GENUINECHRISTIANITY-COMPACT.ORG
/organisations-2
Organisations Part 2
This page lists national and international organisations who's intentions are good concerning God's word.
They are anti-Communism, anti-Islam, anti-LGBT and anti-Atheism and they have our support.
For your "compact" information we publish their core issues here.
2. Family Research Council
Wikipedia:
Family Research Council (FRC) is an American evangelical activist group, with an affiliated lobbying organization. FRC promotes what it considers to be family values.[2] It opposes and lobbies against: access to pornography, embryonic stem-cell research, abortion, divorce, and LGBT rights (such as anti-discrimination laws, same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, and LGBT adoption).[3] The FRC has been criticized by media sources and professional organizations such as the American Sociological Association for using "anti-gay pseudoscience" to falsely conflate homosexuality and pedophilia, and to falsely claim that the children of same-sex parents suffer from more mental health problems.[4][5][6]
FRC was formed in the United States in 1981 by James Dobson and incorporated in 1983.[7] In the late 1980s, FRC officially became a division of Dobson's main organization, Focus on the Family; however, after an administrative separation, FRC became an independent entity in 1992. Tony Perkins is its current president. FRC is affiliated with a lobbying PAC known as FRC Action, of which Josh Duggar was the executive director from 2013 until 2015.
a) Biblical Principles for Political Engagement: Worldview, Issues, and Voting
Do Christians have a moral or biblical obligation to participate in government?
Christians answer this question in a variety of ways. Some caution against associating too closely with elected officials or political parties, not wanting to conflate the church’s responsibilities with those of the state. Others emphatically advocate for Christian involvement in partisan politics. Which approach is correct? Both have good intentions. However, if taken to extremes, both approaches are problematic.
We need a third approach, where actively engaged Christians can faithfully apply biblical principles to our nation’s divisive political landscape. But what does this look like? FRC’s publication “Biblical Principles for Political Engagement” helps Christians think biblically about government—both in their response to and participation in public policy.
The word “politics” comes from the Greek word “polis,” referring to city-states that were ruled by a body of citizens. Politics (properly understood) are the means by which groups of people order their shared lives. Politics can take on many forms. Examples include, a legislative body deliberating potential laws, a homeschool co-op deciding where to host meetings, or even neighbors agreeing to watch each other’s houses while on vacation.
WHY SHOULD CHRISTIANS CARE ABOUT POLITICS?
First, Christians should care about politics because government is appointed by God. In Romans 13:1-7, Paul describes the governing authorities as “ministers of God,” responsible for administering civil justice. Government is God’s idea, and Christians should therefore think about it and engage with it in a way that is consistent with its God-ordained purposes. Second, God commands us to love our neighbors (Mark 12:31). Government decisions have a direct impact on people’s lives, and engaging in the political process should be part of a holistic approach to ministry where Christians seek to meet other people’s temporal as well as spiritual needs.
HOW SHOULD CHRISTIANS ENGAGE IN POLITICS? Our engagement must be guided by prayer and biblical wisdom. Although we should never equate the church’s mission with the platform of any political party, Christians (and especially pastors) can and should do more than calling for polite discourse and preaching on a few moral issues. Pastors must help their people make the connection between biblical principles and political responsibilities, ensuring their congregations are equipped with the resources necessary for responsible political engagement.
SHOULD CHRISTIANS VOTE?
For Christians, politics is, at its core, about how we love our neighbor as we live and order our lives together. Given the impact government decisions have on people’s lives, downplaying the responsibility to vote amounts to a failure in Christian discipleship and loving our neighbors. Therefore, believers should become informed voters, aware of the issues and candidates on the ballot.
REALITY OF OUR TWO-PARTY SYSTEM
For better or worse, America has a two-party system, and we must acknowledge and operate within it. While Christians engaging in politics should seek to persuade members of both parties to approach issues from a biblical worldview, we must decide at election time who to support. Christians need to be aware of the issues at stake and where the political parties stand. This will help us make good voting decisions, even if the available options are less than ideal.
WHAT ISSUES ARE MOST CLEAR FROM SCRIPTURE?
