Wall of Separation or a Fence to Mark Boundaries?

Chris: What a profound statement: “Most Christians fear their government much more than they fear God. When that change occurs, they probably will begin to speak, armed with the Gospel and patience.”

And perhaps on bended knee all would come and the Lord would heal our land. selahV

Tim,

A couple of days ago Chris and I traded comments back and forth. His comment today is pretty much on target would you not agree?

cb

Tim,

Who are you trying to string out here? I know you. If you were a Riverboat Gambler you would have four Aces up one sleeve, a pair of Jacks up the other. You would have two hide-out pistols, a Bowie Knife in one boot and an Arkansas Toothpick in the other. You would teach that old dog of yours to roll over to the left when he saw a straight and to the right if he saw a full house.

You are just sitting back not yet showing your hold card. We all know you stacked this deck so tell us what you really think.:-)

cb

“I am trying to learn from the history being revealed by Dr. Rogers.”

I must admit to chuckling at that line. I too am trying to learn the inerrant history of America’s founding as being revealed by Pastor Ronnie Rogers here at SBC Today!!

Rogers has spent much of his time pointing out Jefferson’s personal inconsistencies. I don’t want to critique that – however – the point Rogers makes time and time again pertains to Hugo Black and the Everson decision. Rogers says Everson effectively replaced the word Congress with Government (Congress shall make no law…bla bla bla)

Ok, so what’s his solution? I haven’t heard one yet.

I do want to quibble with Tim about the following statement:

“Some in Baptist circles would have one believe that a pastor cannot state his scriptural beliefs about certain political positions.”

WHO in Baptist circles has made this claim? Don’t refer me to some cranky atheist or disgruntled humanist. You said “some in BAPTIST circles.” The BJC has represented millions of Baptists for 70 years in Washington DC. JM Dawson, Emmanuel Carlson, and James Wood never made such a statement. And James Dunn surely didn’t. In fact, James Dunn authored “Politics: A Guidebook For Christians” 37 years ago. Dunn stated that religion and politics will mix, should mix, and must mix. Falwell actually implemented many of Dunn’s suggestions and had his picture taken in Newsweek magazine holding a copy of the book. Foy Valentine concurred with Dunn. Those are the most well known Baptists who have dealt with the intersection between religion and politics.

I’m just wondering who these Baptists are exactly?

Brother Chris,

I am at a kind of disadvantage and I do apologize. It has been a week or so since I listened to Dr. Rogers message so I am not able to clearly state some of the points he made. I will re-listen and respond to you.

Brother B-Diddy,

Why did I know you were coming? You must be in the Library working again. Seems the only things you read with any real meat when working in the Library at Baylor is my blog. :>)

Seriously, in the quibble statement. I have only one title to give you–Voter’s Guides.

James Dunn has publicly stated the Voter’s Guides are partisan when they are not. The guides deal with issues all Christians should concern themselves and the candidates that disagree. If I have a conviction as a Christian that abortion is wrong and should not be tolerated, I want to know that the person I am about to vote into office feels the same way. If he/she doesn’t I want to know what else we are in disagreement on.

You advocate that James Dunn’s book, written 37 years ago, says; “that religion and politics will mix, should mix, and must mix.” He certainly has changed his thinking in the past 37 years as he has battled even the idea of promoting a candidate that will make decisions after a prayer meeting.

Also, you have argued that states should not be allowed to make any laws within their borders that hinder laws of a neighboring state, or that is what you appeared to be arguing.

http://www.bjconline.org/resources/pubs/pub_rlcissueguide.pdf

The above link is a guide that is provided by the BJC. It says; “While many states have constitutional provisions that provide greater protection for the free exercise of religion than the federal constitution, others have adopted legislation, commonly referred to as State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, that requires greater accommodation of religion within their borders. Other states continue to debate such measures in an effort to strengthen further the free exercise rights of citizens.” Isn’t this promoting the idea that Hugo Black placed before us?

Blessings,
Tim

Brother Tim,

Can you refresh or memories on what “the idea that Hugo Black placed before us” is…. in a short paragraph? Do you think his approach is positive or negative?

Thanks,
-Chris

Brother Chris,

As I have said earlier, I am learning on the fly. I am so far over my head it is not even funny. But, this link give a discussion on Hugo Black and his incorporation of the Establishment Clause.

http://sbctoday.com/2007/10/01/revisionists-and-baptist-dissent/#comment-265

If I understand this argument correctly the link provided in comment #10 places the BJC as advocating each state establishing their own Freedom of Religion laws.

