What hinders Baptists from accepting God's Law over civil
government?

There are several arguments put forward in support of a humanist
(pluralistic) civil government.

1) The eight "Baptist Distinctives" point 2 is "Autonomy of the
Local Church". "All human authority for governing the local
church resides within the local church itself." Of course this
is speaking of ecclesiastical authority, but I tend to believe
Baptist clergy everywhere sticks the proverbial stork's head in
the sand when it comes to civil human authority being relevant
and unavoidable for governing the local church. The institution
of marriage is right now in the cross-hairs. For how long may
same-sex marriage ceremonies be "outlawed" in our tax-exempt
conservative churches? Only recently Catholic adoption agencies
in Massachusetts have closed their doors to prevent civil courts
from usurping their autonomy. If Baptists don't pull their heads
out of the sand it will get pulled out for them.

2) "Baptist Distinctive" point 5 is "Individual Soul Liberty".
They draw this point using New Testament Scriptures: Romans 14:5,
12; 2 Corinthians 4:2; and Titus 1:9. However, even the Baptist
scholars admitted this came as a result of how Baptists read the
Bible. They shunned the Kingly authority of ancient Israel of
the Old Testament and spent almost all their time interpreting
the New Testament. The opportunity to engage their Christian
brothers who were in the majority in the early colonial days
concerning civil vs ecclesiastical authority were mostly
squandered. As the result, an idea of near-universal acceptance,
liberty of thought or belief, was never developed in contrast to
religious behavior punishable by civil authorities.

3) "Separation of Church and State" is the final (point 8) of
"Baptist Distinctives". Neither should control the other is the
main theme. But, as is mentioned in point 1 the simple statement
has many exceptions. Baptists attempted to develop a spiritual
kingdom separate and distinct from a physical (civil
governmental) kingdom. Richard Overton in 1615 argued that
"Christ allowed full power and authority to his church ... to
choose persons to bear office in the church." The argument is
obviously over church government, but this nearly always gets
juxtaposition-ed against civil authority!

4) One cannot win converts within a civil government with an
established religion. This is a myth. It's true that civil
governmental authority cannot (by force) win converts, but this
is not the same statement as above. The Roman emperor,
Constantine, used civil authority to force "Christian
conversions" among the conquered barbarian territories. This was
wrong and evil. But, in light of the evil acts of secular or
atheistic civil governments such as Stalin's or Hitler's, etc.,
is Christianity really the problem here? See my earlier blogs on
how a pluralistic civil government hinders Christianity and
evangelism in particular.

5) A persistent belief in the myth: civil government can be
religiously neutral. In _Separation no Myth_ Jim Spivey says
"When the civil authority formally endorses one religion as the
cultural norm for the nation it inevitably favors one sect over
all others. Because this causes religious groups to compete for
political favors, it engenders civil strife harmful to both the
state and the nation." Let's restate this in the context of year
2006. "When the civil authority formally endorses humanism as
the cultural norm for the nation it inevitably favors one kind
[perhaps secular?] over all others. Because this causes other
humanist and religious groups to compete for political favors, it
engenders civil strife harmful to both the state and the nation."
What's the difference?

Baptists Ethics and Religious Liberty
The apostle Paul is nearing the end of his ministry. He knows
how important it is to instruct his successor to carry on the
Great Commission of Jesus Christ. Because there are many
conflicting ideas Paul knows he needs to command his successor to
discern ideas of human origin from the eternal Godly ideas. Thus
he writes in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is breathed out by God
and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for
training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent,
equipped for every good work." Paul goes on instructing Timothy
to "reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and
teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure
sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for
themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn
away from listening to the truth and wander off into
myths. [4:2b-4]"

Both Paul and Timothy must have been thinking about what the
perfect teacher, Jesus Christ, said about false teaching:
"whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to
sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone
fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the
sea [Matt 18:6]". Obviously, since Paul and Timothy are mere
fallible men "complete patience" includes to humble themselves
and be willing to revise their own teaching when it is not in
harmony with Scripture. So it is with me. If any reader, as a
believer in Christ, believes I am in error here please instruct
me. All I ask is that you too exercise "complete patience".

