This blog has been inactive for some time. I have had, at times, a lively discussion with others at the Ethics and Religious Liberty web site of the Southern Baptists (http://erlc.com/article/how-do-you-separate-church-and-state) where I've been discussing the idea of putting our Federal government back on the same foundation as our Declaration of Independence as well as most of the 13 State Constitutionss. This foundation, the God of the Bible, is not the same governmental foundation that Southern Baptists are proud of, i.e., American leaders such as Roger Williams and John LeLand. From their own writings these two believed political government was to be secular, not under the authority of the God of the Bible. This discussion had several posters come and go in the over-200 posts. Most simply gave their opinions politely rejecting mine. Truthfully, I don't know what to say anymore. I have shared my opinion and tied it to exegesis of Scripture using citations and materials by Dr. Greg Bahnsen, and Dr. Gary North. I have asked for the Southern Baptist exegesis to justify a secular civil government and all that has been offered was "Harry’s vision of this stuff ignores large swathes of the New Testament and completely misrepresents the Gospel" by the ERLC moderator, Matt.

I keep asking for God's mind in the matter as I pray for Matt and other posters in this situation. The answer seems to be that the lack of love within the body of Christ, which includes submitting to one another as Scripture reveals error, is simply missing. God's Word says the world, non-believer, will be convinced Christians literally are who they say they are from their love one for each other. Maybe the sad state of Christianity in the Western world, including here in the USA, is for this very reason?

Are Southern Baptist political positions as voiced at erlc.com just another special intrest group pushing their opinions? Is it just another type of humanism because the authority of Jesus Christ over politics is denied in spite of the obvious Biblical source for these positions?

I attended the Republican District Convention yesterday. The convention began with a prayer offered in Jesus' name. The enemy hasn't taken all things - yet. Many candidates for delegate to the national republican convention were given time (1-3 minutes) to speak. I remember several stating they were a Christian. This was well and good but really didn't offer much help in itself as to how they would behave as a national delegate. I actually respected the candidates who mentioned they would behave as a delegate according to the "rule of law" better. I don't think I'll soon forget the one candidate who started his speech by holding his Bible up high and saying in a loud voice "I believe in this". I can't say this is not relevant, but what is to prevent 'red flags' from going up in listener's ears? "Does he believe the Bible as *I* do" one might ask? "Would he squash state's rights in an effort to cram his view of biblical ethics down our throats at the federal level" another may ask?

Most Christian clergy don't have a biblical political philosophy. How can we expect their members to have anything better? Yet, there is no avoiding it. Our opponents have a political philosophy and are carrying it out. A Christian must have an exegesis of political philosophy otherwise when Sally Kern says things like she did, who among us Christians have enough biblical understanding to either confirm or deny what she has said?

A fat person may still be healthy and may live to an age where obesity is not a cause of death. Maybe they know it is inherently wrong to be obese and thus set limits over themselves? Maybe the diets they call failures have actually been successes to keep them from becoming an unhealthy obese person? I have seen at least one obese person literally eat themselves to an early grave because they tossed aside doctor's and other's warnings. As a society we would silence ones evil enough to call obesity good, who desire to teach its benefit of 'all the candy a child would want'. The evidence is in the much higher medical costs and mortality rates of the obesity proponents. So it is with sexual fornication and homosexuality in particular.

God goes even further. His law/history book is full of instruction as well as example of what happens to societies who condone this evil behavior.

But, does our society's "rule of law" even permit sodomy, etc. to be enforcible any more?

A riddle
In a conclusion of a long discussion with a Christian brother concerning the subject of political moral philosophy I resorted to name-calling. I called him both a pietist and antinomian with regard to this subject. His response: "Why do you insist on applying labels to me that you know I am not familiar with?" How does his response betray both his pietism and his antinomian belief?

