A Borderless World

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Most of Old Testament history is about a specific place in the world: Israel, a specific people: Jews, and one city: Jerusalem. Now for the first time in Biblical history this focus, led by the Spirit of God, was radically changing.

The earthly government of God would be moved from a central government with a single location to a worldwide mission without any boundaries or capital. It was mobile and led directly by Jesus through His Holy Spirit.

Jesus' ministry moved from a nation with borders to no borders. His government on earth remains border-less today. His ministry moved from a specific race of people who depended heavily on their lineage, to every race regardless of their heredity. There is now no racial identity to the Government of Christ, and no multi-generational structure or dynasty. And its language is every language, God’s truth in every language… wow...

Throughout history since this radical change there have been multiple regular attempts to centralize the government of Christ or place its identity on a particular nation, government, party, or system. When radical nationalism creeps into the vocabulary and thinking of professing Christians it is always a corruption. Those who use the identity of Christ's government to attempt to heal the ills of their national government will always find they have only deepened the corruption by producing a poisonous hybrid. Christ's earthly government will remain free... no borders, no earthly capital, no single language, no exclusive race, and no dynastic structure.

Unjust Accusations Are Destructive... Even During Election Time

Deuteronomy 19:15  One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. 

When a nation allows free speech outside the halls of institutional justice, personal discipline by the citizens of that nation is necessary or the very fabric of civilization will be shredded. Unjust accusations can eat like a cancer at the most valued assets of a free society: trust and volunteerism. We must be cautious when making accusations of illegal behavior outside the structure of justice. For a Christian to accuse another person of wrong-doing, whether allowed by secular law or not, outside a just system is contrary to Biblical order.


Evidence presented in the context of a just hearing, is a basic building block of a civilized and ordered nation. Those who make unjust accusations under the guise of patriotism or liberty are actually eroding the very freedoms they claim to be upholding, and are moving their culture toward tyranny. Trust, discipline, and order are fundamental to liberty.

This verse, and others like it in both Testaments, show God's interest in justice. Not even a king (or Pastor) was lawfully allowed to bypass the fundamental requirements of justice. Standards of evidence and methods of justice differ from nation to nation, and age to age, but the principle of a fair hearing should be accepted as the only pathway to justice.

Making unjust accusations is easy to do... I've done it... especially when a person thinks he/she has been harmed, or in periods of high stress, or anger. A charge of wrong-doing might even be accurate... but the context of that accusation may be unjust, and the overriding principle of justice and fairness is higher than any personal grievance.

It is not my intent on this blog to unjustly speak about or accuse any person, in fact I try to write about timeless subjects, so anyone from any generation, nation, or context can read and find value. That doesn't mean I won't fail at some point. When I do make an unjust accusation in any context, please feel free to point it out. If I agree, then I will remove the comment, and, if necessary, issue an apology.


(This article was first published in print 10/08, posted here 10/30/10.)

Jesus Supported Religious Liberty

Mark 3:6 And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

We never read of Jesus plotting the destruction or obstruction of any person or religious leader with whom He disagreed. Jesus taught openly under great opposition, and vigorously debated His opponents. But it is clear, from the evidence we possess, that He did not conspire to infringe on the liberty of others in matters of belief. Jesus supported freedom of religion.

But does the rest of the New Testament support this freedom? The answer is yes. There is no example in the Bible of a church ever using governmental legislation or force to silence an opponent, or linking itself to governmental power to influence those who hold differing beliefs.

There are those who argue that religious liberty is a religious doctrine. This is true, it is a religious doctrine. They then argue that the enforcement of this liberty by the U.S. government is governmental enforcement of a religious doctrine. That is true only in a sense. The U.S. recognizes this liberty as a liberty common to all men. It is a human right derived from the evidence of our existence. The ministry of Jesus wasn't the beginning of this liberty, it began in the garden of Eden when grace entered this creation.

We live in a world still harassed by those who cannot allow, tolerate, or listen to dissent. They want the government to favor, and in some cases promote their specific religious beliefs. Thankfully the United States still stands for the right of religious liberty!

This is a companion post to Conspiracy and Liberty Of Conscience: Do We Have The Right To Be Wrong?

Liberty Of Conscience: Do We Have The Right To Be Wrong?

Romans 14:5b Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

The answer to the question in the title is a limited yes... and an absolute no. Let me explain.

In this chapter the Apostle Paul discussed differences in belief and ritual observance among individual Christians, and how to handle those differences in a church setting. The underlying principles of liberty of conscience are applied in these verses, but these principles should also be broadly applied to all forms of government.

It could be argued, and I would argue it, that a church has no authority to make or enforce prohibitions in the differences discussed in this passage. That we, as Christians within our churches, are called upon to permit differences in belief and practice to the extent mentioned in this and other passages.

What a church, or any other government, cannot lawfully prohibit and prosecute it must allow. Not only must it allow this liberty, it also must protect this liberty by whatever means are lawfully available. By doing so it may also be acknowledging and protecting the right of God's justice which is essential to real liberty of conscience. The result is that every government with this principle of liberty will have citizens or members of varying disciplines when it comes to matters of conscience and action. Liberty of conscience is a product of God's Grace.

Clearly God may prohibit certain thoughts and behaviors, but then not give His church, individuals, or any government the right of prohibition and prosecution. This means that these "thoughts and behaviors" are allowed on this earth, so, in this limited context, people do have the right or freedom to be wrong. But this God given liberty comes at an awful price: the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.

There are clearly certain rights of judgment and prosecution that God retains for Himself. So those sins that we may be free to think or do while living on this earth are still under the jurisdiction of God. So ultimately no one has the right to think or do things that are defined by God as wrong, and there is no behavior or thought that will remain unmeasured by His perfect Justice. So, before God, there is absolutely no privilege or right to be wrong. This truth is vital to the Gospel, and the recognition of God's exclusive authority or jurisdiction is essential to real liberty of conscience and limited human government.

Without God, law and human force become the only controlling authority. This means that atheism is pure human legalism with brutal controls. Atheism is naturally inclined against liberty of conscience. In atheism man must use the force of law and government to eradicate any thought or behavior considered to not be in the common good. And humanity defines the common good because there is no higher authority. There can be nothing left to God because, in the view of atheism, there is no God.

But on the other side of that humanistic coin are those religionists who seek to enforce laws which they have no right to enforce. This power mongering is, in some senses, a form of religious humanism and is anti-faith. The result is the same as atheism: God's exclusive Justice is replaced by repressive human force. Many Christians seem to be, at least in their approach to law and liberty, practical atheists. Which means they believe there is a God, but legislate and live as if He doesn't exist.

So the best human government is one which, under God, vigorously promotes and protects liberty of conscience. But... it leaves to God the judgment of the details of human thought and behavior which He has placed under His sole jurisdiction, and it also trusts Him to right the wrongs of faulty human law and justice.

One more point: essential to liberty of conscience is the right of dissent and non-participation in behaviors or beliefs that are against the conscience of the dissenters. But this right of dissent does not then give the right of judgment or prosecution to the dissenters. Romans 14:10 says, “But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.” Just because we disagree, and may even be right in our view, doesn't mean we also have the authority to judge those with whom we disagree.