On Wednesday, I read an article by Brad Reynolds on the Christian Index website called Bobby Baptist and the ERLC. Dr. Reynolds begins the article by reminding his readers of the well-known sermon, “A Baptist and his Bible,” preached by Dr. Jerry Vines. In that sermon Dr. Vines referred to a fictional Southern Baptist named Billy Baptist. Reynolds plays off of Dr. Vines’ Billy Baptist and introduces his readers to Billy’s younger brother Bobby Baptist. Bobby is in Reynolds’ words, “a twenty-first century hypothetical typical member of a Southern Baptist rural church.”
Upon reading the article, I couldn’t help but remember the tongue (or keyboard?) lashing I received several weeks ago for creating a fictional pastor named Pastor Billy Bob. In doing so, it was not my intention to disparage anyone. I was simply doing exactly what Vines did in his sermon and what Reynolds does in his article. I created a fictional character to make my point. But as we know, those who look for offense will surely find it.
The point that Reynolds makes in his article is that Russell Moore and other SBC leaders are simply out of touch with rank and file Southern Baptists. Bobby Baptist has two primary concerns: abortion and religious liberty (by which Reynolds really means Christian liberty). Bobby Baptist is not concerned about what it means to be an evangelical, the importance of sexual immorality, or racial divisiveness. And because Bobby Baptist is not concerned about these things, neither should Russell Moore concern himself with them, argues Reynolds.
Well, I am Pastor Billy Bob, and I disagree with Bobby Baptist. I agree that Christians should be concerned about abortion. I even agree that such concerns should inform the way we vote. I agree with Bobby Baptist that religious liberty is an important issue of our day. Unlike Bobby though, I believe true religious liberty includes the freedom of Muslims to build a mosque. I strongly disagree with Bobby when he says that we should not be concerned about sexual immorality and racial divisiveness.
Bobby seems to argue that we cannot possibly focus our attention on more than one or two issues at a time. Therefore, we must focus all of our attention on opposing abortion. I completely reject that position. Just as Russell Moore and the ERLC under his direction have done, we must seek an end to abortion. But we must also stand against sexual immorality. We must seek to bridge the racial divide that plagues our nation. And we should defend religious liberty for all people of all religions.
I can’t speak for Russell Moore, but I’m not surprised that Bobby Baptist exists. In fact, if he didn’t live in Georgia, I’d think that he is a member of my church. The problem is not that I am so out of touch that I don’t even realize that Bobby Baptist exists. The issue is that I disagree with him.
Dr. Reynolds writes, “Perhaps this hypothetical character who represents real, live Southern Baptists will help Southern Baptist leadership understand the outcry over Dr. Moore. Not in an effort to remove him, but in an effort to ask him to either represent us or remove himself for we do not desire to pay someone who doesn’t represent us. That representation would begin by an admission that abortion, Supreme Court justices, and the judicial system is rightly our main focus.”
With all due respect to Dr. Reynolds, it’s not just that Dr. Moore disagrees with this position, but I disagree as well. No one is saying that abortion should not be a main focus of the ERLC. Certainly it should. But many of us, not just Dr. Moore, are saying that it should not be the only focus of the ERLC. Many of us believe that the ERLC can seek racial reconciliation and fight against abortion at the same time. Many of us believe that the ERLC can support justice appointments like Judge Gorsuch while also standing against sexual immorality in all its forms. Many of us believe that the 10 policy priorities of the ERLC for 2017 are exactly where our focus should be.
So how should we move forward? Should Pastor Billy Bob or Bobby Baptist get his way? Dr. Reynolds seems to think that he should get his way and the rest of us can either like it or lump it. I disagree. Dr. Moore’s employment as President of the ERLC obviously presents a binary choice. Either Dr. Moore stays or he goes. But it doesn’t have to be Pastor Billy Bob’s way or Bobby Baptist’s way. Bobby Baptist does not need to agree with every position Dr. Moore takes on every issue to recognize and celebrate the good done by Dr. Moore and the ERLC. I do not need to agree with Bobby Baptist on every issue to want to continue working together for the sake of the gospel. Sometimes things will go my way. Sometimes things will go Bobby’s way. And sometimes neither of us will be happy! But that’s okay.
