Baptists and the Political Trap

It is difficult to deny that, previous to the founding of the United States of America, Baptist people had very little political involvement and in most cases refused political involvement. No wonder. The experience of Baptist people and governments had never been positive. Whether it was
·         The pre-Catholic secular Roman government or
·         The burgeoning Catholic system to
·         The multi-headed Protestant monster
Baptists have always gotten a sour taste from government persecution, leaving them to contemplate the place of government in the world of the Christian. Their conclusion was the now famous (some would say infamous) doctrine of separation of church and state.[1] 

It is not as though historical Baptists have never had opportunity to be a government sanctioned church. Indeed, the Netherlands considered it at one time and it was again considered in the early days of our nations founding. After Baptists strongly lobbied for religious freedom, the Constitutional Convention considered making Baptist the state church. In both cases the Baptists declined. In the case of our country's founding, they had lobbied for liberty of conscience. These early Baptists understood that government and faith were terrible bedfellows. 

But then came our constitution and religious liberty. For the first time in human history a government was created by the people and for the people. And for the first time in Christian history Baptists became involved in that government. At first it seemed like a godsend. Not only could Baptists worship according to the dictates of their conscience, they could get involved in the political process to ensure they would always possess this liberty. 

Baptists, the very people who crafted the concept of separation of church and state, began to ignore to the doctrine in favor of using the political process to ensure what politics has always striven to rob men of. Baptists, along with every form of American Protestantism, embraced instead the doctrine of Christian patriotism. That doctrine has been the demise of Baptists.

•  Just as the Waldenses compromised for the sake of their safety and are no longer a vibrant Christian faith
•  Just as the Baptists in England compromised their doctrines to seem more respectable to the Protestant government and lost the savor of their salt
•  Even so have American Baptists so stepped into the trap American politics that we are likely never to escape

Indeed many see no need to escape. 
First, we yoked with the Protestant Fundamentalists who were not Baptists, to fight modernism. 
Today few but Baptists accept the Fundamentalist title, but those who embrace it the strongest are far more Protestant Fundamentalist (in ecclesiology) than they are Baptists. The average Baptist is so unlearned doctrinally that he is unable to discern the difference between a Fundamentalist using the Baptist name and a true Baptist in faith and practice. 

Then we joined hands with Mormons and anyone else who would in the Moral Majority
A misguided and quasi-Baptist preacher led Americans of all persuasions, whether they were Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, or Baptists to extend to one another the right hand of fellowship so long as we each held to "Judeo-Christian" ethics.  Moral Majority has disbanded but many have never let go of the un-Baptist principles of the movement or the unscriptural associations that were formed.  It's a trap, a snare. And I fear that few will even attempt to flee its deathly influence.

Historic Baptists distrusted human governments and devices. They understood the danger of desiring a king like all the other nations. They poured themselves instead into: 

Knowing The Lord

Learning His Word and 

Evangelizing the lost

And left the kingdoms of this world to themselves.[2]

May God grant that some Baptist would see the trap before it us sprung and warn others to flee it.

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

---

[1] That modern Baptists are losing touch with this important doctrine is evidenced by the fact that one leading Independent Baptist pastor once tweaked the doctrine from separation of church and state to separation from sin.
[2] I am not suggesting that Christians in America may not participate in the political process. I am merely attempting to point out that, whenever we do, we set ourselves up to be trapped by it.

Scientific Proof of God’s Omnipresence

Science seeks to prove things as fact through the process of observation, measurement and repetition. In science, a man poses a theory, others conduct experiments to prove or disprove the theory and, when the findings are sufficient to warrant it, an authority such as a scientific journal publishes it.

This process is demonstrated in the Bible concerning God’s Omnipresence.

First

David poses his theory[1]

Psalms 139:7-12 KJV

Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;

Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.

If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.

Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

The Psalmist asks the question, “Whither shall I go from [God’s] Spirit?”

• Is there any place where a man might go to hide away from God?
• Is there any place where the Lord does not exist?

After posing the question, he proposes his answer through a series of suggestions:

• Is God in heaven? Yes.
• Is God in hell? Yes
• Is God in the uttermost parts of the sea? Yes
• Is God in the darkness? Yes
• Is God in the night? Yes

He has given his question and proposed His answer.

