Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Speaker Bercow – the Commons chose the Lord’s chosen

It was a curious congratulatory line from the Leader of the Opposition.

David Cameron remarked on the fact that John Bercow is the first Speaker to have been born into the Jewish faith, and he referred to it as a milestone.

And he made it a point of religion, not of ethnicity, which is curious because John Bercow’s Semitism – his biological DNA – has been the only immutable constant in a political life which has been built on sand. YHWH was placed conveniently on the shelf decades ago along with the menorah. It would have made more sense had Mr Cameron left religion out of it altogether and simply congratulated Mr Bercow for being the first of 157 Speakers to be a Jew. For, although Speaker Bercow may have been born into the Jewish faith, it got lost somewhere in the wilderness, or was purposely discarded along with the rest of his religio-political heritage.

Just as Conservatives are recognisable by the way they vote, those of the Jewish faith are recognisable by their faithful adherence, their honouring of God, their obedience to his commands. But there is very little that makes John Bercow either a convicted Conservative or a practising Jew: his mind does not seek to conserve that which is good and his heart is not circumcised. The only thing he has in common with Conservatives is a sizeable majority in the home counties; the only thing he has in common with the Lord’s chosen people is that he has himself now been chosen.

Democracy is a curious thing – it tends to deliver precisely what the people deserve. And maybe the electorate of the House of Commons deserves John Bercow. He tries so hard to be all things to all people, yet he is everything and nothing. He is convicted of nothing strongly, except perhaps the righteousness of his own conviction, the uprightness of his amorality and the universal salvation which is to be found in his gospel. At one time or another he has held the whole spectrum of political thought in his hands, and yet it has all slipped through.

Speaker Bercow is not for all seasons and certainly not to all tastes. But he is thoroughly postmodern and a child of postmodernity. He is a shifting, complex and confusing object of study, representing both the continuation of modernity and its transcendence. His election is an anti-establishment reaction and yet the fulfilment of the wishes of that establishment. He encompasses the broadest scope because his own journey has been a panoramic sweep. He holds to no particular truth, no coherent philosophy, and no doctrine of God. For him, all knowledge is subjective; foundationalism must be undermined; communitarianism transcends individualism; and political truth must be encountered emotionally and intuitively as well as rationally. Speaker Bercow is the embodiment of postmodernism. He evidences a willingness to combine symbols from disparate codes or frameworks of meaning, even at the cost of disjunctions and eclecticism. He will not wear 18th-century tights or don the Speaker's wig, and yet, curiously, he has the precise affected Restoration foppish manner which would sport them perfectly, for he preens and minces like Mr Sparkish.

He celebrates spontaneity, fragmentation, superficiality, irony and playfulness. He has been variously described as maverick, mercurial, vain, self-promoting, partisan, pompous, divisive, careerist and pretentious. He has been disloyal – sometimes outrageously so – to three successive Conservative leaders, and his voting record is capricious. He supported Ken Clarke to be leader of the Conservative Party and opposes a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Suffice to say, he will not be remotely concerned with the sovereignty of Parliament or that of the people.

But it is time to set aside the acrimony, hatred, loathing and resentment. Speaker Bercow now bears the heavy burden of a great office of state and presides of the legislature with the authority which the Lord has bestowed upon him.

And we are commanded to pray for him.

And let us not forget those who now have to work with him and under him.


Blogger Gnostic said...

Bercow is a lightweight political chamaeleon. They chose a Speaker of no discernible conviction whatsoever. Has Brown found his malleable rat after all?

23 June 2009 at 08:14  
Anonymous Atropos said...

Maybe Bercow will be a latterday St. Augustine, sobered by a high calling, or even, Boris-like, proved to have concealed a sober personality behind a diletantist facade. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the realisation that those MP's who propelled him to the status of senior commoner did so out of contempt both for his abilities and for Parliament stiffened his resolve to be be a dutiful Speaker. Bercow's first test will be how he handles Brown at the next PMQ's. Let's at least give him a 100 days to show his mettle.

23 June 2009 at 08:47  
Anonymous Hereward said...

Perhaps also another Becket, dedicated to his new Office in spite of the expectations of his patrons. But I won't be holding my breath.

