The Christian Index is just six years shy of its bicentennial—the oldest religious newspaper in the Western Hemisphere, I believe. Dr. Gerald Harris has been the editor of this newspaper since 2003 and has steered the paper through an era that has perhaps offered more challenges to The Christian Index (by virtue of what the Internet has done to print publications) than any epoch since what the Index‘s readers would doubtless have called “The War of Northern Aggression.” That he has done so successfully earns him a prominent place in the paper’s storied history. For these reasons, I want to try to live out something of the spirit of 1 Timothy 5:1, a sentiment of scripture woefully underrepresented in blogging—to my shame, far too often in my own efforts.
As one who aspires to be a Baptist historian, I want to point out that Dr. Harris’s June 6 editorial against universal religious liberty is, as far as I can tell, unprecedented in Baptist history. For such a well known and prominent Baptist whose résumé consists exclusively of Baptist educational institutions and employment by Baptist churches and causes and who leads such an historic Baptist publication to author an editorial calling for the government to curtail religious liberty is breathtaking.
Baptists have been arguing for religious liberty for everyone—hey, let’s make this specific, shall we?—Baptists have been arguing for religious liberty EXPLICITLY FOR MUSLIMS for so long that the tradition reaches back beyond the point where you and I would necessarily agree that there even WERE Baptists to argue for religious liberty (if you’re one of those people with a truncated Baptist history). Harris’s argument against religious liberty is eerily similar to Martin Bucer’s line of argumentation against Pilgram Marpeck (a succinct summary of that conversation appears in Malcolm Yarnell, The Formation of Christian Doctrine). Again, for the nation’s oldest Baptist newspaper to take up the arguments of the Lutheran against the Anabaptist on questions of religious liberty is bewildering.
Harris’s article is tectonic. What would count as a parallel event? If Dr. Albert Mohler in an official publication of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary were to pen a screed against immersion, that would be a parallel event. If Dr. Paige Patterson in an official publication of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary were to fire a broadside against the idea of conversion, that would be a parallel event. It takes a lot of research to declare a negative, and that’s research that I haven’t completely done, but at this point, I don’t think that any moment in the past five centuries features any prominent Baptist leader’s arguing against universal religious liberty.
And now we can’t say that ever again.
Considering the Substance of Dr. Harris’s Proposal
Although the support of history should count for something, I don’t want to be guilty of interacting with Harris’s article at no deeper a level than “but we’ve never done it that way before.” Let us consider the points that Harris has made and weigh them against the counterpoints that Baptist champions of religious liberty since Thomas Helwys have been making.
Harris argues that Islam is different from other religions because Islam is violent and includes a distinctive view of the political order.
I concur that Islam has a long history of violence and a commitment to theocracy that extends all the way back to Mohammed. That’s right: On all these points, I agree with Dr. Harris. Nevertheless, we disagree at two points. First, these aspects of Islam do not actually make it unique. Far from it! Furthermore, all of these attributes of Islam have been true for the entire history of Islam. In other words, they have been true throughout the entire history of Baptist advocacy for universal religious liberty.
What other religions have amounted to violent geo-political movements?
-
Every State Church in History: Consider, for example, the Anglican Church. Was the Anglican Church a geo-political movement? Well, the name of “The Church of England” gives us a bit of a hint. To this very day the head of the Church of England is the English monarch: Queen Elizabeth. The birth of the Church of England came not through a church-planting movement or through a revival but through an act of parliament (there’s another hint that the nature of this thing just MIGHT have a wee touch of geo-politics in it). The Act of Supremacy of 1534 arose out of factors just as political as religious in nature—some would say MORE political than religious. As a part of English colonialism the Church of England was determined to spread its hegemony throughout the world.
Well, yeah, Barber, but these are polite Brits rather than terroristic Iranians, right? I mean, you have to admit that Anglicans aren’t violent and terroristic.
Oh, how quickly we forget.
Yes, ISIS beheads people. But given the choice, I’d actually PREFER that to what the Church of England did to dissenters. Being burned at the stake = an unpleasant day. Was the Church of England violent? Terroristic? Ask William Tyndale. Ask Nicholas Ridley, Hugh Latimer, and Thomas Cranmer. Watch the Church of England carry to the stake the broken body of Anne Askew and set her afire, then tell me that Islam is unique among the religions. The count of atrocities committed under statutes like the Clarendon Code is legion.
And if we were to move beyond the Church of England to consider the Roman Catholic Church, what would we find then? What did they do to Michael and Margaretha Sattler? How about the Zwinglians? You’ll find the waters of the Limmat River in the lungs of Felix Manz and the fingerprints of Ulrich Zwingli on his arms. Then there’s the fate of Obadiah Holmes under the Massachusetts Congregationalists.
Yeah, but were these churches pledged to the destruction of America? You know, don’t you, that the Church of England wasn’t exactly…uh…neutral during the American Revolution? The Church of England was pledged to the destruction of America before America was even established. To attend the local parish of the Church of England meant having to ask that God “keep and strengthen in the true worshipping of thee, in righteousness and holiness of life, thy servant GEORGE, our most gracious King and Governor.” The gravest threat any religion ever posed to the United States of America was the threat posed by the Church of England. That’s just indisputable, statistically measurable, historical fact.
-
Japanese Emperor Worship: It’s somewhat ironic that Harris published his editorial on June 6, the anniversary of the D-Day invasion of World War II. In that war our nation faced an enemy able to motivate kamikaze warriors to fly airplanes into ships. Imperial Japan was committed to the defeat of the United States of America and employed a terroristic campaign of brutality that your grandparents knew full well. My grandfather-in-law witnessed firsthand the Palawan Massacre, a horrific war crime in a war containing so many horrific Japanese war crimes that it didn’t even make this select list of top atrocities.
Japanese soldiers committing such atrocities were part of a system that issued orders in this form: “akitsu mikami to ame no shita shirasu yamato no sumera mikoto no ?mikotorama” (“This is the mandate of the Emperor of Japan who rules the world as the manifestation of god”). For whatever it is worth, I’d offer my opinion that a system of belief in which the ruler of the state is considered to be the incarnate manifestation of god would qualify as perhaps a wee bit geo-political. If they further believe that god has granted that head of state the right to rule the entire world, I’d count them as a threat to Western civilization. If they feel that these beliefs justify them in committing atrocities throughout the Pacific Rim, then I’d be willing to categorize them as violent and terroristic.
-
Roman Emperor Worship: It’s worth mentioning that the New Testament was written by citizens of an empire which employed violence in the furtherance of a geo-politically bent religious system. And yet the New Testament clearly teaches religious liberty.
Even I, whose picture appears in the dictionary under “TL;DR”, tire of making the list. Permit me to offer my conclusion, which I’ll be happy to defend in the comments with even more evidence if required to do so: Dr. Harris’s theory of religious liberty (that it ought only to pertain to religions that do not delve into geo-politics and are not violent) is a theory under which universal religious liberty has never been possible.
And yet, facing precisely the same realities, Baptists have always argued in favor of universal religious liberty. When did Islam acquire its geo-political nature? In the seventh century A.D. By the eighth century A.D., Charles Martel and other Christians are battling militant Islam on the fields of Europe. So, the geo-political and territorially aggressive nature of Islam is a reality that we’ve known about for nearly 1,300 years.
That means that the nature of Islam is not some new reality to which we must adjust our idea of religious liberty. To the contrary, Baptists have known about the nature of Islam throughout the entire development of our understand of religious liberty. The most naïve line of Harris’s editorial is
Baptists live in a new era of the rising tide of Islam.
Thirty seconds of reflection upon a fifth-grade history book would be enough to disprove that line, and another thirty seconds reading Baptist Press should knock it out completely. For one thing, there’s nothing new about our experience. For another, the tide of Islam actually isn’t rising. Christianity is the world’s fastest-growing religion, and Muslims are converting to Christianity in record numbers. The most powerful nation in the world has universal religious liberty. The most rapidly growing religion in the world is Evangelical Christianity—the faith that gave the world universal religious liberty and has been its staunchest ongoing defender. You’d think that those two facts would instill a little pragmatic confidence in the idea of universal religious liberty.
As I wrote at the beginning of this essay, I want to appeal to Dr. Gerald Harris as a father rather than rebuking him sharply. Dr. Harris, please reconsider your essay. Religious liberty has worked better than any other arrangement. It has worked better for the state, giving rise to the strongest nations in the history of the world. It has worked better for the churches: Do we really envy the spiritual state of the German Lutherans, French Catholics, and Australian Anglicans? Like every principle taught in the Word of God, it hasn’t been tried and found wanting, so let’s not leave it untried because it is difficult or frightening (HT: G. K. Chesterton).
If and when mosques, temples, churches, or covens actually foment insurrection, breed terrorism, or call for jihad, our government can police those bad actions. I’m not arguing for a suspension of the rule of law when a person enters a house of worship. We can enforce the law and maintain our national security without having a “pre crime” unit.