Jonah tests His theory

Jonah 1:1-2:3 KJV

Now the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the son of Amittai, saying,

Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me.

But Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD, and went down to Joppa; and he found a ship going to Tarshish: so he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it, to go with them unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD.

But the LORD sent out a great wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that the ship was like to be broken.

Then the mariners were afraid, and cried every man unto his god, and cast forth the wares that were in the ship into the sea, to lighten it of them. But Jonah was gone down into the sides of the ship; and he lay, and was fast asleep.

So the shipmaster came to him, and said unto him, What meanest thou, O sleeper? arise, call upon thy God, if so be that God will think upon us, that we perish not.

And they said every one to his fellow, Come, and let us cast lots, that we may know for whose cause this evil is upon us. So they cast lots, and the lot fell upon Jonah.

Then said they unto him, Tell us, we pray thee, for whose cause this evil is upon us; What is thine occupation? and whence comest thou? what is thy country? and of what people art thou?

And he said unto them, I am an Hebrew; and I fear the LORD, the God of heaven, which hath made the sea and the dry land.

Then were the men exceedingly afraid, and said unto him, Why hast thou done this? For the men knew that he fled from the presence of the LORD, because he had told them.

Then said they unto him, What shall we do unto thee, that the sea may be calm unto us? for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous.

And he said unto them, Take me up, and cast me forth into the sea; so shall the sea be calm unto you: for I know that for my sake this great tempest is upon you.

Nevertheless the men rowed hard to bring it to the land; but they could not: for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous against them.

Wherefore they cried unto the LORD, and said, We beseech thee, O LORD, we beseech thee, let us not perish for this man's life, and lay not upon us innocent blood: for thou, O LORD, hast done as it pleased thee.

So they took up Jonah, and cast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging.

Then the men feared the LORD exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice unto the LORD, and made vows.

Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly,

And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.

For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me.

Jonah attempted to flee from the presence of God into Tarshish. Though the location of the city is uncertain, it is thought to have been in Spain and perhaps associated with the  lost city of Atlantis. It was the opposite of Nineveh, in what is now modern day Iraq and was then the power center of Middle Eastern Gentilism; across the ocean, an entire culture away. Perhaps God did not exist there.

What Jonah learned is that

• God is indeed in the midst of the sea
• God is certainly in the belly of the great fish and 
• God, he implies God is in the midst of our hell

David posed the question and suggested the theory that there was no place where a man could go from the presence of God.

Jonah tested the theory through personal experimentation and demonstrated that there was in fact no place he could flee that God was not already there.

God authenticated the findings

Amos 9:1-4 KJV

I saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said, Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake: and cut them in the head, all of them; and I will slay the last of them with the sword: he that fleeth of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered.

Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down:

And though they hide themselves in the top of Carmel, I will search and take them out thence; and though they be hid from my sight in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and he shall bite them:

And though they go into captivity before their enemies, thence will I command the sword, and it shall slay them: and I will set mine eyes upon them for evil, and not for good.

In this passage the Lord, speaking through the prophet Amos, confirms what David had proposed and Jonah had proven.

Though science will no doubt deny the science of the Word of God there is, none the less, scientific proof that God is indeed omnipresent.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

---

[1] I am speaking as a man. I understand that David wrote under divine inspiration and therefore it is no theory from the supernatural perspective.

Missionary Machinery

Everything degenerates with age. Even cheese, which is said to improve over time, can age too much. I wonder if the modern practice of missionary support has also degenerated? With the current ease of travel missionaries are able to canvass almost the entire country as they seek those funds needed to get to the field. And with the current economic circumstances in America, those same missionaries often find it needful to cover the whole country and then some to raise the support so vital to life on a foreign field.

Missionaries are often forced into accepting support from churches they are not in doctrinal agreement with (perhaps over the ordinances, the local church, or some philosophy of ministry) and find themselves quietly holding to themselves a conviction of conscience for the sake of the dollars needed for regular support. This quiet compromise may be at the root of the problem of so many missionaries having a surface relationship to practically no relationship with those churches that support them; too close of contact could potentially expose that there are real differences between the missionary and the churches supporting him.

