 And so we're continuing our consideration of a theology of public life. Two parts, the first dealing with the relationship between the individual Christian or the church and the state. The second dealing with the Marxist morality of the new religion, social, we're using the play on words and calling it social injustice. But we're gonna be dealing with the issue of social justice. And I think those things, those subjects, very, very timely, it's why we're doing it. Because we as Christians need to have our consciences informed, need to have our understanding of the Bible's teaching on these things informed. And when churches, evangelicalism, by and large, all over the country, all over the world, are being given over to these errors, church after church, for example, going woke, we want to clearly understand what God's word has to say about these things so that we ourselves aren't caught up with the same error. And so that we can be a witness to those who are. So very important that we as a church consider these subjects, and we wanna be very, very careful with how we go about that. And so we're gonna take our time. We're gonna work through a list of subjects that I believe will be helpful. We've already started with part one. We're calling Leviathan rising. And one of the reasons that we call it that is because we see a growing, increasing encroachment on the part of the state into the personal, individual, Christian church, family, lives of its citizens. And there is a limit to the jurisdiction of the federal government. And we wanna talk about biblically what that looks like and why. And so we're calling that part one, Leviathan rising. And today, using a little alliteration for the fun of it, the tentacles of tyranny. This is part two in that. We'll probably go one more week and talk about the separation of church and state. But today I wanna talk about this issue of jurisdiction, and we wanna do that from the framework of our government's increasing assault, if you will, on the boundaries of proper jurisdiction. And we'll look at this over the next couple of weeks and unpack this issue and exactly how that applies to church-state relations. So the tentacles of tyranny, we're calling it. Tyranny is defined by the dictionary as the arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power. The arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power or the despotic abuse of power. I would say that one leads to the other. As there is a gradual arbitrary exercise of power or a gradual expanding unrestrained exercise of power, then it eventually becomes a despotic abuse of power. We see that throughout history. Even in the history of our own country, by the way, but certainly throughout world history and the revolutions that we've seen across the world. When we speak of the government, the federal government then encroaching on civil liberties when we talk about or consider that encroachment as tyranny or as tyrannical, we are referring then to the arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of government power outside the boundaries established for it by the people who it presumes to govern, right? Our government in particular in our country, governs by the consent of the people. As the government begins to encroach upon or exercise or wield an unrestrained governmental power outside the boundaries that are intended for it or that are prescribed to it or even authorized by the Bible for it. When the government begins to overflow those bounds, we would say that the government is becoming tyrannical. Continued unchecked, that pattern always results in or leads to a despotic abuse of power where the government is no longer a servant of the people where the government presumes to be their master. Operating within the boundaries prescribed by the people, the government is our government doing what it was intended to do. Outside those boundaries, the government no longer is the servant of the people rather the government becomes their master. And what we see then is a totalitarian leviathan, that word that Thomas Hobbs used to describe that kind of government. Historically, all this happens under the pretense of helping the people, right? You've heard the sort of the funny phrase in the years past and then you get a knock on the door and someone says, hi, I'm here from the government, I'm here to help you, right? It's often under the pretense of helping the people that this happens and we can see this playing itself out certainly in our day. But what we've been seeing with respect to our federal government is a consistent and a pervasive expansion of its power. We see that going on before our very eyes. Seemingly day by day, federal government is expanding its power. In many cases, it's the arbitrary and unrestrained exercise of power and that power vastly expanded in particular recently under alarmist conditions. And that's the way it normally works. Under the pretense of help and under the cause, if you will, of fear, the government often expands its power. The government expands its power under alarmist conditions. This is not your granddaddy's limited government anymore, right? It's not like it's not your granddaddy's automobile. It's not your granddaddy's limited government. This is not a government that our founding fathers had thought of when they instituted our republic. Certainly not the government that is operating within the bounds of what our constitution clearly states. It's a government that's overflowed its banks. Year by year, now the federal government grows larger and larger. Whereas before, the lesser magistrates, including state and local governments, would assert their rights, and you see this on a regular basis, they would assert their rights as a form of checks and balances against government expansion. That's really not taking place anymore. It was in my lifetime, and some of you older guys like me, older ladies like me, well, we won't say older ladies, say older guys, you older guys, you old men. We remember when states' rights were regularly asserted as a checks and balances against the expansion of the federal government. The state and local authorities would continuously assert their rights. Democrat and Republican, no matter, they would assert their rights in order to provide a checks and balances against expansion of the federal government. The lesser magistrates today, when we say lesser magistrates, we mean state government, local government, they have virtually conceded that governmental expansion with very few exceptions, one of them being, in many cases, Florida, which we're very happy to see and thankful for. Texas, states like