It seems to me that a great many of our conflicts among Southern Baptists at this moment in time come at the juncture of pragmatism, partnership, and politics.
Sometimes we have spiritual convictions that lead us to adopt political goals. I have a spiritual conviction that I should not use coercive force to try to strong-arm anyone into false conversion by persecuting him for his aberrant faith. This spiritual conviction is soundly biblical. Holding that spiritual conviction leads me to adopt a political goal: maintaining First Amendment guarantees of universal religious liberty.
Pursuing political goals often drives us to practicing a little pragmatism. Pragmatism often leads us into strange partnerships. I know that there are enemies of religious liberty in our country. Preponderantly, they are people on the academic left who hold the views expressed by Chai Feldblum. There are enemies of religious liberty in our nation, and they are prepared to wage war against the First Amendment in the courts.
If I want to defend religious liberty against these foes (and I’m sort of assuming that when it comes to Chai Feldblum’s agenda, we’re all pretty much on the same page in this forum), it doesn’t make much sense to say, “If the battle happens on this battlefield over here, I’ll fight against the enemies of religious liberty, but if it happens on that other battlefield over there, I won’t.” No, if you want to defeat an enemy, you have to be ready to fight wherever they bring the war to you.
If Southern Baptists say that we will defend religious liberty in court cases so long as there isn’t a mosque involved, Chai Feldblum and her ilk will simply file all of their cases against mosques. Want everyone to open their ladies rooms to men? Don’t file that zoning case requiring open bathrooms against a Baptist church. No, if you do that, the Christians will fight you in the courts. File it against a mosque. Then the Christians will remain silent, and you’ll get the law changed with a minimum of effort. After you win in court, the law will apply to all of those Christians churches just as much as it applies to a mosque, and you’ll have won the war while the bulk of the forces arrayed to defend religious liberty sat in their tents at camp.
So, if defending religious liberty law means that I inadvertently benefit false religions, I’m prepared to do that. I don’t see that as a partnership with a mosque; I see that as a partnership with likeminded Christians who are trying to defend the law. But I understand that my work to help churches winds up helping mosques, too, and I can see how some people could view that as an unholy alliance.
Sometimes our pragmatic pursuit of political goals (even those rooted in spiritual convictions) can lead us to strange partnerships.
If you think of it, it’s a bit like deciding that you need to vote for a Mormon or a skirt-chasing, LGBT-affirming, New York non-Christian because you want better Supreme Court picks or hope to see some Executive Orders reversed. You have spiritual convictions about abortion or marriage or even religious liberty. These spiritual convictions lead you to adopt political goals. In pursuing those political goals, you find that you can only achieve them if you form some partnerships with people who are not a good match for you spiritually.
In the past two years we’ve had a lot of people on one side deriding the pragmatic choice of religious liberty advocates to defend religious liberty laws when they happen to become vulnerable in cases that happen to involve mosques. In the past two years we’ve had a lot of people on the other side deriding the pragmatic choice of other Christians to form partnerships with Donald Trump or Mitt Romney. In the one case, people have (falsely) alleged that the religious liberty advocates have endorsed Islam or otherwise gone soft on the exclusivity of Christ. In the other case, people have (falsely) alleged that the GOP advocates have endorsed sexual assault or have otherwise gone soft on the difference between Mormons or nominal Christians on the one hand and true Christians on the other hand. If one of these situations is an unequal yoking with unbelievers, the other is. If one of them is merely coincidental co-belligerance and therefore not a violation of 2 Corinthians 6:14, then there’s probably room to seek to understand the other in the same light.
These problems and these accusations are made worse by the fact that sometimes we struggle to think clearly and communicate well when we’re in the middle of verbal wars with one another.
Perhaps there’s a way forward for us along these lines.
Perhaps we could all engage in a little repentance for ways that we’ve refused to grant to others the grace that we’ve sought for ourselves. I’ve expected people to understand my pragmatic actions in defense of religious liberty against threats that I believe stand poised to make life very hard for believers in the United States. If I will have those expectations, I ought to be more understanding of other people’s pragmatic actions as they chose to vote for Donald Trump.
Perhaps we could all extend a little goodwill and benefit of the doubt toward people who actually share both our spiritual convictions and the preponderance of our political goals when they choose different pragmatic methodologies by which to achieve them. Honestly, if we can’t live at peace with people with whom we share so much in common, it speaks poorly of our relationships with Christ.
Perhaps we could try not to be offended personally (or to lob charges of heresy) when people advocate for pragmatic strategies that differ from our own. Why don’t we just make our case and try to let the strength of our positions persuade or fail to persuade? Why don’t we recognize that the brother who is trying to make us all succeed together by a different plan than my favorite plan can be differentiated from the enemy who wishes to conquer us all?
Perhaps we could dial back our tendencies to assign nefarious motives to people who think differently when we advocate for our own pragmatic strategies. After all, none of us like it when others do likewise to us.
Perhaps we could recognize a bit of wisdom, even when it comes from the bizarre source of a deceased former Soviet Premier: “We and you ought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war, because the more the two of us pull, the tighter that knot will be tied. And a moment may come when that knot will be tied so tight that even he who tied it will not have the strength to untie it.” Of course, Nikita Khrushchev, not President Kennedy, was the one who had tied the knot of war in the rope to begin with (this communique too place during the Cuban Missile Crisis), but his observation about what happens when we pull hard on the rope is nonetheless both picturesque and instructive.
The Southern Baptist cooperative relationship, like any relationship, only functions for as long as the people in the relationship say they’re sorry when they wrong, forgive when they are wronged, and labor to permit both freedom to advocate for our various views and determination to cooperate graciously both when our ideas win the day and when they do not, for so long as we share a common commitment to the biblical convictions that we have articulated in The Baptist Faith and Message and around which we pursue our common Great Commission work.
Well said, Bart. Thanks!
Wow.
Excellently stated and spot on. I truly believe that God is using you here, Bart. Thank you for your obedience and humility. We, especially I, would do well to heed your words and Spirit led admonition.
Bless you, sir.
Bart, I’m asking this because you are smarter than me and I want to learn. What would your response be if someone challenged your placement of religious liberty above, say, the command not to be unequally yoked? If they really see any partnership with Islam (or any other false religion) as idolatry akin to the Israelites running to Assyria and Egypt in Hosea, then wouldn’t they place that above even religious liberty? Seems to me that a good bit of this is more about placement of dearly held theology than pragmatism. What am I missing?
Mike that is a great question, but in our minds, there is only one legitimate religion. So should we only defend Christian religious liberty?
Mike, the question that seems to be the issue is whether we are standing for the US Constitution’s 1st Amendment’s religious liberty clause or a “Christian viewpoint of religious liberty”.
If it is the former, then religious liberty only extends to the point of being in agreement with the US Constitution. In other words, if your religion wants to ultimately overthrow and remove the government that gave you the religious liberty to begin with, is that valid–many would argue it is not. For example, if my religious belief held that I must sacrifice my first-born, I don’t think anyone (including the govt) is standing up for that. The problem is whether those Muslims whose goal is to ultimately have Sharia Law as the rule of law for the country, hence removing the US Constitution, should receive 1st Amendment privileges. While this is very difficult to ascertain on a case by case basis, or a mosque by mosque basis, it is nonetheless a conundrum.
The US govt. refused to allow Utah to become a state over polygamy issues, until the Mormons renounced polygamy. As far as I know, the Baptists weren’t standing up and trying to defend their “religious liberty.” Perhaps someone else knows of Baptists who did defend their religious liberty.
So, pragmatically speaking, there are those who think Muslims whose intentions are to impose Sharia Law, given the opportunity, don’t deserve the religious liberty protection of the US Constitution. Again, determining which Muslims desire this is not easily definable, but that should not detract from the subject matter of the discussion.
Nate,
Can you please find me one Muslim in America who is advocating for Sharia law to supersede the Constitution? Just one.
The only place this kind of nuttiness is being trotted around as truth is on alt-right websites and click bait media. In reality, it’s a straw man argument that serves a single purpose- to promote bias and hatred towards Muslims in the US and to incite fear so that the present administrations policies seem reasonable rather than draconian.
Are you making an argument that this isn’t a talking point? I said this was not easily discernible, but are you saying there aren’t Muslims who live under Sharia Law and that there aren’t those who would like to see this come about. It is happening in Europe. Britain is seeing the effects from this as has France.
Did the U.S. express hatred towards the Mormons in the 1800’s then? Are you for restoring their religious liberty to plural wives for those who feel like they were ostracized and denied religious freedom?
I didn’t call for any actions against Muslims, but sizable amounts of Muslims live in Sharia-Law controlled countries and you would have absolutely no religious freedom in those countries, and you are convinced if they immigrate to the U.S. they won’t be desirous of imposing their form of govt. here?
Question: If a portion of Baptists were trying to overthrow the Constitution to establish a theocracy, and you could identify them, would you say they deserve religious freedom? I would not!
Nate: The Sharia law that Muslims live under is not what has been touted and is wrong information by unreliable, sensational seeking, news stories.
The Sharia law that is practiced by Muslims in this country is akin to the moral laws that we practice. In fact that is basically what it is. Moral laws. Not barbarism as some have falsely reported or you find in some comment sections.
Debbie, you too, are going farther than the discussion point I was making. I never accused any particular group, only pointed out that groups in the past have not received religious liberty due to their particular beliefs (Mormons).
The question is whether we as Christians in America are standing for “religious liberty” as we see it, or if we are speaking of the religious liberty clause of the US Constitution. If the latter, the U.S. has already proven that not all religions get to “practice” everything they want. There is also no doubt that some Muslims practice “religion” that imposes its belief onto all and their desire is to do this very thing as they spread their “faith”.
Determining the particulars is far more difficult than merely stating, “I’m for religious freedom.” Nobody is truly for religious freedom, as I have already pointed out.
While there is a principle of religious liberty for all, there is not (nor do I believe has there ever been) unbridled religious liberty. This is expressed in current law that allows for religious liberty restrictions under certain conditions. Those conditions are 1. proving that there is a compelling government interest and 2. employing the “least restrictive means possible.”
Concerning Mormons in the 1800s, I believe this to be skewed parallel as they were not yet a part of the union and not covered under the 1st amendment. That being said, the conditions on principle would meet the compelling government interest requirement because of the foundational nature of marriage to a society.
Bill, I’m not sure it is a skewed principle. Mormons would not have been allowed to practice their polygamy in other states, which is why they fled to Utah to begin with. So, in allowing immigration of Muslims from Sharia-Law countries, or anywhere else, it is not outside the realm of responsibility to seek to know if they would desire to live by the beliefs of Sharia, desire to impose those views upon others, or if they are willing to forgo some of those beliefs to now live under the US Constitution. In that sense, as you said, some of their religious liberties would have to be set aside should they decide to immigrate.
Nate and others,
I have no problem if Muslims in America want to advocate for Sharia law. I think the first amendment protects their right to advocate for whatever they want. If Mormons want to advocate for a return to polygamy, go for it(we might not be far off from something like that anyway). The first amendment protects the rights of anyone to advocate anything, even if it is false, reprehensible or against our constitution. Implementing and acting on what is advocated is a different matter. We have a democratic system. Some tenets of Sharia violate our laws, constitution and bill of rights. Free speech/religion protects people advocating to change those laws. If they go outside of the process, that is called a crime. But, they are free in this country to work the process to implement what they advocate. If they want to elect and vote for Muslims into office, go for it. Then they will have to go through the process of changing the constitution and bill of rights. That is a very difficult thing to do. For sharia to be law, would take a complete rewriting of our constitution and bill of rights. There is a process for that — but it’s not going to happen. So, advocate for whatever you want — that is free speech/religion. And, I am not afraid of the implementation of what they advocate. I stand up for their right to advocate whatever they want, because to curtail their free speech/religion is to curtail my own.
Nate,
There are some legal problems about when and where Constitutional rights apply (the Supreme Court heard an interesting case this week), but I don’t think it’s a question of when people “receive 1st Amendment privileges” or “deserve the religious liberty protection of the US Constitution.”
Both of those suggest some kind of horse trading between the state and its people about religion. If you do X (popular thing), you get “privileges,” or if you do Y (unpopular thing), you stop “deserving” government protections. Many Protestants have thought of government that way, but I think the Bill of Rights was closer to the Baptist way of thinking: Government does not have the right or power to trade privileges or benefits based on religious belief, no matter how unpopular.
That was still the case with Utah. Before Utah was a state, the Supreme Court had already ruled that the First Amendment applied to Utah’s citizens, and that Mormons had the right to believe in polygamy. But as a US territory, Congress said they could not practice it. After Mormon leadership said they would abide by the Supreme Court decision in 1890, Congress granted statehood in 1896 — but the religious doctrine really wasn’t fully rolled back until 1904, after statehood. But, Congress wasn’t voting on whether or not the First Amendment applies to groups with bad religious ideas. It does.
Which is to say, our Bill of Rights isn’t some kind of horse trade with the government for our good beliefs. Tax exemption, free speech, the right to build on your own land — those aren’t areas where government agrees to stay out because the owner has good beliefs. If you act to violently overthrow or resist the government, we don’t say you’ve lost your First Amendment rights — we say that your violent conduct isn’t covered by that right. If you marry a second wife, we don’t say you’ve lost your First Amendment rights — we say you didn’t have a First Amendment right to have more than one lawful wife. But Marxists and polygamists still have the legal rights of everyone else, even if they want to overthrow the government or take another wife.
The hardest question in this discussion is when to use the “power” of a cooperative Baptist institution, if the incidental benefit is a building that will be used to directly counter Christianity. For the reasons Bart lays out, I think the ERLC took the right legal position, and it didn’t cross any lines set by the SBC or the ERLC trustees. But it is a healthy Baptist thing to debate whether our institutions have prioritized and spent their time in a way most consistent with the Cooperative Program’s goals, and how the institutions make those decisions.
Excellent question Mike and one that I have also seen pop up in comment threads. The answer I come back to (and I submit it to y’all here) is a skewed hermeneutic that equates Israel with America rather than paralleling Israel with the church.
If we were partnering with Muslims in kingdom endeavors or letting a false religion have an altar in our churches that is clearly idolatrous and an abandonment of our identity as God’s children. But to advocate for religious freedom in America (even for muslims) is more analogous to allowing a pagan to build a pagan temple in his own country.
