“Thus as we stand for religious freedom today, we need to realize that this must include a general religious freedom from the control of the state for all religion.”

Francis Schaeffer
A Christian Manifesto

“They sin in defect who remove the magistrate from all care of ecclesiastical things so that he does not care what each one worship and allows free power to anyone of doing and saying whatever he wishes in the cause of religion.”

Francis Turretin
Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“There is no New Testament Basis for a linking of Church and State until Christ, the King returns. The whole ‘Constantine mentality’ from the fourth century up to our day was a mistake.”

Francis Schaeffer
A Christian Manifesto

“A multiple right concerning sacred things belongs to the magistrate.”

“This is proved from the divine command (Dt. 17:18-19). To the magistrate was committed the custody of the divine law; on this account he ought to care for the piety and worship of God, which is commanded by the first, no less than for justice and love, which is commanded in the second table.”

“By the magistrates authority, they ought therefore to conduct themselves as vicars of God, promoting his glory above all things….”

Francis Turretin
Institutes Of Elenctic Theology

Somewhere along the way, Reformed Christians have been bamboozled into thinking that it is part of the Reformed heritage to embrace pluralism in matters political. Reading Turretin will be a shock to the system of those who think in such a way. Governments cannot be neutral. Neither can they be pluralistic as pluralism is a myth. Governments always defend the religion they descend from. If they descend from polytheistic premises they will defend pluralistic religion.

With all that is within me I plead for Reformed Christians to change their political heroes from men like Roger Williams to men like Francis Turretin. There is in Turretin the clear understanding that the State is to be in submission to King Christ. Turretin even goes so far as to label,

cruel the mercy of a magistrate which exposes the sheep (God’s people) as a prey that the wolf (heretic) may be appeased; and which suffers the body of Christ to be lacerated and their minds to be tainted with the poison of corrupt doctrines that the stench of one rotten member may remain entire…. Although the magistrate does not have a right over the soul, he has over the tongue, as over the hand; and he can punish the heretic teaching another doctrine no less than the thief who steals another’s property, or the robber who kills a man, because he corrupts society, the care of which the magistrate ought to have. Therefore coercive power does not apply to internal faith but is concerned with external acts over which the magistrate has power.

Turretin didn’t think the whole Constantine mentality a mistake. What he would have understood as a mistake is to allow the Church to be co-opted by the State in the name of a false Christ. Cultures are inescapably glued together by religion and since that is so Christians need to quit believing that their religion by rights should be just one of the choices on the cultural buffet. When we think like that we have embraced polytheism as the religious glue that holds our culture together. Christians need to start advocating the Lordship of Jesus Christ in the area of Government, praying that once again, Christianity, with its vision of decentralized, diffused, and limited government, would be the religious glue that holds our culture together.

The unbiblical American synthesis of Augustinian Christianity with various successive unbiblical Worldviews (Enlightenment Deism, Transcendentalism / Romanticism, Progressivism, Pragmatism, Logical Positivism, Existentialism is unraveling. As time passes by the contrasts in the unequally yoked presuppositions of each anti-thetical element are becoming more and more stark and with this glaring starkness the words of C. S. Lewis are seen to be prophetic.

“If you dip into any college, or school, or parish, or family–anything you like–at a given point in its history, you always find that there was a time before that point when there was more elbow room and contrasts weren’t quite so sharp; and that there’s going to be a time after that point when there is even less room for indecision and choices are even more momentous. Good is always getting better and bad is always getting worse: the possibilities of even apparent neutrality are always diminishing. The whole thing is sorting itself out all the time, coming to a point, getting sharper and harder.”

Christians can only avoid the breakup of the synthesis by increasingly compromising so as to keep the synthesis humming along. The only problem with such a strategy is that eventually the meaning of Christian gets emptied.

We have come to the point where we must choose. Will God’s revealed law rule us or will we be ruled by the law of a synthesis that resolves its contradictions further and further in the direction of a consistent hatred of Christ?

I seldom read political blogs and try to stay away from the purveyors of wisdom associated with the Christian Right–but sometimes, I just can’t help myself.

In discussing anti-war mom, Cindy Sheehan, Jerry Falwell says, “I cringe to think of the emotional anguish that she must continue to go through as a result of her boy’s death. I cannot imagine how heartrending it must be to lose a son to war. In that regard, my heart truly goes out to her.”

In his unceasing desire to take every thought captive to Christ, Falwell then retreats to guilt by association three paragraphs later and chides Sheehan for garnering “support” from David Duke and Michael Moore. Not wanting to stop the smearbund, Falwell continues, “Ms. Sheehan has even gained the admiration of the Socialist Worker online (a pro-Marxist site) which noted that her efforts are precursor for a vast antiwar protest in Washington, D.C., on September 24.”

