NOW AVAILABLE !

NOW AVAILABLE !

 

Baptist History in America Vindicated

 

The First Baptist Church in America, a Resurfaced Issue of Controversy, the Facts and the Importance

 

By Joshua S. Davenport

 

 In 2011, the history of the first Baptist church in America was attacked by those who had financial and doctrinal motivations for doing so.  This 46-page booklet, which includes quotes, pictures and 70 documented endnotes, proves that the first Baptist church in America was started by John Clarke.  With this booklet you will have all of the resources needed to understand the facts and importance of this issue.  You can obtain a copy of this book for $6 (including shipping & handling) by contacting Josh Davenport at 712-260-1464 or vbcofspencer@smunet.net.

The First Baptist Church in America

Whether you are privy to this or not, the issue of the first Baptist church inAmericahas resurfaced once again and has been challenged by those within our own independent Baptist ranks.  Without going into much detail and avoiding the possibility of seeming inflammatory, let me just say that, sadly but proven, financial profit was the human reason for this most recent attack on historical truth.

 The Issue

                Is the currentFirstBaptistChurchatProvidence,Rhode Islandor the current United Baptist Church of Newport, Rhode Island the firstBaptistChurchinAmerica?  Was the first Baptist church inAmericastarted by Roger Williams or John Clarke?  Those who have launched this most recent perversion of historical carelessness say that Williams started theProvidencechurch in 1638 and that Clarke started theNewportchurch in 1644. 

There are basically only two reasons why the Providence-before-Newport theory exists: (1) the self-proclaimed beginning date of the Providence church being 1639, and (2) the abundance of histories that have been written about this issue based primarily on the great (but not infallible) historical works of Isaac Backus when he said that the Newport church was started “about the year 1644” (A History of New England Baptists, Vol. I, pg 125).  While nothing  more than  mere  tradition supports  theProvidence- before-Newport theory, more pertinent evidence proves otherwise.  However, the pride of consistency won’t always allow the evidence to be accepted and there are demonic reasons as to why that is.  So, before you deem this as unnecessary or minimal in importance, you should consider why this is such an issue and why there is so much noise about it from both sides.

 The Facts

                While there is much necessary information that proves theNewportchurch was the first Baptist church inAmerica, there are basically four categories of facts that need to be proposed to help understand the issue.

 (1) While the Providence church claims the beginning date of 1639 and others have said that the Newport church was started “about the year 1644” the church at Newport was actually started in 1638 thus making it at least one year older than the Providence church.  Although Backus is considered the first (by mere popularity) Baptist historian in America, there was actually an historian before him who was closer in time to the issue at hand.  That historian was John Comer.  James W. Willmarth, in his notes in John Comer’s published diary says, “The organization of the First Church was effected probably early in 1638, the year of the settlement of the colony.  Mr. Clarke began his ministry as soon as the colonists arrived.  John Winthrop, the governor of Massachusetts, assures us of this fact in a written statement made that very year; in 1638 he affirmed that Mr. Clarke was ‘preacher to those of the Island’”.  Another less-known historian and sixth pastor of the Newport church, John Callender said in his Historical Discourse on the Civil and Religious Affairs of Rhode Island, “Mr. John Clarke, who was a Man of Letters, carried on publick [old spelling] Worship at the first coming. [to Rhode Island]”  The Warren Association (of Baptist churches) of Rhode Island, when confronting the resurfaced controversy in the 1840’s, appointed a committee who, in 1849, reported that the Newport church “was formed certainly before the 1^st of May, 1639, and probably on the 7^th of March, 1638.”  Comer also said in 1730, “This (speaking of theNewport church) is theFirstBaptistChurch inRhode Island, and the first inAmerica”.

 Both Roger Williams and John Clarke were religious leaders, statesmen and friends of religious liberty.  They both led several people who had fled religious tyranny from elsewhere in the new land, purchased theislandofRhode Islandcollectively from the Indians but then went their separate ways (mostly for reasons explained in fact #4).  Williams led a group of people to what would becomeProvidencein 1639.  Clarke led a group of people to what would becomePortsmouthand on March 7, 1638, they formed a civil government inPortsmouthby making a civil compact called the Portsmouth Compact.  It wasn’t until 1639 that Clarke and several others moved and foundedNewportbut do you think that a Baptist preacher and a group of people who fled religious tyranny (sounds like Baptist people to me) would wait over a year before they organized into some kind of church, let alone waiting until 1644?  Would the group that originally organized inPortsmouthin 1638 wait until they moved toNewportto start a church?  With knowing that a church is a people and not a building, we must understand that the current church inNewportwas actually started inPortsmouth. 

John T. Christian, in his A History of the Baptists, said on page 43 of Volume II, “Dr. John Clarke…was a Baptist minister before he came to America”.  Clarke was a Baptist preacher who, according to Winthrop, was a “preacher to those of the Island” and according to Callender, “carried on publick Worship at the first coming”.  But let the marble etched and weather beaten tomb stone of Clarke speak for the truth when it says, “To the memory of Doctor John Clarke, One of the original purchasers and proprietors of this island and one of the founders of the First Baptist Church of Newport, its first pastor and munificent benefactor; He was a native of Bedfordshire, England, and a practitioner of physic in London.  He, with his associates, came to this island from Mass., in March, 1638, O.S., and on the 24^th of the same month obtained a deed thereof from the Indians.  He shortly after gathered the church aforesaid and became its pastor…” (underlined emphasis added and last half of epitaph left out for sake of pertinence). 

