Tags: Abraham Lincoln, Civil War,
Union, Confederacy, Slavery, BC comic, The Great Emancipator, Ku Klux Klan, Emancipation
Proclamation, African slave, The Constitution, California State University, American
Political Tradition, Richard Hofstadter, Viet Nam, self-made myth, Thomas Jefferson,
James Madison, Aaron Burr, Bill of Rights, Supreme Court, Henry Clay, Benjamin Franklin,
Edmund Burke, Francis Schaeffer, The God Who is There, Constitution of the United
States, Cicero, Roman Republic, Augustine, City of God, John Hamilton, Constitutional
Convention, The Enlightenment, John Adams, framers, founders, Natural Rights, Daniel
Webster
The contentions of the ungodly designed,
to sway others to their immoral causes through lies and deceits, remind me of a BC comic
strip. Two prehistoric men are seen lying on a small embankment looking up at the billowy
clouds, as many of us have done for thousands of years hence. "There's a cloud that
looks like man's interminable struggle to influence his fellow man," observed the
one.
"Looks like a bunny rabbit with
floppy ears to me," his friend responded.
"Like I said."
* * *
History is filled with astute men of God
who carefully considered the Scripture in relation to the world they lived in. These are
men who changed their societies in a dramatic way. They gave us the freedoms we now enjoy.
They preserved Christianity for all generations to come. Those of us who will look at the
faith of these men with humility in acknowledgment of who they were, will be the ones who
will see the truth.
Gratitude for the faith of our nation's
past leaders is an unusual perspective for most of those who graduate from the colleges
and universities throughout the country today. Liberal professors have filled these
youngsters' minds with perversions of the truth of history that would knock those who
lived in those eras right off their seats. Our American forefathers are being portrayed in
a light that intends to cast them in the same shadow as the liberals who desire to
perpetrate the distortion. It is the revisionist's intention to re-write history in a
manner that portrays our past leaders as more pagan and less Christian, so that the
liberal's ungodly views might appear to the populace as the norm rather than the
aberrance. It is by using this device that they believe their ideas will be more readily
accepted. It has served them well.
A young college student wrote to our
local news paper in response to a claim that I had made regarding the Christian world view
of Abraham Lincoln in relation to the abolition of slavery. In the article entitled
Lincoln: Politician, not Emancipator, this impressionable lady insisted, "All the way
through elementary, junior high and high school, I was taught by my teachers that Abraham
Lincoln was 'The Great Emancipator,' the savior to all African-Americans. It wasn't until
I was in college that I was taught Lincoln's real motivation for the abolishing of
slavery.
"The recent letter writer
contended: 'Christianity was the foundation of Lincoln's actions concerning the abolition
of slavery; the single most humanitarian act accomplished in American history.' That's
like the Ku Klux Klan's use of the Bible as the motivation for their actions.
"The only reason Abraham Lincoln's
Emancipation Proclamation was created was to make the United States one nation instead of
North and South. In order to accomplish that, he needed more soldiers -- slaves -- to
fight so the war could be ended quickly.
"Abraham Lincoln 'opposed slavery
on moral, political and economic grounds,' according to the book American History: a
Survey. He believed it contradicted the American idea of democracy. The book also states
it was Lincoln's concern 'for the economic well-being of the white masses -- his
commitment to the ideology of free labor -- that impelled him to oppose the introduction
of slavery into the territories.'
"He was not concerned with the
plight of the African slave. He believed the 'jobs' the slaves had should be given to the
poor whites, without the usual treatment of beating them and raping the women.
"It was politically correct for
Abraham Lincoln to be against slavery. It had nothing to do with any Christian act, and
most definitely was not a 'humanitarian' one either.
"Freedom is being equal despite
your race, religious beliefs, sex, etc. President Abraham Lincoln believed the white race
was superior to any other. That describes a bigot and racist, to me."
Well. . . Isn't that like a burr in you
pants! To the one who still has an amount of respect for our nation's history, hearing
this garble is like stepping on a rusty nail.
It appears that our youth are under the
impression that since Lincoln saw that the Constitution is not consistent with slavery,
one can deduce that he wasn't motivated by God in his feelings towards the plight of the
black. Because he understood the poor economics of a failing system of slavery, he had no
compassion on the oppressed. Apparently, we are not hearing all the facts here.
Just how are young students coming up
with these ideas anyway? Where did these attitudes come from? What are they teaching in
our universities to generate such an opinion as this?
To search out the answer to these
questions, I only had to explore my own past -- to a time when I too was under the
influence of the liberal college professorship of the CaliforniaStateUniversity system.