This tension then leads to what I am calling a "missionary machine" mentality. Missionaries travel quickly from one church to the next. They keep their kids away from church kids. They attend one service in a church (either supporting or potentially supporting) and rush off after a quick meal to make the next church within driving distance. In their minds this makes perfect sense. After all, churches need missionaries to obey the Great Commission, missionaries need lots of churches to get to their field and close relationships with local churches will just keep them busy longer doing what they don't really want to do anyway.

• It's a machine
• It's a business
• It's nothing personal
• It's not scriptural and
• It’s not healthy

Our missionaries need to be more loyal to those churches that support them. They need to become personally involved with them. It will require more of an emotional investment on the part both parties but it is the only way we can get missions support back where it belongs; a ministry rather than a machine.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

Separation, the Key to Unity

Separation is a dirty word in almost every Christian circle today. Christians have mistaken a few important passages of the Bible to mean that believers of all sorts and stripes should ignore our differences get along in unity. They would accuse separation as the culprit leading the world to despise the faith. They would urge us to tear down the doctrinal walls and get along for the sake of Christ.

I beg to differ.

I would argue that separation is, in fact, the key to the testimony of Christian unity in the world. To deny our differences and force ourselves together is tantamount to forcing two electrons together. All that can happen is a clash. They each have their place, but it is not together.
To recognize the nature of each element empowers us to use those elements for good purposes. To attempt to force them where they do not belong is a mistake of nuclear proportions.

So it is, I would argue, within the world of Christianity. As a Baptist I am thoroughly convinced that each man has a right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience (and accept the consequences if he is in error). The last thing I would ever want to do is attempt to force someone to believe something they do not believe or worship in a manner that is contrary to their own understanding. On the other hand, I would be loathe to allow someone to interfere with my own understanding of worship and faith. I allow for the reasonable exchange of ideas, even when it comes to ideas of faith and worship. I may find my own faith sharpened by the challenge of another who has studied well their position, but has come to a different view than my own – so long as neither of us is bound in some way to agreement. Our very separation allows for a free exchange of ideas. The problem arises when we are bound together through some artificial means where one or the other or perhaps neither of us is free to express our faith and worship before the Lord without in some way offending the other party. Separation liberates us to worship the Lord according to the dictates of our own conscience without violating the conscience of the other.

The confused mess we find in Christianity today is, to a large degree, the consequence of ignoring the principles of separation. We have young couples ignoring these principles in their quest for a lifelong spouse. Believing they are free to do so, they marry someone of another faith, or else no faith at all. But this union must result in either conflict or violation of conscience. We see Protestants whose doctrinal perspectives are Calvinist yoking with a church whose tradition is Arminian. The argument is that the doctrines are insignificant compared to the relationships in the church. But someone has compromised their doctrine or else such a relationship cannot exist. Either the one joining has submitted his own theology or else the church has compromised theirs.

The same compromise of separation is happening within Independent Baptist circles. Because of the influence of Fundamentalism (which was a Protestant movement that Baptists got caught up in)

• We have some Independent Baptists that are decidedly Calvinistic (they would probably prefer the term “reformed”).
• We have some Independent Baptists that are quite Arminian (I refer to them as immersing Methodists. They have patterned themselves after the Fundamental Methodist Evangelist, Bob Jones).
• We have some Independent Baptists who try to avoid those Protestant influences and follow the Baptist conviction of Biblicism.

While most Independent Baptists claim to believe in the principle of the local church, we have, within the broad spectrum of Independent Baptists, various views of the local church:

• Some will acknowledge they also believe in a universal church
• Some believe in the local church, but see it as imperfect and therefore not authoritative
• Some see the local church as the only vehicle God uses
• Some see larger local churches as having obvious authority over smaller ones
• Some see the local church, regardless of size, as the pillar and ground of truth

The problem is we have come to think of all these persuasions as belonging to the same school of thought.

• We have preaching conferences and fellowships attended by men of any one of these persuasions.
• We send students off to Independent Baptist Colleges without regard to the particular persuasion of that school in comparison (or contrast) to our own.
• We entertain missionaries for church support regardless of which persuasion they may hold.

This arrangement breeds conflict. Someone must either submit their own conscience to that of another or stand for their conscience (and appear to be a belligerent) in someone else’s domain.

The answer is not, can not, must not be to ignore the differences. Unity at the price of conscience is not a fair trade. No. The answer is simply to

• Acknowledge the differences,
• Respect the differences and in Christian charity
• Separate because of the differences

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields