Is Separation of Church And State a Myth?

Warning, the following message may be offensive to some audiences. These audiences may include, but are not limited to, professing Christians who never read their

Bible, sissies, sodomites, men with man buns, those who approve of men with man buns, man bun enablers, white knights for men with man buns, homemakers who have finished

Netflix but don't know how to meal plan, and people who refer to their pets as fur babies. Viewer discretion is advised. People are tired of hearing nothing but doom and despair on the radio.

The message of Christianity is that salvation is found in Christ alone, and any who reject

Christ therefore forfeit any hope of salvation, any hope of heaven.

The issue is that humanity is in sin, and the wrath of almighty

God is hanging over our heads. They will hear his words, they will not act upon them, and when the floods of divine judgment, when the fires of wrath come, they will be consumed, and they will perish.

God wrapped himself in flesh, condescended, and became a man, died on the cross for sin, was resurrected on the third day, has ascended to the right hand of the

Father, where he sits now to make intercession for us. Jesus is saying there is a group of people who will hear his words, they will act upon them, and when the floods of divine judgment come in that final day, their house will stand.

Welcome to Bible Bash, where we aim to equip the saints for the works of ministry by answering the questions you're not allowed to ask.

We're your hosts, Harrison Kerrig and Pastor Tim Mullett, and today we'll seek to answer the age -old question, is separation of church and state a myth?

And before we get into this episode, I thought it was pretty funny, I didn't realize this when we were talking about planning this episode, but we're actually putting this out on July 4th, so I guess subconsciously we're trying to scratch that old patriotic itch and talk about something that relates to all of us talking about the government and how we should view lawmaking on the anniversary of our country's birth.

And so in a way, I guess this is our tribute, if you want to call it that, to the founding fathers and the revolution, but I didn't even really think about that until we were getting ready to record the episode.

But since this episode's coming out, we're not recording it on July 4th, but everyone, you're going to be hearing it on July 4th.

So Tim, what are some of your plans for July 4th? Are you all shooting fireworks?

Are you breaking out the Abrams tank? What are you all doing? Well, yeah, like good

Americans, we're going to be grilling out hamburgers and hot dogs, and we'll probably sit in the backyard and watch the neighborhood fireworks because they're having some at the clubhouse or whatever.

So we'll do that. But maybe no guns. I think we might go to jail if we try that. But stay away from that.

But if we had a tank, we may shoot it. The guns are out, but the tank, if you had it, that would be on the table.

That would be on point, yep. Meat and explosions. That's right. That's your July 4th. That's the summary of your

July 4th. Yeah, ours is going to be something pretty similar. We're going to go eat with a bunch of our family for lunch, and then we might try and go watch some fireworks.

We've had a pretty long weekend of different things that we've been going to, and so our daughter is pretty worn out at this point.

I mean, she took a really long nap today. She's going to be out late tonight too, and so I really don't know if she's going to be able to keep this up tomorrow as well.

So we might have to skip it. The good thing, though, is with the fireworks being loud, if she cries, you won't be able to hear it.

I thought you were going to say something about the fireworks will keep her up, but instead you're talking about you won't have to hear her crying.

Got to think these things through, man. Yeah, you're right. I'm obviously still a novice when it comes to being a parent, and you are the master.

But yeah, so that's what we're looking forward to. We'll see how things go, but it's been a fun weekend.

We got to hang out with a bunch of our church family as well, and so that was really nice.

Hopefully everyone who's listening has been having a pretty good July 4th and been able to celebrate with friends and family and remember a lot of the sacrifice that people made and the way they really did really risk their lives and their livelihood to be able to found our country.

With all that being said, the title question for today is the separation of church and state and whether or not it's a myth.

Is it real? Really the reason that in my mind the reason that we're talking about this is obviously

Roe v. Wade got overturned I guess two weeks ago or I guess a week and a half ago, a week from this last

Friday. Weirdly enough, not everyone has been that happy about it.

That's right, man. Big shock there, but a lot of very vocal and violent people have made it plain that they are not okay with the ruling by the

Supreme Court. What's amazing about that too though is so many, and this is something that I suspected would happen, but many of your big -name evangelical leaders who you would expect to be celebrating because they've apparently been champions of pro -life causes for their whole life, it seems like they're eerily, strangely silent with this new revelation.

I'm sure that it puts them in a bit of an awkward situation because now it's like they're in that kind of...

It's like a situation where you imagine that the woman's husband went off to war and he went

MIA or whatever and everyone was praying for his safe return and they give her the news that he's been found.

And then all of a sudden she gets quiet and still, doesn't appear to be rejoicing.

I thought this was the rejoicing moment, but apparently you look like you've seen a ghost. What's going on?

And then you come to find out behind the scenes that they have been pursuing another man and we're hoping that they're finally rid of the poor sucker or whatever.

But this is kind of like that moment for many evangelical leaders.

You should make that a scene in a movie. The wife's standing at the door. She opens the door for the guys in the soldier's uniforms coming to give her the news.

You don't hear what they say and you see her just drop down to the floor crying and then you look at the letter and it's like, he's alive or something.

It's just like that, man. It's painful to watch. They've been telling us that they're pro -life for years as they undermine the position at every single point.

And now is the moment where it's time to celebrate and they can't even muster up.

Hey, look, they can't anger their platform, man. The people that are supporting them.

Well, it's one of those things where it's like, they're in a bit of an awkward situation because maybe we'll talk about this over the course of the episode.

But it's one of those things where they've been trying to make this kind of argument that it's okay to be

Christian and be Democrat because nothing is ever going to happen with the Roe v. Wade thing anyways.

And so now it's just a matter of promoting that kind of things that can actually make a difference, i .e.

socialism or whatever. And so they've been making that kind of case for years now. But now that it's actually overturned, then you're in a bit of a different spot because it's overturned at this point and you vote

Democrat and they're going to be actively trying to reinstate it. And so now you're arguing from a different kind of position.