In short, I think the misapplication of the principle stems from employing the wrong analogy (connecting the wrong cultural bridges). Just my working theory.
Bill, That’s very helpful. And I agree.
I’ve also got a bit of a working theory that our defense of religious liberty is informed by the Bible but it’s actually a bit more political than religious. But that’s a sloppy way of saying it. I think the principle of religious liberty is biblical. But DEFENDING religious liberty might a bit more political. If that makes any sense.
Good point, Bill.
Mike,
I do not place religious liberty above the command not to be yoked unequally (sorry, I can’t bring myself to split an infinitive). Rather, I do not believe that one is “yoked” at all by the mere happenstance that one’s actions benefit someone else. There’s nothing about the “unequally yoked” passage that specifically addresses houses of worship or interaction with false congregations. It is, as far as I can tell, a passage governing our interactions with any individual unbeliever. Are you in violation if you buy gasoline from the Muslim guy at the 7-11? Are you in violation if manufacture paper that a publisher purchases to publish copies of the Qur’an? Are you in violation if you own shares in a corporation that sells land that someone uses to build a Mormon temple?
Actually, Mike Pence is in more danger than I am on this account. He is Vice-President to a President who, according to his own testimony, is not a believer (since he has stated that he has never asked God for forgiveness…I’m not trying to be disrespectful or divisive here…that’s his own testimony about himself). I’d see that as more of a yoking—an actual vocational working position in partnership with President Trump.
But I won’t cast aspersions upon Vice-President Pence. Instead, I’ll simply restate that I don’t regard it as any sort of a “yoking” when my actions done for my own reasons to pursue my own convictions just happen to benefit someone else.
Bart,
I agree with you in principle, which is why I think I was a bit confused by your article. I usually argue the way you did here that we aren’t yoking just by fighting for religious liberty. And I’d use arguments similar to your one below that we fight for justice for everyone regardless of their race.
Perhaps I misread your article, I had thought you were conceding the point of partnership. That we are in fact partnering with Muslims for the sake of a higher principle; namely, religious liberty. To me your article defends partnering but your comment to me seems to say we aren’t partnering.
I wish you could hear my tone as I write this. I’m genuinely asking a question and trying to learn. And not in a seminary student way of trying to pretend to ask a question so that I can make a point. I genuinely believe you knock it out of the park on defending religious liberty. I’m still working through this issue/defending this issue in my own mind, and so I’m really trying to learn.
Partnering for pragmatic reasons seems to me a dangerous route to go down. But like I said, I’m still working this out in my own mind. Thanks!
I meant regardless of their religion not “race”…though that’d apply too.
I can see how it looks like such a partnership to some critics. Obviously, I’ve written enough for everyone to know my side. I’m trying to be gracious in order to facilitate a better dialogue.
Another interrogative: Are you in violation if you see a bigger Christian boy haranguing and insulting and punching a Muslim boy for being a Muslim? If you stand up in defense of the boy being beaten, are you unequally yoked?
Great post, Bart, and I essentially agree in large part. You put forward a good truce.
However, I would say that maintaining our historic doctrine of religious liberty for all is at least something that we’ve all agreed on for a long time. And, up until a year ago, we all seemed to agree that character mattered in our elected officials. So, asking those who support the historic doctrine of religious liberty to accept the new found moral relevancy of those who say character doesn’t matter so long as the politician will do a few things for us and to place those two things in the same level, might be a bone of contention I would pick with you on this.
Overall, I see your point. I just think that there is cause for some to say that the other side is engaging in relativism. And, I can see where that other side might say that them supporting anyone who will be better on abortion and picking judges is worth overlooking flaws. I get that too. So, I see your point. I would just hesitate over anyone taking it to mean that nothing matters.
At the end of the day, we can have differences here and still love and forgive one another. That seems to be sorely lacking these days.
I agree that we have had longstanding agreement among Baptists about religious liberty. We’ve also had, to be fair, longstanding support of and voting for political leaders who weren’t (demonstrably) Christian. You’ve got a great point that religious liberty is actually one of our doctrinal distinctive. I certainly wouldn’t make the two of equal importance. Nevertheless, I think there is enough similarity in the motives for this comparison to be helpful in provoking us to rethink our mutual ire.
Not that “ire” correctly describes everyone’s feelings.
I think the character issue in our elected officials went flying out the window during the Clinton era…
Bart:
Great words!
One of the many things I can say about you is that I never feel anger after reading your words.
“….up until a year ago, we all seemed to agree that character mattered in our elected officials.” (sigh)
Alan, my brother, we all still agree that character matters. Precisely because it does, when I looked at the only two realistic options on my ballot, understanding that my God-given task in this fallen world was to choose between these two, I selected the one whose character I felt was greater than that of the other, and whose policies and political philosophy would contribute to greater character among the American people than the other.
I respect the fact that voters, even Christian voters, could come to the opposite conclusion. What I do not respect is the insinuation that simply because I came to this conclusion, I must have abandoned the notion that character matters.
You are not alone in considering my vote as being necessarily rooted in a SETTING ASIDE of moral principle. However, I am sitting here with my laptop, after my quiet time, drinking my coffee, pondering the insults hurled at my position by other Christians, honestly telling you that I made my decision HAVING NEVER ONCE SET ASIDE MY VIEW THAT CHARACTER MATTERS.
Hear me brother. My thought process was SIMPLY NOT what so many of you assume; namely, that I must abandon moral principle by means of some pragmatic, situational ethics type of rationalization, allowing me to overcome my reservations and justify an action about which I was deeply conflicted.
Rather, my thought process was born of a sincere decision to act responsibly in the real world, by considering soberly the character of the two candidates, and the ramifications for the improvement of moral character in America represented by their respective policy platforms, in order to affirm my conviction that character matters, by choosing the candidate whose character I deemed to be the BEST.
What I have described in the prior paragraph is neither moral relativism nor situational ethics. It is, of course, bounded by the binary voting philosophy upon which we disagree. But once you allow for that difference, and I am pleading for you and others to do so, I believe you will come to see, that from our perspective, we are actually HONORING the principle that character matters, and not IGNORING it in the least.
Rick, I never said that if you voted for Trump that you don’t think character matters. If you saw it as a binary choice and had to choose between the two and chose Trump over Hillary, I totally understand that. Many good people did that and they didn’t set aside any of their principles. Honestly, I have no idea why you are so defensive. You made a decision. Own it and move on. Can we be clear on that? Can you hear that? I’ve said it a thousand times, but I don’t expect you to know that. I’m asking you to know it now. Vote for who you want.
The constant shilling and defending of Trump by SOME of his loudest Evangelical supporters – many of whom picked him when there 17 candidates – is who I have in mind here. And, if you voted for him and then get locked in to both defending everything he does AND seeking to clear the playing field of Evangelical opposition against him through threats, attacks, and all manner of backroom machinations, then no, I don’t think you’re operating with character. But, Rick, I never accused YOU of doing that and I never accused everyone who voted for Trump of doing that – by no means.