23 June 2009 at 09:01  
Blogger Obnoxio The Clown said...

A great post, your Grace.

Just a pity you had to bring religion into it. :o)

23 June 2009 at 09:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


His appointment was preordained by a Labour majority following Mr Martin's 'trial by media' removal.

'Big Brother House' politics.

23 June 2009 at 09:13  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Obnoxio,

His Grace thanks you for your kind comments, but begs to point out that it was David Cameron who 'brought religion into it'.

Since His Grace is a Conservative, he is of the opinion that a man's religion is of little consequence.


23 June 2009 at 09:17  
Anonymous philip walling said...

His appointment is no more nor less than the rage of Caliban.
There is no end to what Labour will do - they are pulling down the temple and I would not be surprised if in their hatred they sowed the ground with salt before they leave.
'Postmodern'? Wicked I'd call it.
But you are right that it's nothing less than we deserve.

23 June 2009 at 09:23  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Sorry, that should read 'nothing more than we deserve'.

23 June 2009 at 09:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The consensus of opinion is that the Labour majority appointed Bercow to 'rattle' David Cameron.

23 June 2009 at 09:28  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Anon @ 913

Yes, I'm aware that Bercow was Labour's ultimate choice. But then, it's the same small, spiteful mindset that makes this benighted NuLab government the trainwreck it is.

How much longer do we have to endure scorched earth government? If Cameron is heir to Thatcher then why doesn't he have the courage of his convictions? Act now FFS!!!

23 June 2009 at 09:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

philip walling,

'nothing more than we deserve' - speak for yourself !

Labour betrayed those who elected them, the Lisbon Treaty being top of the list of a government which operates on the basis of media spin and manipulation.

Labour is an insult to the principles of democracy and they display utter contempt for the intelligence of those paying their wages.

Their true manifesto is 'Hail Brussels' and socialist totalitarianism.

23 June 2009 at 09:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Cranmer's previous article serves to confirm David Cameron's convictions, i.e. leadership qualities.

23 June 2009 at 09:39  
Blogger McKenzie said...

I was going to pray for him, but it would be pointless because the Lord knows my heart and my deceptions would be futile.

23 June 2009 at 10:27  
Blogger McKenzie said...

It occurred to me last night that Labour strategists must have known that Becket had the same chance as a feline demon in hell of being chosen. And it probably also occurred to them that there would be a rabid Labour element that could be distracted by her presence, which would trigger the sheep instinct to vote for her, thus providing a tidy surge at the end when she conveniently retired to the cat litter.

I just love this notion of fairness and democracy. I think you could correct in saying they got what they deserved.

23 June 2009 at 10:57  
Anonymous Maturecheese said...

I know very little about this man but from what I have read elsewhere he is a man of little conviction and commands no respect. How typical of the commons to elect such a man to represent them. They still don't get it do they?

23 June 2009 at 10:58  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Never mind, Your Grace—open another bottle of communion wine and drown your sorrows. It may cheer you up to know that Quentin Letts, writing last week in the Daily Mail, described Bercow as a ‘steaming floater’.

23 June 2009 at 11:31  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

Living as I do so far from Westminster, I had never heard of Bercow until the other day. But everything I have read about him, even including Your Grace's adverse comments, leads me to believe that he is highly motivated to perform well and to be seen to be doing a good job as Speaker. I am confident that, like Jeeves, he will endeavour to give satisfaction, not only to those who cast their votes for him for the worst partisan reasons but to Parliament as a whole and even, or particularly, to the electorate at large.

23 June 2009 at 11:33  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Bercow has shown that Labour Mps bear no animus towards those who call for voluntary repatriation of immigrants

Is this preening careerist the man for the job?

By Edward Heathcoat Amory
Last updated at 1:18 AM on 23rd June 2009

* Comments (32)
* Add to My Stories

John Bercow claimed yesterday that 'even a youngish man may acquire wisdom as time goes by', and we have to hope that he is right. This is, after all, the same Bercow who, as secretary to an ultra-right Tory party faction, once recorded the minutes of a right-wing committee as follows:

'It was agreed that the policy of the committee should be: an end to New Commonwealth and Pakistan immigration, a properly financed system of voluntary repatriation, the repeal of the Race Relations Act and the abolition of the Commission for Racial Equality. Particular emphasis on repatriation.'

because having expressed such views and having had Martin Salter (Lab) manage his campaign to be Speaker it shows that should the BNP gain seats at the next General Election, Labour MPs will have no cause to bring up youthful indiscretions on their path to career development....