So I opened the doors to own bookrack to uncover college texts that date from the days of Viet
Nam. It was an era when we all were beginning to question the value system that created
what we interpreted as the hypocrisy around us.
There in the middle of studies on
everything from philosophy to evolution I beheld a small, long-neglected paperback
entitled American Political Tradition, written by Richard Hofstadter. Blowing off
the years of dust, I opened up the musty pages to one of the articles I had once read. It
was filled with the highlights of a young, and impressionistic college freshman who was
sitting in his first weeks of the collegiate U S history course.
I remember the class well, for it was so
instrumental in shaping my mind in those days. The instructor surprised us all by
informing us that he would not be testing us in the same manner as we were use to in high
school.
"You will not be required to
memorize dates," he assured us, as a sigh of relief of the anxious crowd dissipated
the tension in the room. "Rather, you will be held accountable to the understanding
of concepts. These concepts are much different than what you have learned before. In your
early stages of education, in their zeal to instill patriotism, your teachers presented U
S history in a light that is very romantic, but nonetheless far from the truth. The
stories they presented are myths, nothing more than legends that have been built up
through the ages. In this class, you will uncover what really happened, and how short our
founding fathers measure up in relation to the fiction you have been told up until this
point. After sitting in this class, you will leave more enlightened, and certainly more
aware."
With this in mind, I hastened to the
astonishing "facts" that were hidden in the pages of that educated text.
The title of the chapter at hand was Abraham
Lincoln and the Self-Made myth. The term was certainly indicative of the central theme
of Hofstadter who insisted that "the first author of the Lincoln legend and the
greatest of the Lincoln dramatists was Lincoln himself."
And what a revelation it was! To think
that most of what I had learned about the man up until now was a fabrication was enough.
But to discover that the fable was authored by Lincoln himself was utterly astounding.
Now the revisionist begins by stating
his primary objective, to undermine the credibility of the Christian dogma in American
history. The legend of Lincoln isn't the only myth around, you know. There is also the
folk-lore that is embraced -- by the more "ignorant" sectors of our society --
that believes America was founded by Christian men who displayed Christian morality and
virtues in connection with their views of society. The unenlightened individuals in our
nation don't really know the true facts when they contend that the founding fathers formed
a government that had as its foundation the moral base instituted by the God of the Bible.
Thomas Jefferson, for example, noted in
his autobiography, ". . .an amendment was proposed by inserting the words Jesus
Christ, so that it should read , a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the Holy
Author of our religion; the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof they
meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the gentile, the
Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindu and infidel of every denomination."
This quotation was sent in to be
published in our local newspaper in Bakersfield by a religious history hobbyist, Michael
K. Miller. This was done in order to prove that, in fact, the writers of our Constitution
were in no way in favor of establishing America as a Christian nation; in spite of the
fact that Christianity was the predominate religion in America at the time. These
assertions are made with the contention that our country is not subject to the justice of
the God of the Bible. However, the real center of the liberal's agenda is the moral
re-adjustments we have been making in our culture during the twentieth century.
The revisionists of today love to use Jefferson
as a prime example of their belief that the Founders held to their view of the separation
of church and state. Yet their assertions are no where close to the truth. Therefore,
according to Religion and the Founding of the Republic, "It is no exaggeration
to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson
(1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of
his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of
Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode
on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services
in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to
Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant
denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January
1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in
the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience."
Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch
buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.
Jefferson's actions may seem surprising
because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually
thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of
separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently
declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a
"national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson
and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a
prop for republican government." Neither Jefferson nor Madison represent a view of
the separation of church and state that is even close to the view of our modern
revisionists.
While ignoring a multitude of facts such
as this, Mr. Miller continued, "Are people not moral unless they are Christian?. .
.The Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades and the religious wars between Christian sects
offers little evidence that 'Christian nations' are especially moral. . . .John Adams
said, 'The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian
religion.' Edmund Burke said, 'The miseries derived to mankind from superstition under the
name of religion and of ecclesiastical tyranny under the name of church and government
have been clearly and usefully exposed.' Henry Clay said, 'All religions united with
government are more or less inimical to liberty. All separated from government are
compatible with liberty.' Benjamin Franklin said, 'When a religion is a good one, I
conceive it will support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its
professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, it is a sign I apprehend,
of its being a bad one.' James Madison said, 'what influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical
establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual
tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many other instances they have been seen
upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instances have they been guardians of
the liberties of people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an
established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and
perpetuate it, needs them not.'. . .The uniqueness of America springs from its pluralism.
Why don't we all work together to rebuild this country on moral principles we all share as
Americans."