I am targeting squarely those Trump supporters and promoters who refuse to criticize a thing he says or does, who defend him, who promote him, who say his leadership is godly, and who bully other Christians to get in line or they will be attacked, threatened, and cajoled into silence. Where is your outrage over that, Rick? It is happening all over the SBC in churches and entities all the way up and down. We’ll watch families be ripped apart in our communities as immigrant parents are taken away and deported, many of who came here years ago and were paid under the table by business owners in our own churches, while their U.S. citizen children are left behind, and we won’t say a word for fear of being POLITICAL all while saying we care about family values and being a Christian people. And, those same pastors said just 4-5 years ago that this thing should not happen. But, now we go silent because we don’t want to offend anyone or be political. That is what towns in Alabama are facing. When you say something about that, I’ll be happy.
No, Rick, I’m not saying you have no character because you voted for Trump. Your character will be revealed by whether or not you support everything he does after he was elected. So far, your outrage has been largely directed toward those who you think might be critical of you for your vote. I am not doing that so don’t direct that at me. I’m also not a Calvinist, so we should have that squared away as well. A humanitarian crisis is about it unfold all over this country and your concern is whether someone is criticizing you for your vote. Really?
“own it and move on”?
What a novel thought.
Alan,
Thank you for clarifying that you were talking about Trump’s supporters in the PRIMARIES when there WERE other options, like Ted Cruz, whom I supported.
If I seem defensive, it is only because SOME have said the most heinous things about ALL EVENTUAL TRUMP SUPPORTERS. For example, it was said that we were “doctrinally vacuous” and “may well be getting drunk” and that we “had not gone to church since being invited to Vacation Bible School back when Seinfeld was in first-run episodes.” The verbal abuse from brothers in Christ has been brutal. If you are not talking about a Trump Supporter like me, then I am glad you made that clear in your response, because without that clarification, the impression was that all evangelical Trump voters had to “repudiate everything they ever believed” or some such nonsense.
Frankly, “own it and move on” sounds uncharacteristically unsympathetic, as if you were saying, “Build a bridge and get over it,” or even, “It’s your own fault for being overly sensitive when you were verbally abused by fellow Christians during the campaign who called you all sorts of horrible names.” Brother, the wound there is much deeper than you may think it is.
And while I support Trump’s improved relations with Israel, his putting a stop to American funding of international abortion, and his Supreme Court Justice nomination, I do find fault with him for failing to address the sinful homosexual marriage laws. If we can work to repeal Obamacare, we can work to repeal the immoral redefinition of marriage. Shame on Trump for considering that to be “settled law.”
Rick, I grow weary of your playing fast and loose with the truth. Half of the comments that you just rattled off that Moore said about Trump supporters were made during the PRIMARIES (emphasis yours). So why were you so offended by those statements to the point you feel you have been verbally abused?
The REAL “humanitarian” crises in this country, Alan, will occur if your open-borders mentality is allowed to carry the nation. Where is this “humanitarian crises” going well anywhere in the world right now.
Please, just name one spot.
Dr. Barber, your post really hits it out of the park. Even though I have called for the elimination of the ERLC I might change my mind if you were running it.
Roger OKC
Roger, what Southern Baptist entity would attend to religious liberty and other church/state issues (this case, the cakebaker, Obamacare, housing allowance, abortion matters, etc.) if not the ERLC? All of the legacy state conventions have their own ERLC but, so far as I am aware, tend to their parochial matters. We need a national level entity of this type but not at 1.65% of the national CP.
William,
While I’d potentially – under the right scenario and atmosphere – consider eliminating the CP
funding of the ERLC – I’m still a bit torn on that because of what you just stated coupled with the fact that we are talking about around 1.65% percent of CP monies….
I do value the work of the ethics and religious liberty commission… And it seems such a small priced tag…
So, like I said I am torn.
But I do know this – in this atmosphere… I would strongly resist any changes of a negative impact to the ethics and religious liberty commission.
I wouldn’t either this year. No profit in precipitate changes. Too many people affected.
Bart,
I appreciate your perspective and your good intentions. But our mandate from Christ is not to seek our ease and comfort as it seems you are advocating in the area of religious liberty, but His kingdom and righteousness primarily. And blessed are you if you are persecuted for righteousness sake. This will inescapably cause us to espouse positions that don’t meet the social standard of equality. For instance, God has purposed marriage exclusively between a man and a woman. Therefore, we should not support a position of marriage between any loving partners, just so we can get by and avoid persecution. We are to stand on the Truth.
That said, you are not being forthright when you only say “I have a spiritual conviction that I should not use coercive force to try to strong-arm anyone into false conversion by persecuting him for his aberrant faith.” Your conviction is much more expansive than that. You also believe that Government force should never seek to interfere in the practice of one’s “aberrant” faith, even if that interference would prevent spiritual or social harm to others.
Is that correct?
Doug,
1. I’m not seeking my own ease and comfort; I’m seeking not to persecute or coerce anyone else. What the government does to me is beyond my control.
2. In this country, we ARE the government, at the very least for one day every two years. I believe that the things which I personally cause government to do by my vote, by my advocacy, etc., are things for which I myself am accountable before God as though I had done them myself.
Bart,
So you think Paul was wrong?
“But Elymas the magician (for so his name is translated) was opposing them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze on him, and said, “You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord? Now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and not see the sun for a time.” And immediately a mist and a darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking those who would lead him by the hand.”
??Acts? ?13:8-11? ?NASB??
I do not think he was wrong. I don’t see him calling soldiers against Elymas. Invoke the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit however you are able. I’m entirely comfortable with that.
Hey, while we’re in this thread here, I asked over at my blog for a list of all of the countries in world history who had persecuted false religions without persecuting true believers in Christ. I don’t recall getting that answer from you over there. I’m pretty gracious about answering your questions. Would you please answer mine?
Bart, Then I think we’re in agreement that it’s perfectly right for us to at least fervently pray and ask the LORD to restrain evil-doers in the area of religion, that the Gospel may go forth. So if the LORD answers our prayer in the form of Government restraint, will you oppose it?
That said, on your blog thought I answered your two consecutive comments with a single comment. I’m sorry if it seemed deficient. I will go back and add an additional comment in regards to your specific question above.
That’s sort of like asking whether if the Lord answers my prayer for the strife in my marriage to go away by granting me the opportunity for a divorce will I oppose it. God will accomplish His purposes according to the means He has ordained and taught in scripture. The weapons of our warfare are not fleshly. He has told us that already.
Bart;
““If the battle happens on this battlefield over here, I’ll fight against the enemies of religious liberty, but if it happens on that other battlefield over there, I won’t.” No, if you want to defeat an enemy, you have to be ready to fight wherever they bring the war to you.”
Even though your ‘points’ were excellent; I’m not so sure of your strategy. Choosing the ground to fight on is critical. If General LEE’s cavalry hadn’t been grandstanding; he likely would not have charged Gettysburg and probably won the war. (As he did the battles where he chose the battlefield.)
A salient point. It would perhaps be more accurate for me to say that although I would desire to choose battlefields when I can (opting, for example, to fight against Obamacare through “The Little Sisters of the Poor” rather than through some local KKK chapter), I’m not going to leave undefended any line between Washington and Richmond. Yes, I would be wise to choose where along the line I make my stand, but no strategy is a good strategy that lets the enemy take Richmond just because I’d rather they have come in another way.