Hints: from mirriamwebster.com:
pietism
1 capitalized : a 17th century religious movement originating in Germany in reaction to formalism and intellectualism and stressing Bible study and personal religious experience.
2 a: emphasis on devotional experience and practices b: affectation of devotion

antinomian
1 : one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation.
2 : one who rejects a socially established morality

Jonathan V. Last wrote a column in the opinion section of the November 25th edition of the _Sunday Tulsa World_ newspaper. In "Morality: The only real legal argument" he presents an opinion of why a conservative should abolish the death penalty for most murderers.

I agree that of the three reasons given as to why the United States should or should not have capital punishment the one which applies is the moral issue. Constitutionality, or practicality hold no argument. I also agree with Jonathan that the moral question involves the state taking "divine authority unto itself". His conclusion of this argument is true. "The enactment of capital punishment is something like the establishment of a state religion."

Jonathan does a good job in a short amount of space to narrow the subject down to these valid points. Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist National Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission or Dr. James Dobson would be forced to take a different logical argument than I am about to make because they, in agreement with most of the Christian ethics experts, believe in a non-Christian pluralistic civil government.

Jonathan mentions "justice and mercy are necessarily in conflict" to say "society [should] choose mercy over justice". Where he goes wrong is to hint that justice may simply go away. In a legal system where mercy is encouraged, justice is always served. Well, at least "justice" as defined by humans. Mercy involves voluntary behavior. Where is the "justice" in forcing taxpayers, maybe even close members of the victim's family, to pay the cost of life-time imprisonment for the murderer? Isn't this a perversion of Justice itself, i.e., "the state arrogates divine authority unto itself"? So logic says for the state to either enact or abolish capital punishment is something like the establishment of a state religion. Yes, the state must make moral and ethical decisions. There is no avoiding the fact, it is God-like activity.

The Bible is full of examples discussing capital punishment, and in some cases the murderer is not put to death. Consider King David. He committed adultery with Bathsheba then manipulated things to get her husband murdered. He thought he got away with it until he was confronted by Nathan, a prophet. Israel under King David arguably was the most obedient to the national civil law given in Torah. David knew that if any other person were King he would have been stoned to death. Psalm 51:4 gives David's confession "against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight." David realized that God placed the civil government and civil law and punishment as His vehicle for civil justice. This idea is repeated through the Old Testament where God judges nations, and not just Israel, for not following his standard of Righteousness and Justice. It is also confirmed in the New Testament in Romans 13 where the civil servant is described as God's servant.

Although there may be argument about the mode of capital punishment, stoning vs more modern methods, capital punishment for first degree murder is wholly in line with God's standard of Justice given in the Bible. In fact, wherever our civil government deviates from His Justice, we need to repent and resubmit to Scripture.

Hello Men
If 75% of Americans say they believe Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead but only 25% believe the Bible is without error and useful for discerning good from evil then there are roughly 50% in the middle. When Americans were asked if they would describe themselves as being a "Christian", 75% agreed it fits, but when actions are tested against a biblical worldview less than 5% of Americans line up. There's even a bigger gap here.

Our company allows us Christians to gather at lunch time for a Bible study once a week. The latest chatter was astounding to me. One blurted out "It looks like Hillary is unstoppable". Another said he was leaning toward Gulliani in spite of his bleak pro-life stand, but hoped Fred Thompson would turn into a viable candidate because he had a slightly better pro-life plank. These fellows had already dismissed Mike Huckabee for some reason (not viable?) and dismissed Ron Paul as an unelectable libertarian. One even told me his main source of news is National Public Radio (NPR) and he believed it to be relatively unbiased. What's the point? Just as what a person eats affects a person's growth, health, strength, energy, etc. so it is with information. If we accept information from ungodly sources it will be tainted with non-biblical worldviews which are difficult to discover or filter. As a result thinking will be non-biblical too. Hebrews, in chapter 5 verses 12-14, speaks to this using a similar food analogy. Why not read it?

