John Bunyan preached without government permission and spent 12 years in Bedford Jail for preaching without a license; yet after his release, he accepted a license!

While John was in jail, he was only a five minute walk to his home. When blind Mary visited, she brought her father a jug of soup. John wrote, “O the thoughts of the hardship I thought my Blind one might go under, would break my poor heart to pieces. … Yet recalling myself, thought I, I must venture you all with God, though it goeth to the quick to leave you. O, I saw in this condition I was as a man who was pulling down his house upon the head of his Wife and Children. Yet, thought I, I must do it, I must do it.”

Mary often brought father a jug of soup, feeling her way along the damp wall to his cell where she embraced her father and related news of their home and church. On leaving, she would reach up and feel for her father’s eyes and wipe away the tears. John said that as he considered what he was doing to his family, it was as if someone were pulling the flesh from his bones. Knowing that he could go home with Mary if he simply agreed not to preach, made the matter worse.

Although convicted illegally and without a proper trial, he served in prison 12 years of his life from age 32 to 44. Of course, unlike today’s prisoners, he did not have access to radio, television, or prison library. He didn’t even have a gym! He slept on a flea-infested straw mattress when it was available or on loose straw along with 20 to 30 other prisoners. He was cold in the winter and sweltering hot in the summer as he became well acquainted with rats, lice, and fleas. One can imagine his desire for silence and solitude.

While in prison, John began to write and authored the most-read book of all time other than the Bible, Pilgrim’s Progress, one of 60 books he wrote. Next to the Bible, Pilgrim’s Progress has been translated into more languages than any other book.

Bunyan had been convicted under the Act Against Puritans 1593, which mandated that every citizen should attend the parish church (Church of England) regularly. The punishment for breaking this law included banishment from England forever. However, the law was to expire at the end of the next session of Parliament so Bunyan was arrested and convicted under an expired law!

When King Charles II issued the Declaration of Religious Indulgence in 1672, he was showing tolerance toward all religious groups but his main interest was giving Roman Catholics a boost from their disfavor. Charles was thought to be a secret Catholic and in fact did become one on his deathbed. His Catholic brother James was heir to the throne, which scared Englishmen.

As a result of this Act, Bunyan was released even though he spent six additional months in prison in 1675. With the Indulgence, it was possible for people to worship God in the way they wanted if they bought a license. Non-conformist sects such as Baptists, Quakers, Presbyterians, and others could register and get a license. But no preacher should get approval from government to minister–not then, not now.

The dissidents wavered for a while not knowing what to do. If they registered, then the King would have all their names and addresses, “but surely you can trust the word of the King.” Eventually the offer was accepted with a total of 1610 ministers taking licenses: 939 Presbyterians, 458 Congregationalists or Independents, and 210 Baptists. Bunyan was one of the Baptists!

However, the Indulgence was cancelled in 1673, under pressure from an Anglican-controlled Parliament, and the licenses were recalled in 1675. (That is exactly what Bunyan told the judge could happen.) It wasn’t too difficult since the government knew where everyone lived and preached. The nonconformists learned that you can’t always trust your government. However, the results for nonconformity were permanent. The dissidents made enormous advances in only a few months and there was no going back. Freedom does that.

But the mess was getting messier.

A vacillating king, a vicious Parliament, and a vindictive state church had made a mess of life in England. Charles didn’t know what he believed and was only interested in cavorting with his eight mistresses (producing 17 bastards) and everyone “just getting along.” The king’s interest was not in politics but in philandering, partying, and playing. Things haven’t changed much, have they?

The Parliament was displaying its power after being in limbo during the rule of Oliver Cromwell (an independent Puritan). Additionally, the Church of England was getting its pound of flesh from the dissidents after the state church’s humiliation during Cromwell’s Protectorate from 1653 to 1659. (It’s interesting that Cromwell rejected the offer to make him king!)

Bunyan was released from jail and he found that his affairs were “gone to wreck” and that he had to begin life as if he were a young man again. “Before his liberation, a license had been sent to him from the king to preach, and Mr. Gifford [pastor of the Bedford Church] being dead, it had been resolved by the church that he should become their pastor, in case he concurred with their desire.” (William Brock, Life of John Bunyan, Cassell Publishing Company, New York undated, p. xxx.) However, a license “sent to him” was still a license to preach.

No one knows what happened to Bunyan that permitted him to accept permission to preach from the king after his principled reply to the judge: “No man or company of men may grant or deny me leave [permission] to preach.” The fact is, if an official can give permission to preach then he can tell you that you can’t preach.

The Bible principle is, no power on earth has the authority (power yes, authority, no) to tell a preacher he can preach or he cannot preach nor can he be told what to peach or how to preach or when to preach. Nor can any authority sit in judgment as to what a preacher or layman can believe. Modern Christians had better imbibe these convictions as an out-of-control government arrogantly tells them what they will believe about same-sex “marriage,” transgenderism, homeschooling, licensure of Christian schools, etc. It seems Charles II is still on the throne!

John Bunyan was a good, great, and godly man who was far more courageous and talented than I; however, he was wrong not to tell King Charles II that while he appreciated the thought, he would continue to preach without a license.

But then that could be dangerous since King Charles beheaded Algernon Sidney for saying that there is no divine right of kings to rule over the people. It’s dangerous to disagree with any “king.”

No one can know what changed Bunyan’s mind about a license. Maybe he liked being free; or was delighted with his enlarged ministry; or was influenced by his family; or was convinced by his preacher/friends to be “practical”; or felt that he had done enough for the cause; or maybe he became weary in the battle.

