Anyone willing to help found a NEW Christian nation?

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Separation of church and state does not mean taking church out of state. That's where you and I and others differ.

"Separation of Church and State" came from a private letter of Thomas Jefferson to the elders of Danbury Baptist Association, who were most concerned that another denomination might restrict their freedom of worship by enacting local or state laws against their denomination. If any of you have been looking in our founding documents, the charter of our land, or the amendments, you will not find that language there. It is from a personal letter dealing with an urgent concern for one denomination's religious freedom should another denomination seek to infringe upon their liberties to worship as they please. Thomas Jefferson addressed this issue in the context of the matter at hand, stating in part:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

This is the so-called "pronouncement" of separation of church and state, and it refers to exactly the same topic of concern as did the Danbury letter, which had absolutely nothing to do with displays of religious articles or texts, but of the dominance of one denomination over another. "Separation of church and state" as mentioned therein, and its famous "wall" were intended to assure religious people that the state would not interfere with the rights of a church or religious group (absent the commission of a crime, such as human sacrifice or other felonious act in the name of religion), or establish any preference for one group over another. The "wall of separation" was to keep the government out of the free exercise of religion, not to keep religion out of government!

This general mindset toward America's Christian heritage within a nation that respected the religious rights of all, Christian and non-Christian, to worship (or not worship) as they please, existed until a liberal Supreme Court, stuffed with liberal justices from the days of the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, allowed the gavel to strike the cross in 1963!

SOURCE

 

[Johnv]

This general mindset toward America's Christian heritage within a nation that respected the religious rights of all, Christian and non-Christian, to worship (or not worship) as they please...

Whose Christianity? Jefferson's? There's no evidence that he was born again. Even Dr. D. James Kennedy, father of hyperconservative religionist history, has revised his previous assertions regarding Jefferson, ultimately declaring that Jefferson had never been accepted Christ as his Lord and Savior.

Who makes the rules as to what constituted Christianity in the governmental level? A Methodist? A Catholic? A Jew?

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Well, John, that is interesting. Looks like JAMA proved my point while refuting Gene's point that so many are from Fundamentalist Christian homes. So, like I said, blaming one's upbringing is an excuse.

One...I never said the ratio of gays coming from fundamentalist homes was higher. I said that it was inordinately high considering that the fundamentalist attitude toward themselves and their communities is what it is and that those environments should do a "better" job at preventing homosexuality. Clearly they do not, because JAMA says that the ratio of gays coming from fundamentalist homes is about the same as those coming from nonreligious homes. JAMA does not refute my position. It clarifies it and supports it.

Second, where did I ever say that upbringing is an "excuse." Quite the contrary, I specifically wrote to the contrary.

 

[rsr]

From the Seese article:

The "wall of separation" was to keep the government out of the free exercise of religion, not to keep religion out of government!

It certainly was to keep religious organizations from attaining overwheening influence in government.

Madison was perhaps the clearest:

# Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785

It is strange that the Danbury letter keeps getting brought up again and again as proving something it does not. In one of the drafts, Jefferson went on to say "Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect."

He thought better of it and cut it out.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by Marcia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Should we eat dinner? How about put new tires on our cars? Should we maintain our houses and church buildings? Take baths? Vote? Write our congressmen? Or just witness and plant churches?

I think this is known as the fallacy of the red herring. Or perhaps the fallacy of muddying the waters. </font>[/QUOTE]I disagree. I think that stewardship is as much a part of the Chritsian purpose as evangelism. That's what I was trying to point out.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Pennsylvania Jim:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Should we eat dinner? How about put new tires on our cars? Should we maintain our houses and church buildings? Take baths? Vote? Write our congressmen? Or just witness and plant churches?

I think this is known as the fallacy of the red herring. Or perhaps the fallacy of muddying the waters. </font>[/QUOTE]I disagree. I think that stewardship is as much a part of the Chritsian purpose as evangelism. That's what I was trying to point out. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for clarifying. But my point was that in contrast to forming Christian governing bodies, the Bible tells us to evangelize and plant churches. The stewardship factor was not related to these two points (in my mind). I agree with stwewardship principles but do not think that means we are to have Christian governing bodies.
I am not sure you are saying that, but it seems I'm apparently been confused by your posts or you don't get mine.

 

[Matt Black]

What was or was not the religious affiliation and the intention of the American Founding Fathers is irrelevant to this discussion, which needs to move beyond the parameters of narrow national politics. The real question is this: is it appropriate for a BAPTIST (nationality irrelevant) to hunker after a 'Christian Nation'. My answer, to quote the late Frankie Howerd is "Nay, nay and thrice nay!"

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The real question is this: is it appropriate for a BAPTIST (nationality irrelevant) to hunker after a 'Christian Nation'.

Why, no. We as Baptists should desire to live in a godless, lawless and perverse nation. Sounds like a safe place for my family!

Get real.

 

[Matt Black]

Try telling that to the Early Church. The Roman Empire was scarcely the safest place for Christians and their families yet the Faith flourished greatly and was largely uncorrupted. Since Constantne, it's been largely downhill most of the way.

