by Dr. John Diamond | Nov 17, 2016 | Blog
“An Appeal to Heaven” – Origins of U.S. Navy & Coast Guard
“It’s our prayer to serve America in peace. It’s our commitment to defend her in war.” – Reagan, May 18, 1988
In June of 1775, citizens acting as merchant mariners captured the British schooner HMS Margaretta around Machias, Massachusetts.
That same month, General George Washington, with the help of merchant and ship owner Colonel John Glover of Marblehead, Massachusetts, chartered and outfitted several ships to interrupt the British supplies.
The ships, named Hannah, Franklin, Warren, Hancock and Lee, had crews of experienced fisherman who defended American ports and raided British ships carrying ammunition and supplies.
The Lee captured the British brig HMS Nancy on November 29, 1775, with its cargo of 2,000 Brown Bess muskets, 100,000 flints, 30,000 of artillery ammunition, 30 tons of musket ammunition, and a 13 inch brass mortar.
John Glover and his Marblehead fisherman saved the day by evacuating Washington and the Continental Army across the East River to Manhattan Island after Battle of Brooklyn Heights, August 27, 1776.
Glover’s large Durham boats also ferried Washington and the Continental Army across the ice packed Delaware River for the surprise attack on the German Hessian troops at Trenton, December 26, 1776.
In October of 1775, the Continental Congress commissioned six vessels: the 24-gun frigates Alfred and Columbus, the 14 gun brigs Andrew Doria and Cabot, and the schooners Hornet, Wasp, and Fly.
Also four captains and five first lieutenants were commissioned, one of whom was future naval hero John Paul Jones.
The American ships flew the Pine Tree Flag, designed by General Washington’s secretary, Colonel Joseph Reed, who wrote in a letter, October 20, 1775:
“…flag with a white ground and a tree in the middle, the motto AN APPEAL TO HEAVEN.”
The Pine Tree Flag was also flown in towns, churches, riverbanks, and at the nation’s capital in Philadelphia.
Eastern White Pine Trees grew to a height of over 150 feet and were ideal for use as masts on British ships, contributing to the British navy being the most powerful navy in the world.
When the King sent agents to enforce his claim to every tree in New England over 12 inches in diameter, a Pine Tree Riot took place in 1772.
The Pine Tree Flag’s phrase, “An Appeal to Heaven,” was first used by John Locke in his Second Treatise on Civil Government, 1690, regarding the right of citizens who have been denied justice to go above the king’s head:
“Where the body of the people … is deprived of their right … and have no appeal on earth, then they have a liberty to appeal to heaven … Where there lies no appeal on earth … they have just cause to make their appeal to heaven … Where there is no judicature (justice) on earth, to decide controversies amongst men, God in heaven is judge. He alone, it is true, is judge of the right … So in this … he should appeal to the Supreme Judge.”
Patrick Henry stated at the Second Virginia Convention, March 23, 1775:
“An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! … We shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations.”
Massachusetts Provincial Congress stated April 26, 1775, following the Battles of Lexington and Concord:
“Appealing to Heaven for the justice of our cause, we determine to die or be free.”
The Massachusetts Navy flew a similar Liberty Tree Flag, with the line “An Appeal to God.”
The Declaration of Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms, July 6, 1775, stated:
“We most solemnly, before God and the world … resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves …With an humble confidence in the mercies of the Supreme and Impartial Judge and Ruler of the Universe.”
The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, stated:
“We, therefore … appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do … declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.”
America’s first navy grew to over 40 vessels, but was disbanded after the Revolutionary War. The Massachusetts Navy continued, and was later incorporated into the U.S. Navy.
On AUGUST 4, 1790, the Revenue Marine, later called Revenue Cutter Service, was created by the recommendation of Alexander Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury.
It consisted of 10 ships charged with stopping smuggling and French privateers from operating in American waters.
The Revenue Marine’s first seven masters (captains) were commissioned by President George Washington on March 12, 1791.
The Revenue-Marine was the only armed maritime service of the United States till the Department of the Navy was created in 1798.
During the U.S.-French Quasi War of 1798-1801, eight Revenue Cutter vessels were among the 45 American ships that served in combat.
When the U.S. Government passed the Slave Trade Act of 1794, the Revenue-Marine began intercepting slave ships which were illegally bringing slaves into the country.
Slaves were bought predominantly from Arab Muslim slave markets of Africa.
Missionary to Africa David Livingstone wrote of witnessing the Muslim Arab slave trade in the mid-19nth century:
“We passed a slave woman shot or stabbed through the body and lying on the path … an Arab who passed early that morning had done it in anger at losing the price he had given for her, because she was unable to walk any longer.
We passed a woman tied by the neck to a tree and dead … We came upon a man dead from starvation …
The strangest disease I have seen in this country seems really to be broken heartedness, and it attacks free men who have been captured and made slaves.”
David Livingstone estimated that each year over 80,000 Africans died before reaching the Muslim slave markets, writing to the editor of the New York Herald:
“If my disclosures regarding the terrible Ujijian slavery should lead to the suppression of the East Coast slave trade, I shall regard that as a greater matter by far than the discovery of all the Nile sources together.”