Bart, I think Mike Leake has asked an important question and would just like to see if you can provide any scriptural support to your position? I could be wrong, but I see this as partnering with the enemies of Christ in order to provide protection against persecution…I know that might sound pretty simple and I’m sure there are lots of nuances I’m not aware of but, being that Scripture is our ultimate authority, knowing where in Scripture you find support for your position would really help me understand your argument. Again, I mean no disrespect, I just seek to have a better understanding of this.
I affirm Bart’s excellent post. (Bart, I really need to come over and take you to lunch.) Let me comment on sharia law. Sharia law is the religious law that governs Muslims (and non-Muslims who live in some countries). Sharia law is based on the teachings of the Koran, the Hadith (stories about Mohammed), and Islamic tradition. Some Islamic countries, like Saudia Arabia, make sharia law the law of the land for all. Other Muslim countries, like Malaysia, make sharia law apply only to Muslims, while others are under civil law. I’ve discussed sharia law with Muslim friends, and many Muslims do not favor sharia law becoming the prevailing law for all. Fundamentalist Muslims do have this as a goal, but many moderate Muslims find sharia law out of date and extreme. For example, sharia law prescribes that a thief’s hand be amputated. So, what am I saying? Not all Muslims desire sharia law. So, to deny them religious freedom in the USA because of sharia is based on a misunderstanding.
Excellent article by Bart! Religious liberty has long been a vital Baptist conviction. It was born out of the experience of those who lived under persecution by other professing Christians in many cases. Defending the religious liberty of those who believe in a false religion isn’t an unequal yoke; it’s loving our neighbor as we love ourselves. We want the freedom to worship and evangelize and we respect and protect the rights of others to do so as well. We also seek to persuade them to turn to Christ, not through force of law and coercion of government but by the power of the Holy Spirit. America is not a theocracy like ancient Israel and it isn’t our calling to use government to promote our faith or to crush the religious freedom of others.
It is my tendency to answer more of the critical or questioning comments than the congratulatory ones. But I just wanted to thank everyone who said something nice.
This comment will not likely be posted, but here’s one commentator who could care less what Adam Blosser is “weary” of or whether or not comments toward Barber have been “nice”.
These guys are of the same camp (CR) that saw “religious freedom” as a threat to the Patterson, Mohler, Pressler insurgence within the SBC.
Now that it threatens the immigration status of Muslims, they’re all for it.
These days, mutated SBC leaders hold up a fragmented and distorted view of same as their newly revived baptist standard. The hypocrisy of their rhetoric given the historical record of the Fundamentalist tribe and its voluntary alliance with neo-Calvinism is indeed glaring.
“All the kings horses and all the kings men………”
I’m not sure I understand your point, but I have pretty thick skin, so I posted your comment. I doubt Bart will lose any sleep over it either.
Certainly: washington dc to Richmond. But if we expend too much ammunition defending New York City issues; we’re likely to need it for our direct defense . And if one believes that the NYC mosque folks will come to our aid; PLEASE show me where muslims support/defend/allow Christian churches/values/freedoms in any country they control.
Daleb,
I believe Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 7.12 is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, not “Do unto others as they do unto you.”
May not be exactly what you are asking for, but I heard on the news today that a Moslem group has raised something like $76,000 to restore the Jewish cemetery that was vandalized recently, I think in Missouri.
And BTW, not all Moslem countries refuse Christian missionaries. I had friends a few years ago who were missionaries in Moslem-controlled Mali. They were allowed in and allowed to openly practice as Christian missionaries, without paying any fines or such for being Christian. When they came back stateside, they brought with them a young woman from Mali who, had she remained there, was in an arranged marriage to someone from the same tribe as Osamma Bin Lauden. On top of that, I have twice now been to the Embassy of the Republic of Uzbekistan in DC as Santa Claus. Although their population is over 90% Muslim, they allow Christian images and metaphors because something like 8% of their population is Eastern Orthodox.
Finally, a word to those who are using the metaphor of the Confederate army, Lee & Stuart, etc.: as a Southerner whose ancestors fought in the Confederate army, I understand that. But as the pastor of a multi-racial and multi-cultural church, those metaphors, especially coupled with what sounds “lost cause” language, do not go over with African-American Southern Baptists. A word to the wise. . . .
John
John,
I understand the freight that comes along with that language, but as a History guy, I often use events in history to make a point. Dale, who is my father-in-law, brought up a specific occasion in the Civil War because it was a good example of the deleterious effects of letting the enemy choose the location of your battle. I extended the metaphor along the lines of Lee and the Civil War simply because it furthered and communicated through the direction that the metaphor was already going.
Nothing further intended.
A word to the wise? I too once pastored a multi-ethnic/cultural church.
One of our black members (a historian) was also a civil war buff. Wouldn’t trade our conversations about the civil war over coffee for anything.
In addition, as long as we’re giving “words of wisdom”, my contribution would be for white pastors like yourself not to convince yourself too quickly about the “thin-skin” of our black brothers and sisters. That kind of conditioned judgement comes off as more condescending than references to or interest in historical facts.
Bart, I perfectly understand the use of that example, and I am certain you meant nothing more about it. My comment was not directed at your intention, but rather at how it might be interpreted by others–in other words, the “law of unintended consequences.”
Charley, let’s just say our experiences are somewhat different and leave it at that.
John
They are not going to come to our aid. That’s not the point. In defending laws like the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, we’re defending ourselves as much as anyone else.
Uh…Bart, you may be defending YOUR religious ideology but I would certainly stop short of saying that you’re defending “US” as much as anyone else.
I always need repentance, always. What causes me concern is that individual SBC department heads (i.e. IMB and ELRC) speak their mind on my behalf and expect me to accept it because, well… If they want to set their SBC titles and departments aside, they can support whatever cause they choose, however, when they speak on behalf of their departments they risk involving me in perspectives that I may not agree with. I support Prestonwood’s approach as an appropriate response to such ill advised decisions. Somewhere, at some point, senior leadership needs to keep their opinions in check when speaking on behalf of someone other than themselves.
As long as we have an ERCL, they are empowered to speak. Their charter is to speak to religious liberty issues, just as was the Baptist Joint Committee’s (back when we supported it). If someone wants to eliminate them, keep them but defund them, change their charter, or disagree with how they apply their mandate, that is another fight for another day. But as Bart and others have pointed out, they are doing what they were chartered to do.
Stephen, the ERLC has spoken and acted in accord with and in obedience to every passed motion, adopted resolution, and relevant article of the statement of faith ever adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention. They are not sticking their necks out; they’re doing exactly what we have told them repeatedly to do.
Precisely!
The reason that I believe that the ERLC should be eliminated is separate from:
(a) whether or not Dr. Moore is “correct” in what side he took
(b) whether or not the ERLC is doing exactly what it was chartered to do
My call for the elimination of the ERLC is that, because of the pre-existing deep divisions in the SBC, the ERLC could issue a statement about the price of tea in China and it would be viewed on pouring salt on the wounds by some subset of the SBC constituency that considers themselves to be marginalized by the other side. We don’t need a agency to codify and formally announce anything that serves to deepen the fractures between us and do this under the guise that this is “the officially sanctioned view” issued by some guy speaking “ex Cathedra” using the platform of an SBC agency.
How about something like this: Seminary X has a debate. They call it a “political engagement” debate. For the first 45 minutes Professor Y debates on the side of Trump. Professor Z supports Hilary. Then they switch sides for the next 45 minute portion of the debate. That way all the issues are out there but there is way less rancor due to one side or another taking a stand that against a sizable portion of the constituency that they are ostensibly representing.