that, but very few states are actually asserting states' rights on the way afforded them by the Constitution. Very few are protesting this encroachment by the federal government. They're only too happy to allow the federal government to expand and they have conceded those rights. What has been, then, the recent force behind this, what has become a unified expansion of power? When we say unified, we mean unified between federal, state, local jurisdictions, the federal government and the lesser magistrate. What has been the driving force, it would appear, behind this unified expansion of government power. And we would say it's the politicization of the new religion. We talked about the new religion, right? Roman I, who's a psychologized man. Roman I meets secular humanism. That's the religion of Roman I, but that religion is devoid of any basis for morality. Where does he get his morality from? He gets his morality from Marxist ideology, right? Social justice. So it's a psychologized man meets secular humanism fueled or driven by a Marxist morality and you get the new religion, right? That's what we're calling the new religion. Well, it's the politicization of this new religion that is sort of the fuel or the driving force behind this expansion of government or this encroachment of government upon the civil liberties of its people. The federal government, federal courts in particular, are being increasingly relied upon to intervene in areas never meant to be the jurisdiction of the federal government. For proponents of the new religion to assert their agenda publicly, which is what they're doing, is to assert their agenda politically. Once you put it into the public sphere, everything becomes political. And if you remember, I was talking about that before, when everything, every aspect of our lives becomes political, every aspect of our lives begins to be debated, one side or the other and every aspect of our lives becomes open to public scrutiny and the government intervenes into every aspect of our lives because every aspect of our lives is political. So for proponents of the new religion, we talked about how they seek identity by legitimizing their identity, their wants, their desires, their quote unquote freedoms publicly. The only way that that's legitimate is by asserting them publicly and having public acceptance of them. All of that becomes political. And what we've seen today is every part of our lives become political, every part of our lives becoming political, we've got the government in every part of our lives. So proponents of the new religion for them to assert their agenda publicly is to assert their agenda politically, especially when you see that when a social unrest or social disorder is used as a tactic, right? Which we see very widespread today. Oftentimes, government expands or government presses forward, overflows its banks under the adversity of social unrest or social disorder. We've seen that in revolutions throughout history. There arises social unrest, there arises social disorder, expansion of violence and you see government expanding their authority. So on issues now, as a result, this politicization of the new religion, on issues now from personal health care to the education of your children. And when I say personal health care, I'm not talking about insurance companies, right? Going to the doctor per se, of course that's a part of it. What I'm talking about is whether or not you yourself are going to choose or not to choose to be vaccinated or whether you yourself will choose or not to choose one course of action in keeping with your health care or another, right? Government is intruding upon personal health care. Government is intruding on the education of our children. And listen, that's not government's role in any shape, form or fashion. We are responsible and parents are responsible for the education of their children under the authority of God. On issues from race to gender identity, the government begins to dictate. And what does that word dictate sound like? It sounds like dictatorial. So when the government begins to dictate by fiat or command, the government becomes dictatorial. And our government will increasingly dictate as it becomes increasingly difficult to legislate. And of course it's increasingly difficult to legislate because we are split as a country. Everything is political and you've got half the population on one side of the fence and half the population on the other side of the fence. Everything becomes increasingly debatable, increasingly toxic and hostile. So what happens then when the federal government increasingly dictates because it finds it difficult to legislate, the legislative branch of government is circumvented by executive orders from the executive branch of government. The legislative branch of government is circumvented by decrees coming out of the judicial branch of government. And so where the Congress can't legislate any longer, what you see is executive order out of the president's office and you see decrees coming out of the Supreme Court. So that's the way that legislation, quote unquote, legislation is done these days. And that's because things are so divided and the federal government is unable to legislate. But what that means though is an expansion of governmental power when the Supreme Court by fiat can insert itself into every aspect of public life, including the free exercise of religion or your personal rights governing through the Supreme Court means governing by fiat over those very things that are decided in the courts. Or when the legislative branch fails and now the president begins to wield the pen, so to speak, what did Obama say? You know, give me a pen, paper and we'll govern without Congress. Governed by the stroke of a pen, executive order takes the place of bipartisan representative federal legislation. And what happens? The powers of the federal government begin to expand. And when the powers of the federal government begin to expand, it begins encroaching on the rights of those it presumes to govern and the federal government becomes increasingly tyrannical. Totalitarian, the totalitarianism introduced by this intervention will be firmly entrenched when proponents of the new religion hold a decisive majority in the legislative branch also which is coming, right? If you haven't noticed recently, especially what is taking place or what's it being attempted is what's considered a power grab. The recent push to pack the court with four additional Supreme Court judges. The recent push to make DC a state adding to liberal senators and liberal representatives to Congress. These types of