23 June 2009 at 12:01  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"Trainwreck" - trains aren't wrecked; they crash.

23 June 2009 at 12:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems Bercow is refusing to wear the appropriate dress of Speaker of the House of Commons. If I refused to wear the regulation uniform in my job, I would be sacked. Bercow knows the conditions of the role (he sought it for long enough) - why should he get away with trying to "pick and choose"? I

23 June 2009 at 13:20  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Your Grace has more respect for the man than I .


23 June 2009 at 13:32  
Blogger McKenzie said...


Maybe you need to redact and reform your work place.

Not suggesting that you get involved in outright acts of criminal theft and purgory, or even lying through your teeth, but it does seem to be a 'postmodern' characteristic.

23 June 2009 at 13:36  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

His religious persuasion is of no consequence, the fact is he's a shifty little shit!
I am solely disappointed as I believe Anne Widdecombe would have made the best speaker although it would only have been temporary.

23 June 2009 at 13:40  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Anonymous @9.39

His Grace's opinion is not proof of Cameron's leadership qualitites. Neither is anything Cameron says.

A politician is as good as the promises s/he makes before an election and keeps. Politicians are notoriously bad at keeping promises they make before they form a government. Cameron is making no real moves to oust this bunch of NuLab incompetents out of office. He's biding his time, probably waiting on EU positive Irish and Czech decisions so he won't have to deliver on a particular promise people would readily vote for.

Cameron is like an analog clock without hands. You can hear him ticking, you can hear him chiming occasionally (e.g. no to ID cards) but you never really know what time it is. I'm a lifelong Tory voter who's finding it hard to put any faith in him at all. And I'm not alone.

23 June 2009 at 14:04  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Let us have our sorrows , and see what happens , if he is as Gnostic describes it will be evident , and the lord will have choosen the phillistines to rise to power to smote those who have not followed his commands , and graced themselves whilst proudly wearing the mantle of all that is the world and can be expensed , and calling it governance !!

23 June 2009 at 14:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cameron's comment speaks volumes about his own shallowness. He will be a total disaster as PM -- one following another. Where is the Margaret Thatcher of our time?

23 June 2009 at 14:33  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Mr.Bercow has just taken the chair .

He is dressed as a school-master . Indeed , when I taught A-level Latin I was considerably better dressed (wearing a more tasteful club tie)!

Why do leftists believe that destroying the traditions of an institution will restore public confidence in it ?

Or is it that they seek to destroy the institution itself , to be replaced by a more "modern" form of government , such as Fascism or its cousin Socialism ?

23 June 2009 at 14:43  
Anonymous Bethel said...

Anything that you have said pales alongside your fundamentally daft definition of being a Jew!

23 June 2009 at 19:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Bercow reportedly will NOT be wearing the traditional wig and gown; if shown to be true this pretty much confirms his disdain - an historic first.

23 June 2009 at 19:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cranmer, you seem to be intimating that Bercow is the last possible person we need in this particular job right now.

If so, then I completely agree with you.

Apart from the last point.

We should pray for our country, its ordinary citizens and most of all its children. Then if we have any energy left, that Bercow does not actually turn out to be quite the utter disaster that he very surly promises to be.

You are of course right in saying that being of the Jewish faith and being Jewish are not always the same thing.

I am technically Jewish, but have faith in virtually nothing. A believe in the existence of a divine spiritual creator, and blindly following some form of established or otherwise religion, are usually very different things.


Only self confessed atheists and other faith based religious fools believe otherwise.

People who say they do not believe in some kind of god are either lying, lazy thinkers, have been deluded, or are simply deluding themselves. This because following the ways of Lucifer seems like more fun, and less like hard work.

Mainly because following Lucifer is usually more fun, far less like hard work, and above all, a far easier way to make loads of cash. Which is clearly a conclusion the likes of Bercow came to, a fare while ago.