Finally, might I suggest that religious liberty is not something to be earned? Would you please contemplate not only the grace of God but also the words of the Declaration of Independence? There are rights that we consider to be inalienable. These are rights for which no government gets to decide whether we “qualify” or not. These are rights that we do not gain because we deserve them or earn them. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” Unalienable. Rights given to all people by God, not distributed as governmental largesse. Rights that people have by virtue of being people unless and until their individual actions justify depriving them of those rights by means of a fair and impartial system of justice. John Leland argued that the right of religious conscience is among those inalienable rights (Leland felt compelled not only to elaborate upon Jefferson’s list but also to correct his vocabulary). Do you, Dr. Harris, really disagree with John Leland at this point (who explicitly mentioned Muslims as possessing this inalienable right, too)?
God has entrusted you with a great responsibility, Dr. Harris. So have Georgia Baptists. Listen to more voices than that of Jody Hice. Take a week and pore over the work of George W. Truett, E.Y. Mullins, John Leland, Isaac Backus, Roger Williams, Thomas Helwys, Pilgram Marpeck, and dozens of lesser-known Baptists who have come before you. After you have done so, please consider using your influence responsibly and printing a retraction of your editorial.
Both Roger Williams and Stan Musial would be proud of this home run of an article. Thanks and I learned something with the “TL;DR” reference. From my earliest days of reading a kid’s version of “Our Baptist Heritage” by the late Herschel Hobbs, I have understood and embraced the Baptist view of religious liberty for all.
Not the first article by Harris I’ve read that raised 100 red flags. Thanks for posting Dr. Barber!
With such a sharp tongue or critique, we have again sliced the throat of a well known, doctrinal servant of the Lord who happens to disagree. Where is civility? Where is there room to speak on such issues with humility and love?
You state that with just a few moments of reading a fifth grade history book, you can see that the title to the article was wrong. Perhaps it is true.
Baptists have never faced Islam in force as they have today. Certainly, American Baptists in particular, have never seen such atrocities committed on our own soil. I am not sure, but I suspect there is room for interpretation.
I will not pretend to be a scholar, but I will try my best to speak with the humility I believe was lacking in this article.
I am a Christian FIRST, American SECOND. I say that emphatically. I am bound to uphold the first and second commandments. I shall have no other God’s before me; I shall not make any graven images….
I do not see where helping protect the rights of those is biblically correct in the eyes of God. Forget the Constitution for a moment.
The bible does not say, I can assist my fellow humans in securing their right to build a temple and worship another God. It does not say I should actively pursue the rights of person to build Ashtoreth Poles. It does condemn those who participate and even shines a light into the effects of aiding those in that regard when it details how Solomon built high places for his wives to worship. This is clearly wrong, regardless of how anyone justifies it by claiming to protect our right to worship by protecting the rights of another. God gives us our freedom, not the Constitution. Those who are fighting for the rights of pagans to worship their God may be bringing judgement and thus removal of the protection of God. Just a suggestion this may be what we are witnessing in America along with the consequences to sin run rampant.
Regarding the Constitution and Baptist History, I am a Christian first. I know I already stated this, but it bears repeating. It is at the heart of this issue. When I hold the word of God in the highest light, I find that those first two commandments again cause me to disagree with the interpretation of the religious freedom many Baptists claim has always existed in our government and in Baptist polity.
In the Baptist History, there are at least two differing views on the “official” stance. Some argue Roger Williams’s view and then there is the John Cotton;s view. Roger Williams was known to be a rebel rouser and trouble maker. I agree with some of his points, but certainly even you would agree he has a temper and was often given to make decisions for the purpose of filling his community with workers. As recorded in the journals of Jonathan Winthrope, many of his decisions were driven by the need to obtain skilled workers. He often took in many who were unable to live in their community because they were rebellious and would not follow the laws, including Christian church attendance. He certainly is not known for reaching the lost and you would likely disagree with his position relating to reformed theology.
That said, I am posting because I love brothers and sisters who stand on both sides of this isle. Many are troubled, as I am, by both reaching the lost and our concerns for upholding the first and second commandments. I personally see scripture to suggest we should actively participate in assisting any other religion in their efforts to build a place to worship a false God.
That does not undo all my efforts to spread the gospel and give to the cause. It does not undo all the works of Dr. Harris.
Blessing and cursing should not come from the same tongue. I think there is a way to have this kind of dialogue and show love and consideration to those who sincerely believe differently. I too struggle with being sharp. It happens. I have just seen a number of articles on the SBCVOICES lately, and the comments, that have been all to uncharitable in content. If the Baptists have such a long history of religious freedom that some embrace, how about embracing also embracing kindness and gentleness. Perhaps charity and understanding.
It would be a shame to so boldly assert the rights of Muslims to build their temple, even writing an Amicus Brief (much to the dismay of many SBC members), and then in turn not show that same charity to those within our denomination on non-doctrinal matters. This is no reason to divide, which Baptists have a long history of doing, btw. Let’s all treat our members we disagree with in the same kind and gracious manner we treat those outside our faith. 🙂
Tiffany,
Thanks again for your comment. Permit, if you will, a reply to several of your points.
1. It was my objective to write with gentleness and love in spirit without failing to declare the truth. It is certainly possible that I have failed in this regard, but it is also true that sometimes we humans are prone to take someone’s disagreement with us in and of itself as a lack of humility or a lack of love. One can be unwavering and absolute without being unloving. Indeed, this is the case we often find ourselves facing, for example, when we talk about sexual ethics these days, right? When we practice Christian humility and love in talking about same-sex marriage, humility and love do not require that we say, “Now, we’re really uncertain about which side scripture comes down on about this.” No, we can be firm and we can make a strong case about something without being unloving or ungracious about it.
I think a good, clear line differentiating one from the other involves what we do with regard to assumed motives. There’s nothing arrogant or unloving about laying out evidence or facts to build a case for another point of view. I think it does cross the line, however, to impute motives to the person on the other side. For those who accused Harris of crass demagoguery, for example—of using this hot-button issue to manipulate public opinion against a man he dislikes—I think such insinuations cross the line.
But to make a case, even a firm case, that the Bible teaches such-and-such and the unbroken testimony of one’s spiritual forefathers teaches such-and-such is not in and of itself an unloving or arrogant action.
I do not know a nicer way to say that Gerald Harris was most certainly wrong about religious liberty (or that Presbyterians are most certainly wrong on the baptism of infants or that Catholics are most certainly wrong on their sacramental theology). Genuinely, Tiffany, I am open to learning a nicer way that is equally persuasive.
2. The Baptist witness to this question, as I have written, has been utterly one-sided on this question. John Cotton was not a Baptist. He was the Congregationalist Puritan minister in Boston who was quite unswervingly devoted to kicking all Baptists out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. No Baptist living at that time took Cotton’s side. Indeed, no Baptist until recent times has taken any position that resembled Cotton’s perspective. Cotton’s Congregationalist church persecuted Baptist dissenters until the momentum built by the passage of the First Amendment brought about disestablishment in Massachusetts in 1833.
3. With regard to the first and second commandments, I think it is important for us to understand the difference between how we as Christians relate to the Old Testament and how we relate to the New Testament. This point constitutes about half of the material in my “Biblical Case for Religious Liberty.” It is my desire that my opinions and teaching on these questions should be formed by scripture and by prayer. What kind of a pastor would I be if I abandoned what I believed to be a biblical commandment not because it had been disproven from scripture but because it was politically inexpedient to do so?
4. What Russell Moore and the ERLC are doing is protecting our religious liberty to build churches. In our system of jurisprudence, whatever the courts decide in a case involving Muslims and a mosque automatically sets precedent for every subsequent case involving Christians and a church, Jews and a synagogue, or any other kind of meeting house for any other religious group. To suggest that Christians involved in the legal system must allow the government to set damaging precedents that will impede the spread of the gospel unless the cases happen to involve only Christians is to relinquish everyone’s religious liberty.
Defending good people from bad laws often involves defending bad people from bad laws, too, right? Let’s imagine for a moment that the Princeton Police Department, hoping to eliminate the drug trade, picked a neighborhood and just started searching every house in town. Eventually they find someone cooking methamphetamine. The lawyer who intervenes in that case to say that the police can’t just break into house after house without probable cause or a warrant is in the situation of having to defend bad people (drug dealers) from a bad law (unreasonable search and seizure). But really, what that lawyer’s trying to do is to defend good people (you and me) from that bad law, because once the bad law gets in place to deal with those bad people, we all wind up having to live with it.
And that’s the basic point Jesus was making in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares: It’s better to advocate for a system that preserves all of the wheat but also makes room for the tares than to advocate for a system that gets rid of the tares but takes out some of the wheat, too. Every time a government moves away from religious liberty, true Christians wind up getting persecuted. There is no example—not one—in human history where a nation that stepped away from universal religious liberty did not wind up persecuting Evangelical Christians. The track record is 100%. That’s pretty persuasive to me.
