Opportunity Knocks [Contents]

It Will Change Your Life

If you knew your prospective employer would not hire you if he knew you were a Christian, would you tell him you were anyway?

Suppose you knew that his predecessor made it a policy to hire Christians, but that the present employer vehemently disagrees with that policy. Would you tell him you were a Christian, or would you keep quiet?

If you found out that you obtained your present job because the employer was under the mistaken impression you were NOT a Christian, would you correct him, even if it meant losing your job?

Would you accept employment if you knew that all previous applicants for the job were turned down because they were Christians?

I want to convince you to take a "test oath" anytime you are required to take an oath.
Isn't taking an oath forbidden to Christians? NO; sometimes the Bible commands us to take an oath.

Are there any requirements as to how we should take an oath? YES; an oath is an act of religious worship. We must worship God's way, not our own.

Suppose you were required to swear an oath that you were an unbeliever in order to obtain employment?
My name is Kevin Craig. I passed the California Bar Exam and am completely qualified to become admitted to the practice of law. But I haven't yet. There seems to be a little problem with the oath required of all attorneys for admission.

Get a feel for my predicament.
A parable on oath-taking and license-getting

If you are familiar with the Biblical requirements for oath-taking, you know the necessity for taking a "test oath." But most people are not aware that it is presently illegal to do so. It violates the mythological doctrine of the "separation of church and state." The assumption of the law today is that if you do not take a "test oath," you are not a Christian.

I say I'm a Christian like Noah Webster, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and other Founding Fathers. Some people say I'm a "Theocrat" and "a threat to our democratic system of government."

Well, maybe I am.

And maybe the Founding Fathers would also be a threat to our present government.

250 years ago, Bill Clinton could not have been elected to any public office in the New World. It was against the law for any but Christians to hold any political office. Was that a bad idea?

It was a good idea 300 years ago, because the universal assumption back then was that a good Christian was a good Theocrat. "Theocracy" means "the rule of God." Christians believe God's Laws should prevail in human culture. Our forefathers were Theocrats, and they would not allow any but Christians to become public leaders.

Suppose I told you that the Supreme Court has reversed that early legal policy, and it is now the case that Christians will not be permitted to hold any government office if it is known that they are Christians, and especially if it is known that they think its a good idea that atheists be excluded from public office. Would you keep quiet about your views?

I've been involved in litigation on this case for nearly a decade. This web site used to be a plea for prayer for my case. Read the old page. But I've just about exhausted my appeals. I believe it's just about a hopeless case. Now I'd like to invite you to join me in becoming a "threat to the established order." Like to know more? Keep reading.

The assault on Christian "test oaths" is an assault on Biblical Requirements. The Founding Fathers understood these Biblical requirements to have abiding validity in our day, and if you are required to take an oath to "support the constitution," these verses apply to you!

Therefore, our first step is to encourage Christians to take a "test oath" voluntarily.

If Christian political candidates would pledge to work for the Puritan vision of a Christian America and to take a Christian "test oath" upon inauguration, it would revolutionize American politics more than the creation of a third political party. Although this issue is seldom discussed, it is basic to America's present malaise. Secular Humanists would be outraged at the revival of "test oaths." The controversy it would cause would force Humanists and Christians alike to re-think their basic political presuppositions, and begin the overthrow of the destructive, secularizing myth of pluralism and "the separation of church and state."

In our day, anyone required to take an oath to "support the constitution" is being put in something of a "leadership" position. Not every citizen is required to take such an oath; those who are required to do so are in a unique position. The Biblical requirements apply to these people. They have unique responsibilities. They must, therefore, have unique gifts and virtues. And above all, they must be faithful believers. The oath they take must be in God's Name, an obligation that must be more seriously considered in light of the courts' holding that a non-Trinitarian oath is an instance of "ceremonial deism."

Many who are required to take an oath to "support the constitution" are inclined to say that it is "no big deal," and they needn't "rock the boat" to conform to archaic Biblical laws. The collapse of society is always a result of "little things" and "no big deals." Thousands of little compromises; daily concessions to the agenda of Secular Humanism.

To reverse this trend calls for little acts of courage. These culture-building acts must be done dozens of times a day in our own homes. They are no big deal, really, but any time one of them becomes public, the Empire of Humanism shrieks and howls at them, making us feel guilty for doing the right thing.

Do the right thing.

Let them howl.