Christians must be grounded in the teachings of God’s Word. What does the Bible have to say about some morally weighty political topics, such as abortion, marriage, and poverty? Abortion and Marriage/Sexuality On both life and sexuality, the Bible is unequivocal— life begins at conception and abortion is murder (Ps. 139:13-16; Luke 1:39-45), and marriage is a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman (Gen. 2:24; Eph. 5:22-23). Scripture is also unambiguous regarding the moral status of homosexual conduct (Rom. 1:24-28; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). In terms of biblical clarity and priority, Christians have rightly recognized abortion and human sexuality as primary moral concerns. Public policy on these issues, if inconsistent with a biblical worldview, can have serious, even deadly, consequences. Defending the sanctity of life and God’s intent for human sexuality can be a means of loving our neighbor. Poverty God’s concern for the poor is a pervasive theme throughout the Bible. Exhortations to care for the poor abound (Prov. 22:22-23, 31:8-9; Zech. 7:8-10), and Jesus himself displayed remarkable concern and compassion for the poor in his healing and teaching ministry (Mat. 11:4-6; Luke 6:20-21). Jesus’ halfbrother James wrote that “pure and undefiled religion” includes care for orphans and widows ( James 1:27). A Christian cannot open their Bible and ignore God’s call to care for the poor. While solutions can be debated, it is clear we are to be concerned about the issue.
BIBLICAL REFLECTION AND PRACTICAL APPLICATION
Neither political party is a Christian party in the sense that every policy position they advocate for lines up perfectly with the Bible. For the sake of intellectual honesty, it is important to recognize that the Republican party has generally embraced policy positions on abortion and human sexuality that are consistent with Scripture. In contrast, the Democratic party has embraced positions on these issues that are at odds with Scripture. Regarding poverty alleviation, there is no doubt members of both political parties care about the poor, though the parties often disagree on the best means of poverty alleviation. Christians should weigh these proposals carefully. In short, if theologically conservative Christians appear increasingly aligned with one party, it is because the other party has taken positions on primary moral issues that oppose the Bible’s explicit teaching.
WHAT IS A PASTOR’S RESPONSIBILITY?
As those charged with discipling their flocks, merely acknowledging the evils of certain policy positions is not enough. Voting is a matter of stewardship, so pastors must help their people make the connection between biblical principles and political responsibilities, ensuring their congregations are equipped to honor God and love their neighbor in the voting booth.”
CONCLUSION
Compelled by Christian love for our neighbors and a desire to steward our Godgiven responsibilities, we must engage in the political process from a biblical worldview. This means being prepared to grapple with the moral issues of our day, accepting the reality of our two-party system, and following our Christian convictions to their logical conclusions by voting for the candidates and parties that best align with biblical values.
b) BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES FOR HUMAN SEXUALITY:
SURVEY OF CULTURE, SCRIPTURE, AND CHURCH HISTORY
The rapidly changing moral landscape of the twenty-first century has overturned centuries of norms concerning the family, marriage, and human sexuality, leaving many people—including Christians—confused. FRC’s publication “Biblical Principles for Human Sexuality” helps Christians think about marriage and sexuality from a biblical perspective. What follows is a summary of this resource.
TIMELINE OF THE MORAL REVOLUTION
The sexual revolution of the 1960’s emerged partly from our culture’s shifting views of right and wrong–a moral revolution. At least four developments in the twentieth century contributed to the moral revolution and can account for our society’s increasingly hostile attitude toward Christian beliefs about marriage and human sexuality.
First, the rise of urbanization helped remove a societal check against premarital and extramarital liaisons by lowering the chance of exposure. Second, advances in contraceptive technology allowed for seemingly consequence-free sexual activity by separating sex from potential pregnancy. Third, laws that had restricted certain sexual behaviors and conduct were replaced or overturned. Fourth, Christianity lost a considerable share of its cultural influence. As a result, fewer people today understand or hold Christian convictions, including those related to sexual morality.
DEFINING SEXUALITY AND MARRIAGE
What is sexuality? Many people do not have a clear definition of sexuality and take their cues from recent academic studies, marketing campaigns, or cultural norms. Christians, however, ought to follow the Bible. While the Bible does not provide a succinct definition for sexuality, it does provide a robust framework for one. From this framework, we can define sexuality as the basis of the desire for male and female to be united in a oneflesh union called marriage. Such a union is physical, relational, exclusive, and permanent. God intended for sexuality to draw people together in marriage, not merely to have sex. Therefore, understanding what the Bible teaches about the nature and purposes of marriage is essential to a biblical understanding of sexuality.