On January 1, 1808, exactly 55 years before Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation,Congress closed all U.S. ports to the importation of slaves.
The U.S. Revenue Cutter Service intercepted and freed nearly 500 slaves.
Th U.S. Revenue Cutter Service defended the United States in every major conflict, including the War of 1812, Counter-Piracy operations, Mexican-American War, the Civil War, Spanish-American War, World Wars I and II.
In 1915, the U.S. Revenue Cutter Service was merged with the U.S. Lifesaving Service to form the U.S. Coast Guard.
The original anthem of the U.S. Coast Guard was:
“To sink the foe or save the maimed,
Our mission and our pride,
We’ll carry on ’til Kingdom Come,
Ideals for which we’ve died.”
In 1939, the U.S. Lighthouse Service was merged into the U.S. Coast Guard, as was the Steamboat Inspection Service and Bureau of Navigation in 1946.
In 1967, the U.S. Coast Guard was transferred to the Department of Transportation.
President John F. Kennedy remarked aboard the U.S. Coast Guard Training Barque “Eagle,” August 15, 1962:
“This is a very ancient service in our country’s history.
Its first father … Alexander Hamilton, began the Coast Guard as a revenue collecting service, asked the Congress of the United States for appropriations for 10 vessels…
…The first Eagle was one of our most distinguished warships, and in actions against privateers of France, captured over five vessels, and recaptured seven American vessels…”
“This is the oldest continuous seagoing service in the United States, stretching back to the beginning of our country.”
President Herbert Hoover suggested December 27, 1929:
“A further proposal…is the definite expansion of the Coast Guard…in the matter of border patrol.”
Included in the list of casualties at the WWII Battle of Okinawa, President Truman stated, June 1, 1945:
“Navy and Coast Guard losses were 4,729 killed and 4,640 wounded.”
At the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, September 20, 1952, President Truman stated:
“I was just reading…about the Coast Guard’s icebreaker that has been closer to the North Pole than any other ship in delivering food and supplies to a station up there…
That, my young friends, is what makes this country great.”
President John F. Kennedy continued his address aboard the U.S. Coast Guard Training Barque “Eagle,” August 15, 1962:
“You serve our country in peacetime, on ice patrols and weather patrols, in protecting the standards of the merchant marine, in protecting safety at sea … and in time of war you, with the American Navy, as you did in World War II and at the time of Korea.”
At the U.S. Coast Guard commencement in New London, June 3, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson remarked:
“Winston Churchill once said: ‘Civilization will not last, freedom will not survive, peace will not be kept, unless mankind unites together to defend them and show themselves possessed of a power before which barbaric forces will stand in awe’…
In every area of national strength America today is stronger than it has ever been before…
It is stronger than the combined might of all the nations in the history of the world. And I confidently predict that strength will continue to grow…”
President Johnson continued:
“No one can live daily, as I must do, with the dark realities of nuclear ruin, without seeking the guidance of God to find the path of peace.
We have built this staggering strength not to destroy but to save, not to put an end to civilization but rather to try to put an end to conflict.”
At a U.S. Coast Guard commencement, May 18, 1988, President Reagan stated:
“It’s our prayer to serve America in peace. It’s our commitment to defend her in war.”
Click here to view original article
by John Diamond | Sep 3, 2016 | Blog
Dear Brother Kaepernick,
As I have sat and observed the firestorm that has raged over your refusal to stand during the playing of the National Anthem at the start of NFL games, I have recognized how your stand for social injustice has polarized the American people. Therefore, I would like to offer an objective view of both your position and your methods in order to enter into a solution orientated discussion about how to go about ending any and all social injustice that exists in America.
Both World and American history are full of examples of a particular people being subjected to racial, political, economic, moral, and even religious injustice. Injustice results when the government fails to protect the God-given rights of a particular group, or worse yet: it is the government itself, through its policies, laws and rulings that create the social injustice. Too often, the oppressed see their only recourse as to allow themselves to suffer under the injustice, or, just as wrong, they become vigilantes and take the law into their own hands in order to end the injustice. However, leaders throughout history who have had a biblical worldview understand that neither of these positions ever led to the end of the injustice. What then is there left to do?
There is a very powerful biblical solution that, at times, gets lost to history, until such a time that it is needed. The Children of Israel understood it. The American Founding Fathers understood it. The Christian abolitionists understood it. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. understood it. As the American people are once again being subjected to racial, political, economic, moral, and even religious injustice, it is once again time to resurrect this long forgotten principle. It is simply called An Appeal to Heaven: A Cry for Divine Justice.
Throughout American history, there have existed three historical positions on injustice. They are as follows:
- The “Do-nothings” – This faction acknowledges that injustice exists but advocates actions and/or policies that simply accept the status quo which allows the social injustice to continue. They don’t go far enough.
- Lawless and violet radical groups and individuals – This faction acknowledges that social injustice exists, but seeks to overcome evil by using evil and by using injustice to end or avenge injustice. By utilizing these methods, this group eventually becomes a mirror image of that which they claim to hate. They go too far.
