Anyone willing to help found a NEW Christian nation?

"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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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. :confused:

 

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

 

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.

 

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 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). :D ;)

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

 

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

 

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 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.

 

Pennsylvania Jim said:

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.

 

Okay, here we go again. Pennsylvania Jim said:

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:

 

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

 

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.

 

That is in contradiction to Rom 13:1

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

To answer the question in the OP simply:

No.