-class people. We make it clear that we disapprove of certain forms of behavior, but that is about as far as it goes. The inevitable result is that our unsaved acquaintances have a sense of condemnation but not of compassion. We do not really care about them, and unfortunately they know it.
    It was said of D.L. Moody the famous evangelist that he had a deep love for his fellow man. "Sympathy for all men apparently obliterated all traces of selfishness and unworthy ambition, so that he lived and died for others," as one put it (Moody: the Man and his Mission, 1900, p. 347). As a result, "the people flocked to his services, they heard him gladly, they were led to Christ" (Ibid., p. 194).

D.L. Moody preaching

    The problem is that our relationship with God is not what it should be. We have lost that sense of unworthiness and gratitude that should be the mark of every sinner saved by grace. We have forgotten what we once were and we have forgotten to Whom we owe all that we are now. We are proud when we should be humble; we are self-centered when we should be caring and compassionate. We have forgotten the love of Christ for us, and indeed, for all mankind.
    We need to begin with prayer. We need to confess our own sin and failures, and then we need to pray for others. We need to pray for their salvation. We need to pray that God would open up opportunities to witness. We need to ask God to open hearts and minds to receive His word.
    Compassion for the lost does not mean that we do not tell them that they are sinners. They will never come to Christ until they can see their lost condition. We do not show love by allowing them to perish in their sin. But the personal context is everything. What the poor lost sinners needs to see is a Christian who is conscious of his own unworthiness, a Christian who is humble and gentle, a Christian who genuinely cares about those around him. He needs to see a Christian who is willing to listen and is able to sympathize. And then the Christian needs to make it clear that we are all sinners, and that we all need God's grace. Then our image among those still outside the faith will be what it ought to be.

Lessons Learned from D.L. Moody

   

D.L. Moody preaching

 We recently had the opportunity of reading the biography of the great 19^th Century American evangelist D.L. Moody, written, interestingly, by British author John Pollock. It is a fascinating story.
    

D.L. Moody

Coming from extremely humble circumstances, Dwight Lyman Moody rose to fame during the "Gilded Age" of the late 19^th Century. It was the heyday of learned theologians and eloquent pulpiteers. Moody, by way of contrast, had almost no formal education of any kind and was never ordained. To the end of his life he was an untrained lay preacher. Nevertheless he enjoyed astonishing success. Beginning with a Sunday school he organized in the slums of Chicago he went on to minister to Union troops during the American Civil War. In 1873 he made a trip to Britain which became a preaching tour. On his return to America two years later he conducted major campaigns in Brooklyn, Philadelphia and New York. He spent the rest of his life preaching, and organized several important institutions, including the Bible Institute in Chicago that now bears his name.
    We think that the life of Moody offers several important spiritual lessons. Among them are these:

1. God often chooses humble means to accomplish His purposes. "But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things that are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence" (I Cor. 1:27-29; NKJV). To look at Moody's background and personal qualifications, one might be tempted to ask, why did God choose him? And yet the choice was obviously deliberate. It became evident that whatever success Moody had, it was not due to his personal ability. There were others much better qualified than he, but they had nowhere near the impact that he had.
2. Success depends on the power of God. "'Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit,' says the Lord of hosts" (Zech. 4:6). People who heard Moody preach were struck by a quality that seemed to transcend the man. "The work is most plainly of God, for I can see no relation between yourself and what you have done," one noted British preacher told him (Pollock, p. 161). Moody himself attributed his success to a baptism of the Holy Spirit that he received in November, 1871. "I can only say that God revealed himself to me, and I had such an experience of His love that I had to ask Him to stay His hand" (p. 108). His ministry was transformed by the experience.
3. God chooses those who are first faithful in little things. ". . . you were faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things" (Matt. 25:21,23). Moody did not set out for greatness when he started out in life. He began as a shoe salesman. He was active in his local church, simply trying to do what he could to help. He rounded up street urchins and brought them to Sunday school. The Sunday school grew, and so did his sphere of influence. Only gradually did he become a preacher, first addressing only his Sunday school children, and eventually soldiers in the Union camps during the Civil War. He learned what he could pick up along the way. It was only later that he addressed huge crowds.
4. Christian love and unity are prerequisites for God's blessing. Jesus told His disciples, "I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). And how do we abide in Christ? By keeping His commandments (v. 10). And what is His commandment? ". . . that you love one another as I have loved you" (v. 12).
   
