Create In His Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What hinders Baptists from accepting God’s Law over civil
government?

There are several arguments put forward in support of a humanist
(pluralistic) civil government.

1) The eight “Baptist Distinctives” point 2 is “Autonomy of the
Local Church”. “All human authority for governing the local
church resides within the local church itself.” Of course this
is speaking of ecclesiastical authority, but I tend to believe
Baptist clergy everywhere sticks the proverbial stork’s head in
the sand when it comes to civil human authority being relevant
and unavoidable for governing the local church. The institution
of marriage is right now in the cross-hairs. For how long may
same-sex marriage ceremonies be “outlawed” in our tax-exempt
conservative churches? Only recently Catholic adoption agencies
in Massachusetts have closed their doors to prevent civil courts
from usurping their autonomy. If Baptists don’t pull their heads
out of the sand it will get pulled out for them.

2) “Baptist Distinctive” point 5 is “Individual Soul Liberty”.
They draw this point using New Testament Scriptures: Romans 14:5,
12; 2 Corinthians 4:2; and Titus 1:9. However, even the Baptist
scholars admitted this came as a result of how Baptists read the
Bible. They shunned the Kingly authority of ancient Israel of
the Old Testament and spent almost all their time interpreting
the New Testament. The opportunity to engage their Christian
brothers who were in the majority in the early colonial days
concerning civil vs ecclesiastical authority were mostly
squandered. As the result, an idea of near-universal acceptance,
liberty of thought or belief, was never developed in contrast to
religious behavior punishable by civil authorities.

3) “Separation of Church and State” is the final (point 8) of
“Baptist Distinctives”. Neither should control the other is the
main theme. But, as is mentioned in point 1 the simple statement
has many exceptions. Baptists attempted to develop a spiritual
kingdom separate and distinct from a physical (civil
governmental) kingdom. Richard Overton in 1615 argued that
“Christ allowed full power and authority to his church … to
choose persons to bear office in the church.” The argument is
obviously over church government, but this nearly always gets
juxtaposition-ed against civil authority!

4) One cannot win converts within a civil government with an
established religion. This is a myth. It’s true that civil
governmental authority cannot (by force) win converts, but this
is not the same statement as above. The Roman emperor,
Constantine, used civil authority to force “Christian
conversions” among the conquered barbarian territories. This was
wrong and evil. But, in light of the evil acts of secular or
atheistic civil governments such as Stalin’s or Hitler’s, etc.,
is Christianity really the problem here? See my earlier blogs on
how a pluralistic civil government hinders Christianity and
evangelism in particular.

5) A persistent belief in the myth: civil government can be
religiously neutral. In _Separation no Myth_ Jim Spivey says
“When the civil authority formally endorses one religion as the
cultural norm for the nation it inevitably favors one sect over
all others. Because this causes religious groups to compete for
political favors, it engenders civil strife harmful to both the
state and the nation.” Let’s restate this in the context of year
2006. “When the civil authority formally endorses humanism as
the cultural norm for the nation it inevitably favors one kind
[perhaps secular?] over all others. Because this causes other
humanist and religious groups to compete for political favors, it
engenders civil strife harmful to both the state and the nation.”
What’s the difference?

The apostle Paul is nearing the end of his ministry. He knows
how important it is to instruct his successor to carry on the
Great Commission of Jesus Christ. Because there are many
conflicting ideas Paul knows he needs to command his successor to
discern ideas of human origin from the eternal Godly ideas. Thus
he writes in 2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is breathed out by God
and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for
training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent,
equipped for every good work.” Paul goes on instructing Timothy
to “reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and
teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure
sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for
themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn
away from listening to the truth and wander off into
myths. [4:2b-4]”

Both Paul and Timothy must have been thinking about what the
perfect teacher, Jesus Christ, said about false teaching:
“whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to
sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone
fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the
sea [Matt 18:6]”. Obviously, since Paul and Timothy are mere
fallible men “complete patience” includes to humble themselves
and be willing to revise their own teaching when it is not in
harmony with Scripture. So it is with me. If any reader, as a
believer in Christ, believes I am in error here please instruct
me. All I ask is that you too exercise “complete patience”.

The Baptist Faith and Message recognizes a separation of church
and State authority but for the wrong reason. Where this plank
strays from the truth is in how it distances state (civil)
authority from God’s authority. Another way to express this
mistake is to say the BF&M confuses ecclesiastical authority with
God’s authority. As a result if any sampling of Baptists were
asked if God’s authority includes being over the civil government
you would probably get a solid yes, a solid no and everything
else in between.

A friend at my church finally gave me something which goes into
more detail about Baptist thinking in this area.

Walter B. Shurden wrote _How We Got That Way: Baptists on
Religious Liberty and Separation of Church and State_, for the
Sixtieth Celebration of the Baptist Joint Committee 8 October
1996. Much of what he quotes below are from Glen Stassen’s essay
“The Christian Origin of Human Rights”.

