That’s why we celebrate Christmas.

Each nation is made up of all kinds of people: atheists, humanists, secularists, do-gooders, good-doers, traditionalists, religious people of hundreds of religions, church members, nominal Christians, and dedicated Christians. Most of these people celebrate Christmas, at least a secular Christmas. But then, a secular Christmas, while completely legal, is not celebrating Christmas.

Some people have an affinity toward snowmen, Rudolph, a jolly old man, gifts, wild parties, elves, and reindeer. If that’s your thing, go with it. But it isn’t Christmas.

Some dedicated Christians refuse to celebrate Christmas for various reasons. They are correct in their belief that the Bible gives no command to do so, but then there is no biblical command to observe Easter. We are not even sure when Christ was born. Evidently, we don’t need to know that fact. The fact of His birth is sufficient. The day doesn’t matter.

Upper-class Romans believed that Mithra, born from a rock as a youth on December 25, was an infant god, the god of the unconquerable sun. That date was the most sacred day of the year. It is said that Christians, as they rose to some influence, usurped that day for the birth of Christ.

With the reign of Constantine (died A.D. 337), Christianity quickly became more powerful and the dominant religion around the Mediterranean area, the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, part of Turkey), and Central Europe. By the Middle Ages, nominal Christianity had replaced paganism. Roman Catholics slowly dominated all religions throughout Europe, building enormous cathedrals in larger cities and parish churches in smaller towns. The independent Bible Churches continued to operate in their shadow. The Catholics went to church on Christmas Day, jumped through the religious hoops, then left church to celebrate in a raucous, drunken, carnival-like atmosphere somewhat like today’s Mardi Gras.

The Christians in colonial America wanted nothing to do with the drunken partying of European church members, so Christmas was not observed in the 1600s in Puritan colonies. It was even illegal to observe the day in Boston, but Christmas was slowly accepted until it was declared a national holiday in 1870. Jamestown was an exception since it was more secular than the other colonies, and Captain John Smith reported that Christmas was universally observed in Jamestown.

Principled Christians who refuse to observe Christmas are not without ostensible biblical and historical support. Jeremiah 10:2-4 commands, “Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.”

So, nonobservant Christians claim scriptural support, but it is a perversion of Scripture to give that support. We must never twist Scripture to support what we choose to believe. We frame our beliefs with the proper interpretation of Scripture.

Christmas critics hone in on “deck it with silver and with gold.” However, this is a warning to Jews not to commit idolatry by doing as the heathen in worshiping the heavens, cutting down trees and carving, polishing, and painting wooden idols and worshipping them.

Isaiah 44:14-15 says, “He heweth him down cedars, …Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.” Here, too, is a warning against idolatry in “maketh a god and worshippeth it.”

Even if they are sincere, it is a twisting of Scripture to use those verses to support the refusal to celebrate Christmas.

There is no doubt that many Christmas traditions have roots back into paganism, but that does not require us to reject the holiday. After all, the days of the week are pagan-based, but when we think of Sunday, we don’t think of pagans who worshiped the sun god. Same with the other weekdays.

A big criticism of Christmas is that it is so commercial, and the message of a baby being born (incarnate God) who would bear the sins of mankind is lost in all the buying and selling, drinking and carousing, giving and getting. However, that does not negate the true meaning of Christmas; after all, man has corrupted everything from sex, the family, the church, etc. What’s wrong with families making an untainted Christ-honoring season to observe?

It is alleged that observing Christmas gives credibility to paganism and revives and recognizes the wild, wicked, and wayward practices of the Middle Ages. After all, the Apostle Paul warned in I Thessalonians 5:22 to “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” But that means to have nothing to do with any genuine form of evil as revealed in the Word of God, not man’s ever-changing conjecture of right and wrong.

Paul reminds us that some people see evil in everything, and that too is wrong. Titus 1:15 tells us, “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.” There are some who teach that all sex is wrong or it must be for the purpose of procreation; however, that is a distortion of what the Bible teaches.