    
   Moody's status as an unordained layman worked to his advantage It enabled him to transcend denominational boundaries and unite divergent groups. His campaigns in large cities were typically organized by committees drawn from a wide spectrum of churches. In this way Christians were able to join together in pursuit of a common goal. The focus was on Christ, not on denominations, and the power and blessing of the Holy Spirit were very much evident as a result.
   Moody's story is an extraordinary one – an ordinary individual chosen by God to be the man of the hour. In some ways Moody's success was a sharp rebuke to the smug, self-satisfied church of the day. A man with no training or background was able to accomplish what the highly trained professional clergy were never able to do. "To God be the glory – great things He hath done!" (Fanny J. Crosby).

Fundamentalism Then and Now – II

    The story of Fundamentalism did not end with the 1930's, of course. But with the passage of time the divisions within Evangelicalism only deepened. "Neo-Evangelicalism" made its appearance, and Billy Graham made his controversial decision to cooperate with liberals and Catholics in his evangelistic crusades. All the while strict Fundamentalists refused to compromise. Excluded from the life of the major denominations, Fundamentalist evangelists, some of them marked by colorful personalities, built ministry empires around themselves. It was the age of Bob Jones, Jr. and John R. Rice, of Jack Hyles and Carl McIntyre.
    Over the course of these developments the meaning of the word "Fundamentalist" underwent a change. In the earlier part of the century the contributors to The Fundamentals, a set of books that argued the case for the essential doctrines of Christianity, included such diverse figures as A.C. Dixon, Charles R. Erdman, James M. Gray, G. Campbell Morgan, A.T. Pierson, R.A. Torrey, and B.B. Warfield. Dixon, Gray and Torrey, along with C.I. Scofield, had earlier been associated with D.L. Moody and were also involved in the Keswick Movement. They were men of deep personal piety and had a passion for reaching lost souls for Christ. But by 1960 only the more militant separatists still wished to identify themselves as "Fundamentalists." The word had taken on a negative connotation that few wished to have applied to themselves.
    In 1976 the World Congress of Fundamentalists, meeting in Edinburgh, Scotland, adopted a formal definition of the word "Fundamentalist." Most of the seven individual points that made up the definition could be affirmed by nearly any conservative Evangelical. The major exception is point #6, which stated that a Fundamentalist "exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the truth . . ." The problematical phrase is" "Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical . . . compromise with error." This is what is sometimes referred to a "second degree separation," i.e., not only will a Fundamentalist separate from unbelievers, he will also separate from a fellow believer if he deems that Christian to be "compromising with error." But what constitutes "error"? Denial of the deity of Christ? Rejection of the idea of a Pretribulation Rapture? Use of a modern version of the Bible? Where exactly does one draw the line? The sentence, after all, says "all compromise with error," presumably no matter how great or small.
    Therein lies the problem. Fundamentalism has become the very epitome of narrow and unseemly sectarianism. What began as a broad coalition of Bible-believing Christians to defend the historic Christian faith instead has become a narrowly based group of zealots bent on fighting over minor differences of doctrine and practice. Fundamentalist historian David O. Beale even distinguishes Fundamentalists from "Neo-Fundamentalists," claiming that these "reconstructionist evangelicals actually differ quite radically from Fundamentalism because they consider anyone a Fundamentalist who holds to the cardinal Christian doctrines" (In Pursuit of Purity, p. 267). In other words, their great crime, in Dr. Beale's eyes, is that they hold to the original definition of "Fundamentalist"!
    The early Fundamentalists faced one of the gravest crises ever to befall Western Civilization. It was their sad destiny to witness the de-Christianization of the West. In this crisis they stood fast amid the raging storm of controversy and persevered to the end. To the extent that the gospel still exists at all in the modern world we owe in large measure to the courage and integrity of those valiant men. Yet it must also be said that in large measure they failed in their objective, which was to rescue the major denominations form theological apostasy, and they failed probably because they put too much confidence in the arm of the flesh and not enough in the Spirit of God. In the end they became a tragic demonstration of the principle "'Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit,' says the Lord of hosts" (Zech. 4:6; NKJV).