measures will quickly and certainly solidify a majority in all of our federal government with those who hold one particular view against those who hold the other. More than half the population has already bought into Roman I and his buddies, their new religion. The half that hasn't bought into the new religion is literally dying off as older guys like me and Uncle Ron die. Uncle Ron, right? There aren't those holding the same values living behind us to replace us. We're being replaced by millennials who don't share our values. Increasingly, increasingly we're becoming one sided. Virtually all of the media, virtually all of education and now industry, technology has bought into the new religion. So that is just propagating. It's the delivery device, if you will, for this propaganda that's coming out. And they are pursuing their secular, humanist, Marxist, morality religion with zeal. They are pursuing it with zeal. And a very dominant contingent of the federal government is pursuing the same. And that contingent of the federal government getting stronger and stronger and more and more totalitarian. Enjoying the expansion of its power, the federal government has made itself the caretaker of everyone, including the states. Federal government now has become the caretaker of everyone. How can we help the people? And we'll get into every aspect of their lives, quote unquote, to help them, right? So on issues, again, from personal health care to education of our children to race, to gender identity, the government begins to dictate. The people appeal to the federal government, rather than maintaining boundaries established by the constitution, the government steps in to help and to serve, right? So when the people appeal to the government for help, they go to the courts for help. The government is only too willing to step in and help rather than respect the boundaries that have been established for government by our constitution. And so the federal government, the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch, consistently, increasingly, ignoring boundaries set by the constitution, only too willing to expand the role of the federal government. The states or local authorities appeal to the federal government, not only the individuals appeal, but states and local authorities appeal to the federal government. Representatives are often elected to bring home to their local constituencies federal dollars, right? So we elect officials who will go to Washington and for their own pet projects, bring back money to their local jurisdictions from the federal government. Well, where do those federal dollars come from? They come from us. They come from taxpayers all over the country. So tax dollars flow into the federal government. The federal government takes those tax dollars and then redistributes tax dollars to the states based upon the government's legislation, determination of what they wanna spend the money on. And that's not what the federal government is designed to do. It is a wielding of power that is not given to the federal government. And so government becomes the caretaker then of the states and the local authorities. Taxpayers all over the country paying for that. It's a violation of the jurisdictional limitations outlined for the federal government in our constitution. And so the government then under this circumstance or in this context, the government has made itself the final say in virtually everything from individuals to local authorities to state authorities. The federal government has made itself virtually the final verdict, the final say in everything leaving little room left for jurisdictional freedoms. Whether those are the jurisdictional freedoms or local authorities or state authorities, whether it's the jurisdictional freedom of your family, of our church, or of you individually as a human being, as a person, to the point where you may not even be able to enjoy your fourth of July celebration like we had hoped that we would be able to allow you to do. Even though you were going to do that outside with two masks on, socially distanced from very few friends and family, we're not sure that we're gonna be able to allow you to do that any longer until we get more Americans vaccinated, right? Now, if that's not a totalitarian encroachment on personal liberty, I don't know what is, it is an absurd overreach of government to say such absurd things, right? But that's what's happening in our federal government. The federal government from the individual to churches, to institutions, to government, to industry, to local authorities, to state authorities, up the chain, the federal government has made itself the final say in every aspect of life. And it's under difficult circumstances, under social unrest, under social disorder, under alarmist conditions that the government most rapidly and most consistently, most pervasively expands its reach of power. And it does so, I would submit to you, it does so unconstitutionally, and it does so in a way that it becomes totalitarian. At the foundation of this problem is the issue of jurisdiction, right? It's the issue of jurisdiction. And we're gonna take a couple of weeks and we're gonna talk about jurisdiction. We're gonna talk about it, introduce it today, and then we're gonna talk about, we're gonna switch the order up a little bit and talk about next week what Abraham Kuiper called sphere sovereignty, right? And we'll do that before we get into Romans chapter 13. So at its foundation, the issue is one of jurisdiction. Juris meaning law, diction meaning to speak, right? To speak the law, jurisdiction. The authority, the authority to speak the law. Jurisdiction is a biblical concept. We get the concept of jurisdiction from the Bible. For example, the law of God tells us what is permissible and what is not permissible. It's the law of God that does that. And the law of God tells us that with respect to individuals. But the law of God also addresses us and also applies to us with respect to all the various spheres in which we live and act. And we see that throughout the Bible, right? In the sphere of, for you as an individual, the law of God applies. For you as a member of your family, the law of God applies. For you as an employee, the law of God applies. The law of God is to be applied with authority in all of the various spheres in which we find ourselves, okay? For example, the law of God addresses husband and wife, parent and children in family government, right? The law of God addresses elders and deacons, members of the church in church government. And the law of God addresses both citizens and officials within civil