Falwell then proceeds to (rightly) castigate protestors gathered outside the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. and decrys the “mainstream media’s” lack of coverage vis a vis the anti-war movement. The poor folks in the press have a difficult task satisfying someone like Falwell. If they cover the anti-war contingent (now roughly 60% of the country), they are accused of giving too much credence to a group of malcontents. On the other hand, if they fail to acknowledge protestors, Jerry calls them “despicable” and accuses them of a “head-in-the-sand approach.”

Not to be outdone is Falwell’s former henchmen at the Moral Majority, Cal Thomas. In criticizing Sheehan’s comparison of Iraq and Vietnam, Thomas wrote, “This isn’t Vietnam, as Sheehan claims. While Vietnam is communist, Vietnamese did not attack America on Sept. 11, nor are they infiltrating our country in an attempt to destroy us.” Thomas went on to say, “The case for creating peace and stability in Iraq is a good one.” Um, does Cal read the paper? Is he still unaware that none of the 9/11 hijackers came from Iraq, that Hussein was not aligned with Bin-Laden, etc.? Does he really believe that pre-war Iraq was a threat to the US, or anyone else? Wasn’t there already peace and stability in Iraq, and has our intervention there been a catalyst for creating stability or chaos? Is he naive, ignorant, or malevolent?

Right-wing media critic Hugh Hewitt also criticized the Post’s coverage of Sheehan and the anti-war activism of military families. Hewitt writes:

My observations of military families would estimate that for every Cindy Sheehan, there are at least 100 proud and genuinely supportive family members who are do not “support” the troops by condeming the war. The Post refuses in this article to provide any estimates, even though this isn’t an impossible or even difficult task, just one certain to undermine the reporter’s agenda of implying that significant numbers of military family members are opposed to the war.

Real jorunalism would ask what is a “significant” percentage first, and then probe to discover whether or not there was a real story here, or just the inevitable surfacing of dissent which while absolutely genuine, does not reach a level that approaches “newsworthiness.” Because the reporter is interested in presenting an anti-war story line, though, the “three busloads” tells us absolutely zero in terms of numbers and proportions, and is used as a bride to legitimacy for the premise that Cindy Sheehan represents more than a handful of protesters.

Fine, Hugh, but were you upset by the failure of the “liberalmainstreammedia” to report on the misgivings of military professionals leading up to the Iraq war? While chickenhawks like Wolfie, Feith, and Wurmser were plotting world domination over a game of Risk, many in uniform, past and present, were sounding the alarms. Anthony Zinni, Eric Shinseki, William Odom, Brent Scowcroft, David Hackworth, Norman Schwarzkopf, James Webb, and a host of current military leaders warned of the inevitable consequences of an Iraq invasion. But such arguments carry little weight with uberblogging keyboard bombardiers like Hewitt and Instapundit when there’s Cindy Sheehan to kick around.

As a Southern Baptist, I’m outraged that even a single dime of my money goes to finance the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission and provide Richard Land a platform from which to propagate his outrageous ideas. Today, I see that Dr. Land recently addressed an august forum at the Council on Foreign Relations, mouthpiece of the Eastern Liberal Establishment and playpen of the New World Order.

Land has apparently imbibed from the neocon Kool-Aid and is beginning to sound like Max Boot. Land says, “God for his own purposes has chosen to give much to America, and to whom much is given much is required.” What exactly is required? Well Dr. Land unbosomed himself further, saying:

We have a special obligation and a special responsibility to be the friend of freedom, to be the defender of freedom, anywhere in the world; that it is part of our obligation as Christian citizens of this nation to do what we can to make certain that our government is not just a government of a nation with interests—although we are a nation and we do have interests, but we are also a cause, and that cause is freedom. That cause is freedom of conscience. That cause is human dignity. And that we want our government to be a force for those things in the world and to help those who aspire to those things anywhere in the world.

From where does Dr. Land conjure this divine imperative? I’ve searched my Bible and Constitution in vain for any justification of messianic imperialism. Has Land exegeted an obscure passage in Ezekiel using a Lindsey-style hermeneutic to support his claim of American exceptionalism? Perhaps he has been reading the Founders? Well, maybe not. Here is John Adams:

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

And George Washington:

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them…As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, tomislead public opinion, to influence or awe the Public Councils…

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Yet Dr. Land continues to cheerlead on behalf an American militarism, indeed imperialism. He even speaks favorably of the U. S. enforcing the UN Declaration of Human Rights. I’m not kidding. Listen to Land,

I think that we—everyone has a right—the universal—the U.N. universal declaration of human rights says that every human being has the inherent right to freedom of conscience in matters of faith and not only the right to believe, but the right practice or change that faith. It seems to me that should be our gold standard…But I do have a right, as an American and as a citizen, to say that every nation in the world should respect the basic rights laid down in the U.N.’s universal declaration of human rights, which virtually every country in the world is a signatory to.

