Mainline Baptists Are Not Without Their Problems

Moderate/Liberal Baptists are not without their problems of using the Pulpit to wield political influence over congregations and individual believers as this recent Associated Baptist Press article demonstrates. Quote:

Carter credited Allen's help in an address to about 260 guests at a Georgia event introducing a new biography by McAfee School of Theology professor Larry McSwain titled Loving beyond Your Theology: The Life and Ministry of Jimmy Raymond Allen. The former president said he came to the realization years later as he listened to his long-time minister friend respond in a meeting with African-American Baptist leaders to the question, "When did you first meet Jimmy Carter?"

"I began to realize that when I first came to Texas -- I had won in Iowa and New Hampshire and Florida -- that I was a forlorn, woeful, forgotten, hopeless candidate for president," Carter said. "Until I met Jimmy Allen -- he was pastor of the First Baptist Church in San Antonio -- and he took me under his arm."

"He was reluctant to get involved in politics," Carter said, "but he remembered that I said I was a born-again Christian."

"He pointed out that he wasn't really supporting me," Carter said. "He was supporting the right of somebody to say they are a born-again Christian. So he endorsed me."

Although Allen wasn't an official spokesman for Texas Baptists, Carter said, "because of the introduction and endorsement I got in San Antonio, Texas turned around."

For all the grief we've given about the political influence within the SBC---we are capable of being guilty of the same.

Romans 13 And Civil Religion

I'll return to the main points of my Romans 13 series soon which I hope to cap off with Romans 13 In Baptist Thought: A Call for Separation of Church and State which is what all these posts lead up to. The past 2 posts on Thomas Jefferson that I posted are related to issues with Romans 13 in some sense. I have a few other short posts dealing with issues with Romans 13 and other things before returning to my Post Series Proper. Thanks to a tip from Dr. McGrath, I'll post next in my Post Series Proper on Romans 13 and The Communists in Romania before posting on Romans 13 and the Religious Right and Left and then finally ending the series off with Romans 13 In Baptist Thought: A Call for Separation of Church and State.

Anyways here's a quote from Bruce Prescott's latest post on Civil Religion---Mainstream Baptist: Make Up Your Mind Al Mohler (revised):

Al Mohler has posted a blog praising the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for affirming the constitutionality of using the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance and "In God We Trust" on our coinage. He writes,

This decision is good news, and comes as something of a relief -- especially considering the fact that the Ninth Circuit is involved. There is no substance to the claim that these two phrases violate the Constitution. Furthermore, they represent only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to such questions. This kind of language pervades official discourse - extending even to the phrase "the year of our Lord" in the dating of many government documents.

Mohler then notes that the court determined that the phrases have "no theological significance:"

The court has ruled, in effect, that the language of these contested phrases represents what is rightly called "civil religion." In essence, civil religion is the mass religion that serves the purposes of the state and the culture as a unifying force -- a rather bland and diffused religiosity -- an innocuous theology with little specificity.

Christians must never confuse civil religion with the real thing. When our fellow citizens recite the pledge, it is not to be taken as a statement of personal faith in God. In that sense, Christians are rightly concerned that we make clear what authentic faith in God requires and means. Confusing civil religion with Christianity is deadly dangerous.

On the other hand, Christians are well aware of the constant danger of idolatry, and no entity rivals a powerful government in terms of the idolatrous temptation. In that sense, it is healthy and good that we employ language that relativizes the power and authority of the state. It is both important and healthy that our motto places trust in God, and not in the state. And the knowledge that the nation exists "under God" is no small matter.

Mohler is obviously obfuscating here. Civil religion is deadly and dangerous. Civil religion fashions a god that is subservient to the State and uses religion to bolster an idolatrous form of nationalism. Mohler clearly perceives that this is what the Supreme Court has done in this ruling, yet he praises it as "good news."

This decision is not good news, it is bad news for people of genuine faith and conviction. It makes Christians not only complicit but active promoters of a sin for which God warns he will not hold us guiltless.

Only a false prophet eager to accomodate the itching ears of an idolatrous people could find anthing commendable in news that one of the highest courts in the land has officially declared that the name of God has no theological meaning.

The 9th Circuit, following the U.S. Supreme Court, has legalized what the third command of the Ten Commandments expressly prohibits: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."

This relates to Romans 13 as Romans 13 is often used to support Civil Religion.

Ronald Reagan, Phyllis Schlafly And The NRA More Important Than Thomas Jefferson?

The ongoing "textbook wars" and the battle for the precept of Separation of Church and State in Texas and elsewhere rages on. A commentator on the blog The Moderate Voice left the following comment:

NotFullyBaked 1 day ago

Interesting that when reading the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEK) themselves, they do not seem all that radical--this coming from someone whose politics have described as "somewhere to the left of Mao. See: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/e_attachment...

To fully understand the changes, I think one would need to compare and contrast the Old TEKS with the New TEKS. But with just the New TEKS to scan, I have two comments:

1. I never knew that Ronald Reagan was such an important HISTORICAL figure, and

2. What is Celebrate Freedom Week, anyway, and why does it occupy such an important place in Texas Schools' History curriculum? (Or, did I miss the establishment of Celebrate Freedom Week as the most important event of the school year?)