government. Now that's a true biblical statement. We're gonna get into that as we work through this subject. The law of God dictates, with authority, what civil, what members of, or citizens and officials, members of civil government are to do in that sphere. The law of God applies to both citizens and officials within civil government, family government, church government, civil government. We'll talk about other spheres as well. Now in each of those spheres, God has given jurisdiction, the authority to speak the law or the delegated authority to speak the law to those he has made responsible for their governance, right? God has given the authority or the jurisdiction to those he has made responsible for their governance. So with respect to, for example, family government, turn me to Ephesians chapter five, right? Let's just use family government as an example. Ephesians chapter five, beginning in verse 22. In family government, the law of God addresses the husband and wife, addresses parents and children in family government. The law of God is to be applied. Who has quote, unquote, jurisdiction to speak the law with authority within the sphere of family government? Look at Ephesians chapter five, verse 22. Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord. Ephesians chapter five, verse 23, why? Because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is head of the church and he is the savior of the body. Let's draw a couple of applications from this before we go on, okay? Begins in verse 22 with wives submitting yourselves to your own husbands. What does that say about jurisdiction? Somebody fill in that gap for me. What does that say about jurisdiction, Guru? It's very localized, right? Very localized, localized to your own family, your own husband. So I don't have the authority, do I, Guru, to come into your house and boss everybody in your house around, do I? I don't have the jurisdiction. I don't have the authority to speak the law where you have the authority to speak the law. The Lord has given you the responsibility to do that, right? I don't have the jurisdiction. Verse 23, that is because the husband is the head of the wife. Who has jurisdiction in the home? The husband does, right? Husband does. Is the husband an autonomous ruler? Has he been gifted with this autonomous authority to speak the law as he sees fit or to make the law as he sees fit? Absolutely not, not because Christ is the head of the church and he is the savior of the body, right? That husband is under the authority of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ has authority. All authority has been given to him. He certainly has authority over the church of which the family is apart. Certainly has authority over the husband. He's the head of the husband as the husband, Paul would say, is the head of the wife, okay? We're speaking about jurisdiction in this sphere of family government. Look at Ephesians chapter six. Look at verse one, children obey your parents in the Lord for this is right. What does that imply? With my emphasis on the word your. Now, as much as we're a family around here and maybe some of you wouldn't mind one of our brothers and sisters here spanking your kids when they get out of line. That's a given consent. We don't do that here. You're generally speaking. I'm just saying. You have the authority parents over your children. I'm not going to, without consulting you, bust into your house to spank your kids or something your kids do. You've got the authority to do that. We're going to come to you, right? Even if you give consent, if my kid acts up, don't hesitate to spank him. That is, you're delegating your authority, right? That doesn't mean they have authority to do that. Take that for themselves. Children obey your parents. Children, your parents have authority. They have jurisdiction to speak the law in your household. You are to obey them. Verse two, honor your father and mother, which is the first commandment with a promise that may be well with you and you may live long on the earth. Even the husband himself, again, the husband himself is under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, under the authority of God. He has responsibility to govern the family as God intends. And he has responsibility to govern the family to accomplish the Lord's ends. Ephesians chapter five, verse 25 then. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for her, that he, Jesus Christ, the husband is to govern, the husband is to lead, he has jurisdiction, the authority to speak the law within his own sphere, so that Jesus Christ might sanctify and cleanse her, the wife, with the washing of water by the word that he, Jesus Christ, might present her to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. That introduces a really important aspect or component to jurisdiction. We're not given autonomous authority. Our authority is to be wielded for his ends, for his aims, for his intents and purposes. And so I have a responsibility in my home to honor the Lord in the way that I manage my home for his sake, for his glory, for his purposes. It's not gonna be a purpose. I'm not the dead sea, things terminate on me. It's for God's ends that I am to govern, right? So then Ephesians chapter six verse four, for example, fathers, don't provoke your children to wrath. Operate or wield your authority with care according to biblical principles. Don't provoke your children to wrath, but rather bring them up in the training and admonish of the Lord. In other words, there are fences, there are boundary markers, there's a property fence, if you will, around your authority to speak the law in that sphere. That takes place in the form of family government. Also takes place in church government. There are fences around, a fence around our property, so to speak. A boundary marker for the way in which we are to exercise our authority as elders or as members or as deacons, right? We have to take care in the sight of God to do that in the way that he intends. And the same is true of the federal government. The federal government has a fence around it, if you will, a boundary around it. There's a property boundary dictated by the law of God that governs how government should operate, right? They're operating under the authority that God has delegated to them, not autonomously apart from that law, okay? We're gonna talk about that more as we go. Men, when we think about this, another father or another husband has no jurisdiction then to compel, to dictate or to command those under your authority and responsibility with the authority, with the same authority given to fathers and husbands. Another