English
Korean
Spanish
Often when biblical morality is advocated in the public square, the more radical of those who hold the “avoidance” position on church-state matters (for a definition, see story on page 9) warn of a creeping theocractic agenda among conservative Christians.
Historically, Baptists have been among the most vocal supporters of church-state separation. The Baptist Faith & Message article on religious liberty states clearly: “Church and state should be separate.”
But whether the protests come from liberal Baptists or secularist groups, the theocracy charge is promptly utilized, based on the views of a small minority of self-proclaimed Christian reconstructionists, some who seek Mosiac law for the United States.
Mark Coppenger, Southern Seminary’s vice president for extension education and professor of Christian apologetics, told the TEXAN in an email: “Unfortunately, some of those who oppose any acknowledgement of America’s special, continuing debt to its Judeo-Christian heritage (including the ‘Sundays excepted’ clause in the Constitution’s Article I, Section 7) like to slap the pejorative labels ‘dominionist’ and ‘theocratic’ on citizens who adopt a more nuanced view of the issue. It’s like shouting ‘racist’ or ‘homophobe’ as a substitute for serious, respectful discussion.”
Coppenger said there are “some genuinely scary Christian ideologues out there who advocate the death penalty for idolaters, homosexuals, blasphemers, and even rebellious children. Some, such as the late R.J. Rushdoony, speak of the ‘heresy of democracy.’” By their light, if it was good enough for Moses in Sinai, it’s good enough for Iowa.
But Coppenger said they are rare.
“Yes, you can get red meat from Gary North, Gary DeMar, and Greg Bahnsen, but there are more moderate voices who, to one extent or another, could be called ‘theonomist’ (‘God’ plus ‘law’) or ‘reconstructionist.’ And their approaches come in many flavors, some more libertarian, some more authoritarian. Common among them is the belief that the Bible properly supplants ‘the consent of the governed’ as the source of civil law and it would be ideal if Christians were the ones who ran things.”
Barry Creamer, academic affairs vice president and humanities professor at Criswell College, said Christians and non-Christians who lack a nuanced view of religious liberty tend toward a “false dichotomy or a polarity that is not real, which is either the nation is going to be secular humanist or Muslim, or it’s going to be my preacher who gets elected president, and therefore everyone has to become a Christian.”
“I actually think that’s what people criticize when they disdain the Moral Majority movement of the 80s,” Creamer said. “They think the Moral Majority wanted a mandatory Christian state—a state that required people to be Christians. Which is absurd. You end up with this picture of reconstructionists as Christians and anti-theists on the other half of the political spectrum. Then you have these core people in the middle who just want to live out their faith. I want to live out my faith and I want to promote living in a state that allows me to live out my faith. That does take a more nuanced view.”
Russell Moore, theology dean at Southern Seminary, in an essay for the book “Why I Am a Baptist,” said the “next generation of Baptist conservatives may have fewer moderates labeling them as threats to religious liberty, but they will have the secular culture even more eager to do so.”
Moore said far-right fringe groups “do not represent Baptist confessionalism, but secular onlookers often have neither the theological understanding nor the inclination to make such distinctions. To them, Christian orthodoxy means political oppression.”
As for the Christian reconstructionists, Coppenger said “anyone who’s been through church and denominational conflicts has a hard time waxing post-millennial over rule by saints. Universal fallenness and finitude make our Constitution’s system of checks and balances, including the play of non-believers, look mighty good.”
“Besides,” he added, “don’t Romans 2:14-15 and the witness of natural law give us cause to believe we can work cooperatively with ‘Gentiles’ on matters of public policy? Of course, the toxic nonsense advanced by the radical separationists can drive one toward theonomy, but crusading, exclusive biblicism in the public square goes very wrong. Didn’t we learn that in Massachusetts Bay Colony?”