Modern Christians must learn to pronounce the most difficult word to speak–no! No, to government control.

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

It is obvious that a medical doctor’s license does not protect patients from sexual abuse or unnecessary medical procedures; nor protect students from incompetent or predatory teachers; nor guarantee a reasonable-looking haircut from barbers; nor assure a fair, reasonable defense by attorneys; nor, but then you get the idea.

In the mid-400s, Theodosius II, Eastern Roman Emperor from 408 to 450, made it a punitive offense for a man to teach the public without a state license; and soon such licenses were given only to “Christians.” Now that the Church was in control, they decided to keep the unbelievers out of teaching by requiring permission from the church-controlled government.

As early as 1534, the English clergy were forbidden to preach without a government license and John Bunyan got caught up in government machinery that tried to control preachers and teachers.

John Bunyan has been one of my major heroes all my adult life. But, I recently discovered that John, after spending more than 12 years in jail for preaching the Gospel, finally accepted a license to preach! While that was wrong in my opinion, it does not diminish Bunyan’s courageous stand against King Charles II and the king’s demand that John and other dissidents (those who disagree) not preach the Gospel. Preaching the Gospel was very costly to all except the Church of England preachers and even they did not have total freedom of conscience since they had to obey the King and Parliament regarding religious matters.

In the seventeenth century, all religious groups hated the Roman Catholics who like all dissidents met in homes. Everyone in England and Europe remembered the Inquisition where “the papists” mangled, mauled, and murdered hundreds of thousands of “heretics.” All the dissidents and the Church of England preachers agreed–“No popery, no popery!” Of course, everyone should have had freedom of conscience–Catholics, Anglicans, Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians, and even the religious weirdos. Moreover, all the groups were against the Baptists because of their insistence on baptism by emersion of only those who had trusted Christ as Savior. No babies under any circumstance.

King Charles I had feuded, fussed, and fought with Parliament and ended up being beheaded in 1649 followed by Oliver Cromwell becoming Lord Protector until his death in 1658. Although a strict Puritan, Cromwell provided religious freedom for everyone. Into this religious mix, mess, and maelstrom walked two men who would make their mark on English history–a preacher and a king.

When Charles II restored the monarchy in 1660, he reneged on his promise of religious freedom he had made in his Declaration of Breda a few weeks earlier (a mistake I hope Trump does not make). The people had experienced about twenty years of freedom of worship but now nonconformist (Baptist, Presbyterian, Independent, etc.) services were banned, and ministers were rounded up and arrested. The major hero in this religious mix was a born-again tinker, a Baptist preacher named John Bunyan. The resultant clash was titanic.

Soon after his conversion, Bunyan began preaching in 1655 and was arrested in 1660 while preaching in an unapproved religious meeting (conventicle). He served a prison stretch until 1672 when he was released with other dissidents. He was jailed again for a few months in 1675.

The Act of Uniformity 1662 required every preacher to adhere to and accept the doctrine of the Church of England or leave the country. That included all preachers of the Church of England (many of them Puritans) and all the various independent groups. Everyone had to attend the Church of England regularly with fines, banishment, and then hanging for a third offense. (That would sure help one decide whether or not to sleep in on Sunday morning!) The act required all clergymen to use the Book of Common Prayer; consequently, about 2,000 Puritan clergymen were forced to resign. Some of them recanted while others became dissident preachers, others got other employment.

As to unbiblical ceremonies in the Church of England, Puritans (and all dissidents) objected to kneeling during the Lord’s Supper, the observation of holy days, the use of the surplice (outer garment worn by priests), and the signing of the cross in baptism.

The noose got tighter when the Conventicle Act 1664 became law forbidding more than five people, not members of the same family, to meet for worship. This was followed the next year by the Five Mile Act that forbade any preacher from coming within five miles of any incorporated town or their former place of abode. The noose was now tight and the preachers were standing on a very fragile, shaky platform.

The Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and other dissidents from the Church of England continued to meet surreptitiously in homes, barns, and abandoned buildings while the Quakers very bravely continued to meet openly. This was a time of persecution without parallel as Protestants (Anglicans) persecuted Protestants (Puritans and dissidents).

However, Charles and the Anglicans did not have it easy in hounding, hunting, and harassing the dissidents. In 1668, the Bawdy House Riots proved that sane citizens recognized the insanity of persecution of decent people. London crowds attacked brothels as they protested against a government which had tolerated prostitution while persecuting devout, principled preachers!

Present day parallels are numerous as the state asserts its authority to control religious colleges, license Christian counsellors, certify Christian teachers, regulate school curriculum, prohibit anti-homosexual regulations, restrict military chaplains, etc.

The modern state is as arrogant, asinine, and aggressive as King Charles II was and it’s time for principled Christians to resist to the point of jail.

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

Additionally, it would negate a recent bill signed by Governor Jerry Brown of California who jumped with hobnail boots upon the rights of all Christian colleges in that state. That oppressive law now includes California’s Christian colleges and universities and forces all schools to report to the state officials four times a year on every expulsion and suspension of a student, and the reasons for the discipline. That is none of the government’s business and private college presidents should clearly tell authorities that fact and say: “We will not obey that law. Come and get us.” Only a weak, wavering, wobbly weasel of a college president would obey such a law.

Trump must keep his promise made at the National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 2 when he promised, “My administration will do everything in its power to defend and protect religious liberty.” Evangelical Christians put him in office and we can take him out. We don’t want a return of the government seeking to control Christians in the colleges, churches, or culture.