husband, another father has no jurisdiction. The church, we think about these overlapping spheres now, the church will have its own responsibility, doesn't it? For wives or for children under the care of the church, where under the care of the church, in a way delegated to the church, the church may command or may compel wives or children as the church has interest, as the Lord has given them authority to do so and the responsibility to do so. But we can't act as fathers and husbands, that's your responsibility, do you see? There is overlap to the spheres. We'll talk about that when we get to sphere sovereignty. There is overlap. We have to stay within our, stay in your lane, bro. That's what we're gonna, stay in your lane, right? Okay, the church will have its own responsibility. The government will have its own responsibility for wives and for children as citizens of the state. And they have boundaries around their interest in wives and children, so to speak, under the authority of the state. In the words, the government cannot come in and act as parents or act as head. The government can't do that. And yet, what do we find? We find the government doing that all the time. All the time. And it's getting worse and worse as government overflows its bounds encroaching on personal freedoms and personal liberties. I've already had a few conversations, for example, with DCF, Department of Children and Families, over spanking, where there is no wound left on the child, right? But just reported to that, there had been a spanking and the government doesn't like that. Well, where to obey God's word, not the federal government, when it comes to the discipline of our children, spare the rod, spoil the child. Now, if you're physically abusing your child, does the state have an authoritative interest in children or in wives who are abused? Yes, yes, the spheres overlap to that degree, to the degree that there's criminal activity like that or abuse taking place, even of husbands. But the state has no authority to step in and to dictate to you how you are to discipline your children, for example. And there are many ways in which the state intervenes in this way and is increasingly interventionist, right? Increasingly encroaching on our freedoms and responsibilities. There may be a compelling interest for overlapping jurisdictions, but neither the church nor the state has any proper jurisdiction to usurp the authority properly given to the head of the household. And that's the issue, right? The usurpation, usurping the authority that is given to the head. Whether family, state, or church, all of this is done in accord with the delegated authority given specifically by God. There's individual jurisdiction, right? When we consider the jurisdiction of the individual Christian or the individual, what would we, can someone think about that for a moment? And what would we, what label might we put on individual jurisdiction, right? Yeah, very good. Christian liberty, liberty of conscience, right? Yep, so we, the church, nor the state, nor husband, nor any other authority can compel the conscience. We have liberty of conscience. We are subject to the word of God. God has the authority, the jurisdiction to speak the law into that sphere, and we can't be compelled. We cannot compel conscience, okay? This is another example from a blog post I read recently that was helpful. Let me give you another example. The owner of a property has property rights that are specified, often specified in the survey, or in the deed of that property. We have property rights here specified in the deed, specified in our survey, and the owner of the property has legitimate jurisdiction, the right to speak the law within the bounds of his own property. Someone else does not have legal jurisdiction over this property. You don't have legal jurisdiction over the property of another. A property owner may only speak the law within the boundary of his own property. The property owner's jurisdiction is legally limited. He cannot encroach upon the property rights of others because his jurisdiction does not extend beyond what he properly owns. Now that concept, very entrenched in our rights as American citizens in our country, but it's a biblical concept, right? And that's where you get in our Declaration of Independence, in our, in particular the Declaration of Independence, what before was the right to the pursuit of property became the pursuit of happiness in our, we'll talk about that, we'll get there. But there was a right that preceded that, the right of property, or the right of the pursuit of property, property that we own and have right over. Permission must be gained from the property owner to use his property. That makes sense, doesn't it? To use someone's property without permission is a violation of what? To use someone's property without their permission, what would we say about that biblically? No, well, it's a break commandment number eight, a violation of commandment number eight, which is to steal, okay? It's a form of breaking that commandment. You shall not steal, Exodus 2015. Further, listen to this, Deuteronomy 27 verse 17, cursed is he who moves his neighbor's boundary mark. You encroach upon your neighbor's property, you are in essence moving their boundary mark, moving their landmark, and God has specifically prescribed in scripture, we're not to do that, it's a form of breaking the eighth commandment. It is no more legitimate when civil officials do it. What's that called? It's called stealing. Yeah, what's the law today? Eminent domain. What is eminent domain? It is government sanctioned theft. We don't have the right to move someone's boundary marker, you don't have the right to move their landmark, okay? And it's always done under the premise of good, the greater good or the public good, right? We're gonna take this property, we're gonna give them a fair price for it, but we're gonna take this property for the common good. There are several examples of this in scripture. Aren't there we see on a regular basis, the Israelites rebuked for moving their neighbor's landmark or boundary? The most glaring example of this that I can think of in scripture is First Kings chapter 21 and Naboth and the story of Ahab and Jezebel stealing the vineyard of Naboth by murdering him. So Naboth sitting in his palace, enjoying peeled grapes, I'm sure, while people fan him in the heat of the day, thinking to himself, if only I had that piece of land there, I could grow my own grapes right next to the palace. I wouldn't have to walk down to the market. I could just go next door and pick them off my own grapevines, have them