THE BIBLE’S TEACHING ON MARRIAGE
Genesis 1-2 The account of the first marriage provides us with four principles that frame and inform all subsequent biblical reflection on marriage: First, marriage is permanent. A man and woman leave their families of origin and are united together in a life-long relationship. Second, marriage is exclusive. Third, marriage is a sacred covenant. Fourth, sexual differentiation is part of God’s plan for marriage. God did not create androgynous beings; He created two complementary, biologically and genetically sexed individuals.
DEPARTURES FROM GOD’S DESIGN FOR SEXUALITY
Although sexuality is supposed to lead men and women to unite in the permanent, exclusive, one-flesh union of marriage, this truth is often denied, suppressed, and disobeyed. Departures from God’s design for sexuality include homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and transgenderism.
THE BIBLE’S TEACHING ON HOMOSEXUALITY
Romans 1:18-32 The apostle Paul explains that humanity has rejected God, exchanging the truth about Him and the things He created for a lie. In verse 26, while describing the sinful “exchanges” men and women have made, Paul uses the term παρὰ φύσιν (para physin), which means “unnatural” or “against nature.” Homosexuality is unnatural because it is a departure from God’s design for sexuality. According to the passage, homosexuality is also a consequence of humanity suppressing God’s truth and refusing to honor Him. Other verses, including 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, reinforce this teaching.
JESUS AND HOMOSEXUALITY
Although Jesus did not directly address homosexuality, the available evidence strongly suggests that He would not affirm same-sex relations. Jesus believed in the binding authority of the Old Testament and affirmed the creation pattern for marriage (Mat. 19:4-6 cf. Gen. 1:27, 2:24). Specifically, Jesus’ quotation from Genesis 1:24 indicates He affirmed the Old Testament vision for marriage and sexuality as a union between one male and one female for one lifetime.
TRANSGENDERISM
Another departure from God’s design for sexuality is transgenderism. This ideology holds that “sex” refers to the physical body (including the reproductive system), while “gender” refers to a person’s inner perception of themselves (i.e., their identification with either maleness or femaleness). In transgender ideology, subjective feelings and personal experience supersede biology and anatomy while sex is reduced to a social construct. This is inconsistent with a biblical understanding of sexuality. Sexual differentiation of male and female was God’s design, and it was created “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Moreover, Jesus’ incarnation and embodiment after His resurrection imply His physical body and soul are inseparable. In sum, Christians should see their created bodies as part of God’s good creation, including maleness or femaleness.
CHURCH HISTORY
Christians have reflected on the topics of marriage and human sexuality for 2,000 years. Understanding their arguments can help today’s believers navigate current issues in sexual ethics. Early Church Early Christian writers affirmed marriage as the only appropriate context for sexual intimacy. Theologians such as Tertullian and Augustine reflected deeply on marriage and sexuality, and their writings provide valuable insight. Post-Reformation After the Reformation, both Protestants and Roman Catholics remained committed to the Bible’s teaching on marriage and sexuality. Martin Luther explained, “There is no more lovely, friendly and charming relationship, communion or company than a good marriage.” Modern Church Christians remained committed to biblical teaching on marriage and sexuality well into the twentieth century. Only then, at the height of the sexual revolution, did many mainline Protestant denominations such as the Episcopal Church and Presbyterian Church (USA) change their view on homosexuality. There is a striking correlation between rejecting the Bible as God’s authoritative Word and accepting homosexuality. Denominations that continue to believe in the Bible’s trustworthiness and reliability remain committed to the church’s historic teaching on sexuality.
CURRENT CHALLENGES
Today, a biblical understanding of sexuality is ridiculed as being outdated. It is also viewed as dangerous by many in government, higher education, and the media. Threats against churches and organizations guided by sincere religious convictions are becoming more prevalent. Political and legal pressure against Christians working in areas such as the wedding vendor industry continue to rise. Biblical beliefs about marriage, gender, and sexuality are called intolerant in an effort to drive Christians from the public square. Ironically, these efforts in the name of tolerance have resulted in increased intolerance from secularists toward Christians who want to live their lives peaceably and in accordance with their deeply held religious beliefs.
