Liberty WalkRemember – We Are America ! |
Question by rabidkitty: Has Freedom Of Religion in this country contributed to The destruction of The Family?
Has Freedom of religion been translated into freedom NOT to believe contributed to
-Rise in Premarital sex
– availability of Abortion
-No fault divorce
Have these contributed to the Destruction of the family unit?
Best answer:
Answer by Bride of Squidward
Yes.
Add your own answer in the comments!
California Family Law Attorney Issues Statement as Proposition 8 Passes in the State
Los Angeles (PRWEB) November 5, 2008
As reported today by the Wall Street Journal California voters passed Proposition 8. According to California Family Law Attorney Veronika Melamed of the law offices of Feinberg & Waller, A.P.C., the measure amends the California Constitution to specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California. Now that the voters of California have passed Proposition 8, and amended the State’s Constitution, what does this mean for the state and for the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages that have been solemnized since June 17, 2008? And, what can proponents of same-sex marriage do now?
The voters of California have chosen to amend the state’s Constitution to explicitly provide that, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Coming in reaction to the state’s Supreme Court ruling allowing same-sex marriage in California, opponents of same-sex marriage sought assurance that no future court decisions would again grant same-sex marriage rights in California.
The California Supreme Court is delegated with the task of upholding the state’s Constitution and assessing whether the laws enacted by the Legislature and the voters comply with the Constitution. In carrying out this task, the Supreme Court’s decision in May 2008, granting same-sex couples the right to marry, was based on its interpretation of the California Constitution and whether Family Code Sections 300 and 308.5, defining marriage as, “between a man and a woman” comported with the Equal Protection Clause of the state’s Constitution.
In the course of its analysis, the California Supreme Court ruled that Family Code Sections 300 and 308.5 were in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, and that same-sex couples could marry in California. The Supreme Court’s decision was based solely on constitutional analysis, and centered on the fact that the prohibition against same-sex marriage was a law, and that it violated the Constitution. This, then, became the foundation for Proposition 8: unlike the state’s previous attempts to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman through the enactment of legislative provisions, such as with 2000’s Proposition 22 which added Family Code Section 308.5, this year opponents of same-sex marriage placed an initiative on the ballot to actually amend the California Constitution.
The difference is significant: while the Supreme Court may strike down laws for being in violation of the State’s Constitution in performing its job of enforcing the Constitution, the Supreme Court lacks the power to overrule a constitutional provision. By making Proposition 8 an amendment to the Constitution, the law ensures that the Supreme Court must enforce the provision, and must now ensure that other laws comply with this Constitutional provision.
And now the questions begin: with a Constitution that may now prohibit marriage between same-sex couples, through its definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman, what will happen to those same-sex marriages that were solemnized when marriage between same-sex couples was “legal?” And, if the public wants another change, what can be done to “undo” Proposition 8? The question of what happens to current same-sex marriages has no easy answer, nor is the passage of Proposition 8 the last California may hear on the topic of same-sex marriage.
One of the main issues that must be resolved in answering the question of what will happen to current same-sex marriages is whether the new constitutional amendment is retroactive in its application; that is, does it now invalidate the same-sex marriages that occurred following the Supreme Court’s ruling in May 2008? As reported in the Los Angeles Times, some constitutional scholars believe that the new amendment will only affect prospective same-sex marriage, leaving intact those same-sex couples that married before Proposition 8 passed. The experts base their opinions on judicial history where courts have traditionally made constitutional amendments retroactive only if they were explicitly written that way, resisting an abrogation of people’s rights and freedoms unless directly mandated to do so. In support of the argument that Proposition 8 is not intended to apply retroactively, scholars point out to the Los angeles times that nothing in the proposed language states that the constitutional amendment will be retroactive in its application. Furthering the argument against retroactive application is California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s statement issued through his office on August 4, 2008, that Proposition 8 will be prospective in its application, leaving intact the same-sex marriages entered into prior to its passage.