So where will we next work to ensure “freedom of conscience?” Land believes that the U. S. should have intervened in the Balkans earlier, and that we are “morally culpable” for failing to intervene in Rwanda.

I argued—I argued from every rooftop I could find in the early 1990s for American intervention in Bosnia, that we should do so with NATO, but if NATO would not do it—just because NATO wouldn’t grow a spine doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. And to me, the ultimate—the ultimate—poster, the ultimate symbol of multilateralism without American leadership, even in Europe, were those Dutch peacekeepers handcuffed around the trees while the Serbian thugs sorted out the Muslim men and boys to be taken out into the woods and shot in the worst case of ethnic cleansing since the end of World War II.

And I believe that America is culpable because we could have acted, and we didn’t. We’re culpable morally because we could have acted in Rwanda, and we didn’t. And just because the multilateral organizations wouldn’t go with us does not relieve us of the responsibility of acting when we had the capacity to act without overwhelming negative repercussions.

Finally Land comes out is favor of spreading “democracy” hither and yon through “non-military” means—and in the process indicates that maybe, just maybe something needs to be done about those awful Iranians. Land writes:

I would wish that we could do everything we could to help non-militarily. I—let me preface this by saying I strongly support the assist democracies act that has currently been passed by the U.S. House and is now before the U.S. Senate, which lays out a myriad of ways. I mean, the act is about that thick in single-spaced type, sponsored by Frank Wolf in the House and John McCain in the Senate, that would specify myriad ways—non-military ways—in which the United States government would seek to promote democracy and to promote freedom and promote representative government by assisting movements within those countries that are seeking it that do not have it.

And I would wish that the Iranian people can have an open and free internationally monitored election in which they could decide for themselves how they would be governed. And they would decide for themselves the laws under which they would be governed and that anyone who wanted to who was an Iranian citizen could participate freely in that process. That is obviously not the case in Iran at the present, much to the dismay of many Iranians. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the world for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. I am comfortable with the process that is currently going forward to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons capabilities.

When did it become the obligation of Americans to secure “freedom” and “democracy” in other lands? Dr. Land would cast aside national interests, indeed the Biblical imperative of the civil magistrate to protect its people, in order to worship the golden calf of democracy.

Read the entire transcript here.

The man hailed as the first Christian emperor of Rome was Constantine, whose alleged “conversion” in 312 A.D. came on the eve of a great battle for the Roman throne. In the simplified version of the legend, Constantine saw a flaming cross in the sky emblazoned with the words “In hoc signo vinces,” meaning “By this sign, conquer”–and he proceeded to do just that.

Constantine the Great, however, was far from Christian. Throughout his life, he remained a worshipper of Sol Invictus (the Invincible Sun) and retained the title of “Pontifex Maximus,” which meant that, in addition to his duties as emperor, he served as the chief priest of the Roman pagan religion. (Ironically, the Catholic Church continues to bestow that title on its popes.)

Although Christianity was not the official religion of the Roman Empire during the reign of Constantine–that came later when Theodosius took the throne–it was tolerated and protected, which explains why so many Christians in the fourth century readily embraced their new emperor. How could anyone view the end of brutal persecution as a bad thing? In addition, Christians had a strong ally in government.

From Constantine’s perspective, his acceptance of Christianity was probably more a marriage of convenience. There were numerous external and internal threats to the empire, so it was naturally easier to work with the Christians than to eliminate them. Their religion was spreading throughout the empire, so why not use that to his advantage? He could win over a growing minority segment of the population by ending their persecution while at the same time appeasing the majority by maintaining the old pagan practices. One of the ways he accomplished this was to merge Christianity with certain aspects of paganism, not the least of which included the celebration of Christmas and Easter.

But the acceptance of Christianity as a legitimate religion by the Roman Empire had its downside. Alistair Kee, in his historical treatise Constantine versus Christ: The Triumph of Ideology, noted that Constantine’s reign was “a fundamental turning-point,” adding, “From that time the imperial ideology, with all its implications for the accumulation of wealth and the exercise of power over the weak, was given religious legitimation by the church.”

