Translate

Showing posts with label Church/state issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church/state issues. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 11, 2021

Religious liberty: Hughey and Wogaman

Thoughts on religious liberty, from First Freedom:

Man is made in God’s image; God is able to and does reveal himself to man; the individual is able to deal with God through the only mediator; the state has no ecclesiastical function and a church has no civil authority.

J. D. Hughey [developed] an ethic of religious liberty built on man’s creation in the image of God, the “fundamental Christian teaching of love,” and the Golden Rule.[i]

Philip Wogaman...provides three useful categories of religious freedom and then discusses briefly how the intersection of other rights might affect their exercise. “Absolute religious liberty” is the internal freedom to believe and worship as one pleases. “Qualified absolute religious liberty” is the freedom to profess or to express one’s faith verbally through social communication. He calls this a qualified liberty because “a case must be made for limiting speech which is not designed as communication of faith, knowledge, or opinion but as malicious slander or incitement to action of an illegal sort.” “Qualified religious liberty” is the freedom to act in accordance with one’s religious insights and values. He says this kind of liberty “raises problems” when it is made into an absolute. Issues like withholding medication for religious reasons, education of children, and activities that harm other people require that this liberty be restricted in some manner.[ii]

These are not only useful distinctions; they are reasonable. As we make our claims for religious liberty, and insist on them with zeal, we must keep in mind that humans are still fallen. Some people will abuse any liberty. When they do, government must step in to protect its citizens.


[i] J. D. Hughey, “The Theological Frame of Religious Liberty,” Christian Century 80 (November 6, 1963): 1365–68; cited in First Freedom: The Beginning and End of Religious Liberty, edited by Jason G. Duesing, Thomas White, Malcolm B. Yarnell, p. 15
[ii] Philip Wogaman, Protestant Faith and Religious Liberty (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1967), pp. 182-190; cited in First Freedom: The Beginning and End of Religious Liberty, edited by Jason G. Duesing, Thomas White, Malcolm B. Yarnell, p. 107

Saturday, August 01, 2020

Church, Covid, and State

The church in word and by nature is an assembly. While a church may voluntary choose to temporarily comply with certain advice due to health concerns, governmental restrictions against assembly attacks the very nature of the church.

Saturday, January 12, 2019

Church and State: Government, Established and Limited

It is intriguing that some of those who are first to say the United States of America is not a Christian nation are also some of the first to expect it to act like one! There are wide disagreements, even among Christians, on what people should expect their governments to do. Numerous individuals appeal to the Bible in certain situations to “command” their government to act in a Christian manner. For example, in the case of immigration law appeal may be made to verses about welcoming the stranger for supporting open borders, or in the case of abortion law appeal may be made to verses about not committing murder in opposing killing babies.

Government is established. It does not derive its authority to exist from philosophy or human reasoning, but from God. Ruling authority, or government, exists as a principle established by God, and in actual existence as ordained by God (Romans 13:1-2).[i] Government is limited. Human government is temporal, not eternal. It is restraining, but not redemptive. God is sovereign over kings, rulers, governments. He installs and deposes (Psalm 75:7; Daniel 2:21). Human government, therefore, has authority derived from God, and limited by God (John 19:10-11).

The New Testament does not provide an exhaustive treatment of the subject of government. It lays down principles.[ii] However, the principles laid down all too often are not the primary points of discussion for the addressing the concept or specifics of governing. God established government; God limited government. Working from the broad principles, we may further examine the Bible for details on its expected and intended operation. Let us consider the following New Testament passages.

1. Church and state are unique, separate, and operate in different spheres (though the different spheres will bring them in contact, concord, and conflict with one another).

Matthew 22:21 They say unto him, Cæsar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. (See also Mark 12:17 and Luke 20:25.)