Others say that the retroactive application of Proposition 8 will depend on whether the Proposition was intended by the voters to be retroactive, and point to the language contained in the California Voter Guide which states that, “A ‘YES’ vote on this measure means: The California Constitution will specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Those who believe that Proposition 8 will be retroactive in nature argue that the language in the California Voter Guide expressly states, and informs the voting public, that passage of the proposed amendment will affect the validity and recognition of same-sex marriage, and will apply regardless of when or where the marriages were performed. The implication in this interpretation of the Proposition goes beyond California’s borders: in addition to invalidating same-sex marriages performed in California, the State and its agencies and offices will be prohibited from recognizing or validating same-sex marriages performed in any other state or country, even if legal and recognized where performed.
Ironically, as both positions have legal validity, it will be up to the California Supreme Court – the same court whose ruling allowed same-sex marriage – to interpret whether Proposition 8 was intended to be retroactive or prospective. And until such time as this question is decided, same-sex married couples will be in a “legal limbo” waiting for third parties to determine their fate. If it is eventually determined that Proposition 8 was, in fact, retroactive, then same-sex couples will find their marriages to be of no legal effect in California, and they will be denied the rights and expectations they had enjoyed until Proposition 8 was passed. If, however, Proposition 8 is found to be prospective in its application, then there will be a group of same-sex couples who will continue to be married, most likely forfeiting that appellation only in the event that they should ever divorce.
What options are available to those who still oppose Proposition 8 , and what can be done about the constitutional language in the future? If the language proposed by Proposition 8 is part of the California Constitution, one of the alternatives for proponents of same-sex marriage is to change the Constitution. Proponents will need to draft language proposing a repeal of any newly-enacted amendment or an altogether new amendment to be included in the Constitution. They will then need to raise the requisite 694,354 signatures to have the amendment certified for the next electoral ballot. California will then go through the same battles and arguments as it did during this election, with the voters again determining whether the Constitution will be amended on the issue of same-sex marriage.
The other alternative is further legal battles. Opponents of Proposition 8 may argue to the courts that passage of the amendment is violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits any group from being treated differently than any other. Opponents may also argue that passage of Proposition 8 is violative of the U.S. Constitution’s Contracts Clause prohibiting states from enacting laws that impair contracts, and that marriage is, after all, nothing more than a contract. Both of these arguments will likely be undertaken in the federal courts, and may eventually end up being argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, if it chooses to hear these arguments.
For the full history of same-sex marriage in California go to the article Same sex Marriage in California at http://www.Feinbergwaller.com/CM/Custom/family-law-Publication.asp
###
©Copyright 1997-
, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Related The Constitution Press Releases
‘God, Family, Republic’ Web Page of Constitution Party Presidential Candidate Michael Anthony Peroutka Now Up and Running
Pasadena, Maryland, (PRWEB) January 21, 2004
http://www.Peroutka2004.com is the Web address for Michael Anthony Peroutka who is seeking the Presidential nomination of the Constitution Party. His themes are “God-Family-Republic.” He believes, as George Washington did, that it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge God by obeying Him. He believes that true marriage is God-created, between a man and woman only and requires the approval of no government. And he wants to restore our original representative Constitutional republic — which was never a “democracy.”
One of five children of Anthony and Elizabeth Peroutka, Michael has served as a law partner with his brother, Stephen, for the past eighteen years in the Pasadena, Maryland law firm of Peroutka and Peroutka, P.A.. During that time he has been active in pro- life issues and has assisted and founded many organizations including “The Institute on the Constitution” that seeks to educate Americans about their own history, heritage and form of government. It was his passion for learning about and restoring Constitutional government in his home state that led him to the Constitution Party and its dedication to principle over politics.
A graduate of Loyola College in Maryland and the University of Baltimore School of Law, Michael has been active in the Constitution Party for several years and currently serves as Chairman of the Constitution Party of Maryland and is on the Executive Committee of the National Party.
Early in his professional career Michael found himself unwittingly involved in a vast criminal enterprise – an experience which dramatically altered his life’s work and helped to chart the path to his intended candidacy for public office. While employed at the United States Department of Health and Human Services as a young attorney, Michael realized that none of the programs on which he was working were authorized by the United States Constitution and were therefore unlawful.
Michael lives with his wife, Diane, and their children, Timothy, Patrick and Elizabeth in Millersville, Md. He is a Bible-believing Christian.