- The Peacemakers –A Peacemaker does not advocate turning a blind eye to social injustice neither do they advocate either violence or any other unbiblical methods such as vengeance and retaliation in order to end the injustice. A true Peacemaker will in essence be the buffer which allows themselves to stand between the other two forces. Peacemakers seek advance reconciliation and restoration through biblical education. We learn of the mission and calling of the Peacemaker from the scripture passage: “Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Matt 5:9). Dr. Brian Bailey clearly articulates both the calling and the price that is required of a Peacemaker:
True peacemakers are willing to suffer themselves in order to bring people together in oneness and acceptance of each other. Those walls that separate us are made up of such stones as self-pity, lies, jealousies, hated and pride, as well as countless other offenses. The Heavenly Peacemaker will lay upon an earthly peacemaker the suffering that is needed to bring the walls down. Sometimes both parties turn against the Peacemaker and he has to bear unjust criticism. In effect, he becomes the olive oil between the saints. In a vision I had several years ago, I saw an olive placed between two millstones that were moving in opposite directions. The olive was reduced to pulp, and out from the pulp came the olive oil that permitted the two parties to be reconciled and be at peace. The olive was the pastor. He had to pay the price to be the Peacemaker. What should a pastor do in times of persecution? He should count himself “blessed” as it says in the next verse. “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
Therefore, a Peacemaker seeks to overcome evil with good and has historically been the appropriate Christian response. This is, therefore, the ideal remedy for overcoming injustice. Let us allow the historical examples of other Peacemakers to guide our present day efforts.
In any conflict, you will always have extremists on both sides. Even among those who agree in principle. You have those prescribe the right remedy, those who go too far, and those who are not willing to go far enough. Depending of what group or faction you find yourself in will determine the “extremism” of the other group.
In the antebellum moral debate over slavery, there were two factions: Pro-slavery and anti-slavery. In the years leading up to the Civil War, America was essentially a two-party political system. On one side there was the pro-slavery Democratic Party. On the other side was the “do-nothing” Whig Party who claimed to be “anti-slavery” at election time, yet continually betrayed their Christian base by continually compromising with the pro-slavery Democratic forces. This resulted in pro-slavery legislation such as the Missouri Compromise and the Fugitive Slave Act, which not only accept the status-quo, but extended the reach of slavery into Northern States.
Within the anti-slavery or abolitionist ranks, there were also various factions. All agreed that slavery was immoral, yet disagreed among themselves about whet needed to be done about it. Therefore, within the anti-slavery ranks, the three primary groups could be listed as follows based upon their religious, political and ideological position:
- Abraham Lincoln’ s position (did not go far enough)
- The John Brown’s position (went too far)
- William Seward’s position (ideal remedy)
Abraham Lincoln’s Position – Present day American history teaches us that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. This is incorrect. The Christian abolitionists are responsible for ending the evil institution of slavery in America. Early in his political career, Abraham Lincoln gave his “Temperance Speech of 1842” in which he weighed in against what he perceived as an extreme position. Lincoln, saw the efforts of the Christian abolitionists as using heavy-handed tactics. To Lincoln, these Christians were extremists. They were accused of “Wanting to create a theocracy” because they were using God’s law as the basis for U.S. civil law and public policy.
As Lincoln himself came to see later in his life, his initial critiques of abolitionism were unfounded. To him, the abolitionists were taking things to an extreme; in reality, it was Lincoln who was not taking the correct position on the abolition of the slave trade. Lincoln’s initial political position during the Civil War was not to end slavery but rather to preserve the union. In a letter written to Horace Greeley on August 22, 1862, Lincoln clearly presented his position:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
This was Abraham Lincoln’s position nearly 1 ½ years into the War. To him, saving the union was priority one and ending slavery was secondary. This present position was out of line with the divine law and was not sustainable. God’s law should be secondary to nothing else, including saving the political future of a nation. Lincoln stated that he disagreed with anyone of the two extremes who did not share “his” position. He went on in the letter to say that: “If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. Fortunately for America, he did continue by saying that he was open to change his mind should any more evidence come to light. “I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.”
John Brown’s Position – Regrettably, among the ranks of the abolitionists, there were those who were both bloodthirsty and brutal to the extreme. As is often time the case, if Satan cannot get you to do wrong, he will get you to seek the right the wrong way. While John Brown’s principled stand against the injustice of the institution of slavery was noble, the end cannot justify the means.
John Brown believed that the political process combined with peaceful resistance and civil disobedience to unjust laws had proven to be ineffective. He eventually reached the conclusion that only an armed insurrection would be the effective way to overthrow the barbaric institution of slavery. Brown lacked of both the faith and the patience necessary, which led him to use “the sword” instead. Like deceived souls before and after, he believed that he was the instrument of God’s vengeance on the southern slave owners. This extreme position was a violation of both the 6th Commandment “You shall not murder” (Ex 20:13) and Romans 12:17-21.