I do not always agree with every decision made by every entity affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. And when I disagree, I do not demand that leaders conform to my viewpoint or resign. Instead, I try to advocate for my position in hopes of seeing positive change in the direction that I think things should do. The same is true in the church I pastor. Not everything at the church I pastor happens exactly as I would prefer. But for the sake of unity within the body and love for God’s flock, I do not demand my own way.
The Southern Baptist Convention, despite our flaws, is a wonderful tool that God has used for His glory since 1845. I believe that our best days could still be ahead of us. But if that is going to be true, we will all need to be willing to bear with one another in love even when we disagree. A group of believers as diverse as our convention will disagree about things. But even in the midst of disagreement, we can still cooperate together in this one sacred effort of seeing the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ advance even to the ends of the earth.
I’m glad to see someone pushing back against the narrow agenda proposed by this most recent functional character. Bobby Baptist would have run Richard Land out of the ERLC too.
ONCE AGAIN, We simply DO NOT need a CP funded organization (not a person) that is such a divisive lightening rod for our increasingly diverse (Praise the Lord!) Southern Baptist Convention? Let the individual state convention Christian Life Commissions address moral/political issues. That allows for issues to be addressed in accordance with local concerns and issues. The ERLC is not only not necessary but not helpful in getting SBC churches of all kinds to focus on the Great Commission at home and around the world. Getting rid of the ERLC would make the SBC less political from a Washington and… Read more »
Our state convention has no such organization. What the ERLC does is helpful and needed in SBC life. The Baptist Faith & Message specifically calls for political engagement and the ERLC is the best avenue to guide churches in doing that in a healthy way.
I think the exact opposite is true, Allen!
The ERLC is one entity leading the way in helping Southern Baptists free themselves from a marriage to politics and partisanship. It is reframing issues from a biblical perspective rather than party affiliation to one side or the other. Caring about the unborn, the sanctity of all human life, sexuality, religious liberty, the poor, the immigrant, justice, racial unity, ethnic reconciliation or the gospel should be identified as what it means to be a Christ-follower not a donkey or an elephant.
I wasn’t even mad after after reading that article. It was sheer sadness that I felt. What lengths people will go to for a witch hunt….
Tyler, I agree about your reaction to the Christian Index article. It’s sad to witness. The Index also published that abomination of an article on Religious [non]Liberty before last year’s convention that many SBC leaders were so upset with.
There is no Biblical basis for defending religious liberty for all religions. In fact, doing so is anti-evangelistic. The BF&M doesn’t promote this either; it’s written from the viewpoint of Christian religious liberty. Not sure where the phrase “race reconciliation” came from in recent times in the SBC. I don’t think anyone disagrees that whites, blacks, etc. are seen as the same in God’s eyes. So what exactly are we (Christians) supposed to be reconciling and how do you know when it’s been reconciled? The problem is that the efforts turn political pretty quickly and the supposed solutions involve some… Read more »
That is a false and discredited interpretation of the Baptist Faith & Message, as well as Baptist history, and biblical teaching on religious liberty.
“The prince must leave the Christian religion free to every man’s conscience.” Thomas Helwys said, “Let them be heretiks, Turcks [Muslims], Jewes or whatsoever it apperteynes not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure.”
And by the way, if you don’t understand the term “racial reconciliation”, a better response is to learn what it is and why it’s needed. Have some honest conversations with black Christians who can explain what is meant and be prepared to listen rather than talk.
Biblical teaching on religious liberty? Please show me where the Bible instructs us to defend religious liberty for all religions.
Honest conversations with black Christians? I guess racial reconciliation is supposed to include supporting all the things Dwight referred to in the back and forth this week? Again I ask the question, at what point are things considered to be “reconciled” and who is going to make that judgment?
“Please show me where the Bible instructs us to defend religious liberty for all religions.”
Bart Barber has done exactly that here: http://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-biblical-case-for-religious-liberty.html
It is disappointing to me the amount of people on this comment stream who appear to concede the affirmation that the Bible does not instruct us to defend universal religious liberty. I would strongly recommend everyone reading through Bart’s post on this and rethinking this position. I believe his argument supporting the view that the Bible does indeed support universal religious liberty for is very strong.
