It has been said that if you repeat a lie long enough the people will believe it. Such has been the case with many issues in our society today. Baptists have also been duped to believe many of the liberal myths.

One example is unlimited submission to civil government. The experts are always trying to quote the Bible in support of the lie of unlimited submission. However, the God of the Bible never said it. It comes from their own authority and not from the Word of God.

The Bible does not say that we are to submit to unrighteousness. If true, there would have never been a Moses, a Gideon, an Ehud, a Daniel, or even those three Hebrew boys, Shaddrack, Meshach, and Abindigo. For as Peter and the apostles declared, "We must obey God rather than men." Pastor Samuel Rutherford said, "Truth to Christ cannot be treason to Caesar."

The 1774 Provincial Congress of Massachusetts publicly proclaimed in 1774 "Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual..." Think about that statement the next time you celebrate the 4th of July. If you believe in unlimited submission to tyrannical government you should be flying a Union Jack instead of Old Glory.

Those who purposely or mistakenly proclaim the unlimited submission myth should be asked the same question Jehu asked Jehosophat: "Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the LORD?" Do you realize that if our founding fathers had believed this unlimited submission myth there would have never been a United States of America?

We have, on the other hand, been commanded to obey all lawful authority. Before you get some wild crazy notion let me assure you that I am not coming from an anti-establishment view. Radical "separation of church and state" proponents are the true dispensers of the liberal anti-authoritarian or anti-establishment view.  Baptist Vision will not have fellowship with those who proclaim this kind of rebellion.

The Baptist Crisis

The funny, or not so funny, thing among many neo-Baptists is their contradictory world-view system in this area. They demand absolute authority for themselves in the local church but demand representative government in society. They demand unlimited submission in areas they don’t want to rock the boat but will act with a felonious mindset if they can get away with it. Their views are so contradictory their positions don’t even make sense. Their system, if you can even call it that, actually opposes itself Biblically, historically, and logically.

Unfortunately, their world-view is a conglomeration of extremes which are polar opposites. The Bible calls it "double-mindedness". That is why on one hand you find an independent Baptist lamenting the removal of the Ten Commandments from governmental buildings but in turn condemns Biblical principles. He will mourn because our nation is ceasing to be a Christian nation and still advocate pluralism, which is the erosion of Christianity.

Therefore, the Baptist movement has become unstable in all its ways. We are in the midst of an identity crisis. We can’t make up our minds whether we want to be historical Baptists or neo-Evangelicals. We are unsure whether we are liberals, libertarians or conservatives. This instability has wrecked havoc in our Baptist churches, homes and civil government.

The problem is that they want it both ways. They want the results of the old America as a nation under God but at the same time justify doing that which is right in their own eyes. All the neo-Baptists have done is take a libertarian view and try to make it conservative. The problem is that when you break it down it is still relativism and subjectivism.

There are many lies which have helped America, including Baptists, on its downward slope to destruction, but one lie which has become a major obstacle is the myth of the "separation of church and state."

The proceeding double-mindedness we mentioned makes it very difficult to confront issues like the "separation of church and state." Within the same context and the same principles within one topic, many neo-Baptists, or other Baptists influenced by them, will agree and disagree at the same time. It all depends on their experiences, circumstances and time frame, i.e., subjectivism and relativism.

It should be noted that the "separation of church and state" that I am referring to is the form which either advocates or allows for religious pluralism or secularism.

Do not get confused, I am an advocate for the toleration of historical, orthodox Christianity. I believe in their equality under the law but I do not believe this freedom of religion consists of equal or neutral treatment to other religions. Though we will not force them at the point of the sword to join a Christian church of any denomination, at the same time, we may not allow them to erect a worship temple.

The "separation of church and state" lie is that which says America was established as secular or pluralistic nation. We also oppose those who advocate a church-state system where one particular denomination is in control of the government. Thought we better throw that in before someone accuses us of being "Catholic" or "Reformed Catholic".

The Fear Of Liberals

More than anything else, liberals fear a revival of historical Christianity. They know that historical Christianity would reclaim our nation from their wicked hands. Gone would be any tolerance for secularism and/or pluralism. Liberals know this and understand that there is no room for co-existence.

The liberal agenda is the annihilation of historical Christianity, that is, those who adhere to the Bible as being the final authority for faith and practice. Christians need to wake up and realize we are in a war for our very existence.

Yet, the enemies of the cross of Christ are doing everything in their power to see that this does not happen. One of their means is through this myth of the separation of church and state.

Let me say without any reservation that the separation of church and state philosophy being advocated today is a myth, and yes, a blatant lie. This lie has been circulated by secular humanists and anyone who opposes a Christian America. Unfortunately, many good people have fallen prey to this lie. They have been made of no influence because they believe to be an influence would violate some sacred trust in our society.

Is Christian Influence

Biblical?

What does the Scripture teach concerning the Christian’s influence? Its crazy that we would even have to address this question. Anyone who knows anything about the Bible knows it is absurd. Yet, we continue to hear all the reasons why we should not be engaged in the cultural war.