Answering the Pharisees’ treacherous question, Jesus laid down the principle of government operating within its sphere of authority, under God. Those operating in “Cæsar’s” realm owe certain allegiance to “Cæsar.” This “image and superscription” on Cæsar’s coin was a visual way of demonstrating the practical reality of Cæsar’s rule. “But the words that followed raised the discussion into a higher region, and asserted implicitly that that admission did not interfere with the true spiritual freedom of the people, or with their religious duties.”[iii] Followers of God should act as law-abiding citizens of the Roman Empire. Pay your tax to Caesar; the image and superscription demonstrate it is his and within his realm of authority. Give God your life, your allegiance, your love. These do not belong to government.

2. The sphere of the state protects rights and punishes wrongs.

Romans 13:3-5 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
1 Peter 2:13-14 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

Human government is ordained to protect the rights of the governed and punish those who violate the rights of the governed. In civics these are often described as “negative rights” – that is, “The negative role of government involves protecting a citizen in his or her own pursuit of something legitimate.”[iv] These biblical texts establish a “negative role” as government’s primary sphere. The focus is on punishing or executing wrath upon the evildoers, while providing an atmosphere for and praising of good behavior.[v] Those who are evil may be encouraged to respect the rights of others because they fear the “sword” or “wrath” of the governing authority. Government should be a neutral judge and guardian of its governed, providing equal access to all to these “negative” benefits. The rulers should be God’s ministers – that is, servants – of justice for all.

3. The function of the state provides order and stability.

1 Timothy 2:1-2 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

Government should serve the common good – not just the good of the governors, but also the good of the governed. The governed pray and intercede for the governors. Good government provides law, order, and stability in place of anarchy.[vi] Christians pray for leaders to succeed in providing these. When the government is functioning properly, the governed are able to live “a quiet and peaceable life” without fear and looking over their shoulders. In the order and peace provided, there is a place where judgment is accorded[vii] and good is encouraged and rewarded. At its best good government appreciates human dignity (that man is created in God’s image, Genesis 1:27) and acknowledges human depravity (that all men are sinners, Romans 3:23).

4. The response of the church/Christian is submitting to good citizenship.

Romans 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
Titus 3:1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,
1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake:

“Submit” and “be subject” are acts of volition. The Christian, in obedience to God, submits to his established authority, human government. The Christian “seeks the peace of the city” where he dwells (cf. Jeremiah 29:7) and the good of his neighbor (Romans 15:2). The submission to authority is “for conscience sake.” The submission is voluntary but not absolute. It is submission to the governing authorities in their sphere and function. Absolute submission belongs only to God. The use of “submit” and “be subject” in these verses implies that the governed may have reason to disobey the government.[viii] See Acts 5:29, where Peter admonished the Jewish authorities whose command circumvented God’s command – “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” Paul wrote, “but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God” (Romans 2:29). Government should deal with matters of conduct, not matters of the heart. We must render to God the things that are God’s. Government cannot command the allegiance of the heart.


[i] Cf. also Genesis 9:5-6.
[ii] On the other hand, the Old Testament is clear about the establishment of one particular theocracy – Israel – in which God is the giver of law and head of government. This establishment, however, is only for the covenant people of Israel and not applicable to principles to government for all times and places. Nevertheless, there are principles and lessons to glean from the Old Testament concerning government. For example, the prophet Amos condemns the transgressions of the nations of Damascus, Gaza, Tyrus, Edom, Ammon, and Moab before turning his sights on Judah and Israel (Amos chapters 1 and 2). These nations and their rulers – though pagan – were responsible before God for not fulfilling as well as abusing their ruling authority.
[v] In contrast, the idea of the “positive role” of government focuses on providing goods and services to the governed – such as healthcare or welfare.
[vi] The opposite of governance is anarchy – confusion and disorder; a state of society without government or law; political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control.
[vii] settled; reconciled.
[viii] Sometimes the Christians supports his government; sometimes he endures it. Unfortunately, at times he must disobey it. At all times the Christian should pray for his government.