In 1859 Brown’s led a failed attempt to free enslaved African Americans in Harpers Ferry, Virginia, thinking that other abolitionist would follow his lead. He was tried in Virginia for the murder of five men, treason, and inciting a slave insurrection. Brown’s actions gave (and continued to give) a “black-eye” to the good name of otherwise peaceful advocates of abolition. He was found guilty and was hanged. He should have heeded God’s warning: If anyone has an ear, let him hear… he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints (Rev 13:9-10).
William Seward’s Position – For nearly 200 years, slavery had been imported into all of the British colonies (including America) by the British crown. This story can be clearly seen in the movie Amazing Grace. One of Thomas Jefferson’s chief grievances against the King of England was the forced acceptance of slavery upon the American colonists. In his original draft of the Declaration of Independence he states:
“He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.”
After the Revolutionary War, the greatest debate that raged during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution was that debate over when and how to end slavery in America. The Constitution of the United States included several godless provisions protecting the immoral institution of slavery. Section 9 of Article I made it illegal for the Federal government to ban the importation of slaves until January 1, 1808. Article V effectively protected the slave trade until the year 1808. It was for this reason that William Lloyd Garrison called the Constitution “a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell” because it violated God’s divine law (see Exodus 21:16).
William Seward was the United States Secretary of State from 1861 to 1869. He also served as a United States Senator and Governor of New York. Seward was governor from 1839 to 1842, thanks to his abolitionist political position and track record. During his term as governor, he signed several laws protecting abolitionists and advancing the rights and opportunities for black residents. While some believed that since the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that blacks could not be protected as citizens under the Constitution, Seward guaranteed the right of fugitive slaves to have jury trials in the state of New York. Seward wrote: “Shall we establish human bondage, or permit it, by our sufferance, to be established? Sir, our forefathers would not have hesitated an hour. They found slavery existing here, and left it only because they could not remove it…. Sir, there is no Christian nation, thus free to choose as we are, which would establish slavery”
For William Seward, slavery was a violation of divine law and therefore could not end soon enough. Even though he was regarded as the leading contender for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, he was later defeated by Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln felt immense political pressure from his political base to appoint abolitionists into high positions of political power. William Seward as Secretary of State, and abolitionist lawyer Salmon Chase, Treasury Secretary, were two such men.
On March 11, 1850, Seward gave a Speech to the United States Senate that would be titled the “Higher Law Speech.” Seward recognized the sublime truth that as government officials, they were simply acting under the divine authority of Romans and that the creator of the universe prohibited slavery in Exodus 21:16. He felt God’s law overruled not only both state and federal law, but even the U.S. Constitution itself.
But there is a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes. The [United States] is a part…. of the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of the universe. We are his stewards, and must so discharge our trust as to secure in the highest attainable degree their happiness.
On January 1, 1863, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. However, the abolitionists in his cabinet saw the Emancipation Proclamation as nothing more than a political and military move used by the North to further destabilize the South, than to actually free any slaves. It seemed rather ironic that the only slaves that the Emancipation Proclamation liberated were those whom the North did not have the power to liberate. Lincoln’s secretary of state, William Seward, makes note of this irony when he declared, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”
However, as the war played out, Lincoln slowly began to move into agreement with the abolitionist’s position. When pro-slavery Chief Justice Roger B. Taney died in 1864, Lincoln named the abolitionist Salmon Chase to replace him. Supreme Court Justice Salmon Chase believed that the federal government was corrupt and out of control, and that wealthy slave owners in the south and their business interests in the north were guilty of conspiracy. What would be later known as the “The Slave Power Conspiracy,” the abolitionists believed that southern slave owners had conspired to control the federal government and were using its political and economic power as a means to expand slavery by means of the Missouri Compromise and to protect slavery with the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dred Scott decision. Prominent men such as William Lloyd Garrison, a prominent American abolitionist, helped found the American Anti-Slavery Society. He believed that God’s law superseded the U.S. Constitution. One of Chase’s first acts as the newly appointed Chief Justice was to admit John Rock as the first African-American attorney to argue cases before the Supreme Court.
In April 15, 1865, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated with slavery still legal in America. It was not until December 6, 1865, that the 13th amendment legally abolished slavery in the United States. This was followed by The 14th Amendment to the Constitution which was ratified on July 9, 1868, which provided the newly free slaves equal protection under the law, and the 15th amendment, which was and ratified February 3, 1870, and granted former slaves the right to vote.
Now jump forward nearly 100 years. While these God-given rights of equality were now codified into American law, they existed only paper, and were not being respected in practice by the civil authorities in many southern states. Therefore, years later during the political debate over Segregation and racism in the South, there were there were essentially two factions. Those who were for Segregation and racism and those who were opposed to it. Again it was the Christian church that would serves as Peacemakers. And like the years leading up to the Civil War, there were those who prescribed the right remedy, those who go too far, and those who are not willing to go far enough. Again, depending of what group or faction you find yourself in will determine the “extremism” of the other group.