This on the surface seems like a fair
enough statement. It is as the song in the sixties proclaimed, "Come on people now,
smile on your brother. Everybody get together; try to love one another somehow."
Now it's, "Let's get together and
work this thing out," the modernist contends. Anyone though who contradicts by saying
that we can't is said to be unloving, narrow minded and bigoted.
The question has to be asked, "Does
the certainty that these men did in fact believe that there should be no established
religion (as had been the case in their mother country England) mean that they too
believed that religion should be barred from all public sectors of influence? Because they
saw the ills that came from a dominant church in England to which their ancestors were
taxed to support regardless of their own faith mean that these same people escaped England
to escape Christ? Because they wanted to limit the power of the organized church in
government did it mean they desired to eliminate the authority of Christ as well? Doesn't
the historical record attest they were in fact running directly to God and His defining
principles? Does the fact that our founding founders sought to assure there would never be
a predominant and tyrannical denomination supported by the state mean that they thought
the morality as professed in the Bible should be ignored? . . .And even if our founding
fathers were the same pagans the scholarly thinkers insist they are, does this mean
America is not subject to the judgment of God?"
With Christianity in the picture, one
cannot even propose that everyone get together into one happy religious family. Francis
Schaeffer illuminated in The God Who is There, "The God who is there according
to the Scriptures is the personal-infinite God. There is no other god like this God. It is
ridiculous to say that all religions teach the same thing when they disagree at the
fundamental point as to what God is like. The gods of the East are infinite by definition
-- the definition being 'god is all that is.' This is the pan-everything-ism god. The gods
of the West have tended to be personal but limited; such were the gods of the Greeks,
Romans and Germans. But the God of the Bible, Old and New Testaments alike, is the
infinite-personal God."
There is no similarity between the
definition of the God of the Bible and the gods of every other religion. There can be no
doubt that the Christian is worshipping a different God than the rest. So, how can it be
that we can lump all the religions of the world into one lump-sum, when one stands out as
being in complete juxtaposition to all others?
The truth of God is not to be found in
synthesis, but in alienation. The God of the Bible stands away from all the rest as
unique. He is divinely opposed to all the rest. Biblical Christianity by definition must
be excluded from your amalgamation of religions.
Since the authors of the Constitution of
the United States were Christians, then all pagan religions must have been excluded from
their world view. These people were educated men. The concept of the inability of
Christianity to mix it up with the world's religions (in both worship life and civic
affairs) had been a part of the Christian understanding since the days of Rome.
Saint Augustine lived in a time when
that civilization was collapsing. As they are today, the pagans were blaming the
Christians for every calamity that befell Rome.
In his great defense of the Christian
faith, The City of God, Augustine noted, "In order to arouse popular hatred
against us, they pretend ignorance and strive to instill in the people's minds the common
notion that the misfortunes which afflict the human race are due to the expansion of
Christianity and to the eclipse of the pagan gods. . ."
Yet he observed that the Roman republic
fell long before Christianity was born. Indeed, he contended that the RomanRepublic was
not a republic at all because it was not founded on Christianity. "Why then," he
noted, "did their gods not save from disaster that republic which, long before Christ
appeared in the flesh, Cicero mournfully deplores as lost?"
Augustine contended that it was paganism
that was the cause of the fall of the RomanRepublic. As Christians, the well-educated
founders of the Constitution were privy to this information.
Since these Christian framers of the
Constitution were putting together a republic form of government intended to last (and in
many ways was directly pattered after the Roman model), why would they place into the
structure of government a law that would create a pagan religious environment that they
were well-aware would undermine the very jurisdiction they were creating? It is absurd to
think that they would intelligently commit this type of obvious suicide.
Therefore, when administering the
concept of church and state, they could not have been imagining that this meant bringing
all the religions of the world together under one national fold. They would have known
that Christianity will not mix with all the rest -- that a house divided against itself
cannot stand. The concept of the freedom of religion as it being administered today would
have been preposterous in their mind, for they would have realized, as Christians
themselves, that the religions of the world cannot be blended together with Christianity.
But if the liberal wants to bring all of
the other religions of the world together into one fold, he has correctly defined those
religions exactly what they are -- united in their opposition to the One True God.
For centuries the United States has been
morally driven by the presumption that the base upon which ethics should be derived is
that which is defined in the Scriptures. Now men throughout the country such as Mr. Miller
are taking us back to the beginning to hear the voices of our founders that suggest that
our presumptions have been wrong: that in no regard were these men interested in
preserving the value system the Christian claims has dominated our culture from the
beginning. "The idea that our country found its base on Christian principles is a
fabrication of the uneducated," they say. The notion that we are in any manner
accountable to the God of the Bible is pure fantasy.