Blessings,
Tim

Brother Chris,

Get ready because I hear B Diddy rumbling in the background somewhere. :>) I do not believe he will let the following quote stand without a response. “So from that standpoint, he could be considered like the “open theist” who is able to make doctrine appear to work in the current economy and sell a lot of books in a short period of time, but not actually reveal any truth.”

If I understand Dr. Rogers’ message, he is saying the wall of separation was more of a demarcation line. Hugo Black comes in and in one ruling moves the wall. Thus changing it from a boundary that needed to be recognized to a boarder that could not be crossed.

Blessings,
Tim

Tim,

You wrote:

“Some in Baptist circles would have one believe that a pastor cannot state his scriptural beliefs about certain political positions.”

You also wrote:

“I do not believe that a pastor should endorse a candidate for public office from the pulpit.”

The document you provided was not written under James Dunn’s tenure. However, the BJC has taken a consistent stand on church-state issues so that doesn’t matter.

Here is a clip from the document:

“Under current law, religious organizations, like other nonprofits that receive special tax examptions under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3), continue to be free to speak out on the social, moral and ethical policy issues of our day. They may not, however, support or oppose candidates for office without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.”

It seems that the above statement agrees with you that pastors can share their scriptural beliefs about certain political positions (i.e. social, moral, and ethical policy issues). The statement also concurs with IRS law and yourself that pastors should not endorse a candidate for public office. Again, where are the Baptists who believe that a pastor cannot “state his scriptural beliefs about certain political positions”

And yes, the BJC is acknowledging that the First Amendment should be applied to the states. Everson (which applied 1st amendment to states) was 60 years ago! That’s settled law. No religious liberty advocate is seeking to overturn Everson – not even Richard Land! You made reference to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Let me offer a little history.

In 1993, Dunn and the BJC led the way to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 5 years later the Supreme Court overturned RFRA in Boerne. Your SBC’s own Richard Land testified before the United States Senate and stated that “I believe that the Boerne decision is one of the worst decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in its long history.” The BJC and Dunn concurred with Land. Most everyone concurred.

What was Land’s response to the overturning of RFRA (which provided free exercise protection to all states – thus in line with Everson) ??? Land proposed the Religious Liberty Protection Act which was sponsored by Ted Kennedy. The BJC supported Land’s proposal. A piece of federal legislation that would most definitely apply to all 50 states.

If the problem is Everson and whether the First Amendment should be applied to the states, you might need to have a conversation or two with your own public policy head and virtually every other conservative accommodationist like him up on Capitol Hill. Folks have moved way past Everson and Land would like to see a the federal government provide more accommodation to religious rights to all Americans.

As a side note, Dunn has never changed his philosphy. Other than the folks at BJC, I’d like to consider myself the Dunn expert. He is the subject of my thesis. Voter Guides do tend to be partisan especially the Christian Coalition Voter Guides of the 90’s. Voter Guides are not necessarily partisan and must be looked at on a case-by-case basis. But historically those who put out voter guides have a clear agenda and their impartiality comes out in the guide….

Again the problem with Ronnie Rogers is that he offers no solutions. He attacks Hugo Black and Everson but offers no approach of his own. How is that helpful?

Brother B Diddy,

I knew you were lurking. :>) I concede to your knowledge of these issues. I am not certain enough on these issues to say that I agree or disagree with your historical analysis. I certainly do not know Dr. Dunn as well as you. Thus, I give you the floor sir.

Your clip from the document I presented the link;

“Under current law, religious organizations, like other nonprofits that receive special tax examptions under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3), continue to be free to speak out on the social, moral and ethical policy issues of our day. They may not, however, support or oppose candidates for office without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.”

Let me give a scenario and you give me your perspective.

Hillary Clinton proposes her socialist health care plan. At $5k per child after a certain period of time the country will step in and present family planning laws because of the cost to cover the children presently living. Because of this exorbitant amount for Health Care coverage the state passes laws that restrict families to only two children. A family that become expectant after two children must abort that third child.

CB Scott gets the Republican nomination and he presents a Health Care plan that does not cost the nation a dime.

How does a pastor promote CB’s Health Care Plan over Hillary Clinton’s Health Care Plan without jepordizing their 501 (c) (3) status?