###
©Copyright 1997-
, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Related The Constitution Press Releases
California Family Law Attorney Issues Statement on Supreme Court Proposition 8 Ruling
Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) June 2, 2009
California Family Law attorney Mary Ellen Waller says the recent ruling by the California Supreme Court on the validity of Proposition 8 is a dangerous ruling for all minorities. The following is a statement by Waller analyzing the decision:
The Court has handed the mob a loaded weapon that can too easily be used to pursue inappropriate discriminatory goals and agendas. The ruling undermines the judiciary’s authority to protect minority rights and it substantially alters the California Constitution as a document of independent force and effect.
In its ruling, the Court has altered the procedural process regarding Constitutional initiatives having to do with civil rights. They have done so by removing the procedural requirement that initiatives affecting only individual liberties go through the more rigorous, deliberative process known as Constitutional revision (as opposed to Constitutional amendment). The implications of this ruling have a far-reaching and chilling effect on state constitutional rights as this ruling has eased constraints on the ability of the majority interests in our State to discriminate. Indeed, it has been a hallmark of our State Constitution, our Federal Constitution, and the very fabric upon which our political and social systems in this nation were formed that we operate on a system of majority rule with protection for minority rights. Great and honorable steps against “tyranny of the majority” have been undertaken throughout our history, and sweeping policy attitudinal changes and reforms have been imposed to protect the rights of the minority in society.
This is why, for example, it is against the law to refuse to hire an individual because of their race or ethnic origin; why it is illegal to deny equal access to government based on a suspect classification (such as race, gender, religion, etc). These issues are very often hotly contested and debated, yet to our credit as a people very often we have been able to rise above our own individual prejudices and dislikes. We have enacted laws that are designed to protect the members of a minority group, members of, in Constitutional parlance, a “suspect class.” Race is generally considered to be the most easily recognizable example of a suspect classification, and there are indeed many others as well.
This assessment of the high Court’s “invitation to discriminate” falls far short of mere speculation or conjecture; a discriminatory pattern of behavior by the majority towards minorities is a well-documented reality throughout history. Let us recall that Nazi Germany started with German citizens being stripped of their rights for no reason other than their religion, Japanese-Americans of this country went from curfew to internment, women were not allowed to vote, and blacks were “separate”, “but equal,” a concept that is all too blatantly adopted by the Proposition 8 ruling. The Proposition 8 ruling opens the door for a majority of California voters to adopt future measures designed to gradually reduce or eliminate fundamental rights of vulnerable minorities. Click here to read more http://www.TheCaliforniaFamilyLawBlog.com
Mary Ellen Waller is a family law attorney licensed in California and New York. She is a shareholder of Feinberg & Waller, APC, a firm practicing exclusively in the area of family law with offices in Calabasas and Beverly Hills, California. The Daily Journal, the State of California’s legal newspaper, recently published an article by Waller entitled, “Whatever the Prop.8 Outcome, Some Families Will Be Stuck in Legal Limbo”. An in-depth analysis and report on the Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 can be found at http://www.TheCaliforniaFamilylawBlog.com
###
©Copyright 1997-
, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Northwood Family Office CEO Outlines Why Canada is a Premier Destination for Wealthy Families Looking to Protect and Build Family Wealth
(PRWEB) October 20, 2010
Wealthy global families are becoming increasingly aware of their need for a well thought-out citizenship and residency strategy to protect their wealth and to safeguard their freedom of movement. Those who have begun to examine this complex subject will have found the problem is not a lack of options. Rather, it is identifying the right ones and, probably more importantly, avoiding the wrong ones.
Canada is one of the world’s best kept secrets. Canada provides a safe and surprisingly tax-efficient alternative to many of the more well-known citizenships that the wealthy can consider acquiring. It hasn’t always shown up on the list of potential countries for wealthy families looking for additional citizenships or residences. The reason is its (partly unfair) reputation as a high-tax and chilly-weather destination as well as the perception that better alternatives might be available.
