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.