The critics remind us that since the Bible does not tell us to observe Christmas, it is a presumptive sin to do so; however, that is fallacious logic. We don’t have biblical support for youth pastors, 401-k plans, Lincoln Town Cars, church vans, church dinners, Christian schools, hymnbooks, church pews, Wednesday evening services, sabbaticals, and mission boards. The old discredited argument from silence only works on the non-thinkers and the simpleminded.

Colossians 2:16 declares, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.” It is each person’s decision as to what he or she will celebrate. But it must be sincere and not contrary to Scripture.

It must be remembered that there are precedents for making much of His birth. After all, the shepherds caused a big stir about it. The angels made a big deal out of His birthday. “And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” The wise men from the East came hundreds of miles with hundreds in their entourage to celebrate His birth. The early churches met each Sunday to commemorate His death and resurrection. And there is no scriptural command to go to church on Sunday. Fact is, the early Christians met every day and later changed it to Sunday. As circumstances changed, they adjusted as long as no Scripture was violated.

The criticism that we spend large sums of money is a legitimate criticism. Children are often overwhelmed with gifts and are not reminded about the gifts of the wise men to celebrate the birth of Christ. Or the fact that Christ gave Himself as the sin offering for the world. Moreover, excessive spending is a bad example for children who learn not to appreciate their gifts.

The ultimate reason for the season is to recognize, repent, and receive the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ as the gift of personal salvation—the most important, inspiring, and illustrious events in history. Moreover, it would seem to be unusual if those events were not recognized as such by His followers.

Become convinced in your own mind what to do about celebrating Christmas, then don’t judge others who disagree with you. Romans 14:5 warns, “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”

Whatever you do about Christmas, what will you do about the Santa thing? What will you tell your children? A big mistake is made if you confuse Santa and the Savior. It is already being done because “Santa knows when you’ve been sleeping; he knows when you’re awake; he knows if you’ve been bad or good.” Sounds like an omniscient God to me.

Furthermore, if you support the receiving of gifts because you’ve been good, you are promoting the heretical idea that one must earn his or her salvation. Another horrific result is the children who don’t believe their parents when they tell them about Christ after deceiving them about Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.

Christmas should be a time of fun for children; however, parents must not instill a lifetime heresy in them. My wife and I never spoke about Santa or discussed it with the children since they were bright enough to know a big fat man could not ride around the world in a sleigh pulled by reindeer and get it done in one night. Furthermore, they knew he could not get down the chimney and eat cookies and milk in every home. Besides, we didn’t have a chimney.

God instructed the Jews in Deuteronomy 6:6, 7 to give a proper answer when the children asked about their traditions, such as the Passover. “And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.” Special days were to be teaching experiences.

It would be a rejection of their heritage not to tell them about Jewish captivity in Egypt and God’s deliverance. When children ask about Christmas, they must get the right story, not some silly myth. Go on, if you must, with the Santa stuff but be sure they know it is a myth. You might suggest that they not discuss Santa with their friends. My four-year-old daughter was told by her older sister that Santa was a myth, and she told her pre-kindergarten class, causing a sobbing brouhaha with fellow students. The teacher, who was my friend whom I had hired, had to calm her whole class. I suggest you require your children not share with believers (in Santa) that he is a myth. It is the job of parents.

My wife, Ellen’s three-year-old Jennifer, asked her, “Is there a real live Santa Claus man in this whole world of ours?” Her mother told her the true meaning of Christmas and that people made up Santa for fun. When asked by her pastor’s grown son, what Santa brought her, she replied, “Philip, you know there is no real live Santa Clause man in this whole world of ours.”

In the early churches, the question of eating meat that had been offered to idols was hotly contested. Some said it was endorsing paganism while others suggested idols are simply pieces of wood; therefore, there is no harm in eating such meat. I Corinthians 8:9 reminds us, “But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.” We need to apply this biblical principle to this issue.

Now, go out and get your Christmas tree.