I don’t want any heel on my neck, not Trump’s, nor a governor’s, nor a local dictocrate’s heel. If these oppressive laws are not overturned, then we will see a return to 17th century England when preachers defanged King George II.

John Bunyan was one of the first to feel the heat of tyranny for his biblical convictions.

The Bedford church and similar churches were called Independents since they did not have any ties to the Church of England, and I freely and gladly identify with them. Being independent was illegal since everyone had to be a member of the Church of England and regularly attend services. Or severe penalties were imposed.

It was safer to be a desperado in England than it was to be a dissident!

Bunyan moved to Bedford in 1644 (when Charles I was king) to be closer to the dissident church. When his wife died in 1658, John was left with blind Mary, Elizabeth, John, and Thomas. Convinced that he would be put in prison, he asked a teenage girl in the church to marry him and care for his children. He and Elizabeth were married in 1659 and they had two more children. They learned to love each other as they got older, proof that often you may not always marry the one you love but you can love the one you marry. Elizabeth became an aggressive advocate, approaching various judges seeking John’s release.

John was taken to court and warned by the judge that the charges against him were serious: John had never attended services in a Church of England as the law required, and was known to have preached in unapproved churches. Bunyan told the judge, “The depositions speak the truth. I have never attended services in the Church of England, nor do I intend ever to do so. Secondly, it is no secret that I preach the Word of God whenever, wherever, and to whomever He pleases to grant me opportunity to do so.”

John took a deep breath and continued, “I have no choice but to acknowledge my awareness of the law which I am accused of transgressing. Likewise, I have no choice but to confess my guilt in my transgression of it. As true as these things are, I must affirm that I neither regret breaking the law, nor repent of having broken it. Further, I must warn you that I have no intention in the future of conforming to it.” John had a backbone of steel and did not wear lace on his drawers, as do most preachers today.

Judge Wingate said, “Charles II has made provision for dissenting preachers to hold some limited meetings. All that is required is that such ministers procure licenses [permission] authorizing them to convene these gatherings.” But, John knew that he did not need permission from anyone to preach the Gospel.

John replied, “I must repeat that it is God who constrains me to preach, and no man or company of men may grant or deny me leave [permission] to preach. These licenses of which you speak, M’lord, are symbols not of a right, but of a privilege. Implied therein is the principle that a mere man can extend or withhold them according to his whim. I speak not of privileges, but of rights. Privileges (licenses) granted by men may be denied by men. Rights are granted by God, and can be legitimately denied by no man. I must therefore, refuse to comply.”

The frustrated judge sentenced John to prison saying, “I strongly suspect that we have heard the last we shall ever hear from Mr. John Bunyan.” Somewhat of an understatement.

In November of 1660, John was taken to the county jail on Silver Street in Bedford where he was imprisoned for 12 years except for a few weeks in 1666. His home on High Street was a short walk away. In March 1675, he was imprisoned for six months in the Bedford town jail on the stone bridge over the Ouse River.

The major storm of church-state conflict was building on the horizon that would smash a staggering nation and leave behind thousands of Christians without incomes, homes, and reputations–all because a tyrannical king insisted on controlling preachers with a government license. A license always means control.

Modern Americans, including most religious leaders, are totally ignorant of the danger of a government license.

It was safer to be a desperado than it was to be a dissident in England; and America and Canada are on the same path. Trump, keep your word, and protect the people who elected you!

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

You have a birth certificate because you were born; a death certificate because you died and a marriage certificate because you were married. You did not ask to be born or to die and should not ask any government or church to be married.

The road to family control by the state started rather early in America with Virginia’s first legal code consisting of the Lawes Divine, Morall and Martiall, enacted in 1610 by Sir Thomas Dale. In this code, Virginia’s Anglican ministers were required to record all christenings, marriages, and burials they performed. (Government has no authority to require a preacher to do anything regarding his ministry.) In 1631, the Virginia House of Burgesses created marriage licenses tightening the knot around the neck of families.

Down through the centuries, marriage was changed from being a family affair to having churches and the government as the permission-givers! A license is “permission by competent authority to do that which otherwise would be illegal, a trespass or a torte.” According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, a marriage license is “a license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry, usually addressed to the minister or magistrate who is to perform the ceremony.”

So, at that time, an interracial couple had to get permission not from their parents or church to get married, but from the state! Why? People had been marrying since the beginning of time without any government involvement, but now a couple must get legal permission! Therefore, the state began to issue a license permitting one to do what he normally could not do because many U.S. colonies in the late 1600s prohibited marriage between Whites and Blacks, Indians, Asians, etc., although it was never illegal for two whites to marry and no permission was required until recent years.

When a slave boy got permission from the master to marry a slave girl, the offspring from the marriage belonged to the master and became part of his assets or chattel. Some states take that same approach today. After all, they give the license so any issue of a marriage is state-owned; therefore the state assumes the authority to force children to have shots, to attend school, etc.

In early America, some slave owners prohibited slave marriages and others permitted them, even giving lavish dinners and ceremonies at the “big house” to honor the couple. However, the marriage never superseded the slave owner’s authority. Often, depending on the plantation owners and the state, black men were not permitted to marry and sex between slaves was often punished. However, many masters wanted new slaves coming along so in some places, black male slaves were kept for the purpose of producing young offspring! It was normal for the owners of such studs to receive one out of four of the babies.

