Mask mandates are a form of political control not science based health. Such mandates that include mandatory self-quarantining of the healthy and social distancing are based on political COVID fear more than science. There is plenty of science verified solutions for COVID discounted by Leftist power-brokers and greedy Big Pharma doctors/scientists that could have made lives normal. THIS POST addresses Mask Mandates, Christian Civil Disobedience and those – even Christian leaders – who are subservient to totalitarianism which is un-Constitutional and un-Biblical manipulation. (I encourage you to specifically take the time to listen to the fiery audio sermon of Pastor Matt Trewhella.)
Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check
& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account:
Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business –
OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products.
Biblical Perspective on Government Mandated Mask
EKKLESIA SPECIAL EDITION
Posted by Daniel Navejas
August 23, 2020
Facebook Group OKLAHOMA CONSERVATIVES FOR FREEDOM
A Biblical Perspective on Government Mandated Mask & The Doctrine of Lesser Magistrates:
As the government begins to institute mask mandates, Christians must seriously consider what our response should be. In these tumultuous times it is even more crucial that we KNOW & LIVE the TRUTH!
The issue of mandating masks is extremely controversial, but it is also vitally important. We believe the God ordained role of Government is to PROTECT, not to infringe on the liberties that GOD has given us. Blind compliance with unjust and tyrannical demands is neither Godly nor biblical, and the road of compromise and compliance ALWAYS leads to enslavement, persecution and tyrannical dictatorships.
But in the midst of this we have begun to see the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates, practiced across the nation. (click here to download a free PDF: https://caperepublic.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/matthew_j._trewhella_the_doctrine_of_the_lesser_magistrate.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1FezEeJ-fUh1lYQtaBQf9g5F8hp8riwvlHwjM1n_eMhekbKPZQCqTDMNA).
Pastor Matt Trewhella, the author of the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates, recently preached a sermon on the issue of mask mandates explaining biblically and historically why it is no small matter. (Audio: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=72120161361809&fbclid=IwAR3lvj7csU-2dT9kW2_hd__RdTp8T4y_Cv-V6vF23Q0Se1siOk9l6rlBYtQ [Direct Audio: https://www.sermonaudio.com/saplayer/playpopup.asp?SID=72120161361809])
Here in Oklahoma communities have begun to demand that city councils and Mayors be held accountable for these unconstitutional orders. The message is clear, if you are unwilling to listen and represent us, then you will be RECALLED & REPLACED.
A group called Unite Norman has collected over 2,400 signatures, enough to place two city council members on a recall ballot. They need 18,000 signatures to place the Mayor on recall. The link above will take you to the Facebook group if you would like to get connected to them as more and more communities began to follow suit.
BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL PRECEDENT
1Pe 2:13-17 “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme…”
We do not have an emperor who is supreme. The supreme ruler of the land is not a person but law—our Constitution. Even the President is subject to the Constitution. Therefore, in order to honor 1 Pet 2:13, we must oppose lawlessness. Robbing a convenience store is lawlessness, but it is also lawless for a politician or policeman to violate the supreme law of the land. It is my duty as a Christian and a citizen to oppose those who violate the law which is the Constitution. Laws contrary to the Constitution are invalid and in order to oppose lawlessness, we must NOT comply with invalid laws. [Blog Editor: Bold text indicates Blog Editor extreme agreement.]
Rom 13:1-7 “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities…”
Context is very important here. For the people to whom this was written, the governing authority was an emperor and ecclesiastical leaders. Neither of these are elected or in any way beholden to the people they rule. Our form of government could not be more different.
We literally select and HIRE our leaders, as an employer does employees, who then work FOR us. When they do not adequately perform the task for which we have chosen them, they hear from us, and, if needs be, are removed. It’s government by consent of the governed. When those we have chosen as leaders abuse their power, our lack of consent to their atrocities is the first recourse to halting the tyranny, and it is our duty to do so.
Our duty, I repeat, both as citizens of a self-ruled republic, and as Christians obeying the ultimate rule(r) of our country. Indeed, our refusal to consent is the first line of defense against tyranny.
The primary obstruction before a power-hungry politician is, “The people will not go along with it”.
Sadly, power-hungry politicians have lately discovered that the people will in fact go along will all manner of abuses, even clamoring for more, when they are afraid of a virus. This is a very dangerous precedent.
The duties of the responsible American citizen are vastly different from those of the Roman or Israeli citizen. Alexander Hamilton said:
“If it were to be asked, what is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws… It is by this, in a great degree, that the rich and powerful are to be restrained from enterprises against the common liberty—operated upon by the influence of a general sentiment, by their interest in the principle, and by the obstacles which the habit it produces erects against innovation and encroachment. It is by this, in a still greater degree, that caballers, intriguers, and demagogues are prevented from climbing on the shoulders of faction to the tempting seats of usurpation and tyranny… a sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government… There are indeed great and urgent cases where the bounds of the constitution are manifestly transgressed, or its constitutional authorities so exercised as to produce unequivocal oppression on the community, and to render resistance justifiable.”
James Madison said:
“It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.”