Oy.

Politics Daily weighs in with the following information:

In a matter of days last week in Austin, the majority of the 15-member board, insisting they were only trying to offset liberal bias in textbooks, questioned Darwin's theory of evolution and the constitutional principle of separation of church and state; debated hip-hop and genocide in Darfur; deleted Albert Einstein and Thomas Alva Edison from textbooks; emphasized Christian teachings and fundamentalist values; adopted conservative articles of faith like American exceptionalism; promoted right-wing leaders and organizations like Phyllis Schlafly and the National Rifle Association; and refused to give adequate attention to Hispanic and African American contributions to U.S. and Texas history.

To no one's surprise, on the final round on Friday, the conservatives pulled a decisive victory, 10-5 -- a tally that broke along predictable party lines, Republicans to the right, Democrats to the left. Ethnic minority members stood on the losing side. According to published reports, no experts on the social sciences were consulted. Given the conservative cast of the board, whose members are elected, the changes it has proposed will stand when the final vote is taken in May.

Leaving the meeting, a Democratic board member, Mavis Knight, of Dallas, was fulminating, saying, she could not be a party to "perpetrating this fraud on the students of this state." It was not a pretty sight. The board will surely become, or has already become, the butt of jokes on late-night shows and "Saturday Night Live."

But this is not a local squabble or a local issue. It's not a colorful shoot 'em up in the Texas corral. It so happens that the Texas board is perhaps the most influential in the country. Its guidelines will affect not only the 4.7 million Texas public school students but will likely spread to many other states, from kindergarten to 12th grade for the next 10 years. Texas textbook standards are usually adopted by publishers because the state will buy 48 million of them every year, and many other states -- 47 by some counts -- will follow that model. In light of those figures, publishers will happily take their cue from the Lone Star State.

All in all, it has been a turbulent few weeks for public education in America.

Texas Schools Vote To Remove Thomas Jefferson

Recently the Texas Board of Education voted on a 10-5 margin to remove Thomas Jefferson from their school curriculum or at least demote him:

Widely regarded as one of the most important of all the founding fathers of the United States, Thomas Jefferson received a demotion of sorts Friday thanks to the Texas Board of Education.

The board voted to enact new teaching standards for history and social studies that will alter which material gets included in school textbooks. It decided to drop Jefferson from a world history section devoted to great political thinkers.

Critics of the Board's decision aka Texas Freedom Network note that the Board is replacing Jefferson with religious figures:

According to Texas Freedom Network, a group that opposes many of the changes put in place by the Board of Education, the original curriculum asked students to "explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present."

That emphasis did not sit well with board member Cynthia Dunbar, who, during Friday's meeting, explained the rationale for changing it. "The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based," Dunbar said.

The new standard, passed at the meeting in a 10-5 vote, now reads, "Explain the impact of the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone."

By dropping mention of revolution, and substituting figures such as Aquinas and Calvin for Jefferson, Texas Freedom Network argues, the board had chosen to embrace religious teachings over those of Jefferson, the man who coined the phrase "separation between church and state."

One wonders if the Fundamentalist anti-Separation of Church and State activist and known Texas Board of Education member David Barton had anything to do with this decision. Barton is known for trying to reinvent American history as being solely the product of "Christian" values. On his site Barton promises to present: "America's forgotten history and heroes with an emphasis on our moral, religious and constitutional heritage." Barton's known historical revisionism has gone as far as calling the Separation of Church and State in America "a myth" much like other Fundamentalists do. He is on record as saying that Thomas Jefferson meant the "wall of separation" concept to be "one directional:"

On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote to that group of Danbury Baptists, and in this letter, he assured them—he said the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, he said, but that wall is a one-directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government

Anyone who values Religious Liberty and Separation of Church and State not only as Baptist distinctives but as true American values should be appalled by Barton and the Texas Board of Education's antics---not just for Texas' sake but for the sake of the whole of America as Barton's influence extends beyond Texas:

The battle in Texas may be tougher. The State Board of Education is stacked with a vocal cohort of far-right, fundamentalist activists. Fresh from a bruising battle over what to teach about evolution in science class, the board now has social studies and history right in its crosshairs.

The outcome of the battle may reverberate around the country.

“Texas is the second largest purchaser of school textbooks in the country,” Miller told Church & State. “So to avoid spending money on multiple editions, publishers often write their textbooks to meet Texas curriculum standards and then sell those textbooks in other states.”

Barton is also busy trying to slip his perspective into public schools in other ways. He is active in the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, a North Carolina group that works to persuade public schools to adopt a fundamentalist-oriented Bible curriculum under the guise of teaching “about” religion. Barton serves on the organization’s advisory board, alongside several other Religious Right figures.

But Barton hasn’t stopped with phony history. He’s increasingly branching out, working to draft churches into right-wing political machines and brazenly asserting that government must be infused with “biblical” principles. Along the way, Barton has made common cause with some extreme elements of the Religious Right.

