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.
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 combination of social engineering and more government involvement in society.
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 unChristian religion. And that if our motivation is religious in nature, the halls of government is not an appropriate weapon to further the cause of our Lord.
But not a single passage you supplied urged or commanded us, as Christians, to support the freedom of religion for any false religion in a secular way. I see no warrant in those Scriptures that would lead us to fight or promote any freedom of false religion.
To be clear, there are two different concepts here. 1] We are not to use secular means to fight a spiritual battle.
And 2] where in the Word can we find the mandate to support religious liberty for false religions?
We could use the Scripture passages mentioned to admonish and teach our brethren to not discriminate against other religions because [a] such discrimination by using secular means has no warrant in the Word and [b], such discrimination is a violation of federal law.
I am not saying there isn’t any Scriptural mandate to promote and fight for freedom of religion for false religions, I am saying the above Scriptures do not. I have not found any Scriptures that do justify believers fighting for the freedom of religion for others to worship false gods.
Finally, our appeal for the freedom to worship the Lord in peace and in freedom is not to any government or power, but only to the Lord. Thus our fight in that arena is a spiritual fight. Should we be using secular power to fight spiritual battles? The Scripture passages you gave us plainly tells us NO.
>>>>>>>>>>end quote
What Bart was defending was that in his opinion religious liberty should include all religious faiths not just Christianity. What he actually did was make a fine case for we Christians not to use secular means to fight against false religions. In what he did actually write about, i agree 100%.
Now where is the Biblical mandate for Christians to call religious liberty a right?
No where.
There is no right from God for Christians to worship without persecution.
There is no right from God for anyone to worship false gods.
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 a governmental level with the defense of religious liberty for non-Christians. Since this was not a matter that was ever even contemplated in the NT milieu, it is somewhat anachronistic to expect the NT to give us concrete guidelines as to how to carry out such a mandate in a democratic society such as our own. Thus, the absence of such guidelines by no means is an argument in favor of the NT frowning upon such an endeavor.
3. At this juncture, we might well ask ourselves, does the NT give us any teaching related to defending our own religious liberty as Christians through secular/governmental channels? We do know that Paul did make use of his Roman citizenship as a means to appeal to Caesar when faced with charges of propagating false religious ideas by a group of fellow Jews. So there is that.
4. The NT also teaches us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. I do not believe it is a far stretch to apply this in matters of religious liberty. If we as Christians would like for those of other religious convictions to grant us the liberty to follow through consistently with our convictions, it only stands to reason that we should be willing to return the favor. The NT also teaches us to judge not, for with the measure we use to judge others we ourselves will be judged. The legitimate arguments often proffered regarding the frequent hermeneutical misuse/abuse of this passage aside, I think the “good-for-the–goose, good-for-the-gander” principles enunciated here still stand as valid and applicable for us as Christians. Thus, if we think it is a good thing for us as Christians to defend our own religious liberty rights through legal/governmental means, would it not be a good thing to likewise defend the rights of others?
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 are not so.
The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord,
But the prayer of the upright is His delight.
The way of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord,
But He loves one who pursues righteousness.
3. The answer is No there is no mandate to seek from any earthly government religious liberty. It is a blessing from God, not a right. We are to thank God for the blessing and ask Him for continued blessing to live quiet and tranquil lives.
Paul was not using a right for religious liberty but his citizenship as a Roman. He did so because he had a sure and certain word from the Lord that he was to go to Rome to preach the Gospel. Your example does nit fit.
4. Golden Rule. Okay good point. But not a point for the RIGHT to religious liberty from God or a right from government. We are asking for tolerance. We should grant tolerance [Bart’s point that I agree with] But there is no RIGHT involved in that. As you know many times that request has been met with persecution around the world and through time.
Goose and Gander: Well that is just it David. Our religious liberty is a gift and blessing from God that He does not always give to His children. Thus we are not to be defending it as if it isa right. We should ask God. God grants it to us as he so wills.
There might come a time in America where we have to choose between religious liberty [that the state gives us] and standing for the Gospel. I am sure you will choose the Gospel.
Religious liberty, despite what the Founders wrote, is not an inalienable right given to God by man. It is a blessing God gives to some of His children as he unfolds His plan of the ages. We can be thankful that we have that blessing [at least for now] in the USA for we know many of our brethren around the globe do not have it. Our prayers are for them as they struggle to proclaim the Gospel.
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 there is estrangement (that is, until whites and minority brothers and sisters are truly together and in one accord as One people of God) there is need for reconciliation and for you and I and all Southern Baptists to work toward bringing it to pass.
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 hard to do if we’re constantly trying to reduce it to the lowest common denominator.