GOSPEL HOPE FOR THE FUTURE
Marriage and sexuality are deeply personal topics, and Christians must speak the truth about them with conviction and love. The gospel is good news for all people, including those who struggle with their sexuality and those who experience unwanted same-sex attraction. The Bible’s teaching on sexuality is something we all need to hear, but it is not all we need to hear. God’s design for sexuality is not the Bible’s central focus. Rather, it is about salvation in Christ, the redemption He has secured for us from this broken world, and the transformation guaranteed to us when we follow Him. The church should proclaim this good news with clarity and hope, affirming God’s design for humanity while also proclaiming God’s faithfulness to rescue us from our sin.
CONCLUSION
The gospel has the power to save. This salvation includes a transformation of identity. Both truth and love must frame a biblically faithful response to the moral revolution that has upended the culture’s understanding of sexuality. Upholding, teaching, and defending biblical truths in a loving manner is not easy, but it is necessary for the witness of the church, the flourishing of individuals, and the good of society.
c) BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES FOR PRO-LIFE ENGAGEMENT: PERSONHOOD, SCRIPTURE, AND CHURCH HISTORY
Abortion is one of the most contentious and sensitive moral and political questions facing America today, pitting those who believe in a woman’s “right to choose” (“pro-choice”) against those who believe the sanctity of human life makes us morally obligated to protect the unborn (“pro-life”). FRC’s publication “Biblical Principles for Pro-Life Engagement” helps Christians think about human life and abortion from a biblical perspective. What follows is a summary of this resource.
WHAT IS ABORTION?
When people use the word “abortion,” they usually mean an induced abortion (the termination of a pregnancy through external intervention), as opposed to spontaneous abortion (natural miscarriage). Ninety-two percent of induced abortions are elective, meaning the motivation for getting the abortion is unrelated to the life of the mother or the health of the baby. In other words, the most common type of abortion is where healthy women terminate pregnancies that would have otherwise led to the birth of healthy children.
WHAT IS PERSONHOOD?
Science increasingly acknowledges the biological humanity of the unborn. In 2018, a comprehensive study of 5,502 biologists found that 95 percent affirm that human life begins at fertilization. The the conversation surrounding the morality of abortion boils down to this: does a developing baby qualify as a person, and therefore warrant legal protection? The pro-life community would say yes, arguing there is no better criteria for personhood than biological humanity. In fact, biology and genetics is the only objective basis for determining personhood. The pro-choice position would deny that being biologically human is the same as having personhood. However, they have not yet reached a consensus on what criteria should determine personhood.
THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF PERSONHOOD
Christians have additional resources that inform our understanding of personhood. Specifically, we have the Bible, God’s authoritative Word. The question is, does the Bible prove the personhood of the unborn?
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT LIFE IN THE WOMB
In Psalm 139:13-16, King David describes God’s dealings with him when he was still in his mother’s womb using fully personal language. He describes himself as a person possessing value, whom God was forming and knitting together, and emphasizes his personal identity by the repeated use of “I” and “my.” This language assumes personal identity in the womb and affirms continuity from the earliest stages of development through adulthood. Essentially, David viewed himself as the person “David” from his unborn state to his current state as an adult. In Luke 1, the angel Gabriel tells the virgin Mary she will bear a son through the power of the Holy Spirit. Upon hearing this news, Mary visits her relative Elizabeth, who was herself six months pregnant. Three details of their meeting in verses 39-45 underscore the profoundly pro-life perspective of this passage. First, John the Baptist “leaped” upon hearing Mary’s voice, evidencing personal human activity in utero. This action was consistent with John’s mission in life— to be the forerunner and proclaimer of the Christ (see Luke 1:17; John 1:6-8, 19-23, 3:28). Although John was still in the womb, his ministry of heralding the arrival of the Messiah had already begun! Second, Elizabeth refers to Mary as a mother at a time when most women do not even know they are pregnant. Scholars estimate that Mary had been pregnant for less than a month when she visited Elizabeth. Elizabeth’s statement implies that prenatal Jesus is not an impersonal, non-moral entity; rather, He is honored as both a person and the Lord by Elizabeth and her unborn baby. Third, Elizabeth’s choice of words about her unborn child is significant (v. 44). Here, the Greek word used for baby (βρέφος) is the same word used for children after they are born (e.g., Luke 2:16). This indicates that babies, whether born or unborn, share the same status as humans after birth. Lastly, both Elizabeth (v. 41) and the unborn John (v. 15) are filled with the Holy Spirit. By bringing attention to this detail, Luke wants his readers to understand that Elizabeth and John’s reactions to the unborn Jesus are appropriate. If, as this passage suggests, Jesus was rightly regarded by them as “Lord” when he was still in the womb, then his incarnate personhood was secured at conception rather than at birth! Other passages of Scripture affirming the personhood of the unborn are discussed in the full-length publication “Biblical Principles for Pro-Life Engagement.”