Paul K. Blair wrote an essay on Article VI of the
U.S. Constitution titled _Original Intent?_. It may be found
here: http://www.reclaimoklahoma.org/OriginalIntentContents.htm.
Since he draws a different conclusion from what I believe the
facts - of today - present I shall address some of these facts
here.

I don't dispute that the US was a Christian nation in the past.
In many respects it still is a Christian nation. I also don't
dispute that there are some judges and Constitutional lawyers who
agree with Paul about the Christian (biblical) legal tenants still
continuing with legal force in our nation. Herb Titus is one.

In Paul's introduction he does recognize that Islam doesn't mix
with Christianity even in the subject of civil government. I
give him credit for that. I shudder to think of what worldview a
"Christian" legislator has who says a civil pledge on a Koran has
it's legal place in the United States and has absolutely no plans
to change this legality! Thus, at least Paul has taken the first
step and admits that there is no religious philosophical
neutrality in government.

Paul says the meaning of the word "religion" has changed.
"Religion" to Paul today means any god-believing religion as well
as atheistic and various humanist philosophies. I agree.
However, when James Madison wrote the constitution stating "No
religious oath shall be required" Paul claims "religious" meant
religious sect or denomination [of the Christian faith].
However, John Leland, a contemporary of James Madison, pressed
him hard to add amendment 1 to the constitution. When James
Madison agreed John Leland rejoiced that it would be possible for
a "Pagan, Turk, Jew or Christian" to be eligible for any post or
office in the government. [The Writings of John Leland,
ed. L.F.Greene. New York: Arno Press, 1969, p.191.] The meaning
of "religion" was obvious to Leland and apparently also Madison,
the author of the document.

Does the Bible hold any authoritative jurisdiction in our civil
government today? A look at the two recent
10-Commandment-public-display Supreme Court cases will give an
answer. In both cases the defenders of public display argued
that the history of the 10-Commandments should be enough to
permit public displays to stand. The court made a distinction by
agreeing with these defendants in the Texas case permitting that
display to remain publicly displayed. Having God's Commandments
displayed inside a courtroom in Pennsylvania was a different
matter. The U.S. Supreme Court ordered them removed.

Paul concludes his essay with a discussion about the Islamic
threat to our nation and proposes several ideas to overcome this
threat. Instead, I believe we need to answer this threat the way
the Bible teaches. Bible believing Christians who know civil
government must be placed under God's authority need to first
repent. Then get with God's program by pushing for passage of a
U.S. Constitutional amendment placing the Bible as the civil
backbone of our federal government. In the process of teaching
what Jesus has said "All authority in heaven and on earth has
been given unto me" ample opportunity to present the gospel will
surface. The Holy Spirit will do His job of drawing in all of
God's elect. Then II Chronicles 7:14's blessing will fall once
again on our nation.

Salvation starts a person on the road to heaven.
After salvation, sanctification, the process of
becoming holy or set apart for God's use, should
consume our remaining physical life-time.  When I
think of my past, perhaps one of the biggest earliest
milestones I remember was my desire to raise my sons
under God.  Since my own earthly father had died
years before I had had a bumpy road recognizing and
accepting my heavenly Father in every way as simply
"my father".  I can recall that prayer over 25 years
ago when I asked my heavenly Father for help; for
instructions in child rearing.  I reminded Him of his
promise "I will be a father to the fatherless".
In my sprit He answered: the instructions are in the
Bible.  He also instructed me that my sons would see
and develop an understanding of Him in proportion to
my own heavenly Father/son example. This task had not
just become a righteous responsibility but had become
my calling for the next 20 years or so. Was I a perfect
father?  no.  For example, I knew that when my action
was motivated by evil I needed to quickly confess and
ask for forgiveness, and yes even from my own sons.
I wanted to become "mature ... [one of those] who have
their powers of discernment trained by constant practice
to distinguish good from evil" [Hebrews 5:14].

