Over at Bayly Blog I accidentally put my foot in it — which of course is not an uncommon occurrence.

Someone took a swipe at Calvin’s treatment of Servetus and I stood up for Calvin by noting that if magistrates had stayed consistent by dealing with future Servetus’ in a similar manner we would not have arrived at the point where homosexuality is seen as normative, and we would not have arrived at the point where homosexuals are allowed to evangelize our children through the curriculum in the government schools and we would not be slaughtering 1.3 million babies every year.

Rev. Tim Bayly, for reasons known only to him, took strong exception to this comment and even after I cited the fact that all of Christian Europe was after Servetus and that the Westminster Confession article 23 requires this kind of action from the magistrate Rev. Bayly still didn’t want the discussion taking place at his blog. I suppose it is possible that Tim has some former homosexuals in his congregation and so he doesn’t want to upset them by what he views as a heavy handed approach. I guess I should say that new laws forbidding crimes wouldn’t be enforced ex post facto. Converted homosexuals are my brothers in Christ and no law passed after the fact would effect them.

Rev. Bayly seems to think my position is uncharitable and unloving. It is popular to think that way and so I don’t fault him. Rev. Bayly really needs to ask himself though if it was uncharitable and unloving of God to require capital punishment for public blasphemers in the Old Covenant and if it wasn’t then what has changed?

The reality, is that when Calvin supported the decision that the Geneva Magistrates made on Servetus it was the most loving thing he could have done. Would the Magistrates and Calvin had turned a blind eye to the teachings of Servetus it would have been like ignoring a Cancer festering in a healthy body. When Calvin supported the decisions of the Magistrates in Geneva against Servetus he at the same time supported the health of Families, Churches, and the Societal unity in Geneva. To have allowed Servetus to go unchecked would have been hatred against God and His glory and it would have been a violation of God’s law word regarding blasphemers.

We have seen where Servetus’ Unitarianism has led in our own country. What started with the theological blasphemies of Servetus, by way of a long and winding ideological path that has snaked further and further away from the old Christian paths, has led to the death of 1.3 million babies every year in this country. It has led to the feminization and homosexulization of our culture. A little leaven does indeed leaven the whole loaf.

Some will contend that it is hard hearted and mean spirited to suggest that the State should bear the sword against public Blasphemers. But let us consider again the flip side of this. If public Blasphemers and publicly expressed God haters are allowed to hold sway we must ask the question who will they exercise the use of the sword against? Our culture reveals that they will yield the sword against those that they consider involved in public blasphemy against their god or gods concept.

One of the gods of our age is the god of sex without fertility. Getting pregnant is a public blasphemy against that god. The penalty that the State makes provision for is death for the conceived child. So the sum of this is that Magistrates will always bring the sword against public blasphemy. The Geneva magistrates brought it against Servetus for publicly blaspheming God. Our current magistrates create an environment where the sword is brought against the unborn for publicly blaspheming our sex without fertility god.

It would seem to me that since the Magistrates always ends up bringing the sword against the blasphemers of some god that we should advocate for magistrates bringing the sword against those who blaspheme the God of the Bible, thus showing a tender-heartedness and love towards those who are being killed in the name of false religions and false gods.

Rev. Bayly commented that under my belief system only a handful of people would be left alive. The truth however though, is that under God’s system the land would flourish and the 1.3 million yearly aborted that Rev. Bayly cares about so deeply would be among a host of those left alive.

Well this morning, I came across the Inaugural worship service that was held in the Washington Cathedral on 21 January 2009.

A few observations,

1.) It was an 86 minute service. Inclusive of all the songs and liturgy the name of Jesus Christ was mentioned one time by Rev. Andy Stanley. I’d like to give Andy points but to be honest you don’t get any points for being part of a ecumenical service where the gods are implicitly being given equal time and equal credence.

2.)Historic Christian songs were used but none of those songs referred to Christ. In this multi-cultural age we are going to have to think long and hard about grand historic hymns that made fine singing in the context of Christendom but can be easily co-opted into being paeans of praise to a generic civil religion god and gods.

3.)The worship was led by Christian ministers, Christian Priests, Hindu leaders, Rabbis, and Muslim leaders. This was not a Christian service but a polytheistic service. All the gods are welcome as long as all the gods know their place. This underscores my constant contention that the God in our system is the State who serves as the God of the gods.

4.) The civil religion aspect of it was highlighted by patriotic songs and the constant invoking for the good of the State and its leaders. A Christian service by contrast would ask for the good of God and that the leaders might be blessed as they are faithful to God’s revealed Word.

5.) The hypocrisy was pretty thick at two points. First, when they read the Isaiah 58:6-12 passage which was used for the theme. Second, when they sang “He’s got the little bitty babies in His hands.” When you read that passage, and then combine it with the song and then when you think of the barbarity of abortion you wonder how anybody could keep a straight face.

6.) The female preacher managed to use the anti-Christ dating system of “BCE” in order to date the book of Isaiah. This is a significant attack against Christianity.

7.) The sermon done by the “lady” preacher was entirely horizontal, speaking solely about man’s duty to man. It also was laden with socialistic type themes. A great deal of blather about social justice and the brotherhood of all mankind. It was a least common denominator sermon done for a least common denominator god. It fit wonderfully into an age that is trying to build a New World Order.

Conclusions,

1.) Our official State religion is the same as Rome’s in the 1st century. We are held together by Caesar worship. We are polytheistic in the sense that the citizenry is allowed to serve any god it wants as long as its god doesn’t defy Caesar.

2.) There is little strength in the mega Churches. Rick Warren and Andy Stanley are classic examples. If they are willing to be representatives who add Jesus to the pantheon of the State gods then it is questionable where their real allegiance lie.

3.) As Christians and in Churches we need to keep praying for civil magistrates but the requests should take on a predominant theme of repentance for our “leaders.”

4.) We should understand that our leadership is God’s judgment against our sin against Him. The Church has played the harlot and so we have been given wicked men to rule over us both in our Churches and in those who fill the role of civil magistrates.