If making a court case to defend religious liberty for everyone does not amount to worshipping other gods or obtaining idols for oneself—and I think a lot more of a foundation would have to be laid in order to make that charge, because nobody in the amicus brief wound up reciting the Shahadah—then I think there’s very little reason for us to remain silent as bad law comes down upon God’s people just because defending ourselves from bad laws sometimes means defending bad people from bad laws, too.
5. As to whether we face some new, unique threat from Islam, the Anabaptist movement was arguing for universal religious liberty in an environment in which actual Muslim armies had been trying to invade Europe for centuries. Spain had lived under Muslim conquest. The only way in which our American experience is more intense is the news coverage of it.
Did they really know the same kind of threat from Islam as we know? Here’s what Martin Luther knew:
Luther knew. The Anabaptists knew. In 1529 in just one battle (the Battle of Vienna) they had lost 16,500 people to Muslim aggression. That’s more in one battle than we’ve lost in our entire war on global terror, including both wars, 9/11, San Bernadino, Fort Hood, Orlando, and the others. Had that battle in Vienna gone differently, it’s a safe assumption that all of Europe would’ve been vulnerable to defeat by the Ottoman Turks. So, I think it is fair by every measurable statistic to say that our spiritual ancestors were arguing for universal religious liberty in circumstances that knew more, not less, about the threats posed by Islam than we have experienced. They lived closer in time to the near fall of Europe to actual Muslim armies than we live in time to 9/11, for us a tragic attack that killed hundreds of innocent victims, but without posing any threat that the American government would fall or that American soil would be overrun by invading armies.
We know the threats that we face all too well, but we have forgotten the threats that they faced. In the face of those threats they courageously argued for universal religious liberty. Many lost their lives in so doing. History has, I think, vindicated them. If we lose religious liberty in the USA, history will vindicate them again.
In regards to your reply to Tiffany:
If being a Christian is more important than being an American, not even fear of losing the “American” idea of religious liberty should allow for a Christian in the legal system, or any Christian institution, to advocate for the creation of a Mosque (which is a temple to a false god).
There are many non-Christian organizations in this country that will do that.
You are right that losing religious liberty will lead to the persecution of Christians, but your belief that Christian groups should advocate on the behalf of non-Christian groups is nonsense.
In the U.S. as is, if you truly believe that Christians helping to ensure a mosque will be built will ensure religious freedom for Christians later, as if the culture or Islam is going to remember this episode, you are going to be mistaken.
Furthermore: Christians in Europe were aware of Islam obviously in the 15th century, as Eastern Europe was actively engaged in keeping Islamic armies from invading the continent.
And your point on this regard is simply misleading. Your point: In the face of continual invasion attempts by Islamic armies, Christians in Europe valued religious liberty.
It’s misleading on its face for a few reasons. First: Muslims were not allowed into European countries as they are today; they were certainly not allowed to worship by building a mosque, if they did arrive. Christians in Europe did not care a fig for religious liberty for Muslims, or Jews. In fact in 1492, Spain not only removed Jews from their country, but Muslims as well.
Second: The major elements of Christianity itself were not advocates of religious liberty. Is this not why there was a Protestant Reformation? As you mentioned in your article, these big institutional churches were responsible for atrocities the same as Islam, no? And at times against their own people.
How can they be capable of such atrocities and be for religious freedom? They can’t.
Our spiritual ancestors did understand the threat of Islam, very well. That’s why they fought them tooth and nail, and expelled them from their countries. They certainly didn’t engage in mosque building.
If religious liberty for all religions was so important to Christians of that era, why was not a mosque built in Vienna, or Madrid?
Josh,
Uh, the Muslims didn’t apply for a permit to build a mosque in Vienna. or Madrid.
At that time, they were an invading army, bent on murder and destruction without regard to religious liberty and in fact violently opposed to it.
No one is opposing our security forces tracking down and eliminating [by death, imprisonment, or deportation] those who violently oppose religious liberty.
Religious liberty was at stake in the Reformation as well. Many people were killed [sadly enough by both sides] to thwart religious liberty. Is that right? Moral?
The Nazis persecuted the Jews, and the Christians did not speak up. Was that right or moral?
Many were persecuted in Europe because there was a lack of religious liberty. Was that right? Moral?
The early Christians were persecuted and executed because there was not religious liberty. Is that right? Moral?
And it is quite possible that here in the USA the wrong kind of Christian will be persecuted because of a lack of religious liberty. Even now in Canada it is against the law to preach against homosexual sin using the Bible. It is considered a hate crime. There is a lack of religious liberty.
Your argument SEEMS to be that since these other groups have violated religious liberty than we should also. But if we don’t stand against the loss of religious liberty now, it will be too late when the gavel falls and ours is gone.
Your right, Muslims didn’t apply for a permit to build a mosque in those cities; they wanted to conquer those cities and kill, tax, or kick out the Christians in those places. Thank you for reiterating my point.
Also, thank you for reiterating my point on religious liberty in the Reformation. As I pointed out, religious liberty was not something the Anglican, or Catholic churches were interested in. Hence, a strong driving point for the Reformation. However, using the quote from the post from Martin Luther on Islam as evidence, no Christian in Europe during this time period was interested in religious liberty for Muslims in Europe. Mostly because the ones not in Europe were actively attempting to conquer Eastern Europe. To insinuate that they were, is a willful misinterpretation of history.
So for anyone to state that “our spiritual ancestors” were well aware of the “Islamic threat”, and still interested in religious liberty needs to be sure they aren’t trying to use those things to provide a false narrative, which the above article most surely attempts to do. Our “spiritual ancestors” were aware of the “Islamic threat” which is why they fought to keep from being conquered and did not allow Muslims in into Europe period. Religious liberty was being fought for by people like Martin Luther against the Anglican and Catholic churches, even as those two institutions rallied to help stave off Islamic invasion. To make the argument that Christians in Europe during this time period were interested in religious liberty for Muslims, even while Muslim countries were attempting to invade Europe, is misleading to the point of being a lie.
Martin Luther and other future Protestants were not interested (until the founding of Rhode Island at least) in religious liberty for anyone but Christians that believed the way they believed.
My argument is not, as you say, that Christians should actively attempt to violate religious liberty. As Christians, we spread the gospel, and the Holy Spirit does the convicting. I believe if Christians actively engaged in political moves today to block religious liberty, it means we don’t believe the gospel and the Holy Spirit are enough.
So, you’ve missed the point.
The point is not religious liberty, which is a political ideal, but what Christian organizations and Christians should be doing.
The SBC actively engaged in a campaign with secular organizations to help ensure the creation of a mosque to promote the political ideal of religious liberty is a waste of it’s time because: 1) I don’t think Christ would promote the building of a temple to a false God to promote religious liberty; Russell Moore just this week wrote an article about politics not driving the gospel. If this is not politics driving Moore’s interpretation of the gospel, what is? 2) There seems to be this belief that Christians should stand with other religious groups to ensure religious liberty in the secular world. Do you really think if the tables were turned, that Islam would come to Christianity’s defense in this culture today? Do you really think this episode will buy Christians in the U.S. a bit of reciprocity on the part of Muslims in a future situation? Christians don’t need to aid religions of false gods in this culture, in the creation of their temples, out of fear of their own religious liberty being taken away. We have Jesus Christ. We don’t need to be involved with such groups to protect ourselves.
That’s the point. For a Southern Baptist organization to help advocate for the creation of a mosque to ensure its own religious liberty is an action of fear, not confidence.
Finally, on the issue of Islam: Pick up a history book. Never has this religion and political movement allowed for religious liberty. The two are incompatible.
Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson represent two distinct concepts of religious freedom. They both proposed competing religious freedom bills. Henry’s could be described as “Christian Religious Freedom;” Jefferson’s “Polytheistic Religious Freedom.” Henry’s was consistent with God’s word in that it supported the diversity of Christ’s body as manifested in diverse Christian denominations. Jefferson’s supported any and all gods. It finds no support from God’s word despite it’s deceptive “God” talk. For years, Jefferson tried to get his version through the Virginia legislature, but could not. Mainly due to unrelenting opposition from Henry. Henry was eventually removed from the legislature by appointing him Governor. This scheme allowed Madison to finally get Jefferson’s “Act” passed. Despite its contrariety to God’s word, Jefferson’s version found much support from baptist leaders.
That’s interesting, I did not know this. Jefferson’s viewpoint does not surprise me.
Josh,
You make a good point.
But isn’t there more to advocating religious liberty than just looking out for one’s own?
Isn’t there an apologetic angle as well?
Its possible that Muslims just want to enjoy USA’s many blessings. That they don’t want Sharia law.
By having such an environment, we have a better chance to bring the Gospel to them. On the flip side, persecution tends to harden a people in their convictions. Which could lead to more radicalism and less chance to reach them with Gospel.
Thank you.