David and Brent, I have read his post and I commented there on it. I reread it tonight. My comment stands: here it is: February 18, 2017 at 9:23 PM Michael White said… Bart, Each one of the Scriptural passages, you used and referred to, point to the idea that we Christians are not to use secular means to fight a spiritual battle. To that, I think you did a wonderful job pointing out that truth. Thus it would be wrong for us to use secular power [the city council for example] to stop or hinder the spread of any… Read more »
Mike, I have just read your argument here and am trying my best to give it a fair analysis. My observations thus far: 1. Technically, I suppose you are right that scripture does not give us a positive mandate as Christians to actively defend the religious liberty of practitioners of false religions. It does, however (according to Bart’s argument) enjoin us to refrain from resorting to secular/governmental means to correct the religious errors of false religion or to hold the advance of false religion at bay. 2. In NT times there was no opportunity for Christians to be involved on… Read more »
David, Hey thanks for your meaningful reply. As to your point 1: You are correct, and as I stated, i agree with Bart here 100%. In fact it isn’t a religious liberty issue at all. 2. That is convoluted logic brother. It assumes that there is such a thing as religious liberty as a right. Do you also assume that rape and stealing are God given rights as well? Of course not. No one has a right from God to sin. Proverbs 15, among other places, tells us: The lips of the wise spread knowledge, But the hearts of fools… Read more »
Brent is right. I’m sympathetic to the view that says, “The Bible doesn’t teach universal religious liberty.” But such a view is not historically Baptist, and it is not consistent with the BF&M.
Part of reconciling is an ending of estrangement. There is no question that blacks and whites remain largely divided in our churches, much less our nation. The ERLC has done its part in highlighting the need to heal the racial divide and given some helpful advice on how individuals and churches can practically do so. They have also been one of the venues by which black and white evangelicals have begun to discuss and work through the issues, history, and racial pain that is part of the process of reconciliation. Reconciliation is an END to estrangement and as long as… Read more »
You cannot have racial reconciliation simply by saying, “Well the Bible says we’re the same, so there you go.” That’s like suggesting we have no sin because “Well the Bible says Jesus cleansed me from all unrighteousness.” No, the Bible says we are the same, THEREFORE we pursue this reconciliation, this healing. We are supposed to be pursuing this via our Christian relationships, our brotherhood. “Then the world will know you are my disciples by your love for one another.” But we have to listen and actually hear where the problem is, and see it through another’s experience, which is… Read more »
Jim, bingo. Well said.
Jim gets it — well said
I am going to leave the religious liberty arguments to smarter men than me- Bart Barber’s article is better than anything I could muster- but I would like to say a few things in response to the issues some are taking with racial reconciliation. The SBC, the evangelicals in the American South, and the conservative evangelical church in America have a long and sordid history in regards to race and racism, largely against African Americans but more and more in recent days in regards to Hispanics and Muslims. We have fought to preserve our “way of life” and a certain… Read more »
absonjourney, I appreciate your comment and the conviction behind it. This is a sincere question and I would like your opinion. An average South Carolina man age 26 born and bred in S.C., never traveled. Educated to a fifth grade level but for his day a middle class person, not a slave holder. Faithful Bible believing church goer from the day of his birth. Born again, sincere and faithful to the Lord and his local church family. It is 1862, killed at Gettysburg, he firmly believes states rights and is pro slavery. Based on his cultural, social, education and religious… Read more »
Does it affect his salvation? I would not think so. That would be a works based salvation. If he had been confronted with the truth, and denied it because it made him culturally unacceptable, what would that have said about the state of his soul? That for me is the issue Eric. We do now know better, yet we have many who act like we don’t. We have many who when confronted with the he damage that the generational of racism has wrought are quick to dismiss it rather than seek to reconcile and help to mitigate the results of… Read more »
The BF&M speaks to all religions, all view points, and the freedom for all. It’s not freedom if it’s only for some. This is a basic baptist viewpoint as articulated in the BF&M. “The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should… Read more »
“Every church/group/denomination…” It’s talking about Christian churches. If it was about defending other religions, it would have been made clear.
“The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends.”
This is a great statement. The intent is to reject a governmental theocracy or any governmental hindrance when it comes to spreading the gospel. Defending religious liberty for other religions is anti-gospel and is clearly not supported by the BF&M.
It also says, “The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion.” (emphasis mine, assuming the coding to make it bold works)
Robert, those statements refer to the preferred role of the government. I see that as something different from the role of Christians and churches. The BF&M does not support Christians and churches (or the ERLC) defending the religious liberty for other religions.