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Boys authored 18 books, the most recent being Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! The eBook is available here with the printed edition (and other titles) at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D.; and visit his blog. Send a request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles, and click here to support his work with a donation.)

It was an astounding turn of events when the Bishop of Milan brought the Emperor of the Roman Empire under church discipline! The Emperor capitulated to the preacher and for the first time in history, the civil government surrendered to the authority of a church leader!

In 390, in the Greek city of Thessalonica, authorities imprisoned a charioteer of that city for homosexuality; however, the charioteer was one of the city’s favorites. Riots broke out when the governor refused to release him and the Roman Governor and a few others were killed in the brawl, and the charioteer was released.

Theodosius, Emperor of the Roman Empire, was livid and was determined to exact revenge over the death of one of his officials and the flaunting of the law. He announced another chariot race, but after the crowds arrived, the gates were locked and the Thessalonians were massacred by the emperor’s soldiers. Within three hours 7,000 men, women, and children were dead.

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, sent a scalding letter to the Emperor. Ambrose was convinced that this parishioner, the Emperor, had committed a grievous and public sin that had to be dealt with by the church. In his letter Ambrose told the Emperor that until he repented publicly he would not be allowed to receive Communion. Ambrose had excommunicated the Emperor, not an ordinary church member; however, the Bible teaches that all Christians are on the same level. No special treatment should be given to a rich or powerful person. Theodosius was both rich and powerful–the most powerful man on earth!

Theodosius had done what emperors always do. He sent in the army to teach a lesson to the Greeks of Thessalonica, and by extension the rest of the empire. Ambrose was not a pacifist, but he knew that the emperor’s actions needed to be condemned even if it meant the very real possibility of being sent to prison or killed. Emperors don’t usually like to be challenged. Against all odds, Emperor Theodosius repented and publicly sought reconciliation with his bishop. And a few years later the Emperor died in the arms of the Bishop who had disciplined him!

Church discipline has been practiced for over 2000 years; although in recent years, it has been one of the least important practices of any church, especially when powerful people are the perpetrators. It is noteworthy that both Hitler and Mussolini died “in the arms of the church.” The Catholic leaders were very lax in doing their duty in bringing discipline upon them.

Many churches today are as weak, wimpy, and wobbly in this matter as the Catholics who preach against abortion and homosexuality but never deal with major proponents of those sins. Baptists and Protestants are just as guilty as the Catholics.

Bill Clinton grew up in Southern Baptist Churches, a group that touts its adherence to the Bible; however, they sure looked the other way when it came to Bill’s sexual activities. His pastor should have called him into his office without any secret service men present and told him that his numerous affairs as governor of Arkansas and as President of the U.S. could not be justified or countenanced. That would be a very long appointment as each affair is discussed and admitted. In fact, his sins must be repented of, confessed publicly in a church service, and restitution made to any woman who was harmed.

Bill had no intention of repenting of his sins. That would have meant that he would have to stop his predatory lifestyle.

Hillary’s pastor would tell her, “Hillary we love you but you are embarrassing our church when you curse and throw things at the President of the U.S. Your cursing fits are legendary especially the one where you threw your Bible at the head of a secret service agent and used the most vulgar curse word. That was one of the most disgraceful episodes in White House history. It requires a private confession and a public apology. Americans must understand that such actions are damaging and disgraceful, if not demented. Moreover, it is not seemly to curse, scream, and throw lamps at Bill. Obviously, you two should have attended our Christian Couples’ Conference last month. You would have found especially helpful the session, Why a Christian Wife Should Never Throw Things at Her Husband! and Bill could have been helped by the session, Bad Things Happen When a Man Doesn’t Control His Zipper.

“Mrs. Clinton, God condemns lying as a horrible sin and you seem to have a graduate degree in lying. One of the Ten Commandments condemns and forbids lying. That is a command of God to the President of the U.S. or his wife the same as it is to any member of this church. Even if you are sorry for that sin, it must be confessed to our church so our youth and the general public will understand that Christians don’t talk that way, not even the President or his wife. You are not an exception.