Why Vote?
About 15 years ago I prayed regularly and enjoyed reading the
Bible. I thought I was a good husband and father. I was
satisfied with my sanctification process but God was about to
replace my comfort with some thorns. Suddenly, I found that the
public schools began sex education for my 5th grade son.
I had learned from the Bible that education was my responsibility
and the kind of sex education the government would teach my
son would at worst be contradictory to my own teaching and at
best be sterilized of any biblical truths. When I asked why this
was happening I got the usual runaround: "My hands are tied,
in order to get [state/federal] money some bureaucrat you can't
get to talk to right now decided this had to be done." The
answer was a political one and it bothered me.

A fellow believer at my work helped me get started in political
research. He was shocked to find out that I only voted during
presidential elections. I knew little or nothing about the other
candidates or issues. He never accused me of sin but asked me to
consider taking the role of voting seriously. God brought
several verses to mind which worked conviction followed by
confession of sin, and a new desire to do my Lord's will in this
area.

Luke 20:25 told me to give to our government those things which
it demanded, and to God those things that He demands. That this
command went beyond taxes to include my vote, however, were due
to other Scriptures. Romans 13:4 and 13:6 state 3 times that the
civil servant is God's servant. The realization that the
U.S. government was not set up like the old Roman (Emperor)
monarchy sunk in. Christians designed our civil governments with
its citizens as the human civil authority (via the vote) under
God. I, Harry Rockefeller, am a civil servant here in the U.S.A.
To whom God has given much, much is required. To him that knows
to do good and doesn't do it sins. I could no longer neglect
voting with a clear conscience.

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?

Does a religiously pluralistic civil government weaken prayer?

Confidence in prayer requires three beliefs. One, God has the
authority to grant a request. Two, God agrees that the request
is something He too desires. Three, God actually has heard the
prayer. All three of these ideas are worth investigating. But
let's assume the Bible-believer agrees God has given Christ power
to do anything and everything (Matthew 28:18). Let's also assume
the Bible believer daily confesses any known sin and lives with
the intent to please God and believes God hears him. Thus, the
only question left is this: is the prayer within God's will.

The Old Testament has much to say about the destiny of civil
authority in opposition to God's law. When Israel was suffering
under Pharaoh of Egypt, God responded to their prayers by giving
them self-government under God with Moses as the human leader.
They only asked for relief. They didn't specifically ask for a
civil government change (Exodus 3:7-10). In spite of the ungodly
civil government of Pharaoh their prayers were effective; God
rescued them. Pharaoh and his army were destroyed in the Red
Sea. Abraham prayed for his nephew's city, Sodom. He asked God
to spare it for the sake of the righteous living there. God told
Abraham there were less than 10 righteous people living in the
city of Sodom. Abraham's prayer was outside of God's will and
God consumed the city with fire and brimstone.

What does the New Testament have to say? In 1 Timothy 2:1&2 Paul
tells us to pray for kings and those in authority. Paul unafraid
calls the civil ruler God's servant in Romans 13. Paul as well
as other New Testament believers resorted to only prayer and
teaching because they had no legal role in the pagan Roman
government. However, they understood the Old Testament. For
their own peace the civil government needed to be under God's
Law. However, following Jesus' example these believers wrote
about a soon-coming wrath of God upon the earth. Using the Roman
army God layed waste Jerusalem and totally destroyed the Jewish
temple in 70 AD.

It appears the presence of a non-Christian civil government is
unrelated to prayer being within God's will. However, if the
person praying held to the world-view that God wants civil
government without Christ at its head; this will influence what
the person will pray for. Why waste time praying for a change in
our civil government placing it under God's authority if you
don't believe God desires it? Instead, prayer for God's wrath to
come swiftly would be in order. Indeed, those who believe in a
pre-tribulation rapture and pray for the saint's rapture to take
place are praying for this very thing!