THE CHURCH: PRO-LIFE FROM THE BEGINNING For 2,000 years, Christians have interpreted the Bible consistently on the value of unborn human life. Nearly every prominent leader and authority in the history of Christianity—whether theologians, pastors, or church councils—have publicly opposed abortion. Early Church Abortion was a widely accepted practice in Roman society during the first three centuries. The average Roman had such a low view of fetal and infant life that infanticide, child abandonment, and abortion remained common in the Roman Empire until these practices were outlawed, at the urging of Christians, in 374. Despite the morally dark backdrop of the first three centuries, Christians consistently opposed abortion and valued unborn life, rooted in Jesus’ teachings on the priority of love (Mark 12:31) and His high view of children (Matt. 19:14). First century Christian texts such as the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas explicitly condemned killing children by abortion. Second and third century Church Fathers such as Clement, Athenagoras, and Tertullian explicitly condemned abortion and infanticide as well. Post-Reformation After the Reformation, both Protestants and Roman Catholics remained prolife, and their leaders continued to champion the rights of the unborn. For example, John Calvin explained, “The unborn child… though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being… and should not be robbed of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy.” The Modern Church Christians remained opposed to abortion well into the twentieth century. In 1945, Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, “To kill the fruit in the mother’s womb is to injure the right to life that God has bestowed on the developing life.” This remained the view of every Christian denomination until the 1960s. Only then, at the height of the sexual revolution, did some denominations, which had embraced theological liberalism, change their long-standing views.
GOSPEL HOPE FOR THE FUTURE
Christians must speak with courage and conviction, willing to counter anyone who suggests another way of interpreting the Bible on the issue of abortion. At the same time, we must present our position with kindness and love, recognizing that abortion is a personal, rather than theoretical, discussion for many. The gospel is good news for all people, including those who have had or performed abortions. While abortion is a serious sin, God is fully forgiving and promises redemption to those who repent of their sin, including the sin of abortion (Isaiah 44:22, 2 Peter 3:9, Romans 10:13).
CONCLUSION
The Bible unequivocally affirms the personhood of the unborn. All people—born and unborn—are made in the image of God and possess inherent dignity and value. Christians must oppose abortion while simultaneously extending love and support to those who have been personally affected by it.
d) BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY:
EVIDENCE FROM SCRIPTURE AND CHURCH HISTORY
Religious liberty is one of the most important and cherished rights in the United States. However, secular society increasingly misunderstands religious conviction, and even views the advocacy for religious liberty as a pretense for codifying prejudice and bigotry into law. If Christians are to counter this perception, we will need to articulate with greater clarity and persuasiveness why religious liberty is worth supporting and protecting.
WHAT IS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY?
Religious liberty is the freedom to hold religious beliefs of one’s own choosing and to live in accordance with those beliefs. Because religion relates to our deepest convictions about faith, God, the world, and ourselves, it is not a peripheral “political issue,” but rather one of utmost importance. While there are legal and philosophical arguments for why religious liberty should be protected, here we will examine biblical and theological arguments in its favor.
DOES THE BIBLE SUPPORT RELIGIOUS LIBERTY?
