The Bible in American Law and Politics. John R. Vile
we can’t legislate is spirituality”) led to strong but ultimately ineffective opposition to his confirmation as attorney general by those who thought that his policies might be too rigid.
Like President Bush, Ashcroft was deeply affected by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and he considered his central role to be that of preventing further ones. Again, some opponents were particularly critical of the USA Patriot Act, which they feared might be misused in the future.
Drawing from the Bible, Ashcroft is known for saying that “for every crucifixion, there is a resurrection.” After he lost a Senate race to the widow of the candidate whom he had opposed, Ashcroft refused to contest the election and soon found himself appointed as the state auditor of Missouri (Haddock 2002). Visited by presidential aides while he was sick in the hospital, Ashcroft, in conjunction with James Comey and Bob Mueller, refused to oppose reauthorization of practices that he thought might be illegal (Salon Staff 2007).
See also Bush, George W.
For Reference and Further Reading
Ashcroft, John, with Gary Thomas. 1998. Lessons from a Father to His Son. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
Eggen, Dan. 2001. “Ashcroft’s Faith Plays Visible Role at Justice.” Washington Post. May 14.
Goodstein, Laurie. 2001. “Ashcroft’s Life and Judgments Are Steeped in Faith.” New York Times. January 14.
Haddock. Vicki. 2002. “Son of a Preacher Man / How John Ashcroft’s Religion Shapes His Public Service.” SFGATE. August 4. https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Son-of-a-Preacher-Man-How-John-Ashcroft-s-2787948.php.
Jones, Bob. 2001. “Man of the Law.” World Magazine. December 22. https://world.wng.org/2001/12/man_of_the_law.
Larry King Live. January 12, 2001. “What Did John Ashcroft Say at Bob Jones University?” CNN.com transcripts. http ://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/12/lkl.00.html.
Rosen, Jeffrey. April 2004. “John Ashcroft’s Permanent Campaign.” The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/04/john-ashcroft-s-permanent-campaign/302926/.
Salon Staff. 2007. “The Hospital Room Showdown.” Salon. May 15. https://www.salon.com/2007/05/15/comey_testimony/.
• B •
40
Backus, Isaac
Isaac Backus (1724–1806) was the long-time minister of the Middleborough First Baptist Church in Massachusetts and, along with Roger Williams and John Leland, was among the most persistent and effective advocates for separating church and state. From 1777 to 1796, Backus published a three-volume History of New England, with Particular Reference to the Denomination of Christians called Baptists (Wood 1977). A much shorter work is one that he wrote in 1773 on the eve of the American Revolution against assessments on behalf of the established Congregational Church. Somewhat like a sermon, the cover page referred to Galatians 5:13, which says, “Brethren, ye have been called unto Liberty; only use not Liberty for an occasion to the Flesh, but by love serve one another.”
Backus’s 1773 essay is prefaced with an introduction that denies any opposition between true liberty and government. Backus argues, “The true liberty of man is, to know, obey and enjoy his Creator, and to do all the good unto, and enjoy all the happiness with and in his fellow-creatures that he is capable of; in order to which the law of love was written in his heart, which carries in it’s nature union and benevolence to being in general, and to each being, in particular, according to it’s nature and excellency” (1773, 331). Recounting the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, Backus believed that adherence to law actually preceded the fall of man, and that according to 2 Peter 2:18, continuing obedience to law is necessary to secure human flourishing.
Citing 2 Peter 2:13–14, Backus acknowledged the obligation of Christians to follow governmental authority while also pointing out that Colossians 2:20, 22 warns against being “subject to ordinances, after the doctrines and commandments of men” (335). Civil offices should foster responsible behavior toward neighbors whereas “church government respects our behavior toward God as well as man” (336). The Bible thus distinguishes between behavior toward the king and the state and behavior toward the church and toward Christ. As Backus interprets Matthew 23:1–6, Luke 22:25–27, and John 18:36–37, God’s kingdom is not of this world, and is therefore not subject to human authority. In words that would probably resonate beyond fellow Baptists, Backus traced the decline of the church and the rise of “hellish tyranny” under the popes, which Protestant reformers had resisted to developments in the aftermath of the decision of Constantine to make Christianity the official religion of Rome (338).
Whereas the colonial legislature claimed the power to compel every town to support public worship by paying taxes for the support of ministers, Backus noted that such support went only to “pedobaptists,” that is, to those who, unlike Baptists, supported infant baptism. Disputing the tie that the established church drew between this covenant and Old Testament circumcision, Backus’s 41main point was that each church should be able to appoint its own minister, with greater regard to their spiritual gifts and calling than to their formal theological education (340). Those who serve as pastors are not the “king’s minister[s],” but God’s (42). Nor does the majority have the right, with regard to such matters of conscience, to dictate to the minority. Backus effectively accused the Puritans of treating dissenters with the same kind of contempt as the Anglican Church had treated the Puritans before they left for America (344).
In a final section of his writing, Backus detailed the way that Baptists have suffered under such rules, with some of them actually being imprisoned for either refusing to pay the tax for preachers of other denominations or refusing to register themselves, or being unable to get recognition of their ministers, in order to get special exemptions. Again speaking in language that might appeal to a wider audience, Backus claimed that it is “high time now to awake, and seek for a more thorough reformation” (356). Churches should be accountable only to Christ, the head of the church, and not to civil authorities.
In his conclusion, Backus appealed again to “equal liberty of conscience” (32). Moreover, he tied the cause of Baptists to the developing colonial case against Great Britain: “as the present contest between Great-Britain and America, is not so much about the greatness of the taxes already laid, as about a submission to their taxing power; so (though what we have already suffered is far from being a trifle, yet) our greatest difficulty at present concerns the submitting to a taxing power in ecclesiastical affairs” (364). The money set aside for pastors should be “sacrifices” (Hebrews 13:15–16) rather than governmental compulsions (366). Noting that the New England fathers are not the only ones to have sought such taxation, he observed that “our veneration for their memory, is so far from reconciling us to [them?], that it fills us with greater detestation of, that mystery of iniquity, which carried them into such acts or imposition and persecution as have left a great blemish upon their character” (367).
See also Baptists; Leland, John; Williams, Roger
For Reference and Further Reading
Backus, Isaac. 1773. An