But things have changed and so have the perceptions. Canada is now recognized as a much more attractive destination for wealthy families, particularly from a tax efficiency and ease of immigration perspective. At the same time, the relative attractiveness of other destinations (such as the US, UK, Switzerland, and Caribbean tax havens) has waned, for well-publicised reasons.
Mr. McCullough explains: “For the first time in many years, a confluence of factors is causing many wealthy families to add Canada to the list of countries they are evaluating as part of their citizenship and residency strategy. Canada rates at or near the top of virtually all the global ‘livability’ studies, based on the attractive culture, environment, education, healthcare and stable democratic government. A Canadian passport is at or near the top of the world passport pyramid as measured by flexibility and mobility (when it is needed most). And finally, Canada offers a surprisingly-attractive tax regime for high net worth immigrants, while housing a world-class professional services and financial infrastructure.”
Family Office Global (FOG) magazine is a quarterly publication of the Global Partnership of Family Offices. Global Partnership is a unique and focused private networking group, dedicated to delivering exclusive services and information to international single and multi-family offices.
To read the full article, visit: http://www.northwoodfamilyoffice.com/pdf/Canada_the_Switzerland_of_North_America.pdf
Northwood Family Office, headquartered in Toronto, is a multi-family office which serves the comprehensive needs of wealthy global families. For more information on Northwood Family Office, visit:
http://www.northwoodfamilyoffice.com
To find out whether or not a family office might be right for you, take the Self-Assessment Quiz at:
http://northwoodfamilyoffice.com/quiz.asp
###
©Copyright 1997-
, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Family courts routinely deny one fit parent – overwhelming the father- his parental right to raise his child. They tyrannically allege a right to deny father’s fundamental rights since they do so for ‘the best interest of the child’.
Such family court claims are tyrannical and directly conflict with constitutional rights and protections – as this article shows.
Fundamental or ‘Constitutional’ rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the further Amendments, and rights raised to that level by Supreme Court Case law. Supreme Court case law overrides all lower jurisdictional laws including family courts procedures.
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the state from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property (i.e. any fundamental right), without due process of law.” Due Process Clause “guarantees more than [a] fair process.”Washington v.Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719 (1997). It includes a substantive component to the process that “provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.” Id., at 720; see also Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301302 (1993).
The Supreme Court consistently upholds parental right as a fundamental constitutional right. And that’s the right to determine what the best interest of the child shall be.
The Supreme Court asserted that the ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to “establish a home and bring up children” and “to control the education of their own.” Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923). So parenting includes both legal and physical custody of your children.
To deny a parental right requires constitutional due process that proves he’s either unfit or a clear danger to his children – proven with ‘clear and convincing’ evidence. As such, Santosky v. Kramer 455 U.S. 745 (1982) emphasized to restrict a fundamental right of a parent to any extent, requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence that serious harm will come to the child.
Family courts ignore all constitutional due process when they daily deny a fit father his right to physical and legal custody of his child – a right that every other fit parent has.
Family Court claims to determining ‘best interests of children’ over fit fathers’ rights are illegal in a presumably free republic. Only if there are no fit parents can the court invoke the ‘best interest of the child’ doctrine to assign custody.
In Parham v. J.R. et al 442 U.S. 584 (1979), the Supreme Court declared the ‘best interest of the child’ resides in the fit parent – not in the state: “Our constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is a “the mere creature of the State” and, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally “have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare [their children] for additional obligations.”
In the 1978 case of Quillon v Walcott, the Supreme Court ruled: “If a state were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objection of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children’s best interest,” the Due Process Clause would clearly be violated.
In 2000, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Troxel v. Granville 530 U.S. 2000: “[S]o long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i.e. is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent’s children.”
Under divorce and paternity actions, the ‘equal protection clause’ of the 14th Amendment, requires that one fit parent must necessarily retain all of his fundamental rights to the extent that the other does. But two disputing parents can’t both exercise a few decisions – such as where a child goes to school simultaneously – but these are few.
Now the level of scrutiny required for a family court to infringe upon fundamental rights of either parent is “strict scrutiny”, which requires the court to show that the infringement serves a “compelling state interest” and that there is no constitutionally less offensive way for the state to satisfy this compelling interest.