The contention that we should return to
the value system that made us strong to begin with is up to dispute. In fact, it is being
contended by these modern professors of knowledge that concepts of religion in America
that were embraced by our fathers were, in fact akin the stance of the modernist: that the
writers of the Constitution anticipated a time when no particular religion would
predominate our culture; that religious freedom is synonymous the moral anarchy that
insists that there are no absolutes, that morality is nothing more that a difference of
opinion.
Therefore, the revisionists conclude
that it is exactly their own contemporaneous value system (which upholds that Americans
should live independent from any one standard) that has made our nation solid and sound.
Accepting our differences, and acknowledging that everyone has a right to live his life as
he sees fit regardless of how repulsive the behavior in the eyes of God, is America's key
to a successful future. The fathers of our country, in the liberal's mind, are calling us
from the past to comfort us with the words, "There is no judgment awaiting us as a
result of our moral behavior!"
However, the contemporary moralist is
not content to leave it there. It is not enough to present these brave men who risked
their lives for freedom in a modernistic light. There are some in our country who wouldn't
buy the modernist line of reasoning at all. They would be too convinced with the vast
entourage of Christian dominance in our culture up until this century to be persuaded by a
few isolated quotations.
The revisionist has to take his argument
further. He must undermine the credibility of the heroes of our past in a way to show how
selfish and self-serving they were. Then he can completely annihilate the Christian
premise. He can detail how corrupt and degenerate our society and its leaders have always
been to assure those who have put their hope in a Christian past that their faith is
misplaced.
The founders of our Constitution,
according to the revisionist, were no more than wealthy, landed aristocrats and political
scientists who disdained the pure democracy that would tend to give the lower classes too
much power. "Nowhere in America or Europe -- not even among the great liberated
thinkers of the Enlightenment-did democratic ideas appear respectable to the cultivated
class." Therefore Hofstadter insisted that John Hamilton "candidly disdained the
people" while quoting Gouverneur Morris, "The mob begin to think and reason.
Poor reptiles!. . .They bask in the sun, and ere noon they will bite, depend upon
it."
"Throughout the secret discussions
at the Constitutional Convention," the modernist insists, "it was clear that
this distrust of man was first and foremost a distrust of the common man and democratic
rule."
Liberty, Hofstadter reasoned, was
conceived not to be linked with democracy, but rather to property -- freedom for property
would result in liberty for men. "To protect property is only to protect men in the
exercise of their natural facilities. . . Democracy, unchecked rule by the masses, is sure
to bring arbitrary redistribution of property, destroying the very essence of
liberty."
Since government is based on land,
"influence in government would be proportionate to property." In other words,
the contention is that the founding fathers, as rich landed individuals, only sought to
protect themselves and their power base when they formed the Republic. It was only later
that "the mainstream of the American political conviction deviated more and more from
the antidemocratic position of the Constitution makers."
Indeed, the Framers rightfully
distrusted people because of the biblical contention that all men are depraved. Thus they
provided checks and balances in the Constitution. But the very fact that they created a
republic with democratic institutions such as the House of Representatives proves that
Hofstadter had it completely wrong when he contended that the Founders had no interest in
democratic ideas.
With regard to property rights they knew
history and therefore were aware of the fact that, in contrast with England, France did
not grant property rights to individuals. Therefore, property could be, and was,
indiscriminately taken away from folks for no cause at all. As a result, in contrast to England
where property rights existed, liberty and freedom could not take hold in France. However
in England, the rise of democratic institutions was directly related to the fact that the
property of people could not be taken away. With this power the people could, and did,
influence change that weakened the power of the king in favor of the rights of people.
In addition, the Founders rightly
reasoned that individuals with property were those who had a personal stake in the
financial stability of government and tax rates. Thus they would vote with more fiscal
responsibility than those who did not possess property. In contrast, today a large amount
of America's citizenry does not have property and does not pay taxes as a result. They
vote for whoever will give them the most government handouts. Thus we have the
redistribution of wealth that now confiscates the property of one in order to give to
someone who will not work. This cycle has left the rest of us with high taxes and the
government with a debt that is catastrophic even as our rights are being systematically
stripped from us. Our basic right to property is the culprit, which is exactly what the
Founders sought to avoid.
"No other rights are safe where
property is not safe." declared Daniel Webster.
John Adams said that "[t]he moment
that idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and
that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny
commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist."
James Madison declared,"... a man
is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his
rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man
is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possissions"
He also said, "Government is
instituted to protect property of every sort. . . This being the end of government, that
alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever
is his own."