 It is no coincidence that the Warren Association said that the church was “probably” started in March of 1638, the same time that the same group compacted together in a civil fashion.  In his Historical Discourse, Callender says on page 212, “March 7^th, 1638 – The persons thus associated, eighteen in number, having obtained a place for their purpose, on the Island of Aquiday, signed their names to a church covenant, which also embodied in itself a civil compact.”  TheNewport church before settling inNewport had actually organized atPortsmouth under the leadership of the Baptist preacher, John Clarke.  As James Beller recently said about this issue in an open letter to the attackers of truth, “What we have is an assumption by Isaac Backus, with Benedict, Armitage, etc., following suit.  The testimony of those closest to the situation: John Winthrop, John Comer, John Callender and the Warren Association should take precedence.”

(2) While it is said that the Providence church is the oldest because it was started in 1639, it is a proven fact that this proposed date cannot be proved and is only speculative.  There is a lack of historical evidence to accurately secure the Providence church’s beginning date as 1639.  Backus, speaking of the Providence church, says in his History of New England Baptists, “no regular records before 1770 can now be found”.  Dr. Caldwell, once a pastor at the Providence church said, “No records before the coming of Manning (12^th pastor from 1771-1791), in fact, prior to 1775, have been preserved… One hundred and fifty years of the story now told has had to be taken wherever it could be found, and not from any records preserved and authenticated by the church itself.”  So what records were used to authenticate the historical chronology of the Providence church?  Many years later, Dr. Manning, speaking of the pastor who came after him, said, “During the brief period of his stay here Reverend John Stanford (who pastored Providence in 1788 and 1789) gathered such facts as he could find, and his account was inserted in the Book of Records.  It has been quoted by Benedict (author of A General History of the Baptist Denomination in 1813) and other writers, as if it had the authority of original records.  But it contains many errors.”  So we see that Stanford compiled and injected notes into the church record books 150 years after the alleged beginning date, to authenticate the claim. 

The above claim by Manning was made in 1817.  Benedict’s work was originally published in 1813 but when J.R. Graves visited Benedict in the 1850’s with the accurate historical evidence on the issue,Graves said of Benedict’s reaction, “it was his rule not to go behind the records of the churches.  His verdict was in accordance with the records of theProvidence church.  If he had erred he had been misled by those records, and with no intention to disparage the claims of theNewport church.  He admitted the growing perplexities that had for years confused and unsettled his mind as to the correctness of Mr. Stanford’s history of theProvidence church, compiled without any church record, and a full century after its origin. It would not be strange, but indeed probable, that errors, and not a few, would occur”.  Before Benedict died, he said about this issue, “The more I study on this subject, the more I am unsettled and confused”.  Dr. Caldwell said in April of 1889, “We (speaking as a friend and former pastor of theProvidence church) celebrate, after all, an unknown day.  There is no record of the exact date of our beginnings.”

(3) While it is claimed that the church in Providence is the first and oldest Baptist church in America, the truth is that the current First Baptist Church in Providence is actually not the same church which was started by Roger Williams and neither does that original church still exist.  The current First Baptist Church of Providence is the result of a classic church split  which occurred in 1652 and now we have historical confusion because the seceding church wants to claim the original church’s heritage of 1639 (which is easier to do when the original church no longer exists to contend for the chronological claim).  The split caused there to be two churches inProvidence.  The original congregation was then led by a man named Olney (Williams having already “deserted” the church for reasons given in fact #4) while the seceding group was led by Wickenden, Brown and Dexter.  The original church ceased to exist in the early 1700’s but the seceding congregation exists to this day as the First Baptist Church of Providence and therefore, because the split occurred in 1652, the current First Baptist Church of Providence started in 1652 (which, by the way, is after 1638, 1639 and 1644). 

Strangely, Comer’s works were utilized by Backus (obviously not completely) but historian Edward Peterson, who also viewed Comer’s works said, “The First Baptist Church in Providence has assumed two points which she is unable to maintain: First, her existence being prior to that of the church at Newport; secondly, that the church was founded by Roger Williams…. he [Comer] says in one place that it [the church at Newport] is the first of the Baptist denomination [in America]”.  Callender also said in his Historical Discourse of 1738 that, “The most ancient inhabitants now alive, some of them above eighty years old, who personally knew Mr. Williams, and were well acquainted with many of the original Settlers, never heard that Mr. Williams formed the Baptist Church there…”  That is because the time period when those testimonials were given was prior to when Stanford had changed the records and the existingProvidence church was not claiming theProvidence-before-Newport theory yet.  That proves that the currentProvidence congregation did not always claim the title of “first” and that the church that WAS started by Williams had already ceased to exist by the time those testimonials were given in the early 1700’s.  Even if the church atNewport would have started as late as 1644 it would still have been older than the current congregation represented and known as the First Baptist Church of Providence (a title of blatant dishonesty).  No wonder David Benedict was “confused” about this issue!

(4) While it is said that Roger Williams started the first Baptist church in America, his baptism was not legitimate and he therefore did not have the Biblical authority to start a church.  Roger Williams was a great thinker, writer and statesman but he was not a Baptist as we have so often been told.  Williams was an Episcopalian minister who, before coming toAmerica, had been intrigued by Baptist principles and the concept of religious liberty thru the writings and sufferings of the Baptists.  After coming toAmerica and leaving the established church, Williams and other like-minded men settled inProvidence and decided to organize a church on Baptist principles.  The event is commonly recorded in various Baptist histories how the church was started.  One of the men in the group, one Ezekiel Holliman, baptized Williams who in turn  baptized  Holliman and ten others.  It is a principle ofNewTestamentChurch doctrine that the person who is baptizing must be baptized (the exception being the initial baptismal ministry of John the Baptist).  Can you become a Baptist by asking just anyone off the street to baptize you? 