"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid." -- Matthew 5:14

"But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day." -- Proverbs 4:18

The Bible commands us to influence society. Not only are we commanded to be influential but also instructors, guides, watchmen, leaders, etc. In this respect, we are not to sit back and be apathetic but engaged in service or work for our King, Jesus Christ. In this we are to be over-comers or conquerors of the world-system.

The Facts

Of Separation

Fact: The Bill of Rights does not separate church and state. The Bill of Rights restricts the Federal government and even the States but not the individual or the church.

So how did this separation of church and state myth originate? In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

This faulty idea of separation of church and state does not come from any lawful document but is taken from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Baptist Association of Danbury. Most courts had treated it exactly as it was — a private personal letter.

However, there was one previous court before 1947 that quoted the letter. In 1878 after publishing the entire letter and not just the eight-word phrase the Court stated:

They concluded with these words:

What the Danbury Baptist and many others were concerned about was the establishment of a state church. The First Amendment was not to keep this from being a Christian nation, keep State governments from promoting Christianity and the Bible but to keep every recognized historical denomination equal. Therefore, one denomination could not gain control and persecute the others.

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in is dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree:

The "separation of church and state" in Jefferson’s letter nor the "freedom of religion" in the First Amendment does not advocate secularism nor pluralism. It is a myth which has been designed to remove Christianity from national power.

A Christian Nation

The facts show that this was a nation founded upon Christianity. The Supreme Court in 1892 reviewed our historical documents and heritage to conclude:

The humanists try to dispel this ruling by saying it was a radical court or that Justice Brewer, who wrote the opinion for the court, did not speak for all in the part of the ruling that dealt with this being a Christian nation.

They have some real asinine arguments they try to use, but remember, this is coming from people who say that we cannot judge what the founding fathers literally said nor can we go by their intentions. In other words what they said they didn’t mean, and what they intended isn’t true.

After the constitution and Bill of Rights had already been written and enacted the Supreme Court of Maryland said in 1799, "By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty."

One can also understand what they said and their intent through the wording of the state constitutions. In the state of Deleware, according to their 1776 constitution, in order to hold public office in that state one had to "profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

There are a few independent Baptist pastors today that I am not sure would profess belief in that. Yet, that was the mindset of the same people who on a Federal level wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Constitution of the state of Maryland stated:

Over a hundred years earlier in 1649 the Maryland Toleration Act stated the exactly the same thing:

This is the same tolerant state which promoted religious liberty against those who advocated a state church. Yet, it was only the "Christian religion", or those who "believe in Jesus Christ" which was granted equality and protection.

Separation of Church and State? Freedom of religion! We have been lied to. As the Supreme Court of Georgia said in 1921, "Under the leadership of Roger Williams of Rhode Island, the movement for the separation of church and state proceeded with ever-increasing volume and strength. It should be clearly understood, however, that this was not a movement for the separation of State from Christianity, but specifically a separation of Church and State."

Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States in the mid 1800’s:

Yes, if you truly believe in the truth of Christianity you will understand it is the duty of government to foster and encourage it. If the Bible and Christianity is true how can you as a Christian not advance it? How can a Christian advance a view that makes way for atheism or Islam to be advanced? The reason why we have politicians who do this is because they do not really believe that the Bible is true.

The Conservative

Baptist View

In 1774 Isaac Backus stated, "If any ask what we would have, we answer: Only allow us freely to enjoy the religious liberty that they do in Boston, and we ask no more." In 1780 Backus and the rest of the Baptists got what they wanted in the adoption of Massachusetts new constitution. It stated:

No Time

For Libertines

Noah Webster said, "It is extremely important to our nation, in a political as well as religious view, that all possible authority and influence should be given to the Scriptures, for these furnish the best principles of civil liberty, and the most effectual support of Republican government. The principles of all genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be accessory to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer..."

Unless you disagree with founding American principles like that stated above by Noah Webster, you cannot accept the revisionist theories and history of the neo-Baptists.

Failure to return to God was best put to words by Peter Marshall, the U.S. Senate Chaplain from 1947-1949:

I couldn’t agree more. I am so tired of hearing certain Baptists complain about certain non-Baptist historians not giving Baptists enough credit for the establishment of America when they disagree with the very views of America’s foundation.

I am tired of hearing certain Baptists scream and yell about their "right" follow the dictates of their own conscience when it is in violation to the clear commands of Scripture. Peter Marshall was correct, it is Christ or chaos. The time has come for Baptists to make their choice. Which is it going to be?

The blessings of true liberty depend on whether we return America as a nation under God, the same God whom our Forefathers served when they cried "No king but King Jesus!" For liberty is only found where the Spirit of the Lord is. And where the Spirit of the Lord isn’t there is anarchy and chaos.

E-Mail: jamesjr@baptistvisiononline.org

Web Page: www.baptistvisiononline.org