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?