peeled for me right there. And so he goes to Naboth and he says Naboth, give me your land and I can plant my gardens there. And what does Naboth do? Naboth refuses. Why am I going to give you? Needless to say, Ahab is a wicked, deplorable king. Why am I going to give you my father's inheritance? Naboth's response to King Ahab. And so Naboth refuses. So what does Naboth do? Naboth goes back to the marbled halls of Congress and he sits in his palace and he pines. Oh, Naboth so unfair, so terrible that Naboth, can't he see how good this would be? For I'm the king, right? I'm the king. I deserve that vineyard, right? And he gets indignant in his palace and what happens? Jezebel walks in the door, right? And Jezebel sees that his countenance has fallen and is what is wrong with you? You're the king, right? It's as if Jezebel was saying like, man up, take the vineyard if you want it. If you won't take it, listen, I'll get it for you. So Jezebel hatches this plot to have Naboth murdered, which she does. Give it a couple of days. Jezebel, expedient in her unrestrained wickedness as Naboth murdered and she goes to Ahab, Ahab, take it. It's yours. The one who owned it is dead, right? And God curses both of them. It says that Jezebel will be eaten by dogs. And that curse comes very literally and grotesquely true later. So it's a very good example of Ahab, the king government, you could say at the time, encroaching upon the property rights of Naboth. And we could call that a form of eminent domain, couldn't we? Killing Naboth for his vineyard. Cursed is he who moves his neighbor's boundary mark. It's no more legitimate when civil officials do it. It's no more legitimate when considered for the common good. It's always done for the common good, right? It's always done for the common good. Hosea, chapter five, verse 10. The princes of Israel are like those who remove a landmark. In other words, the princes of Israel are greedy. The princes of Israel are covetousness. They're given to covetousness. They're given to envy, to greed. And he says, I will pour out my wrath onto them like water. All of this applies to individuals, applies to families, applies to churches with respect to the law. And it certainly applies to the state. Somehow we get ourselves in the mindset or the frame of mind that these laws, these good godly biblical instructions don't apply to the federal government. And one of the reasons, I think that many Christians, many professing Christians have been programmed to think this way because of the constant refrain in our government of a separation of church and state. Separation of church and state does not mean, does not mean a separation of God from the federal government. That's what it does not mean. And you'd be interested to know, we're gonna talk about this next week. You'd be interested to know that our Declaration of Independence nor our Bill of Rights, none of them mention the separation of church and state. Those words are simply not used. Now where the separation of church and state is often established from is from the First Amendment, which includes the establishment clause that government is not to be a part of the establishment of any religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion. And they take that, they take an arbitrary letter from Thomas Jefferson and they debate that in the courts and they come out with this doctrine of a separation of church and state that looks nothing like the founding fathers nor the constitution intends. And what I think that's had the effect of on Christians over time or professing Christians is that there is this separation of God from the federal government. And we tend to concede to that. And I wanna submit to you that we as the church, we as the people of God cannot concede that. We have a responsibility to the state to rebuke the state, to preach the word of God. We have a jurisdictional responsibility as the church to preach to the state, right? To be a checks and balances to the encroachment of the state. And so we'll talk about that next week more. All this is especially critical and important when you consider that the state has the power of the sort. Possession of force does not justify or legitimize jurisdictional overreach. But possession of force certainly makes it easier, doesn't it? Not a police force guard, to back you up. If the boundary markers of the state's jurisdiction are not expressly laid out, if those boundary marks of the states, the federal government's jurisdiction are not clearly enforced, then the civil government will be used to trample on or to move the boundary markers, the jurisdictions, of individuals, families, churches, lesser magistrates, businesses, schools, and even other nations for unscrupulous or covetous gain. They are the ahabs then of our day. I wanna repeat that and I want you to think about it with me. If the boundary markers, the property fence if you will, of the state's jurisdiction, if those boundary markers are not expressly laid out, clearly delineated, and then enforced, the civil government will be used then to trample on or to move the boundary markers of individuals, families, churches, lesser magistrates, businesses, schools, and even other nations for unscrupulous or covetous gain. With that kind of power, the federal government, government tends to be the sphere that consistently, pervasively, overflows its banks into the other spheres. It's the one that is imperialistic. Of all the spheres, it's the one that's imperialistic. Now in other settings, in other contexts, you find very imperialistic spheres. For example, I think of Islam, right? Islam is an imperialistic sphere. They will spread that wicked ideology, bankrupt ideology at the point of a sword, at the point of force, given an inch, they'll take a mile, right? And you see, even here last week, Christians beheaded by ISIS, you know? So there are other spheres which become wickedly imperialistic, but that tends to be the federal government. Because the federal government wields such power, they have the power of the sword, the federal government tends to do that. What we see today, though happening in our country and before our eyes, is an excellent example of this expansion, of moving the boundary markers, of moving the landmark. Give me some examples. What are some ways in which you see today the landmarks of those jurisdictional spheres being moved? Already giving you sort of one example with respect to healthcare and masks and COVID and that kind of thing, doing that under duress, under alarmist conditions. Well, yeah, along those lines, just capacity of the churches. How many people you can have