Dan, again that’s untrue. The BF&M does advocate such, both in the article on religious liberty and in article 15 :
“Every Christian should seek to bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love.”
There’s no doubt righteousness, truth, and brotherly love include the other articles, particularly the ones following: peace & war, religious liberty, and the family.
Your personal views (which happen to contradict the BF&M and Baptist history) are preventing you from reading the BF&M text accurately.
Brent, that sentence from Article 15 doesn’t dispute anything that I’ve written. However, also from Article 15:
“Means and methods used for the improvement of society and the establishment of righteousness among men can be truly and permanently helpful only when they are rooted in the regeneration of the individual by the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ.”
I don’t see how you can read this sentence and still think that the BF&M supports a Christian defense of religious liberty for other religions.
Robert, Not in defense of Dan B.’s position, for I think he is wrong, overall… But what a secular state does is beyond the purview of the SBC. Now according to the righteousness of God, false religion and the worship of idols is an abomination to Him. A state seeking to walk in His righteousness would disallow false god worship. To show this as true, just look at which Israeli kings were declared righteous in the Old testament: yes, the ones who tore down the altars to Baal and other gods. Outside of a theocracy, which no country anywhere is… Read more »
Brent, You may be right in that dan B.’s “personal views (which happen to contradict the BF&M and Baptist history) are preventing” him “from reading the BF&M text accurately.” maybe. But let me put the shoe on the other foot. Your reading of the BF&M2000 is hindering your ability to see the truth of religious liberty. Where in the Bible, by command or by example are we, as a people of God, to fight for either our own religious liberty or the freedom for false worship for other people’s faiths? And since I find it no where in the Word,… Read more »
Mike: There are many things you are not going to find in the Bible. Where in the Bible does it say we have to own a car? So it must be sin to own a car?
That’s going a little zealot in living our lives and something I won’t do. Bottom line:
We live in the United States which has religious liberty. It’s how we can have a church on every corner where other countries cannot. End of story.
But, Dan and Mike, isn’t that statement in the BF&M a statement of what Southern Baptists believe the state should and shouldn’t do? If it is outside the scope of operation of the SBC, why comment on it? Of course, they can’t make government do it, but they can ask them to. And in the case of the US government it is merely asking them to do what they say they do.
Robert,
You are right and I said the same thing in my comment to you: that “what a secular government does is beyond of the purview of the SBC.”
I just wanted to add a comment.
But to get back to the point, I wonder if there’s any stats behind throwing around this “the common SBC’er” mantra. How could anyone possibly know what the majority of 8 million people think, without research. There might be a point that Russell Moore doesn’t speak for everyone. (though he does for this Billy Bob) But sweeping generalizations are not good and impossible to back up.
Remember, all generalizations are false. 🙂
This week I listened to the 2000 BF&M debate. You know what the moderates’ argument was? A small group was trying to control the “rank and file” Southern Baptists on inerrancy. The tactic of saying “we’re the silent majority” isn’t new, and its pedigree isn’t impressive either. People who claim that usually aren’t.
“Remember, all generalizations are false. ?”
Only a Sith deals in absolutes….
Jim wins….
Star Wars quotes always seal the deal.
😉
Adam, “Billy Bob” as defined in Urban Dictionary = redneck, cracker, hillbilly, southerner etc. If you went up to 20 random people asked them to describe “Billy Bob” do you think that most would say white southern man versus if you asked them to describe “Bobby Baptist”. I do not think for a moment you meant or was even trying to type, slur Billy Bobs but it does show some tone deafness. Would you reference a black church member as Jamal Deshawn? Average Joe is the common id given to the common person . Joe Methodist is not the same… Read more »
I’m going to kindly suggest you take the axe you have to grind and find trees in a new forest to chop down. Your animosity is showing.
There’s no doubt some people could use the term “Billy Bob” in a derogatory manner. However, Adam has said back then, and again today in this article, that he didn’t mean anything disparaging by it. In fact he called himself Pastor Billy Bob. There’s no reason to take it that way and to keep trying to discredit him with this is pretty transparent and silly.