Lets face it. Guys in the SBC are thin skinned. They just won’t tolerate being marginalized by the other side. How do I know this is true. Well, just read all the comments in this thread.
I thought our job was spreading the Gospel; not arguing about the degree to which guys are or are not adopting “moral relativism” in supporting whoever is sitting in the oval office. I believe we should bury the hatchet on this and get back to the main thing. We don’t need the ERLC to do the main thing.
My plea: Don’t chase rabbit trails. STAY FOCUSED.
Is this whole argument really as important as many on here seem to imply? Is it worth all of this rancor? Do a cost benefit analysis of the ERLC’s impact. How can anyone say that the stuff that happened in the last year as a result of the ERLC was a net positive?
Roger OKC
Bart, their actions are in response to how the apply or interpret into action the BFM and other SBC Resolutions. That is the problem here. Just like when you spoke to the national news about the Muslim Cemetery coming to Farmersville. You spoke as a representative of our church on national news and the congregation heard it from other members who worked with the church office. You held a meeting that Sunday night to inform us of what you said and allow questions. The congregation did not authorize you to speak on our behalf as representing the entire congregation. This is just an example of why the little guys feel like they aren’t being listened to on these issues. You never came to us and had a dialogue or preached a series of sermons on this issue and then asked for church consensus. We were told in the news story that what you advocated was what you were telling your church to do. Essentially, the church heard it from the media. It should not be this way. Pastors and leaders speaking for their own individual platform are free to address media with their ideas and application thereof. Church and ministry heads should never be given a free reign to by-pass their congregations or ministries and go straight to the media. The SBC is very diverse. You and I agree it could be more diverse. This will only be a problem moving forward as the pool of ideas grows. Leaders and pastors risk alienating their congregations and even bringing internal strife into an already troubled denomination. Many are afraid to speak to this issue.
There is no way the ERLC could speak in a way that all Southern Baptists always agree with everything they say. If they had echoed Jack Graham and Robert Jeffress about the election many of us would have been dismayed and questioned the wisdom of such eager support. I would not have threatened to withhold funds at that point, even if I was criticized a bit by the ERLC, because I still agree with them on most everything else. They are prolife, pro-family, pro-traditional marriage, etc. And let’s face it, moral character in a political candidate was especially an issue in this last presidential election. They had to address that. I’m not sorry Trump won, but what did Russell Moore say that was untrue?
I believe in religious liberty because I believe that when the playing field is equal, the truths of Christ will always rise to the top. The truths of Christ tower over all the religions of man. The only way it does not is when the playing field is not level. We do not need government to put Christianity on a pedestal for it has no need for it. To protect religious liberty is to keep the playing field equal. Unfortunately, the other way to uneven the playing field is to put the truths of Christ in a hole. Yes, governments can do that by elevating another religion but we too often do it by our actions as Christians.
Steve Davis, Your perspective sounds much like Jefferson in his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom:
“And finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error…”
I bought into it for a while because it sounded noble and Gospel honoring. I later came to see it as contradicted by Scripture and reality. Jefferson basically deified reason. Truth is, there are many weak and gullible people in this world. Think of children. They are not equipped to reason out everything as Jefferson supposed. They need protection. Thus the LORD has established Government no less than the Gospel. Both preachers and magistrates are called His ministers, and they work together. This is why the same Paul who was empowered to cast blindness upon a man in Acts 13, would turn to the roman government later for protection from would-be assassins in Acts 23. Both actions were of God to further the Gospel. Notice in Revelation 20, restraint is required against the Devil in order that the nations be not deceived, not preaching the Gospel:
“Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed;”
Government and Gospel go hand in hand. We need both Gospel proclamation and Government restraint.
Doug W. ,
You do realize that the Revelation 20 passage has nothing whatsoever to do with government constraint right?
John Wylie, Doesn’t it?
National deception is inescapable barring restraint of the evil one. Gospel alone will not suffice. For this reason God provides us Government, because the thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. Whatever mystery surrounding the nations enjoying a blessed thousand years, we can know one thing for sure: it will only happen with the Devil behind bars. He will certainly not be enjoying religious freedom.
Doug W.,
No, Revelation 20 has nothing to do with government restraint. Unless, the government has the angel of the bottomless pit on retainer.
Doug: John in right. In fact the Jews were looking for a Savior to rid them of the government of their time when Christ came and it was the thing he did not do. Scripture interprets scripture Doug.
Doug: If you look in history, those who called for Christianity to be mandated as the main religion through politics met with tremendous failure. That is because Christianity and politics do not mix, it’s futile, second: The Godhead is concerned with the Spiritual Kingdom, not the earthly.
The government can restrain human evil doers, but it has not power to restrain the “power of darkness”. The government can only wield carnal weapons, but the weapons of our warfare are spiritual. The idea of a Christian theocracy this side of the return of Christ is impossible, and not called for in the scripture. That’s why that thinking is absent from the N.T.
John Wylie, When the devil comes to steal, kill, and destroy, what form does he assume?
He still assumes spiritual form. You cannot physically fight the devil.
Debbie Kaufman/John Wylie,
We have very different historical perspectives.
Perspective or not, history tells us that state sponsored Christianity always ends in apostasy and coercion.
John: In case you missed it in a previous thread, Doug is in favor of imprisoning unbelievers and removing their children.
Thanks Bill,
I just find it bizarre that he cannot acknowledge that state sponsored “Christianity” has been an fiasco in every country that adopted it. Our very nation was founded largely, among other things, because people were fleeing the persecution of state “Christianity”.
John Wylie, what you call “state sponsored Christianity” in actuality has usually been a “state sponsored sect.” It is a case of select brethren being empowered by state favoritism to throttle their brethren who do not see everything the way they do. Thus many brethren fled to our early colonies and left their homelands for the same reason many brethren flee their local churches today. The problem is not “state sponsered Christianity” but the lack of it. Our colonies were nobly progressing toward state sponsored Christianity at the time of Independence, with the concept of “Christian liberty”. It has been derailed. Sadly though, it is the abundance of God’s blessing that leads more nations to apostasy, not state sponsored Christianity.
Doug, what you are not getting is that in the NT there is no concept of national salvation. Your problem it appears is that you have not transitioned out of the Old Testament. There are no Christian nations. There are only Christians. There certainly is nowhere in the NT the idea of God wanting a nation to punish folks who are not Christian.
Paul, who wrote Romans 13 by the way, never called on the Roman government to suppress other religions. Paul never petitioned the Roman government to ban emperor worship.
He never called on the Roman government to ban sexual sin, or drunkenness, or gluttony.
John Wylie, The purpose of Paul’s letter to the Romans was to “bring about the obedience of faith.” It was to all the romans, emperor included. It eventually succeeded.
It did not eventually succeed. The foundation of the Roman Catholic system is hardly “obedience of the faith”. In fact, genuine Christianity was always persecuted under the Romans even after Constantine supposedly “converted”. Regardless, you never have Paul advocating the government enforcing religious belief on anyone. You are grasping at straws here, Doug.
In fact, state “Christianity” has throughout the ages, never been very Christian. What you are calling for has done nothing but accomplish the persecution of true believers. It got a lot of people killed, and deported, and whipped for nothing more than disagreeing with the state sponsored church.