The Baptist Faith and Message recognizes a separation of church
and State authority but for the wrong reason. Where this plank
strays from the truth is in how it distances state (civil)
authority from God's authority. Another way to express this
mistake is to say the BF&M confuses ecclesiastical authority with
God's authority. As a result if any sampling of Baptists were
asked if God's authority includes being over the civil government
you would probably get a solid yes, a solid no and everything
else in between.

A friend at my church finally gave me something which goes into
more detail about Baptist thinking in this area.

Walter B. Shurden wrote _How We Got That Way: Baptists on
Religious Liberty and Separation of Church and State_, for the
Sixtieth Celebration of the Baptist Joint Committee 8 October
1996. Much of what he quotes below are from Glen Stassen's essay
"The Christian Origin of Human Rights".

... Overton has a mock trial for Mr. Persecution. The trial
ends with a concluding statement from Justice Reason. Not
Justice Bible, mind you, or Justice Theology, or Justice
Christ, but Justice Reason! Justice Reason, in his
conclusion, says that Mr. Persecution threatens "the general
and equal rights and liberties of the common people... their
native and just liberties in general". Baptists
distinguished religious liberty and religious freedom as
belonging to all persons as persons and not to Christianity
or to people of a particular brand of Christianity. ... "The
ethic of human rights can be a universal ethic, not because
its source is a common philosophy believed by all people but
because its intention and application affirm the rights of
all persons."

The context doesn't imply that Justice Reason is a subset of
Justice Bible. The context demands that Justice Reason be
outside of Christianity itself. The Baptists have embraced false
teaching, a myth of human origin, here. For example, what does
Justice Reason say is the proper approach to abortion? Is the
live human fetus a member of "all persons"? Does the would-be
Mother's rights outweigh the human fetus' right to life? May the
Bible be used to answer such ethical questions? Baptists say no.
Baptists omit God as the originator (and thus the Bible as final
authority) of human rights because they insist on combining
liberty of belief in this mix. Who would argue against religious
liberty and freedom (at least in terms of belief) for all
persons? Even I accept that point because these two ideas are
independent.

Apparently, to a Baptist it must be thoroughly impossible for
religious liberty and freedom to truly have Biblical roots and
include religious liberty and freedom for all persons. According
to Baptists Justice Reason demands "pluralism" in civil
government which is by definition the absence of any officially
sanctioned religion. The opposite of pluralism must then be
government with an officially sanctioned religion. But does this
require entanglement of church and state? Jim Spivey in
_Separation No Myth_ gives a chart in which only Christian
Reconstruction opposes pluralism but without church state
entanglements. Jim Spivey calls this a "theocratic" form of
government. To me this sounds exciting, biblical, desirable.
Why are Baptists opposed to this form of government?

Herb Titus wrote _The Constitution of the United States A
Christian Document_. He defends this point well in chapter two
where he discusses the Subscription Clause. However, in chapter
three, Mr. Titus falters. He fails to recognize the difference
between a religious oath either affirming or denying one's
personal belief, which I too believe is anti-Biblical but more
about that later, from a religious oath binding one's political
duty to righteousness. What I mean by this is that a politician
is duty bound to not lie, be honest, don't steal, obey the law,
etc. For example, the U.S. Constitution in amendment 10
prohibits Congress from anything not mentioned within the
Constitution. Thus, when Congress legislates in those prohibited
areas it is stealing authority from either a lower government or
the people. This *is* just as much a religious act as the
personal belief system upon which it is founded.

I don't work for a Christian company. There is no religious oath
I had to take as an employee. However, I had to agree to a code
of ethics. I had to agree that I would not steal intellectual
(or any other) property for example. This moral contractual
obligation I have with my secular company is still religious in
nature. There is a definition of theft, and private (corporate)
property. Some may think this example vindicates the
no-religious-oath test for a federal official. I think not. If
I and my company ever have a disagreement over this employment
contract it may result in the most formal of legal resolutions
called a civil lawsuit in which case the laws of the State of
Oklahoma are to apply. If it is appealed then perhaps the laws
of the United States would supersede Oklahoma law. The
U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Since elected
officials are not required to take a religious oath then the
definitions of property, theft, law, etc. are sitting in the seas
of human (post-modernism now) whim.