The constitutionally least offensive way – by far – is an equal partition of time parenting their child. So, during one’s parenting time, that parent can control all decisions about the child which parenting implies, i.e. education, religion, medical, etc, as well as the typical day to day decisions.
The family courts deny a father’s fundamental rights in order to extort money from him and support a billion dollar industry based on such denials. They provably work to the ‘worst interests of the children’
Shane Flait gives you workable strategies to accomplish your goals in financial, legal, tax, retirement and protection issues. .
Read his ebook: ‘Wise Way to Financial Independence’ =>
http://www.SovereignU.com
Get his FREE report on Managing Your Retirement =>
http://www.easyretirementknowhow.com/FreeReportandSignUp.htm
Article from articlesbase.com
Because our family courts are not setup to protect the rights of litigants but a so-called ‘higher good’, it’s ripe for distributing injustice and persecution – mostly to fathers and their children. This article explains why.
Thomas Jefferson stated that trial by such a jury is the only anchor yet known to man to hold the state to the principles of the constitution so as not to leave the protection of the individual solely up to the government or judicial elites.
It’s through the jury that ‘the people’ participate in the judicial process and rein in unconstitutional or unreasonable laws and judgments of the state. Without the protection of a jury trial, tyranny will surely reign.
*Our most fundamental rights are in jeopardy in family court for doing no wrong:
At stake are your right to parent your child, to control and choose your income and profession, your right to maintain your professional and driver’s licenses, your right to have or maintain your passport and travel as you see fit. These rights are guaranteed by the constitution.
*What about the ‘best interest of the child’ – isn’t that ‘a greater good’?
Greater goods are part of dictatorships and tyrannies. The greatest goods of republics are peoples’ constitutional rights which includes the protection of ‘due process’. Supreme Court case laws states that the ‘best interest of the child’ resides in a ‘fit’ parent – not the state.
*How are fundamental rights at stake?
Because if the family court judge assigns you to be the noncustodial parent, you lose your parenting rights to your children (i.e. to support them directly, live with them, and direct their lives) and then you’re forced by the court to pay the mother whatever the judge says – amounts that will impoverish most fathers. If you don’t pay regularly and pay it all, you’ll go to jail without a trial.
*What do you have to do wrong to be assigned the noncustodial status?
Nothing! Fit parents – overwhelmingly fathers – have their constitutional rights denied by judges assigning them as noncustodial parents.
The judge – as representative of the state – invokes his ‘illegal’ right to take away constitutional rights of fit fathers for the ‘best interests’ of the children. Best interest determinations are only to be invoked when there are no fit parents.
*The family court setup prevents protection of father’s constitutional rights:
The family court doesn’t allow a trial with a jury. It only permits ‘bench’ trial which means that the judge is both judge and jury for you. So you’re denied the protection of the people from the legal elites and special interest groups that feed off the injustice that the family courts produce.
*Why doesn’t the family court protect a father’s constitutional rights?
Because when you eliminate the natural protections – like a jury – you leave judicial elites in power. More power means a more corruptible system. That’s human nature.
The family court and its affiliates have seized on a ‘greater good’ excuse such as ‘best interest of the children’ and ‘safety of women’ to forego constitutional law and protections for fathers.
*Special interest groups influence on the family court setup and actions:
A host of legal and court-assisting persons and organizations have a strong financial interest in keeping the family court set-up as it is. They together can be called the Divorce and Domestic Violence Industry (the DDVI).
The DDVI is made up of the judges, lawyers, GALs, mothers/women, probation/family service officers, psychiatrists, sociologists, visitation centers, battered women’s shelters, the abuse industry, women’s advocates, the state’s department of revenue (DOR), the federal government’s child support enforcement division…and more! Let’s consider where some of these entities find their financial interest in the family court setup.
The DDVI have interest in:
* Setting larger child support orders.
Both the court and DOR/CSE(child support enforcement (agency)) receive federal incentive payments. Court-DOR (Department of Revenue) agreements send some DOR money to the Court systems. County jails make money by more inmates – who are court-created deadbeat dads.
* Making abuse allegations more easily allowed.
Visitation centers and lawyers benefit by this as well as do Battered Women shelters and Batterers Groups. Incidentally, battering is relatively rare; accusations are very common.