Over the centuries, Constantinian Christianity spread like a cancer. Christians became more militant and took up the sword to advance the Kingdom of God. Churches were no longer merely bodies of believers gathering together for worship and fellowship; they evolved into huge, elaborate cathedrals built on the backs of the poor. Popes, cardinals and bishops ruled as merciless tyrants, waging war, imposing burdensome taxes and executing those who dared to challenge their authority. Worst of all, the Bible was kept out of the hands of the layperson; only the clergy had the right to read and interpret scripture.

Christendom brought with it a renewed persecution of Christians. As we saw during the Reformation, believers were martyred not because of their “unbiblical” beliefs, but because they were seen as a threat to the social, political and economic hold the church-state had over the people.

It was this hold that led the framers of our Constitution to establish a separation of church and state. The separation they envisioned, however, had nothing to do with removing the Ten Commandments from courthouses or banning prayer from schools. They merely wanted to prevent government from interfering–both negatively and favorably–with the religious practices of its citizens.

Baron de Montesquieu, who was an inspiration to many of America’s Founding Fathers, addressed the issue of the separation of church and state in his book The Spirit of the Laws. He saw the greatest threat coming from those in government who would embrace religion as a matter of official policy:

A more certain way to attack religion is by favor, by the comforts of life, by the hope of wealth; not by what reminds one of it, but by what makes one forget it; not by what makes one indignant, but by what makes men lukewarm, when other passions act on our souls, and those which religion inspires are silent. In the matter of changing religion, State favors are stronger than penalties.

Within the last few years there has been a strengthening of the bond between church and state. Thanks to President Bush’s “Faith-Based Initiatives,” Christian organizations have been reduced to little more than political special interest groups. Call me cynical, but I just don’t see how the church can honor God when those who should be trusting Him to meet their needs are scrambling for government handouts.

Not surprisingly, the result of this alliance isn’t a more God-honoring system of government. In fact, there are some striking similarities between the Roman Empire of Constantine and the United States of America. What we are witnessing is the rise of a modern Constantinian church-state, characterized by a shift among Christians toward a more militaristic worldview.

You may recall Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin, who stated unequivocally that terrorists are “after us because we’re a Christian nation.” Boykin implied that our “Christian nation” is leading the charge in what is in fact a spiritual war against Satan, and he also said that Bush is “in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this.”

It seems George W. Bush, also a professing Christian, agrees. During a 2004 campaign meeting with an Amish group in Lancaster, Penn., the president said, “I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.”

“Christianese” is like a second language for Washington politicians. Following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush (or was it God speaking through him?) announced the beginning of his “war on terror,” claiming that it wouldn’t end “until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

Compare Bush’s statement with the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 12:30: “Whoever is not with me is against me …” It was no coincidence. Bush knew that his worldwide crusade could only work with the support of his evangelical Christian base. And, sad to say, those on the “religious right” were all too eager to join in the bloodshed.

But none were content to limit the fight to terrorists. Bush expanded the conflict to include nations that had not even attacked our own. When he labeled Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an “Axis of Evil,” he was sending the nations of the world a not-so-subtle warning that they dare not mess with America. In essence, Bush was securing his place in the hearts and minds of Christians as Emperor of the Holy American Empire.

It’s as if our leader received a divine revelation and we are simply following along, thinking that we are doing God’s will. As Constantine’s armies rallied behind the cross, we hold aloft the American flag as our sacred symbol–and by this sign, we conquer.

Unfortunately, what Constantine claimed to have seen was not a sign from God. It goes against the words of Jesus, who said to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world” (John 18:36).

The Apostle Paul reinforced this when he wrote, “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12). And yet American Christians today praise the holy crusade against terror as if the spiritual forces of evil can be defeated with troops, bombs and democracy.

We Christians need to realize that even though the American flag is displayed prominently in so many church sanctuaries, Christ does not share his throne with the state. When lying politicians invoke the name of God as they are sworn into office, we should be offended that our Lord’s name is being taken in vain. When people criticize U.S. policies, we need to consider that America isn’t the church, and the Body of Christ isn’t bound by national borders or restricted to any particular geographic location. And when the government promises financial incentives to churches, we must remember that we cannot serve two masters.

Failure to distinguish between God and country, church and state, can be a deadly sin. As Alistair Kee wrote of Constantine the Great:

He conquered the Christian church. The conquest was complete, extending over doctrine, liturgy, art and architecture, comity, ethos and ethics. And this is the greatest irony, that Constantine achieved by kindness what his predecessors had not been able to achieve by force. Without a threat or a blow, and all unsuspecting, the Christians were led into captivity and their religion transformed into a new imperial cult. … But this achievement, unheralded then, unrecognized now, represents Constantine’s greatest conquest, the one which has persisted largely unchallenged through the centuries in Europe and wherever European Christianity has spread.