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 type of culture, even going as far as to using scriptures- the very ones that say there are no racial distinctions in Christ- to justify our racism, our violence, and our profit off the practice of prejudice.
Having been guilty of that sin, we now have the opportunity in a day and time when our country is at its most divided since the Civil War to be agents of reconciliation by doing the things we should have done before- listening, advocating, and standing with those who would be ground under the boot heels of nationalism, racism, classism, and other sins of division.
That’s what Russell Moore has led the ERLC to do in regards to racial relations- whether it is calling for justice for those victimized by the police, speaking out against a candidate who used fear mongering to get elected, or advocating for a merciful immigration policy, he is seeking to lead us to prove we have truly repented from the sins of the past.
That’s not socialism, nor is it liberalism, as some have advocated, it is simply letting the Bible guide us to develop a Biblical ethic in regards to these societal and cultural sins. When I took Biblical ethics with Dr. Kevin Hall at Oklahoma Baptist University and Christian Ethics at Southwestern Theological Seminary that was what we were taught to do. Take the truths of scripture and use them to sort out how we were to live our lives in a broken world.
That is always going to put us at odds with someone, but it going to leave us on the side we need to be on- the side of Jesus. So yes, racial reconciliation both inside and outside the church are not only our business, but a part of what it means to be a follower of Jesus in a fallen world. We will do what we can- preach, teach, peacefully protest, call those in power to account, rebuke our brothers and sisters, share the Gospel with the lost, and whatever else God leads us to do to advance this ethic, in the same way and with the same import that we give to the unborn, biblical marriage, sexual morality, etc. These are all a part of our witness to a lost and broken world.
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 beliefs he sincerely , honestly believes slavery not in conflict with the Gospel as he was preached to, taught and believed? He was in short a product of his society, culture and religion. Maybe he served in a S.C. outfit that Boyce was the Chaplin of. Did his wrong political, social and cultural beliefs based on what he was preached to during his life influence his salvation? At what point does political, social and cultural issues impact a believers actions. So is the young man with the Lord now? Can you be politically, socially, culturally unacceptable by today political, social, culture society and be saved? Thanks for your reply and again this is a sincere question. If I disagree with you on immigration, welfare reform, refugee policy and other secular matters have I lost my Christian values or do I just not understand them properly? Thanks
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 those sins. That’s what I don’t get. We know that racism had devastating consequences for our African American brother and sisters. It is documented fact. Yet, white Christians, especially Southerners, take the attitude of dismissal. As if, 200+ years of oppression leaves no lasting scars. That would be like dismissing the Holocaust and telling the Jewish people to get over it. Unconscionable.
That’s what I and others are pleading for. Let’s be reconcilers. Healers.
Let’s lead the way in bringing people together. Let’s not repeat the sins of the past with Hispanics and Muslims by creating a new version of racism based on immigration or religion.
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 not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind.”
“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 today [Iran is a idolacracy (-: ], those statements you quoted from the BF&M2000 are not Biblical just pure philosophy. In fact, in the Israeli theocracy, taxes were imposed to support religion.
But your statements do show where Dan has left the BF&M2000. Of course I have left it as well, since I oppose any mixing of state and religion to secure religious liberty for anyone, even Christians. I am thankful God has provided us with the blessings He has, I just don’t think it is a right from God.
It may a right from the US Constitution but that is a secular right not one i trust in. If the political powers to be decide one day that a gay-marriage-LBGTQWERTY-rights condemnation by Christians is not for the good of the nation, that right will disappear.
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, I must think that such statements supporting it are unBiblical.
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.
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 a Nashville perspective…and that would be a GOOD thing!
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.
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 as Billy Bob. Would you assign the id Billy Bob to SBC members in NYC? When you start with what MSNBC and CNN call dog whistle words you devalue your opinion. “inner city” youth, fundamental Christians, limo liberals are dog whistles per the press. When I hear Billy Bob I get a clear image in my mind and I grew up in the South. I am not offended if it is really the name but as a description it is a stereotype. It is not a compliment unless you are on Walton’s mountain. I also think of Ely May, Norma Rae and Hee Haw, which had a ton of 2 name people from New Jersey.
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 are too. If that offends you, I’m sorry.
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 treated so differently by the SBC.
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 it to say that Bobby doesn’t gainsay Dr. Moore’s position on those issues, because Moore’s positions on those issues are correct. The alternative is to believe the writer doesn’t care about racial divisiveness or sexual immorality — which doesn’t describe many Baptists.
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 Christians. I can see how he could interpret the BF&M2000 that way, but since it seems the SBC has traditionally supported religious liberty for many types of faith, I think his view is rightly rejected. Of course, my view put up against the BF&M2000 is also rightly rejected.