Remember, as John T. Christian explained, “Dr. John Clarke…was a Baptist minister before he came to America” and had the authority to baptize and organize a church but Williams, according to Graves, “did not believe that there was a church on earth scripturally authorized to administer the ordinances, and under the influence of an imagined inspiration from Heaven, he felt authorized to originate one, but in a few weeks he saw his folly, repudiated his act, deserted his ill-gathered company, and ‘in four months it came to nothing,’ says Cotton Mather.”  If anyone took baptismal authority and successional authenticity to an extreme it was Williams, because He did not disagree that a church needed to be “scripturally authorized” but believed that no church at that time had that authority.  AsGraves put it, “He (Williams) was never a Baptist one hour in his life”. 

 The Importance

                (1) Integrity for Historical Correctness – History and Facts are important and we shouldn’t be afraid of the facts just because they might upset the proverbial cart of popular historical teaching.  Once we start changing history we change who we are, where we came from and where we are going.  Maybe Stanford did what he did in 1788 or 1789 to coincide with Backus’ work which was published in 1777.  Just think – notable historians such as Cathcart, Benedict and Armitage along with more contemporary and liberal historians such as Vedder and Torbet might have had different conclusions about this issue if their most trusted sources for this subject (the works of Backus and the injected notes of Stanford) would have been correct (interestingly, the venerable John T. Christian was right on this issue in his works published in 1922).  Oh how we need to be careful with preserving our history and not be careless and presuming like Stanford by twisting the facts to paint an untrue depiction.

(2) Proper Examples of Doctrinal Soundness – How sad it is that the supposed firstBaptistChurch inAmerica was not even started with Biblical baptism.  Some might say that the only authority one needs for baptism is the Word of God, which is true, but the Word of God authoritatively gives that authority to the church – the pillar and ground of the truth and the sole recipient and instituted executor of the three-fold great commission.  You can’t have a church without baptism (correct baptism that is), yet for years, we have held up this example of one who tried to do so.  This poor veneration can only lead to the belittling and eventually the abandonment of Baptist principles – particularly the ordinances – our identifiers!  It can probably be proven that it already has on many fronts.

(3) Regard for our Baptist Heritage – Up until the late 1800’s it was almost impossible to find a Baptist who believed that Baptists were Protestants but now the theory is prevalent among all kinds of Baptists.  This is mainly because of the efforts of a compromising Baptist preacher by the name of William Whitsitt, who, in the late 1800’s promoted the idea that Baptists are a fairly new sect that started sometime in the mid 1600’s.  The idea of Roger Williams starting a Baptist church on principles only and without any Biblical church authority or Baptist background would support (by mere influence) the Whitsitt theory, especially with having the prominent distinction of being the first in the nation. 

The long-term legacy of the Newportchurch is also important because, unlike the Providencechurch, it truly is the ancestor of most Baptists in America.  The Newport church was a church planting church and out of the churches started in Connecticut thru their efforts, was birthed what would become known as the Separate Baptist Revival – the greatest revival in American history.  (for more information read Baptist Foundations in the South by William Lumpkin and America in Crimson Red by James Beller) Many independent Baptists can theoretically trace our heritage thru the Separate Baptist revival and eventually back to John Clarke.  What a glorious heritage to be claimed and one that cannot be claimed by the Providence church (it had very little fruit from whatever time it started until its disbandment in the early 1700’s).

 (4) Historic Influence on American Principles – The Separate Baptist revival and its immediate and amazing church planting result in the south prior to a Constitutional America, created such a stir for the cause of religious liberty in a natural reply by our framers to our persecution under the state church, that the result was eventually our first amendment to the Bill or Rights (read the aforementioned book by Lumpkin for more detail).  Religious liberty and separation of church and state (properly defined) is the Baptist contribution to our constitutional republic.  That being said, it should be no shock to us that “evangelical” Protestants can’t understand why one of our distinctives is separation of church and state, because you can’t truly understand American history until you understand Baptist history (which is why THIS particular part of Baptist history is so vital for us to understand).

Not only is the Newport church amazing because of the Separate Baptist revival that was birthed out of her church planting efforts but the efforts of John Clarke and the Baptists of Newport for the cause of liberty are amazing in and of themselves.  It was Clarke that labored for twelve years to obtain a charter from the king ofEnglandthat would establish religious liberty inRhode Islandfor over a century prior to the federal Bill of Rights.  It was the second pastor of theNewportchurch, Obadiah Holmes, who was publicly whipped inBostonfor his Baptist views.  To embrace and honor a church like Providence as the first and most significant is not only historically incorrect but dangerous to our liberty because if “we the people” venerate Providence as a model, we will repeat what our model did do and didn’t do – start churches with no authority, have very little impact on civil government and die absolutely with almost no fruit (because of little church planting).  Without true churches, (the pillar and ground of the truth) in each community, liberty and freedom will cease to exist.  In an essence, if Baptists die out, our principles die out as well and our nation will suffer because it was Baptist principles that led our country to be the bastion of liberty it is today.  It was not churches likeProvidencethat had great impact on our nation’s founding principles and more churches likeProvidencetoday will do no more.