I don’t believe Christians should necessarily be advocating for religious liberty per se, or advocating against it in the political realm. It seems to me the only job of a Christian is to try to bring the gospel to people. Advocating for the building of a temple to a false god or religious liberty are not activities in and of themselves that will do that. Those are purely political endeavors.
I don’t doubt that some Muslims do want to enjoy the many blessings of our country. I doubt all want Sharia law, but it wouldn’t take many advocating for that outcome, to create a serious problem.
For many today in academia, politics, and even in the SBC, multiculturalism has become an idol. Those who denounce politics as a vehicle to spread the gospel, cannot see that they themselves are attempting to use another secular vehicle, multiculturalism, in a vain attempt to spread the gospel.
We live in a society where multiculturalism is seen as some magical way to cure the nation’s ills, as if we reach a magical figure in that area, nothing bad will happen anymore.
No one is persecuting Muslims in this nation today. They are being brought in droves, and being allowed to do as they please. Again, they didn’t need the SBC to help them build a mosque. That’s nice of the SBC, but how exactly are you going to bring them to Christ if you are actively engaged in the political movements of helping them get permission to build a mosque? There are lots of non-Christian groups who would/could do this.
A better idea would have been to not be involved at all except for: Why not go out to those people and spread the gospel?
And while I don’t believe in persecution, if Christ wants to use someone, it isn’t going to matter how “radical” they are. Paul is a good example of this.
Freedom!
A tour de force, Bart. This article should be read far and wide in Baptist life. I will do my part to help that along. Well done and thank you. I was in shock last night when I read Harris’ article. That article does not represent who we are. Unfortunately, that mindset seems to be growing in some quarters. I am glad that you repudiated it here. It is because I am a Baptist and know my Baptist History that I understand and appreciate our heritage on this point.
I can’t say it better than what has already been said in the comments. I hope this gets wide distribution as Harris could be sending a very dangerous message that an already ignited nation based on fiction, and that includes Christians, could embrace.
In total agreement here. One question, Bart. I’ve heard anecdotally about the massive growth of Christianity in other parts of the world, but can’t find any research that says it is the world’s fastest growing religion. Do you have some research that shows that? I’d love to see it. Thanks.
Hi, Wade.
OK. I should’ve written at greater length about that one. The statistics are complicated. You’ll find plenty of research online saying that Islam is the fastest-growing religion. My claim only comes into view when (a) you count Christians differently and (b) you place a greater weight on conversion than on procreation.
Pew predicts Islam to grow more rapidly than Islam because they predict a net loss of 66 million Christians in the future. They make that prediction because of the hemorrhaging of nominal Christians in the West, with almost all of that number going to the “Unaffiliated” category.
I, on the other hand, do not consider these people to have been Christians to begin with. I define “Christian” differently than that.
Count it my way and you wind up with my conclusion. 🙂
Well, I suppose that is the only way we Baptist should count it, right? 🙂
Amen!
Related question: I had heard in a missions report that Christianity is growing at the fastest rate in the “20-80 window” (not sure I got that label right) and in China, places where the least religious liberty exists. But I’m wondering what the trends really are…anyone know? (Please note I am NOT saying that we should welcome persecution or loss of liberty! Freedom wisely used is good!)
Hopefully, we can all recognize and agree that Islam is primarily political in nature and intent covered with a protective cloak of religion. A political intent that includes the elimination of many freedoms cherished by the American people, including the freedom of religion.
I and many others have served in the armed forces that are pledged to protect and preserve those freedoms. Americans pledged their lives, fortunes and honor to successfully fight the redcoats of King George and later the armies of Imperial Japan mentioned by Dr. Barber in order that future generations might enjoy those same freedoms.
Bart is the senior pastor of the little Baptist church in Texas my family and I attend. It is a happy and mission focused church in no small part due to Bart’s efforts and we welcome others to join us in service. I respect Dr. Barber’s intelligence and spiritual leadership very much.
It is possible that even a wise and Godly man may be confused by Satan at times. We often view the present through the lens of history, instead of the future through the eyes of our enemy. I’m confident that Bart will forgive those striving to resist Islamic warriors, including Dr. Harris, as we seek to preserve those precious freedoms, including religious liberty and freedom of speech for all.
Tommy,
I love you. I disagree, for all of the reasons that I have included in the post. Islam is a religion. Every scholar of Islam agrees with that. Every Christian scholar of Islam agrees with that. Every professor teaching religion from any persuasion agrees with that. So no, we can not all recognize or agree that Islam is merely a cloak of religion over a political objective. Indeed, those who agree with that constitute a worldwide minority.
Instead, Islam is a religion with geo-political implications. As I argued at length in the article, that puts it in a category with many, many other religions, including a surprisingly large number of varieties of Christianity. These “Christian” state churches have tortured and killed far more Baptists than have Muslims.
Finally, one cannot seek to preserve religious liberty and freedom of speech for all by taking it away from some people. That is self-contradictory.
Every Christian state church you mentioned as a comparison, is either dead, or on the way to being dead, and has not practiced the actions you mention in at least 400 years.
So your comparisons are meaningless for today. No organized Christian church behaves in such a manner today. And that is the key distinction. Christianity evolved into a truer sense of the religion; individuals having a personal relationship with Christ, without the need to go through an all powerful Church connected to the government that may not have everyone’s best interests at heart. Christianity was never intended to be dominated as it was by those Churches you mention.
However, Islam began violently, and still has a vast number of adherents who continue that tradition. It will never change, because unlike the Bible, there is no structure in the Koran to promote a personal relationship with God outside of corruptible man made institutions. Christ tells me to spread the gospel with my words and he will take care of the rest. Allah says that one must convert, pay a tax, or die, and that you the follower, not Allah, can take that judgement into your hands.
I doubt you’ll find that everyone in academia would agree with you that those “Christian” state churches have tortured and killed “far more” than Islamic states. How can that even be proven?
Islam spread from Spain to Indonesia through violence. In most countries where it has become the dominant religion, it did so through force. It’s grip is maintained by force.
By at least the advent of the Industrial Revolution, these Christian state churches were no longer in charge of the countries they formerly controlled. In Islamic countries by this time, life continued as it had, with Islamic sanctioned violence.
I do believe in religious liberty. I don’t understand why the SBC felt it necessary to spend time, effort, and energy to promote religious liberty for Islam. It seems to me, the SBC as a religious organization for Christ, should spend all of its time, effort, and energy doing one thing: spreading the gospel of Christ and winning souls. Period.
There are many organizations that would fight for this mosque to be built in New Jersey. The SBC is wasting its time and not fulfilling its obligations when it pursues such matters.
Tommy, I admire the respectful way you disagree with your pastor. And thank you for your service to our nation. I suppose my only curiosity in what you say comes from the many Muslims now serving in our armed forces fighting to defend those same freedoms. A friend of mine who is an Imam remains in the Marine reserves. Another retired as a Lt. Commander in the Navy. And these men are serving for the same reason you are–to among other things protect the religious liberty of all.
As Bart said, many people throughout history have used their religion as a “cloak.” That doesn’t make the religion itself a mere covering for a political agenda. At least, it isn’t that for the men I know who would die right beside you if necessary for our freedom.
Fear, I do surmise, is the motivation for Dr. Harris. Not fear for the church, but fear for losing his way of living in America. The USA deserves to fall. And we stand today only by the mercy of God.
The government will be diligent against violent terrorists, although certainly not perfectly. But when religious liberty is restricted, the enemy of the church is the winner. For the nation in its godlessness will preach tolerance for all except those who declare that there is only one way [and thus are deemed intolerant], and true believers do preach against the sin of the culture [they see it as hatred and intolerance] and declare there is only way to Heaven [by the Lord].
So while other ‘christian’ groups distance themselves from the children of God, the society will turn to marginalize true believers and their congregations AND if there is restrictions of religious liberty in place, turn the very rules Dr. Harris desires and advocates against his brothers and sisters in the Lord.
I know, many seek to protect their families from terrorist acts, but in reality the only true protection is the Lord, not the rues of men nor their governments nor their armies nor their police force, nor even a geographical distance from Mecca.
In another way, the “if we don’t advocate for Muslims’ rights, then [some loss to us will occur]” also seems rooted in fear. Yes the Lord is our protector! He might also protect our religious liberty, even if we never file another amicus brief for other groups.
No one is immune to fear & the impulse to protect our own rights. Some are called to advocacy. But I also think Christians and Baptists are digging deeply to ask themselves “what does FAITH in God require here? How do I act in faith rather than in fear?” Those are always good questions, IMO.
Bart,
Great work! Thank you.
I’ve leaned so much on this issue from you over the years on religious liberty. My position on this has evolved greatly – in the right direction – since engaging your writing on it (and it still is).
Religious liberty is certainly not just for baptists or even just for Christians – if we argue that it is like Harris has done – we uncut it and everyone becomes vulnerable.