But brothers, and sisters, I would like you all to consider that we are wrong to use secular means to fight spiritual battles. In the above referenced link to Dr. barber’s blog on religious liberty, he strongly speaks out against using secular means as a way to fight against people other faiths. In his case, I believe, Muslims wanted a cemetery near his town. I agree with Dr, Barber, in that. The principle is that we should not, as Christians, use the government, such as zoning laws [as was in the case of the New jersey mosque where the ERLC filed a brief] to stop the spread of false faiths in God, like Islam.Bart rightly claimed that we are to fight spiritual battles NOT with the weapons of this world.
Where I disagree with Bart and with the thrust of the BF&M2000 on this is that I think that the same principle [Not Fighting Spiritual Battles with Secular Weapons] also applies to our *defending* religious liberty even for ourselves [as opposed to Dan B.’s point] Religious liberty is nice. But it isn’t a right given by God.
Religious liberty is NOT a right given by God.
It is a blessing God gives to SOME of His people for His purposes and for the carrying out of His plan for this world.
And since it is a God given blessing we are wrong to
[a] insist it is a right and thus something we deserve,
and we are wrong to [b] think that this blessing will always be God’s will for the church here in America,
and we are wrong to [c] to use secular means to maintain a spiritual blessing: we should not be looking to the Government in any way to aid us in keeping this blessing.
And why is that? Because IF the day comes when it is better for the Gospel and for us to be obedient to the proclamation of the Gospel to not have that blessing, we want to be of the mindset that it is a temporary blessing from God, not a right from God, so that we will be properly prepared for the trials that would await us.
And since religious liberty is not a right given by God but a blessing we receive from Him, we should, even as we are commanded to by the Word, go to God in prayer both in thanks for the blessing we have already received and for the continuation of it in the future. We are not to look to horses and chariots and courts and zoning laws to secure the blessings of God but we are to look to Him alone and depend on Him, not man.
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 government plays nice to us. That indicates a false sense of security in man and is wrong. We serve a God that is bigger and much more worthy than that.
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 ideal.”
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:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”
Rather than an “unalienable RIGHT” from God to man to worship falsely the Word is telling me it is a curse from God who is allowing them to wallow in their sinfulness. Not as a right but as a punishment.
What is the Scripture defense for your POV?
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 anachronistic idea.
1a. Religious liberty was advocated by Jesus (Bart’s article).
1b. The image of God in people and the free response required by the gospel mean religious liberty is the ideal (BF&M).
2. Christians should advocate for the common good on the level of public policy (BF&M).
3. It follows that since religious liberty is for the common good, the church and the world both benefit when the government leaves men’s conscience free in theological matters and that Christians should advocate for it.
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 is what you mean, then no, such freedom is not a right from God. It is a blessing and grace from God to live in a country where we have those kinds of freedoms, but it isn’t a right.
But now how you conflate a right from God versus an injustice by a government as if there is the latter then the former must be true. What rights we have from man and his government are to be subservient to our called roles and place in the Kingdom.
Even as our Lord have up His rights to come to earth and do the Father’s will, any right we have via man may need be given up to do the will of our King. Just as any rule of man may be neglected if it conflicts with the command of God.
Now I argued from Scripture that God does not give man the right to worship false gods. Just because it is in the bill of rights does not make something wrong, but if the Word speaks against it, then we have a sure understanding do we not?
Break is about over brother, so let me close until later with this: I challenged you to show from the Word of God that it is a right to worship false gods. In light of Romans 1, which is just one place of many I could go to, is there any passage that makes it more clear that what seems clear cut there is not so.
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 for something to latch on to. But there is also the biblical advice to not give offense or cause to stumble. The flap over your “Pastor Billy Bob” statement made me wonder about whether creating fictional characters or fictional churches might be an area where we should exercise great care in the world wide arena when we don’t know who’s reading or listening. I have a tendency to use figures like “Possum Trot Baptist Church”. Folks who know me know I live in a possum trot (I don’t just live in the country, but am from the country). We have random nightly possum visits to our porch to check for cat food and other possible samplings around the house. I’ve given up on them and adopted my mother’s policy — “He’s hungry, too.” But folks who don’t know me might think I’m sitting up on my high horse looking down on folks who are from the country and not realize I’m making fun of myself. Just something to think about when we’re broadcasting to the larger world beyond our own borders. I’m going to try to think about it more consistently.
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 was a bigger problem than the name.
Cold Corner is a little further away and I’ve never discovered just how they got their name. Sounds like someone wasn’t as happy with where they settled as they thought they’d be.
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 without state interference.
That is a secular humanistic political understanding and it isn’t a right from God.
God can (and is here and now in the USA) grant His people there ability to worship and live quiet and tranquil lives but such blessing should only be seen as temporary not as our right.
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