In the political debate over Segregation and racism, there were three groups. All agreed that since all men were created in the image of God, that segregation laws were immoral, yet disagreed among themselves about what needed to be done about it. Therefore, in the anti-segregation ranks, the three primary groups could be listed as follows based upon their religious, political and ideological position:
- Alabama clergymen position (did not go far enough)
- Black Radicals position (went too far)
- Martin Luther Kings’ position (ideal remedy)
Alabama Clergymen Position –On April 12, 1963, eight white Alabama clergymen wrote an article titled A Call for Unity, stirring up opposition against Martin Luther Kings’ methods. This was an open letter published in Birmingham, Alabama in response to civil rights demonstrations taking place in the area at the time.
The authors of A Call for Unity had previously written An Appeal for Law and Order and Common Sense in January of the same year. In which they stated: “That every human being is created in the image of God and is entitled to respect as a fellow human being with all basic rights, privileges, and responsibilities which belong to humanity.” While the Alabama clergy agreed with MLK’s principled position, they disagreed with his call for civil disobedience, which they considered to be heavy-handed and extreme. Instead of publicly rebuking the politicians and the courts for denying these citizens of their God-given and constitutionally protected rights, they turned their sword (pen) on their Christian Brother and fellow clergyman.
In the letter, they took issue with events that they claimed were directed in part by outsiders. The term “outsider” was a very thinly veiled reference to Martin Luther King, Jr. peaceful civil disobedience efforts. They urged the activists to engage in local negotiations and use the courts if rights were being denied rather than to protest. They wrote “We further strongly urge our own Negro community to withdraw support from these demonstrations, and to unite locally in working peacefully for a better Birmingham. When rights are consistently denied, a cause should be pressed in the courts and in negotiations among local leaders, and not in the streets.”
Black Radicals Position – Malcolm X was another human rights activist in the civil rights movement. He was an African American Muslim. He didn’t believe in Martin Luther King’s pacifist methods, he believed that for there to be true change, blacks had to protest with violent force. (i.e. overcome evil, hate and prejudice with equal amounts evil hate and prejudice.) Likewise, the Black Panthers were a militant group which had the same beliefs as Malcolm X and openly called for the use of violence against whites. The group was founded by a man named Stokely Carmichael. Malcolm X eventually became the leader of the Black Muslims in the USA. On February 19, 1965 gave a speech in which stated:
In Washington D.C., in the House of Representatives, there are 257 who are Democrats; only 177 are Republican. In the Senate there are 67 Democrats; only 33 are Republicans. The Party that you backed controls two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and still they can’t keep their promise to you, ’cause you’re a chump. Anytime you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government, and that Party can’t keep the promise that it made to you during election time, and you’re dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that Party, you’re not only a chump, but you’re a traitor to your race.
Malcolm X was assassinated two days later, most likely by forces loyal to Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam who considered him a traitor for leaving their organization. The Black Panthers eventually fizzled out as government officials passed legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings based upon race.
Martin Luther Kings’ Position – Dr. King he believed in peaceful protests and civil disobedience to unjust laws rather than resorting to violence. MLK had not come into town to be “an agitator” He came into town to become a Peacemaker! He sought to stand between the two forces in order to use the measured Christian response of love as a means to prevent racially motivated bloodshed that existed between the police and the Black Nationalist forces, such as the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam. Dr. King agreed in principle with the Black Nationalists, but rejected their methods. A video compilation of the position of Dr. King agreed in principle with the Black Nationalist can be seen on our website, www.appealingtoheaven.org.
Dr. King understood that it was very true that the government officials in the south at the time were corrupt and out of control, and that appealing to them for justice had not and would not work. If justice took too long to be addressed with peaceful civil disobedience, it would eventually be addressed with violent bloodshed. Dr. King replied to the “Do-nothing” Alabama clergy with his now famous Letter from Birmingham Jail, arguing that civil disobedience was necessary and embraced the titled “extremist,” since it put him in very good company with others throughout world history who championed opposition to both sin and injustice. I will allow him to speak for himself:
My Dear Fellow Clergymen:
While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities “unwise and untimely…. I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their “thus saith the Lord” far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid…. You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations… but it is even more unfortunate that the city’s white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative…. Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.” We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter.
I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the “do nothingism” of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the Black Nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood.
And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as “rabble rousers” and “outside agitators” those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies–a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.
Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,
Martin Luther King, Jr. 16 April 1963
Now Brother Kaepernick, let us return to the present racial crisis that exists in America. I praise your efforts in trying to raise public awareness to injustice in America by using non-violence to spread your message. However, by wearing a Malcom X hat during your press conference is sending the wrong message. If you are going to use a role model in your campaign for social and racial justice, why would in not be Dr. King? The Black Lives Matters group is an extremist group that advocates the killing of whites and police officers. These group state the segregation is wrong, yet take a position that blacks need to separate themselves from whites. Babu Omowale states that the Black Lives Matter, Black Panthers and other Black national groups create their own Nation within a nation by taking over many southern states.
The end game is land ownership. The endgame is our own government in a nation within a nation. Okay. So we claim the states of Louisiana, we claim the states of Mississippi, we claim the states of South Carolina, we claim the states of Alabama, and we claim the states of Georgia. We just need to start migrating back to those states and taking control of the economics in those states. If black people move in, most definitely white people will move out. So it’s not a hard process for us to have our own country within a country.