Herb quotes Thomas Jefferson "Well aware that Almighty God
created the mind free" civil rulers should not be required to
"profess or renounce this or that religious opinion". Herb also
quotes Oliver Ellsworth and Isaac Backus. All three of these men
knew God Himself as the source of liberty, but made the same
mistake Herb has done. By the no-oath-test clause the drafters
of our Constitution ruled out any other legal authority. It is
simply a we-the-people opinion. This is what the majority of
federal judges believe today.

Herb closes this section saying "the justification for religious
tests followed from the claim that the State had jurisdiction
over the affairs of the church. Once that jurisdiction was
denied to the State, then the purpose of religious tests could no
longer be sustained." This sounds good; a separation of civil
and ecclesiastical authority, but is it correct? Herb also
mentions that the majority of the oaths were not specific to the
denomination favored by the State. Many states had generic
religious oath tests. Why would an ecclesiastical oath be
generic? Herb goes on "the ban was dictated by Biblical law that
one's personal faith in God was not a legitimate object of civil
government, and hence, not to be defined or to be otherwise
governed by it." Ok then, why not an oath professing the
Divinity of both Old and New Testaments? Nope, not allowed.
Herb concludes this chapter with "The Constitution sought to
establish a Christian civil order, one in which the jurisdiction
and powers of the civil government would be limited in accordance
with the laws of God." The only response is that Herb's
conclusion is both illogical and incorrect.

Conference Concluding Remarks

One more suggestion in support of preterist view. Gary could
have read selections of one of the latter chapters in Hal
Lindsey's book _Vanished Into Thin Air_ where Hal unloads his
pessimistic view of the future. Then Gary could have painted a
verbal picture: imagine the futility in the hearts of Hal's
children and grandchildren listening to all this.

There is much more to discuss in eschatology. Perhaps a topic
such as "Revelation 20 - The millennium - Present or Future"
would be a good topic with the intent of exchanging more
information in the eschatology debate.

Gary DeMar closed the conference asking "Where Do We Go From
Here?". I would like to see more intra-Christian debates. Here
are some suggestions:

The U.S. Constitution - a Christian document

Herb Titus or Bill Federer - yes
Gary North or Dennis Woods - no


The Marriage Protection Amendment

Pro - James Dobson
Con - Herb Titus


1st amendment includes anti-discrimination
toward atheists

Pro - John Whitehead or Keith Fornier
Con - someone who believes USC is Christian?


Christian Theocracy - Is it good or bad?

Good - Gary DeMar? or someone who takes Greg Bahnsen literally
Bad - Richard Land (of Southern Baptist ethics and religious
liberty)


The Kingdom of God - Spiritual only or 'everything'

Pro - John Piper or John MacArthur?
Con - Gary DeMar (or any preterist really)

I heard both Bill Federer and Herb Titus speak today. Bill made
a good point about the U.S. Constitution (USC) mentioning that on
Sunday no work would be performed. This is directly linked to
the 4th Commandment in the judicially-tossed-out 10 Commandments
found in the Bible. Bill presented many other solid historical
facts which refute the secular nature of the United States
government during the colonial era. Unfortunately, the majority
of federal justices today don't claim this holds any legal
weight.

Herb Titus spoke on both the original U.S. Constitution as well
as the meaning of the 14th amendment. He gave much interesting
detail about the context of the USC such as it mentioning the
time between the USC adoption and the birth of our nation in
1776. This fact requires the USC be moored to the
obviously-religious Declaration of Independence. As a result Herb
holds to a view that the Declaration holds civil judicial clout
just as much as the USC. He agreed with Bill in that the
original USC was decidedly a Christian document.