Parable of the Wheat and Tares For two thousand years of church history, the parable of the wheat and tares (Mat. 13:24-30) has been cited in defense of religious liberty. While not everyone has always agreed on the parable’s implications for religious liberty, many interpreters understood Christ’s admonition to allow the wheat and tares to grow together as an acknowledgment that unbelievers cannot be forced into belief. The Apostle Paul’s Use of Appeal and Persuasion The Bible employs language of appeal and persuasion, instead of coercion, throughout the Old and New Testaments. The apostle Paul is a noteworthy example, whose evangelistic technique was to converse, dialogue, and persuade. Paul patiently explained the Scriptures and trusted the Holy Spirit to bring conviction of sin, which would lead to repentance and faith. Although God could have easily used other means to communicate the gospel, He chooses to appeal through human means. Through His chosen human instruments, God reasons and seeks to persuade unbelievers to repent and believe in the gospel. The Role of Government Versus the Role of the Church Romans 13 and Matthew 22 have helped centuries of Christians think through the dynamics of power, authority, and obedience to rulers. In Romans 13, the apostle Paul discusses the purpose of government. In Matthew 22, the Jewish religious leaders attempt to trap Jesus into adjudicating a volatile political question by asking Him if it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. When taken together, these two passages demonstrate that government is ordained by God to be His servant in the civil sphere but that certain areas of life fall outside government’s authority and belong exclusively to God. The areas to which Jesus instructs, render “to God the things that are God’s,” include God’s jurisdiction of the soul, or areas of religion, belief, and conscience. Salvation is the Work of the Spirit, Not the State Because faith is inherently spiritual by nature, the state should never attempt to force people to believe in a specific religion. Such forced conversion is ineffective and outside the jurisdiction of civil authorities. Instead, civil authorities should guarantee religious freedom for followers of all religions. This creates an even playing field where religions can compete with one another for adherents and support, allowing possible converts to test and evaluate the truth claims of various religious traditions to choose for themselves which one they will follow.
ROGER WILLIAMS AS A MODEL Roger Williams (1603-1683), a Puritan minister and the founder of Providence Plantations (present-day Rhode Island), devoted his career to advocating for religious liberty. He flatly rejected the use of civil authority in a realm he believed was governed by a higher authority. Williams’ theological arguments for religious liberty continue to be relevant today. The Wheat and Tares Like many interpreters before him, Williams believed the parable of the wheat and tares prohibited persecution of conscience. Williams’ interpretation of the parable informed his view on religious persecution. He was convinced that persecution based on religious belief was immoral because it confused civil authority with church discipline. While the civil authority may use weapons of iron and steel to control civil disturbances, it is wrong to apply them to inward, religious matters. Theological Convictions: Fallibility, Faith’s Interiority, and Consent Williams’ advocacy for religious liberty was greatly influenced by his commitment to the tenets of Reformed theology. If God is truly sovereign, Williams argued, the Puritan civil authorities should relinquish their grip on man’s conscience and trust God to accomplish His saving work. Fallibility Williams believed in the principle of human fallibility. Due to the fall, humans are prone to error and bias. This fallibility even extends to the realm of religion, where humans can be misguided. Thus, Williams believed broad religious tolerance should be afforded when interfacing with civil authorities. Faith’s Interiority Williams believed in a sharp distinction between the inner world of belief (conscience) and the outer realm of civil and social regulation. To William, the obvious implication of religion’s interiority is religious liberty, which protects the inner world of belief. If true religion is fundamentally about belief, an outside force is incapable of affecting genuine conversion. Consent Because Williams believed that the spiritual nature of religion requires liberty, he concluded that an established church mandating doctrinal subscription contradicts the essence and search for religious truth. If no one can be coerced into being a Christian, consent is necessary, and adherence to a particular faith must be voluntary. Roger Williams’ Legacy Williams believed that, because God is Lord of the conscience, the state has no business interfering with man’s quest for religious truth. If the state cares about the morality of society and doctrinal orthodoxy, the best course to pursue is one of broad religious freedom, which empowers the spiritual weapon of persuasion. Williams’ thoughts had enormous implications for America’s founders, and his arguments continue to be relevant to today’s discussions about religious liberty.
CONCLUSION
The Bible and the history of Christian thought provide a strong theological foundation for supporting religious liberty and protecting the freedom of conscience. As those who desire unhindered dissemination of the gospel, soul freedom for everyone is the ideal toward which we must continually strive.