To further answer your point, rejection of Christendom does not mean being content with Godlessness, it means being salt and light in society and wielding influence beyond our numbers but recognising that those numbers will always be a minority and that therefore there is not and should not be such a thing as a 'Christian nation'

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by Marcia:
Thanks for clarifying. But my point was that in contrast to forming Christian governing bodies, the Bible tells us to evangelize and plant churches. The stewardship factor was not related to these two points (in my mind). I agree with stwewardship principles but do not think that means we are to have Christian governing bodies.
I am not sure you are saying that, but it seems I'm apparently been confused by your posts or you don't get mine.

I can see no reason why you should be confused, I was very clearly speaking of the shelf life of submarine paint. It's not my fault if you cannot read (imitation of the pastor).

Seriously, what I'm saying is that God has put us here and graciously given us everything that we have. Taking care of it and using it properly (stewardship) is important and cannot be separated from what are sometimes considered more "spiritual" endeavors.

For example, if God has given me a house, and the roof leaks, I would think it, under normal circumstances, a sin to "go witnessing" during a rain storm while my house is ruined. Neither is "more important", both are required.

Likewise, taking care of our civil duties (voting, directing our representatives, running for office, etc.) is not "less spiritual" than building a church. Either one neglected for the other when it needs to be done is a sin. It's not an "either/or", it's a "both".

-PA Jim

 

[Matt Black]

Jim, I don't think anyone here is advocating abstention from politics like the Anabaptists, or a kind of artificial sacred/ secular divide. Rather, we are recognising that the aim of a 'Christian nation' is both unrealistic, not baptistic and also - most importantly - not found within the pages of the NT...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Try telling that to the Early Church. The Roman Empire was scarcely the safest place for Christians and their families yet the Faith flourished greatly and was largely uncorrupted. Since Constantne, it's been largely downhill most of the way.

To further answer your point, rejection of Christendom does not mean being content with Godlessness, it means being salt and light in society and wielding influence beyond our numbers but recognising that those numbers will always be a minority and that therefore there is not and should not be such a thing as a 'Christian nation'

Yours in Christ

Matt

I am not here suggesting starting a new nation. I am talking, as you suggest, about the general question at hand.

First, you cannot assume that God's people will be a minority at all times and locations. As a whole, maybe, a minority. But not always in every time and place.

Second, I think part of our difficulty here is that we have different definitions of "Christian nation". As I have tried to point out, it does not necessarily mean a theocracy. When you say:

it means being salt and light in society and wielding influence beyond our numbers but...

...it seems like you are saying that it's ok to be salt and light as long as we're not successful.

3) Yes, Christianity has, by God's grace, prospered under times of persecution. But I don't subscribe to what many seem to think is so romantic about being persecuted. If you want to see your family slaughtered for the sake of the gospel, you could probably get your wish by moving to Sudan. I'd prefer to live, raise my family, and worship in a Godly and peaceful society, and work to keep it that way for future generations.

 

[Marcia]

Pennsylvania Jim said:

Seriously, what I'm saying is that God has put us here and graciously given us everything that we have. Taking care of it and using it properly (stewardship) is important and cannot be separated from what are sometimes considered more "spiritual" endeavors.

For example, if God has given me a house, and the roof leaks, I would think it, under normal circumstances, a sin to "go witnessing" during a rain storm while my house is ruined. Neither is "more important", both are required.

Likewise, taking care of our civil duties (voting, directing our representatives, running for office, etc.) is not "less spiritual" than building a church. Either one neglected for the other when it needs to be done is a sin. It's not an "either/or", it's a "both".

Jim, I agree with this. I just didn't get how it became an issue, but I see from subsequent posts what you might have been saying. I may respond to those statements.

 

[Marcia]

Okay, here we go again. Pennsylvania Jim said:

I am not here suggesting starting a new nation. I am talking, as you suggest, about the general question at hand.

I think starting a new nation is the general question at hand!

That is how this whole thread started. Did you read the article in the very first post? It's about a call to Christians to go to a state, preferably SC, and secede from the U.S., and start a "Christian nation."

From the article:

Anyone here willing to move to S. Carolina and partake in the creation of an independent Christian nation?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

The last time folks tried to set up "a city on the hill", we Baptists got the Massachusettes Bay Colony run by the Puritans. No thank you very much.

 

[Johnv]

I must agree, Squire. I prefer to attend church out of a desire to do so, not out of fear of imprisonment.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Two choices:

We can govern by God's laws, or man's. Only two.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Pennsylvania Jim:
Two choices:

We can govern by God's laws, or man's. Only two.

Sorry, Bro Penn.
That is a false dilemma.
Dilemma comes from "di" meaning "two"
and "lemms" meaning "premise".
This indicates there are two equally likely
premises.
A false dilemma is shown where there
are 3 or more likely premises from
which to choose.

Quite frankly here there is one
choice. Man can govern man ONLY using
man's law. Man cannot govern man
using God's law. God really doesn't need
our help to govern using His law.

In another discussion, I'd rather
worship at a state run church than
live in a land where some church
runs the government.

I'd rather acquiesce to an inefficent government
church than have my spirit crushed
by a church's state.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Pennsylvania Jim:
Two choices:

We can govern by God's laws, or man's. Only two.

That is in contradiction to Rom 13:1

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

To answer the question in the OP simply:

No.