The Natural Rights of the colonists are
these: first, a right to life; second, to liberty; third to property; together with the
right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.", according to Samuel
Adams.
"Nothing is ours, which another may
deprive us of." --Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, 1786.
It sounds like the Founders were in
agreement that property rights were the foundation of liberty. And there is nothing
"antidemocratic" about the acknowledgement that property rights lay at the
bottom of freedom. In fact, the ownership of property is the very foundation of what makes
democratic institutions work! Democracy cannot survive without property rights. And today,
governmental tyranny is emerging as a result of the welfare/nanny state even as our
democratic institutions become increasingly impotent while career politicians bow to the
rule of their own ambitions rather than the will of the people. They legislate to the
people's demise even as they stay in office by handing out every piece of pork, subsidies
and give-a-ways that they can muster up. And this is all done at the expense of those who
have worked their tail off for every piece of property that they have. How democratic is
that? It sounds more like theft to me.
Don Wigton
is a graduate of the prestigious music department at CSULB where he studied under Frank
Pooler, lyricist of Merry Christmas Darling, and sang in Pooler’s world renown
University Choir alongside Karen and Richard Carpenter. During this time Don was also the
lead composer of the band, Clovis Putney, that won the celebrated Hollywood Battle of the
Bands. After giving his life to God, Don began attending Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa to
study under some of the most prominent early Maranatha! musicians. Subsequently he toured
the Western United States with Jedidiah in association with Myrrh Records.
Eventually
Don served as a pastor at Calvary Chapel Bakersfield to witness thousands of salvations
through that ministry. As the music/concert director, Don worked for seven years with most
major Christian artist of that time while producing evangelical concerts attended by
thousands of young people seeking after God. Don’s Calvary Chapel Praise Choir
released the album Let All Who Hath Breath Praise the Lord on the Maranatha! label.
The next
years of Don’s life were spent as the praise leader of FirstBaptistChurch in Bakersfield
during a time of unprecedented church renewal. Don teamed with the leadership to
successfully meld the old with the new through a period of tremendous church growth.
During this exciting time, Don’s praise team, Selah, produced the CD Stop and
Think About It.
Today Don is
the leading force behind Wigtune Company. This
webbased project located at www.praisesong.net has provided several million downloads of
Don’s music and hymn arrangements to tens of thousands of Christian organizations
throughout the world. More music can be found at Don's Southern
Cross Band website at www.socrossband.com.
The book Holy
Wars represents Don’s most recent effort to bless the church with biblical
instruction and direction in praise and worship. This heartfelt volume is an offering not
only to God’s people, but also to God Himself.
An Incredible revival is occuring
in Northern India and Nepal. CLICK
HERE to find out more!
More Wigtune Blogs
This
first of five books looks into a pivotal moment in American history that changed the world
forever. It was a time when the United States was on the brink of destruction. It was and
era when an American prophet and patriot stood up to eco the words of Christ: "A
house divided cannot stand." Today we live in a similar era today where America is
torn asunder between truth and error. And the wrong decision will bring dire
consequences!
Click Here to
purchase the E-book edition for only 99 cents!
We pray that these materials have provided
all of you with untold blessings!
"I might not be a religious
man myself but I know good music when I hear it, and this is very good! . . . I don’t think that I have ever given such high
ratings to so many songs before. But the fact is that they are well deserved
because the music is amazing. Simply wonderful religious ballads and they
really get to your heart. . .everytime." Fredrik Cole: Trax In Space
was formed as a service to the body of Christ to encourage scriptural
worship. To accomplish this goal Wigtune Company offers free contemporary Christian praise
and worship music, contemporary Christian rock and hymn mp3 and chart material along with
a free on-line worship study book for personal devotions, Bible study groups, Sunday
schools, pastors, music ministers and ministry training. In order to bridge the gap
between the old and the new the worship study book gives solid theological and
historical support to the use of traditional Christian hymn-singing in conjunction with
praise chorus singing.
Click on one of the links below for praise and worship, praise
tabs, worship chords, praise chorus mp3, hymn stories, pro tools studio, worship leader
materials to enter into the area of the Wigtune site that interests you !
was formed as a service to the body of Christ to encourage scriptural
worship. To accomplish this goal Wigtune Company offers free contemporary Christian praise
and worship music, contemporary Christian rock and hymn mp3 and chart material along with
a free on-line worship study book for personal devotions, Bible study groups, Sunday
schools, pastors, music ministers and ministry training. In order to bridge the gap
between the old and the new the worship study book gives solid theological and
historical support to the use of traditional Christian hymn-singing in conjunction with
praise chorus singing. 
Vision Statement 
Wigtune Story 
Check out this powerful Southern Cross song! 