Hal Lindsey believes the prophecy in Scripture about God's
soon-coming wrath isn't fulfilled yet. He puts it this way in
his "Vanished into Thin Air" book. "We live in a world
essentially devoid of hope. Visions of the future as portrayed by
popular books and films include catastrophic events like asteroid
strikes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and plagues. Images of
the future are more often than not eerie, post-apocalyptic scenes
complete with darkened skies over ruined cities presided over by
chaos. Those images are completely in harmony with the
prophecies of the Book of the Revelation for the last days."

I wonder what world-view Hal's grandchildren have? Do they even
plan to have children if they believe their grandfather?

Do you believe the 'world' is doomed? Do you believe the ungodly
civil governments of today are going to take the ship called
'planet earth' down with them? Then you also probably believe
that God wants the United States to maintain a religiously
pluralistic civil government. Effective prayer to change our
nation placing authority back under God (Christ) Himself is
simply - absent. Instead, unanswered prayer asking for Christ's
coming for his own and swift judgment on the rest of the world
fills the void. Thus, prayer is weakened because unanswered
prayer erodes faith in God. Who's prayers are the opposite of
the powerful effective righteous man [James 5:16b]? "He who
doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind.
That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord;
he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does." [James
1:6-8]

As Dr. Gary North would say, eschatology matters.

Fundamentalist Christians place evangelism as a high priority.
But, does a religiously pluralistic civil government hinder
evangelism?

From my previous blog, we already saw that the need for a
savior is diluted by ethical civil law condoning all kinds of
evil behavior. As Jesus told his Pharisee dinner host, tongue
in cheek, "the well are not in need of a physician but only the
sick", so too our society doesn't even know it is "sin sick".

By grace through faith is how God saves. We have already seen
that the true import of 'grace' is also weakened by the huge
welfare programs provided by the state which only cause the
recipient to expect the free lunch.

It is perhaps ironic that God himself may be the one to allow
so many to perish without salvation. Most of the 300,000 souls
lost in the tsunami were not Christian. Many of the hurricane
victims were not Christians. God even permits wars to punish
cultures for their disobedience toward Him. The great Israel
civil war recorded in the last chapters of Judges was a result
of the corporate ethical sin of the nation. The description
of the Benjamite town of Gibeah in Judges 19:12-30 mirrors the
description of Sodom in Genesis 19:1-11.

When was the last time you had a conversation about politics,
law, or a state institution? Did the conversation naturally turn
to presenting the gospel? Probably not for most Christians.
Why? Politics, law, and the state institutions are considered
secular topics where religious conversation is unwelcome. Just
two quick examples: 1) the current flap concerning the Air Force
Academy is all about sharing the gospel; and 2) when a lawyer
quoted from Scripture to a jury the judge threw out the case. Is
it any surprise that God's law is forbidden to be used as well as
displayed in our civil courtrooms?

In my city of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, the city council asked for
clergy to open their meetings with prayer. The city's attorney
placed restrictions on the prayer however. It could not
proselytize nor could it discriminate against any religion. This
ruling was so far removed from biblical Christianity I replied
with a letter to the editor. I didn't notice any other letter
printed in the paper on the subject.

We have the same situation in America that Peter and John faced
with the Jewish civil authorities: "Don't preach or teach in the
name of Jesus". Unlike Peter and John, who replied "we must obey
God rather than men" the fundamentalist Christians have obeyed
(secular humanistic) men rather than God.

Does religious pluralistic civil government give God the glory?
In a sense *everything* ultimately gives God the glory. Evil
itself when punished is a form of glory given back to God but
this is not what I am talking about; but rather, does it give God
the credit for anything good that comes out of it.