Atlas shrugged

23 June 2009 at 20:21  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Young Oligarch @ 1443: "Or is it that they seek to destroy the institution itself , to be replaced by a more "modern" form of government , such as Fascism or its cousin Socialism ?"

Nail on the head!!! That's what all the fragmentation etc (cf Cranmer's list) is about. They pretend the fracturing and schizophrenia are not about destruction - that it's up to 'you' to do something with the pieces. In this they remind me of the old poster where a child says to an adult: "I brought you this." The child's cupped hands were full; not with the pieces of the family's prize possessions - but with something far more decomposed and smelly...

I think postmodernists always lie - it's part of their religion.

wv: somlatin ... so I'll add - What postemoderns don't understand is: Quaerere Verum.

23 June 2009 at 22:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the wig will make the lad look a bit older, will it? Can't have that, can he?

Btw, Your Grace - all this fuss about Bercow being Jewish. As if the decons[tructionists] had invented the right for him to be in Parliament? Why can't liebour give due credit to tradition - and to Disraeli?

Oh, I know... they're postmodernists.

All best,

wv: gurperr -

23 June 2009 at 22:59  
Anonymous judith said...

Your Grace: I have spoken to Mr Bercow on a couple of occasions, and indeed gave him a meal in my home some years ago.

He is NOT Jewish, his father is but his mother isn't. As I have pointed out here before, Judaism is transmitted via the maternal line, therefore he is not a Jew, he wasn't brought up as one, and he does not profess to be one to the best of my knowledge.

23 June 2009 at 23:27  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

no nonny -

His Grace's pronouncements were clearly too subtle for my literal mind .

Unlike our leftist friends I see the world in terms of black , white and a tiny bit of grey in the middle - not much , mind !

23 June 2009 at 23:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or is it that they seek to destroy the institution itself , to be replaced by a more "modern" form of government , such as Fascism or its cousin Socialism ?

I don't think you are on to much there my friend, I KNOW YOU ARE.

Only, these two wholly evil ideologies are not so much cousins, but more BLOOD bothers. As they were certainly conceived, and nurtured by EXACTLY the same parents, and are perfectly caked from head to toe in human blood.

Always remembering the establishments much favored, tried, and tested mode of operation.


They corrupt parliament, then at a time of their choosing require THEIR media to expose the situation. BBC, Daily-Mail, Telegraph, Guardian, or Mirror, it usually makes little difference.

Then wait about five seconds for the inevitable public reaction.

Then give the unsuspecting public a list of pre-prepared proposals. From which they select the so called solution, that they always intended to force on the plebs in the first place.

This may sound like an insane conspiracy theory, however it is in fact conspiracy reality, whether we like it or not.

Atlas shrugged

24 June 2009 at 01:11  
Anonymous Voyager said...

and to Disraeli?

Disraeli was an Anglican despite his Italian Jewish ancestry

24 June 2009 at 06:30  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Miss Judith,

His Grace repeats:

It was Mr Cameron who referred to John Bercow having been brought up in the 'Jewish faith'.

To His Grace's knowledge, Mr Bercow has not spoken of either his ancestry or his faith publicly.

24 June 2009 at 08:28  
Anonymous sydneysider said...


Mr.Bercow may not be considered to be a Jew to orthodox Jews but unfortunately for people in Mr. Bercow's situation, Nazis did not make these distinctions when rounding them up and annihilating them. So I think that this rejection is rather insensitive on your part. I believe that liberal Jews no longer make these distinctions(i.e.jewish via the mother) .

24 June 2009 at 17:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is that a toupe?

24 June 2009 at 18:59  
Anonymous adswea said...

Your Grace
If Bercow hasn't mentioned his purported jewishness, why did you mention it without researching to make sure you'd got it right? And doesn't it just show the perils of intervening in matters you don't understand?

24 June 2009 at 22:10  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

Young Oligarch @ 1443: "Or is it that they seek to destroy the institution itself , to be replaced by a more "modern" form of Government,

such as Fascism or its cousin Socialism ?"


this is what they are building.

A NeoFeudalistic Fascist / Corporate dictatotship

Backed up by a
Police state

Backed up by
Sharia Law

ruling over the
Chemically and Educationally dumbed down Slave grade Masses.