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Bernie Sanders errs on religion

Bernie Sanders: Muslims Should Have Religious Freedom, But Christians Shouldn’t -- "Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders believes Muslims should be judged by their “views and abilities,” not by their religion. When it comes to Christians? Not so much."
SBC leader says senator’s religious questioning out of bounds -- "No religious test shall ever be required of those seeking public office."
Sanders’ Religious Test -- "The idea that Christians with mainstream Christian beliefs have no place in government might be the most extreme thing that this extreme politician has ever said."

Friday, May 12, 2017

Selfishness?

In an opinion piece in the Dallas Morning News, Mark Wingfield, associate pastor of Wilshire Baptist Church in Dallas, tells us How to tell the difference between religious persecution and selfishness.

To make his point, Wingfield builds three scenarios. First a Christian couple is told by a Jewish baker, “Sorry, we don’t bake cakes for Christian weddings.” Next, a person in an emergency is told by a doctor, “I’m a Muslim and my faith will not allow me to do the procedure you need to live.” Finally, a manicurist is recommended to a Christian. When she arrives for the manicure she feels out of place because every other client there is lesbian. “The clear but unspoken message is that straight Christian women who don’t condone same-sex relationships are not welcome here.”

By now the author expects he has worked the Christian reader into a frothing fury. (And perhaps some are.) He has illustrated how selfish are Christians who to hope to live out their faith – and what whiners they are if they are not satisfied when they can’t. He has us on the ropes (he thinks) when he asserts “What we expect of others, we must be willing to do ourselves.”

For my part I am quite willing. I am quite willing to expect that the Jewish baker not use his artistic talent to create something for me that offends him. If I know ahead of time, I won’t ask. If I don’t know in time and then find out, I will withdraw. If I am uncomfortable with the clientele of a certain business, I will leave that business alone to do as they please. I will neither assert my rights nor sue them at court (1 Cor. 6:1-6; 8:9). I will apply my “Golden Rule” – knowing I hope to be left alone to pursue my religion and ethics, I will leave them alone as well. Matthew 7:12 “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Wingfield’s application would force the African-American baker to use his creative talents to serve the Ku Klux Klan. Mine says leave him alone.

The third illustration is unlike the other two, and is apparently a gratuitous swipe against doctors who refuse to provide abortions? Yet an emergency room service in which life-saving measures are refused is unlike refusing to take a life via an abortion procedure. Apples and oranges, as they say. If one says, “What about the life of the mother,” I would answer that most doctors will hardly refuse to make a medical decision to save one life when they cannot save two. That is unlike making a moral decision to kill a baby for the purpose of killing a baby.

I will not spend time whining about religious persecution, and, as much as in me is, I hope not be so selfish as to bind the consciences of others to force them to serve me.

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

“Now that’s funny”


Original Hondo Welcome Sign


Last summer the city of Hondo, Texas came under scrunity for their welcome signs. The signs on either end of town on Highway 90 advise drivers “Welcome: This is God’s Country. Please don’t drive through it like Hell. Hondo, Texas.”

The comedian called Larry The Cable Guy is known for the phrase “Now that’s funny. I don’t care who you are.” It seems that would apply to the Hondo “Welcome” signs. Not so. Apparently any public mention of God draws the ire of the angry atheists in the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Apparently humorless heathens and stodgy skeptics are thoroughly damaged by the sign – permanently wounded with a scar that will never heal! That’s why the FFRF demands that the city of Hondo remove the signs. Standing by their theme, Hondo Mayor James Danner asserted, “There’s no way in hell we’re going to take those signs down.”

There are legitimate reasons to be angry and offended. This isn’t one of them. It is much easier to get through life with a little sense of humor. So, all you atheists out there – and any theists who might be offended by their “close to cursing” use of “hell” – just take a deep breath. Now, repeat after me, “Now that’s funny. I don’t care who you are.”



Current Hondo Welcome Sign

Friday, March 17, 2017

Early Christians on Religious Liberty

This is a quick gathering and posting of some quotes from early church fathers related the topic of religious liberty.[i] It would have been done much better by those more familiar with the “fathers”. Some quotes are posted twice (from different translations). Many think that the Christian vision of religious liberty is a modern construct, but these quotes demonstrate contrariwise.