Barton’s ongoing crusade to recruit clergy into partisan politics is often under the radar. In 2004, the Republican National Committee sent him to evangelical churches around the country in what was described as a “get-out-the-vote” effort.

David Knowles and USA Today also note:

(During the Jefferson voting scandal) the (Texas Board of Education) also voted to strike the word "democratic" from references to the U.S. form of government, replacing it with the term "constitutional republic." Texas textbooks will contain references to "laws of nature and nature's God" in passages that discuss major political ideas.

The board decided to use the words "free enterprise" when describing the U.S. economic system rather than words such as "capitalism," "capitalist" and "free market," which it deemed to have a negative connotation.

Serving 4.7 million students, Texas accounts for a large percentage of the textbook market, and the new standards may influence what is taught in the rest of the country.

Other critics of the Board's decision have written open letters to them and I suggest you do the same if you value America's Religious Freedom.

Christmas: A Matter Of Conscience

The religious aspects of Xmas have certainly changed over the years. Xmas used to be viewed as sinful & something unholy by most Americans. Nativity scenes even 150 years ago -- would get you thrown in jail & kicked out of the church. Today, things are much different ... well, maybe not in some parts of the nation. Say anything about separation of church & state & ... whew.

No matter how one worships or chooses not to worship, it is entirely a matter of conscience & conviction, a right protected by the Constitution. Yet, we would be greatly amiss to say that our nation has always celebrated Xmas. That is false. Xmas celebration is a relatively new phenomenon, only having been around for roughly 110 years or so, & even then with many different meanings than what we ascribe today.
For some more info on Xmas traditions & their history, here's another link.

See: http://thatbaptistaintright.blogspot.com/2009/12/some-xmas-history_19.html.

Kirk Cameron Anti-Separation Of Church And State

Kirk Cameron violates the separation of church and state by spreading anti-evolution material and Fundamentalist Christian propaganda around while proselytizing on public school grounds. So what's new? Here is part of the article about it:

Kirk Cameron Defends Attack on 'Species'

Posted Friday 25 September 12:30 PM By: PopEater Staff


Former teen idol Kirk Cameron has it out for Charles Darwin, and is making no apologies for his controversial (and mocked, see below) plan to distribute thousands of altered copies of 'The Origin of Species' to college students.

The 'Growing Pains' alum released a video last week announcing that on Nov. 19, he and other Creationist activists will distribute a special 'Species' with a 50-page intro that slams evolution and paints Darwin as both racist and misogynist and explicitly highlights "Adolph Hitler's undeniable connection to the theory." Nov. 21 is the 150th anniversary of the book's original publication.

Cameron tells PEOPLE he is "proud to bring this to people's attention" and hopes his plan will curb the rise of Atheism among college kids. Watch the actor's video, left, and a critics reaction to it, after the jump.

"Atheism has been on the rise for years now, and the Bible of the atheists is 'The Origin of Species'," Cameron says. "We have a situation in our country where young people are entering college with a belief in God and exiting with that faith being stripped and shredded. What we want to do is have student make an informed, educated decision before they chuck their faith."

He backs his beliefs by citing a study that found that in the nation's top schools, a clear majority of Psychology and Biology professors describe themselves as Atheist or Agnostic.

"No wonder Atheism has doubled in the last 20 years among 19-25 year olds," he explains in the video. "An entire generation is being brainwashed by Atheistic Evolution!"

The 50-page intro, written by evangelist author Ray Comfort, will present a "balanced view of Creationism with information from scientists who actually believe God created the universe." Those scientists include Albert Einstein and a host of thinkers whose lives predated 'The Origin of Species,' such as Isaac Newton and Nicolaus Copernicus.

His plan has quickly ruffled feathers among academics, who blast his claims that evolutionary theory is not compatible with Christianity. Cameron's campaign has also been met with spoof videos galore, including a popular rebuttal by YouTube user ZOMGitsCriss, who splices up the original video with counterpoint-by-point arguments. Her 'Origin of Stupidity' has recieved over 4 times more views than Cameron's.

(Read on: Here).

Here is the video in question:

And here is a parody of it:

Another Lovely Screed From Brannon Howse

So I just received this in my email box:

Posted: 09/14/09



Is America at a Dangerous Tipping Point for Receiving God's Judgment?

By Brannon Howse

This is one article in our new, 48 page, free, full-color magazine you can order here: http://www.worldviewweekend.com/digest.shtml


Other articles include:

Understanding Fabian Socialism and What it is Doing to America
The Strategy and Purpose For Destroying America's Economy
The Similarities Between The Churches in Germany that Allowed Hitler and the Churches in America Today
Why They Need a Crisis and The Youth of the Working Class
How Should Christians Respond To What is Happening to America?
The Anti-Christian Individuals That Have Brought America to the Brink of Self-Destruction and Why They Are the Heroes of Academia and the Mainstream Media
How and Why This Can Be the Greatest Hour For the Church


I believe America is at a dangerous tipping point for receiving God's judgment for two reasons. The first reason is America's withering support for the nation of Israel. This began under the Bush Administration but has rapidly advanced under the Obama Administration. In early June of 2009, President Obama traveled to Egypt to deliver an address to the Muslim world. In his speech President Obama cited what he called the holy Koran numerous times. This is the very book that calls for Muslim to murder the Jews as well as Christians.