Is this the America that you want to see? Or do you side with the Peacemakers position that echoes that call of Dr. King who had a dream that one day, right here in America, “little black boys and little black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. … all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”
Today, we do not need a modern day Malcolm X. We need a modern day Martin Luther King Jr. – surrounded by those who understand that a revolution of love is greater than a revolution of hate. The Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson said it best:
I think ultimately it comes back to love. Like I said to you guys before, it comes back to loving one another and appreciating one another. Understanding that we’re not perfect but we need to be equal. And that’s from the black community, from the white community, that’s from police officers to everybody to all of our military to everybody that we get to recognize and see — have great appreciation for what this country is based on — and what it should be based on.
Make no mistake about it. A revolution is coming. It may come upon us quickly or it may be decades away. But this sentiment has been festering below the surface for over a generation. In a report presented to the United States Senate in May, 1966, Robert F. Kennedy is quoted as saying: “A revolution is coming – a revolution which will be peaceful if we are wise enough; compassionate if we care enough; successful if we are fortunate enough – but a revolution which is coming whether we will it or not. We can affect its character; we cannot alter its inevitability.”
His words were truer than he realized. The question is whether this eventual and inevitable revolution will be led by violent and unprincipled men, resulting in an armed and bloody conflict, or whether it will be a peaceful revolution led by Peacemakers, who are guided by divine principles and aided by Heaven itself. We advocate the latter. I encourage you to join Peacemakers Outreach’s Appeal to Heaven Project as we seek to end racial, political, economic, moral, and even religious injustice in America.
Dr. John D. Diamond
Director – Peacemakers Outreach
by John Diamond | Aug 29, 2016 | Guest Post
I hear the Spirit of the Lord saying that, “The Courts of Heaven are waiting for your petitions. It is time to bring your case before the Lord. Do not ask according to your needs. Ask according to My purposes. For I am looking for those who desire My will and My Kingdom. I am looking for those who will fulfill their destiny because it is what I have ordained before the foundations of the earth.
“In this season I am restoring the apostolic in My Church.
“It is time to pray apostolic prayers. I am raising up a remnant of apostles who are not concerned with titles or fame but rather their hearts burn for My presence and My desires. I desire the nations to know Me and I must have a people who will move in My power. They must know My ways and know how to operate in the new dimensions of My glory that I am bringing them into.
“I have a covenant with My people. I will honor My promises with them. I have a covenant with My name. My name is a seal for you to execute what I have ordered! I have a covenant with My Word. I will not violate it. I will honor My purposes.
“I am looking for those who know how to approach Me with humility, honor, and brokenness. I am unlocking My plans in your life as you pursue My presence. I am releasing passion for worship and for My presence. Ask Me for My heart and I will fill you afresh with My Spirit. As you worship Me with all your heart the seed of your purpose will been birthed.
“As you choose to serve Me you choose My perfect will for your life.
“Begin to ask Me for My purposes and your needs will be met accordingly. Because your heart burns for My presence you will never lack anything good! Supernatural provision is coming concerning the purpose I have for your ministry. Even as you pray I am releasing order in the midst of chaos.
“I am releasing My fire and it is consuming the things in your life that don’t please Me. My fire is refining you and causing the things that aren’t important anymore to fade from your life. All of a sudden your appetite for the things of this world will not be present. Instead you will have an insatiable desire to worship Me. I am revealing to you My power and My holiness. For only I am worthy of your worship, honor, and glory! Fear the Lord for He is the Creator of all things!
“I am Your Righteous Judge and the whole earth trembles before Me!
“Therefore, God elevated Him to the place of highest honor and gave Him the name above all other names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in Heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue declare that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2:9-11
by Tim Yarbrough | Aug 15, 2016 | Guest Post
Samuel Rutherford had to deal with the pagan doctrine of law which came to be known as the “divine right of the king”. Later, even in the midst of a profitable Parliament this “divine right” was sought to be transformed into the “divine right of Parliament” – even Blackstone reiterates some of this evil and pagan philosophy. At the hearing in Montgomery, Alabama yesterday the evolution of this pagan foundation has now morphed into the self-proclaimed “divine right of the judiciary” – more specifically for our society, SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States).
On every side the argument was advanced that once the SCOTUS has spoken, that was the law – the sovereign has spoken. This is the same old heresy wrapped up in a different cloth and transitioned to a different locale. The lead attorney for the JIC, one John Carroll, rehearsed the fact that he had been practicing for 42 years and under a number of different Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justices. He named, if I recall correctly, six of them starting with Howell Heflin (infamous regarding his monetary decisions). He made a startling declaration about his view of EVERY ONE of these Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justices, saying that all of them were men of strong faith and would have, in his view, been personally appalled regarding the decision of the Supreme Court regarding sodomy, but NOT ONE of them would have taken a stand against such a proclamation of evil by the Supreme Court of the United States. I do not believe he had any idea of the theology he was espousing. In his view, and it was evident in the hearing that this was the overwhelming view of the courtroom participants, the Divine Right of the Judiciary is enshrined with settled certainty as the new “god” of these United States. It was EVIL to the core and is as much an abomination as the claims Rutherford had to battle.