at the church? Yep. So dictating even how the churches are to worship, they're stepping into something that isn't their sphere. They've overflowed their banks and now they're dictating, becoming dictatorial, in a sphere that is not their own, right? And we see that with the limitations on churches in any form or fashion. Limitations on churches. Recently, James Coates imprisoned fences around the church buildings, sending them underground in Canada. I think probably the first time that's happened in the Western world, a Western hemisphere, it happens all the time in the East, but somebody else. Yes, Nico. It was another example of the encouragement of government on individual rights. Historically, we've been in a nation of free speech and if you could say whatever you want, but you usually accept the consequences. Like if you say something that gets somebody mad, but now it's like, if you say something that affects somebody negatively, like with hate speech, they can silence you and just keep you from speaking it, which flows into the gospel preaching because it is offensive to sinful man. Very good. Very good. A serious encroachment on individual rights and freedoms, even with the words that come out of our mouth, Dr. Carl. Government through insurance companies are right now dictating what sort of medical procedures you can have and they decide you don't. Very good. All those parameters determined for us. Very good. Let's get Josh and then last one, Edgar. Thanks, Ron. Okay, I'm pretty sure it's really bad in Canada, but I've heard it like in different states and different cities where they would confiscate or take sermons from preachers and then those preachers would be sued for like hate speech or whatever. It was last year, I believe it was, that the Texas Five, I think is what they were calling them, the Five Pastors in Texas, the government subpoenaed all of their sermons, everything that they had produced, all of their writings for the purposes of examining them for evidence of homophobia, right? And wanted to sue them for discrimination based upon their sermons, Edgar. I guess in connection with the fear of homophobia and effect and offending those who should be offended, conversion therapy is something that's coming up to completely violate the church's right to preach the gospel. Man, you bring that up. That is such a glaring example that it's becoming, to point out, if you don't know what conversion therapy is, a conversion therapy is a psychological term. So it's not a biblical term. It's not even a right term. Conversion therapy is the effort of a person to heal someone or change someone's gender identity or sexual preference. So if you're talking to a homestead, for example, if you're speaking to, it used to be, you couldn't use medication or physical medical procedures to change the sexual preference or sexual identity of a person. Well, of course, now a psychologized man has changed all that, right? And so a psychologized man has said, if you try to change their mind on that issue, you're doing something illegal. And so let's just put this in context. Already being asserted in the courts, already winning in the courts. Well, let's say, for example, you, mom and dad, have a child growing up and that child at age seven gets some twisted, wicked, perverted idea off of something they heard or something they saw, some TV show, whatever the case may be. And that six, seven, eight-year-old comes to you and says, I'm gay or I'm a boy trapped in a girl's body or whatever at six, seven, eight. It's already happening. So we can sort of smirk at that or try to dismiss it. It's already happening. For you as the parent to talk to that child and say that's sinful, that's not true, let me tell you what the truth is. Let me tell you what the Bible has to say about that. Let's go to the word of God together. And to work with that child is illegal in their minds. Already being asserted in the courts, already winning in the courts. So Edgar's point, that is a grotesque, absurd encroachment of the federal government over the jurisdiction of the head of the household. It's absurd. All right, what are the boundary markers then? We'll speed up here. What are the boundary markers established for the state? What are they? First, the government is established by God and accountable to him. First boundary marker established for the state. Romans chapter 13, verse one. There is no authority except from God and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore the authorities that exist are accountable to God, responsible to God. Therefore the government has a delegated authority, that delegated authority given to it by God. And it's responsible to exercise that authority as accountable to God, okay? All governments therefore should govern in a way that honors the Lord. All governments should govern in a way that is consistent with the word of God to the degree that they do not govern in a way that is consistent with the word of God is to the degree biblically that they are illegitimate and not ministers of God for good. When they don't operate as a terror to those who are evil, Romans 13, verse three, when they don't operate as God's minister for good, Romans chapter 13, verse four, when they don't operate as God's avenger to execute wrath on those who practice evil, Romans 13, verse four, they're not exercising their authority as God intends. Who is then to hold the government accountable to their boundary markers? Who's responsible to see to it that government does not overflow its banks and encroach upon other spheres? The people, the people are individuals, churches, families, institutions, every other sphere, right? Every other sphere operates to keep the federal government within its bounds. That's there, keep them within their appropriate jurisdiction by exercising the rights that we have in our own, okay? Who tells them when they go beyond their rightful jurisdiction? The church does, families do, individuals do by asserting their jurisdictions and rebuking the government for their encroachment. Yes, Jesse? Yeah, you're right, pastor. I was thinking as you were saying, and I think as we learn the first law is God, a law, knowing to what He holds us accountable for and start out from there, and as the governor of the state or who is it, we say D-H-A-H, whatever comes in, I won't tell them that usually, try the governor, but when they start to come in and enforce their regulation on your family or your child is when as we study first the commandment and law of God, then we're able to deal with the state of the governor as they try to enforce. Yeah, a lot of times the only