The problem with your tone deaf argument is that you know nothing about my life background. I grew up in the south. My family was a part of several SBC churches growing up. I had people make fun of my southern accent while I was in college. I still pastor in the south, though I recognize that my current location is getting close to the Mason-Dixon line. It really is astounding that you would call me tone deaf when you refuse to actually listen to what I have said. I am pastor Billy Bob. If you are a pastor, you… Read more »
Adam,
(-: Is your current location actually getting closer to the Mason Dixon line? So if you are moving north, then before long you will be up here in Ohio with me. Then us up here can welcome young your moving church to Buckeye country.
[Warning: north of us is big lake, so y’all might plan ahead and get a big boat for that moving-north-location]
What dumbfounds me about this whole thing is the thought that the ERLC should always reflect the political leanings of whoever the heck ‘Bobby Baptist’ is, even if Bobby’s ideas are unbiblical.
Moore may have been ‘divisive’ but only in his prophetic willingness to be Biblical and consistent. If that divisiveness hurts ‘Bobby’s feelings’ then maybe Bobby needs to question his foundations.
I don’t take a poll each week to make sure I’m not going to offend anyone with a clearly Boblical message. I just stick to the word. Moore did the same.
This is all nuts to me.
Perhaps Pastor “William Robert” needs to educate Bobby, Billy, Bernard, Barry, Bernice, Bobby Jo and Bippity Boppity Boo Baptist on why these issues are important to be concerned about. Heck, Bobby’s uncle Brian Baptist went to the annual meeting with Pastor Willy in 1996 to vote on that resolution regarding the moral character of our leaders. Just because Bobby forgot to care isn’t Russell Moore’s fault.
Jim, LOL. Brilliant comment. It is impossible to reconcile the vote on the moral character of our leaders, with the vote for RTrump. Al Mohler early on said that he couldn’t vote for Trump because he recognized the duplicity involved in doing so. I’m sure Bill Clinton is wondering why didn’t the ’96 resolution apply to Trump. My friend CB Scott offered a motion recommending Clinton’s local SBC church discipline or disfellowship him for breech of ethics issues. Somehow, none of those judgements apply now to Trump. Makes the SBC looks petty & partisan in comparing/contrasting how these two were… Read more »
Adam B.,
Great post. You nailed it. Needed to be said. Had I known this was coming, it would have saved me the time writing a similar response to Bobby Baptist. But, I hope you will publish mine too when schedule permits, because I hone in on is abortion the only thing that should matter to the ERLC? Grateful you also address Bobby Baptist needed, warranted, but extremely limited obsession with abortion. Thanks again. Needed to be said post.
Thanks, Dwight. I had the same thought when I got the email with your article. I should have just let you respond. I’ll get your article scheduled for either later today or tomorrow morning. Thanks!
Adam, I agree it is an ambiguous passage, but I think you’ve jumped off at a mis-read of the article. You said Brad wrote: ” Bobby Baptist is not concerned about what it means to be an evangelical, the importance of sexual immorality, or racial divisiveness.” What Brad wrote was: “Bobby Baptist is not bothered by what the president of the ERLC seemed concerned about … rather, what disturbed Bobby was that these concerns seemed of more importance to Dr. Moore than the murderous torture of infants and real religious liberty.” I puzzled over the phrasing, too, but I read… Read more »
Thanks for the comment. I went back and read the paragraph in question. I still think my sentence accurately represents what Dr. Reynolds wrote. If that is not what he meant, I’d love to hear that from him.
I think Dr. Moore did right by his desire to expose sin and hypocrisy and to be true to SBC tradition as far as religious liberty. I think Dr. Moore did a wonderful job representing us Baptists. Of course he can’t represent every viewpoint of every member of 40,00+ churches. One viewpoint of mine he didn’t represent is also one that I am at odds with our SBC tradition: religious liberty. I can’t blame him for walking in line with the established understanding. Now Dan B. and i also disagree since he supports us fighting for religious liberty for just… Read more »
Good thoughts. Agreed that the Bible does not guarantee religious liberty for anyone. I’m sure Paul wishes he could have had religious liberty! What is disturbing about this issue is when “Baptist tradition” is given as its defense (as Moore did at the annual meeting last year). And Moore is worried that not helping Muslims in government matters will one day mean that the government will turn against us Christians. However, our concern as Christians should be evangelizing and discipling at any cost; we shouldn’t have to resort to being politically correct and pluralistic to try to ensure that the… Read more »
Dan,
Agreed.
But neither should we seek religious liberty for ourselves, but instead rely on our BIG God.