Justin Martyr (ca. 100 – 165 AD): For the coming into being at first was not in our own power; and in order that we may follow those things which please Him, choosing them by means of the rational faculties He has Himself endowed us with, He both persuades us and leads us to faith. And we think it for the advantage of all men that they are not restrained from learning these things, but are even urged thereto. For the restraint which human laws could not effect, the Word, inasmuch as He is divine, would have effected, had not the wicked demons, taking as their ally the lust of wickedness which is in every man, and which draws variously to all manner of vice, scattered many false and profane accusations, none of which attach to us. (The First Apology, Chapter 10, translated by Marcus Dods and George Reith)

Tertullian (ca. 160 – ca. 240 AD): “Let one man worship God, another Jupiter; let one lift suppliant hands to the heavens, another to the altar of Fides; let one – if you choose to take this view of it – count in prayer the clouds, and another the ceiling panels; let one consecrate his own life to his God, and another that of a goat. For see that you do not give a further ground for the charge of irreligion, by taking away religious liberty, and forbidding free choice of deity, so that I may no longer worship according to my inclination, but am compelled to worship against it. Not even a human being would care to have unwilling homage rendered him.” (Apology, Chapter 24, Translated by S. Thelwall)

Tertullian: “We are worshippers of one God, of whose existence and character Nature teaches all men; at whose lightnings and thunders you tremble, whose benefits minister to your happiness. You think that others, too, are gods, whom we know to be devils. However, it is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions: one man's religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion – to which free-will and not force should lead us – the sacrificial victims even being required of a willing mind.” (Ad Scapulam, Chapter 2, Translated by S. Thelwall.)

Tertullian: “It is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions. One man’s religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is not the nature of religion to compel religion. Religion ought to be adopted voluntarily and not by force.” (Ad Scapulam Chapter 2, Translator unknown)

Tertullian: “It is the law of mankind and the natural right of each individual to worship what he thinks proper, nor does the religion of one man either harm or help another. But, it is not proper for religion to compel men to religion, which should be accepted of one’s own accord, not by force, since sacrifices also are required of a willing mind. So, even if you compel us to sacrifice, you will render no service to your gods.” (Ad Scapulam , Chapter 2, translated by Arbesmann, Daly, and Quain, as quoted in Religious Liberty and the Early Church)

Tertullian: “Moreover, the injustice of forcing men of free will to offer sacrifice against their will is readily apparent, for, under all other circumstances, a willing mind is required for discharging one’s religious obligations. It certainly would be considered absurd were one man compelled by another to honor gods whom he ought to honor of his own accord and for his own sake." (Apology, Chapter 28; translated by Emily J. Daly and Edwin A. Quain, as quoted in Religious Liberty and the Early Church)

Tertullian: “But you had best see to it whether this does not concur to the making up of another article of irreligion against you—namely, to deprive men of the liberty of worshipping after their own way, and to interdict them the option of their deity; so that I must not worship the god I would, but am forced to worship the god I would not; and yet it is agreed upon on all hands, that forced or unwilling services are not grateful either to God or man; and for this reason even the Egyptians are tolerated in their superstition, which is the very vanity of vanities : they are permitted to make gods of birds and beasts, and to make it capital to be the death of any of these kinds of deities.” (Apology, Chapter 24, translated and annotated by William Reeve, The Ancient and Modern Library of Theological Literature, Vol. 31, 1889)

Melito of Sardis (d. ca. 180 AD): “But this request alone we present to you, that you would yourself first examine the authors of such strife, and justly judge whether they be worthy of death and punishment, or of safety and quiet. But if, on the other hand, this counsel and this new decree, which is not fit to be executed even against barbarian enemies, be not from you, much more do we beseech you not to leave us exposed to such lawless plundering by the populace.” (Apology to the Emperor, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book IV, 26:6, translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert)

Origen (ca. 185 – 254 AD): “For Christians could not slay their enemies, or condemn to be burned or stoned, as Moses commands, those who had broken the law, and were therefore condemned as deserving of these punishments...” (Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 26, translated by Frederick Crombie)