I think it may well be true that on the specific battle that Judge Moore is involved in, he may prevail on the technicalities – there was wisdom in his approach. However, it was clear, at least in my view, that the heretical and pagan doctrine of the divine right of the supreme court reigns supreme in law, culture, and religion (including professing Christians). THIS is the great issue before us and must be challenged, refuted, overcome, and buried on the ash heap of history with one, and only one, answer:
“For the LORD is our Judge, the LORD is our Lawgiver, the LORD is our King; He will save us.” -Isaiah 33:22
There are NO other options. We follow the Law-giver, or we choose autonomy. No amount of obfuscation or writing 1,500 page tomes on why this is not the situation will wash out the reality that was on full display at the Alabama Supreme Court chambers yesterday. It was a watershed moment: “Choose you this day” is still the echoing cry of history.
Originally posted here.
by Joey LeTourneau | Aug 1, 2016 | Blog, Guest Post
Who contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations… Romans 4:18
The “founding father” of our faith, Abraham, was used so mightily for God’s family because even when circumstances were unanimously pointed against all hope—in hope he still believed. This is a hallmark trait so many have been being trained in of late, not just an outward perseverance but an internal stretching of the perseverance of their hope and faith. Before God expands our capacity on the outside (territory), He expands our capacity on the inside. Like an athlete preparing to compete at high altitude, our lung capacity has needed to be upgraded to run our race at a new and higher place.
Abraham was trained in the nature of the Father through an internal perseverance of trust that graduated him into the place of fathering the family of God. Many have been trained for such a worldwide family restoration getting ready to take place now. God is calling a new breed of founding fathers whose trust has been proven, giving the Father a direct flow through our lives to give life to people and grassroots movements all over the earth. Many have been lost, and by the Father, through you, they will soon know their place in the “family” and be found.
New Founding Fathers
We often look back to the “founding fathers” of our nation or our faith to look for guidance or revival in the hope and principles we too often stray from. If America looks back at her beginnings, she finds a time when leaders of great internal character rose up against challenging times to demonstrate that they were not here to conform, but to transform. They became founding fathers of the nation not merely because of the principles they set in motion, but because of the internal character and integrity of faith that birthed those principles. (Photo via Wikipedia)
Today, on the surface, it would seem America and many other nations, are in the midst of challenging division, discord, and are fighting off an attack on hope. Many ask what our founding fathers would say or do, or share quotes about what they warned of—all great encouragements. But I would say there was something deeper than their principles that we now need—a revolutionary spirit that rose up with courage from within them to act, govern, speak, live and love like true fathers are supposed to.
We are in times where we need new founding fathers to rise up and not wait for those who will politically govern, but those who will genuinely father new movements of liberty springing up everywhere. A bill going through congress can be vetoed, but those who rule in their sphere of influence with the passion of a father cannot be stopped.
A Family Structure
Also, the Lord tells you that He will make you a house. 2 Samuel 7:11
Like David in this story, we often want to build God a house. And I believe God’s response to us is often very similar to what He told David, “I will make YOU a house.” This doesn’t just mean God will build a house for us, but that He will make our life into a house, a family line of descendants. We often want to father through a physical structure kind of house, but God often waits for us to father through “a family structure” of multiplication.
These new founding fathers will birth new movements that bring us together into the kind of unity Jesus prayed for in John 17:20-26—a unity that will cause the world to believe. This isn’t your typical unity that is based on similarity, proximity or conformity; it is the kind of unity a father helps birth by empowering identity within their family.
As new founding fathers rise up, so too will the family of God begin to be restored into the kind of family structure that looks beyond principles, the kind of family that lives and loves from belonging, sets captives free from the inside out, and causes the world to believe.
A true father knows how to empower their family. They know how to “find” the gold in everyone they meet. They know how to be united not in spite of, but because of differences within the family. A father opens blind eyes for others to see the possibilities that have been present within them the entire time. A father knows that true liberty comes from knowing your place in the family, and a father blesses those “different” parts of the family to come forth and reveal the family name and likeness in their own special purpose and ways.
A father who comes in the name of The Father knows how to carry peace into discord, and how to make someone who feels like an outcast feel loved and known. Founding fathers know how to find those who haven’t been found before, or who need to be found again. They know how to lead and govern through grace, but without compromising truth. They know when to speak, when to listen, and when to simply offer a hug or share tears. These fathers know how to bring healing to the brokenhearted, they know how to love the world like family, and they do not need a ministry or organization in order to do so, they just need to see the world as God does—like family!
He who has seen Me has seen the Father. John 14:9
The kind of founding fathers we need right now are not fathers based just on gender (as this includes both fathers and mothers), but who carry the Spirit of The Father. They are ones who, like Jesus, learn to say, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” Our nation here in America, as well as many other nations across the world, need our founding fathers of NOW to rise up and father the future.