 In Conclusion

                As Pastor and Historian Dolton Robertson recently said while commenting on this issue in the Ancient Baptist Journal, “This concern goes far beyond a disagreement over matters of historical indifference” and later said, “It is not a squabble over meaningless historical data.”  I believe the regurgitation of this issue is one of Satan’s great attempts to not only detach us from our Baptist heritage but also from our ecclesiastical views and principles of civil government.  For more information on this issue, read the time tested book entitled The First Baptist Church in America – not founded by Roger Williams by Graves and Adlam, 1887.  This book can be obtained from Bogard Press inTexarkana,AR or from Local Church Bible Publishers/Calvary Publishing inLansing,MI.

Highlight Video of 2011 Virginia Baptist History and Religious Liberty Tour

Church Planting – the solution to America’s problems

We can get involved in our civil government, proclaim the truth, expose error and hold our legislators acountable until we are blue in the face (and we should) but the one thing that will change our nation more than anything is the local church impacting the souls and lives of a community’s citizens.  If we desire truth as found in God’s Word to be promoted in our society then their must be a presence of the “pillar and ground of the truth” which is the local church (I Timothy 3:15). 

For centuries, various religious groups have tried to force “truth” on people through the means of a church state marriage by using the sword as peruasion.  As Baptists our sword is the Word of God which is the “word of truth” and the “pillar and ground of the truth” must be the vehicle that is used to promote that truth.  With churches turning apostate and closing their doors, church planting is the solution to America’s problems.

When it comes to church planting, there is no end to the amount of methodology that is being promoted and yet we are not getting the job done.  There was, however, a time prior to advanced media, technology and entertainment that the job WAS getting done in America.  The Separate Baptist Revival of the mid 1700′s literally changed our country and its ideals.  It created what is referred to today as “The Bible Belt” (tho not as Biblical as it was) and its influence crept into the north as her converts journeyed that way.

In this new book, Multiplying Model, James Beller (pastor, church planter, historian and author) has explained the inner workings of the Separate Baptist Revival and how churches were planted (multiplied) by the thousands at an amazing rate.  Not only is the Separate Baptist model of church planting proven historically, it is also scriptural.  You will also find testimonies in the book of those who are using and proving the multiplying model today.

Other than the obvious principle of “churches starting churches” the book centers around one theme “Pastor Initiated Church Planting” which, as described in the book, is pastors doing the work of an evangelist.  A current problem when it comes to church planting today is that of wasting time.  We waste time trying to raise a lot of money to start a church and then we waste time waiting for “the right young guy” to come along to do the work of an evangelist for us.

I encourage you to purchase this book, not merely for its interesting historical content, but for its main purpose – helping pastors see how America was impacted in a large way so that we can see how we can have that same impact today.  To learn more you can visit multiplyingmodel.com (linked at the bottom of this site) which is an interactive site created to help pastors, evangelists and church planters who are interested in the multiplying model, network with one another in church planting efforts.  From that site there is a link to Prairie Fires Press where you can order this new book and other works written by James Beller.

The History of “one nation under God”

The original pledge of allegiance was written in 1892 by a Baptist preacher by the name of Francis Bellamy.  The original wording was, “I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all”.  It should be noted that the word “republic” would be used and not “democracy” because a republic is a narrower form of democracy and is almost an exclusively American practice (in current days).  Such things as a pledge can be very beneficial to the patriotic welfare of a nation and can be compared to such symbols as the eagle and the liberty bell and such holidays as the 4th of July and Memorial Day.  The pledge went through a few changes over the years, including the addition of comparitively insignificant words such as “to”, “the” and “of” and obvious patriotic additions such as “the United States” and “of America”.  But in 1954 a major change was made to the pledge – the addition of the term “under God”.  Now to a Bible-believing Christian like myself and many I know, this does not offend and is even the truth.  But can all Americans say that or believe that?  Can the Hindu, Budist or Muslim American say the pledge with a clear conscience knowing that “under God” is referring to Jehovah God of the Holy Bible and Christianity?  Now, first I want to make clear that I am not arguing this from a liberal and twisted separation of church and state standpoint but from a religious liberty standpoint.  We live in a country where we no longer have a religious test to hold a public office (and it is good we don’t) and we also have no relgious test to be a citizen.  I believe it would be a violation of a Muslim’s or Hindu’s conscience to say the pledge because they are having to verbally acknowledge the existence of who we know as the one true God (it is rediculous to assume it could refer to any “god” for absurd politically correct reasons).  One might argue, “But they are not required to say the pledge” which is true but then our government would be promoting religious tolerance and not religious liberty.  Religious tolerance means that we will tolerate the existance of your religion among us but we prefer another religion and will give special status to that religion over others (like referring to it as a “Christian nation”).  When “under God” is in the pledge and we say that some do not have to say it because of personal religious convictions then we are saying that we will tolerate the Hindu, the Budist and the Muslim but we prefer Christianity.  That is not EQUAL protection (of liberties) under the law.  We are talking about a pledge that has Federal Code status and must be approved by the Congress as it has been when changes were made.  The pledge is not some cute patriotic statement but is a government endorsed pledge to our national flag.  Now, it is an interesting study to find out who was behind the addition of the term “under God”.  There were different people and groups in our history that mentioned the addition of the term, using President Lincoln’s debatable use of the term in his Gettysburg address and support for its adoption, but the group that actually lobbied for the term’s adoption was the Knights of Columbus.  Now thought of as a group of good ol’ boys who get together for private ”fellowship” and make donations to charities, their history has not been so tame.  Founded in 1882, the “K of C” is the world’s largest Catholic fraternal service organization that was founded to give Catholic men an opportunity to join a fraternal organization because Catholics were barred from joining such groups as the Freemasons.  Now just a social shell of their former “glory” they have historically been a politically active group that accomplished the recognition of Columbus Day and made stands for the sanctity of life.  But why would they promote the term “under God” to be added to the pledge?  Well, though tamed down in America by over 200 years of constitutional protection of religious liberty, the Catholics have never been friends of religious liberty.  Through their crusades and church/state marriages their historic ways of political activism have been to convert by the sword.  Through their infant baptism and confessional booths they have belittled the liberty of conscience and do not believe in religious liberty though forced to practice so, thanks to our wonderful First Ammendment.  And who signed this change into law?  President Eisenhower signed it after being persuaded to do so by Dr. George MacPherson Docherty, a Presbyterian minister in the DC area.  The Presbyterians, historically have also not been friends of religious liberty.  Tracing their denominational heritate back to John Calvin, their history is flooded with examples of wielding the sword of religious persecution.  It is an interesting fact that Eisenhower was “baptized” into the Presbyterian church just ONE YEAR prior to his signing in of the pledge change in 1954.  My point is this – maybe the Baptist who wrote the original pledge left religious tones out for a reason.  Bellamy, being educated in the 1800′s, no doubt knew of the sufferings of our Baptist forefathers at the hands of religious tyrants.  He was well informed of the struggles of Roger Williams, John Clarke and others in their fight and struggle for religious liberty in America.  The Catholics and the Protestants have always wanted to force religious convictions upon others by governmental means and in our free America the only way they could attempt to do so was by subtly adding such a statement to our beloved pledge.  Maybe Bellamy the Baptist knew to leave theological beliefs out of a national pledge because Baptist principles taught him liberty of conscience and separation of church and state.  Maybe he truly believed in “one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all”.