One Texas slave woman said that slave women had to always be available for sex at the appointment of the master (often with the master) and she had to live with any man of his choosing. The reason most slave owners permitted slave marriages, although often reluctantly, was because of religious reasons. Many tried to justify slavery by the Bible but the Bible clearly teaches personal morality and family. The Bible never condones slavery.

The slave marriage ceremony varied from state to state and plantation to plantation. If the marriage involved two plantations then the man was often permitted to visit his wife’s plantation on the weekends. With adjoining plantations, a wife was permitted to visit her husband each night.

Marriage unions were formed when the couple jumped over a broomstick together and dissolved by reversing the process. A broomstick marriage was an illegal marriage, solemnized, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, by having each party jump over a broomstick as the couple told everyone they were married while holding hands. It is probable that 20% of the U.S. population during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries may have lived in an illegal relationship as a replacement or rejection of formal marriages. The broomstick weddings and the divorce by jumping back over the broom were common. Jumping the broom was always done before witnesses as a public ceremonial announcement that a couple chose to become as close to married as was then permitted. I believe such marriages were as legal as those done in America today as long as there was consent, commitment, consummation, and communication.

On other plantations, each one had to jump backward over a broom that was held about a foot from the floor. In the event one did not clear the broom successfully, the other received the authority to be boss of the household. Moreover, if both partners were successful, there would be no “bossin.” Strange custom but not much stranger than some sophisticated wedding I’ve attended. Jumping the broom is much better than getting drunk and falling into the swimming pool!

The broomstick marriage was also known in Ireland. The marriage was not officially recognized if either touched the broom. In this kind of marriage, a woman kept her own home and did not become the property of her husband. It was a partnership, and a child of the marriage was considered to be legitimate. If the couple decided to divorce, they simply jumped back over the broomstick again, but that could only be done during the first year of marriage. If a child had been born, that child was the father’s responsibility.

In the mid-1800s in the United States, common-law marriages were valid, but thereafter some states began to invalidate such marriages. Common-law-marriages were recognized as legitimate even though there was no license permitting the marriage. Eleven states still recognize such marriages.

In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act and they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act. By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws. Politicians love power.

The state was now in control of marriage and had become the master, or is that monster? Let’s get all government out of all Christian marriages since it is a God-given, unalienable right of man to marry a wife and bear children and no authority on earth has the right to supersede that right–or to regulate it.

(Sixth of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage. Next column: “Taking the State Out of Marriages Could Not Make it Worse!”)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Up until the reign of Justinian (527-565 AD), simply saying you were married was enough to establish a family. The famous Code of Justinian set some parameters for the family: any man could take a concubine but she had to be at least 12 years old. When a man lived with a free woman, it was not considered concubinage but genuine matrimony if she did not acquire financial gain by selling her body.

In 866 AD, Pope Nicholas I said “Let the simple consent of those whose wedding is in question be sufficient; if the consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should the union be consummated, are rendered void.” Consent was what made marriages valid and endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church, then a power throughout Europe. There was no church involvement in marriages until about the ninth century other than Pope Nicholas’ decree and after the twelfth century prayers were added to the ceremony often by the bride and groom.

Up to the twelfth century, a consummated marriage was considered valid if the couple had pledged their love and commitment to each other even without any civil or church involvement or approval. Roman Catholic Church leaders thought that such an arrangement was far better than concubinage or jumping from bed to bed like a deranged rabbit. A consummated and committed marriage would also tend to repel seducers.

Then in 1215 the Roman Catholic Church required all churches in England and Wales to publish banns (a proclamation) three Sundays before any wedding. That period of time permitted objections to be made such as an accusation that one of the two was already married or underage, or they were closely related, etc. Furthermore, the marriage had to be performed in their parish church. In the 1300s, if a couple wanted to marry quickly, the church instituted a license (permission) for the banns to be avoided. The license also permitted them to be married in another parish as well. Of course, there was a fee required accompanied by a sworn declaration that there was no canonical reason to prohibit the marriage.

Many then perceived marriage by banns as a second-class ceremony; consequently, that led to an increase in the number of marriages by license. Most of the marriages done with a license were for special purposes such as a wedding done outside the usual hours for weddings or in a church not normally approved for weddings. These weddings could be done quickly without waiting three weeks to have the marriage announced in church. Another perceived benefit was confidentiality since some people did not want the town to know that they did not have an approved wedding years earlier.

After the twelfth century, Church approval of marriages was required and after 1563 a priest was required at every wedding. Peasants in some European countries were required to have permission of the lord of the manor and in some places the lord reserved the right to spend the wedding night with the bride. Just one of his perks.

Then the Council of Trent, organized as a frantic response to the Reformation in the mid-1500s, also took up the problem of secret or “clandestine” marriages without satisfying those people who were for or against. The French wanted to outlaw all secret marriages and marriages without parental approval, but the Council refused to make parental approval a requisite for valid marriages. Secret marriages were very popular because young people wanted to choose their own spouses rather than have parents choose. A young girl whose parents had arranged her marriage at birth, would say, “But, Mom, I was secretly married last year.” However, the Council did abolish secret marriages where only the bride and groom were present.

Such secret marriages had been recognized as “true marriages,” but there were problems. It was common for a man to secretly marry then change his mind after a few months or years. He met another woman and then publicly married her with all the necessary requirements met. However, he was already secretly married and had two children. What about his responsibilities to them? His former wife could not prove their secret marriage and was stranded up a creek in a leaking canoe without a paddle, along with two hungry, screaming children! How could a court hold a man accountable without some proof of the secret marriage? If the court came to her defense, supported only by her word, then all marriages could be in danger. An unscrupulous woman could choose an attractive married man and charge that he was her secret mate. It was a can of worms.