Who knows? Future generations may one day read about the rise and fall of the American Empire. If that happens, let us hope and pray that they learn the lessons from history that we did not.

I’m reposting an essay below on Christians and government that I wrote prior to the existence of Backwater Report and Blogs for Peroutka. I think it touches on the convergence of theology and politics in a way that may be helpful for some. Enjoy.

A fatal flaw in Christian worldview thinking is equating “government” with the State. The Cambridge Dictionary defines government as “the group of people who officially control a country.” In fact, God has established numerous “governments” with various prerogatives and powers to advance His holy purposes.

For the Christian, all government begins with self-government. The regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is the starting point of all self-government. Those who are dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1) must be given a new heart and a new spirit. The Apostle Paul tells us “the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law” (Rom. 8:7).

Regeneration, however, is just the beginning. In Christ, we become a new creation and are prepared to accomplish the good works for which we were created (Eph. 2:10). We are dead to sin, and slaves to Christ. In the strength of the Holy Spirit, we also have the ability to obey the commands of the King, and we are obligated to do so out of love (John 14:15, I John 2:3-5). The theological term for this process is progressive sanctification. In effect, we become more Christ-like in our attitudes and actions. This process of progressive growth ought to be foundational to any Christian strategy of cultural and political activism. In other words, the transformation of individuals must precede the transformation of institutions and culture. Discipleship trumps politicking.

A second “government” created by God, and I think arguably the most important institution, is the family. The family, has been given stewardship over children, authority over property and inheritance, and control over education. The family is also the institution preeminently responsible for social welfare. Paul says that the failure to care for our own marks us as “worse than an unbeliever” (I Tim. 5:8) and James says that “pure and undefiled religion…is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble” (James 1:27). The early church did not depend on the Roman civil authorities to meet social needs. Likewise, we see Jesus on the cross with His dying words ensuring that His mother is taken care of by John (John 19:25-27). The modern State has encroached into all these areas that rightly fall under the purview of family government. Strong and stable families, jealously guarding their prerogatives, are the foundation of strong and stable communities, and only these mediating institutions can protect the naked individual from the maniacal, power-hungry State.

There are other “governments” as well, foremost among them, the school and the church. The point here is a simple one – God has established various institutions and given them responsibilities in their spheres of influence. More importantly, the jurisdiction of these institutions has been limited and circumscribed by the Scriptures.

Christians need to realize that the State is not sovereign. Only God is absolutely sovereign. All human agencies have limited degrees of authority. Scripture tells us that all power and authority reside in the resurrected and ascended Christ who is enthroned at the hand of God (Matt. 28:18) and that it is in Christ that all things are held together (Col. 1:17). The institutions created by Him are to serve as His ministers, working out His will.

Having said all of that, what does Scripture say is the role of civil authorities? Are they to educate children, cut social security checks, provide cheap prescription drugs, and mindlessly invade foreign nations?

According to the Bible, God established civil government for three primary reasons:

1) To protect human life that is made in the image of God: ““Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man” (Gen. 9:6);

2) To defend the law-abiding from lawbreakers: “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13:3-4);

3) To provide for a peaceful, orderly society: “I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone– for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (I Tim. 1:1-2).

Paul says that the civil authority is a servant of God (Rom. 13:4) who is responsible to enforce justice. The Biblical role for the State is limited to the administration of just laws to defend life and property, punish criminals, and defend the innocent. In other words, the State’s role is to restrain evil by exacting negative sanctions and is not a redemptive institution. The modern therapeutic State, on the other hand, has usurped all authority to its bosom, and seeks to make us “good” through stringent enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, hate crimes legislation, diversity training, speech codes, and messianic public education.

Having briefly touched on the role of the State, what are our obligations to civil authorities? Quite simply we are to pray for our leaders (I Tim. 2:1-2), honor their God-ordained office (I Peter 2:17, Rom. 13:7), pay taxes (Rom. 13:6-7, Matt. 22:15-21), and obey their lawful commands (Rom. 13:5, Titus 3:1).

Does Paul’s command to submit to lawful authorities mean we are never to resist the State? Some State-worshipping Evangelicals seem to think so. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Baptist author and theologian Henry Blackaby said that based on his reading of Romans 13, those opposing George Bush’s Mesopotamian excursion were courting the judgment of God. Similar ravings could be heard crossing the lips of other conservative Evangelicals who shall remain nameless.

