“Pit race against race, religion against religion, prejudice against prejudice. Divide and conquer! We must not let that happen here.” Ironically that came from Eleanor Roosevelt. What she would make of the division of America today is anyone’s guess.

Political division

The media, corrupt politicians, modern revisionists, indoctrinated teachers and professors to intentionally or unintentionally, advertently or inadvertently, relentlessly try to divide America so they can assume all power over the people (Mark 3:25). It would be wise on the behalf of the American people to pull the curtain back on what the United States Constitution says and what it is that the founding documents have within in their pages.

For example, look at the over 100 different party affiliations. There is the Constitution party, the Socialist party, the Republican party, the Democratic party, the Independent party, the Libertarian party, the Green party, the Progressive party etc. There is even a Legal Marijuana Party. Hmmmm.

It’s as if to suggest that anyone that would like to recreate our Constitution by tearing it down and reinventing or redefining our American form of government can do so at will. Ridiculous. Why is there so much division?

We are a Constitutional Republic. We are a country ruled by Law, not the opinions of men and their distorted interpretations (Article 4, Section 4, US Constitution).

Warnings against political division

Do you not remember that John Adams, the second president of the United States of America, warned of this type of division as the greatest political evil under our Constitution?

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution. – John Adams

Do remember what President James Buchanan said concerning stability and from where it comes.

There is nothing stable but Heaven and the Constitution.

James Wilson, United States Founding Father, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Signer of the Constitution, and the Original Justice of the United States Supreme Court appointed by George Washington said:

Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.

Religious division

Now, crossing over into the Church, it is interesting to note the hundreds of denominations in the American Church today. You have the Lutherans, the Catholics, the Wesleyans, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Anglicans, the Episcopalians, the Methodists, the United Church of Christ and the list goes on and on.

Why so much division? We are to follow the Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1) and are to keep His Commandments (John 14:21), not the commandments of men which make the Lord’s commandments void (Matthew 7:13).

The Church is doing the same thing when it comes to all of its denominations as the government is with all of its different parties and affiliations. All these denominations are man’s different interpretations of what God clearly said (Exodus 20). They simply want to remove the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18) and create a Jesus that looks just like them rather than conforming to Jesus as He is and not how they want to make Him out to be (1 John 2:6).

The answer is unification under the One True God

I have one answer to both of these issues (Colossians 2:8). We have one God in whom we serve though our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and one Constitution in which we follow. Our job is to conform ourselves to both the Law of God and His Word and to the one Constitution, which was established in our nation to make and keep us free. The Bible says in Ephesians 4:14:

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive…

What has happened? Man has created, to his own demise (Psalm 5:10), something called deconstructionism.

What is deconstructionism?

Deconstructionism is a philosophical and critical movement that started in the 1960s that questions all traditional assumptions about the ability of language to represent reality and emphasizes that a text has no stable reference or identification because words essentially only refer to other words and therefore a reader must approach a text by eliminating any metaphysical or ethnocentric assumptions through an active role of defining meaning, sometimes by a reliance on new words, and other word play.

In other words, create and define words at will, whatever you say it says, and declare whatever you think it means.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifnJEFRvYus

You hear this in political talk on a 24-7 basis, but let’s go into the Church where you may go to a Bible study and hear some biblical illiterate ask, “What is your interpretation of that Scripture?”

Anti-deconstructionism

Keep in mind there is a difference between those that are born of the Spirit and of those that are born of the flesh (John 3:6; 2 Corinthians 3:4-6; Galatians 4:29).

Those that are just immature and uneducated in the things of the Lord, Peter wrote:

In which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)

It is almost as if to suggest that the Holy Ghost has not given us the clear interpretation, which He has!

The bottom line is:

He who has not felt what sin is in the Old Testament knows little what grace is in the New. He who has not trembled in Moses, and wept in David, and wondered in Isaiah will rejoice little in Matthew, and rest little in John. He who has not suffered under the law will scarcely hear the glad sound of the Gospel. – R.W. Barbour – 1900

This also explains the watering down, revision and the redefinitions of words, as well as the softening down of the countenance and character of our Founding Forefathers and of the scriptural Christ and His disciples.

