Today’s Church Would Say “Nyet” to Black Robed Regiment

By Al Benson Jr.

Recently I watched a You Tube video presentation by Pastor Dan Fisher of Yukon, Oklahoma on a group of pastors during our First War for Independence (the second one was fought from 1861-65 and still continues culturally) which the British dubbed “the Black Robed Regiment.” Pastor Fisher has also written a book dealing with this, Bringing Back the Black Robed Regiment.

Larry Pratt, the head of Gun Owners of America (an organization I support) wrote an article about this in July of 2014 that appeared on http://www.freedomoutpost.com and he described the Black Robed Regiment as “patriot preachers of the 18th Century, who led their congregations to battle the abusive tyranny of the Redcoats.” Can you even picture such a thing today, given the condition of most of our churches? It’s difficult.

We’ve been told for years that “religion and politics don’t mix and they are the two things you never talk about.” I can remember hearing this at home as a kid. It was the prevailing theology in most of the country in the late 1940s and 50s when I grew up, and although that has changed somewhat, the results, due to historical ignorance, have been mixed.

Larry Pratt noted in his article that “The Founding Fathers explicitly believed that politics and religion had to be mixed. How fitting that the ‘shot heard round the world’ was fired in front of Jonas Clark’s church on the Lexington green. During the battle, men went back and forth from the church to get ammo, because that’s where their powder and ball were stored. A nineteenth-century historian, John Adams, said that freedom was not born a bastard. Freedom was birthed when church and state were still married. A British writer, Horace Walpole, said at the time, ‘America has run off with a Presblyterian Parson’.” Quite a few Presbyterian pastors were involved in the First War of Independence, but then so were Lutheran, Baptist, Congregational, and other pastors also. Pastors in that day seem to have had a vision that has been lost in our day.

Dan Fisher has argued, and I have to agree with him, that politics is dirty today and one of the main reasons is that Christians have removed themselves from participation for the most part. Oh, they’ll do their “patriotic” duty and go vote, but they will not take the time to study the issues and do any homework on the personalities involved because, after all, politics is “of the world.” Sorry folks, I have to disagree. It’s “of the world” because Christians have allowed it to get there by default. Pastor Fisher feels that pastors “should teach about biblical principles of liberty and government—indeed about all of life—so their congregants will have a template to use with politicians. Failure to do so today, he says, has resulted in many Christians voting wrong.”

Larry Pratt made an interesting statement. He said “Now, more than ever the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body is ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption…” And we must tolerate it, Christians included. Look what we’ve elected to office in the past decades! How many recent presidents have claimed to be “Christian” and Christians have voted for them without bothering to try to find out anything about their backgrounds or what organizations they belong to or any of it. We just take their word and then when the govern like heathens the Christians are shocked. Well, duh—. You still don’t get it! And now the current crop of political “conservatives” are all running to sign up for the 2016 presidential race and all claiming to be “Christian.” It’s all a farce. Any candidate who gets close to the White House will have to have the approval of the CFR and the Bilderbergers, no matter which party he, or she, or it, is in.

I read another article about the Black Robed Regiment, published in the January/February 2011 issue of http://www.libertymagazine.org and written by Gregory W. Hamilton that seemed to view the Black Robed Regiment with kind of mixed feelings. Mr. Hamilton noted that the Black Robed Regiment preachers were “spiritual leaders who had largely strayed from the reform principles of the First Great Awakening. A goodly number of the preachers who participated and led during that First Great Awakening were influenced by the Scottish, English, and French Enlightenments. They opposed some of their colleagues’ fundamentalist approach to Christianity and a brash and brazen involvement in political matters. Some of these Great Awakening preachers…had some considerable influence on the thinking of many of the constitutional founders, who were ‘enlightened’ thinkers as well. They, along with the founders, wanted to dismantle church establishments and see an increased separation between church and state therefore realized.” Seems like he’s telling us that many of our “constitutional founders” were, in some measure, products of the Enlightenment. Folks, I submit that this is not good news.

But then Hamilton said: “The Black Robed Preachers, on the other hand, were, for the most part, not supportive of this new wave of so-called ‘Enlightenmet’ thinking and wanted a return to Puritan values and the preservation and strengthening of religious and church establishments through state legislative means, including the continued taxation of the public for their support.” Now there’s a slight rub here. I can agree with resistance to Enlightenment thinking. That kind of mindset has done us no favors, but I don’t necessarily agree with the state financing the church. The state should be influenced by the church but it should not finance it. For it is an old truth that what government pays for it eventually controls.