recourse that individuals or families have is through the courts also, which can be very expensive. There are a lot of organizations, Christian-based, quote unquote, Christian-based organizations that offer services to help with that, but it can be a very expensive process. Few governments, few governments have ever governed as they should. A vast majority of governments have always tended toward totalitarianism and our founding fathers knew this well. That's what led to the form of government that we have today, right? Understanding this tendency to encroach on the liberties of the other spheres, our founding fathers formed our government the way that they did. That's what has led to the form that our constitution has taken. The second boundary marker for our federal government then established by the people is the constitution. Constitution is a document that specifies the jurisdictional boundaries of our federal government. Our founding fathers attempted to do that based upon biblical principles, which we're going to look at together so that we understand those things. But the powers are limited such that states have their own jurisdictions. That's why states have their own governments, their own constitution. Our constitution limits the power and jurisdiction of the federal government and it limits it by specifying the power that it is constitutionally able to wield, right? It's, you heard this in like virus protection software, blacklist versus whitelist, right? You allow only certain sites and everything else is blocked and that's apparently a safer way to do virus, right? I don't know how I'm gonna take you. You guys know all about that later. That operates like though with government, right? It's a whitelist, if you will. Only those powers that the government may constitutionally wield are expressly laid out in the constitution. All other powers reside with the states or with individuals and that is specified very clearly in our constitution in the ninth and 10th amendment. Ninth amendment, the enumeration and the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. In other words, the government cannot exercise a right that encroaches upon your rights. They can't do it. The ninth amendment says that is prohibited. The government can't do it. 10th amendment, the powers not specifically delegated to the United States by the constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people. In other words, anything that's not specifically given for them to do, they can't do, those powers are retained by the states or by individuals. Now on a regular day-by-day basis, the ninth and 10th amendments of our constitution are being ignored by the executive branch, ignored by the legislative branch and ignored by the judicial branch. It's almost as if they don't exist and courts are routinely ignoring those. I'm not sure who's, the lawyer's arguing for the other side. If they're actually like, you know, well-arguing these things or if at the end of the day, judges are just ruling against them, it's really clear in our constitution. All other power, not clearly specified, resides with the people, generally, or the state. The jurisdictional limitations are defined in the ninth and 10th amendments. This from Gary Damar. Wouldn't agree with some of Dr. Damar's theology, but we would agree with these statements. Our founders understood these principles. That's why the form of civil government they developed was decentralized and specifically designed to limit political power. Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions of 1789. In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution, right? Russell Kirk, the constitutions of the American Commonwealth are intended and have successfully operated to restrain political power, to prevent any person or clique or party from dominating permanently the government of our country. That's happening right now, right? Persons, cliques, party are dominating. They're becoming more increasingly dominating of our, everything to do with our federal government. And it would appear to be that if it goes on any further, it's going to be permanent, right? Those gains are going to be etched in granite. He says it's one of the great premises of American political theory that all just authority comes from the people under God. Not from a monarch, not from a governing class, but from the innumerable individuals who make up the public under God. The people delegate to government only so much power as they think is prudent for government to exercise. They reserve to themselves all the powers and rights that are not expressly granted to the federal government or state or local governments. That's because those rights are given to us by God. They're not given to us by government. The rights that we have are given to us by God. It would be unbiblical, sinful for us to relinquish those rights to anyone they're given to us by God. We are stewards of them, you see? Government is the creation of the people, not their master, Kirk says. Thus the American political system, first of all, is a system of limited delegated powers entrusted to political officers and representatives and leaders for certain well-defined public purposes. Only powers, only through the recognition of this theory of popular sovereignty and only through this explicit delegation of powers the founders of the American Republic believed could the American nation keep clear of tyranny or anarchy. It's only by recognizing, acknowledging, and enforcing those boundaries that we could be kept clear from tyranny. We're not gonna be successful at that, it doesn't appear. The theory and the system have succeeded, to this point he would say, America has never endured a dictator or tolerated violent social disorder. We're already now tolerating violent social disorder and next step would be the government beginning to dictate. Related to jurisdiction quickly, you might find it interesting to hear that the Constitution of the United States of America does not include a provision for the separation of church and state. We'll talk about that next week. Many people believe that the church and the state in the Bible is to be merged, that's not true either, and that that merging couldn't possibly dictate the federal government how they're to operate and so we maintain this separation. Simply not how it works. We're gonna look at that next week, we'll look at sphere sovereignty the week after and then get into Romans 13, okay? Any questions, feel free to come and talk to me after the service and I'll be happy to talk to you about that and we'll get more questions. Maybe have a time for Q and A here soon.