Far greater minds on here than mine, but is it not true that we limit all sorts of religions/theological expression now? We do not allow polygamy(LDS/Islam), beastiality(paganism), child sacrifice(Satanism), etc. Does not a country’s philosophical/theological worldview automatically limit religious expression on some level? Our country is certainly tolerant in many aspects, but to say that we are, or should be, tolerant of all deviant forms of (non)religion is not a place that most would want to go. Speaking in general here, but the applications are specific.
That’s a good and insightful question, Kevin. It has prompted careful thought and discussion from people for centuries.
Roger Williams argued (and this became the basis for our nation’s approach) that one can differentiate between “the first table of the law” (a man’s relationship with God) and “the second table of the law” (a man’s relationship with other men). Government exists to govern the latter but not the former.
This is reflected in our law, by which government can restrict a person’s free exercise when the government has a compelling interest in doing so, has narrowly tailored the law to do only what it must to accomplish that interest, and has employed the least restrictive means of doing so. Government has a god-given authority to regulate human behavior. It does not have a god-given authority to regulate human belief.
Punishing people simply for the creed to which they adhere violates this. Prohibiting the construction of a house of worship simply because of the creed to which its adherents subscribe violates this. Raiding a house of worship because the people inside it are building IEDs does not.
Hypothetically speaking, if a particular religion had as its main core of beliefs the elimination/killing of any non-adherents to its particular faith, would there be logical reason for a government to be in active observation, and if need be, limitation of said religion for the safety of its citizenry? It seems to me that the world of the hypothetical and the world of the actual in these instances find divergence when it comes to fleshing out these details.
Before answering, I’ll note that most Muslims do not describe in that manner what the Quran says about jihad and that most Muslims do not practice anything approaching that with regard to the Quran.
Now, having said that, I take the gospel to a people group with a history of human sacrifice to spirits in the forest. They live in a nation with religious liberty (a majority-Muslim nation, by the way). The price of being a part of that society has been that they can keep their religion but cannot sacrifice human beings any more. In fact, they can believe that sacrificing a human being would earn them something from the spirits, but they cannot act on that belief. If they were organizing a human sacrifice event, the state would be justified in intervening to prevent it. But the state is foolish and unjust if it tries to use the coercive power of the state to tell them that they cannot BELIEVE that any longer. How could the state know? How could this be measured or enforced?
I understand that there is a difference between a fallible democracy and a Biblical theocracy, but could not one make the argument that God did not allow paganism/false religions to be practiced in Israel and that “Christian” countries may follow that same paradigm? Now I know that the UNited States is not a “Christian” country, but if it were, how would you dispute this argument from a Biblical perspective? Hope this is not too much of a tangent…if so, please disregard…
The great thing about your question is that I can answer it at length without taking much time. If you’ll look up at the article at the link claiming that religious liberty is the teaching of the New Testament, you’ll find a lengthy article I previously wrote on this very question.
If, with Bart’s permission, I would like to answer Kevin in a less lengthy manner: Because the modern parallel to the Kingdom of Israel is not the Kingdom of the United States but the Kingdom of Christ. The earthly expression of the Kingdom of Christ is the Church which is why Baptists also practice believer’s baptism and church discipline, in order to “not allow paganism/false religions to be practiced” within that expression of His Kingdom.
I respectfully submit you missed a key distinction in his article. He clearly states his position that “All that simply leads me to say that Islam may be more of a geo-political movement than a religion.” It seems his viewpoint isn’t that he wants a religion to lose freedom but a political movement that is not religious in nature. He bolsters his argument by quoting several others who also do not see Islam as a religion, such as Rebecca Bynum who wrote, “I believe the same thing is true of Islam. It is much too different from the other religions to remain in the religion category. It should be uniquely classified in its own category.” Also “Reza F. Safa, once a devout and practicing Shi’ite Muslim and now a minister of the Gospel, has written, “Recognizing Islam as a system of religious belief is the gravest mistake that the Western governments have made in this era.””
You make it sound like he wants to ban Methodists when he is clearly arguing against something far more sinister and dangerous than a mere false religion.
The way I read the article, about 3/4 of it addresses just the “distinction” that you have mentioned. The vast preponderance of religions have some geo-political element to them, universal religious liberty has always involved religious liberty for such geo-political theologies, Islam has always been this way; thus, explicit calls for religious liberty for Muslims have always been issued in the light of these realities.
I see people laying the wood to Will Hall and Gerald Harris; not really talking about you, Bart. I’m more talking about comments from different people that I’ve seen the last few weeks. But, both Will Hall and Gerald Harris are excellent newspaper men, who do a fine job. And, like most newspaper editors and writers, they write things that some people don’t agree with, and that’s fine. But, I think it’s wrong to dog these two men, just because they don’t write from certain peoples point of views and convention political stances. They’re good at what they do, and they love Jesus.
David
David, I have no desire to question Dr. Harris’s overall skills as a journalist. I do not seek his head on a silver charger. As God knows my heart, I wish him peace and blessing.
However, I cannot lay aside his repudiation of this Baptist distinctive as a mere agree-to-disagree occasion any more than I could ignore the other two hypothetical parallels that I mentioned in the article. This is a core doctrine of the Baptist Faith. This is an indisputable element of the Baptist Faith & Message. It comes down, David, to THAT as much as anything else. Should Dr. Harris blatantly contradict the Baptist Faith & Message in a Baptist state newspaper and let it stand with no consequences?
It seems to me that this is a far larger question than the personality issues involved.
Bart, as I said, I was not talking about you, so much, but about different comments I’ve seen over the last two weeks about both men.
But anyway, I agree with religious freedom for everyone. Like William Wallace, I cry, “Freeeeeeedooooom!”
Good point, Bart.
“This is an indisputable element of the Baptist Faith & Message. It comes down, David, to THAT as much as anything else. Should Dr. Harris blatantly contradict the Baptist Faith & Message in a Baptist state newspaper and let it stand with no consequences?”
Harris loves Jesus, I’m sure. No one said he did not.
Heel,
I’m just reminding everyone that they are our Brothers in Christ, even if someone disagrees with them.
Peace and Love,
David
I don’t think anyone doubts his love the Lord. I’m sure he does! The doubt is his consistency as a Baptist, respectfully.
Tyler,
I am very concerned to hear someone accuse a brother to which they disagree as not being a Baptists consistently? When did it become necessary to accept anything other than a doctrinal statement to be a Baptist? You have multiple views regarding how to interpret and view the application of Baptist history to this specific issue since Islam is BOTH a religion and political group.
Perhaps, someone may be accused of being less Baptist for being a Calvinist. Perhaps someone is less Baptist because they disagree with the Confederate flag Resolution or the Refugee Resolution.
This type of rhetoric concerns me. I say this with the greatest desire to be unified.
This man is known for his life work and ministry. HIs many good deeds and thoughtful pieces he has penned.
I would shutter to be judged by this standard. If this is the standard of judging a Baptist, the Faith and Message needs an update to include all these issues since I have read these types of comments in a number of posts to the comment section.
Tiffany,
There are certain things that make one a baptist (believers baptism, autonomy of the local church, religious liberty of all peoples, some form of congregational government) and some things that baptist disagree on but has no bearing on whether one is baptist or not (eschatology, Calvinism/Arminianism, Dispensationalism/Covenant Theology, Confederate Flag debate). Religious liberty for all people (the separation of church and state) belongs in the former category. All our baptist fathers held to the idea of religious liberty of all. Yet many of our baptist fathers were Calvinist and others were not. Why? Because Calvinism belongs in the latter category. It’s not a baptist distinctive. There is rooms for Calvinism and Arminianism in both the BFM, but there is not room for the state to impose on religious liberty in the BFM (see below). This is why I question his consistency as a baptist, because he is essentially denying a baptist distinctive of religious liberty toward Muslims. He is approving of the states interference in Muslim religious practice. Our fore fathers would have been appalled by this reasoning. Also, I am merely repeating what others, such has Dr. Barber has said.
“This man is known for his life work and ministry. His many good deeds and thoughtful pieces he has penned.” – I have no doubt that this is true, but it’s actually irrelevant. I’m responding to the article he wrote, not his character. There are a lot of Godly men out there who are not baptists. In fact, some of my favorite theologians are Anglican and Presbyterian.
“I would shutter to be judged by this standard. If this is the standard of judging a Baptist, the Faith and Message needs an update to include all these issues since I have read these types of comments in a number of posts to the comment section.”
– The Baptist Faith and Message actually does speak to this in section XVII on Religious Liberty.
Lastly,
I would encourage you not to see what I said as an insult. If I started leaning toward infant baptism because I saw it in Scripture then I would assume someone would call my constinancy as a baptist into question. And if I found that infant baptism was more in line with Scripture (which, obviously, I don’t) I would gladly find a different denomination without any hard feelings to my baptist friends. My identity is not in being baptist and I want to constantly have my theology kept in check by Scripture.
God Bless!