Then Hamilton made an interesting statement. I don’t know if he’s accurate here or not, but he stated: “Few realize today that these so-called black-robed radicals fought ratification of the Constitution in every state and were thus one reason, among many other factors, that Jay, Hamilton, and Madison wrote the Federalist Papers—to make sure it was ratified.” I had not been aware that the Black Robed Regiment had opposed ratification of the Constitution. Their taking that position must have meant that they understood something that many, or most, other folks did not. If the constitutional thinkers had been influenced by the Enlightenment, then how much of that influence crept into the Constitution? That might be a subject worth studying at some point.

David Alan Black has written on http://www.daveblackonline.com that: “…we need pastors who are willing to join today’s ‘Black Regiment.’ The Black Regiment was a group of clergy who were fierce opponents of British tyranny and a driving force in the decision of the colonies to seek independence. King George had provoked many of these men to leave England by demanding that they submit to licensing by the crown. He called them the Black Regiment because of the black robes they wore when preaching. These men staunchly opposed the divine right of kings. Their cry was, ‘Restore the crown rights of King Jesus!’”

And a final thought for those that insist the religion be kept out of politics, if you understand the sovereignty of God then you have to understand the God is concerned with what goes on in all areas of life—religion, politics, culture, education, art, whatever it is. God, as creator of the universe and of man, is concerned with it all and He is concerned with what man does with it all. There are not certain areas that are “sacred” while the rest is “secular.” To God it is all sacred and His Word teaches us how to deal with all of it—if we are willing to pay attention.

It is to our detriment today that so many churches suffer from the 501c3 syndrome which renders them incapable of saying anything about our miserable political situation—a situation that will only get worse the longer the church remains silent.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Today’s Church Would Say “Nyet” to Black Robed Regiment

  1. AL Benson, Jr.: ” Freedom was birthed when church and state were still married.”

    Amen!

    It is imperative that we also understand that liberty, formally and nationally, ended here in America when the late 18th-century founders made liberty a goal (almost a god) instead of a corollary of implementing Yahweh’s perfect law of liberty (Psalm 19:7-11, 119:44-45, James 2:12) as the supreme law of the land, like their 17th-century Christian forbears did.

    Praise God for His mercies and grace! America lost her liberty and His other blessings (gleaned from the 17th-century Colonials’ obedience to God and His law) only incrementally, However, without repentance for the late 18th-century founders’ sedition against Yahweh, it was inevitable that America would find herself teetering on the precipice of moral depravity and destruction.

    Ironically, tragically, most conservative Christians are still promoting the framers’ biblically adverse Constitution as the answer for America’s problem, when, in fact, it’s the genesis of where America finds herself today. For example, see blog article “Open Response to Pastor Chuck Baldwin’s ‘How Christians and Conservatives are Helping to Destroy America’” at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/open-response-to-pastor-chuck-baldwins-how-christians-and-conservatives-are-helping-to-destroy-america/.

    • ‘We the people of the United States…secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves’
      I have always noticed that God is not mentioned at all In the Constitution.

      I read your answer to Pastor Baldwin, that was good.

  2. How bout the Black Robed Regiment and like minded folk WHO actually applied Gods Law as their filter for thought… That would work better since many of the black robed regiment did not have a solid foundation of the Scripture under their belts…. Tenacity, sure – application of the Teachings of Scripture – NO

  3. Al Benson Jr.: ” … but I don’t necessarily agree with the state financing the church. The state should be influenced by the church but it should not finance it. For it is an old truth that what government pays for it eventually controls.”

    Perhaps there’s a misunderstanding as to what the true and mandated function of His Church, i.e., The Body of Christ, is really supposed to be. Think HIS Civil Body Politic. In other words, the True Church IS TO BE “The State”; not to make laws, but enforce His.

    Now, I know the following is lengthy, but do take the time to read it. This is a comment I posted on another article asking what does Romans 13 really mean. I hope you’ll see the connection:

    What Is The Correct Interpretation of Romans 13:

    Dean Garrison: “So what is the correct interpretation of Romans 13?

    That is what we all want to know. Isn’t it?”

    Great article Dean, and very good question.