24 June 2009 at 22:41  
Anonymous nonentity said...

For the first time in my life, I'm observing a fuss about whether the word "Jewish" refers to race or religion: except that nobody has said why this is a problem. Well - I guess nowadays we're all messed up by foreigners: so everything depends on what race or religion you belong to - and whether they are those to whom the euSSR grants 'rights.'

Until now, in my experience, Anglophone use of "Jew" and "Jewish" referred to both race and religion. Nor were the words intrinsically insulting: our own culture has combined the Hebrew religion with Christianity for nearly 2000 years. Any thoughtful person would also remember that Christ and His Mother were Jewish; and no genuinely Charitable person can logically claim that Christ 'hates' his own race, let alone that He and His Father expect us to Judge the Jews.

Of course, we've had our problems and variations in politics - but the facts remain, and without the Jewish people and religion, we would not be who we are today.

It comes as a shock, then, to find that we are being reviled for insensitivity, inaccuracy, and heaven knows what else, simply because we refer to people of the race as Jews.

Personally, I consider it none of my business whether or not a Person of God's Chosen Race practices the religion - but I think it stands to reason that the religion comes into the person's makeup somewhere. As with Christians, if said person holds high office in Parliament, then I pray that all aspects of the great tradition will combine in fulfilling the Will of YHWH.

If those of the Jewish Faith have a problem with that - then perhaps they should specify what it is - and maybe have the euSSR provide a directive on how to differentiate between their race and their religion. Divisiveness is the name of that game, after all.

25 June 2009 at 03:01  
Anonymous nonentity said...

Slight clarification: "has combined the Hebrew religion with Christianity for nearly 2000 years" ---- i.e. aspects of the Hebrew religion - we have used many Hebrew texts to form our 'Old Testament,' in light of which we read our New Testament.

25 June 2009 at 04:55  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

The theology I see here about the government instituted by God and we should therefore submit is one that has been promoted by evil kings and evil governments for centuries to subdue their Christian subjects!

It is FALSE!

The truth certainly makes us free, and certainly in this area!

I came across this, which made me sigh with relief! I hope I can copy it here in it's entirity.

Listen first to Paris Reidhead: Ten Shekels and a Shirt

By Paul Revere?
"Understanding Romans 13:1-7

How are we going to overcome Romans 13? What was Apostle Paul really saying? The best way to bring understanding on Romans 13 is to ask, "Who was apostle Paul writing to at Rome?" The answer is found at Romans 1:7: Paul was writing to all those in Rome who are "beloved of God, called to be saints." He was not writing to the general population at Rome. He was specifically addressing the "called out ones," the Body of Christ.

If apostle Paul was advocating obedience to secular authorities, then Caesar would have no cause against him. Why would Caesar have Paul beheaded if he was promoting obedience to Rome?

The world loves its own. If Paul belonged to Caesar, Caesar would not want to kill his own. If Paul was promoting "be subject to Caesar," then Paul would be Caesar's friend. You would not kill your own. You don't destroy the very instrument that advertises for you.

The truth is that Apostle Paul was beheaded for promoting a rival government known as the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. Already this new government was turning the world upside down. Caesar had Paul killed to help stop this threat to Rome's power.

If Romans 13 does not mean "obey the State," what does it mean? Romans 13 means, "Remember them which have the rule over you," as you will also find at Hebrews 13:7. Since Paul was addressing the saints at Rome, it is logical that he would instruct them to submit to those who look after their souls. It is a reminder to be obedient to the authorities God has placed over His people. For they are truly the "ministers of God to thee for good." Unlike worldly rulers, God's ministers are not a terror to good works but to the evil. Therefore, "do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same."

Read part 2 below

25 June 2009 at 22:59  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

II: continued from above: "Powers Not Ordained By God

Romans 13 is probably the most devastating thing to a Christian in the hands of the ungodly. It sounds so convincing to obey those who appear to be in power. For too long, secular governments have used Romans 13 as a club to beat Christians into obedience to them. Just because a group maintains power through their guns and jails, does not mean God put them there.

God said there are powers not ordained by Him at Hosea 8:4, "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not."