The problem was an old one. When a couple had problems and split, there was no way for the aggrieved party to prove his or her marriage by an independent witness. The Council sought to solve this oft-occurring problem by decreeing that if a couple admitted to a secret marriage it was considered a “grave sin” and they were required to renew their vows in the local church attended by three witnesses, one of them being the local priest. The priest did not make the marriage valid; the man and woman did that with vows of commitment. The priest was there as a representative of the Church and registered the marriage. The priest was often the only person in town who could read and write so he was a natural choice to keep a record of important events such as marriage.

The Council of Trent declared that people who had been secretly married would be considered married as long as the marriages were not invalidated by the Roman Catholic Church. Then the Council required that a marriage announcement must be published each Sunday for three consecutive weeks so that a planned marriage could be forbidden if anyone had a legitimate reason to prohibit the wedding. Finally the Council said that a marriage was not valid if anyone tried to be married without a priest (or his designate) as witness along with two other witnesses.

The Roman Church pushed its way further into the homes by requiring local priests to keep records of all baptisms and deaths as well as weddings. The grip was getting tighter and tighter and it must be remembered that in the Middle Ages in Europe, the Pope was literally over every person including the “sovereign” kings.

While the Council of Trent was agonizing with their decisions and trying to untie a Gordian Knot, the Protestant Reformers had declared that a public marriage was one that was consented to by the couples’ parents. If not, it was a clandestine or secret marriage and invalid. They took the position that a church was limited in its authority and that marriage is a fundamental right of an individual so only two people could create a marriage and did so by their public consent.

During the reign of England’s Henry VIII (1509 to 1547), marriage licenses were provided by the Archbishop of Canterbury (actually by King Henry) after 1534. Before that date, the Pope issued licenses. A common license permitted a couple to be married at their parish church while a special license permitted t a couple to be married any place. A special license was required for anyone not a member of an Anglican Church. Religious separatists were not pleased with that requirement and refused to obey it.

The Marriage Act of 1753 (full title, An Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage) in England and Wales took control of marriage from the hands of family and vested it in the state. From the point at which the law took effect in 1754, marriages which had not taken place in the Church of England, Quaker Meetings or Jewish synagogues, were rendered invalid. This was the first time legislation required a formal marriage ceremony in England and Wales. This caused major problems with dissident Christians (Baptists) who held strong beliefs about marriage and strong reservations about state control and interference in their homes. The parents of an underage couple had to get a license from the government and the ceremony had to take place in a Church of England. Any future children were not permitted an inheritance if those conditions were not met by everyone, including Baptists.

This effectively did away with secret marriages and gave government more control which is common for all governments.

Baptists refused to obey the law that required marriages to be controlled by the state and Baptists and other groups are doing the same today: Government, stay out of our most important and sacred traditions. It is a legitimate marriage if there is consent, commitment, consummation, and communication in any little church in the dale and needs no one’s permission!

We don’t need or want, nor will we permit the government in our weddings.

(Fourth of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage. Next column: “Marriage Makes Rude, Crude, and Lewd Men into Softies!”)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

All state officials want a stable society where citizens can live contented lives, pay taxes, and continue to reelect them to public office. Most officials know that families influence a city or state more favorably than gangs, nightclubs, honkytonks, or even schools, art museums, and most churches. A return to the historical and Biblical approach to marriage would not mean an increase in degrading, deviant, and deadly activities since they would continue as they are now.

Moreover, if a state wanted to encourage normal, one-man one-woman marriage relationships, they could do so by the tax code, the bully pulpit, etc., or a state could refuse to make any judgment on any family arrangements. Government would still prohibit marriage between close relatives, mentally handicapped, or minors since that would disrupt society.

As to requiring a blood test before marriage, the state could nullify those laws (as some have done) and permit each church to make its own rules. Many would decide that if a person falsified a blood test and proceeded with a wedding with one partner infected with an STD, that marriage would become null and void with announcements made to the congregation to that effect. The state would be notified to deal with the divorce and prosecute the offender.

Laws must require the protection of children of any marriage arrangement since children are the future and their training and character will determine the stability of the state. Any state can give benefits to normal marriages because it is in the interests of the state to do so. It seems society gives benefits to married people because a stable family provides benefits to society. The state is interested in a stable society, so it is in the interests of the state to have productive, educated adults therefore a state can reward parents who commit to preparing children for the future. Therefore, a state may give generous benefits to every marriage that produces children. If homosexual “couples” complain, the state can simply say, “When you have babies, you will receive the same benefits.” Of course, homosexuals can do as today and adopt children although it is very unwise to permit that.

Everyone, except the willfully blind, agrees that strong families benefit society so the state can justify giving benefits to natural marriages. It is only wise to do so. Proponents of other kinds of “marriages” will scream about the “unfairness” but so be it. Let them scream, after all, it was their decision to not have a natural marriage.

Adoptions, child welfare, divorce, alimony, child support would still be responsibility of the state. Repeal of no fault divorce should be accomplished in every state but that won’t happen.