Blessings,
Tim

Well…..Tim,

Now that you mention my name I’ll tell you how

They would promote my helth plan by the power of the sword. At heart I believe the greatest form of government is in the nature of “imperialis imperium” meaning I would establish Pax Romana. Pastors would become Imperial Soldiers. Folks like Hillary would be of the “past.”

The SBC would divide. Many would become, and I might say gladly, Imperial Soldiers while others headed for the hills yelling “Rome hath returned”, or Nero Redivivus and junk like that.

Guys like Chris, Micheal Dain and B. Diddy would go underground and wage war until they finally killed me off thinking all was over and the world would be free again.

Then they would come to realize the terrible truth. I was not who they thought me to be. At that point they would realize they were really in trouble. They would find the name of my heir to the throne was none other than……………………………………………..

Benjamin S. Cole. ;-(

cb

Brother CB,

You are crazy!!!

Seriously, how does one promote a issue if it is diametrically opposed to another’s issue, without promoting a candidate?

Blessings,
Tim

cb,

I guess that really is my point about Black. He was trying to do what he thought best, or of at least was of interest to him, rather than defending the truth. If this was his way of appeasing government contexts, at the expense of freedom, then shame on him.

We are batting about his legacy even today….seems his decision did move the minds of many people that day.

Obviously Black was not convinced enough to draw a conclusion and decisively mark out whom the church really is, ….consequently stammering to prefer a definition that pleased his political endeavors. If he had known the real definition of the church (as if context changes the meaning – which for him it may have), and believed it to be so, he more than likely would not have penned what we see in the Everson majority.

Now that is where we as Christians can help….. Help educate our men and women in political power with the doctrines of scripture. If Black would have had a more thorough understanding of the Word of God, concerning the “ekklesia”, no doubt his response on Everson would have changed.

-Chris

Chris,

Good thoughts.

“a definition that pleased his political endeavors”

I think you are right. I also think this would apply to many others from Jimmy Carter to Richard Land.

One thing about James Dunn. I never agreed with him much. In Virginia I was like Ernest T. Bass “flinging” rocks at him every chance I got, but one thing I must say of him I greatly admired. He would say what he believed no matter who didn’t like it. He had real sand. He always made you think. He made you study before you “flung” the next rock. The best a guy can get from ole Richard is the need to yawn and hunt for some better target at which to fling rocks.

cb

Black’s Imaginary Robe,

I am projecting that Black may not have been with or led the majority position “at all” in his summation if armed with biblical sound doctrine. It is clear, as we see the evidence of later decisions, that Black projected an imaginary wall with such clarity that is was actually believed. The imaginary wall continues to be infectiously erected by Blackstonians, as his actions have sparked the thought in the minds of now creative Americans to typify religious effects of any sort, which emanate from the people of any particular state, a violation of constitutional support. This was not the reality during the one hundred sixty years previous,… but it became so on that day in “47” largely because of Black.

Since Black pretended that the church was an institution, his argument became an artful defense against the imaginary beast which never existed. His lack of solid doctrinal knowledge concerning the “ekklesia” became a distinct disadvantage as he pondered his imagined reality of state sponsored churches.

If Black plainly understood that Christ’s body, “the called out ones”, have no motive to establish a religious institution, his motive would have clearly been different.

This was a 5-4 decision. The dissenters were two Episcopalians, a Jew and a Unitarian…who framed the argument wisely….
But in any event, the great purposes of the Constitution do not depend on the approval or convenience of those they restrain. I cannot read the history of the struggle to separate political from ecclesiastical affairs, well summarized in the opinion of Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE in which I generally concur, without a conviction that the Court today is unconsciously giving the clock’s hands a backward turn.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER joins in this opinion.
Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE, with whom Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, Mr. Justice JACKSON and Mr. Justice BURTON agree, dissenting.

So, even though I do not see why this really matters with respect to preaching the Gospel of God. I do recognize the effect of poor doctrinal understanding on the part of the “called out ones”….in this case Justice Black.

-Chris

Chris,

Have you ever glanced at the Everson decision? I don’t think you have.

Yes, it was a 5-4 split. But Rutledge who wrote the dissent argued that Black’s decision in affirming the lower court’s ruling was inconsistent with his “wall of separation” logic. Rutledge AGREED with Black’s argument but disagreed with the outcome. The dissenters were stronger separationists than Black himself! Despite all of this – you assert that the dissenters led by Rutledge were WISE!