John Wylie is so right. Hear ye him.
Note, the early apostles tried to restrain the religious liberty of others.
In Luke 9:49,50 John says,
“Master, we saw someone driving out demons in Your name, and we tried to stop him because he does not follow us.”
“Don’t stop him,” Jesus told him, “because whoever is not against you is for you.”
Notice Christ recommended religious liberty, but he added a qualification: “whoever is not against you.” He did not say leave all alone.
As for Islam, it is a blatant enemy of Christ. On the opening page of the Islamic Center of Athens website linked to by a past article on this site, the reader is greeted with this message: “Say: He is Allah, the One and Only! Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not nor is He begotten. And there is none like unto Him.”
Christians are routinely persecuted by Muslims throughout the world today and have been throughout history.
It goes without saying, there is ample Biblical support for restraining the dangerous proliferation of blatantly false religion.
I have recently been reengaging my thoughts on the topic of religious liberty. Reading of the controversy re the ERLC & IMB “amicus mosque briefs” has provided the incentive.
We Baptists as a whole, I believe, have become lulled to sleep over hundreds of years of enjoying it. Do we understand where promoting religious liberty and avoiding spiritual adultery properly intersect? Have we even thought much about it?
We will find the proper harmonization in the facts thatGod alone deserves worship, that He requires that He be worshipped in Spirit and in truth (not in lifeless ritual, outward conformity or feigned faith), and that faith is a gift of God that cannot be forced or compelled by man.
While thinking on these things, I was struck by this encouragement over the controversy — that it really only matters, or matters most, to those who believe that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation!
Think about it. Those who believe that “all the roads lead to Rome” and that all religions are the same in the end don’t have any trouble with where the truths of exclusive salvation and free exercise meet harmoniously — because they never come into conflict. There is no exclusive salvation they are concerned about.
Excellent thoughts , Robert! Sadly, many are unaware how the concept of religious liberty has morphed over the centuries, the perogatives of early baptists being much different than what baptists are arguing for in our day of multiculturalism. Many colonial baptists wanted nothing more than to stop being taxed to pay the salary of Anglican clergy or to be viewed on the same level with other Christian sects. Much changed with the push to scrap the word “toleration” which to opponents of the concept, implied a superior Religion, all others being “tolerated.” This is where the exclusivity of Christ came into question and the concept morphed into another creature. The modern “all roads lead to Rome” is the concept of religious liberty where Christ and all gods are conceived as equals.
Doug, this is a misrepresentation of those like me who advocate for religious liberty:
1. Neither I nor any Southern Baptist I know who advocates for universal religious liberty is in the least bit a pluralist or a multiculturalist. I believe in the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus Christ alone—a salvation available only to those who repent of their sins, place their faith in Jesus Christ, and confess Him as their Lord. Doing so is not possible alongside being an adherent of any other faith. My previous repeated and forceful written inveighing against The Camel Method I offer as proof-positive of this. Why misrepresent us in this way? Is it because your other arguments are so weak?
2. “Liberty” is preferable over “toleration” not because we are opposed to the suggestion that the gospel is superior over all else (a lie aptly put to bed, I should think, by what I wrote under number 1 above), but because the two words mark the difference over whether the freedom of the religious conscience is a freedom that God has granted for this age that lies beyond the scope of man’s authority to award or withdraw, or whether the freedom of the religious conscience is a human-granted favor to be extended or withdrawn according to the whimsy of the dictator-du-jour.
3. These (seemingly willful) misrepresentations of your opponent’s positions are truly irksome. Misrepresenting your opponents is bad form, especially when those who hold their viewpoint outnumber you. Such bad behavior and misrepresentation, practiced under a different legal framework, could wind up putting you at odds with the authorities. But I guess you really don’t have to worry about that here. You’re welcome.
Amen! Thanks to everyone for your comments. THE MAIN THING is the only, the only thing that matters, period. When we move away from sharing the Gospel with the lost, we become as divided as our country is currently over political matters.
You know, Doug W, in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, Jesus not only said who was NOT to bother the “children of the evil one” who were in “the world,” but He also said who WAS to do so. To whom did Jesus assign the task of being the “reapers”? Not the church. Not the Christian. NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
Who was it?
“The angels.”
Jesus also taught WHEN judgment was to come for the tares. Not now. “The end of the age.”
If you aren’t an angel, and if now is not the end of the age, Jesus has a simple command for you when it comes to your taking action against false believers: “No.”
So, my objective is simple: I want believers to obey Jesus’ command given in Matthew 13. We may or may not receive religious liberty. So be it. But we must not be guilty of uprooting tares in violation of Christ’s prohibition against doing so. We must rather “allow both [wheat and tares] to grow together until the harvest.” That’s what Christ has commanded us to do.
For so long as we live under a Republic such as this one, Christians are responsible before God for the way in which we manage our citizenship. If some totalitarian, non-Christian government brutalizes people over matters of religious conscience, then my responsibility is to live faithfully under such a government. But let not Christians be found again with the blood of faithful followers of Jesus on their hands by means of what they have prompted their government to do. Let us instead obey Jesus and let the angels at the end of the age take care of this business explicitly assigned to them alone.
Bart,
Admittedly, this parable is a little hard for me to understand. Seems to be speaking to those who would try to distinguish between the indistinguishable, like trying to determine who’s really a Christian. Impossible. Yet, we can clearly distinguish between the LORD and a false god. We can be absolutely sure who’s propagating harmful things such as Islam or blatant atheism. We may have trouble distinguishing wheat from tares due to their similarities, especially in the early stages of growth. We won’t have any trouble distinguishing wheat from a snake. I think your argument is good if you are referring to “Christian” liberty.
No Doug,
Converting people at the point of a sword is out of the radical playbook, not the biblical playbook.
The whole basis of the parable is that they DID distinguish between the two. There is no element in the parable of the workers or anyone else not being certain which was wheat and which was a tare. Sure, before they sprouted up, people couldn’t really discern it. The crisis of the parable, however, was prompted explicitly by the apparently unlimited ability of the workers to identify tares among the wheat and to know which was which.
The question was whether removing the (easily identifiable) tares would disturb neighboring wheat.
Bart, It seems commentators are varied on their interpretation of this parable. I’ve been told that wheat and tares are indistinguishable until the latter stage of growth when grain is to appear. Notice the words of Christ, “But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also.” This evidence is not while they grow together. This certainly would not apply to those whose worship of a flase god and message are evident from the start.
That said, it is important to realize that a practice tends to accompany those whose seek the religious liberty of false gods. I think it can be demonstrated that they generally avoid preaching against these false gods. They avoid tearing down these strongholds in the minds of men, through zealous preaching. This is what they are called to do. That is what Paul meant by “the weapons of our warfare.” “Our” is a reference to the exclusive ministry of preaching.
Doug,
I am a religious liberty guy and I routinely preach against the false gods. As a matter of fact, preaching the majesty of Christ and His superiority over the false gods of man’s invention is one of my favorite themes.