A newspaper columnist responded to this issue of state involvement in marriages: “Since I printed the letter from ‘Deceived in Arizona’ (Nov. 30), I have learned that not only individuals, but also some churches feel so strongly about separating the legal aspect of marriage from the religious that they have voted …[that] their clergy no longer sign marriage licenses. Among them are member churches of the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian-Universalists and the Quakers. Instead, the model they follow is the one used in Europe, in which couples go to a courthouse to register their marriage, and then to a church or synagogue for a religious ceremony.” Also, some independent Presbyterians and independent Baptists do likewise.

Perversion disrupts society and does not contribute to stability. If historic anti-sodomy laws were passed then same-sex “marriage” would be a moot issue. Homosexual activity would be illegal anytime anywhere. That would be a return to sanity. It would also give clout to local authorities to prohibit cruising, public sex, solicitation, etc. However, anti-sodomy laws will not pass because of anti-Bible, anti-God, anti-common sense attitudes. Frankly, many twisted young people think two homosexual men married with a license is preferable to a man and woman married without a license! Their warped thinking considers mischief in a couple without a license but nothing outrageous for a same-sex “couple” to climb into bed together!

Homosexuals admit they want the blessings of the state on their union; however, the state is not in the blessing business. They can get that from the Pope if they have the cash, clout, and contacts.

In the absence of anti-sodomy laws, if a church had no Bible convictions about sodomy then they could “marry” the “couple.” Let me remind my critics that that is what is happening right now under present laws. People are doing what they want to do and church leaders without convictions, smile upon all kinds of evil. No government agency would be approving any kind of marriage arrangements. If some Fundamentalists and Evangelicals disliked the various weddings, they could say so. Such church leaders could show their disagreement, disapproval, and disdain by not accepting such unrepentant people into their membership.

Some pastors refuse to use a state-issued marriage license and use a marriage covenant instead. Such a thought horrifies some religious leaders and I wonder why. After all, the evidence is all on the side of the covenant makers not those who think state licensure is best and necessary. A covenantal relationship is much deeper than a merely contractual, state approved one.

Do we really believe that the state should regulate marriages? If so, why? They sure didn’t in the past. The onus is on my critics to provide reasons why the state should continue to license (regulate) marriages. It is one thing for the state to recognize the existence of a marriage and another thing for them to give permission for a marriage. No state has that right.

Moreover, without a marriage license from the state, the state would lose its professed authority to have control of any issue of that marriage. The marriage license is used by some states as an excuse to interfere in training of children. Some states even boldly declare that children belong to the state! Does any sane person out there believe that the state is a partner in their marriage? Many people are shocked to hear that and even refuse to believe it is a fact but Ohio law is very clear stating in an official brochure on marriage: “When you repeat your marriage vows, you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that legal contract: 1) you; 2) your spouse; and 3) the state of Ohio. The state is a party to the contract because under its laws, you have certain obligations and responsibilities to each other, to any children you may have, and to Ohio.”

Most people do not know that state marriage statutes are directory not mandatory! West’s Indiana Law Encyclopedia states: “Statutes on the subject of marriage, even though penal, are merely directory, and a marriage celebrated though not in accordance with the forms of the statute, is nevertheless valid.”

Maybe we should tell the states that they have overreached their authority. They have enough to do dealing with crime, law and order, welfare (which they should also leave to others), education (see previous parenthesis), repairing streets, etc., without getting involved in any religious activity.

How to handle divorce will be considered a major objection to my recommendation; however, could anything be worse than it is now? Church groups handled divorce in the past. Do you remember King Henry VIII who asked the Pope for a divorce so he could dump his wife to free him to marry a woman who might provide him a male heir? No fault divorce should be repealed forcing married people to justify a divorce usually for abuse, abandonment, or adultery. While marriage would be outside the bailiwick of the state, divorce would not be.

It’s time to insist on total separation of church (but not God) and state. Let’s start with the wedding business. In fact, it has already started with the pastors who refuse to use a marriage license and opt for a marriage covenant instead.

However, look for a fight because the state does not like losing any of its power to control people. Instead of looking to the state for approval, let’s disapprove of the state’s intrusion into marriage! Let’s take away state power to certify, approve, or license any marriage. While it will remove the messy problem of approving same-sex marriage, it will not end same-sex “families.”

Safe, secure, and stable homes produce a steady state but one that has no authority over who marries whom.

(Third of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage. Next column: “Marriage: Consent, Commitment, Consummation, and Communication!”)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Furthermore, He was a guest at the marriage in Cana thereby giving His approval on the proceedings.
The ancient Jews thought that there were three major events in life: birth, marriage, and death with marriage being the most important. They felt very strongly about marriage as revealed in the Talmud: “Any Jew who has not a wife is no man.” In fact, marriage was required by the Jews who believed an unmarried man a murderer! Wow, that’s strong!

In the early Roman Empire before the birth of Christ, marriage was a duty of all Roman aristocrats. In Sparta, a fine was imposed on bachelorhood, late marriage, and single life! According to the laws of Lycurgus, unmarried persons were prohibited from attending the public games and Plato declared all bachelors were unworthy of any honor. The Greeks obviously wanted families even while they tolerated and even glorified perversion!

The background of marriage is varied and interesting. As a substitution for God’s plan of marriage, men have made all kinds of living and sexual arrangements. They are polygamy (one man with multiple wives), polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands), polyamory (multiple and simultaneous sexual relationships), promiscuity (jumping from bed to bed like a deranged rabbit), and perversion (same-sex or sex with anything from a goat to a rocking chair). That covers most of them. Pedophilia is being touted as acceptable sexual behavior and soon it will even be “brave,” “courageous,” and “bold” to advocate such depravity.