Of course Brannon assumes that the Koran calls Muslims to kill unbelievers being a bible literalist but the majority of Muslims interpret those verses differently. But playing by Howse's game---how about these lovely bible verses:

Numbers 31:16-18 (New International Version)
16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Luke 19:26-28 (New International Version)

26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

The Triumphal Entry
28After Jesus had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.

Continuing with Howse's screed:

Days before his trip to the region President Obama declared that Iran has the right to a nuclear facility for energy. Why do they need a nuclear facility for energy when they have all that oil? We all know they want a nuclear bomb. Obama has clearly thrown Israel under the bus; by weakening Israel's national security and making them vulnerable to a nuclear strike by Iran. In addition he has increased Iran's threat to America's national security. Since 1998, Iran has been practicing shooting a missile off a cargo ship. If one missile, with a nuclear war head, was launched from international waters over the United States and detonated only a few miles above the center of our nation, an electronic magnetic pulse could very easily put America back in the mid 1800s technology wise by damaging vital electrical devices such as America's power-grid and our military defenses. Military experts and scientists have testified before the U.S. Congress and declared that the only way our enemies could bring us down militarily is through an EMP bomb.

What a moron---Iran can't hurt Israel as Israel already has it's own stockpile of nuclear arms to deploy if any of it's enemies threaten it's borders. No it's wackjobs like Howse that have thrown Israel under the bus by making biblical Israel which has always been spiritual into a United Nations created landmass.

Howse again:

In Genesis 12:3 God says that He will curse those that curse Israel and bless those that bless Israel. I believe one of the only reasons God's wrath has been delayed for America is because of our support for Israel and now America has almost completely withdrawn this support and I believe it puts us at great risk for being cursed by God.

The second dangerous national tipping point that is inviting God's wrath is found in the book of Nahum. The prophet Nahum shows up in Nineveh about 150 years after Jonah to tell the nation that God is not going to give them the chance to repent this time but His wrath is going to come upon them. Why? Because in Nahum 1:11 we read that the people had begun to "plot evil against the Lord." Rejecting God is one thing; plotting evil against him is the tipping point for national judgment. In fact in Nahum 3:19 we read, that their national "injury has no healing, your wound is severe." One translation says, "Your wound is incurable."

In fact, when God finally chooses to bring His judgment on America, it would be a waste of time to even pray for mercy. No need for a national day of prayer. In Jeremiah 7:16 God Himself declares to Jeremiah not to pray for Judah. "Therefore do not pray for this people, nor lift up a cry or a prayer for them, nor make intercession to Me: for I will not hear you." In Jeremiah 15:1 God tells Jeremiah, "Even if Moses and Samuel stood before Me, My mind would not be favorable toward this people." Then in Ezekiel 14 God says that when a nation sins against God in persistent unfaithfulness He will stretch out His hand against it. In verse 14 God says, "Even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver only themselves."

Yeah because we see how well God judged Nazi Germany in the 13 years that the Holocaust went on. Also if God wanted to judge America, God would have done it already---but since we aren't God's Chosen Nation anyway---this is sheer nonsense.

Howse continues:

On June 1, Obama signed a proclamation that declared June as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, And Transgender Pride Month, 2009." Combine America throwing Israel under the bus and our nation plotting evil against the Lord, and I think we may be at, or near, that tipping point. The next few months will reveal whether this is true or not. But it has become very clear that America is not on the side of God when our nation has murdered nearly 50 million unborn children, states are rushing toward homosexual marriage, God is outlawed in our nation's public schools, the criminalization of Christianity is greatly increasing, only 1% of adults have a Christian worldview and false-teaching and pagan spirituality has become mainstream.

Gasp---the sheer horror---how dare we love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Many more people are being killed in the illegitimate war that you support. God should be kept out of schools as state-led religion is heretical and as Roger Williams says:

forc’t Worshpp stincks in Gods nostrils. 2 That it denies Christ Jesus yet to be come, and makes the Church yet National, figurative and Ceremoniall. 3 That in these flames about Religion, as his Matie his Father and Grandfather have yielded, there is no prudent Christian way of preserving peace in the World but by permission of differing Consciences.

Also we are a secular republic not a theocracy. Pagan spirituality---what? You mean like the Neo-Platonism of Fundamentalism, church buildings, temples, pulpits, crosses, paper-printed scriptures, etc.

Back to Howse:

Abraham Lincoln said, "I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."

In 2 Corinthians 3:17 the Apostle Paul writes: "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom". The question for America is have we rejected the things of the Lord and thus His Divine providence and protection? In other words, is God judging America? I think the answer is yes.

Founding Father Dr. Jedidiah Morse wrote:



"Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."

Engraved on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. are these words of Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and our third president:

" God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."

George Washington wrote: "We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself have ordained."

George mason, The father of the Bill of Rights, speaking at the Constitutional Convention declared: "As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities."

Again we are not God's Chosen Nation and these ideas have general secular meanings in a Deistic sense.

