A Giant Tree Has Fallen A Giant Tree Has Fallen A Giant Tree Has Fallen

Most of us have heard the little riddle of "the tree falling in the wilderness": If no one is around to hear it, is a sound actually made? On Friday, May 30, 2020, a familiar tree to many fell in the wilderness of America. Although many were there, only a few have reported having actually heard it fall. Like a sentinel, it has stood for centuries. Many have looked upon it over the years, embracing it with great admiration, love and affection. Others, without seeing its essential value and inspirational beauty, will celebrate its demise. In fact, they have openly advocated for its felling in every generation.

It once was a mighty tree, while it stood, pointing to the heavens. It inspired hope among countless millions throughout the life of our country. It was a pillar of civility in almost every small town and metropolis in America. It promoted hope, peace, safety, freedom and liberty not only to American citizens but its call reached every continent throughout the world. Many still come to see it for themselves, seeking relief for both body and soul under its great shadow.

Due to its prominence in the psyche of our history, our nation has flourished. Many who have visited it have been healed of spirit, and, even in distressed cases, the body itself, returning to their lives with a new sense of purpose and direction—a newness of life.

Because of it, great leaders of all ethnic backgrounds have emerged among us. Lives have been changed—the average and downtrodden man and woman lifted up. Neighbors became friends. Families became strong. Society, for the most part, became self-governing—the law only necessary for the lawless. We did not kill each other because it was against the law and a severe consequence was feared if we did. We chose to help each other in times of need, practiced civility because it was the right thing to do. Most were taught if one didn't have anything good to say of another not to say anything at all. We were kind. For most, we sought only good for the new great nation on a beautiful continent we were building for ourselves and our children.

Because it was planted in very fertile soil in the beginning of our nation, it quickly grew. It grew tall. It grew strong. Its branches spread from the great Atlantic in the East to the mighty Pacific in the West. It gave us great institutions, from which came beneficial innovations and inventions, science, medicine and technology. Knowledge exploded as in no other time in history. Today, nations work together in peace as our astronauts orbit the planet every 93.37 minutes aboard a colossal International Space Station. We have gone to the moon. We have set sight on the stars. We are on the cusp, the threshold, of a great new renaissance.

But something has happened--something troubling--something deadly, something of great threat to this aspirational renaissance. Subtle decay deep within set in many years ago for which only a few have sounded the alarm. But the alarm has gone unheeded. The tree was dying! It was being poisoned. Its branches falling, its roots decaying, its shadow shrinking, its influence waning.

"What is this tree?" you ask. Where did it fall? How did it fall?

One would think for such a mighty tree, so tall and strong, it would take a mighty man, a giant John Bunyan with a mighty blow to bring down such a huge thing. But, no, it did not.

Sadly, it took only the weak voice of a single tiny man to fell such a giant tree. His name is John Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, appointed to the Bench in 2003 by Republican ex-President George W. Bush. This, this modern little John did without consent of the people, without deliberation by our elected officials, without counsel from the guardians of the tree. In fact, the vast majority of its guardians stood silent.

In a tie vote of a case brought before it by the South Bay Pentecostal Church of Chula Vista, CA, little John broke the split decision along party lines—4 Republicans v 4 Democrats. Roberts, a Republican, by arbitrarily joining with the Democrats who said, "strike it down!" without a recorded vote, gave only a brief paltry opinion on his historical decision. In doing so, he revealed his deeply hidden bias—his disdain for the tree and the value of its place within our society.

At first reading, it sounds so benign. But listen carefully and see if you can hear the traitorous sound which brought the mighty tree down:

There is so much wrong with those infamous words—each telling on its own. Overlay onto his words the words of the First Amendment itself and see if they are congruent. No matter how you adjust them, they do not fit! This was no legal finding, only one citizen's opinion out of over 300 million Americans. He just happened to be sitting in a somber black robe.

Begin with his statement of fact: "...California's guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment..." Now read to the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Are there semantical games he is playing here on the use of "California" not being "Congress"? If so, he couldn't be more wrong. By "Congress", it is inferred that no lower legislative or judicial body, no government, national, state nor local, may infringe upon that right either! State laws do not trump Federal law, especially those enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The founding fathers were judicious in their careful selection of the wording of our Bill of Rights and the Constitution. They were debated until all agreed upon. In this case, the Amendment is unambiguous. There are no qualifications, limitations nor restrictions stated within their words. There is no exception given in any of the wording. Nowhere does it say "except in the case for... the coronavirus", or some other excuse of the moment. Couldn't be any plainer! Precisely for the reasons at hand.

So where does Roberts get from California's restrictions on the church in Chula Vista "those restrictions appear consistent with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment" when the Amendment clearly says, "no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Is Roberts playing loose with the words, "law" as stipulated in the Amendment and Newsom's simple "order"—making a distinction without a difference? We are not a nation of orders but of laws. Else, democracy would give way to tyranny and dictatorship.