Promiscuity has always been practiced, yet not as a normal, common, and acceptable practice except by a few small tribes. In those few instances, males and females lived “promiscuously” with whomever they desired. Members of the Oneida community in New York, for example, practiced “complex marriage,” in which all members of the community were married to all others, and sexual contact was regulated by the group.

Some would suggest that general promiscuity is very similar to the animal kingdom. I agree. It’s called, “pigpen morality.” Hollywood also comes to mind as an obvious example of barnyard living arrangements.

In Old Testament times, the parents chose the mate for their son primarily because the bride became part of the clan. Although the new couple became “one flesh,” they both remained under the authority of the bridegroom’s father. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary declares, “The parents chose someone who would best fit into their clan and work harmoniously with her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law.”

“Love” was seldom an issue in those days. The girl had little or nothing to say about the matter although Rebekah was a biblical exception. They did not marry the one they loved, but learned to love the one they married. Love did not hold the family together. Commitment did, with the encouragement of local, family, and religious connections. Most young people today can’t even spell commitment and they got that from their parents.

The Old Testament is the most authoritative and ancient source so it is a good beginning for a study of marriage, family, and the home. Ancient Jews were to marry only other Jews and any deviation was considered a terrible sin against God. God seemed to be concerned that any marriage, other than between two Jews, would corrupt His people. (They were corrupt enough without the influence of pagans. Solomon is a good example of pagan corruption.) The Apostle Paul emphasized that Christians in Corinth should not marry unbelievers (II Cor. 6:14). That command holds today for modern Christians.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia reveals that the Old Testament has no mention of a formal exchange of vows or of a preacher, prophet, or priest being present at weddings since it was a family affair: “There was no formal religious ceremony connected with the Hebrew marriage as with us–there is not a hint of such a thing in the Bible.” In Gen. 2:24, Adam is seen cleaving unto his wife, the first time “wife” is used in the Bible. No ceremony, no preacher, no license, no church and no state involvement, so I am on solid ground in refusing any state involvement in marriage since marriage was established before any government.

At weddings, the couple would have a meal with family and friends, then the man took the woman into his home before witnesses and they were considered married. This was always with the permission of the father of the girl showing he approved of the groom. The couple became a family.

According to the Code of Hammurabi (about 1800 BC) in ancient Babylon (Iraq), marriage was a contract between a man and woman and marriages were arranged by relatives.

During the Roman Empire, there were wealthy citizens who wanted to list their property when they entered a marriage so there could be no misunderstanding by anyone as to the status of the man and his heirs. This was the beginning of officially recording marriages similar to what we do today. A Roman male could terminate a marriage any time, but a wife who wanted to end a marriage had to grin and bear it. Many unhappy wives in the Empire did little grinning but they did a lot of groaning.

This Roman custom was the first step on a very slippery slope of government control of marriages and a take-over of homes; and it is past time for Christian churches to take back control of the formation of their families.

There is no legislation or court decision necessary. Pastors should simply stop using a marriage license and use a written covenant instead. Everything else would remain the same. No notice or permission is necessary from any official. If a couple wants to record the ceremony at their county courthouse that is their prerogative and I think should be done. It would simply be informing the state after the fact.

Since government fouls up everything and has no scriptural support for regulating weddings, government should have nothing to do with modern marriages. Get the state out of all Christian marriages! Frankly, I can build a good case for churches to get out of the wedding business since there is not one command for preachers to perform weddings. However, a church can choose to have what ministries their members want whether it is Sunday school, youth services, camps, rallies, or weddings. There is no scriptural command for any of those ministries but that doesn’t mean they are wrong.

(Second of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage. Next column: “Stable Homes Produce a Stable State!”)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Let’s not play around with this issue when lives are in the balance. Get serious and eventually ban all rocks, in all places, all weights, and all sizes. I mean if we save even one life, it will be worthwhile. I know the conservative bleating hearts will scream but they are mean, mad, and malicious people. Who cares what they think? They spend all their time clinging to their rocks as they read their Bibles, so who cares about them? They drive around town in their pickup trucks with a huge load of rocks in the bed. What does an honest person need with all those dangerous rocks?

All sane people know rocks are evil. Is it necessary to remind anyone of the use that rocks play in the religion of Islam? Children, especially boys, seem to have a tendency to throw rocks at other children, birds, cats, and other innocent animals. Rocks are evil and must be illegal.

Maybe not today, but soon America will be rock-less except for police, FBI, CIA, FEMA, IRS, BATF, military, security guards, celebrity bodyguards, senators, etc. Only the elite need rocks.

It may be difficult to ban all rocks since the National Rock Association (NRA) is such a powerful and heartless organization and all the rednecks belong to it. The (NRA) is getting rich from fees by selling memberships, coffee mugs, sweatshirts, etc. So we may have to ban the biggest rocks and eventually ban smaller rocks when another tragedy happens. You know, don’t let a crisis go to waste. We must take advantage of every situation to eventually take every rock away from every American. You know, a totally rock-less America.

For a while we will have to settle for getting rid of rocks incrementally, and to begin with, we can license all rock carriers. We can charge large fees for their license, the bigger the rock, the bigger the fee. This will also give us a list of all rock owners and their locations.

Arrest any person seen with a rock unless he has a permit to carry. Even then, the size and shape of the rock should be restricted. Some rocks are more dangerous than others. I remind the heathen out there that little David killed a giant of a man with a smooth rock but he had five rocks. It should have been illegal for him to have an excess of rocks. That is over-kill. The law must stipulate that no person can have more than one rock in his possession at any time. After all, why does a person need more than one rock? Such people are obviously up to no good and innocent lives are at stake.