God didn't put them in power over the righteous. That's Satan's idea. The righteous don't need worldly, filthy authorities, which are no authorities at all. Do you think that they can instruct the righteous? They themselves steal. They themselves are perverts. And they presume to instruct the righteous? I don't think so."

Continued in part 3 below

25 June 2009 at 23:03  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

Part 3. Continued from part 2 above: "Secular Governments Persecuted Paul

Apostle Paul had many troubles with worldly rulers. He was given 39 stripes five times by the Jews, beaten with rods three times, in perils by his own countrymen and by the heathen, and frequently in prison. (See 2 Corinthians 11:23-26). In Damascus the governor kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desiring to apprehend Paul. "And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands," wrote Paul at 2 Corinthians 11:32. That is the same Paul that wrote Romans 13. He was forced to flee from the civil authorities, those "powers that be" that people say are ordained of God. Sorry folks, this does not compute. When Paul says, "the powers that be," he is saying the powers that be powers, are ordained of God. In other words, the only true powers are those that God ordains.

The crux of the matter is this, Does Paul in Romans 13:1-7 argue that the civil government of this world has legitimate authority over the people of God? We believe that the obedient, called-out people of God are not bound to obey manmade civil governments. God's people are answerable to God above all else and are bound by His commands. At the same time, God's people are not to use their liberty as a cloak to do evil, to foment rebellion or waste time trying to influence the politics of the governments of this world. Furthermore, we believe Paul in Romans 13:1-7 is referring to the spiritual leaders of the Body of Christ, not the civil authorities of this world.

If Paul is saying, "Obey the civil authorities," then he has a conflict in his life. Is Paul promoting Caesar or separating from Caesar? If Paul is promoting Caesar, there is no way I want Paul in my Bible. He can't work for Caesar and Jesus Christ. Caesar already has his writings, they are called "revised statutes" or the "law of the land." You can have them if you want. I would rather have God's Word. Actually that which is called the "law of the land," is the law of the devil. The term is used in the U.S. Constitution, where men claim that their laws are the supreme law of the land (See U.S. Constitution, Article VI)."

Continued in part 4 below

25 June 2009 at 23:05  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

Part 4. Continued from part 3 above: "Supreme Law of the Land

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:36-40). Do you know what that represents to a Christian? These two commands are the Supreme Law of the Land. If you believe that something else is the supreme law of the land for a Christian, someone has deceived you. It was a thief who drew you away from the true Supreme Law of the Land (see John 10:8).

If you have the two great commandments, how much allegiance do you have left for the worldly rulers of this dark age? Let me tell you, you have ZERO allegiance to Satan and his agents. All your time is spent "loving God" and "loving neighbor," and there is no room left over for obeying Satan and his minions.

And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. 1 John 5:19

Submitting to the King of Heaven

As true followers of Jesus, we are led by the Spirit and our lives reflect the fact that we belong to another kingdom, the Kingdom of Heaven. Our stay on earth is only transitory. As citizens of Heaven, we are bound to submit and pledge allegiance to the King of Heaven and His government over us. We are not bound to obey the government of some nation just because we happen to be living within their so-called "borders."

Remember, "The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof" (1 Corinthians 10:26). Yet there is a pack of thieves out there who have divided up the earth and perverts are ruling over it. And they are doing it at the egging on of Satan himself.

Romans 13 has been wrongly interpreted by ruling secular governments to mean a Christian must submit to them. This misinterpretation forms a powerful weapon to neutralize and misdirect the power of God's Kingdom.

As the followers of Jesus Christ, we belong to another Kingdom, the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom has its own government, its own laws, and its own leaders. Apostle Paul was not commanding us in Romans 13 to submit to the civil authorities of the kingdoms of this world. He was commanding us to submit to the authority of God's leaders who oversee the "called-out ones."

It is a fallacy that Paul was commanding Christians at Rome to submit to the secular government. It is time that Christ's followers renounce their allegiance to the ever-changing governments of men. They must set an example that there is a higher and more perfect form of government, the Kingdom of Heaven.

Of course there will be consequences. Jesus was brought to Pilate to be crucified on charges of "perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King" (Luke 23:2). We, too, must be willing to sacrifice even our very lives to proclaim God's sovereign rulership over us."