Fundamentalism Then and Now – I

    "Fundamentalism." The very word has an ominous ring about it. Few words in the English language are as emotionally charged as the word "Fundamentalist." But what exactly is a Fundamentalist? The question if difficult to answer, because the meaning of the word has changed over time.
    The word "Fundamentalist" was coined in 1920 by Curtis Lee Laws, editor of The Watchman-Examiner. Describing a gathering of Northern Baptists at a preconvention conference, Laws called them "Fundamentalists," describing them as those who "still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals." In the face of spreading liberalism within the Northern Baptist Convention, these "Fundamentalists" were determined to preserve the faith once delivered to the saints.
    As it turned out, the story became one of the saddest tragedies in all of church history. To understand why things turned out so badly it must be kept in mind that, going into the conflict American Evangelicalism had already been seriously weakened. Theologically it was considerably more Arminian than it had been a century earlier, and it had come to rely too heavily on institutions to further the work of the gospel. To put it bluntly, the Christian leaders of the early 20^th Century were overconfident, and were unprepared for the spiritual battles that lay ahead.
    As the conflict unfolded the Fundamentalists formed new organizations. They engaged in vigorous pamphleteering and parliamentary maneuvering. And in the end, they lost. In retrospect we can discern at least two fatal mistakes. In the first place they did not give enough attention to prayer. The great battles of previous centuries had been won by prayer warriors, but the Fundamentalists of the early Twentieth Century were men of action, impatient for results. Unfortunately they did not take sufficient care to secure the Lord's blessing on their efforts.
    The second fatal mistake was the failure to gain a consensus among themselves. After the Fundamentalist Fellowship, under the leadership of J.C. Massee, failed in 1922 to persuade the Convention to adopt the New Hampshire Baptist Confession, a group of frustrated conservatives formed a rival organization called the Baptist Bible Union in 1923. An even more radical group of Fundamentalists formed what eventually became the IFCA the same year. Thus we saw the beginnings of a cleavage within the ranks of conservative evangelical Christians that persists to this day. The one group seeks peace and tried to remain relevant, almost at any cost. The other group seeks purity almost at any cost. Between these two groups exists a chasm that has never been bridged. Both groups share the blame in this. The militants were too inclined to act precipitously; the moderates were simply too naïve about prospects in the old denominations. They both needed to wait upon God for a sense of direction and unity, and to overcome their natural passions and prejudices. The result of this division was catastrophic. Conservative unity was shattered, only small minorities left the denominations, and the denominations ceased to be evangelical.
    What the early Fundamentalists failed to realize fully is that they were engaged in a spiritual battle, and that it would take more than conferences and parliamentary votes to stop Modernism. What was needed was a movement of the Spirit of God to change hearts and minds – to convict the unbelieving, give fortitude to the vacillating, and patience to the impetuous. In particular the folly of relying on human organizations was amply demonstrated in the Baptist Bible Union. One of its key officers, J. Frank Norris, shot and killed a man in his office (he was later acquitted by a jury), and another ranking officer, T.T. Shields, was accused of having an affair with his secretary. To make matters worse the university he headed closed after a student riot. By 1930 Fundamentalism had been discredited in the eyes of many.

 
More to follow.

Secularism

    Is God still relevant? The general trend in Western thought for the past couple of centuries has been in the direction of growing secularism. The underlying assumption is that human reason alone is sufficient to arrive at truth, and that consequently any type of religious revelation is unnecessary. Thus we have attempted to exclude God from our thinking. We pretty much think and act as if God did not exist.

    In more recent times there has been an attempt to move away form the rationalism of modern scientific thinking, but this, unfortunately, has not resulted in a revival of religion. On the contrary, we seem to have become even more atheistic than ever, denying the existence of universal truths altogether. To this "Post-Modern" way of thinking there are no such things as moral absolutes.

    But what if God really exists? What becomes of our secular thinking then?

    The New Testament raises this question in a very pointed way in Romans chapter 1. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men . . ." (v. 18; NKJV). God is angry with us. Why? Because of our "ungodliness" and "unrighteousness." The Greek word translated "ungodliness" basically means "impiety," a lack of reverence or devotion to God. Or, to use a more modern term, it is frankly what goes by the name today of "secularism." "Unrighteousness" is the failure to live in accordance with God's law, especially as that failure involves the mistreatment of others. Thus we stand accused of crimes against both God and our fellow human beings. This is the reason that God is angry with us.

    "Ah," but the modern secularist replies, "there is no evidence that God exists! There is no reason to believe in His existence."

    The inspired apostle, however, continues his indictment. God is angry with men because they "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." He goes on to explain what he means. ". . . because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" (vv. 19,20). We are surrounded by the evidence of God's goodness, wisdom and power. The sheer complexity of nature points to an intelligent Designer. (An evolutionist, of course, would deny this, but we have already dealt with the question of evolution in a previous blog post – cf. "Why Evolution Is False," Oct. 5, 2011).

    But what has our response been to all of this evidence? ". . . because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools . . . " (vv. 21,22). Here we see traced out for us the whole course of modern philosophy, talking itself into absurdities, and never arriving at a firm conclusion.