“You were far from acting like a Christian when you empowered Bill in his role as sexual predator and even hurt, harassed, and harangued Bill’s victims. You added to their victim-hood by your defense of him and intimidation of those innocent ladies.

“Finally, Hillary, you are one of the biggest promoters of baby killing in the world. How you can sleep at night is beyond my comprehension. You must stop any promotion of abortion and do what you can to stop the slaughter of the innocent ones. Your abortion position repudiates your membership in this church and frankly in the human race.

“Now, will you pray with me as you confess your litany of sins and leave this office a forgiven sinner walking the path that millions have walked before you?

“Hillary, where are you going?”

Well, at least her pastor can be pleased that she didn’t throw a lamp at him.

Donald Trump says he is a Presbyterian although he said he attends the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan. He seldom attends any church as was true of Reagan. It should be mentioned that it is a sin to miss church without a good reason. In fact, churches in the seventh century put members under church discipline if they were absent from church three services in succession without cause!

Trump’s pastor should commend Trump for his success in business and politics then tell him that he must conform to Biblical teaching. “Donald, I am very glad to see you since I don’t see you in church very often. Seriously, Donald, you joined our membership and because of your high visibility, you represent us in everything you do; therefore, I must hold your feet to the fire as I do all our members.

“First of all, you are a bad example for youth when you curse and boast. Your use of hell, damn, and the like are totally unnecessary, uncivil, and unchristian. Also, a display of humility would be a good example to others.

“You also must repent of having a baby out of wedlock many years ago. It was wrong, a sin that must be repented of as an example to others. You are not above any other member of this church. Being President of the United States and leader of the free world is a temporary position but being a member of this church is spiritual in nature. You do not have a right to sleep around. You must repent and give evidence of that repentance. It will not be acceptable to say, ‘I made a mistake,’ or ‘If I have offended anyone, I’m sorry.’ No, you must admit that you broke your marriage vows, lusted after a woman, and then satisfied your lusts in an ungodly, wicked way.

“Donald, you and Melania missed our Christian Couples’ Conference last month and it would have been a great help to your marriage. And Donald, you should have attended our session, It is good for a man not to touch a woman–unless you’re married to her. You have boasted about not only touching women but grouping them. You must not give the impression that such action is acceptable. It is not and you must repent.

“Donald, you are doing great damage to families with your casinos where people go to try to get something for nothing. That is not a Christian concept. Moreover, your hotels and resorts sell booze which is forbidden in Scripture. We are warned not to provide strong drink to others. So, if you want to continue membership in this church, you must sell your casinos and stop selling booze in your hotels. Now, will you bow your head in genuine sorrow for your sins, confess those sins to God, and apologize to the church membership this Sunday night for your wicked, willful, and worldly behavior?

“Donald, where are you going?”

All right, that’s enough. I could go on and on and on. Everyone knows neither Trump nor Clinton will stand at the church altar sobbing uncontrollably–confessing sin–as did King David thousands of years ago when he cried, “Have mercy upon me, O God…blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin….Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.” Heads of state are simply sinners in powerful places.

It is my opinion that many Evangelical churches are an appendage of the Republican Party, and their pastors are aging and graceless cheerleaders for the GOP. They are strong on preaching and soft on principle. Churches used to be the moral compass of America; but instead of a force to be reckoned with, they have become a farce to be ridiculed. Almost all churches fail in exercising church discipline.

Clinton and Trump’s pastors should develop spines and tell each of their famous members, “Either get right or get out.”

With that foundation, what have the churches done to convince the famous sexual predators to confess, repent, and make things right with the women they have abused? I can’t find any church pressure brought to bear on anyone for any cause.

Harvey Weinstein, Dustin Hoffman, Richard Dreyfuss, Jeremy Piven, Steven Seagal (grandfather was Jewish) Matt Laurer (father was Jewish) and Al Franken are Jews but I’ve not heard that their rabbis have called upon them to repent and weep copious tears as did King David over his affair with Bathsheba.