Howse rambling on like the Fundamentalist tool that he is:

I believe God uses the same template to judge nations and I believe that template can be understood by studying what God said would happen to the nation of Israel if they did not obey God and follow His precepts and principles. I believe God always warns nation's before He judges them and in doing so gives them the chance to repent. However, if the nation does not repent, God's judgment will become more severe. In reading what God said He would do to the nation of Israel if they continue in their rebellion against God as found in Deuteronomy 28, Leviticus 26, and Isaiah 5, it is in many ways like reading the newspapers here in America.

Read on: Here.

Iran Erupts In Violent Protests

It seems Safari is doing better today though I still think all my Blog widgets also may be partly responsible for loading problems as well as Summer time web traffic. So let me know if you're having trouble too?



Anyways, over the weekend Iran erupted in violent protests almost akin to 30 years ago---except this time the cry is for a regime change that supports more progressive leaning political aims rather than the all familiar theocracy that was established 30 years ago. Americans who were alive then remember watching with much trepidation the unfolding drama of the Iran Hostage Crisis which was our first taste of the newly established Iranian theocracy---so of course this sole event colors any American political commentary on Iran. What can I say, we are biased by it---because most average Americans don't realize all the complex details that have shaped the Iranian political climate.

The Iranian Revolution is one of the single events in human history which shows us that theocracy is a bad idea. Though the Iranian theocracy is one built on militant Islam---we Christians don't have bloodless hands as we had our own Irans such as the Christian Iran of the 16th century---Calvin's Geneva. See also: TheoPoetic Musings: Fundamentalists Never Cease To Be Laughable and TheoPoetic Musings: Respect For John Calvin. Thankfully the majority of Christians moved beyond theocracy especially Baptists. Anti-theocracy tendencies have always been a part of the Baptist heritage. Consider these statements:

"Enforced uniformity confounds civil and religious liberty and denies the principles of Christianity and civility. No man shall be required to worship or maintain a worship against his will.”
“God requireth not a uniformity of religion to be enacted in any civil state; which enforced uniformity (sooner or later) is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls.”
“All civil states, with their officers of justice, in their respective constitutions and administrations, are proved essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of the spiritual, or Christian, state and worship.”---Roger Williams

Wee do freely profess that our Lord the King hath no more power over their [Roman Catholics’] coonsciences than over ours, and that is none at all ... let [people] be heretikes, Turks, Jews, or whatsoever, it apperteynes not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure.
— Thomas Helwys

1640
"When they [the Church] have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the Candlestick, etc., and made His Garden a wilderness as it is this day. And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and Paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world, and all that be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the wilderness of the World." Roger Williams, "Mr. Cotton's Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered," The Complete Writings of Roger Williams, Vol. 1, 108.

1773
"Religious matters are to be separated from the jurisdiction of the state, not because they are beneath the interests of the state but, quite to the contrary, because they are too high and holy and thus are beyond the competence of the state." Isaac Backus, colonial Baptist from New England, An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty.

1790
"The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever. ... Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians." John Leland, "A Chronicle of His Time in Virginia," The Writings of the Later Elder John Leland, published in 1845.---Assorted quotes on Baptists and liberty

It should be noted that a large majority of Muslims have followed suit and are believers of separation of religion and government like the Republic Of Turkey. And like our Muslim friends, we too have nutcases in favor of theocracy: Pat Robertson, Worldview Weekend, the Religious Right, etc. to name a few.

We can only hope that an Ataturk will rise up in Iran to free his/her people someday for the sake of all the Iranians who are longing for a government that truly promotes freedom and democracy. More on Iran later until then see also: Shuck and Jive: Yeah, right..

Same-Sex Marriage And Separation Of Church And State

My friend Justin and I are having an interesting discussion on thoughts from this video:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Douglas Kmiec
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Gay Marriage Commercial

over at his Blog. (Justin and I have been friends ever since our days at Campbell and through the years have had interesting discussions). Here are some of Justin's thoughts on the subject at hand:

Should Clergy Perform (LEGAL) Marriages?

I am ordained clergy and one of my favorite parts of being ordained is the unique role that I can play in officiating a wedding. I've already done 2 this year, and there's more to come. There is something so holy to me to when I walk a couple through the vows that they chose/wrote for each other as they look lovingly in each others eyes.

However, as of late there has been an interesting point being pointed out by many in the church. The latest is found on Tony Jones' blog entitled: Doug Kmiec Is Right: Clergy Should Not Perform (Legal) Marriages.

In this Tony points out some interesting and thought-provoking observations about clergy and marriage. He says:

In no other fuction as a clergyperson did I function as an extension of the government -- not when I was baptizing, burying, counseling, or communing. Only when performing a wedding did I, with the stroke of a pen, make official a legally binding contract that, in the eyes of the state, allowed that couple to enjoy certain privileges like the ability to file joint tax returns, visit one another in the hospital, and receive joint health care benefits from one of the partner's employers.....
I do find it odious that clergypersons are called upon, in this one instance, to act as agents of the state.

He goes on to conclude:

Clergy and churches, on the other hand, should have no part in legally-binding contracts. Instead, religious professionals should bless and sanctify unions and partnerships that fit within their religious traditions as part of their sacerdotal functions.