It's no longer this impossible white rhino kind of situation where theoretically it can happen.

We all know it's not going to happen, so we can vote for the things we really want. Now it's like it does bring it into focus and clarity that this is a live issue and there are literal

Nazis that you're trying to support who are going to try to bring the killing fields back. Worse than Nazis.

Worse than Nazis. Right, right. So it's certainly, it's been a spectacle to watch the non -response, you know.

Or, you know, the response, you know, or the, you know, like don't celebrate, you know, the liberation of,

I guess, victory in Europe day and you're not allowed to celebrate, you know, because it might offend the

Nazis. Right, right. It's just like, what in the world? Right. Come on. You know, and at the risk of getting off topic this early in the episode.

I think we've, who knows what topic it's for. One of the, I was thinking about this.

So I was, I was working, I guess it was Saturday.

I was doing some work and we're doing like a Bible reading plan as a church.

And so I was, I was going through Exodus and it got to the part where Moses and the

Israelites, they just got delivered by God. They walked through the Red Sea and then the

Red Sea, you know, it came back together, you know, and swallowed up the

Egyptians. And I was thinking about that. They didn't celebrate there, man.

They did not celebrate. It was a time of solemn, you know, grieving for the

Egyptians. Empathy and compassion and non -judgmental. It was very solemn.

Right, yeah. No, it wasn't that. I was listening, you know, I mean, I think, I guess it's

Exodus 15 or 16, maybe. That might not be right. I can't remember off the top of my head, but whatever chapter it is, it's literally like the whole chapter is just a song of celebration that the

Egyptians were destroyed by God. And then you compare that to what you're seeing now and it's just a total,

I mean, you wonder if these guys are even reading their Bibles anymore. But anyways, back on track, back on track.

So the reason we wanted to talk about separation of church and state is because a lot of people have been coming out and one of the big arguments, one of the big talking points from pro -baby murderers is this idea that -

I like that way of putting it, Nick. Pro -baby murderers? Yeah. Well, that's what they are. I mean, you know, you can't even argue that at this point.

It's a biological fact. You're killing babies. You're killing a human being. So they've been arguing, bringing up, hey, we are not a nation that is supposed to be mixing religion and politics, right?

We have this idea that we were founded on, which is the idea that the church and the state need to remain separate from one another in every single way, right?

And so I thought it would be helpful on this July 4th to talk about, number one, is that even right?

Is that right? And then number two, what exactly, what does

God have to say about government and religion? And then focus that in, too, on our specific country, the

United States of America, and talk about what were the Founding Fathers' ideas when it came to this subject as well?

Because I think a lot of people just really don't understand. Obviously, they don't understand the

Bible. They don't understand what God thinks. But then even just the Founding Fathers and simple history, they don't really understand it.

I mean, you can go online and watch video after video of people getting asked on the street, like, hey, what's the

First Amendment? What's it about? And they're just kind of like, uh, uh. My history teacher would be so mad at me right now.

And I think there's something, too. You get caught in the moment, and maybe you just kind of freeze up. But I doubt there's—

I'm sure there's a lot of people out there who if you asked them, they would have no idea. So with all that being said,

Tim, is separation of church and state a myth? Well, I mean, I think essentially, yes.

Okay. That's it. That's the episode. That's it, yeah. I mean, it depends on what a person means by that.

But what most people mean by that, yes, it's a myth in the way that most people are thinking about it.

But as you think about that expression, there's a ball of separation between church and state.

That is a historical expression that is not actually in the Constitution itself. So that was a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the

Danbury Baptist Association. And it is elaborating on the meaning of what you find in the

First Amendment. And if you properly understand what he's saying, then,

I mean, obviously that's his explanation for what the

First Amendment actually means. But then in the minds of many, they understand the

First Amendment to be saying something very different than what he's intending to communicate. And so it is what many people now think of when they think of a separation of church and state.

I would say, yes, that's a myth. Does that make sense? Mm -hmm, yeah. So that's not what he meant or what the

First Amendment meant. So I would say that there's a profound confusion as to what is being actually communicated in the

First Amendment itself. But then the First Amendment, it's pretty straightforward. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So if you want to understand the statement in the Constitution itself, the First Amendment, related to the issue of the relationship between the church and the state, that's essentially it.

And what you find there is that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, but then they will also make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, if that makes sense.

But then that law, they shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Essentially what people think that is saying is that religion and politics have to be kept separate.

But then that really isn't at all what's being communicated. That religion and politics need to be kept separate, that's not what's being communicated.

What's being communicated is that, as you read through Thomas Jefferson's letters to the

Danbury, or his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association and their letter to him, what they're making very clear, the

Danbury Baptist Association, they're making very clear that their concern is that there's going to be a federal church that's established.

So now at the time of producing of the Constitution, most of the states at that time, they had what you might describe as state churches.

So they didn't believe in the separation of church and state, meaning that having religion formalized within the government was a bad thing.

What they were afraid of was, the Baptist Association was afraid that the congregational churches would establish a federal congregational church over the entire nation, and that that would influence and control how they were able to participate in their own religion at the state level.

So they were concerned about a federal church. They weren't concerned about the idea of even a state church.

Does that make sense? Right, yeah. So they were concerned about the idea of a federal church. Now Thomas Jefferson, in his letter back to him, he says,

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 legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions,

I contemplate with sovereign reverence the act of the whole

American people which declared that their legislators shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or the prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

So adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation on behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

And all that's being communicated there is there's not going to be the establishment of a federal church. But then the idea that religion and politics should be kept absolutely separate is essentially nonsense.

And it's not something that they even thought about at that point.