Parsons Mike, I’m a little puzzled by your view that religious liberty isn’t a right granted by God. I believe the founding fathers of this country were correct when they said that all men were created with certain inalienable rights, which include freedom of speech, assembly, press, religion, and others. The government recognizes those rights and protects them, it doesn’t grant them. Governments obvious do unjustly restrict those rights, but Baptists have, rightly, always understood that a proper role of the church is to advocate for justice on those areas. “A free church in a free state is the Christian… Read more »
Brent, I looked to the Word to inform. It seems that you looked t the Founding Fathers. Don’t you see a problem there. Those men were not Apostles writing Scripture. They worked together and from various religious positions, produced a secular document. Now if you think they were right in saying that all people have the inalienable right of freedom of religion, on what grounds is that right based? God? His Word? Well then go to His Word and show me. from what I read in the Word, well let me let you read it as well: One place says:… Read more »
See Bart’s post that I linked above. Religious liberty is advocated in Scripture (as Bart shows), and is the historic conviction of Baptists. Because this is the ideal, both biblically and historically, we have a duty, via article 15, to advocate for such as public policy. There is no Bible verse that tells Christians to advocate for religious liberty to the secular government – the idea that 1st century Christians would have had any such opportunity isn’t based in reality – thus it’s no surprise we don’t have a proof text telling Christians to “lobby congress” or any other such… Read more »
That’s actually changing the subject though. I understand the political theory is from the constitution & bill of rights. No argument there. It doesn’t follow that those ideas are therefore invalid. Lots of true things we learn from places other than Scripture.
The larger question remains: are you arguing that those rights are not God-given? That freedom of speech is something the government can give or take as it sees fit and there’s no injustice in doing so? Because that seems to be what your position demands.
Brent, Being as I am at work now so I can only respond on break, I will have to wait to reply to what has been said of Bart’s article. As to TRUE freedom of speech and/or religion, I defer to the Apostle Paul’s example. They could beat him, whip him, stone him, and imprison him and he still had all the freedom he needed to speak and worship freely. But I gather you mean by those freedoms a more secular understanding of freedom. One where ones life is not imperiled if they act according to their conscience. If that… Read more »
Adam, a little side bar on the “Billy Bob” topic. You write, “Upon reading the article, I couldn’t help but remember the tongue (or keyboard?) lashing I received several weeks ago for creating a fictional pastor named Pastor Billy Bob. In doing so, it was not my intention to disparage anyone. I was simply doing exactly what Vines did in his sermon and what Reynolds does in his article. I created a fictional character to make my point. But as we know, those who look for offense will surely find it.” There are the perpetually offended who are also looking… Read more »
Robert, there’s a Possum Valley Baptist near where I used to pastor….that’s for real 🙂
We have our share of those, usually named after the community or town they are in. Perhaps two of the most peculiar to outsiders are Hickey Baptist Church and Cold Corner Baptist Church. Hickey was on the up and up — named after the community that was named after the first settler, Jim Hickey. Still plenty of giggle fodder for teenagers in my day, especially since none Hickey family name survived in the area. Their last pastor could tolerate the name no longer and got the church to change it. It died out under the new name! Apparently that pastor… Read more »
absonjourney, thanks for your reply.
parsonmike, A church can only stand for religious liberty if it knows that the judgment seat of Christ is more ultimate than the state. Do you agree with that statement?
eric, I don’t think you understand what I mean by religious liberty. First it is not a right given by God. It is a temporary blessing we can receive. In that sense we can’t stand for it. True religious liberty can not be taken away by anyone. Using the Apostle Paul as an example: they beat him, and he still praised God. They stoned him and he still praised God. They threw him in prison and he praised God. In other words, what most speak about when they say religious liberty is the right to worship their ideas of deity… Read more »
eric,
And if I missed what you were asking maybe this answers it: no one can take away your or your churches freedom to worship God because you all care more about God than this world including your very lives, even as Paul did.
parsonmike, I want to be clear , I agree with you on this issue. I do not think or examine the issue that deep before. I guess you can sum up and say all rights, all things everything comes from God. Nero did not give the Christians in the arena religious liberty gave them their faith and salvation though his Son. You have swayed me on this issue. Daniel did not demand or even think about religious liberty from a earthy king. So good job in my opinion. My quote at 6.18 is from Onward. Thanks