Rocks should be registered as to size, weight, color, and sharp edges and kept under lock and key by rock owners. Of course, no felon or mentally unstable person should be permitted to possess dangerous rocks, so no politician can legally have rocks–Not too sure how small or large a prohibited rock should be but we’ll leave that small detail to the regulators. Surely we can trust them to be reasonable.

Until we can pass laws banning all rocks, we should go after all Rock Throwing Clubs where their sole purpose is to kill innocent and helpless creatures. Such clubs should be disbanded along with all Rock Throwing Ranges where they practice their rock throwing. After all, such activities are dangerous and will destroy a neighborhood. Also, none of those ranges did an environmental impact study before they were built so we can close them down without new laws! We should use any pretext to destroy the whole rock business.

Rock fanatics will resist these common sense suggestions and speak of never, never giving up their rock until it is pried from their cold, stiff fingers. Well, we can arrange that.

Ban all Assault Rocks Since Rocks Kill People!

If we can’t ban all rocks outright (especially assault rocks), we should make a big push to license every rock owner and have every rock listed in a national register. I mean, the authorities have a responsibility to know where the rocks are across the nation. Register and photograph every rock. Then, when the time is right, we can take every rock since we know where all rocks are located. As for now, we should not make a big deal out of confiscation since such talk makes rock owners froth at the mouth and it must be remembered that they own rocks and know how to use them. Many of them possess assault rocks! No sane person can justify a private citizen having such a weapon.

We can make an impact on the rock-throwing plague by forbidding rock shows where anonymous, often violent rednecks can buy, sell, and trade rocks with no control. That must stop. They do not have the right to trade in dangerous weapons that only special people should have.

Moreover, a background check must be made for all rock sales whether at a rock show or by a licensed rock dealer. And the information required must be extensive. Further information can be obtained from medical doctors since almost everyone goes to a doctor. The questions must be asked: “Do you own rocks and where are they kept? What is the size of each rock? Are they registered? Why do you have rocks in your home? Do children have access to those lethal rocks? Do the children throw your rocks, and if so, how often?”

Each major city might try a “Buy-Back Program” whereby rock owners will turn in their rocks for a pittance. Although we must be careful so that they don’t sell their trash rocks only to procure better, more lethal rocks. That happened in Australia where almost everything is banned including guns, knives, and swords, so maybe butter knives are next. The Aussies also discovered that when many brow-beaten rock owners sold their best rocks, those rocks were not destroyed as promised but ended up in the basements of some local police chiefs! Some wily Aussies also replaced inferior rocks with better, more dangerous imported rocks. We also don’t want people knowing that crime stats went into the stratosphere when many homes became rock-less.

In millions of American homes there are lethal rocks lying around accessible to small children. If we can’t ban and confiscate (for that’s what we want) those rocks (at this time) we must at least force rock owners to keep them out of the hands of innocent children. All rocks, of all sizes, must be in a rockbox with the key in a safe deposit box at the local bank. While some rock fanatics who cling to their rocks and their Bibles will think that extreme, if only one life will be saved it would be worth the small inconvenience. The law should stipulate that in event of a home invasion, the state would not be held culpable for the loss of life or property of the rock owner who had no time to procure his locked up rock. It is scandalous that many Americans have a rock or two beside their bed.

If kids see rocks that have been glamorized throughout American history as bringing safety and victory over foreign enemies and domestic terrorists, they will be tempted to take the rocks to school or a park with horrendous results. We have grown up seeing the Wild West glorified as a brave young marshal faces down the evil Miller gang and kills them all with his six rocks hanging from his belt. Such glorification promotes rocks as good and glorious, and great, even grand. That must stop.

My family has been a rock-collecting and rock-throwing family for many generations. My ancestors carried a few rocks to America on the Mayflower to protect themselves against the dangerous Native Americans. While having those rocks was contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Mayflower Compact, there was a perceived need for protection. I am ashamed of those rock-owning relatives. Maybe I can go on Oprah and express my regrets and remorse to get redemption.

My rock-carrying relatives were even at Concord and faced the Redcoats who came to confiscate the store of rocks at the local armory and to kidnap John Hancock and John Adams. Early the morning of April 19 the members of Pastor Jonas Clarke’s congregation who “had been trained for such a day” faced the British Redcoats all loaded down with lethal rocks. One of the Redcoats threw the first rock that reverberated around the world and the Americans responded with a volley of their own rocks. Many Redcoats and Americans were killed on the Village Green that morning with spent rocks all around their bodies. The Redcoats fled back to Boston being pelted by rocks all the way. The British had 273 causalities and Americans 95.

Rocks are important to American History but that fact should not be emphasized to young students. They should learn how evil rocks are. If the Americans at Concord had not been heavily armed, no one would have died. The rock supply along with John Hancock and John Adams could have been surrendered to the British while the Redcoats and Minute Men had a spot of tea on the village green and everyone would be safe and happy. And British.

Every generation of Americans kept a rock above the fireplace for family protection. Many Indians on the warpath felt the wrath of many family rocks. We have a violent history.

Now the Washington politicians are determined to eventually take away all rocks! If we are successful with banning rocks, we should then go after dreadlocks since a man strangled his girlfriend with dreadlocks. Dreadlocks are dangerous and should be banned.

After all, if one life is saved!