So if you think about the Declaration of Independence itself, the Declaration of Independence communicates that man is endowed with God, certain

God -given rights, right? Namely, the right to life, liberty. And Thomas Jefferson changed

Locke's formula, ownership of property to the pursuit of happiness. But these rights were essentially

God -given rights. And you have to ground... The issue is you do have to ground your morality somewhere.

Morality doesn't just come from... Thin air. Yeah, it doesn't come from thin air.

It doesn't come from an evolutionary framework. It's not going to... You have to have some objective grounding for your morality.

And their objective grounding was in the belief in the God of the Bible. Essentially, they're grounding their morality in that.

And so they weren't... They didn't think that religion and politics needed to be kept separate in the way that many people understand that today.

What they thought... What they were trying to... The issue is at the time, the

Constitution was essentially advocating a limited form of government. And what they were concerned is that if there was a federal church, then that would run roughshod over the sincere religious practices at a state level.

And they wanted things to be kept local. They didn't want it to be run at a federal level, particularly as it relates to religion.

So they were concerned about that as a form of protection for the church. Not... It wasn't...

The concern wasn't that... To protect the people from the church itself.

They were concerned that the government would encroach upon them and force them to do things that were against their conscience.

And so that's why it's an amendment in that way. But the idea that religion and politics should be kept separate, or that that has any basis in the

Constitution, is just nonsense. Right. Yeah, and it's interesting that so many people in our day and age seem to think that you can even have politics without a religious worldview of some kind.

Right? I mean, just like you said, so politics is basically...

It's informed by our morality, right? Right. And our morality is informed by our religious worldview.

And so, in a certain sense, you have to have religion of some kind in order to have a government.

Yeah, I mean, you have to have some sort of objective grounding for your morality, and apart from the scriptures, you don't have anything that's objective.

You can ground it in popular opinion, but it's not going to be objective at that point.

It's just going to change with shifting times. So if you want some kind of objective moral grounding, you need an objective moral law given by an objective moral law giver at that point.

And what's really interesting, though, is that you think about the founding of our nation and the laws of the colonies, you might think to yourself, what would you do?

And this is something that people are so historically ignorant at this point, but imagine yourself coming over to the

New World and you have to form some sort of government, right? You have to figure out what you're going to do.

And as you look at the governments that were actually produced by the American colonies at that point, what's really interesting is that they essentially did the kind of thing that I think any kind of Bible -believing person would probably do at that point.

Meaning, you can imagine that all of us are going on some trip somewhere at our church and we get stranded on a...

our plane gets shot down or something like that and we all survive somehow and we're on...

we're lost, we're on the island or whatever. We're on the TV show. But we would have to form some sort of government and then you have to think to yourself, what do you do at that point, right?

Now, if it's all on you and you can't just kind of... it's not just about what is, trying to sanctify what is, if you were to ask yourself, what do

I do now, right? You put yourself in the deserted island scenario there.

What kind of government do you form? And as I've read through the old covenant law repeatedly again and again and again and again, over and over again, what you're going to find in the

Bible is, particularly in Deuteronomy, that God says of his law that what nation is there that has such rules that are so righteous and just as this and a

God so near to them that would give them such a wise law, essentially. And that's phrased over and over again.

And what happened with the American colonies is their impulse was to do essentially what my impulse would be to do.

Like, if I were in charge, right? You put me in charge and you say, hey, give us a government.

And I would say, well, okay. The only thing I know to do at that point is to go through the old covenant law.

This is a law that God actually, it has civil elements in it that God actually produced. And at that point, the only thing

I would know to do is look at the criminal code that was put in the old covenant, right?

Then to think about the things that are death penalty kind of issues under the old covenant. And I would say, well,

I guess what we need to do is we need to produce a kind of law that mirrors the morality of the old covenant and trying to distinguish between sins and crimes at that point.

Well, what are the things that have criminal penalties attached to it?

And I would think you would need to adopt the penology of the Old Testament, essentially.

That's what you do. But then the colonies, that's essentially what they did at a step -by -step level.

If you look into the documents, they did exactly that, okay? And that's why buggery or sodomy was considered a capital offense in the colony, in many of the colonies, is because they're just reading the old covenant and they're doing what they find there.

That's what they're doing. They're looking at it and say, hey, these are pretty good. Well, I mean, and I don't know how you can improve upon them, right?

Right. But then the issue is during the time, there were anti -sodomy laws in America in most states up until very, very recently.

And the reason why is because they were there because they read the Old Testament and that's what they did. And so no one at the time thought that some sort of separation of church and state meant that the

Bible and politics must be kept absolutely separate. In fact, that's totally irrational.

You can't even do that. You have to have some objective grounding for your morality. Like, why is murder wrong, right?

Right. Like, why is stealing wrong? Why should murder and stealing be criminal? And you can't just say because I don't like it, okay?

Right, yeah. Like, that is not sufficient moral reasoning to say I dislike it, therefore, like, let's make it, like, illegal, right?

What you have to do is you have to have some objective moral grounding for the laws that you come up with.

And if you don't appeal to the Bible, what do you appeal to, okay? Right. Like, what are you going to appeal to?

And so, like, the issue at the time was not that they were saying, like, religion and politics need to be kept separate.

In fact, what they said was that, you know, the Constitution was, you know, given for a moral and a religious people, and it was wholly inadequate for any other kind of people.

They understood that, like, morality was intrinsically tied to the Scriptures, and they produced a legal system that was in large measure based on the morality of the

Bible, and, like, that's what they did. And so, like, the issue was not keeping religion and politics separate.

It had nothing to do with, you know, you can't pray at, you know, a football game or at a school or something like that.

Although, I mean, we may not, we may want to wade into that topic at some point later, but, like, it had nothing to do with, you know, taking the

Ten Commandments out of the courthouse or anything like that, keeping these things separate. What it had to do was they were preventing the federal government from adopting a state church that would exercise authority over the religious practices of, you know, the entire nation at that point, and they wanted to keep these things at a local level.