I wish I could comment intelligently on Herb's 14th amendment
talk. About all I could understand from this presentation is
that *all* Supreme Court justices, including the most
conservative ones, held to a view of this amendment which was
different from Herb's. The only other tidbit I could understand
was that the "equal protection clause" only has meaning in a
religious sense. For if this is taken in a Darwinian sense then
there is no equality. It's back to the Greg Bahnsen
presupposition idea. If God's creation of man (which by the way
is all races since from one couple all races came) is rejected
then man is an evolved animal and by survival-of-the-fittest
definition *not* equal to other men. There have been court cases
to demonstrate this insanity. For example, a couple suing a
hospital because with pre-natal testing the couple could have
legally gotten rid of a pregnancy by abortion but now that they
have a permanently disabled infant/child they cannot legally kill
it.

Gary DeMar debated Tommy Ice on the Great Tribulation time frame
being past or future. I have two suggestions for Gary.
Supernatural vs natural judgments often follow one another. One
of the best examples is the supernatural destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah vs the natural (civil war) destruction of Gibeah as well
as all of Israel. There is text in Genesis and Judges which ties
these two judgment stories together. The other is a suggestion
to use Brian Godawa's point of imagery and storytelling. Gary
should have 'painted' a verbal picture of the Roman General
assigned to destroy the temple in 70 AD. Talk about this Roman
general strutting into the Holiest of Holies then doing some
abomination of desecration just before he orders his army to tear
it down. This would cripple Tommy Ice's ability to get any of
the audience to believe in pushing this event into the end times.

There were other great speakers. This conference has been a
great blessing. Thank you American Vision and Gary DeMar.

I am at the first maybe-annual Superworldview conference this
Memorial Day weekend. The debate last night between the humanist,
Ed Buchner, and Bill Federer was interesting to say the least.

These debaters didn't address each other's points. Ed Buchner
seemed to focus in on the secularism of the current U.S.
Constitution with all amendments and thus federal law today,
while Bill discussed mostly the development and original meaning
of the U.S. Constitution including only the bill of rights.

The idea of a constitutional republic vs democracy was avoided.
In fact, Ed used Bill's argument: that the democracy should
decide religious law; against him. Bill should have made it
clearer that the democratic majority only allowed the judicial
branch to protect certain minorities from being discriminated
against.

It is interesting that neither side brought up the 1964 Civil
Rights Act which protected religious minorities from
discrimination at all levels of government from federal right on
down to local public school or public library employee.

From the start of the debate Ed said that he believes civil law
as dictated by our current U.S. Constitution is religiously
neutral. I was surprised that Bill waited until very late in his
presentation to propose that not only is civil law inherently
religious but must be so by philosophical presuppositions. But
by the time in the debate he clearly presented this point it was
too late.


Tonight's debate was between an evolutionist, Dr. Mark Farmer,
and a creationist, Dr. Carl Wieland. In Mark's opening comments
he said "I do not believe in evolution". "Scientific theory
cannot prove anything; it can only disprove." "Evolution is one
of the most proven of theories and thus needs to be accepted as
fact." So, with these quotes in hand I decided I could safely go
get my wife a hot drink to help keep her warm in tonight's
debate. ;-)

Dobson and the Marriage Protection Amendment

Since a vote in the U.S. Senate is coming up soon for the
Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) James Dobson's June, 2006,
'Citizen' magazine is almost entirely focused on this topic.

On page 21, Citizen attempts "Answering the skeptics". Argument
1 is: "Discriminates against gays. The amendment violates the
U.S. Constitution's guarantee that every American be treated
equally under the law."

The argument is improperly phrased because amendments do indeed
change the original. *If* it had been illegal to discriminate
against gays all this time and now is the time the 2/3 super
majority adds an amendment to make it legal to discriminate
against gays this is the way it's done. In a legal sense the
proponents of the MPA are admitting discrimination against gays
violates the U.S. Constitution in it's current form.

Another point is missing in the way Citizen defines the debate.
In Citizen's defense I believe this is a slight-of-hand from the
'gay' side which most liberals in general use. But the truth is
that the U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee that every American
be treated equally under the law. The right to liberty and
pursuit of happiness doesn't apply to the law breaker. That's
why we -supposedly- have prisons.