Tyler,
Realize that certain circumstances bias us to accept propositions that we would otherwise reject. Abuse by a parent in childhood will produce a corresponding animosity in the child toward the parent. The abuse will cloud the child’s vision the rest of his/her life. Such was the case of the early Virginia Baptists. Baptist throttling, particularly by the Establishment Church in colonial Virginia, disposed them to sympathize with Jefferson’s polytheistic concept of religious freedom, in large part, because Jefferson, like themselves, despised the Established church. Thus, they opposed Patrick Henry’s “Christian” concept of religious freedom because they viewed him as sympathetic with the Established Church. Note, Henry’s concept is consistent with the BF&M, if viewed in an explicitly Christian context.
Right on, Tyler.
“The Baptist Faith and Message actually does speak to this in section XVII on Religious Liberty.”
It’s also striking that that section has been present and unchanged in all three versions of the Baptist Faith and message (1925, 1963, and 2000).
Good answer Tyler.
Doug: When you are quoting history a source would be nice. Unfortunately there are those who wish to rewrite history and make it further from the truth and sources are a way to check and make sure it’s reliable information. I don’t read something and see it as true. I check the source of information. If none is shown I doubt the “facts” as true.
Debbie, point well taken. My comments are simply personal observations ascertained from numerous sources on the subject such as “Baptists in America” by Thomas S. Kidd and Barry Hankins, “Establishing Religious Freedom: Jefferson’s Statute in Virginia” by Thomas Buckley, to name a couple. The personal writings of Jefferson, Madison, John Leland, Isaac Backus, Samuel Davies, and others have also been very illuminating. Of course, Scripture provides the best illumination on the tendencies of human nature. Are you referring to something specific I said?
No Doug, I am a fact checker and researcher by nature. I check almost everything before I accept it as fact. Especially history, which I love, but don’t know all of history off the top of my head and so much that is written online is not true, I like to check the source. Thanks.
One can pastor a Southern Baptist Church today and not practice baptism by immersion, a historical Baptist distinctive, and be a leader in the SBC. I suppose if one does not feel it necessary to stand with Muslims in a religious liberty case they are no less Baptist.
Dean, it was great to finally meet you at the SBC in St. Louis a few weeks ago. You definitely are better looking than I thought based on others’ comments on here. 🙂
Pastor a SB church and be a leader in the SBC and not practice immersion? Say it ain’t so. Is that happening these days?
Les, it is so. The polls I have read show many church now are taking all “alien” baptisms and baptism by immersion is no longer a prerequisite for the Lord’s Supper. Both of these are contrary to all the historical confessions of the SBC that I am familiar with.
My point is just because someone differs from the BF&M on religious freedom, a Baptist distinctive but not a Christian distinctive, he is not less Southern Baptist than the next guy. Of course when I say religious freedom is not a Christian distinctive I am not speaking of our freedom in Christ but what we are discussing here.
Great to see you. Now that you have bragged in my looks you can be looking for something for HOPE. ?
Dean, thanks for the clarification. It seems to me that the ordinance of baptism would carry more importance in Baptist life as to how it is administered than would one’s view of religious liberty. I.e. That if Baptists stop practicing immersion they cease to be Baptists.
But BTW, weren’t some early Baptists (anabaptists) practitioners of sprinkling or pouring?
Les, the Village Church (an SBC congregation at Flower Mound, Texas and wherever else they have campuses) recognizes sprinkling as baptism. They don’t do it themselves, but will receive persons who were sprinkled without requiring they be immersed. An ABCUSA church in Dayton, Ohio practiced infant baptism last year.
Les, I have read some Anabaptist did immerse. I have also read some who deny this. Let’s concede some did sprinkle, but with Anabaptist being drown by edict because they immersed it is apparent immersion meant enough they were willing to die.
Do note I said all SBC confessions I am familiar with call for immersion. I am heartbroken that baptism by immersion has been relegated to option if one wants to be SB.
Robert and Dean,
I found a document about the Whitsitt controversy and read his historical conclusions. Very enlightening, if his historical findings are accurate. See here http://www.landmarkbaptist.org/documents/A_Question_in_Baptist_History_WH_Whitsitt.pdf
Certainly the Landmarkers were not happy.
Anyway, though I as a minister practice immersion and sprinkling (or pouring actually) I think that a SB church should adhere to the BF&M on immersion only, if said church wants to remain a SB church. But really, what recourse do you have as a denomination to stop the practices of say the Village Church? Expulsion from the local association? From the SBC? Do you think this will be done?
Blessings brothers.
Some Anabaptists immersed and some poured. Most of the ones who survived in the Mennonite tradition practice pouring today. Leonard Busher, identified as an Anabaptist in England, spoke of the practice of immersion in his letter to King James in 1614 (Called Religion’s Peace, IIRC). Too bad we don’t know more about him. This is over 25 years before Whitsitt’s 1641 date.
Re Whitsitt, many folks view him as some kind of unbiased historian who was willing to sacrifice his career to portray “true Baptist history” against “popular Baptist history”. As with most things it was not nearly that simple. James Slatton’s book W. H. Whitsitt: The Man and the Controversy shows from Whitsitt’s own writings (diary, letters, etc.) that he wasn’t nearly as baptistic as he appeared to the public and definitely wasn’t unbiased. Read my linked post, or, better yet, read Slatton’s book.
I have no sense of what might be done. Perhaps if this becomes widespread and widely known, churches who hold firmly to immersion only would be driven to do something. It would be interesting to know whether the Village Church participates with other SB’s at the local association level.
To connect this at least to the OP, at least tangentially 🙂 , the liberal element often uses the “distinctive” of “soul liberty” to defend Baptists going off on tangents such as not immersion only. Christians have soul liberty and religious liberty to believe what they wish, but I don’t think they can believe anything they wish and still be considered Baptists.
Well done. I haven’t seen any SBC leaders sign onto this view of Islam and religious liberty. If will hall has I haven’t seen that.
The question of whether or not Islam is a religion for the sake of the First Amendment protections lies in the Supreme Court’s definition of religion. The problem is that SCOTUS has never officially defined religion. Islam has always enjoyed (as far as I know) First Amendment protection implicitly granting them status as a religion. Until someone challenges the idea of whether or not Islam is a religion, its First Amendment protections will stand.
Thanks for a FB user, here is evidence for Islam being considered a religion from the Founding Fathers.
Continue reading: The Founding Fathers and Islam: Library Papers Show Early Tolerance for Muslim Faith.
Gasp. So “making America great again” (if that means getting back to founding principles) would necessarily include a religious tolerance (religious freedom) that would – gasp – NOT BAN ALL MUSLIMS from coming to America (even temporarily) ?
Of course I say that not even really being able to actually discern what Trump actually means by “make America great again”.
To advocate an opposing position on here regarding the Founding Father’s believing Islam was considered a religion, I would just like to interject that though our Founding Father’s are able to interpret their own writings, it does not make them right in their assertions. There was a large debate regarding this matter and Patrick Henry was a bulwark to opposing the ideas of Thomas Jefferson and John Locke. I will follow principles from men who were actually Christians, not diests or pagans. Both Jefferson and Locke were not Christians, though both could appreciate and participate in some Christian acts as evidenced by history.
I choose to follow what I scripture teaches us – 1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me; 2) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
I will follow any man who speaks the truth and I will follow no man who does not.
Bart,
Excellent work here!
If we are going to outlaw Islam because it has a political component, don’t we have to outlaw Christian theonomy as well?
If Russell Moore is for religious freedom for all, then it is certain that people will begin lining up against it.
BillMac, you’re sadly right.
I told someone yesterday – that I’m starting to believe all of the people who have told me that there is a not so merry band of Moore bashers afoot who will seek to inpugn and undermine him at any cost – and I think Dr. Harris’ article illustrates that this is a reality.
I’ve had my disagreements with Dr. Moore (more over process than principle) – but come on this is ridiculous.
I think the “other side” in this issue has a point worth considering and not merely dismissing out of hand.
The reasoning goes like this: “If you fight for the religious freedom of those oppressively denying others their religious freedom, you are not really fighting for religious freedom.”
I’m not necessarily sold on it, but I do think this is more than just a case of people forgetting everything they were taught in Baptist History class.
“If you fight for the religious freedom of those oppressively denying others their religious freedom, you are not really fighting for religious freedom.”
No one is doing that, or advocating that. We aren’t advocating religious freedom for people in Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Syria. As far as I know, Muslims in America are not oppressively denying me my religious freedom.
Well, not yet, anyway. Just give them a little time. Our friends across the pond can explain exactly how it works.
Bart:
This is an excellent blog post. I have forwarded it to many of my colleagues and friends.
Hope to see you in St. Louis.
One other question.
Wouldn’t the Baptist position on church state issues and religious freedom disqualify Baptists from being “Reformed”?
I know that there are many Baptists who embrace a more Reformed understanding of the nature of election and salvation. This would include many of the SBC founders, including those who founded The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
But since Baptists take the view that you have articulated regarding church state relations and religious freedom, that is one of the many reasons why Baptists cannot be both Baptist and Reformed.