And at a local level, they had state churches in almost all of them. So, like, that's the point.

Like, so, it had nothing to do with that, essentially. Petey Yeah, and I think we've talked about this before, but essentially, you know, that's the crux of the issue in a lot of ways is this idea that, you know, that you can have government without some sort of religion at all.

There's a lot of people who really do think that you can have government without religion and then turn around and try and push their specific religion on the government they live under, right?

And then, you know, they try and pretend that they're objective with it, but then, you know, the reality is even the atheist is a deeply religious person.

The problem is they have no way to justify their religion, and so what they end up doing is they just steal from the

Christian worldview a lot of times in a lot of different ways and pretend that it's like some, you know, obvious, common sense thing that any right -minded person would come to when the reality is there's plenty of people who don't come to, who don't agree with them.

And we as Christians can say, hey, look, you know, when

Hitler kills six million people, when Stalin kills 20 million people, when Mao kills, like,

I don't even, I don't remember how many he killed. It was at least 20 million. I think it was a lot more than that, though.

When they do that, when they do that, we can say, yep, that's evil.

Why? Because God has told us that killing people is evil. The atheist can't say that.

The atheist can say, well, I don't like it. I don't, you know, I think it's bad. But then, okay, why?

It says who? But that's even, like, it's contradictory to Darwinism itself.

You know? Like, in that, like, it's, you know, Darwinism is based on the idea of, like, survival of the fittest.

And my mate's right. And like, and so, like, it's formally contradictory to Darwinism, but not only is it formally contradictory, it's logically contradictory in the same kind of way.

And so, like, you know, it's not whether you're going to have some sort of morality, it's, like, what morality are you going to adopt?

But I think for many people, if I could maybe share my own kind of, you know, be a little autobiographical or something at that point, reaction to this kind of discussion,

I think for many people, there is very much an ignorance about what the

Constitution is saying at that point, and an ignorance about history. But then there's also what you might describe as, like, the common kind of, you know, as I've been a

Christian and interacted with these discussions over the years, there's the common kind of way that I think individuals have articulated this kind of thing is something that I, you know, when

I was growing up, I was never persuaded was reasonable, but at the same time,

I didn't know that I had a way of arguing with it. But, you know, it's the idea that, like, you, you know, you imagine yourself talking with, you know, an atheist or something like that, and, like, you're trying to get them to, you know, adopt whatever political philosophy that you have, right?

And then, you know, essentially, like, what people are afraid of, and this is what people I knew growing up were afraid of, is they're afraid of, like, the response to the question, you know, so what, right?

So, like, meaning, like, if someone were to say, you know, if I were to say, hey, abortion's wrong, well, why do you think abortion's wrong?

Well, because the Bible says that. And then their response to that is, well, I don't believe the Bible, right?

And then there's a lot of Christians at that point who are deeply flummoxed by that response, right?

So - Right, yeah. Like, they don't know what to do with that, right? So it's just like, you know, I don't believe the

Bible, checkmate, you know, therefore, you know, you shouldn't be trying to impose your religion upon me.

So then, like, the response from many Christians at that point, and I remember that this is, like, I had many friends who felt like that was just some sort of absolute overpowering objection they had nothing to do with.

And so because they were gonna hear that response, that led them to think, well, the only way to interact with this and to argue with this at that point is just to try to appeal to common ground, essentially, right?

Mm -hmm. And so then it's just like, well, I can't use the Bible to argue with someone who doesn't believe the

Bible, therefore, the only thing I can do going forward is it, the only thing that's left to me is just to try to appeal to common sense or common consensus.

But then the problem, though, is as you watch our culture decay, like, common sense isn't common sense, okay?

Right, yeah. Like, meaning - It's not very common anymore. It's not very common anymore. But then there's no settled, agreed upon definition of what common sense is, and that kind of idea pretends that there's some sort of neutral morality out there that everyone can agree upon.

Now, the problem is, because our country was founded on a Christian worldview and you're living in the vestiges of that Christian worldview, yeah, you know what?

There's plenty of guys like, you know, James Lindsay, I think, is anti -abortion.

I don't know. I need to probably look that up. But there's plenty of, if he's not, at least not he's anti -socialism.

So there's that. But the idea is you can appeal to this idea of property rights because we used to believe in that.

But the problem is that everything's up in the air at this point. As you check God, you refuse to acknowledge him in our hearts.

Almost everything's on the table and there's no shared morality anymore. And you have women shouting their abortions and talking about getting pregnant with Republicans' babies just so they can slaughter them.

There's no common ground there. And the more that you chuck religion, the more paganism that you're going to see and the less morality that you see.

We don't even, we used to think that genital mutilation was a bad thing and now we're praising it as a virtue.

Praising castration of men and the breast removal surgeries for women.

We're at a point now where we are so far gone and there is no neutral, shared

Christian worldview that you can appeal to with the pagans anymore. We don't even know the difference between a male and a female.

And what that does though is it causes you to rethink that basic argument that there's some sort of neutral common ground out there that you can appeal to.

And what you really do have to do is you have to say, thus says the Lord, and do it with conviction.

And that's the only thing you can say. And that's the very thing that people are humiliated and embarrassed to say.

And that's something that growing up, I didn't quite understand why they seemed to be so embarrassed to just say,

God says it, I believe it, that settles it. God is the king above all other kings and authorities and what he says goes.

And he commands everyone everywhere to repent and it's his world. And it doesn't matter whether or not you submit to him, he makes the rules.

And I have no argument with you other than God says it and I'm not embarrassed by that.

And there's no reason to be embarrassed by that. God says it, doesn't matter whether or not you like it. And you can make that kind of case when you know that the

Holy Spirit has been sent into the world to convict the world of sin and righteousness and judgment. When you speak what's right, the issue is you have heaven and earth behind you at that point and you don't have to fear them.