Of course part of this is brought on by the issue of same sex marriage. Douglas Kmiec on The Colbert Report, points out that "the state has an obligation to treat all of its citizens equally and to preserve the principle of equality." In essence, he is saying that by allowing the polemic Church to decide who can and can't be married that the State is not upholding its role of equality for all citizens. This is something of which I had not considered, but has been thought-provoking to me.

By watching the video and reading all of Tony's blog, you will see that what they are suggesting is a separation of the two roles. This allows the state to practice equality, while allowing the Church to decide according to their own convictions and traditions. That would mean that different traditions would bless and marry same sex couples, and others would not. If a couple would not be recognized/blessed by their own church/tradition, then they could seek out another tradition. Either way, they would still have equal rights as heterosexual unions, because according to the State, all couples would have to go through the state for the legal union of marriage. (Read Full Post: Here).

Here are some of my thoughts from my comments on that post:

TheoPoet said...
Interesting post. I agree with all you said and I am sure officiating marriages is a joy. However, I would tend to think that officiating over sham weddings wouldn't be so joyful and by that I mean people getting married for all the wrong reasons. Lets face it same-sex marriage isn't a threat to the institution of marriage but divorce and people getting married for all the wrong reasons are. I wonder how much this plays into Kmiec's views. It seems that we spit on marriage when we allow sham weddings to happen but same-sex marriage is fought over and homosexuals with a genuine love for each-other are denied the right to marry. Isn't it amazing how marriages of convenience are always granted such as Britney Spears' 24 hour marriage or even weirder the woman who married the Eiffel Tower but not for homosexuals who are committed to each-other with genuine love.

I also wonder how literally we take the phrase: "Into this holy estate these two persons present now come to be joined. If any person can show just cause why they may not be joined together – let them speak now or forever hold their peace." from the Traditional Wedding Vow is taken. As for me I've never seen any wedding where anyone dared to take the phrase to heart and answer it---perhaps out of fear of being labeled "jealous" or a "hater" or some other insult---although, I do know of instances where perhaps the phrase should have been answered honestly and thereby preventing messy divorce or some other form of violence.

TheoPoet said...
Bringing my comments back to the issue of separation of church and state, I believe that those who oppose same-sex marriage don't understand the concept. It involves exactly as you said:

This allows the state to practice equality, while allowing the Church to decide according to their own convictions and traditions. That would mean that different traditions would bless and marry same sex couples, and others would not. If a couple would not be recognized/blessed by their own church/tradition, then they could seek out another tradition. Either way, they would still have equal rights as heterosexual unions, because according to the State, all couples would have to go through the state for the legal union of marriage.

Also, interestingly enough our Puritan fore-bearers believed in separation of marriage and church:

The English Puritans who founded Massachusetts in 1630 formed a society as committed to religion as any in history. But for them, marriage was a civil union, a contract, not a sacred rite.
...
Early Boston’s Puritans would not have sanctioned gay marriage, because they would not have had the conceptual categories to make sense of the idea. They condemned and occasionally punished homosexual behavior as a sin, a deviation from the procreative function of sexuality. But in this light, homosexual behavior was not categorically different in their eyes from other forms of sexual transgression, from premarital sex to masturbation. Sexual behavior was something a person did, an action of the moment, not a form of identity or a defining characteristic of a person’s nature. Race, by contrast, was a category that New England’s Puritans often did regard as a form of identity, a defining characteristic that separated Europeans from Africans or Native Americans. In this respect, they were no different from most people of that era. And yet Puritans like Samuel Sewall, a judge on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and author of the first antislavery pamphlet in America, abhorred the laws barring interracial marriage. He fought to grant legal recognition to the marriages of slaves and free people of color. Sewall stands at the beginning of a proud tradition in which Massachusetts judges used the court’s power to decide cases in favor of equal rights for all. In Sewall’s view, all people "are the Sons and Daughters of the First Adam, the Brethren and Sisters of the Last Adam, and the Offspring of God; They ought to be treated with a Respect agreeable."

Massachusetts history reminds us that what we commonly call marriage today was initially, and quite deliberately, constructed as a form of civil union. Although marriage was a fundamental aspect of these highly religious people’s lives and the foundational element of their social order, its regulation was separate from the church. The Puritan founders understood marriage as a social institution that needed adjustment according to changing circumstances, and they left the state to do this important work.

In every region of colonial North America, devout believers fought over how to define true religion, and where to draw the line between church and state. In some of the smaller and initially more homogeneous colonies like Massachusetts and Connecticut, religious uniformity was enforced by the state. But taken collectively, no single religion in colonial America ever had the power to decide for everyone, everywhere, what was sacred. As a practical matter, the traditional practice of state-enforced religious uniformity proved to be unworkable in the new American republic. It was this de facto diversity that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution enshrined in federal law.