Other issues like this include the Baptist view of the ordinances vs. the Reformed view of Sacraments.
Wow, Louis…are you TRYING to pick a fight?
No.
Have you ever read the WCF or the London Baptist Confession? Because that would answer your question.
The Reformers were all for State Churches, and for the Church controlling the state. Just ask Servetus and the AnaBaptists what it was like to not go along with the Reformers.
David
David,
Would the Munster Anabaptists agree? I’m assuming you think Baptist come from Anabaptists, which of whom the Munster Anabaptists were among the most popular (though many would not like to admit it).
Also, the WCF, which is the standard reformed document, rejects a state church. Soooooo
Tyler, stop bringing facts into this – it interrupts the flow of accusation and innuendo.
Vol, the Anabaptist taught conditional security ….. so those who claim to be from their heritage must do so as well – eh?
Or perhaps there is variance. Perhaps people can agree with the reformers or the Anabaptists on some points and reject other positions they held at the same time?
And David: I would think you would go along with the Servetus decision, after all your SBCToday roasts people all the time.
Debbie,
I haven’t heard of anyone that the SBCToday crowd has burned at the stake. I have not heard of any of them putting anyone into prison for not attending Church, either. I haven’t heard of them tying a stone around anyone’s neck and throwing them into a river, either.
Besides, Debbie, I have absolutely NOTHING to do with SBC Today; nothiing. So, why would you call it “My SBC Today?”
DAvid
Debbie,
One more thing, I do enjoy reading most of the posts at SBC Today. They’re very good, intelligent, and inspiring.
David
Louis, could you expand a bit on why Baptists cannot be Reformed based on this article? And what about the Baptist ordinances vs the Redormed sacraments preclude Baptists from being Reformed? And I presume that by Reformed, you are talking about soteriology, not the fullness of say the WCF. But then there’s the LBC.
Thanks Louis.
Les:
No, I am talking about the full WCF and all of its concepts.
I am not an expert on being “Reformed”, and frankly, worrying about or claiming that label is not very interesting to me.
The reason I brought this up is that my friends who are Reformed, and my friends who are really knowledgable about such things, have repeatedly said to me that when Baptists call themselves Reformed, what they mean is that they agree with Reformed soteriology. Baptists, they say, cannot really be Reformed.
I know that one major reason is the way Baptists treat the ordinances. But I had thought another aspect had to do with the way Baptists viewed church state issues. I may be wrong on that point. There may be some commonality, but I suspect there may be differences, as well. Hence, my question.
Do you Baptist guys who call yourself Reformed consider yourselves to be Reformed, or do you simply agree with Reformed soteriology?
And do your knowledgeable friends who are Reformed and are not Baptist agree with your position that you are in fact Reformed?
“…and frankly, worrying about or claiming that label is not very interesting to me.”
And yet you’re the one who brought it up….
Thanks Louis. I see now what you were saying. The history of the issue of church and state is a complex one. I’d suggest you read about the Reformation in England and Scotland for starters to get a picture of how church/state played out there among Reformed adherents as well as others not necessarily Reformed.
To kick it off, check out this brief summary of church/state by and OPC guy. There are som interesting comm MTS in there regarding Islam. God bless.
http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=43
Thanks for this article!
Excellent post Bart. I have often disagreed with you on issues but I want to congratulate you for making such an excellent defense of Baptist historical beliefs that are based on scripture.
Dear Bart,
I have great respect for both Dr. Gerald Harris and Dr. Bart Barber. I think you are both good Baptists, scholars, and gentlemen.
Years ago, Certs Breath Mints had a commercial on television and their main tag was: Certs in two, two mints in one! In essence they were saying it was both a breath mint and a candy mint.
Islam is two, two forces in one. One is a religion (some would say a religion of peace. However, it is also a political force. In the more radical versions we see the politics of Jihad.
Just my observation: I see you speaking to the religious side of Islam. And, I see Dr. Harris speaking to the side that represents the politics of Jihad. You know–the side that knocked down the twin towers on 9/11 and we lost 3,000 Americans.
The Täuferjäger (Anabaptist hunters) are gone from Europe. Ferdinand I is long dead. Japan’s living god is gone. Hitler is gone. Church of England has lost its world power. Thank God that Leland didn’t settle for religious toleration but pushed for true religious liberty.
One political force and power still remains after 1,400 years: The politics of Jihad. Vast areas of formerly Christian and Hindu lands are now under Islamic rule due to decades of slow subjugation through Shira law.
Good Baptists should be able to sit down this summer – and enjoy a cold RC cola and moon pie and discuss how we maintain our historic belief and practice of true religious liberty with our Islamic friends – and —how we deal with the militant side that believes the Kafir (unbelievers, infidels) must be actively resisted politically so that Islam dominates the globe.
What about that RC Cola and Moon Pie Summit?
Ron,
A plus comment, as usual.
David
I think some commenters here are conflating religious liberty in this country with global religious liberty. I think most of us defending the rights of Muslims to build mosques and worship freely are talking about America. We aren’t defending the rights of ISIS or Al-Queda or Boko Haram. Harris isn’t talking about curtailing these groups, he’s talking about taking denying Muslims religious freedom in this country because of what he thinks all Muslims really believe.
Gerald Harris, asked about his column, said he would like to talk to CAIR about allowing churches in Mecca. He should, rather, get an audience with Salman, King of Saudi Arabia about that. If we treat religious liberty like an international trade agreement, your country allows access to markets by our merchants and we will do the same, we lose religious liberty.
Moore and every other Baptist leader is right. Harris is wrong. Nothing personal but aberrant views should be addressed when and where they are found and from whomever they are espoused.
What Harris has not done, and I doubt he will attempt it, is to outline the parameters for acceptable religions and the governmental bureaucracy given the authority to make such determinations.
William, I think you’re right that we can’t apply First Amendment protections internationally. However, I’d love to hear that conversation wherein CAIR is asked about religious freedom from an Islamic perspective, churches in Mecca, etc.
Such a conversation would get interesting if the Muslims being addressed did not believe in religious freedom and that Sharia Law should be followed, yet they still wanted to take advantage of American religious freedoms.
The more I read about the details of this case, the less convinced I am that this mosque was treated any differently than many churches would be treated.
Towns are notorious for denying zoning ordinances and putting up other construction roadblocks for all kinds of religious groups. How do we know that this mosque is not being treated just like any church would be?
Does this mean that the ERLC is going to file a brief in favor of EVERY church, mosque and synagogue across America that has a local dispute with governing officials over construction matters?
YES, all faith groups in America should have the religious liberty to worship according to the dictates of their conscience. But zoning disputes and construction permits may or may not really fit under this category.
Also, why did the IMB join with the ERLC instead of NAMB if this is only an AMERICAN matter and not an international one?
Rick, I am wondering the same things.
Also, a pastor friend wonder if any SBC money was used to file the briefing. He believes more people will begin asking this question, too.
i’m in no way attempting to speak for Dr. Moore as to why he chose to join this Particular religious liberty cause – but could it be because that he feels that the argument would be more effective for universal religious liberty if it is not a Baptist church that they are defending? Might that be the strategy? At least in part? Defending a Baptist church could come across is simply self serving – defending a group that is so obviously not Baptist could put a different perspective on it.
Also the argument that they’re not being treated unfairly because New Jersey treats other religious like this – so your argument is that governmental religious discrimination and suppression of religious liberty is OK as long as they’re consistent about it?
Not quite. I’m just arguing that PERHAPS there is a distinction between the kind of annoying governmental red tape ALL groups must endure—whether religious or not—and the denial of the religious liberty right for groups to worship freely as they please.
No one told these Muslims they could not pray five times a day. No one told them they could not observe Ramadan. No one told them they could not believe in Allah.
What if it’s only a construction permit issue and not really a religious liberty issue?
If construction permit requirements discriminate against houses of worship – it is an infringement on religious liberty.
Do you realize your argument that no one is stopping them from practicing the religion – just actually doing so by building a structure to do so in public – is not all that dissimilar similar from the government telling us as conservative Evangelicals: that we can go to church – we can believe that homosexuality is a sin – we can teach people that Homosexuality is a sin – but if any of our church members own a bakery “they must conform”.
As to your first sentence, “Yes, but that’s a big IF. Simply denying the permit does not equal discrimination if other religious and non-religious groups would receive the same treatment.”
As to your second sentence, “No, nothing I have said has anything to do with the homosexual bakery issue, because the premise of my argument is that the REASON the permit was denied was not a religious reason at all. They are free to practice their faith, to live it out in their lives, to own bakeries, to wear their scarves, to read the Koran, and to practice their faith, but they cannot build a mosque in that spot—and neither can McDonald’s build a restaurant.”
In any event, let me clarify that I support full religious liberty for all religious groups in America. I am simply not certain that this particular case is an example of religious discrimination or if it is only the denial of a construction permit—one that would have been denied regardless of the purpose.
Would you consider it an affront the liberty if only religious groups are forbidden by govt. construction codes?
