When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
—Declaration Of Independence (July 4, 1776).
Unfortunately, the Civil War proved this to be false.
Rachel,
Can you expand on this a bit? Are you trying to imply the southern cause was shot down unfairly?
I wasn’t implying anything. And I wasn’t making a statement about the validity of either side in the Civil War. The Civil War answered the question as to whether states can leave the Union and form another government.
Rachel, Thanks for the clarification. Indeed you are correct. Once established, no institution, goverment, centralized/organized group which has authority and power hardly EVER willing gives up that power. It almost always further seeks more power and the wielding of it. Truly a fallen, depraved and sinful world. Our only hope is Christ.
What the outcome of the Civil War demonstrated was that unilateral secession was classified as rebellion and successfully resisted. There is no reason to suppose that a consensual separation is impossible. Highly improbable, I grant you.
How does this relate to a Christian’s mandate to submit to the government when the message of the Gospel is not at stake?
I am so curious to know why you are posting this, what are you driving at here? Are you letting us infer that we who are concerned with maintaining an orderly and sane government separate ourselves from those who are willing to indulge nonsensical interpretations of governing documents? Obviously, very few up top seem interested in playing by the rules, their disposition being towards reinventing things on their terms. I am from Ca., even the SF Bay area and I know bull crap when I see it or hear it. Do we need to forsake this Union and start over elsewhere?
“Do we need to forsake this Union and start over elsewhere?”
Probably, though it’s the duty of lesser magistrates to initiate this. One-kingdom advocates will likely disagree. Practically speaking, the country is simply too big for our imperial Washington DC system of government to provide adequate representation and redress of grievances Secession is the hot meme of 2015.
Rev. Shawn Mathis has done an excellent Sunday school series on submission to government and Reformed thought on the same:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?seriesOnly=true&currSection=sermonstopic&sourceid=denverprovidence&keyword=Resistance+to+Tyrants&keyworddesc=Resistance+to+Tyrants
@ Durrell:
I think it would be a great thing for the citizens of this country to send our elected representatives this piece of history upon which our nation was built. It would be especially useful for our representatives to then forward this on to unelected, unaccountable govt. agencies and explain that if their is indeed some kind of pushback to the bile spewing from D.C., it may negatively impact their pensions. That will get their attention.
Notifying Washington that their policies seem at odds with the documentary record of America would go a long way if more people engaged in forwarding hard copy to the Capitol.
Thank you, Dr. Clark, for posting this excerpt without comment. We need to be reminded of the principles that animated the founding of the USA, and to compare the era of the Founding Fathers to our own. Think first, get firmly grounded in foundational beliefs, know your times, and then be prepared to act. Knowing should come before doing. It’s time to start thinking seriously about where we came from, how we got where we are, and where we can go from here.
I posted this at Dr. Clark’s…”When Pastor’s Abuse” post. Since there have been many posts related to leadership, discipline and authority at this blog of late, it also seems fitting to re-post again here for all here to give insight on. I’m curious to hear insight on the following.
……………..
What are your thoughts on Elders being initially voted in in by the congregation, yet holding office for life with no re-vote every 4-6 years for re-election by the congregation? Some NAPARC denominations practice the “in office for life” model, while others practice a re-election every few years. The typical justification for not having re-election is that the call for re-elections (re-votes of confidence by the congregation) is not found in scripture. That seems to be a misplaced RPW approach to this topic. I don’t see where it is forbidden by scripture to have re-elections every few years and indeed all Reformed declare it good & proper that the congregation elects (at least initially) the Elders. The “in for life” supporters will site the fact that even Elders for life can always be removed in event of heinous sin. However, this removal hardly seems ever likely in the case of a good old boy system or a heavy handed shepherding approach where there is nonetheless no marital infidelity or other such more heinous sin, etc. A congregation this year may look very different in 10-25 years, yet the congregation 20 yrs down the road may have many a member who never had the prayful opportunity to cast their vote.
This system seems to take away with the left hand that which it just offered with the right hand. Seems the definition of a holy huddle. The potential to make the office of elder filled with pride and lacking in accountability is to great in the “lifetime” system in my view. Seems Biblically wiser to allow a re-vote every now and again.
Uhhh, this is the old one. It has been replaced by a New And Improved Version with the Supreme Court’s recent vote (found in full here), although they won’t tell you that.
Among other things, it says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident to the Self Righteous and Coercive Cognitive Elite,
That all Victims, both men and womyn, are created unto and guaranteed equal results, outcomes and pay (incomes). That they are endowed by the Big Bang with certain unalienable and Irresponsible Rights, That among these are Free Birth Control and Abortion, along with the pursuit of Happy Homosexual Marriages.
That whenever any Form of Social Oppression becomes destructive of these Progressive Utopian ends, it is the Right of the Appointed for Life Federal Judges to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
NaziNew Positive Humanistic Law, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its Totalitarian Powers in such form, as to them (the Coercive Cognitive Elite) shall seem most likely to effect the Sexual Appetites and Healthcare of their Special Interest Groups.. .