25 June 2009 at 23:06  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

Part 5. Continued from part 4 above: "Loyalty and Obedience to Christ

When we boldly declare that we belong to God's Kingdom, we are left with no choice but to trust God for His provision in the face of a hostile world. We quickly learn that our safety is in our obedience. To trust in carnal weapons and physical force is vanity. We serve a living God. He is well able to make a way for us regardless of how much the modern day Nebuchadnezzar's rage and threaten to destroy us.

Christians are in no way bound by the Scriptures to obey and support the manmade governments of this world. We are bound to live peaceably with all men to the greatest degree possible. Yet our loyalty, allegiance, and obedience must always be found at the feet of Christ. Our goal is to see souls brought to Christ. The more fully we separate from the world and consecrate ourselves to God, the more power we will have to infiltrate the hearts and minds of men with a living example of the Gospel. The world must see that God does have a people on this earth, and that His power dwells in their midst. Let us commit ourselves to His kingdom and be His people.

Warning: Beware of the Living Bible and the Good News Bible. They are merely Bible paraphrases, not translations. The wording is not true to the original Hebrew and Greek. The scriptures are perverted to support secular Christianity.

Romans 13:1-7

King James Bible (Translation)
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Living Bible (Paraphrase) Satan, the father of lies, deception & corruption, is also behind the corrupt translation of the Word of God:
1 Obey the government, for God is the one who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power.
2 So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow.
3 For the policeman does not frighten people who are doing right; but those doing evil will always fear him. So if you don't want to be afraid, keep the laws and you will get along well.
4 The policeman is sent by God to help you. But if you are doing something wrong, of course you should be afraid, for he will have you punished. He is sent by God for that very purpose.
5 Obey the laws, then, for two reasons: first, to keep from being punished, and second, just because you know you should.
6 Pay your taxes too, for these same two reasons. For government workers need to be paid so that they can keep on doing God's work, serving you.
7 Pay everyone whatever he ought to have: pay your taxes and import duties gladly, obey those over you, and give honor and respect to all those to whom it is due."

25 June 2009 at 23:08  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

For the additional part , titled: "The Trump Card 1Peter 2:13" go to: The Trump Card 1Peter 2:13

For more interesting articles and audio etc. click on: Remnant Radio Archives

25 June 2009 at 23:17  
Anonymous Tabatha said...

Just to clarify:

Jews are not an 'ethnic' group. There are Jews of all ethnicities; Chinese Jews, Swedish Jews, Russian Jews, Indian Jews, Black Ethiopian Jews, Japanese Jews, and so on. We are not represented by any unified 'ethnic' group.

Also: a person born to a Jewish mother is part of the Jewish family and faith EVEN if they don't actively practise the religion. They retain this place in the Jewish family ***unless*** they adopt another faith.

There are no degrees of 'jewishness'. Thus, unless the person actually changes religion, they are 100% Jewish whether they are an Orthodox Rabbi or they never set foot inside a Synagogue.

Once a Jew adopts another faith, they are an *ex* Jew.

2 July 2009 at 02:10  
Anonymous Tabatha said...


Sorry but you are incorrect.

Firstly - who cares how the Nazis defined 'jew'? Since when do we accept THEIR definition???

Jewish religious law is the same now as it has been for thousands of years. A person is Jewish if their mother is Jewish - or they convert.

A person with a Jewish father is not Jewish. Even in Reform Synagogues this holds true. The sole exception to this rule is that in America, *some* Synagogues will count a child as Jewish if the father is Jewish AND the child has been raised in a Jewish environment. But these Synagogues are very much in the minority.

So no - there is nothing inherently wrong in anyone pointing out the simple **fact** that Judaism is and always has been a matrilinear faith. Just as Islam is a patrilinear faith.

So, amusingly, if a child had a Jewish mother, and a Muslim father, the mother would define the child as Jewish, and the father would define that same child as being a Muslim...!

Oh, and to those who are still referring to the Jewish 'race' - excuse me...? We are not a 'race' - you cannot change your race but people can and do convert TO Judaism!

Jews are a people, a faith and a family.

2 July 2009 at 02:16  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older