Different religious communities have long maintained different standards governing who can marry, whether interfaith marriages are permissible, what the obligations of marriage entail, and when or if divorces can be granted. We should not forget that the English Reformation began in 1529 with a conflict between Henry VIII and Pope Clement VII over whether Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon could be annulled. Henry said yes, Clement said no, and in that dispute a new religious tradition, with new ways of defining the relationship between church and state, was born. The idea of legalized homosexual marriage is no doubt innovative. Some religious traditions reject it, while others support it. But the same was true of past adjustments to the legal definition of marriage, such as the recognition of interracial marriage. The traditions pioneered by Boston judges–a legacy that removed marriage from church control–have made these legal adjustments to social changes possible. A policy wherein all marriages are considered as civil unions would be consistent with America’s strongest traditions regarding civil liberties, equal rights, the separation of church and state, and the freedom of religion. (Read full article: Here).

It wasn't until later when theocratic Calvinism took over that marriage became entrenched in a blend of church and state language as it had always been in the Catholic/sacradotal traditions.

For all those interested, join the conversation over here: A Noggin' Full Of Noodles: Should Clergy Perform (LEGAL) Marriages?.

Today In History---April 20, 1884

1884 – Pope Leo XIII publishes the encyclical Humanum Genus. In this 'papal encyclical promulgated on April 20, 1884, by Pope Leo XIII---The Pope addresses the issues within the framework of the coming...ascent of the industrial age (and Marxism), when it posited that the late 19th Century was a dangerous era for Christians, and condemned Freemasonry as well as a number of beliefs and practices purportedly associated with Freemasonry, including naturalism, popular sovereignty, and the separation of church and state. Some of the encyclical's strictures remain in force today.'

Here is a relevant section of the encyclical dealing with the alleged 'Masonic' concept of separation of church and state:

25. As men are by the will of God born for civil union and society, and as the power to rule is so necessary a bond of society that, if it be taken away, society must at once be broken up, it follows that from Him who is the Author of society has come also the authority to rule; so that whosoever rules, he is the minister of God. Wherefore, as the end and nature of human society so requires, it is right to obey the just commands of lawful authority, as it is right to obey God who ruleth all things; and it is most untrue that the people have it in their power to cast aside their obedience whensoever they please.

26. In like manner, no one doubts that all men are equal one to another, so far as regards their common origin and nature, or the last end which each one has to attain, or the rights and duties which are thence derived. But, as the abilities of all are not equal, as one differs from another in the powers of mind or body, and as there are very many dissimilarities of manner, disposition, and character, it is most repugnant to reason to endeavor to confine all within the same measure, and to extend complete equality to the institutions of civic life. Just as a perfect condition of the body results from the conjunction and composition of its various members, which, though differing in form and purpose, make, by their union and the distribution of each one to its proper place, a combination beautiful to behole, firm in strength, and necessary for use; so, in the commonwealth, there is an almost infinite dissimilarity of men, as parts of the whole. If they are to be all equal, and each is to follow his own will, the State will appear most deformed; but if, with a distinction of degrees of dignity, of pursuits and employments, all aptly conspire for the common good, they will present the image of a State both well constituted and conformable to nature.

27. Now, from the disturbing errors which We have described the greatest dangers to States are to be feared. For, the fear of God and reverence for divine laws being taken away, the authority of rulers despised, sedition permitted and approved, and the popular passions urged on to lawlessness, with no restraint save that of punishment, a change and overthrow of all things will necessarily follow. Yea, this change and overthrow is deliberately planned and put forward by many associations of communists and socialists; and to their undertakings the sect of Freemasons is not hostile, but greatly favours their designs, and holds in common with them their chief opinions. And if these men do not at once and everywhere endeavour to carry out their extreme views, it is not to be attributed to their teaching and their will, but to the virtue of that divine religion which cannot be destroyed; and also because the sounder part of men, refusing to be enslaved to secret societies, vigorously resist their insane attempts.

28. Would that all men would judge of the tree by its fruit, and would acknowledge the seed and origin of the evils which press upon us, and of the dangers that are impending! We have to deal with a deceitful and crafty enemy, who, gratifying the ears of people and of princes, has ensnared them by smooth speeches and by adulation. Ingratiating themselves with rulers under a pretense of friendship, the Freemasons have endeavoured to make them their allies and powerful helpers for the destruction of the Christian name; and that they might more strongly urge them on, they have, with determined calumny, accused the Church of invidiously contending with rulers in matters that affect their authority and sovereign power. Having, by these artifices, insured their own safety and audacity, they have begun to exercise great weight in the government of States; but nevertheless they are prepared to shake the foundations of empires, to harass the rulers of the State, to accuse, and to cast them out, as often as they appear to govern otherwise than they themselves could have wished. In like manner, they have by flattery deluded the people. Proclaiming with a loud voice liberty and public prosperity, and saying that it was owing to the Church and to sovereigns that the multitude were not drawn out of their unjust servitude and poverty, they have imposed upon the people, and, exciting them by a thirst for novelty, they have urged them to assail both the Church and the civil power. Nevertheless, the expectation of the benefits which was hoped for is greater than the reality; indeed, the common people, more oppressed than they were before, are deprived in their misery of that solace which, if things had been arranged in a Christian manner, they would have had with ease and in abundance. But, whoever strive against the order which Divine Providence has constituted pay usually the penalty of their pride, and meet with affliction and misery where they rashly hoped to find all things prosperous and in conformity with their desires.

