If you were Roy Moore, what would you do?

Americans always have the right to break the law if they believe in something very strongly. They have to be prepared for the consequences. People who act strongly like this because of their convictions can make a difference.

 

I would acknowledge God with all that I am. (Of course, just acknowledging God is doing nothing more than the demons do.) Moreover, I would learn to follow all the teachings of Jesus, including loving my neighbor as myself, and giving to Caesar what is Caesar, and giving to God what is God's.

And when acting as an employee of the government, representing the official position of the government, I would act in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and not try to use the power and influence of an earthly government to try to promote the Kingdom of God.

If Moore wants to be a religious person, he should probably carry on about the Ten Commandments and trying to get the government to give official sanction to his religion.

But if he wants to be a Christian, that is, one who actively obeys the teachings of Jesus, he should publicly repent of his foolishness.

 

Of course he should acknowledge God.

 

Nope, didn't say that.

I was making a distinction between what a religious person might do and what a Christian is called to do.

True Christians are interested and committed to doing what Jesus taught, even if they don't yet understand how to do it yet.

 

A believer can and often should make distinctions between personal convictions and their official roles as representatives of the state.

For instance, I don't mince words about my faith at work, during non-professional moments with co-workers or in casual conversation. But I don't use company meetings or meetings with clients as a platform to promote my religious opinions.

And when I'm evaluating the performance of subordinates, they know that they will be rating on the basis of their performance according to the rules and practices of the firm, not their religious views.

A judge must not only be unbiased toward the persons in his/her court, the judge must also appear unbiased to persons in his/her court so that all people will know that the judge is acting on the merits of the legal action and not on his personal beliefs regarding the religious convictions (or lack thereof) of persons appearing before him. If he can't do that, he should not be a judge -- fortunately, he is not.

Why is this so hard to understand?

You just don't get it (or don't want to get it).

Jesus, Who happens to be my ultimate authority, teaches clearly to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God.

You lack of comprehension does not change the reality of my position.

 

And without Christians who have the nerve to stand up against those who want to blur the line between separation of church and state, we might as well be back under the authority of England and her state church.

 

The government is under God, like all things under heaven and earth.

God has given humankind the freedom and responsibility to create governments to provide order and protection in this fallen world. But humankind has not been given the authority to build governments that interfere or presume to mingle with the Kingdom of God.

 

I’m glad to hear that, but I wonder if you have a different definition...

The exact wording is not, but the principle is there.

I have a hard time believing that based on his record, but I’m willing to read up on his views on separation.

The laws of God given to ancient Israel are one major source of our law today. There are also other sources.

Absolutely. But even more than that, endorsing the Baptist faith or attempting to support it through laws, monies or influence is also wrong.

Absolutely. Especially since there is no way to “force” someone to become a Christian. You can certainly force someone to masquerade as a Christian, but since being a Christian is a fundamental matter of the heart’s devotion to Christ, there is no way for external forces to control it.

Therefore, any laws, monies or influence that encourages people to become Christians actually works against the Kingdom of God, encouraging people in rebellion to God to masquerade as a believer for worldly gain.

Yes.

Yes. That law promotes “the general welfare” of the people and “secures the [most basic] blessings of liberty” for all.

No, that’s a non sequitur. A government is made up of people who have bound themselves together with a common organization of laws and organization for the common good.

The “government” itself is not a person. Only persons can commit themselves to God or commit idolatry.

Individuals who do not “acknowledge” God (your words) may well “leave themselves as gods.” But as I’ve noted before, the demons acknowledge God and His authority, but that doesn’t make them holy or favored in God’s eyes. Simply believing a theological assertion is useless unless a person is going to exercise faith – that is, commit themselves to the consequences of that knowledge in an appropriate, active and transforming way.

Governments are composed of individuals who are both Christian and pagan. Simply trying to baptize a government my making official theological assertions does not do anything to encourage true committed active faith in Christ.

I happen to believe that God is not interested in hearing insincere invocations of His name (read the OT prophets) or seeing His name in print in our official documents. He is not like some vain person fishing for compliments so He can feel important!

God is interested in fellowship with people who worship in spirit and truth, and He has chosen and commissioned the church to be His earthly spiritual organization that represents the Kingdom of God among us.

The United States government (or any other earthly government) is not a worthy or chosen instrument of the Kingdom of God. Interference in the Kingdom of God by well-meaning “support” is the real idolatry, for it presumes to place a shaky earthly government in a mediating and supporting role for the unshakable Kingdom of God.

That is the true idolatry, and God will judge a nation for interfering in the Kingdom of God!

 

We might still be fighting in Viet Nam too. We should think about the view that the war in Iraq is unjust. Did bush ever settle on a valid reason for invading Iraq?

 

'Separation of church and state' was meant to protect the church from the state - not the state from the church.

We need more men who will take a stand for God.

We are to obey man's law unless it goes against God's Laws.

I had the privilege of hearing Judge Moore speak at a church July 8th of this year. He is definitely a man of God and also an excellent speaker.

I am proud to have his autograph in my Bible.

IMHO, stepping down from politics and stepping up to preaching is a good thing...

If man passed a law today saying we must take the sign of the beast...would you obey that law or follow God's Law which says we are NOT to take it?

 

Interesting thought. Do you have any historical evidence to suggest this? It is an interesting concept, and our founding fathers surely acknowledeged God, but I don't recall anything saying that sepration of church and state only went one way.


Separation of state goes both ways, IMHO. There is no place for the church in the state or the state in the church. I am grateful the wisdom of our founding fathers in making it clear that these are separate entities to be "protected" from each other."

I would obey God, but God never said, "Thou shalt display in granite the Ten Commandments on state property."