    And what is the judgment of God upon all of this? "Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen" (vv. 24,25). In other words, the moral disintegration of Western society is the direct result of our refusal to acknowledge God. Secularism has been our undoing.

    Sad to say, many Americans today choose to live as though God does not exist. They never visit a house of worship, engage in private prayer, or read the Bible. They never thank Him for His blessings towards them, and they never consider what His will might be when they make personal decisions. For all practical purposes we have become a godless society. How tragically mistaken we are! We are headed for the abyss, and yet we will not turn back and change our ways. What can become of us?

Is Christian Fundamentalism Intolerant?

     We have tried so far to demonstrate that Islam is, indeed, a violent and intolerant religion, and that these tendencies in Islam stem from the fact that its program is essentially theocratic.  There is no separation of church and state; the power of the state is enlisted to support the cause of Islam.  Physical force is used to enforce a regime that consists mainly in external rules of conduct.
     But what about Christianity?  Does it not also have a long history of persecution and violence?
     As we have tried to show in our last post, there is no basis in the New Testament for the use of force to defend the faith.  The persecutions, Crusades and pogroms that marred much of later church history were aberrations.  Jesus Himself never countenanced any such thing.
     What is especially interesting, however, is how the Protestant Reformation and the later Evangelical revivals served to promote a rebirth of religious freedom.
     The dramatic turning point in Western attitudes towards religious freedom came on April 18, 1521.  Martin Luther had been asked to recant his writings.  Appearing before the Holy Roman Emperor and the assembled princes of the Empire, Luther defended his writings, and then concluded his remarks with this famous declaration:
         "Since then your all-gracious majesty and princely grace desires a simple answer, I want to give you one, simple and straightforward, namely this: unless I have been convinced by the testimony of Scripture or by rational argument, then I remain convinced by the authors I have quoted, and my conscience remains bound by God's Word.  For I believe neither the Pope nor the councils alone, since it is well-known that they often err and have contradicted themselves.  I can and want to retract nothing, since it is neither safe nor advisable to do something against one's conscience.  God help me.  Amen."
(It is debatable as to whether or not Luther actually uttered the words, so often attributed to him, "I cannot do otherwise, here I stand . . .")
     What Luther did, in effect, was to assert the right of private conscience over against public authority.  When there is a clash between God's will and human authority, God's will must always take precedence."We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29; cf. 4:19,20, NKJV).  God's Word limits human authority.
     Unfortunately, it took a while for the implications of this truth to be fully realized in Western thought.  Both Luther and Calvin presided over state churches.  The Lutherans and Reformed persecuted each other and they both persecuted the Anabaptists.  With the onset of spiritual awakenings in the 17th and 18th centuries, however, the implications of human accountability to the divine will began to appear.  Sincere believers, whose hearts had been touched by divine grace, often found themselves in the minority in most countries.  There were inevitable clashes with the civil authorities over matters of religious policy.  In the English speaking world Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Baptists and Quakers agonized over where their duty lay, and eventually the latent principle  emerged: the individual conscience must be free to obey God, and the civil authorities may not intrude.  The colonies of Rhode Island and Pennsylvania were founded on the principles of religious liberty, the British Act of Toleration was passed in 1689, and the First Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution in 1790.
      True evangelical religion can never countenance religious persecution.  To the unawakened sinner human society is all that there is.  He is all too willing to conform to prevailing standards.  But in a religious awakening people develop a heightened awareness of God, and they begin to realize that the edicts of the state cannot be confused with the will of the Deity.  It is manifestly not true that "vox populi" is "vox Dei."  Political leaders are often venal and corrupt, their decisions often unjust and unwise.  The true believer becomes all too painfully aware of an irreconcilable conflict between what God wants and what the government wants, but he knows that his undivided loyalty belongs to God alone.  To allow any other authority to interpose itself between the individual conscience and God is tantamount to idolatry.
     A spiritually awakened Christian is also aware that a genuine religious conversion can only be the result of an operation of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the individual sinner.  Spiritual life can only be imparted by God Himself.  The state is completely powerless to effect spiritual change.  Thus a rebirth of genuine piety leads inevitably to a restriction of the government's power.  The only workable modus operandi is a separation of church and state.
     The state is charged with the responsibility of maintaining civil order, and we owe it obedience in matters of external behavior.  But in matters of faith the conscience must be free -- free to obey God as He speaks to the individual soul.  Where there is no freedom of conscience there is the worst form of tyranny.  Freedom of religion is one of our most priceless treasures.
     The "New Atheists" sometimes claim that religious Fundamentalists are a threat to political freedom.  As far as Christian believers go, nothing could be farther from the truth.