Is America a Christian Nation?

A firestorm has occured over a statement that was recently made by our 44th president.  He said, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”  Now, I don’t agree with 99% of what this president says but I believe his statement is factual.  My evaluation may seem strange but I want you to really think about this for a moment.  For one thing, I personally don’t know how we could consider ourselves a Christian nation when we look at the number of abortions and the approval of sodomy.  But my evaluation is based upon a premise much deeper than the visible social problems.  For someone to say that this is a Christian nation would mean that our country prefers one religion over another.  One might argue and say, “Well a person has a right to believe whatever they want but this nation prefers Christianity”.  I am a Christian, I want everyone to be a Christian, I think it is right to be a Christian, I am a Baptist, I want everyone to be a Baptist, I think it is right to be a Baptist and I am theologically conservative.  I don’t believe that everyone is right “in their own little way” and I don’t believe that one religion is just as good as another.  However, I do believe that a person is “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”, one of which is the liberty of conscience – the right to believe what you believe is right to believe.  If one group does not have religious liberty then it won’t be long before your group won’t have religious liberty.  To say that we are a nation that prefers Christianity but allows other religions, is tolerance of other religions but not liberty.  In England, Spurgeon’s Metropolitan Tabernacle was not allowed to be called a Church because of the Church of England State Church and no church was allowed to call themselves a church unless they were the Church of England because the Church of England made and enforced the laws.  They did not say that you could not assemble and believe what you wanted – this was tolerance and not liberty.  They tolerated Spurgeon’s Baptist church but preferred the Church of England as a nation.  We must understand that America is not, neither should it be, a theocracy. 

Yes, God is grieved (and we should be too) that some choose to serve false gods but God is also grieved when we try to molest someone’s conscience and try to force them into a belief thru civil government.  This is where infant baptism originated.  When Constantine’s state married the church, you not only had to be a citizen but a church member and so to become a citizen of this church/state marriage you were sprinkled as an infant.  Biblically, baptism is supposed to be a decision made by the individual after salvation and not forced upon them by civil government.  Protestants also have always believed in replacement theology, believing that “the church” replaced Israel in regards to the covenants given to Israel in the Old Testament.  With that mindset, one is able to use the example of God telling Israel to conquer the Promised Land to justfiy wiping out “heretics” in our day (the Crusades) and converting others by the sword to set up a “kingdom” that can be ruled by God.  However, God is not done with Israel and the local church has not taken on the responsibility of setting up an earthly kingdom. 

You have a right to be a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu or a Christian in this nation because we only punish people for “acts of crime” not “thoughts of crime”.  Civil government has no right to tell us what is right to believe – that is the problem with hate crimes!  

Religious liberty has always been a principle of the Baptists.  Rhode Island was founded by Baptists.  John Clarke was a medical physician and Baptist preacher who started the First Baptist Church in America in Newport, Rhode Island in 1638.  In 1663 he personaly obtained the royal charter for Rhode Island from the King of England.  The following words are not only found in the charter but are engraved in large letters above the Rhode Island state house to this day: “To hold forth in a lively experiment that a flourishing civil state may stand and best be maintained with full liberty of religious concernments.”  For that reason, the Jews found their first religious liberty in Newport where still exists the oldest Jewish Synagogue in the United States.  From Clarke’s words in the royal charter we can see that Baptists have always stood for “FULL liberty in religious concernments”. 

What Mr. Obama said in his speech was exactly right, “We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”  Our nation is “bound” by a “set of values” called the Constitution – a compact between men, not a convenant between man and God.  We do not believe in coventant/replacement theology. 