The pattern that exists in your perception is not one I see borne out in the world around us. The Southern Baptist Convention is full of people like me who support religious liberty but declare false religions to be false. Our latest academic work on religious liberty involves Thomas White, Malcolm Yarnell, Jason Duesing, and Paige Patterson. These men are not timid to denounce false religion. I, for example, wrote this: “Of Muslims and Mars Hill”
Consider for example the life of Roger Williams. Roger Williams had few things he loved more than combatting error. He once paddled a canoe for hours upon end just to debate George Fox. He was a vigorous evangelist to the Indians. His approach to evangelism DID differ from those who opposed religious liberty, though. Williams opposed the false conversions in which the Massachusetts Congregationalists delighted. Indeed, it is always the case that state-religion loves false conversions, oriented as it necessarily is toward outward conformity rather than true spiritual conversion.
The growth stages of darnel vs wheat is not really all that relevant, since the command from the Master comes explicitly at the stage of development when both are clearly apparent. This is indisputable from the parable. The workers know full well what is wheat and what is tare. They are commanded nonetheless not to do anything.
Bart,
This parable applies specifically to how we deal with something that has already happened; in this case, the latter fruit stage revealed what an enemy had done prior. As Christ said about the false prophets, “you shall know them by their fruits.”
This parable says nothing about how we should be diligent to make sure the enemy does not sow the seeds in the first place. This is where Government comes in; it is about keeping the obvious and known evil restrained. As Jonathan Edwards commented,
“These things have no reference to introduction into the field, or admission into the visible church, as though no care nor measures should be taken to prevent tares being sown; or as though the servants who had the charge of the field, would have done well to have taken tares, appearing to be such, and planted them in the field amongst the wheat: no, instead of this, the parable plainly implies the contrary. But the words cited have wholly respect to a casting out and purging the field, after the tares had been introduced unawares, and contrary to design, through men’s infirmity and Satan’s procurement.”
Likewise, we should wholeheartedly support government in their guarding and protecting role. We should desire that the enemy be kept from sowing tares in the first place. That is precisely why we should NOT support universal religious freedom for all. To do so is to keep the field wide open for the enemy. Forget him having to wait for us to sleep.
John Wylie, Awesome! Mine is simply a general observation, not pointed at any specific individual. No matter what Government’s position toward to the practice of false religion, widespread preaching specifically against it should leave any who would not flee to Christ greatly disturbed. They should not feel comfortable.
Bart, Your article was good. I particularly liked, “Paul said that God was no longer willing to overlook their ignorance. On the authority of God, Paul called upon them to repent. Paul asserted Jesus as the exclusive Judge of all mankind.” I agree this is the way false religion should be approached.
Your comment about Roger Williams seems to illustrate what I think Christ might have been wanting his disciples to glean from the wheat and tares parable. You said, “Williams opposed the false conversions in which the Massachusetts Congregationalists delighted.” How would he know they were false?
He knew that they were false because they were coerced by state-religion bullying and therefore required nothing but a pro-forma affirmation of a Christianity that the Narragansett had not learned even a little bit. Williams believed that people had to give an informed consent to Christianity that further involved leaving behind their former beliefs.
Doug: “Likewise, we should wholeheartedly support government in their guarding and protecting role. We should desire that the enemy be kept from sowing tares in the first place. That is precisely why we should NOT support universal religious freedom for all. To do so is to keep the field wide open for the enemy. Forget him having to wait for us to sleep.”
Dominionist, reconstructionist, theocrat; some version, hybrid, expression of the same. Not a whole lot of mystery here.
There’s always a fringe like this. One hopes they stay a small minority.
Doug,
What about the false teachers that are promoting idolatry within the borders calling themselves Christian?
Should the government crack down on them?
The worst enemy of the American Christian is not the Muslim.
Its the decadent American culture.
And the beast that lead it sit in the halls of power and money.
That should read: the beastS that lead it…
ParsonsMike, good question.
I believe the Bible supports the principle of Church-State separation as far as function, but not separation from duty to God. The Church relates to Government in an advise and consent role. It should be a multi-denominational consent, not an alliance with a single sect such as was our colonial alliance with the Church of England. Therefore, in the situation you mentioned, there should be broad agreement among Christian denominations before any Government action is taken, and or, clear support from Scripture. I believe the government could be used by God to promote revival by reinforcing the terror of the Law. As Augustine pointed out, the number of people corrected through fear is greater than that corrected through teaching. Although, it seems to me God’s most common method of reclaiming a wayward nation is through division and removal of ease.
Doug, where does the Bible endorse multiple Christian denominations, much less a multi-denominational board to agree among themselves and then give advice and consent to the government?
Robert, I don’t believe the Bible endorses multiple denominations. I believe they are the result of our failure to allow liberty in the area of understanding. They seem to be a fact of life when the State allows for it. Given that reality, it makes sense to me that a government would be wise to gain consensus.
Neither do I, though I would attribute their existence to a lot more reason that just failure to allow liberty in areas of understanding — things such as power, pride, etc.
Anyway, it seems like the system you endorse is OK with false religion as long as it is false Christian religion and not other types of false religion? Am I understanding you correctly?
Robert,
I agree with your additional reasons. Also, we must consider the effect of our Protestant DNA which tends to give us an overconfidence in our individual interpretations of Scripture.
Not sure however, what you define as false Christian religion. We should allow much leeway under a common confession of Christ as LORD, so as to maintain the Christ-ordained system of checks and balances.
Doug,
How does a government gain consensus?
My point was that their should be general agreement amongst the Church before the government acts against any in the area of religion. Note the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. If this council had not met, and instead any one member acted unilaterally, the outcome probably would have been much different.
All said, the well being of a nation is dependent on the health of its Church. If it is zealous for the glory and honor of Christ alone, then the nation will show it.
Doug, I would define as false Christian religion any religion under the guise or name of Christianity that denies the exclusivity of Christ — that is, denying Jesus is THE way, that there is none other name, under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Robert, I have no problem with that definition. That is what I meant by a common confession of Christ as LORD.
So, in your America, who exactly develops the doctrinal statement that the government enforces?
Robert, I don’t believe their should be any doctrinal statement other than an official declaration of Christ as LORD.
There have been many noble attempts dating back further than this 1863 example:
“In February 1863, during the American Civil War, a coalition of eleven Protestant denominations from seven northern states gathered to discuss the state of the nation. Seeing the Civil War as God’s punishment for the omission of God from the Constitution, they discussed a proposed amendment to alter the wording of the Preamble to acknowledge God. The idea that civil governments derive their legitimacy from God, and Jesus in particular, was alleged to be based on Biblical passages such as Psalm 2 and Romans 13. The original draft of the amendment, by Pennsylvania attorney John Alexander, read:”
“We, the people of the United States
recognizing the being and attributes of Almighty God, the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the law of God as the paramount rule, and Jesus, the Messiah, the Savior and Lord of all, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Doug, three final comments.
1. To me it seems that your dream is a fantasy only available to those who already live in a free country.
2. Governments will legislate some form of “morality” and ours certainly does so, often in wildly inconsistent ways. We are currently governed by consensus, although the consensus is not what we always desire.
3. God alone deserves worship, and He requires that He be worshiped in Spirit and in truth (not in lifeless ritual, outward conformity or feigned faith). Jesus is the only way of salvation, and faith is a gift of God that cannot be forced or compelled by man. To support those truths, government should remain in the realm of temporal & earthly, and stay out of the realm of the spiritual and heavenly.