And you don't have to be embarrassed about that. And there's nothing embarrassing about standing on the words of God. Right, yeah.

And that kind of gets back to what I was saying a few minutes ago.

If you are the person who is looking at government and you look at things like Roe v.

Wade being overturned, which, by the way, doesn't even outlaw abortion. It just turns it back to the, it makes it a decision of the states again, right?

So it's not even a full -on outlaw. It's just the discussion has moved now from a federal level to a state level.

Yeah, it's a constitutional right now. It never was a constitutional right. It wasn't in the purview of the constitution.

Now the states can decide it. Right, and so you look at this discussion and we as Christians, we can look at this and say, hey, it's wrong to kill babies.

Right. Why is it wrong to kill babies? Because God said it's wrong to murder people, right?

God has given each of us a right to life that can't be taken away unless we do something to forfeit that right.

So like we kill someone else or we rape someone or something along those lines.

Those would be examples of we've given up that right to life, but someone can't just come and take it for no reason.

Now that's what God has said and we can say because God said. If you're the atheist, you can't say you don't have an explanation.

If you're wanting government to be quote unquote neutral as it relates to religion, then you've basically thrown away any justification for any right that you think you have.

So if you think you have a right to life as an atheist who rejects God, you're throwing away the founding fathers justification for it and you now need to prove yourself where your right to life comes from.

We as Christians obviously, we think you have that right and so we don't want to violate it, but then someone else could come along who's stronger than you, who doesn't care that you think you have a right to your own life and say, hey,

I don't think you have a right to your life and they could kill you and you wouldn't even have a justification for it.

We can say God said and then turn around and turn the question back to the atheist and say where do you get your justification for your right to life?

Those are some of the most powerful moments in many of the atheist debates I've ever watched is that when a

Christian brings up that moral objection at that point and what is the basis for your morality and I've never seen an atheist actually have a good answer to that kind of question because there really isn't one.

Right, there's not. All they can do is just fumble around and say, hey, I don't like being killed.

Do you like being killed? It's like, no, but so what? So there's plenty, how do you describe it as objectively right or objectively wrong and Christians at that point, they need to give up this nonsense view that there's some sort of common ground here and go on the offensive and essentially point out the contradiction and Darwinism doesn't have an explanation for morality.

Atheism doesn't have an explanation for morality and I think the more polarized our country gets, the stronger that objection actually is.

So no, I don't want to live in a cannibalistic society, but why is it wrong for individuals who are more advanced technologically than me to kill me and to eat me, right?

Right. Who am I to say that's wrong? I mean, that happens in the animal kingdom all the time. Just observe the behavior of lions.

That's certainly natural and that's certainly normal and that's certainly common. So if I'm just an advanced animal, why can't

I kill people I don't like and eat them, right? Right, right. And there's no biological reason why that's wrong.

There's no shared social consensus throughout all time and all of history to say that that's wrong.

Majority rule doesn't decide it. Our majority rule has dramatically flip -flopped over the course of just a few years.

Although I think many people who are caught up in the LGBTQ whatever nonsense are in the minority, but then they're loud and vocal and in charge, the fact remains that there's not some kind of consensus in our society over even basic things like what is a woman and what is a man and can people define radically what their gender is?

And so at that point, you do have to press the atheists and you do have to press the secularists and you do have to ask, what is the source of your grounding for morality?

And the fact is they don't have an answer to it at all. Yeah, I mean, there's literally, I mean, they'll have a response.

It just won't be a good response, right? You know, they'll appeal to the whole like common sense.

Everyone knows it's wrong to kill someone. And it's like, well, no, everyone doesn't know it's wrong to kill someone with 60 million babies.

Right, right. Just look at the abortion discussion. It's obviously not common sense. Right. At all. Which is pretty funny.

You know, I'm sure you've probably seen the response before to Christianity that if you need a book from a sky fairy to tell you what's right and wrong, then you might be a terrible person.

But then they're the same people that are screaming at the top of their lungs for the quote unquote right to murder their unborn child.

To chop them up in their mother's womb and to mutilate people so they're unable to have kids for the rest of their life.

Right. And they're the same kind of people. Yeah, give me a break. Just listen to you.

Give me a break with all that stuff. That's totally ridiculous. So, you have this idea that government and religion are inherently tied together in some capacity.

Right. And when you look at the founding fathers, you know, you see the Declaration of Independence which is essentially viewed as the why behind form the

United States of America. Right. That's how Abraham Lincoln viewed it. He viewed it as the why and then the

Constitution was the what, basically. Like, what does the country actually look like? And in the

Declaration of Independence, you see the founding fathers say, hey, every single citizen of our new country that we're forming and every man has certain rights given to them by God and those rights cannot be taken away unjustly.

Right. So, you clearly have a religious worldview affecting government in some way.

So, that's what the founding fathers thought. But then, Tim, could you just maybe explain for us a little bit, you know, does the

Bible teach us that God has a certain perspective on how government should operate?

And what I mean there is, you know, obviously the Israelites, they were a nation under God.

Right. They were founded by God. Right. He establishes them.

He gives them all their laws and he spells everything out plainly for them and tells them to follow him and even goes so far as to say, you know, for a long time, don't have a king if I will be your king.

Instead, I will be your leader. And obviously, we know that they, eventually, they left that idea behind and it wasn't very good for them.

So, we know that when it comes to the Israelites, you know, God was obviously very integral to their government structure.

But then, how does it relate to, you know, other countries that are not considered, like,

God's, you know, chosen people, as the Israelites were? You just have, you know, pagan nations everywhere else.

Does God view those other nations as they would be better off if they established some form of Christianity as, like, the justification for their governments?