No nation can call itself “Christian” because your religious status is not something that can be dictaded by another person in a nation such as America where we have liberty.  The following are the words of R.H. Pitt as found in J.B. Jeter’s 1902 Baptist Principles Reset: The emphasis which has been laid upon this statement, that “we are a Christian nation” and the insistent assertion that we have therefore the right to enact general Christian legislation, to discriminate in favor of the Christian relgion as against any other, though not to discriminate in favor of any special sect of Christians, seems to make it necessary to travel over somewhat familiar ground and to restate seom fundamental principles.  We are a Christian people, in the sense that the great majority of our people are either actively or nominally sympathetic with some form of the Christian religion; we are not a Christin nation, in the sense that we have a right to impose by law disntinctively Christian duties upon others.  The ethical principles which Christianity presents in their most complete form, and which are reflected to a gratifying degree in our laws, are not true because they are taught by Christ and his inspired followers.  Christ taught them because they were true, and they would have been true if he had never taught them.  They are eternally and unchangeably true.  For this reason, and not because Christ taught them, are they inwrought in our laws.  Of course, this by no means implies that Christianity has not put added emphasis on many of these principles and made it possible to give them full recognition in the laws of the State.  That the State depends for its safety and stability upon the prevalence of pure religion among its constituents is certainly true; that the State cannot properly administer in religion is equally true.  We can easily test for ourselves the validity of the new and modified doctrine of the separation of Church and State, which, we regret to say, has gained currency recently, and against which we earnestly protest.  If ours is “a Christian nation,” in the sense that we may properly invoke State support for Christianity or for its institutions, then why for one Christian institution and not for another?

We really need to think about the phrase “a Christian nation” and learn to study history for ouselves instead of getting our political outlook from agenda-driven reformed theologians who look patriotic on the outside.

Is Civil Disobedience Justified by God?

Just ask Daniel and the three other Hebrew chidlren.  Ask Paul, who continued to preach after being commanded by the government to stop.  These were believers who, not for reason of rebellion but for conscience sake, disobeyed the laws of civil government.  Now this is only justified in two different cases: (1) When civil government is breaking its own laws and (2) when following a certain civil law would violate one’s conscience (feel that it is morlly wrong).  Violation of the Constitution by civil government must be addressed head-on and inforcement rejected for the purpose of preserving the strength and use of the Constitution.  We are not promoting anarchy and saying that civil government is not necessary – God instituted for us the establishment of civil government in Genesis 9.  One might ask, “What about Romans 13?”   Romans 13 is referring to obeying the law in general but when you compare scripture with scripture (like those stories mentioned above) it cannot be referring to obeying laws that are wrong.  I don’t agree with the seat belt law but I don’t believe it is scripturally wrong and it doesn’t violate my conscience to follow it so I do follow it because of Romans 13.  The key is understanding that although a certain government may be ordained of God (meaning He will use it for His purpose – like using the Babylonian empire to judge Israel in the OT), it is not created by God because the establishment of human government is the responsibility of man (Genesis 9).  That is why “we the people” in the great United States of America are a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”.  Our founding fathers knew this and our Baptist forefathers paved the way for this.  Ask Obadiah Holmes about civil disobedience when he was publicly whipped in Boston for partaking in an unauthorized church service.  Ask the 40 plus Baptist preachers about civil disobedience who were imprisoned in Virginia for preaching without a government license.  Civil disobedience was the first step taken in the development of our nation.  Civil government is scriptural, laws are needed and we have the best government in the world but in this day and age when we are seeing our liberties stripped from us and laws enforced that are scripturally evil, “civil disobedience” may have to become a common term and a necessary practice.  Peter said in Acts 5:29, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

Unconstitutional “Hate Crimes” Legislation

History proves that the journey to destruction is made by taking one little step at a time.  Before a nation becomes fascist or communist the people are first pressured into being quiet about their beliefs and opinions.  On Wednesday, October 28^th, President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law.  And while the contents of this legislation may not be totally “fascist” or “communistic” they are steps leading towards that direction and away from the first principles of our Constitutional Republic.  This proposed legislation was an amendment to the 2010 Defense Authorization Bill (HR 2647) and recognizes a “hate crime” as a federal offense.  Now, this sounds noble until you look closer at the wording of the bill and think about the concept as a whole.  According to Sec. 524 of the bill, a hate crime “applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of a victim.”  Now I do not approve of anyone engaging in an act of violence against another person because that person is a homosexual or a different color (the acts committed against Shepard and Byrd were inexcusable) but this law creates a special class of victims and does away with equal justice in America as we know it by punishing a perpetrator even more so just because of his pre-existing beliefs and opinions.  This makes this law unconstitutional by terms given in the 14^th Amendment.  The new law stipulates that people convicted of a hate crime could be subject to more prison time and penalties than people who commit a crime that falls outside the class of hate crimes.  Under this system, certain thoughts and beliefs become “crimes”.  Think about that for a moment!  We live in a nation of liberty – liberty to believe what you want to believe and have the freedom of speech.  One’s personal beliefs and opinions have never been criminal which is why you have never heard of the term “criminal thought” but you have heard of a “criminal act”.  With that being said, let me further say that although hate may be morally wrong and some of us might consider it a sin, hate is not a crime and has never been a crime punishable by civil government in the United States.  Hate is something that happens within oneself but if it leads to a violent act, then the perpetrator is punished because of the action alone and not the motive.  Motive may be evidence but it is not the criminal act itself.  Only actions should be crimes, not beliefs or opinions. 

