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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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. Readers may be surprised to learn that there may have been hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Muslims in the United States in 1776—imported as slaves from areas of Africa where Islam flourished. Although there is no evidence that the Founders were aware of the religious convictions of their bondsmen, it is clear that the Founding Fathers thought about the relationship of Islam to the new nation and were prepared to make a place for it in the republic. In his seminal Letter on… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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.… Read more »
“…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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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/