Or does God think that they're better off being, you know, pagan? Well, yeah.

Well, I think everyone has to basically run the deserted island experiment that I mentioned and, you know, think about, you know, what would you do if you were in charge with, you know, essentially, coming up with a government right now?

And, you know, I think the problem is that, as you read through the Old Covenant Law, the

Old Covenant Law was doing a variety of things. So the Old Covenant Law essentially had what you might describe as civil laws, meaning it had within it, like, laws about, that were essentially providing a penal code for the

Israelites. So it had those kind of laws. It had, like, a sacrificial system kind of laws.

And then it also had, you know, what you describe as sins or, you know, moral kind of law that was present within it.

So you have different kinds of things that were all in this one package, which is described law, which is presented as a unity to the

Israelites at that point. But, like, it was a law that accomplished, or that had many functions as far as that goes.

So part of it was to tell them, you know, God's standards for them as individuals. Part of it was a law to tell them

God's standards for them as a nation. And then part of it was, you know, to give them some mechanism for, you know, atoning in a temporary way for their own sins.

So you had those different kind of components within it as a unity. But then, you know, as I mentioned before, if you just read

Deuteronomy 4, like, 5, for instance, see, I have taught you statutes and rules as the

Lord my God commanded me. This is Moses, that you should do them in the land that you're entering to take possession of them.

Keep them and do them, for they will be your wisdom and understanding in the sights of the peoples who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.

For what great nation is there that has a God so near to it as Yahweh our God is to us whenever we call upon to them?

And what great nation is there that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I've set before you today?

And then he tells them, only take care and keep your soul diligently lest you forget the things that your eyes have seen unless they depart from your heart all the days of your life.

So make them known to your children and to your children's children. Now, like, when you think about what's actually there,

God viewed his law as absolutely, like, even, you know, if you think about, like, how do you form a government?

Well, it tells you what kind of government to form within the old covenant law, and God viewed that as absolutely superior to anything that ever existed at the time, right?

And so one of the things that's very difficult for me to imagine is it's difficult for me to imagine that there's any way to, you know, human beings can come up with something that's better.

Does that make sense? Yeah. Like, if God, like, I think if God had a vested interest in creating a government,

I would want to know what he thought was the kind of features that he wanted within that government.

Now, surely what you have to do is you have to think, well, how has the coming of Christ influenced some of the things that are there in particular?

I'm thinking of like, you know, now that Jesus is the once for all sacrifice for sins, it would be immoral, you know, to go back to the old sacrificial system for sure.

So you do have to think about how Jesus, like, fulfills certain aspects of the law and has brought them to completion.

But at the same time, you know, if you're asking me, you know, what kind of law should a society come up with, like a legal code, in terms of like a government structure, it seems to me to be the height of arrogance and hubris to think that you can somehow come up with something better than what

God came up with. And so, you know, if you were to ask me, what do we do? I don't know that, I don't know how

I can improve upon what God did, and I would want to know what he did and be influenced by what he did at that point.

And like, so I don't know that I have any kind of ability to come up with something better and it would feel very prideful and arrogant to think that I could.

So, you know, if God made a government, you might want to study the kind of government he made so that you would know what kind of government you should be making, because that government itself does provide like a definition for what is just and what is right and what is moral.

And I just, I simply don't know how to improve upon it, okay? Like I don't. Yeah, so then like the issue then is like, you know, there's a whole discussion about like theonomy as it relates to this kind of topic, and without necessarily wading into that, you know, mess,

I would say at the very least, like, I don't understand how you can improve upon God's law.

And if anyone were to ask me what, you know, should be done, I would say I would want to,

I would think that a nation, you know, if they, like, and if God says of his law, you know, what nation is there that has statutes and rules so wise as this, and a

God so near to them than that, I would think at the very least, like what you should be doing is you should be looking to the old covenant law to define morality for you.

And the thing is, America largely did that, you know? Right. They largely did that. That's why, you know, we had, we, like, you know, many of the things that we've overturned recently were things that were, you know, founded fundamentally in a biblical worldview, and some of these things are very deeply unpopular, and we don't even know why we've overturned them.

But the reason why we've overturned them is because we're checking a biblical morality at that point. And, like, that even shows up with, like, you know, this might scandalize people, but I don't know that we've ever been afraid of this in the past, but, you know, why do you think that women's suffrage wasn't a thing, right?

Uh -huh. Why do you think it wasn't a thing for so long? And, like, is the fact that we've granted, you know, women the right to vote now, is that, like, a wonderful thing?

Well, the thing is, like, if God created, like, men to be leaders in their home, right?

Mm -hmm. If God created men to be leaders in their home, and, like, He ordained within the church that, like, a woman is not to teach or exercise authority over a man, and, like, then what you have to understand is, like, the reason why there wasn't women's suffrage is because it was based on a biblical worldview that said that the husband was the authority over a wife, and the husband should represent the family as a family unit, okay?

Mm -hmm. So when you think about it in that kind of way, right, like, it would make a kind of sense to say, yes, the husband should vote, and now if the wife has the ability to cancel out her husband's vote by having a right to vote, that undermines his authority to influence the society in that kind of way.

But we're so far from that, we don't even think, like, why was that there? Do you get what I'm saying? We just think it was a, well, we believe the feminist lie that it was hateful to women and everything else.

But, like, the issue is that, like, this was founded on a Christian worldview. That's why we had anti -sodomy laws, because the old covenant, you know, makes sodomy a death penalty offense.

Right. Like, that's why we did that, right? And so that's, it wasn't because we just, you know, hated sexual minorities or anything else.

We had a Christian worldview, and we had laws that were based on that, and now we've gotten rid of them, okay?