Since Scripture is our authority and guide, perhaps the Evangelical statists could explain just a few of the references to civil disobedience in the Bible. In Ex. 1:18-21 we read the account of Pharaoh commanding the Israelite midwives to kill every Jewish boy. They disobeyed and were counted blessed by God. In II Kings we read of the high priest Jehoiada leading a coup against Athaliah. Daniel 3 gives the account of Shadrach, Meschach and Aded-Nego, who defied Nebuchadnezzar. When the disciples were arrested for preaching the Gospel, Peter’s reply recorded in Acts 5:29 was, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Needless to say, they continued to preach (Acts 4:18-31, Acts 5:17-29). What of Daniel’s defiance of King Darius’ decree (Daniel 6:1-17) or Rahab’s deceit in protecting Israel’s spies? In short, there are times when civil disobedience is justified, nay, demanded by Scripture.

After such a statement, a few caveats are in order. With respect to civil disobedience, Romans 13 clearly forbids lone ranger-style anarchism. In the Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin made the point that God ordains all magistrates, not merely the supreme civil authority. Since all civil authorities have an obligation to interpret the law, and since law supercedes even the king, lower magistrates may lead a rebellion against higher civil authorities that violate the law if there is no other appropriate means of redress. Much more can and should be said about civil disobedience, suffice to say for now that only in extreme circumstances, after large amounts of prayer, reflection, and counting the costs, should Christians openly rebel against the State.

Fortunately, we still live in a nation where a “revolution” can be engineered at the ballot box rather than in the streets. Which raises the obvious question: How should Christians approach politics?

Some Christians point to Paul’s injunction to “not conform any longer to the pattern of this world,” along with other texts, as evidence that Christians should avoid politics for fear of being infected by “worldliness.” An extreme separatism characterized American fundamentalism during the last century from about the time of the Scopes Trial until the resurgence of the so-called “religious right” in late 1970’s. As a rule, few Christians hold this view today. In fact, the case against voting and in favor of a total disengagement from politics is primarily made by anarchist libertarians like Wendy McElroy and “sympathetic nonbelievers” like Fred Reed.

While I would agree that our first priorities involve our Christian walk, fellowship with the brethren, and teaching and guiding our families (Deut. 6), we cannot ignore politics for several reasons. First, and most obviously, all of life is ethical. Paul writes in II Cor. 10:5 that, “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” Moreover, as Christians we are to do all things for God’s glory (II Cor. 10:31). As believers, we are to shine the light of truth into dark corners, wherever that may take us. The Bible is given to us primarily to reveal God in His glory and to lead us to faith. But the Word also speaks to politics, economics, and culture. There is no neutrality. Jesus tells us that we are either with Him or against Him, and that applies to politics as well as every other area of life. Christ has all authority, and has a claim on our loyalty. In short, Christians should be active in the affairs of government, and the midwifery of politics, because government ultimately belongs to God.

Secondly, whether they realize it or not, Christians who counsel cultural and political disengagement are in reality preaching a Gnostic gospel. Frequently these well-intentioned folks create an artificial distinction between “spiritual” and “secular” realms. In arguing that the material world is essentially evil, they are closer to being neo-Platonists than Christians. Christian separatists need to answer some fundamental questions: What part of life is not to be given to Him and lived according to His precepts? Is there some area where His people are not to work to exercise Godly authority?

As God’s people we are called to be salt and light to a dying and dark world (Matt. 5:13-16). Moreover, God affirms that the creation itself is good (Gen. 1:31) and that it is sin that causes the creation to groan. Our duty as God’s stewards is to not only spread the Gospel and make disciples, but to work at the restoration of His creation. When the New Testament speaks of salvation, it is talking about an act of the Messiah. It means more than just rescuing a few blighted souls from the darkness of eternal punishment, it speaks to an ethical transformation that impacts every area of life–including politics.

Once we have declared that civil affairs, too, belong to the Lord, we need a blueprint to follow for activism, and the hard work actually begins. Fortunately, God in His grace has given the Scriptures as an authoritative and infallible guide (II Tim. 3:16) to His people. It is in the Word, rather than reason or natural revelation that we ought to begin when constructing an overarching theory of the State and politics. Having said that, determining when, how, and why to advocate political activism is no easy task. Not only must we define the just ends of civil government, we must ensure that those ends are pursued with Biblical methods. Moreover, there are often practical problems with the implementation of public policy and the pursuit of political power. Unfortunately, the church has been negligent in devising a consistent framework for political and cultural engagement. Deriving sound principles for activism from the Scriptures will take much thoughtful exegesis and careful application of Biblical principles and law to contemporary problems. Alas, there is much work to do, and the laborers are few.