If the codes are written specifically to keep out religious groups?
If that is the case – a win here – is a win for all religious groups – right?
Sincerely Rick, Would your arguments be what they are today if this were a suit against a locality and the grieved party was a Christian church.
I have evolved (not in a BHO way) on this issue. A couple of years ago my arguments would be more like yours – but through much prayer and thought and watching religious liberties being eroded – I have become much more concerned about universal religious liberty because I see it being eroded right before our eyes and we don’t care because its the Muslims who are the targets and they are “easy to hate on”!
Bart, Alan and Joel have been helpful in this regard too – I was wrong before – I have come to realize either religious liberty matters for all – or none of us are safe from govt. intrusion.
I mean really, now that a candidate for President in the Republican Party is telling us that we as a nation should discriminate against Muslims solely on the basis of religion and its cheered by “evangelicals”, and then he shouts that he will “MAKE retailers say Merry Christmas” it drove me faster to where I was headed anyway.
1. It depends on the reason the government gave for not having a religious group building located in a certain area. Are there bars nearby? Schools? Public cemeteries? These are specific zoning issues.
2. If the codes expressly state: “No religious groups can build here” and this is applied equally to all religious groups, but there is no reason why it should, then yes, I would support all religious groups being able to build there. But I would not necessarily file a brief in one case—for Muslims—if I did not also file a brief for all other cases and all other religions. File those briefs fairly and impartially.
3. There’s that big IF again, Tarheel. Yes…IF.
I think a case can be made that this is about MORE than just religious liberty. Everyone I know, including Gerald Harris, believes in religious liberty. Some people, however, define what is happening with some Muslims today as militant groups POSING as religious groups.
I don’t think we need to grant terrorists the right to build a mosque, under the GUISE of religious liberty, when their intentions are to infiltrate us, terrorize us and implement sharia law.
And yes, I realize that’s a pretty big IF as well.
This issue is complex, in my view. If it’s only a matter of: “Should all religious groups in America have religious liberty?” then I am AOK on board with that. (Yea, Roger Williams and John Leland!)
But if we have national security issues, then I think matters are significantly complicated, in the very same way that they are complicated when we address immigration.
I’m already on the way to St. Louis, spending time with my in-laws. Internet access is…uh…limited out here in the wilds of the Ozarks, although far better than once they were.
So, the question has arisen as to whether laws that apply to everyone else (zoning, etc.) apply to Muslims. Well, of course they do. But, as interesting as that question might be, although it is a question that appears in my comment thread, it is not a question that appears anywhere in Gerald Harris’s article. That article quite pointedly and forcefully addresses the question of whether Muslims—any Muslims—”qualify” for religious liberty.
Dr. Harris is a good writer. The point of his article was clear.
Bart,
Dr. Harris made a clear strong point. You made a clear strong point. That adds up to “2” points.
Since Islam has two sides (religious & political) both sides/points need to be discussed and discerned. Helpful materials need to be written for both laymen and leaders. We need more learning and understanding in the months ahead—not more division.
I encourage you to look up Dr. Harris in St. Louis and plan a time to discuss these matters thoroughly and Brotherly.
Remember, we live in “serious times.”
RFH
But there’s not an equivalency here, as if Barber has a point worth considering and Harris has an equally valid point to consider. Harris is isolated, as Barber pointedly notes. Barber’s position has been tested and evaluated over the centuries. Harris’ position is a recent, ad hoc creation.
I think the value in Harris’ column is in being able to better identify aberrant religious liberty views even when they are found dressed up in a suit and tie and offered by clergy colleagues with some degree of standing.
That’s right, Bart.
“That article quite pointedly and forcefully addresses the question of whether Muslims—any Muslims—”qualify” for religious liberty.”
The fact that Harris’ article even gets written and that Bart’s sound rebuttal has faced so many objections is a sad illustration of the way politics has come to influence our understanding of the Gospel. If the political climate is not what it currently is, with a major nominee proposing religious litmus tests for immigrants, we aren’t having this discussion. This is furthered by the number of Christians who are currently twisting their faith every which way to make that candidate viable for their vote.
If we want to start classifying Islam as a geo-political movement, we better be ready to do the same thing to the Roman Catholic Church- anyone ever been to Vatican City?- as well as some strains of Christianity- any theonomists on the site- which depending on how you view it might make all of Christainity a geo-political movement since some are classing Islam that way based on the views of a minority.
The fact that we are even having a serious discussion about this idea is disturbing
The real root of this debate is a deeper disagreement, I suspect, regarding concepts of national sovereignty and the changing views of political leaders who make decisions.
I suspect that 100 years ago that there was a more general agreement among national leaders about from which countries we should permit immigration and which countries we should not permit immigration or at least restrict it.
One of the reasons may have been the harmful political beliefs of many in the country seeking to immigrate.
Well, today a person can immigrate from almost anywhere. Modern travel and continued development in the Third world has made that possible.
Also, there are economic incentives for the import of cheap labor.
And also, because migration has occurred all over the world, especially Europe, a person who immigrates from England may actually be a Muslim from Pakistan.
And finally there is the ideology that is so popular among both the irreligious and the religious, that it is good yo ha differences and to encourage those differences by letting in more people from other places.
100 years ago it was simple to simply restrict immigration from some places where the people immigrating might want to harm us.
This puts an added strain on the religious liberty question.
It is not one that we cannot successfully negotiate, but it causes a great deal of angst, and it requires great law enforcement diligence. We all know of the concept of the “radical Imam” or the “radical Mosque”. And we know that evil is occurring in those places.
Religious liberty for all is very important, but all of these combined forces cause great concern for many.
I believe the answer is not in the unwarranted restriction of religious liberty or special rules for one religion.
But extra vigilance and tough law enforcement is.
And I will add this.
It continues to be my opinion that Christians do not need to deny or twist their faith to vote for Donald Trump.
There are enough differences between the candidates for a Christian to make a choice in this election.
The psy-opts (sp?) wars in this area are fascinating. The media is playing a big role here.
Yesterday, for example, on NPR I listened to NPR interviews of Bernie supporters. All of the interviews were of Bernie supporters who hated Hillary and thought her unfit, but said they would have to put that aside and vote for her.
At the same time, all of the media stories about Republicans and evangelicals (after Trump’s speech yesterday this may be changing) continue to be about how this person or that person cannot vote for Trump for this reason or that reason.
The continued intended effect of these two contrasting narratives is this. Democrats are being encouraged to overlook Hillary’s sins in the interest of some big prizes, like the Supreme Court, gun control, speech regulation, etc.
Republicans and Conservatives are being encouraged to stand by their individual judgments and convictions even if it means disastrous consequences to their political fortunes and futures.
It will be interesting to see how long this narrative is employed.
In the meantime, I continue to remind people that elections are about comparisons and choices.
Any Christian can compare these candidates and make a choice.
People who choose not to do that can certainly do so,
But none of us should buy into the fallacy that voting for one candidate instead of the other is identifying with that candidate or that it makes the voter complicit in all of the candidate’s beliefs or choices.
Democrats, liberals, socialists etc. are smart enough to have figured that out, and that is one of the many reasons their beliefs and policy choices continue to have great impact.
Bart, I hope you are still following this thread. This question is specifically for you. (Of course, it is a free country and anyone can answer, and I’ll be interested in anyone’s answer. But I want to know what you think.)
You wrote, “Roger Williams argued (and this became the basis for our nation’s approach) that one can differentiate between “the first table of the law” (a man’s relationship with God) and “the second table of the law” (a man’s relationship with other men). Government exists to govern the latter but not the former.”
I agree with this both historically and philosophically. When we look at Williams’s approach, we can see it is conceived in a Judeo-Christian ethic or worldview. Seems to me that one breakdown we’re seeing is the ability of a system conceived within a basically Judeo-Christian framework to govern a people bursting out of that the Judeo-Christian framework. Here I’m thinking more of hedonists, atheists and the like, more than Muslims. For example, we are not troubled by laws that govern man’s relationship to man in areas such as human sacrifice or polygamy, which affects some people’s practice of their religion. On the other hand, many conservative Christians are deeply troubled by laws that require Christian bakers to bake cakes for homosexual weddings (at least I am), which affects our practice of our religion. Couldn’t they argue that they are governing the area of man’s relationship to man, just like these older settled views?
Thanks.
Maybe the President was right when he said this is not a Christian Nation. I happen to agree with him that we are not in a Christian Nation, but we are certainly in a religious nation.
I don’t really know where to post this, but is this a sample of the future?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/a-sharp-spike-in-racist-incidents-reported-after-the-brexit-vote/ar-AAhE8xs?ocid=spartandhp
This is why I think the stands we took in resolutions is so important and why I believe God moved as He did this year at the Convention. The messengers vote on these resolutions will reverberate around the world not just in the United States.
We can surely expect it, Debbie!
See my recent post: https://christcommonwealth.org/2016/06/26/brexit-and-the-breakdown-of-the-bu/