Hamilton again, in the Federalist Papers stated:
“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.”
“What did Jesus do about such ordinances that ran contrary to the HIGHER LAWS?”
This quoting of our nation’s architects could go on for pages. But to return to Scripture, when Jesus walked the earth, many times He healed people on the Sabbath. He could certainly have waited one more day, and been in compliance with the Pharisees’ rules. But He deliberately chose not to. What is His justification for this “rebellion”? I would suggest that in Israel’s government of that day, the Torah was their Constitution, and the laws of the Pharisees were comparable to our city ordinances. What did Jesus do about such ordinances that ran contrary to the higher laws? In at least some instances, He defied them to make a point. When He and His disciples were walking through a grain field on the Sabbath, they began to eat the ears of grain as they walked. The Pharisees strongly objected; this too was against the rules. Jesus let them do it, and gave the Pharisees a lesson on Israeli history.
Paul insisted on his civil rights, and did not comply with directives to the contrary. Acts 16:36-39 says:
“And the jailer reported these words to Paul, saying, ‘The magistrates have sent to let you go. Therefore come out now and go in peace.’ But Paul said to them, ‘They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men who are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into prison; and do they now throw us out secretly? No! Let them come themselves and take us out.’ The police reported these words to the magistrates, and they were afraid when they heard that they were Roman citizens. So they came and apologized to them. And they took them out and asked them to leave the city.”
What about the blacks in the 1960s? Many black Christians engaged in much civil disobedience. They sat at lunch counters where the “law” said they could not sit. I can’t see a compelling argument for this law violating anyone’s conscience. It wasn’t a sin for them to sit elsewhere. They could have followed the rules and still eaten, gotten to work on the bus, etc. But the law was unjust and they made a point of defying it in hopes of changing it. Does Scripture really condemn this stand for justice? Especially under a government designed to accept such rebukes.
And what of the Jews? If the law says to put this star of David identification on, there’s nothing immoral about that; the Christian ones among them should obey, right? In The Boy on the Wooden Box, a memoir of a Jew on Schindler’s List, the importance of “taking alarm” early on in abuses is echoed:
“Meanwhile, in Krakow, the Germans tightened their grip on us. Jewish parents could no longer reassure children with the phrase, ‘It will soon be over,’ and a new phrase surfaced: ‘If this is the worst that happens.’…When forced to hand over our radio to the Nazis, we silently repeated the words; whenever a German was near, we whispered to ourselves, ‘If this is the worst…’”
Blind obedience to government, even in America, is ill-advised. “Perhaps the following historical event, as recorded in Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown, will serve to illustrate the incompleteness of the obedience perspective alone.
On November 5, 1864, Major Scott J. Anthony assured Black Kettle and a party of approximately 600 Cheyenne Indians that if they returned to their camp, they would be safe under the protection of nearby Fort Lyon. Black Kettle had been to Washington, D.C., met President Lincoln, and been given a large American flag which he flew over his tent with the promise from Col. Greenwood that no soldiers would fire on him as long as he flew this flag. Black Kettle and his tribe went peacefully to Sand Creek, obediently remaining under the umbrella of the authority of the United States government.
On November 26, 1864, Major Anthony and the Fort Lyon troops, along with Col. Chivington and 600 reinforcements, attacked Black Kettle and his people at sunrise. As the soldiers opened fire on the sleeping Indians, women and children rushed to huddle around Black Kettle’s tent which flew the American flag. The soldiers paid no attention to flags or cries for peace, but proceeded to massacre the Indians in a most brutal manner, killing 105 women and children and 28 men. (All but 35 of the men were gone on a hunting party, leaving the camp unprotected.) Black Kettle was under…authority…The Indians who didn’t believe Major Anthony and refused to camp [under authority] were unmolested. Black Kettle was not an advocate of war, but a voice for peace among his people. [Blog Editor: Here is the Thoughtco.com account that differs only Chief Lean Bear met with President Lincoln]
Thomas Jefferson once said:
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe.”
It is the duty of responsible citizens to do their own research and not to trust the “government experts”. Men, with power, usually have ulterior motives, and it is for our safety that we must determine to the best of our ability (and with the internet we have greater powers than ever before) whether their advice is valid or tainted with ulterior motives and self-interest. The necessary action taken after such knowledge is gained is not the foot-stamping of rebellious teenagers but the responsible action of adults who are not gullible.
“All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.”—James Madison
We at the Ekklesia believe government instituted mask mandates are ENTIRELY outside their jurisdiction and is nothing less than TYRANNICAL. While individuals and private business have every right to choose to wear and enforce masks on their own property, the government DOES NOT have that right. Let us therefore consider carefully and prayerfully how we ought to interpret passages such as Romans 13 in light of context, additional Scriptures, historical precedent, and present times.
To learn more and even discuss what you can do to protect the rights of your community and city you can send a private message or email Pastor Daniel Navejas directly at firstname.lastname@example.org
Edited by John R. Houk
Embedded links by the Editor. Direct links (except direct audio sermon with embed by Matt Trewhella) are by Pastor Daniel Navejas.