Despite the apparently long odds, we must fight. A cosmopolitan, anti-Western, humanistic elite has established control of virtually every viable institution, including the instruments of cultural dissemination and political control. Their allegiance and loyalty is to a false God. Will we have the courage to reclaim the heritage bestowed to us, to take back the nation-state from those who would destroy it, or will we opt instead to cower comfortably behind our televisions with a frothy cappuccino?

Landstuhl,

Secular?? Ummm… Yes we do live in a secular society — or rather a “civil” one if you will.

Bret

Secular America is a myth. The sooner you opt out of it the more clearly you will see.

Landstuhl,

Of course many of us are religious, but “plural” means “many” and the majority are not true believers and are at best nominal Christians and of course agnostics, Muslims, etc. etc. and were most likely not true believers in 1787 (though that is of course impossible to quantify).

Bret,

Therefore a Christian nation could conceivably have living within it the Stranger and the alien, with the proviso that they would be limited in some of their participation. Still, in a Christian nation they would be treated better then they would be in any other religious nation that they might be part of.

Landstuhl,

You said that we are as homogenous as Japan. I need to see some proof of that. We are plural racially, ethnically, and religiously, and ideologically.

Bret

You see some Nations have Established religions where they have the one view that only one religion is acceptable. Other Nations have the Established religion where they have the one view that many religions are acceptable. But Established religions (wether Defacto or Dejure) in all Nations are characterized as being the result of the one view. It is the ‘one view’ wherein both the Established religion and the homogeneity lies.

Landstuhl,

In this life I believe we will never live under God’s laws as a society. Of course that would be the optimum, but if we could do that, then we wouldn’t need Christ to return would we?

Bret,

You need to read some post-millennial theology. Your operating assumption is that Christ is going to return and find a mess. That is not the Biblical position.

Landstuhl,

See if it’s guys like you that would be the judges during this “God’s law society”, then everyone who didn’t follow would be in trouble — just judging from your tone.

Bret

Guys like me are needed so guys like you will be jolted out of your slumber. I wasn’t seeking to adopt a ‘tone’ . I merely pointed out that when we get to the position where we say that Scripture isn’t to be the basis of our law then the end result will be gulags, concentration camps, or abortuaries.

Landstuhl,

So would you blow up abortion clinics or not? After all, it’s murder (a point with which I agree btw) and your blowing them up would be punishing killers and protecting the innocent. Fancy talk — please put that into practical Christian ethics please. I can’t debate sophistry.

Bret

I can only recommend that you read Rutherford’s Lex Rex. Keep an eye out for the whole idea of lesser magistrates.

Landstuhl,

Also I’m not going to re-hash the Framers as Christians — most were (to some degree) and undoubtedly the Constitution is God-inspired and God blessed, but it is not scripture and was not ever designed to set up a theocracy.

Bret

Sure it was!!! All nations are Theocracies and quite often it is their founding documents that reveal how that is so. You just seem to think that nations or cultures can exist without being institutionally religious at their core. That is a erroneous but understandable position given our times.

Landstuhl,

Even those states who did have established religions abandoned them in the early 19th c. as unworkable in a pluralistic society — those pesky Jews and Irish, etc. Christians are best to protect rights, but I know many agnostics who would die to protect your right to worship as you see fit and to leave them alone. I also know many non-believer judges who do a great days work every day — under the Constitution as it was written.

Bret

I have no argument that it is better to be ruled by a wise Turk then a foolish Christian. BUT best of all would to be ruled by a wise Christian.

Landstuhl,

I don’t worry about when He will come. He’ll come when He comes and I’ll be ready. If I’m whisked out of my clothes nekkid as a jaybird then so be it. If I’m to join a Christian Super Friends special ops unit and kill Satan’s minions then so be that too. I could care less about the procedure. Call me a “Jesus will return when He’s ready-ist”.

Bret

No, your theology is based on pre-millennial assumptions even if you are not epistemologically self-conscious about it.

Landstuhl,

I don’t recall Pharaoh ever talking about demographics or about Christ coming again, but I don’t read hieroglyphics either. How do you interpret the 3/5 Compromise in the original Constitution (since amended out)? Was that God-inspired?

Bret

Secondly, I think none of the Constitution was God-inspired. I save the phrase God-inspired for Scripture alone.

Landsthuhl,

I’m all over federalism, but the states that had established religions did away with them voluntarily.

Bret

Please open your eyes.

Landstuhl,

The Bill of Rights were not held applicable to the states by the U.S. Supreme Court until the 1930s forward starting I think with Palko v. Conn. in 1937. In the 1830s — in Barron v. Baltimore the Bill of Rights was held specifically NOT to apply to the states.