Ben Affleck is a “lapsed Protestant.” Tavis Smiley grew up attending a church of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World. Paul Haggis is a former member of the Scientology cult. The religious background of Charlie Rose, and others is unknown.

All religious groups have standards their members are expected to follow and that is only right for them to enforce their own standards. Outsiders can agree or disagree with those standards but have no right to seek a change in them.

Male sexual aggression against women should result in disapproval by friends and family, discharge from employment, disgrace and loss of reputation, damages in the form of money, and dismissal from a local church if repentance is not evident.

The message: there is a high cost for low living.

Boys’ book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Catholics tell us that veneration of relics, especially bones, is justified because the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit! So any bones or property of a “saint” or the Savior had miracle-working powers. In about A.D. 400, Augustine condemned the excesses and outright scam of the relic business, ridiculing “hypocrites in the garb of monks for hawking about the limbs of martyrs,” adding cynically, “if indeed of martyrs.”

Why the props? Isn’t the Scripture sufficient? The reason Catholics and others refuse to base what they believe on the Bible is because what they believe conflicts with Bible teaching. Hence, a need for props.

The New York Times published an article on Jan. 16, 1881 in which they condemned “the silly worship of relics” and recounted an amusing anecdote of two rival French monasteries. They each possessed a head of John the Baptist! The monks, with amazing mental gymnastics, explained this uncomfortable detail by saying that the first skull belonged to John as a man while the smaller skull was from “when he was a boy.” I have seen the adult skull of John in a Damascus mosque.

One expert whose work was financed by National Geographic said, “There are about eight or nine skulls of John the Baptist out there. He added with a massive understatement, “They can’t be all John the Baptist.” Even this Baptist preacher can understand that! Various monasteries proclaim that they have the right hand of John the Baptist while another church displays the left arm of John. If some enterprising monk got to work, he might be able to put John back together again.

In Bethlehem they claim to have a drop of Mary’s milk and a 17th century painting shows a statue of Mary holding baby Jesus as she squirts milk into the mouth of a male worshipper standing below! Great shot!

Calvin suggested that “if we were to collect all these pieces of the True Cross exhibited in various parts, they would form a whole ship’s cargo.” He also said that there were more relics of the “true cross” than three hundred men could carry! He wrote of His Holy Blood that was “exhibited in more than a hundred places.” That is not only relic-worship but blasphemy.

During the mid-fourth century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 315-386) wrote that “already the whole world is filled with fragments of the wood of the Cross.” More than forty shrouds of Jesus exist, so the story goes.

Late at night, astute Catholics wonder about all those nails from the original cross that could shoe every horse in Kentucky and enough wood from the original cross to supply fuel for every fireplace in Alaska for a hundred years. Well, almost.

Exeter Cathedral displayed parts of the candle that the angel of the Lord used to light the tomb of Jesus and fragments of the bush from which God spoke to Moses! I must not forget the sop of bread given to Judas, also some hairs from the Lord’s beard. Astounding!

These relics are a “cash cow” for each church that has one and for many years, it was required that each church or monastery had to possess at least one relic. That kept ye old relic scam working. It was common for a monastery to “find” a relic when they needed to raise money from the faithful. Since each relic contained special powers, distraught, disabled, and diseased people showed their generosity when praying before such a relic. Historian Durant tells of relic mongers who sold to eager believers “some of that very bread which our Lord pressed with His own teeth.” Does any sane person believe such things?

However, the relic of all relics is the foreskin of Jesus that was allegedly preserved; however, a dozen monasteries’ claim to have the relic! I think not! Such a system is worthy of criticism, correction, and contempt by sincere, thinking people.

Is anyone surprised that the Reformation happened? Protestants are not doing much protesting in our day! Is it time for another Reformation among Catholics and Protestants?

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Eight minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota on “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.

