Good words and thanks for the link.

Blessings,
Tim

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

Additionally,

I completely agree with you…America is not a Christian nation and will never be one. There is no such thing. National Israel was not a Christian nation.. “not all Israel is Israel”. (That makes infant baptism a tough one to sell). Yet the church has never changed and has no challengers.

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

No argument from me…they were wrong to try it….that’s not the call of God.

-Chris

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….

This is a great comment thread going on here. The comments are clearly presented with thought and articulated with clarity. Great Job! Keep it up.

Brother CB,

You are correct, Brother’s Dain and Johnson would make excellent Co-Chairs. :>) But until Dr. Land announces he has plans to vacate the position I am sticking with him. Of course, if he does we have a gang of excellent people already in place at the ERLC and I believe you know one of them–Barret Duke?

Brother B Diddy,

May I call you Diddy? :>)

You write; “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.” And I do have to call you to task on this issue. That is like saying I support the troops but I do not support the war.

If a policy a candidate is running on is the plank of their campaign, I cannot support either the candidate or the campaign. I am not speaking about a candidate that does not like chocolate and I do. I am not speaking about a candidate that says Dunkin Doughnuts are better than Krispy Kreme and I disagree. (Vehemtly disagree about the doughnuts. The hot lite to me is like those “zap” lights are to bugs at night.)

If a candidate has a clear plank in their policy and one opposes that plank, then it is perceived and correctly so I might add that the candidate is rejected. If another candidate has a plank in their campaign that is in diametrical opposition then the refusal of one plank automatically establishes the acceptance of the other. Once that happens then you have endorsed one candidate over another, according to James Dunn and his espoused theories.

Thus, my point is that we are not speaking as much of a wall of separation, instead it should be a fence to mark the boundary.

Blessings,
Tim

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.

Now, you will have to admit Micheal Dain has made a good argument about Black’s use of the word “church” within the context of which he (Black) was speaking.

I just had a great thought, Tim. What if Chris and Micheal became the joint heads of the ERLC. Man, just think we would really be cooking with grease then.

We could “fling” rocks all day and never get bored. :-)

cb

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 said, speaking of Hugo Black,

“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.”

How would it change the situation if Black truly understood what the word church meant? If church means Baptist church or some other religious expression how does that make things any different?

If he had understood then perhaps the first line would read:

The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a “Fully realized, spirit filled, gospel proclaiming, evangelistic, ….. expression of Christ’s body on earth.” Do we think that the “government” at any level can set up a church of any kind?

Or perhaps the next line:

Neither can (the state) force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from a “Fully realized, spirit filled, gospel proclaiming, evangelistic, ….. expression of Christ’s body on earth” against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any “Fully realized, spirit filled, gospel proclaiming, evangelistic, ….. expression of Christ’s body on earth.”

Or another line:

Neither can pass laws which aid one “Fully realized, spirit filled, gospel proclaiming, evangelistic, ….. expression of Christ’s body on earth.” aid all “Fully realized, spirit filled, gospel proclaiming, evangelistic, ….. expression of Christ’s body on earth,” or prefer one “Fully realized, spirit filled, gospel proclaiming, evangelistic, ….. expression of Christ’s body on earth” over another.

I wish someone would explain to me why me what all the fuss is about? I am far too much like John Leland and I believe that as Leland said “when Constantine the Great established Christianity in the empire… Christianity was disrobed of her virgin beauty, and prostituted to the unhallowed principle of state policy.”

Michael Dain

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