More alarming than the special status the government now gives to certain segments of society is a provision in the law that allows for the prosecution of those who appear to “incite” or provide motivation for a “hate crime”.  The federal aiding and abetting law states that an individual is liable for a federal crime even if they do not physically perform it, so as long as they “induce”, counsel, aid or abet it.  “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsel, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal,” the law says.  An individual can be held liable for a hate crime even if his “exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to plan or prepare for an act of physical violence or incite an imminent act of physical violence against another.”  But how will this “incit[ing]” and “intent[ion]” be determined?  Three times the term “determined by the Attorney General” is found in the new bill, including when it says, “groups or organizations that are determined by the Attorney General to be violent, extremist in nature” (and I personally don’t trust Mr. Holder’s discretion in this area).  Why should the Attorney General and his hired hands be able to determine what hate is?  They can’t and no one can for someone else because that is a decision of the conscience which is exactly why we punish only acts (or used to).  What’s next?  Thought crimes?  Opinion Crimes?  Now we may not agree with the opinions and thoughts of all Americans but we only punish people if they commit a criminal act.  If they haven’t committed a criminal act then the government needs to keep their hands off of the consciences of its citizens.  Many liberals today are shouting about separation of church and state (which is a principle that is necessary to maintain liberty) but they have crossed over that line themselves by allowing matters of the conscience to be punishable by the magistrates. 

If criminal acts are already illegal and prosecuted in our nation then what is the real purpose of this law?  It has nothing to do with fairness or justice and definitely has nothing to do with defense authorization.  It is sad that this amendment which was attached to a bill that funds the troops to protect our country and Constitution undermines the very principles being fought for by those troops.  But 2009 is not the first time our chosen and hired representatives have seen the hate crimes bill.  Senator Edward Kennedy was the bill’s first sponsor in 1997 but both chambers blocked it as a stand alone bill.  Since then, the hate crimes bill has passed the House or the Senate five times but was always removed in conference committees between the chambers.  Disgustingly, this time the liberal agenda of systematically dismantling our Constitution was hidden behind the names of two victims and added to a very important bill.  The House vote on October 8^th was 281 to 146 and that was for the whole appropriation and not just for the hate crimes legislation alone.  What a quandary to be put in as a representative legislator who wants to fund our defense system and is also loyal to the Constitution and its 14^th Amendment!  The purpose of this law is to silence people and control them – and that is not liberty!  Will this begin to silence certain segments of the media, will it silence preachers, will it intimidate the average citizen into not voicing their opinion?  Under the current administration such a law could be used against conservative Americans but if a conservative administration gets back in control then this law could be wrongfully used against liberal Americans.  (remember the Attorney General’s discretion)  We must understand that this is not a Republican and Democrat issue – this is a liberty issue.  Our republic of “we the people” is dependent upon the opinions of the people and so therefore opinions should not become criminal.  I believe this is the most dangerous piece of legislation that has been signed into law in a long time but most people don’t see that because it does not directly affect the old pocket book.  “Civil Disobedience” is a term that we may have to become familiar with again and practice again if we are going to maintain the liberty established for “we the people”, by the people who stood up against a tyrannical government themselves over 200 years ago.  John Leland, the persecuted Virginia Baptist preacher who was responsible for the 1^st Amendment said, “That every law made by legislators, inconsistent with the compact, modernly called a constitution, is usurping in the legislators, and not binding on the people.  That whenever government is found inadequate to preserve the liberty and property of the people, they have an indubitable right to alter it so as to answer those purposes.  That legislators, in their legislative capacity, cannot alter the constitution, for they are hired servants of the people to act within the limits of the constitution.” Don’t let this bill silence you and your beliefs – be an American and not a “Yes Man” to those who violate your conscience!

Separation of Church and State

When witnessing to or sharing your beliefs in some type of daily dialogue with a political “liberal” have you ever heard them refer to “separation of church and state”?  Any time one’s theological beliefs collide with some debated social or moral issue, that line almost always comes up.  What does it mean and where did it come from?  Although this principle is as old as the New Testament, the verbiage we are familiar with originated with a reply letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.  A major section of the letter says this, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”  Keep in mind that the Baptists he was writing to were well acquainted with the affects of a joining or marriage of church and state.  They had been persecuted in colonial New England for being Baptists because 9 of the original 13 colonies were church-run states.  None of those church/states were Baptist.   Never in history will you find an example of a Baptist church dictating civil government.  (it would be impossible because Baptists historically don’t believe in a universal church monstrosity and it would be impossible for one local church to run a country – this is one of the by-products of a universal/catholic church)  Baptists believe in individual soul liberty, or liberty of conscience, and understand from our history that when one particular church system controls the government then they also have the capability of employing the army to which is subject to that government.  This leads to “convert or be killed”.   Anyway, Jefferson’s letter was the origin of the phrase “separation of church and state” used so often today.  There are many good people with good intentions in the religious right like David Barton and Doug Phillips who are going around and saying that the idea of separation of church and state is a myth designed to stop the influence of Christianity in our nation.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Does separation of church and state mean that civil government cannot control churches OR that one particular church should not control the civil government?  It means both – a complete SEPARATION of church and state.  Now this does not mean that we leave our faith at church and that we don’t bring our faith into the voting booth or public forum.  One’s faith is usually a deep part of one’s life and beliefs, and to compromise those beliefs  for the sake of conformity would be the absence of liberty.   This is a nation of liberty, a nation where “we the people” are not all the same in our beliefs.  The liberals need to understand the benefit of this separation and the religious right needs to as well.  The religious right (comprised of many different denominations) is ignorant about the fact that this nation was not built upon a certain set of theological beliefs.  It is amazing to hear those in the religious right quote and twist verses from the OT that relate only to the theocracy of Israel and give the impression that only Christians should be in control and live in this nation.  We as Christians did not replace Israel and take over where she left off in purging the land of the ungodly.  (that is called replacement/covenant theology and is the postmillenial standpoint of the protestants)  As New Testament believers, OUR job is to preach the gospel.  Now I do not agree with the “liberals” that we cannot speak about matters of faith in a public venue because it would somehow violate the separation of church and state.  How am I as an individual trying to set up a church state marriage by praying in public or sharing my views and beliefs with those who do not agree?  THAT is a first amendment issue, not a violation of the separation of church and state.  It is not ”an establishment of religion” but is the ”free exercise thereof”.  All of this is a result of the “liberals” being afraid of the religious right because, from a “liberal’s” view, the religious right looks like the Catholic Crusaders of the dark ages.  “If you don’t believe what we believe than leave – convert or be killed”.  Where is the liberty in that?  But if history is an example then what does history say about the religious right?  Think about it!  If you are a liberal and you see people on the religious right saying that separation of church and state is a myth and they are trying to forcefully get legislation passed that would choke out your way of life (wrong as it may be), you would stand up against the religious right too.  We should stand up for what we believe and try to promote what we believe but we cannot say “my way or the highway” or “separation of church and state is a myth”.  That is historical and scriptural ignorance!  The answer is not to do away with “separation of church and state” but to properly define it as a principle.  It is a wonderful principle that actually protects us because under the Constitution (ideally) no matter who is in control and what they believe, they cannot dictate what you believe and practice.  If one group does not have liberty to believe what they want to believe and practice what they want to practice (seeing it does not harm another)  then sooner or later NOBODY will have liberty.  The response to a Muslim living as a legal citizen in the United States should not be “You can’t live here because you are a Muslim” but should be ”Will you subject yourself to the Constitution?” regardless of their religion.  This is a nation of religious liberty, is it not?  The most important issues are not abortion, immigration or gay marriage but the safety of our Constitution.  As long as we have separation of church and state and religious liberty, we have the blessed opportunity to not only share what we believe and individually bring our views to the table of government but also have the liberty to fulfill the Great Commission which is what REALLY changes the lives and view points of “we the people”.  We MUST have separation of church and state or we will be destroyed as Baptists in this wicked world.