Mm -hmm. So then, like, to answer your question, you know, in a little bit shorter way, I don't know how, like,

I don't know how you ground, like, your civil code apart from the Bible, and I think, you know,

America was some sort of effort to do essentially that, to copy what you're gonna find in the old covenant law, and, like, that's essentially what the

American experiment was, and that's why they're saying it's, you know, suited for a moral and a religious people and wholly inadequate for any other, and so if you don't appeal to the

Bible, I don't know what you're appealing to. Like, you know, so what do you appeal to at that point, and how you're gonna make your laws?

Mm -hmm. You know, and I think if you listen to a lot of Christians at this point and you run through the deserted island experiment, essentially what they would do would be they would have to find some pagans to figure out how to rule them, you know?

Yeah, yeah. Because they wouldn't want to impose the Bible on anyone. You know, it's like, well, I guess you better find some pagans and let them do whatever you want so you can, you know, suffer for righteousness' sake or something, and it's just like,

I don't think that is reasonable or rational or normal. You know, I think you have to ground your morality somewhere, and if not the

Bible, then where? Right. Yeah, and you know, you look at, like, this is

Psalm 33, 12. It says, Blessed is the nation whose God is the

Lord, the people whom He has chosen for His own inheritance. And it seems like when you look at the founding fathers, they understood that, right?

And so, I mean, I think still, on our money, it still says one nation under God, doesn't it?

Or something along those lines. In God we trust, that's what it says. And you know, the Pledge of Allegiance is one nation under God.

And I don't, you know. Well, I think many of the blessings we've experienced are blessings that are deuteronomic in nature.

Like, I mean, I think when you have a nation that acknowledges God as sovereign, like, there are blessings that come from that.

And the remarkable prosperity that you see within our own country are, it is coming from a formal acknowledgement of God as being in charge.

It's a testimony of Psalm 33, for example. Right, right. Now, you know, as we're, you know, abandoning those things, then.

Gas goes up to 599 or whatever it is.

It's not quite that high here in Alabama, but. My wife was, like, posting in the group media, you know, how excited she was that she found gas at 409 or whatever.

I know, I know. I laughed at that. I thought. My reaction to that was to think, man, we're excited at 409, you know, and I wanted to make a sarcastic comment about this is how far we've fallen.

But then I thought, well, we should be thankful in all circumstances anyways. And so, like, you know, you just keep your sarcastic comment to yourself.

Like, we should be rejoicing in all things, right? It's never inappropriate to be grumbling and fussing and complaining anyways, you know.

Right. That's the result. Gas prices go up. Gas goes from 159 to 459.

Right. But, you know, yeah, I think you see the founding fathers, they understood this.

And, I mean, if you want to argue that the founding fathers, when they drafted the

Constitution, when they drafted the Bill of Rights, when they drafted the Declaration of Independence. Now, I understand, you know, when it comes to the

Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, you know, it's not the same authors. I think there were only six common authors between the

Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. So, I understand that it's not all the same people there.

But regardless, you know, you see they understood that it was imperative that they acknowledge

God's existence and that God is the one who is giving us rights. He's giving us,

God is the one who gives government authority in the first place, right? Right. And to ignore that and say that, you know, they clearly meant separation of church and state, meaning there can be no, you know, traces of Christianity when it comes to our government, especially the laws that government enacts.

Then you're just totally ignoring all the work they did. Yeah, you're ignoring that, but it's nonsense.

It's just like, how do you, like, okay, all right, let's take the Bible out of it. All right, so we can't punish murder anymore because the

Bible talks about murder. Take the Bible out of it. You can't punish stealing anymore because the Bible says, like, thou shalt not steal, right?

Right, right. Those are Christian values. You can't have those anymore. But they're not, I mean, they're not shared.

They're obviously not just shared values with every culture and every society. We're living in a culture and society right now that does not share the value thou shalt not kill when it comes to the unborn.

And there's been plenty of, you know, societies throughout the history of the world that do not share that value. You know,

Hitler did not share that value with the Jews, okay? So, like, if, like, there's no way to unravel the mess.

I mean, God defines morality for us. So, like, you say, okay, well, we can't have, we can't legislate morality.

You know, you think you've said something profound there. Then I guess we can't punish murder, and I guess we can't punish theft, you know?

And, like, you know, the truth is that socialism is theft, and that, like, is exactly what's happening at that point.

And the only way to push against socialism is to, you know, be pushing at it because the Bible says thou shalt not steal.

Well, you can't take money that I've earned and worked for and give it to people who haven't earned it and haven't worked for it.

And so, but then, like, you get rid of that. Like, I mean, like, what do you have left, right?

So, I mean, at every single point, whatever the laws are, like, you get rid of everything that's in the

Bible. You have nothing left. Like, there's nothing left to, what do you do? You know? Yeah, yeah. And so, like, like, the issue is, well, where do they come from, right?

Like, where is your morality coming from? Where are your laws coming from? Who gets to say? And you don't like the

Bible's grounding for it, then what are you going to appeal to? It's the point. And, you know, so, like, it's not, it's not just that you can just pull the audience and figure out what parts of the

Bible they agree with and then declare those to be neutral. Like, the issue is, like, this is irrational, okay?

Like, you have to have some grounding for your morality and the Bible is a grounding for that.

And, you know, and Christians need to quit being embarrassed by it. That's all we have, man. Like, you know, it's not like all we have, like, it's a pitiful thing.

It's like, that's what we have. And it's enough. It's sufficient. And you have to trust in it and depend on it and quit apologizing for it.

And, you know, if people would be more bold in that kind of way, then, like, it may be that many people will repent, too.

Absolutely, yeah. And I love that, too, what you said. I mean, look, if, all right, if we want to take

Christianity out of it, then we need to remove all of the laws that, you know, penalize murder and rape and theft, right?

Because those are Christian values. And slavery. And slavery, right, right.

All of these things, you know, they're Christian values. And you can argue that they're not, that they're common sense, but you're just wrong.