… Overton has a mock trial for Mr. Persecution. The trial
ends with a concluding statement from Justice Reason. Not
Justice Bible, mind you, or Justice Theology, or Justice
Christ, but Justice Reason! Justice Reason, in his
conclusion, says that Mr. Persecution threatens “the general
and equal rights and liberties of the common people… their
native and just liberties in general”. Baptists
distinguished religious liberty and religious freedom as
belonging to all persons as persons and not to Christianity
or to people of a particular brand of Christianity. … “The
ethic of human rights can be a universal ethic, not because
its source is a common philosophy believed by all people but
because its intention and application affirm the rights of
all persons.”

The context doesn’t imply that Justice Reason is a subset of
Justice Bible. The context demands that Justice Reason be
outside of Christianity itself. The Baptists have embraced false
teaching, a myth of human origin, here. For example, what does
Justice Reason say is the proper approach to abortion? Is the
live human fetus a member of “all persons”? Does the would-be
Mother’s rights outweigh the human fetus’ right to life? May the
Bible be used to answer such ethical questions? Baptists say no.
Baptists omit God as the originator (and thus the Bible as final
authority) of human rights because they insist on combining
liberty of belief in this mix. Who would argue against religious
liberty and freedom (at least in terms of belief) for all
persons? Even I accept that point because these two ideas are
independent.

Apparently, to a Baptist it must be thoroughly impossible for
religious liberty and freedom to truly have Biblical roots and
include religious liberty and freedom for all persons. According
to Baptists Justice Reason demands “pluralism” in civil
government which is by definition the absence of any officially
sanctioned religion. The opposite of pluralism must then be
government with an officially sanctioned religion. But does this
require entanglement of church and state? Jim Spivey in
_Separation No Myth_ gives a chart in which only Christian
Reconstruction opposes pluralism but without church state
entanglements. Jim Spivey calls this a “theocratic” form of
government. To me this sounds exciting, biblical, desirable.
Why are Baptists opposed to this form of government?

Herb Titus wrote _The Constitution of the United States A
Christian Document_. He defends this point well in chapter two
where he discusses the Subscription Clause. However, in chapter
three, Mr. Titus falters. He fails to recognize the difference
between a religious oath either affirming or denying one’s
personal belief, which I too believe is anti-Biblical but more
about that later, from a religious oath binding one’s political
duty to righteousness. What I mean by this is that a politician
is duty bound to not lie, be honest, don’t steal, obey the law,
etc. For example, the U.S. Constitution in amendment 10
prohibits Congress from anything not mentioned within the
Constitution. Thus, when Congress legislates in those prohibited
areas it is stealing authority from either a lower government or
the people. This *is* just as much a religious act as the
personal belief system upon which it is founded.

I don’t work for a Christian company. There is no religious oath
I had to take as an employee. However, I had to agree to a code
of ethics. I had to agree that I would not steal intellectual
(or any other) property for example. This moral contractual
obligation I have with my secular company is still religious in
nature. There is a definition of theft, and private (corporate)
property. Some may think this example vindicates the
no-religious-oath test for a federal official. I think not. If
I and my company ever have a disagreement over this employment
contract it may result in the most formal of legal resolutions
called a civil lawsuit in which case the laws of the State of
Oklahoma are to apply. If it is appealed then perhaps the laws
of the United States would supersede Oklahoma law. The
U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Since elected
officials are not required to take a religious oath then the
definitions of property, theft, law, etc. are sitting in the seas
of human (post-modernism now) whim.

Herb quotes Thomas Jefferson “Well aware that Almighty God
created the mind free” civil rulers should not be required to
“profess or renounce this or that religious opinion”. Herb also
quotes Oliver Ellsworth and Isaac Backus. All three of these men
knew God Himself as the source of liberty, but made the same
mistake Herb has done. By the no-oath-test clause the drafters
of our Constitution ruled out any other legal authority. It is
simply a we-the-people opinion. This is what the majority of
federal judges believe today.

Herb closes this section saying “the justification for religious
tests followed from the claim that the State had jurisdiction
over the affairs of the church. Once that jurisdiction was
denied to the State, then the purpose of religious tests could no
longer be sustained.” This sounds good; a separation of civil
and ecclesiastical authority, but is it correct? Herb also
mentions that the majority of the oaths were not specific to the
denomination favored by the State. Many states had generic
religious oath tests. Why would an ecclesiastical oath be
generic? Herb goes on “the ban was dictated by Biblical law that
one’s personal faith in God was not a legitimate object of civil
government, and hence, not to be defined or to be otherwise
governed by it.” Ok then, why not an oath professing the
Divinity of both Old and New Testaments? Nope, not allowed.
Herb concludes this chapter with “The Constitution sought to
establish a Christian civil order, one in which the jurisdiction
and powers of the civil government would be limited in accordance
with the laws of God.” The only response is that Herb’s
conclusion is both illogical and incorrect.