The boundaries of the Christian Faith have been exchanged for other boundaries contrary to the Christian Faith.  What we are watching today is the replacement of the Second Commandment by a secularized First Amendment.  That was not the original intention of those who approved the First Amendment. The First Amendment was there to encourage the freedom of men to be faithful to the Holy Scriptures, not debasing a Holy God. 

When I heard of the statute of the Satanic idol being destroyed at the Iowa State Capitol Building, I thought of Charlie Daniels’ famous hit “The Devil Went Down to Georgia.”  In this song the Devil challenged the young man Johnny to a fiddle-playing contest. The prize for Johnny was a golden fiddle if he won, and the prize for the Devil was the soul of Johnny if he won.  Johnny won. I think a new song might be appropriately written by Charlie now, and as a man who lives in the South, I would call it “The Devil Went Up to Iowa.”

This statute has been demolished by a man from Mississippi. The head has been cut off, and only part of the statute remains on site.

Although I must confess that there was a joyful response in me as I visioned the ram’s head on the floor, yet, as a Reformed Christian I cannot support vandalism.  Men, even men like Michael Cassidy, who is a Christian and a former Navy fighter pilot, do not have the right to destroy public property.  You know—such an attitude toward the legitimacy of vandalism could lead to vigilante riots and the destruction of millions of dollars of property in cities like Minneapolis where the police are told to stand down while the city burns to the ground. Or it could lead to robbing jewelry stores in San Francisco in broad daylight and the only criminal is the owner of the store.  I am glad I live in a country where vandalism and vigilantism are not tolerated.

The real issue on trial here was not the statue of a pagan idol by the name of Baphomet in a public place set up by the organization called the Satan Temple of Iowa with the approval of the Iowa State Legislature.  The real issue here is the concept of free speech.  Does it violate free speech by restricting objectional material from public display?  One Iowan representative, who is a follower of Christ, and also an ordained minister, spoke approvingly of this public display as protecting the right of civil liberties guaranteed in the United States Constitution.  It is a matter of the First Amendment, he said.

Reactions in the Reformed world vary, as you might expect. The most common response is simply to grimace and ignore it.  “I do not like it, but idolatry in worship at my local church is a much bigger concern than an ugly statute of Satan in a State Capitol.”

So, what about the free-speech argument?  If we curtail free speech, are we curtailing rights guaranteed by the Constitution?  If we are, then this might lead to worse things.  It could even lead to being fired from work if you speak the wrong pronoun preferred by a transgender.  It could lead to a world-renown medical scientist being punished for publicly questioning the validity of the covid vaccine.  Or, likewise, it could lead to a presidential candidate being cancelled from social media for posting what high-tech corporate leaders call disinformation. Paraphrasing A. J. Liebling, the freedom of the press is only free to those who own one.  Another result of restricting the freedom of speech might be stamping out the call by young college students at Harvard University for the genocide of the Jews from the River to the Sea. I hope you see the potential danger of restricting free speech.

Of course, I am being a little facetious in this article.  Foolishness needs to be exposed at times. “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit (Prov. 26:5).”  When the statute of Robert E. Lee comes down and the statue of Satan goes up, it all seems a little controverted to me.

However, I think the confusion can be cleared up if we consider one thing. The issue in Iowa is not free speech but rather a matter of who sets the limits of free speech.  All free speech is limited.  Free speech is not absolute. You will get in trouble if you shout “fire” in a crowded theatre.

When America was a Chistian nation, it was assumed that the public display of Satanic symbols was outside the boundaries of free speech.  The First Amendment was created to protect the Christian Faith by the disapprobation of a national church in exchange for the approval of existing Christian denominations within the various States.

The First Amendment protected the Christian Faith by guaranteeing the freedom of Christian men to live with a conscience bound only by the Word of God. Yea for the Baptists!  Early America chose the Ten Commandments as its foundation for civil laws and for liberty. Apart from the Christian Faith, the United States Constitution becomes a purely secular document, and as such it is now being used to crush the basic tenets of Christian morality in the public square. Old-school Americans cannot seem to get beyond the sacredness of the First Amendment, even when it is being used as a weapon against them.

As America has drifted from a Christian Nation to a Polytheistic Empire (see A Polytheistic Empire – A New Experiment About to Fail?) the limits on free speech have changed.  New limits have been created and the old ones have been cast away.  That is what makes the conversation about the First Amendment so confusing and contradictory.  We highly value it, but for Christians it is no longer working for us.

The boundaries of the Christian Faith have been exchanged for other boundaries contrary to the Christian Faith.  What we are watching today is the replacement of the Second Commandment by a secularized First Amendment.  That was not the original intention of those who approved the First Amendment. The First Amendment was there to encourage the freedom of men to be faithful to the Holy Scriptures, not debasing a Holy God.

Presbyterians are bound by such documents as the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, but what I have found is that we, too, tend to be confused.  For example, the Larger Catechism Question #108 asks, “What are the duties in the second commandment?” The answer given, even for those in the special calling of civic leadership, is as follows. The duties are “disapproving, detesting, and opposing all false worship, and according to each one’s place and calling, removing it and all monuments of idolatry.” Of course, this does not legitimize vandalism, but it does command men to act where they legally have a right to do so in accordance with the commandments of God, even in the sphere of civil government.  It includes preaching about it too, something the modern church needs to do.

Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.