* Aggravating parental exchanges and unequal allotment of rights – as the court imposes.
This makes lots of money and job security for lawyers, family services officers, psychologists, GALS, parenting class coordinators, women’s groups, and affiliated VAWA organizations who receive some Billion over 5 years.
The DDVI, taken together, is a powerful lobby and participant in the rule-making process. They’re not about to favor any change – however fair – that will undermine their positions, benefits, or money and power they’ve accumulated.
Shane Flait gives you the capability you need to fight for your rights.
Get his FREE Downloads at http://www.FathersRightsLegalAid.com
Take his ecourse: How to Handle Your Family Court Case at http://www.FathersRightsLegalAid.com
Article from articlesbase.com
“Now concerning spiritual [gifts], brethren, I would not have you ignorant”, I Corinthians 12:1. In this verse and the verses following the Apostle Paul is telling us that as Christians we receive gifts from God. Paul is not referring to every day blessings, but special gifts given to the individual members of the Church family. He is referring to “Spiritual Gifts”.
Definition: A “Spiritual Gift” is a special ability given by the Holy Spirit to the Christian to be used for the benefit of the Church.
The same problem often exists in receiving “Spiritual Gifts” that exists in receiving gifts from one another. This problem is that we may try to read something into the gift or make assumptions concerning them.
1. We may make a direct relationship between our gifts and our spirituality. In example, a person who has the gift of “hospitality” may not be seen as being as spiritual as a person who has the gift of “preaching”.
2. Here are some statements that have been made that make such assumptions:
a. The more important the “Spiritual Gift”, the more mature and spiritual the person.
b. The major evidence of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life is his or her ability to speak in tongues.
c. We must ask God for the “Spiritual Gift” we want.
d. Some Christians have little to contribute to others.
e. Some people are more important than others in the Church as in every situation.
When we think of the early Church we think of a strong, growing Church that is void of many problems. When we are plagued by problems in our own congregation, or unhappy about our personal spiritual growth, we wish we could be as the New Testament Church. We feel that the Church has lost it’s power and wonder how to recapture those earlier days of constant victory. But when we study this Chapter of I Corinthians we see clearly that the early Church was not utopia! One of the problems in the early Church in Corinth focused on this very problem, relating “Spiritual Gifts” to spirituality. Paul realized the Church at Corinth was suffering because they didn’t understand one of the “Spiritual Gifts” and were making false assumptions. Paul challenged their assumptions in verse 1 stating “Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethern, I would not have you ignorant”. The same applies to the Church today. If we can understand more about “Spiritual Gifts”, many of the problems within the Church would be overcome.
As stated earlier, a “Spiritual Gift” is a special ability given by the Holy Spirit to the Christian to be used for the benefit of the Church. It is a special ability that differs from a natural talent. While God uses our natural talents in ministry to others, “Spiritual Gifts” are supernatural abilities given by God. “Spiritual Gifts” exceed the limits of our own abilities to equip us for fruitful and effective ministry. Since they are gifts, they must be given. They are gifts of grace and therefore given without regard for the merit of the person receiving them. They cannot be learned, only developed and sharpened after receiving them. They are given to the Christian at the discretion of God. Non-believers do not have “Spiritual Gifts”. They may have great talents, but they are not genuine “Spiritual Gifts”. Every Christian has a “Spiritual Gift” and some Christians receive a combination of them. There are no ungifted believers, only Christians who have not discovered and developed their “Spiritual Gifts”.
Here is a list of some specific “Spiritual Gifts”. Depending upon interpretation of Scripture there are from 12 to 28 “Spiritual Gifts”.
Evangelism – Ephesians 4:11, “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers”. This gift is a special ability to share the Gospel with unbelievers in such a way they come to receive Jesus as Savior and Lord. Preaching in an evangelistic method is only one type of evangelism. Evangelism is also life-style.
Shepherding – Ephesians 4:11. This gift is a special ability to minister the Word of God to individuals to bring positive spiritual growth to their lives. A good shepherd feeds his sheep or leads them to the place to feed. A good shepherd watches over his sheep. He protects them from their natural enemies. He keeps them from going astray and will go after them when they do go astray.