I mean, you're just flat out wrong. And there is no basis for morality outside of the

Christian worldview because God has already said what is good and what is right and what is evil and what is wrong.

So, Tim, that's everything that I've got. Is there anything that you want to touch on that maybe we didn't really get to in the conversation?

Yeah, I'm sure that we could go a variety of different directions with the topic in general, but then

I think the broader point is made that you do have to have some sort of grounding for your morality.

And if it's not the Bible, then what is it? And, you know, atheism essentially doesn't have that, or secularism is bankrupt at that point, and atheism doesn't have an objective moral grounding.

And I think the more that our culture and society does decay around us, the more that, like, it'll be clear that we need

God's word to govern us in that way, and that's our only hope. And you have a lot of people right now who are basically trying to chuck that over the rails, but then the shocking thing is how far they're going.

But then, like, it's not actually shocking if you understand that this is essentially what the scriptures will tell you.

It would happen when a society refuses to honor God in its thoughts. They become futile in their thinking, their foolish hearts are darkened, and professing to be wise, they become fools, exchange the glory of the immortal

God to images resembling man at that point. So God gives them over to certain kinds of iniquity, and that's what we're seeing in our society, that God is giving, as they're not honoring

Him in their thoughts, He's giving them over to things that we thought unthinkable, right? We thought these kind of things are unthinkable, but then what we're finding is they're not.

And you're going to have individuals marrying robots, and you're going to have individuals marrying their pets, and normalizing pedophilia, and there's no breaks apart.

You take away the break of the Bible, there's nothing objective left. And the problem is that sin always wants to go further and further and further, and wants more, and if you check the

Christian worldview, you check the whole project. Right, yeah, absolutely. And obviously there's a lot of different ways that you could really take this conversation, but I do think that is sort of the root issue of the problem, is once you try and argue that God needs to be removed from politics altogether, then you essentially have no justification for government.

And not only government, but there's no justification for your morality in general. And I just don't think people understand that.

I think too often our society takes that for granted, because even now, even today, we are still benefiting from the

Christian worldview that our nation was founded out of. And now that's fading away, and fading away quickly, and you're right, there will be people who come along and not only say, hey, it's not only okay, but it's good to be attracted to the same sex, it's good to mutilate our bodies and pretend that we're a gender that we were not born as.

They'll say, hey, it's good to be attracted to children. It's good to be attracted to animals.

Eventually it'll be, it's good to murder the people we don't like. Well, it already is, yeah.

Yeah, I mean, when it comes to abortion, we are already there. I can't tell you how many times

I've seen liberals essentially advocating for that towards conservatives. Right. And that's essentially what's happened with the

Great Reset thing that we've experienced recently. Yeah, yeah. And so I think really we're just seeing,

I guess it was in the book of Judges, maybe two times it says everyone did what was right, in their own eyes.

And that's essentially a description of the atheistic worldview, right? Is once you reject

God, then you reject morality and everyone will just do what they think is okay.

And we're seeing that more and more, but even now we are still benefiting from this idea that there are still some things that generally, with massive exceptions sometimes, are still considered evil.

But you will see those fade away. I mean, if you want to reject God, then eventually you'll reject those things as well.

And I think we need to get people to understand that once they reject God, they reject any justification for anything that they think is, like murder is bad, for example.

You just lose it and you don't have a justification anymore. And so we as Christians, we really need to be saying that and we need to be okay with the justification that God said it and that's a good enough reason, right?

And realize that someone who rejects God's existence or even someone who realizes

God is real but hates him, they don't have anything like that.

All they have is their own justification. All they have is, well, I think it's good or I think it's bad.

And that's a, I mean, God said it, do what now?

It's a flimsy ground to stand on. Yeah, that's flimsy. And we have a solid rock to stand on.

We have truth to stand on, a solid foundation, and they simply don't. And we need to make that plain and we need to make that clear.

And so hopefully this has been a helpful conversation for you guys. And hopefully in all of this, it's also not only helped you to understand how

God views government, what the purpose of government is according to God, and the benefits of introducing the

Christian worldview and letting the Christian worldview influence politics. It's beneficial for so many reasons, and God says it's beneficial.

He straight up says that the nations who do that are blessed, right? But then not only that, hopefully this has been helpful in helping you understand what the founding fathers thought because they understood these things, and they were willing to risk their lives in so many ways and their families' lives and their fortunes, their livelihoods on this idea.

There's too many people out there who want to try and pretend that the founding fathers were the same as a 12 -year -old atheist on a message board somewhere, that they pretended they were

Christians, but in reality they weren't. I think there's a discussion to be had about how faithful were they as Christians, but then the reality is they did understand that God was real.

They recognized that, and they did fear him enough to allow him to inform their view of government and how they founded the country.

So hopefully this has been helpful for you guys. Hopefully it's equipped you guys to be able to go out and have these conversations with people who disagree, and hopefully that leads to sharing the gospel and sharing the message of hope with them because if people don't hear the gospel, then they will not turn from their sin.

They will not realize that there is a hope. There is a way to avoid the punishment that comes with sin.

So hopefully this has equipped you guys to be able to have those conversations, and we want to take the time to thank you for listening and supporting us.

We wish you guys a happy July 4th, and we'll catch you on the next one. This has been another episode of Bible Bashed.

We hope you have been encouraged and blessed through our discussion. We thank you for all your support and ask you to continue to like and subscribe to Bible Bashed and share our podcast with your friends and on social media.

Please reach out to us with your questions, pushback, and potential topics for us to discuss in future episodes at BibleBashedPodcast at gmail .com

and consider supporting us through Patreon. If you would like to be Bible Bashed personally, then please know that we also offer free biblical counseling, which you can take advantage of by emailing us.

Now, go boldly and obey the truth in the midst of a biblically illiterate world who will be perpetually offended by your every move.