Bret

Yes, and the incorporation clause was based on a strange interpretation of the strange 14th amendment.

Landstuhl,

What about those who are not Christians?

Bret

None of that which I speak is going to happen in a completely top down manner. We are in need of Reformation and Revival. It is only by the changing of one mind at a time (which I am trying to do here with you) that we will move forward to a more Christian culture.

Landsthul

Where would they live?

Bret

If they want the established religion of disestablishment (like Roger Williams) or if they want to be Muslim or who knows what else then let them find a State where they can vote it in, and then those States that are serious about Christianity will watch them languish.

Landsthul

What if they outnumbered those who were true believers and dismantled the state church? This would happen eventually in at least a few states. Would you then accept that?

Bret

That would probably require their secession, which I would accept.

Landsthul,

The federal government did not, as far as I know, force the states to stop established religions. The voters of Mass. and Virginia voted to stop financial support of churches.

Bret

All Nations have established religions, even if they are the established religion of disestablishment, which is usually Ana Baptist in its nature and leads eventually to the rank paganism we have now in the country since States embraced that form of established religion.

Landsthul,

I’m for separating church and state — not in the current view of that term mind you — but the state would only screw things up and the North American church has not done its job either on the whole. We had the job of raising a virtuous citizenry this past couple of centuries and have screwed it up royally.

Bret

I quite agree!! And one of the ways we screwed it up was by not teaching our people that it is impossible for an ethnos (Nation) to not be the people of some God. Since we didn’t teach them that we allowed them to think that this Nation could be a people of no god not realizing that in being a people of no god we had become the people of the god who is named no god, which in the end turned out to be man said loudly.

Landsthul,

I would give the States the right to establish religion too, but I think those issues were dealt with in each state’s constitutional conventions pre and post Revolution through the early 19th century.

Bret

Which is what we have today. The Magistrate (the State) protects the State Church (Public Schools) and the Ministers of our current State Church (Teachers in public schools) instruct the people on what the god who is named no god expects of them so that they might live as godly citizens who belong to him.

It has come to my attention that HSLDA is pushing Federal legislation in order to make things ‘fair’ for homeschoolers. To be perfectly candid my radar starts to scream anytime the Feds want to make sure that they treat me fairly. Indeed, I have taught my children to pray nightly that God would prevent the Federal Government from ever being able to be successful in bringing fairness to the McAtees. Please understand, that I have taught them this not because I am against fairness but because I am decidedly for it.

This legislation has come to be known as the Home school Non Discrimination Act (HoNDA). Now, apparently HSLDA has been so impressed with the Federal Governments other efforts at non-discrimination that they have decided that the Feds should have a go at non-discrimination in this area as well.

I would note right out of the gate here that the only reason that Homeschoolers have to be concerned about being treated fairly is because the Federal Government has involved itself in an area that it has no proper jurisdiction in to begin with. The answer to the fairness issue therefore isn’t that the Feds make sure that the Homeschoolers are not disadvantaged for being Homeschoolers. The answer to the fairness issue is for the Feds not to advantage anybody to begin with and the way to do that is to follow the Constitution by getting out of the Education business, thus ceasing to violate the first amendment by their supporting the Establishment of religion. Home schooling organizations wouldn’t have to worry about the whining of ‘unfair’ from their constituents if those organizations would work to disestablish the current State religion.

The following quotes are taken from the summary of the law as found on the thomas.loc.gov website.

Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2003 – Expresses the sense of the Congress that parents who choose private home education should be encouraged within the framework provided by the Constitution.

Bret,

Well, if we are worried about the ‘framework of the Constitution’ then why does Congress have any sense about this issue at all? Constitutionally speaking, it doesn’t belong to their bailiwick. If Congress wants to encourage me on this issue they can abolish the Department of Education and surrender their usurpation of jurisdictional control on all educational matters.

Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) with respect to: (1) student aid eligibility of home-schooled students who have satisfied certain secondary education standards; and (2) institutional aid eligibility of the higher education institutions that such students attend.

Bret

Fair, is not making sure that home schooled piglets get as much illegitimate milk as the next piglet. Fair is cutting off the illegitimate milk supply from all the piglets thus redirecting the piglets to other legitimate milk supplies.

Amends the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to provide, if a parent does not consent to an initial evaluation or special education or related services for a child with a disability, the local educational agency shall not be required to convene an individualized education program (IEP) meeting or develop an IEP for such child.

Bret

Fortunately as a member of HSLDA, I know that the HSLDA doesn’t want that image.