That don’t make a lick of sense.

You write:

“If Black plainly understood that Christ’s body, “the called out ones”, have no motive to establish a religious institution, his motive would have clearly been different.”

Again, that doesn’t make a lick of sense. Surely you have studied a bit of church history. My favorite Southern Baptist historian Nathan Finn wrote this on his blog today and I strongly agree:

“As a Baptist, I am uncomfortable with the concept of any nation being a Christian nation. As one of my colleagues noted last week, every time there’s been a “Christian nation,” its our people (Baptists) that get drowned, burned at the stake, and flogged! Indeed. Better to be a nation full of Christians by choice than a nation that requires Christianity (or at least Christian convictions) by coercion.”

History backs that all up. Many followers of Christ have gone to great lengths to establish religion. Would you argue otherwise?

As to Hugo Black, this guy was a genius (as all Supreme Court Justice’s should be). He taught Sunday School for nearly 40 years in Alabama at a Southern Baptist church. He was well read. I can’t read Everson or any other Black decision and dismiss him as someone in need of more studying, whether it be the Bible or a Law casebook!

Tim,

You can surely speak out against abortion from the pulpit. You can address health care. You can even discuss the differences between their plans. And I believe you can do all of this without endorsing or opposing candidates. Opposing a policy does not necessarily mean that I oppose the candidate. If Hillary is the nominee and I cast my ballot for her – it won’t be because of her war policy which I don’t support. However, I assume you were just creating some far-fetched hypothetical since obviously no public official or public policy can force a woman to have an abortion. As readers of my blog know, Democrats have already passed several pieces of legislation to reduce the number of abortions. Not encourage abortion.

I think Richard Land really likes what he is doing and is probably not willing to give up the post  (I’m pretty busy coaching 7th and 8th grade basketball in our youth league for now anyway)

B. Diddy,

I am not saying that Black has not made good and honest decisions for America. He was probably a great Sunday School teacher,…but that would not mandate he know what the “ekklesia” is. In fact, with 40 years of teaching Sunday School, that is even a steeper indictment. His pastor should have put his arm around him and helped him with this understanding of the “ekklesia”…. Apollos, when he had a bit of trouble with the message, received help and cleared things up,…no doubt Black would have listened as well.

The bottom line on this one, as history dictates, is that it was a poor decision…..and with that come consequences. Its easy for me to kick the guy… he’s dead (and no, when I meet him in Glory I am not going to ask him why he made the decision…probably not important), …. yet this particular poor decision lives on to the detriment of all the people in America, but not the church specifically. That is my real struggle with preaching on politics,…preaching politics is impotent… no power whatsoever…. nor does it ever have Kingdom effects.

I did read much of the case and it appears from the dissent that this was “just another one of those struggles” that had cropped up over the years concerning the “separation of the political from the ecclesiastical”.

“…..But in any event, the great purposes of the Constitution do not depend on the approval or convenience of those they restrain. I cannot read the history of the struggle to separate political from ecclesiastical affairs, well summarized in the opinion of Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE in which I generally concur, without a conviction that the Court today is unconsciously giving the clock’s hands a backward turn.”

The dissenting judges seem to agree that the government could reimburse a bus fair to a student and in no way establish a religion. That is wisdom…. Black disagreed. He believed it could establish a church. He is free to make that decision and I would still back him as a Supreme Justice.

The interesting fact is that Black chose to bring up the term “church” in his argument, yet nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does the term exist. The Founders of these documents probably had heard of the term in their past dealings, but chose not to include it. Black introduced it here and declared a definition with it…and was probably not the first to do so. This was a simple mistake.

Does this make any difference in the Kingdom of God? No. Did it change the face of America during the last 50 years, Yes.

It is what it is….

We should not attempt to set up a kingdom of this world just as Christ did not… but we should advocate searching for the most Godly and wisest candidates for Pres. and electing him so that they will lead us in to doing the will of God as a nation… People need to understand that God not only judges the sins of individuals, but that their also consequences for the sins of nations…

I am not to advocating him but… Mike Huckabee is a Godly brother who is running for Pres. It is ok to praise him in a sermon using him as an example of a Christian who is publicly active in society without necessarily promoting him as a candidate. Whether or not we vocally support our brother in Christ as a candidate for Pres. we can still advocate praying for him as a brother… http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=VerticalDay.Home&l=50F49E7D03868E58F54AA1ED674B0C61