The Foundation of American Jurisprudence

What is the foundation upon which law was established in the United States of America?  Some people say that our system of law was based upon the 10 commandments of the Old Testament.  Although this is exactly half true, it cannot be entirely true.  The 10 commandments are divided into two tables with five commandments each.  The first five deal with man’s relationship with God while the second five deal with man’s relationship with his fellow man.  So the first table deals with what man believes and the second table affects how man behaves.  American jurisprudence is based only upon the second table of the 10 commandments for the simple reason that while you need to control how people might behave, you should not attempt to control what people might believe.  Now there is nothing wrong with displaying the 10 commandments in public places because it nowhere comes close to an attempt to set up an established religion.  On the contrary, if the 10 commandments were the foundation for our law then we would have to have an established sate religion with a theological belief system because the government enforcing the law would have to define which “god” is being referred to in the first table and how that God should be worshiped.  If that was established, the state-religion’s army could then enforce the strict following of their interpretation.  That would mean a Muslim, a Hindu, a Christian and possibly even a Jew could not be fellow citizens.  That is happening in the Middle East and is exactly what the Crusades were about – destroying those who did not agree with the Roman Catholic Church.   Baptists understand this because, since the days of Christ, Baptists have suffered persecution at the hands of the Jews (in the N.T.), the Catholics and the catholic Reformed.  Historically, Baptists have a good understanding of the separation of church and state because they have suffered the results of church and state marriages.  Even in the colonial days, Baptists were persecuted and imprisoned for their beliefs because they would not violate their conscience in following the established state church.  Baptists do not just believe in freedom for their own beliefs but in liberty for all.  With that being said, it is not strange that the first place in the world where there was religious liberty was colonial Rhode Island.  This state property was purchased by the Baptists from the Indians and is the home of the first Baptist church in the United States.  But to prove that Baptists believe in liberty for all, it is interesting to note that Rhode Island is also the home of the first Jewish Synagogue in America, the first Catholic Church in American and the first Episcopalian Church in America.  The Baptists understood that you can control how people might behave but now how they might believe.

Now this seems to make common sense when you look at it, so why do we hear that the 10 commandments is the basis of American jurisprudence?  Well, most who hold this view have been influenced by or believe in what is called replacement or covenant theology,  which is the belief that ”the church” has replaced the Jews and can therefore adopt the forms of worship and warfare example of Old Testament Israel as well as claim the covenants given to Old Testament Israel.  Baptists understand that God is not done with literal Israel and that the local church is strictly an institution introduced as something new in the New Testament.  One’s eschatology also plays a vital role in this as well.  If you are amillenial, this is the kingdom.  If you are premelliniel, Christ is going to come and clean up our mess by establishing His own kingdom (the correct view).  If you are postmillenial then it would be our job to make this world a good enough place (setting up the kingdom ourselves) that Jesus can just come back to and reign.  This leads to making people do what you believe is right by force which leads to controlling what people might believe.

Believing that the 10 commandments is the foundation of American Jurisprudence is not only ignorant, it could be dangerous.  Men such as David Barton tried to say that James Madison said, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God”.  Now there is some room to decipher what is meant by “govern ourselves” but regardless, there is no proof that Madison ever said this and, respecting his intellect,  it would actually contradict what he proved to believe about religious liberty and civil government.  Barton has since retracted this supposed quote from his materials due to no proof of validity. 

We must remember that it is the government’s job to enforce the second table of the law and the local church’s job to propagate the first table.  As a matter of fact, when we do our part in relation to the first table of the law, via preaching the gospel and church planting, then we produce a people that care about, follow and attempt to preserve our law based upon the second table.  The United States Constitution gives us plenty of room to do “first table work” and so preserving the respect of our Constitution should be the desire of every Baptist individually.