Teaching/Preaching – Ephesians 4:11. This gift is a special ability to communicate important facts and messages from God’s Word so that people are uplifted and challenged. This idea, like evangelizing and shepherding, is looked upon as a gift of the pastor only or someone who is more spiritual than most Christians. Again, this is a false assumption because a Sunday School teacher with this very special gift can communicate messages from God’s Word just as well as the pastor. This gift has specialization within it’s own specialty. Some may have the gift of teaching and challenging young people; others teen-agers; others married couples; others to the more mature (elderly); others to women; and others to men.
Administration – I Corinthians 12:28, “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.” This is a special ability to understand the overall mission of the Church and to create plans and programs for accomplishing that mission. The first step in the administration of any mission is to understand the goals. There are many offices of administration: Sunday School Superintendent, Music Director, Youth Director, etc. It takes a special ability to create programs to supplement these separate ministries. As the Church grows, more ministries will be needed and each ministry needs an administrator that is creative and can develop exciting plans and programs.
Leadership – Romans 12:8, “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.” This is a special gift to motivate others to move in harmony toward the goals of the Church. Some may combine this gift with the gift of administration.
Music – Romans 15:9, “And that the Gentiles might glorify God for [his] mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name”. This is a special gift to offer praise to the Lord in music and to lead others in the Body to similar praise. We see and are blessed in the Church with these gifts. This gift is not just the ability to sing or play some musical instrument, but to do so in a manner that offers praise to the Lord.
Mercy – Romans 12:8, ” Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, [let him do it] with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.” This is a special gift to feel genuine concern and compassion for troubled or neglected individuals and to translate that feeling into deeds that help alleviate their suffering. It is not hard to be compassionate and feel concerned for neglected and troubled people, but the specialty is to administer deeds that help alleviate their suffering. There is a great ministry here, for those who are grieving over loved ones, for the elderly in nursing homes, etc.
Hospitality – Hebrews 13:1,2, “Let brotherly love continue. Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” This is a special gift to provide an open house and/or attitude of warm welcome to strangers or those who are in need. Not all Christians are hospitable; even to people they know. It is a definite gift to open your home to a stranger, but look at the warning the writer here gives. Don’t forget to entertain a stranger, for there have been some who have entertained angels unaware.
Intercession – I Timothy 2:1 & 8, “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men;… I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.” This is a special gift to spend extended periods of time praying for the specific needs of others. It is not always hard to remember our friends and loved ones in prayer, but the specialty here is to be able to spend extended time; the time required to name each person and to talk with God about their specific need.
Helps – I Corinthians 12:28, “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.” This is a special gift to invest time and talents in the work of the Lord in ways that often seem small or behind the scenes. This is one of the “Spiritual Gifts” where the problem of comparing gifts to the spirituality of the person arises. Some Christians have the special ability to just be at all Church functions and invest time in helping with anything.
Writing – I Timothy 3:14, “These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly.” This is a special gift to formulate thoughts into organized written forms so that the reader will be instructed and inspired. This ministry could be written messages to go along with the bulletin ministry. It may be the ability to organize and put thoughts into a church newsletter or publication.
Craftsmanship (artistic) – Exodus 31:3, “And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship”. This is a special gift to create artistic items for the overall ministry of the Church. This gift is used especially among children. It is the ability to tell God’s message in some artistic way.
Craftsmanship (manual) – Exodus 31:4, “To devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass”. This is a special gift to keep the Church moving through building, maintaining, and repairing the tools, building, and equipment of the Church.
A “Spiritual Gift” is given to the Christian to be used. Unfortunately, a large percentage of otherwise serious disciples are not using their particular gifts. Others are caught up in tasks for which they are not gifted. “Spiritual Gifts” must be used if others are to be ministered to through them. They are never to be admired or ignored, or saved for special days. They are to be used for the Glory of God. Developing a personal ministry hinges on discovering and developing one’s “Spiritual Gifts”. A personal ministry must center on doing things God has specifically equipped a person to do.