Historical statesmen v. contemporary politicians

First, if you were to put anyone of our Forefathers up to any of the modern day politicians, you will see the sharp contrast in their character.

Roger Sherman, signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution said,

Sad will be the day when the American people forget their traditions and their history, and so longer remember that the country they love, the institutions they cherish, and the freedom they hope to preserve, were born from the throes of armed resistance to tyranny, and nursed in the rugged arms of fearless men.

Instead of betraying their own people, they were fighting to empower them, to give them a hope and a future (Jeremiah 29:11).

Historian Alice Baldwin said in 1918,

The Constitutional Convention and the written Constitution were the children of the pulpit.

The Black Robed Regiment

The preachers of the founding era were feared by the tyrant King George across the pond, as he named them the Black Robed Regiment, which they wore as a badge of honor.

The ministers of the Revolution were, like their Puritan predecessors, bold and fearless in the cause of their country. No class of men contributed more to carry forward the Revolution and to achieve our independence than did the ministers. … [B]y their prayers, patriotic sermons, and services [they] rendered the highest assistance to the civil government, the army, and the country. – Historian B. F. Morris, 1864

Mighty men they were, of iron nerve and strong hand and unblanched cheek and heart of flame. God needed not reeds shaken by the wind, not men clothed in soft raiment [Matthew 11:7-8], but heroes of hardihood and lofty courage. … And such were the sons of the mighty who responded to the Divine call. –Bishop Charles Galloway, 1898

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz4ZHq1mOnk

And now to the Christ (John 14:6).

In the minds of most Americans, and thanks to the modern day hirelings who have no business occupying any pulpit in any capacity (John 10:12), they have somehow pictured Jesus wearing pink booties, patting sheep on the back and telling them that everything will be okay when nothing could be further from the truth.

It’s shameful how people today do not even know the difference.

Leonard Ravenhill said:

The early church was married to poverty, prisons, and persecutions. Today the Church is married to prosperity, personality, and popularity.

When the Lord asked His disciples, “Who do men say that I am?” they said, “Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” (Matthew 16:14)

Keep in mind that Scripture identifies the Christ.

For He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. (Matthew 7:29)

Furthermore, He is described as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.(Revelation 5:5) and His message was Repent (Matthew 3:2).

False images

For the most part, the image of Jesus Christ that people have in their minds is backwards and clearly unscriptural.

It is like that of John Wesley, the great English field prophet, who preached 90% law and 10% grace (Galatians 3:24).

John was kicked out of the Church for confronting the heretical teaching of the day, which God used to push him to the masses (John 16:2).

It was said that after John Wesley’s death, the painted pictures of him were too rough in countenance. So, instead of painting John Wesley for who he was and what he looked like, they simply accommodated the self-professed religious hypocrites of the day by painting an effeminate and softened down version of John Wesley which you see today (Matthew 11:8).

To further prove the point of this softening down of men who spoke the truth and were real leaders, let’s turn to Hip Hop Artist Chuck-D who said of Martin Luther King Jr.:

I don’t like the fact that when people look at Dr. King and the millennium, there’s a year by year softening of his image like he wasn’t radical, you had to have a radical view point just to be able to stand in the face of oppression and take it to a physical level if need be.

Healthy v. unhealthy extremes

Remember, Martin Luther King Jr. said,

I must admit that I was initially disappointed in being so categorized (as an extremist). But as I continued to think about the matter, I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. … [Was not] Abraham Lincoln [an extremist]: ‘This nation cannot survive half slave half free.’ [Was not] Thomas Jefferson [an extremist]: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists will we be. … Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or [will we be extremists] for the extension of justice?

I say this to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear (Matthew 13:15).

We must continue in

endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Ephesians 4:3-6)

Never let us be guilty of sacrificing any portion of truth that will unite us on the altar of a false peace which will, at length, divide us!