29. The Church, if she directs men to render obedience chiefly and above all to God the sovereign Lord, is wrongly and falsely believed either to be envious of the civil power or to arrogate to herself something of the rights of sovereigns. On the contrary, she teaches that what is rightly due to the civil power must be rendered to it with a conviction and consciousness of duty. In teaching that from God Himself comes the right of ruling, she adds a great dignity to civil authority, and on small help towards obtaining the obedience and good will of the citizens. The friend of peace and sustainer of concord, she embraces all with maternal love, and, intent only upon giving help to mortal man, she teaches that to justice must be joined clemency, equity to authority, and moderation to lawgiving; that no one's right must be violated; that order and public tranquility are to be maintained; and that the poverty of those are in need is, as far as possible, to be relieved by public and private charity. "But for this reason," to use the words of St. Augustine, "men think, or would have it believed, that Christian teaching is not suited to the good of the State; for they wish the State to be founded not on solid virtue, but on the impunity of vice."(15) Knowing these things, both princes and people would act with political wisdom,(16) and according to the needs of general safety, if, instead of joining with Freemasons to destroy the Church, they joined with the Church in repelling their attacks.

30 .Whatever the future may be, in this grave and widespread evil it is Our duty, venerable brethren, to endeavour to find a remedy. And because We know that Our best and firmest hope of a remedy is in the power of that divine religion which the Freemasons hate in proportion to their fear of it, We think it to be of chief importance to call that most saving power to Our aid against the common enemy. Therefore, whatsoever the Roman Pontiffs Our predecessors have decreed for the purpose of opposing the undertakings and endeavours of the masonic sect, and whatsoever they have enacted to enter or withdraw men from societies of this kind, We ratify and confirm it all by our apostolic authority: and trusting greatly to the good will of Christians, We pray and beseech each one, for the sake of his eternal salvation, to be most conscientiously careful not in the least to depart from what the apostolic see has commanded in this matter.

(Read the whole encyclical: Here).

Our Eroding Baptist Principles

That Baptist Ain't Right asks: That Baptist Ain't Right: Baptists No Longer for Separation of Church & State? How did we get here?

Here is some of that post with hyperlinks inserted by me:

THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 2009
Baptists No Longer for Separation of Church & State? How did we get here?

Waaaaay back in 1612, Thomas Helwys, the first Baptist, wrote The Mystery of Iniquity that outlined the basic ideas of what it is Baptists believe. Primary in that work was the concept of the separation of church & state, the theological concept that only God can judge a soul & therefore government should compel anyone to follow or support any faith. Helwys went so far as to sign his name to a note he penned on the inside cover specifically for King James. For his efforts, Helwys was promptly arrested & died in prison in 1616.

Helwys wasn't alone. Roger Williams. Isaac Backus. John Leland. All of the early Baptist in the America supported the concept of the separation of church & state. In fact, until around 1980, the overwhelming majority of Baptists supported the separation of church & state.

So how did we move from overwhelming support for the separation of church & state, to the near unanimous approval of a Domionist ideology among Baptists in just 25 years?

I asked that question to Dr. Bruce Prescott back in November of 2007 & got an interesting answer. Paradoxically, the answer Dr. Prescott (the Baptist) gave is nearly identical to that a good friend of mine gave who happens to be Catholic. Odd.

After WW II, there was a surge in the effort of Catholic parochial schools to get gov't money. Obviously Protestants were opposed to their tax money being used to support Catholic schools. In 1947 the Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State was formed to oppose the funneling of tax money to Catholic schools. Religious & educational fought to make sure Catholics were given any preference & the Protestants were danged sure to not let Protestant tax money be used unwisely. And, thus, the religious leaders, particularly Baptist leaders, recited well the history of Baptist support for the separation of church & state.

But something happened. Baptists began to grow after WW II with lots & lots of babies. The suburbs grew. And racial tension came fast & furious.

The turning point, according to both Dr. Prescott & my friend who happens to be Catholic, was school integration.

I'd like to offer some additional insights to the problem. Another reason certain Baptists aren't standing up for the separation of church and state is because with the Fundamentalist Takeover of the SBC and the Religious Right's dominating influence on Southern Baptist life, eschatology began to shift toward a premillenial dispensationalist stripe. This coupled with the SBC's shift towards dogmatic theocratic Calvinism paved the way for the erosion of traditional Baptist principles. While it is true that premillenial dispensationalism in itself is anti-political, premillenial dispensationalists are ardent political Zionists. See also: "Left Behind" and the Corruption of Biblical Interpretation and Evangelicals and Israel: Theological Roots of a Political Alliance.

Also, Christian Reconstructionism's influence on the Religious Right plays a part in the problem. See also: Republican mastermind bemoans GOP+theocracy partnership. Anyways, because of these factors, we have Baptists as well as other fungelicals that mix theology and politics in a theocratic manner.

See also: TheoPoetic Musings: It's Time: Week 8---A Baptist Witness That Dissents On Manichaeistic Fundamentalism.