I am not sure that these difficulties are all that staggering. In fact, they were part of the organic framework of things are originally experienced during our colonial experience and the early republic.

New York’s colonial establishments were county based. New England established Congregationalism, ect. The U.S. Constitution prevented a Federal Establishement from preempting the state establishments. Federalism at its best.

Even when there was not legal establishment, defacto establishments existed all over the place up until recent years.

Horse before the cart may be accurate…but all that we are talking about awaits a rather large movement of the Holy Spirit. The question is… when it comes… what should it look like?

Moreover, we are really putting the cart before the horse. Law is an expression of power, and as Mao noted, power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

It is possible to conceive of a political entity small enough to be infiltrated and taken over with the intent of seceding from the Union. Short of that, I’m not sure what the point is.

The broader point I wanted to make is that it will not do to continue to speak of “freedom of conscience” if one really means what he says when he seeks some form of establishmentarian government.

If not, I would say that they must take the mind your own business approach and do not travel there.

The division of the Church must be healed by the Church. Thus, a kind of local establishmentarianism is, in my opinion, the best hope.

It seemed to work pretty well during the colonial period and early republic (it was at least more successful than the short lived Scottish Second Reformation).

Besides, is there an alternative?

Would you really be happy with one county commission imposing the mass, one mandating the prayer book, and another abolishing infant baptism?

Eagle feathers are irrelevant, but the decision is a good primer into how our nation’s judiciary has twisted itself into knots trying to resolve this very tension.

Then of course one should also be clear and specific about what constitutes idolatry.

Or is there some other point?

I’m not sure what Stegall’s point might be with regard to the eagle feather issue and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Perhaps he would like to draw out the implications relevant to our discussion.

Context is king. Hodge makes a tremendous sense when placed in the friendly confines of 19th Century Protestant America.

Hodge might have spoken more pointedly in the midst of our present circumstances.

BC