We are about to see a new revolution by founding fathers in every sphere of influence. It will be done through the context of widespread Kingdom family and under the leadership of the Father’s heart. It’s a message to be lived more than told and is a grassroots movement of the Father rising up through you to take ground for the Kingdom, to give life to His family, and show the world who He really is in all His abounding nature! (Photo via Pixabay)
Small Beginnings, Big Families
Your “fatherly,” persevering faith, hope and love that has been expanding during this past season has prepared you. And as with any family, “fathering” doesn’t always happen in big or formal family moments, but in the little things. Do not despise the little moments as they add up and even multiply big. Our kids are shaped by those little moments seeing and knowing them, of caring for their hurts, feeding them, listening, speaking life and hope, and simply, unconditionally being present with them.
To “father” a person or movement doesn’t require any kind of formal recognition by the recipient(s), it is simply an act of giving life out of the well God has expanded and filled within you. Fathers are so connected to The Father that they know how, where and when to plant a seed of life that is ready to expand into more.
Wherever you go, not by title or position, but by presence, faith, hope and love may each person who encounters you say, “Because I have seen you I have seen The Father.”
Originally found on Elijah List.
by Todd Starnes | Jul 10, 2016 | Blog
If California Democrats have their way, Christian colleges and universities will no longer be allowed to require students attend chapel services or require them to profess a relationship with Jesus Christ.
Senate Bill 1146 would close a loophole that lawmakers say allows Christian universities to discriminate against students based on their gender identity, gender expression or sexual orientation.
“All students deserve to feel safe in institutions of higher education, regardless of whether they are public or private,” said Senator Ricardo Lara, the author of the legislation. “California has established strong protections for the LGBTQ community and private universities should not be able to use faith as an excuse to discriminate and avoid complying with state laws.”
The legislation has already passed the Senate and is expected to clear hurdles in the Assembly. Thus far, Lara has refused to compromise with the state’s Christian colleges and universities.
“No university should have a license to discriminate,” he said in a statement.
If the loophole is closed, it would only exempt schools that prepare students for pastoral ministry.
“It discriminates against religious colleges, said John Jackson, the president of William Jessup University. “If we don’t play ball with state — the state will attempt to drive us out of existence.”
The president of the Sacramento-based university called the proposed legislation chilling.
“The passage of this bill would destroy the foundation upon which this university was founded,” said Jackson. “Systematically discriminating against religious institutions and preventing student access and choice to Christian higher education is bad policy and will have a negative effect on the state of California.”
Lee Wilhite, vice president of university communications at Biola University, said they, too, have serious concerns with the bill.
“It functionally eliminates the religious liberty of all California faith-based universities,” he told me. “It really does infringe on how we carry out our mission.”
Like most Christian universities, Biola integrates the Bible through all of their courses — something they’ve been doing for more than 100 years.
If the loophole is closed, it could have a devastating impact on faith-based institutions.
“We would no longer be able to require a profession of faith for students,” Wichita said. “That’s something Biola requires of all incoming students.”
Schools would no longer be allowed to integrate faith throughout their teaching curriculum, he added.
Leaders at three universities I spoke to say that they would not be allowed to require mandatory chapel attendance or mandatory core units of Bible courses.
“The danger for Biola University is that it prevents us from carrying out our mission the way we have for 108 years,” Wilhite said. “It would eliminate our ability to continue our mission. That’s why it has our attention.”
The legislation would also give students a right to sue if — for example — they were offended by a prayer in a class.
Biola and William Jessup refute the notion that LGBT students are discriminated against on their campuses.
“We don’t tolerate harassment or bullying of any of our students,” Wilhite told me.
Many of the schools are working with the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities to urge Lara to amend his bill to include a religious exemption.
“If passed without amendments, the new law would also very likely disqualify students attending California Christian colleges and universities from eligibility for Cal Grants, a key state-level student aid program,” wrote Kurt Krueger, president of Concordia University Irvine.
Azusa Pacific University president Jon Wallace, penned a passionate op-ed for the San Gabriel Valley Tribune.
“Sen. Lara wants to safeguard LGBT students. We want the same protection for all students, including members of the LGBT community. The bill calls for more transparency from schools about their beliefs and recourse for unfair treatment. We share his concerns about student safety, transparency and recourse. With every prospective student, we share who we are, we provide the framework for how we build community and do life together and we ask those who enroll to uphold our student standards of conduct. Right now the proposed bill would invite challenges to required chapel attendance and public and communal observation of Christian sacraments such as the Eucharist and baptisms, among other activities central to our identity.”
Several of the universities I contacted said they are going to respectfully stand their ground — even if it means taking their case to the Supreme Court of the United States.
“We are not willing to change our policies,” Jackson said. “There is a very intentional attempt to marginalize those who don’t accept the notions of sexual orientation and gender identity as the government has framed them.”
And Jackson warned that what’s happening in California could happen in other parts of the country.
“Religious freedoms are in play in California,” Jackson told me. “Ultimately, I’m concerned that what begins in California rolls across the nation.”
Originally posted on Fox News.