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?