    The idea of obey man’s government and that it is to execute judgment for crimes, we’re to pay the taxes it demands because the ones in gov’t. are “God’s ministers”, etc., etc., because of Romans 13, comes from the usual crowd (deceivers) of the modern day, poor excuses for “churches”, most of which are 501 (c) (3) controlled, i.e., created by that god (name a state) via incorporation.

    For a proper understanding of Christ’s Kingdom and who is to enforce His Perfect Moral Commandments, Laws, Statutes and carry out His Judgments, and we’re to pay “taxes” to (tithes), here’s a comment made by someone else in another article replying to a “Pastor” that was spouting the typical nonsense that  Romans 13 is referring to the state (man’s government) and how Christians are obliged to obey it.

    He did such a marvelous job of showing that Romans 13 is about The Church/Body of Christ’s function and purpose that I saved it and re-post it here. All credit for this most excellent explanation goes to him:

    “Brent in
    Portland
    Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 10:00 AM

    “Since it is generally the fault of many to take Paul completely out of context, especially when reading diluted renditions of the New Testament (NIV) I feel it necessary to post the ENTIRE context of the passage you just posted form the KJV. Paul wrote this as an entire epistle…we are the ones that attached chapter and verse to find things. But when taken out of context, it is very easy to presume he meant one thing when he actually meant another. You will note that Paul is not talking about government officials and their power to tax, nor is he calling government officials God’s servants. Otherwise “Might MAKES Right” by Machiavelli would be completely true.

    “I present, for the illumination of other reader, as I am certain you will not move from your opinion:

    “CHAPTER 12

    “1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living
    sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

    “2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

    “3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

    “4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:

    “5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

    “6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;

    “7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;

    “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.

    “9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.

    “10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;

    “11 Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord;

    “12 Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer;

    “13 Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality.

    “14 Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.

    “15 Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.

    “16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.

    “17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.

    “18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

    “19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

    “20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

    “21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

    “And now backing himself up as an Apostle of the Lord he writes in 13:

    “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.

    “8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

    “9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

    “10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

    “11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

    “12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

    “13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.

    “14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

    “The LAW that Paul is referring to is the Law of God: following His ordained servants and the ordinances, paying of tithes and offerings…etc…the end of the Law being Love. He is NOT referring to principalities or magistrates. If that were true, we are all guilty for having rebelled against the King of England; every Government current in Europe is guilty of disobeying the Pope, who was in turn guilty of disobeying Constantinople. And if you want to get really silly, the Romans should have never overthrown their Etruscan masters, the Jews should have never appealed to return to Jerusalem and should have contented themselves with living in Babylon, we would not have the Bible, nor the writings of Paul to begin with…at least not writing to the Romans. Maybe the Egyptians. Or the Philistines…or the (fill in local tribe here that the Israelites were at one time subjugated to).”

    My Reply To Him:

    “Brent,

    “Excellent! It’s the Body of Christ, His Church and those in positions of authority within His Civil Body Politic. His Kingdom/Will On Earth.

    “It’s so good to see men such as yourself that haven’t fallen for such nonsense as the “Pastor” has spewed forth from his 501 (c) controlled pulpit, granted to him by the god (state) he went to to obtain creation of his “church” (via incorporation), now owned and controlled by its creator, the state.

    “You nailed it!

    “Yahweh Bless You.”  End of Brent’s comment and my reply to him.

    His Church or HIS Civil Body Politic is to  have the authority to try criminal matters and administer criminal justice (also civil disputes, e.g., 1 Corinthians 6: 1-6), NOT man’s government.   The fundamental principle for the character of the men to be chosen for this task can be found at Exodus 18: 21.   

    The mere existence of man’s government (in whatever form, current U.S. & State constitutions included), making laws, i.e., determining what was “good and evil” or Malim in se (evil in and of itself as defined by The Great I Am, the ONLY lawgiver) vs. malim prohibitum (evil because someone determines, or legislates, it to be evil) and then administering both criminal and civil “justice”, is anti-Christ’s Kingdom, not to mention having other gods before Him (I like the way Ted Weiland puts it when describing “worshiping and obeying other gods”: “Think statutes, not statues.”).

    The problem is modern day, sorry excuses for “churches” function as anything but His Church. 

    Today’s “churches” are not there to get us into The Kingdom of Christ, they’re there TO KEEP US OUT!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s