Citizen's answer skirts the entire issue. It avoids the
accusation by retelling the long history of cultural acceptable
heterosexual marriage. Citizen concludes by saying "marriage
predates ...the Bible itself". Although true I can't help but
think this is an attempt to distance this intentional
discrimination against gays for religious reasons. In summary,
by avoiding the argument altogether, all Citizen really said is
that there has been a long history of discrimination against
gays!

Turning the page I read this: "What's the number-one reason
America needs a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Can
anyone say 'Lawrence'?". So, the real argument is now defined.
Is it legal to discriminate against gays via current marriage law
when gay behavior is law-abiding behavior? When America used to
have sodomy law there was no argument about "marriage" being
sanctioned by the state for adults of the same sex.
Discrimination was not the issue because consensual sex of same
sex partners was an illegal behavior and thus there was no
U.S. Constitutional "right" beyond that. Taking away
the illegal nature of homosexual sex is what exposes current
heterosexual marriage law as discriminatory against gays.

"Do Gays really Want 'marriage'?" Citizen answers this question
on pages 28 and 29. They present useful data in support of the
'average' answer - a resounding 'NO'. They also conclude
correctly about what it is all these gays really are fighting
for: an abolition of marriage.

Does Citizen really embrace the idea that civil law can be
religiously neutral? They close with truth everyone (including
gays) know. The gay's "deepest desire is that homosexual
behavior would no longer be sin." It is the Christian's duty to
"reflect God's heart on the matter and commit to fully engage
those in the public arena who seek to declare 'good' that which
God calls 'evil'."

Citizen is straddling the fence. On one side they embrace
secular humanism's tenent that civil law can and must be
religiously neutral but on the other they know the Bible
says otherwise. This is why their MPA argument is weak.

What is a Theocracy?

Using the root composition of the word it simply means: Civil
rule by God. This is something different than democracy: rule by
the people. Most people have a negative view of theocracy. This
explains it's use both within and without fundamentalist
Christianity. For example, the New York Times published a
full-page ad last December paid for by the political left. It
said our government "is moving each day closer to a theocracy,
where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will
rule". More than once I have heard a Christian fundamentalist
give their opinion "I don't want a theocracy (Old Testament civil
law)." Roger Williams is perhaps the most well known historical
figure holding this position.

Another view states Theocracy is inescapable. In Gary DeMar's
essay, http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/12-03-04.asp,
he uses examples to explain what he means. He opens with the
French revolutionary democracy which is linked with the phrase
"The voice of the people is the voice of God". Gary closes with
the example of Nazi Germany: a secular theocracy. Hitler defined
morality in his own way answerable to no one. Those Germans who
were complicitly murdering Jews were not just following orders.
They had come to believe what they were doing was "right". They
believed they would not be in judgment of hell fire upon their
own death.

There is a third view. Theocracy is impossible. In support one
may argue that civil governments are put in place by humans. The
human or humans may claim to be god, but God, Himself, doesn't
rule, the human does.

These three views of "Theocracy" do not void the word's meaning.
In fact, I believe it reinforces the idea that the act of civil
governing, making decisions of what is right or wrong,
determination of civil punishment, etc. is essentially a
religious act.

Those inside the fundamentalist camp need to answer these
questions. If you don't want a theocracy, then how can you
maintain belief in Divinely inspired Scripture which defines
morality (ethics)? If you are going to defend public displays of
10-Commandments monuments why not defend them as being the basis
of our current civil law system instead of having only historical
relevance?

Those outside the fundamentalist camp need to be asked: without
God how can there be any concept of right and wrong?

Both camps, indeed every one of us, needs to ask: who or what is
the 'god' who determines who wins when there is a disagreement
about right and wrong? What causes me to change my mind
concerning civil morality, law and punishment? Is it public
opinion? or the Bible or someone I respect or forget it 'cause I
don't ever change my opinion about such matters?