The papacy was not established by Jesus nor prophesied by Isaiah and saying otherwise does not make it so. For about 300 years after Christ, very ordinary village priests were called pope (papa). (By the way, what of the Bible prohibition in Matthew 23:9 of calling any man “father” other than your own physical father?) Moreover, Peter was not the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church as some shallow historians loudly proclaim. Obviously, the Christian church was built upon Peter’s confession of Christ, not upon Peter. Peter was not a Catholic!

The Christian Reformers were on the march in 1544 giving the Roman Catholic Church leaders a perpetual heartburn. The reformers were shining the light upon the religious corruption, priestly incompetence (and wickedness), and numerous unscriptural doctrines that the Roman Church espoused. The Roman Catholic leaders determined to act and did so by calling the Council of Trent (in Trento, Italy) that lasted from Dec. of 1545 to Dec. of 1563. The Catholic Counter Reformation was on the move. Trent is considered one of Rome’s most important councils. It was 400 years before another council was held.

Trent decided that the Scripture alone was not sufficient and that truth would be decided by Scripture, the pope (and his bishops), and tradition. They decided that salvation was attained by faith and works in opposition to Luther’s demand for justification by faith alone as taught in the Bible.

All Protestants and Baptists who disagreed with the council’s decision were cursed as the Roman leaders hurled 125 anathemas (curses) at all who disagreed with their decisions. That meant that such people were out of the church and destined for hell.

Those who laugh at the thought that the Pope (or any other human) can ever be without error are condemned to eternal Hell, according to First Vatican Council.

If one does not believe that Purgatory is a reality since it is never mentioned in Scripture, he is to be cursed to Hell (Session 6). Purgatory has been an embarrassing, unscriptural fund-raiser for the Roman Church. If a Catholic pays money to his church, then a relative’s sins are forgiven and eventually the doors of Purgatory open so he or she can enter Heaven. However, Purgatory, like Limbo does not exist.

Session 7 declared, “If anyone says that baptism is …not necessary for salvation,” he is cursed. Well, that means all Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Interdenominationalists, independents, and others are candidates for Hell even though John 14:7 clearly teaches that Christ is the only way of salvation. Water baptism is simply an outward sign of what happened inwardly.

In Session 12, the church leaders decreed that those who don’t believe that the bread and wine at the Lord’s Table are the actual body and blood of Christ are doomed to Hell. Church leaders insist that they are actually eating the body of Christ and drinking His blood! If one analyzed the bread and wine as it hits the tongue would it prove to be flesh and blood? Only a superstitious fool or religious fanatic would think so. Only 45% of Catholics believe that teaching. Acts 15 forbids the drinking of blood. Catholics would have us believe that Christ was saying as He held the bread, “This is my body that we will now devour together!” What an absurdity! Moreover, Christ had not yet died, so how could the bread be His body that was in the room with them?

It is incredible and a mangling of English to call Trent an “Ecumenical Council.” The churchmen showed no interest in genuine discussion of the doctrinal differences with the Protestants. The Roman leaders were determined to reinforce their agenda with some housecleaning to satisfy the protesters. It is interesting that no Baptists were even close to the council. They wanted nothing to do with either side. Baptists are neither Catholics nor Protestants!

When Pope John XXIII opened the Second Vatican Council (1962), he made a Declaration of Faith. He said that he accepted everything declared by the Council of Trent. He specifically said that he anathematized everything that contradicted it, a position that was reaffirmed by Pope Paul VI. It was said that Paul “sought dialogue with the world, with other Christians, other religions, and atheists, excluding nobody.” But that is not true. With a wink and a nod, he spoke of inclusiveness while he reinstituted the vile curses of Trent. It is time for the Roman Catholic Church to apologize for Trent and lift all curses. Of course, the curses have no effect on non-Catholics but it is a matter of principle that the curses should be lifted if the Church leaders sincerely believe in ecumenicity. They are hypocrites if they don’t.

This evil attack upon all non-Catholics cannot be relegated to the Middle Ages; it is as current as it was at Trento. All curses are still in effect! Hardly a gracious and inclusive thought. It is way past time to lift the curses. Will the new Pope do so?