I think it would be of benefit here to give some context for this case and its ruling.

As a response to the questionable severity of the outbreak of the Chinese coronavirus, renamed as COVID-19 (from 2019), California banned, along with placing many restrictions on the people, all congregations of any number of people for any event, including churches. Churches, believing the false numbers put out to support this ban, wisely considered the health of its members and voluntarily complied. But after several weeks when actual numbers began to come in that did not support this drastic measure, it was clear to many the danger was not as great as the people were led to believe.

Therefore, some pastors were no longer willing to comply with the burdensome measures imposed on its congregants by the Governor's capricious executive orders. Without the state's consent, those pastors began to reopen with limited numbers and careful guidelines for their people. They were well within their Biblical authority to obey God rather than man as the New Testament teaches.

The timing of the following events is critical for insight.

On Friday, May 8, 2020, Chula Vista was the first of many to test the courts on the states' over reach. One week later, on Friday, May 15, their request was denied by a San Diego federal district judge, Cynthia Bashant, originally from San Francisco and appointed by President Obama. The next day, May 16, on behalf of the Chula Vista Church, The Thomas More Society filed an Urgent Motion for an Injunction Pending Appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The court fast tracked the case for quick decision. On Friday, May 22, in a split decision, two to one, a 9th Circuit panel ruled against the church—one vote appointed by ex-President Clinton and the second state vote appointed by ex-President Obama, with the dissenting judge appointed by President Trump.

Another event occurred equally as important as the previous court actions. On the same day of the California 9th Circuit decision, May 22, President Trump, with arguable legal standing, ordered governors to open their churches "right now", declaring them as "essential" as other establishments previously allowed to remain open for the public welfare or closed ones to begin reopening.

Having lost their case in both instances in what is thought to be biased venues in California, the church believed it would find a more friendly reception in Washington with the U.S. Supreme Court. On Monday, May 25, 2020, just three days after the loss in the California 9th Circuit and President Trumps orders to the states, the church sought relief by the high court, asking for an injunction against Governor Newsom.

Before the case could be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court and recognizing the legal jeopardy he found himself in, both with the court and with the President's orders, on the same day of the filing Newsom quickly relented, permitting churches to re-open. However, this was not a full capitulation.

Stated within the Governor's orders on that Monday, among others, were these further untenable restrictions: "Places of worship must therefore limit attendance to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is lower. This limitation will be in effect for the first 21-days of a county public health department's approval of religious services and cultural ceremonies activities at places of worship within their jurisdiction..."

Thus, the stage was set. All the actors knew their positions. Many factors, likely, went into Roberts' decision. At this point it is worth noting. Whether the President's assertion into this "legal" matter played any part in Roberts' decision against the church, both in Chula Vista and the church at large, one can only speculate. Court's do not take kindly to any outsider trying to impose their influence on their proceedings. Too much pride is at stake!

Now that the facts have been stated, I will state my opinion.

First, it is my opinion that the outcome was foreordained. The California church's case was doomed from the start. I do not say this in hindsight. I went on record when the Chula Vista church pursued their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Without repeating myself here, I will refer you to my previous article on their well-intended but misguided actions. I did not object to their state appeal, and I stated as much—only to their U.S. Supreme Court appeal. In the article, you will find my reasoning for my opinion.

Second, and to the point of this article, the death of the American church, the felling of the giant tree, I wish to take a closer look, as we previously began, with Judge Roberts' opinion for his damning historic decision. Many men's evil deeds are done in secret, however, by law this one was required to be done in the light of day. It should not go without notice that Roberts did not allow a recorded vote—that is, he did not allow each of the Justice's opinions to be entered into the record. The Court simply rejected the church's appeal. Ask yourself, why?

Let's examine Roberts' legal, and one can assume, his personal, secretly held belief concerning the church and its worth in our society today. Else, why would he align with the opposing side of his so-called constitutionally conservative ideology? It is easily seen. His own words betray him. They speak volumes.

Some argue he was simply following the law. What law? What precedent did he cite? None! He merely expressed his opinion—the opinion of one tiny man, one cowardly voice. The Court has long taken a stand in protection of religious liberty in our country, even when the term "religion" was incredulously stretched to its limits. Why this precedent, now? And make no mistake, it is a precedent regardless of the fact the case was not tried and no vote was recorded. It will be cited in what will be many cases against the church to come.

We've already spoken to his belief revealed in his opening statement of his ruling against the church—that California was well within the framework of the First Amendment in the restrictions it placed on the church during the pandemic of COVID-19. Let's look now at his thinking on his justification for his opinion.