If the Church is to succeed and grow, members must seek out their “Spiritual Gifts” and work to develop them. Some Christians may have just one gift, while others may have many. If the Church wants to correct some mistakes it must realize that “Spiritual Gifts” are not directly proportionate to a person’s spirituality.
I am an ordained minister, husband, father of two, and grandfather of four. I am the owner of www.amazingchristianproducts.com a website that offers great christian articles and a variety of religious products
Global Freedom Family is a private, subscription membership, world wide Newsletter community resource site containing in depth online investing information and dedicated to coaching members to achieve their financial dreams. $19.97 on recurring billing.
Global Freedom Family Membership Site
Let us not fall back on the importance of church growth or family solidarity as an excuse for neglecting the civil magistrate. There are those who would excuse themselves with an argument like this:
My understanding of how the kingdom comes would direct me toward a different emphasis, one that operates based upon a bottom up, decentralized approach, rather than a reliance on a top down policy. The emphasis for reform cannot and must not be civil action. It must begin in the lives of fathers. Let’s try our hand first at successfully turning out a righteous, non-rebellious generation without losing our children.
The Top-Down Argument
There are elements of truth in this statement, but I fear it runs contrary to the pattern we observe in the Old Testament. In spite of the fact that individuals and families were in disarray, God still addressed disobedience and expected compliance to His law at every level: individual, family, church growth, and nation.
God did not excuse or delay obedience to His law at the level of civil government. For example, in Micah 3: 1, 5, 11 the rulers, prophets, and priests are all called to repentance and conformity to God’s law in the present. The need for church growth notwithstanding.
The prophets called the Kings to repentance and did not focus exclusively on teaching individual families and church growth. This is not “top-down,” it is “multi-level” responsibility.
The “top-down” argument is an excuse to relive us from our Biblical responsibility at every level. Frankly, I think that the emphasis in the Old Testament is on kings, not on fathers. Saying this does not dismiss the importance of church growth or of family growth. But, Psalm 2 calls kings to repentance, not fathers.
Mending Church-State Relations
Differs From Political Action, Per Se
Please remember, we are not talking about political action here. We are talking about the Biblical doctrine of church and state. We are talking about a Biblical emphasis on evangelism and discipleship being focused on civil magistrates, especially when it comes to the efforts of church leaders.
The church has a positive responsibility to the state that it cannot shirk, regardless of whatever responsibilities it may have to individuals, families or church growth. If the state is way out of line it is the church leaders that must shoulder the responsibility to call it back into line. That is the clear teaching of the Old Testament.
Examples are everywhere: Samuel and Saul, Nathan and David, Elijah and Ahab, and on and on. Ambrose rebuked Theodosius and Deacon Alcuin crossed the English Channel to instruct Charlemagne.
In like manner the elders of your local church need to be in touch with the Mayor, the County Council members, etc. Laymen can help, but elders must lead in this matter.
The Reformers (Calvin, Knox, etc) did not limit the Reformation to individuals, families, and church growth, but applied it at every level of society. Calvin was active in the City Council and Knox was active at the national government. This in spite of the fact that they were very concerned about reclaiming and purifying the doctrine of individual justification before God.
In other words, they did not resort to the “top-down” excuse. The “top-down” argument sounds spiritual at first blush, but I don’t think it stands up to the standard of Scripture. Upon examination, it is actually found to be a rationale for passive disobedience.
Not An Either/Or Proposition
In summary, it is not an either/or proposition. Church leaders in the Old Testament and during the Reformation called for conformity to God’s law at every level of society, including the civil magistrate. They recognized this as their Biblical obligation. They did not limit their ministry to church growth and the family.
But today, instead of engaging the enemy we retreat into our homes to nurture our families. So the question is: At what point in the past 500 years did God change the rules that applied all the way from Old Testament times to the Reformation, that would excuse church leaders today from this obligation to confront and instruct the civil magistrate?
For More Information
For more information about the anti-Christian features of the U.S. Constitution visit http://www.america-betrayed-1787.com Dennis Woods is webmaster and also a political pollster and fundraiser in Oregon. Copyright: you may freely republish this article, provided the text, author credit, the active links and this copyright notice remain intact.”
 |
Copyright © 2024. Liberty Walk. All rights reserved |