An Augustinian monk named Luther hammered to his church door in Wittenberg his objections to Roman Catholic doctrine and other abuses, accelerating the necessity of Trent. It is now time for Rome to admit that the simple monk was right and lift their curses on those who agree with him.

My critic sarcastically asked, “And how much stronger would the church have been made had all Christians refused and been killed?” Evidently, he did not know how persecution happened in the Roman Empire. The persecution was not constant, but took place in “fits and starts.” Moreover, the worst part of persecution took place in selected localized areas, depending upon the local rulers, urban or rural areas, etc. Furthermore, many Christians did not “go public” and, therefore, did not face persecution. Believers who refused to obey Caesar and made much to do about it were given an opportunity to recant and deny Christ and some did so. And later recanted their recantation.

My critic said that case law amends the Constitution but he is wrong. If that were true, it would mean that the Constitution would be constantly changing. Case law is a constantly developing body of law which has made new interpretations of law which can be used as a precedent in similar cases. He has it backwards: case law does not amend the Constitution but case law is determined by the Constitution. The Constitution must go through the amending process before it can be changed.

Radicals want the Constitution to be “flexible” so that anything can be read into it to justify things like ObamaCare, abortion, homosexuality, etc. My critic declared, “So all it would take to silence the churches in this country would be for them to all commit hairy kerry (sic) as soon as they have less then (sic) 100% religious liberty.” I assume he meant to write “hara-kiri,” not hairy kerry, but then I often presume too much.

But back to his previous mistake about the martyrs. No, the church would not be silenced, at least not true churches. It might be one of the best things to happen in America if a thousand preachers went to jail for refusing to obey an oppressive government order. During 1662, over 2,000 preachers in England lost their pulpits or went to jail for refusing to obey the king’s order to strictly adhere to the Book of Common Prayer.

In the 1600s, the government of England started losing control of religion in Wales when hundreds of independent churches and chapels were established by nonconformist Independents, Baptists, Quakers, and others. The Nonconformists were gaining too much influence in England and Wales so the King and Parliament decided to bring them under control. The Act of Uniformity of 1662 required all ministers to assent to the rites and liturgy of the Established Church. In fact, all clergy, college professors, and schoolmasters had to agree with everything in the Book of Common Prayer! All clerics who refused to follow the common prayer book were ejected from the Church. Out of approximately 10,000 preachers throughout the country, about 2,000 were ejected (and some went to jail) but 20% to 25% of the country continued to worship illegally, holding secret services in barns and other unapproved locations. That could happen here.

My critic wrote, “I understand those who have drawn the line here, and wish them success. But souls are still being saved that won’t be if everyone gives up and goes home at the first sign of trouble.” He made a gargantuan leap in logic when he suggested that people won’t become Christians if individuals, churches, and businesses refuse to obey ObamaCare in obedience to the Bible and their conscience. I suggest that such courageous action would prove to the cynical world that there are still people who will do what is right if it costs them everything–that was everything: reputation, job, home, business, retirement plan, and personal freedom.

He accused Christians of going “home at the first sign of trouble.” Principled people are not running home; they are fighting in court; they are going on record that they will not obey the law even if they lose in court. Whatever happens in court, they know the end result: they will not obey the law! Wow, that takes courage, character, and commitment to biblical principles. Government officials, judges, media, and politicians have not met many people like that. They will be shocked when businesses, churches, hospitals, orphanages, schools and other entities are closed by the government and the leaders are marched off to jail!

Some potential compromisers have begun to set the stage (and self-justification) for their eventual compliance by stating that ObamaCare may force them “to violate their consciences,” which is not a biblical response. The principled response is, “I won’t comply whatever the threats or consequences. Period.” No room for negotiation (read: compromise).

Others have said, “Americans have no choice in this matter.” But of course we do. We have the choice to say, “Yes” or “No.” That is a choice.

I have made my decision.