Does he cite support found elsewhere in the Constitution? No. Does he cite any signed legislation from Congress? No. Does he cite case law precedent? No. He merely gives his opinion, the logic of one man. For convenience, let me restate his words:

First, he tries to appease the church by saying that more onerous restrictions apply to a variety of other large gatherings for various purposes. So, "What is there to complain about?" he seems to be asking. Why would the same people who would comply to those more severe secular restrictions be opposed to complying to lesser by gathering in a large group for any other purpose, including worship? The threat of infection would seem to them to be the same and they would logically begin and end self-quarantine without the church's direction, or the state for that matter. To ask of them to do differently would be, at the least confusing, but worse, asking them to put their lives at risk in one setting yet not others. That seems to be unfair.

This seems to be the logic of his thinking. He seems to be saying that the church leadership should not be asking its congregants to feel pressured to do something they believe in other group gatherings would put their health and the health of others at risk.

Second, and most importantly, his reasoning for his decision is most revealing—as I stated earlier and is the thesis of this article—Robert's opinion on the value of the church in today's American society. Read it carefully. In his own words, he equates the gathering of people for worship of no more essential value than that of entertainment. It is not vital. It is not viable. Therefore, it is of no real and lasting social benefit—and that only as temporal pleasure for an ever-diminishing few. WHAT?

It must be asked: What could have happened in this man's life to give him such a low regard for what once was the center of community life for many communities throughout our prosperous past—a place that helped define our community, a place that inspired its citizens to be our best, a place that promoted the once commonly known axiom: the Golden Rule? Sure there were problems, but not to the extent and level that is ripping our cities and towns apart today. At its current pace, soon, there will be no community. The lawless will have won. The ban on police will be in full effect. We have been irreparably divided by our leaders and subversive elements which hide in the shadows. Think there is any correlation between that and the diminishing influence and demise of the community churches?

For over three centuries the church was the first that was looked to in time of community crises. No more! Its opinion and counsel is unwanted, and in many cases, major cases, even rejected by our Supreme Court—as seen in this case.

There was a time when the community made up its many churches. Going to church was looked upon as a noble thing. It was a symbiotic relationship, the church and the community—each making the other strong—neither controlling the other, only working together in an attempt and intent to make our world a better place for all. It was our churches that brought us together with its leaders role modeling working in unity that showed us the way, not trying to divide us for their own gain. It was our churches that helped us through the tough times. It was our churches that helped us heal and move on with our lives, rebuilding, restoring and renewing our determination for a better future for our children. For the young, it gave hope not despair, direction not defeat.

It was a time when respect and dignity of human life was safeguarded as a most essential ingredient that would bind and hold us together. Many great men and women of faith committed their lives to working for such a high lofty goal. As one great leader of our modern times said: History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people - Martin Luther King, Jr. There was no vacuum for divisive elements and agitators who would come in from outside our communities. We welcomed visitors but expected civility.

There existed what once was known as a "social contract". We were one, or, in an inspirational attempt to be so. No more! This threatened the control of those who loved power. Thus, along came LBJ in the mid-sixties and enslaved millions for decades with his politically selfish policies. This has led to the many, if not most, of the ills of societal collapse today. Other factors contributed as well, such as the attack on our culture by the advent of drugs and entertainment.

There you have it—the blow that took the tree down—the precedent that corrupt leaders will seize upon in the future to wrest final control of the church and become its overlord—and it will. Christ is now no longer its sole authority. The Whore of Revelation is emerging—"BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH"! (Rev, chpt 17 & 19)

The church as we have known it, no longer exists. As a consequence, our communities are in mortal decline. It is sad to say. It is a dark day. Mark it and remember it well. With not even the stroke of a pen, the High Court has ruled. It is of no more essential value to a society than that of Hollywood, the NFL, a hip-hop concert, or, a university professor's lecture on the origin of man. Incredible!*  Thank you, little John Roberts. On the one hand, he is right—the decline or lack of essential value and influence of the church—but not in the sense he views it, not for the purpose of his opinion and ruling.

Thankfully, Justice Roberts will not have the final say on the subject. Make no mistake, a Higher Court has taken it on appeal. The case will be brought before it and Mr. Roberts will have to make his argument before its Judge who is Just. I don't think it will go too well for him. What do you think?

Until then, unfortunately, we will have to live with his historic decision. To those brave pastors who stood against this modern tyranny and government's encroachment upon the sanctity of the church that Christ gave his life and blood for, your reward awaits your arrival into your rest from the fight—those who not only contended for the faith but for the faithful. But to those who stood by in collective silence in this grave matter of modern tyranny, as many have done throughout history, know that you have now been enslaved to the government. It owns you. Long live your 501(c)(3)'s. Count your money. Supply your people for their annual Federal tax purposes a receipt for their reported givings. And may they continue to be reimbursed by the government that which they supposedly gave in tithes and offerings to God. What a deal! In the words of the late Rev. Billy Graham: "Evil exists and a man's heart is capable of almost limitless evil if good does not pursue the battle."

Anyone in need of firewood for this winter? which will be long and cold until Jesus returns to set it right. Maybe the carcass of a once great tree will last until then. May He come quickly!

See also: Abdicating the Kingdom.