Is God glorified by our military? Some good acts which borrow
from the Christian world-view may give a faint 'yes', but when
this question is asked in the light of the Bible the answer is a
resounding 'no'. For example, Psalm 44:3-8 says

It was not by their sword that they won the land, nor did
their arm bring them victory; it was your right hand, your
arm, and the light of your face, for you loved them. You are
my King and my God, who decrees victories for Jacob. Through
you we push back our enemies; through your name we trample
our foes. I do not trust in my bow, my sword does not bring
me victory; but you give us victory over our enemies, you put
our adversaries to shame. In God we make our boast all day
long, and we will praise your name forever.

Much of this could apply to the American French and Indian and
Revolutionary Wars. But it is far cry from describing the
current Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

What about the benevolence of our government? Does it glorify
God? When the Tsunami struck last December 26th were any
government funds used in a way that thanked God or gave Him
credit? No. In fact, because much of the devastation was in
Muslim areas U.S. government relief efforts were consciously
sterilized of any negative-Islam voice. Also the idea of grace
was totally washed away by the pressure of worldwide public
opinion that the U.S. government needed to do more. This same
mental attitude was also evident in our own Katrina and Rita
hurricane victims/survivors. Welfare is owed to the
underprivileged. Grace is the great unknown.

Let's take one more example: ethics. In sociology Sola-Scriptura
is applied to both family and church by fundamentalist Christians
but not to our civil government (state). Human relationships and
interaction within the family and church are judged either good
or evil based on the Bible, but not the state. Adultery is
considered sin within the church and family, but fundamentalists
have stopped requiring or even expecting the state to punish this
evil. Why? Most U. S. citizens, who are not fundamentalists,
don't believe adultery is evil. The larger cultural ethic, which
is upheld by the state, has brainwashed even the children of the
fundamentalists. The public school is perhaps one of the more
well known tools in doing this. As a result, there is no need of
a savior because there is no ethical sin to be saved from. The
state and it's institutions do not give God glory.

Is a religious pluralistic civil government of faith?

Why bother asking such a question? In most fundamental
Bible-believing circles it is believed that any activity done
without faith is displeasing to God. Without faith [in God] it
is impossible to please God. [Hebrews 11:6a]. Does this include
only what man decides to label as 'spiritual' or does it include
the so-called 'secular' things as well? Romans 14:23 says
whatsoever is not of faith is sin. A closer examination of the
apostle Paul's argument in Romans 14 does reveal a primary work:
building the Kingdom of God as well as secondary work in support
of the primary. Let's assume for the moment that civil
government is put in the same category as eating and drinking.
We may paraphrase Romans 14:17 as "for the kingdom of God is not
a matter of [political philosophy] but of righteousness, peace
and joy in the Holy Spirit." Paul's teaching here is that even
the secondary work, such as eating and drinking which are
necessary to keep the body alive, must be holy. The Bible says
it must be of faith or else it is sin.

God will not grant success to a Christian who attempts to
accomplish the primary goals of the Kingdom of God [Romans 14:17]
by using unholy (without faith) works. In agreement with this
idea, James says that faith without works is dead [James 2:20],
i.e., where their is no faith God is not present. He does not
bless kingdom growth.

A minority of voting citizens within this country have lobbied
for law in support of such unpopular ideas as legalized human
fetus murder and sexual orientation anti-discrimination. This
minority is continuing to push in this area for a complete
cultural acceptance of homosexual "rights". How come this small
minority, has overcome the vast majority who permit themselves to
be called Christian?

God will not be mocked. If we put these two ideas together when
considering the American Christian's influence on politics and
civil law then we have a correlation. Because religious
pluralistic civil government is not of faith, relative to
democratic numbers of Christians, we have been unsuccessful in
the civil realm. For the most part Christians are inactive
politically. Indeed some vote, but very few go beyond that. How
many dialog with elected officials? How many give money to good
candidates? This is why citizens with the self-consistent
opposing political world-view are winning.

Instead of faith in Christ we have placed faith in democracy.
Instead of faith in the Holy Spirit we have placed faith in the
conscience of the voters. Instead of faith in God we have placed
faith in 'We the People'. This is sin.