Cyprian (ca. 200 – 258 AD): “What is this insatiable madness for torture, what this interminable lust for cruelty?...why do you apply tortures to me...Why, when I pronounce myself a Christian in a crowded place with people standing all around, and confound you and your gods by a clear and public pronouncement, why do you concern yourself with the weakness of the body, why do you contend with the feebleness of earthly flesh? Attack the vigor of the mind, break the strength of the mind, destroy faith; conquer, if you can, by discussion, conquer by reason. (Chapter 13) “Indeed, if your gods have any divinity and power, let them themselves rise to their vindication, let them themselves defend themselves by their own majesty...You should be ashamed to worship those whom you yourself defend; you should be ashamed to hope for protection from those whom you protect.” (Chapter 14) (Treatises, Ad Demetrian, Chapters 13-14 in Treatises, The Fathers of the Church, Volume 36)

Lactantius (ca. 250 – ca. 320 AD): “Religion being a matter of the will, it cannot be forced on anyone. In this matter it is better to employ words than blows…Religion is the one field in which freedom has pitched her tent, for religion is, first and foremost, a matter of free will, and no man can be forced under compulsion to adore what he has no will to adore...Of what use is cruelty? What has the rack to do with piety?... For nothing is so intrinsically a matter of free will as religion”. (Divine Institutes 5, translator unknown)

Lactantius: “Who is so insolent, so lofty as to forbid me to raise my eyes to heaven, to impose on me the necessity either of worshiping what I do not want to or of not worshiping what I wish?” (Divine Institutes 5.14, translated by Mary F. McDonald)

Lactantius: “For who is so arrogant, who so lifted up, as to forbid me to raise my eyes to heaven? Who can impose upon me the necessity either of worshipping that which I am unwilling to worship, or of abstaining from the worship of that which I wish to worship?” (Divine Institutes 5.14, translated by William Fletcher)

Lactantius: “And nothing can be more true than this, if it is referred to those who refuse no tortures, no kind of death, that they may not turn aside from faith and justice; who do not tremble at the commands of tyrants nor the swords of rulers, so as not to maintain true and solid liberty with constancy of mind, which wisdom is to be observed in this alone. For who is so arrogant, who so lifted up, as to forbid me to raise my eyes to heaven? Who can impose upon me the necessity either of worshipping that which I am unwilling to worship, or of abstaining from the worship of that which I wish to worship? What further will now be left to us, if even this, which must be done of one's own will, shall be extorted from me by the caprice of another? No one will effect this, if we have any courage to despise death and pain.” (Divine Institutes 5.14, translated by William Fletcher, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7)

Lactantius: “There is no occasion for violence and injury, for religion cannot be imposed by force; the matter must be carried on by words rather than by blows, that the will may be affected. Let them unsheath the weapon of their intellect; if their system is true, let it be asserted. We are prepared to hear, if they teach; while they are silent, we certainly pay no credit to them, as we do not yield to them even in their rage. Let them imitate us in setting forth the system of the whole matter: for we do not entice, as they say; but we teach, we prove, we show. And thus no one is detained by us against his will, for he is unserviceable to God who is destitute of faith and devotedness; and yet no one departs from us, since the truth itself detains him. Let them teach in this manner, if they have any confidence in the truth; let them speak, let them give utterance; let them venture, I say, to discuss with us something of this nature; and then assuredly their error and folly will be ridiculed by the old women, whom they despise, and by our boys.” (Divine Institutes 5.20, translated by William Fletcher, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7)



[i] These quotes do not imply endorsement of all posited by these authors, but demonstrate the concept of religious liberty was on their minds. For example, written sometime before 180 AD, Melito’s statement to the emperor demonstrate that he did not believe either pagans or Christians should be persecuted.

Patrick of Ireland on Religious Liberty

Okay. Patrick of Ireland did not write a treatise on religious liberty. Or specifically mention it in his writings. But it is St. Patrick’s Day. And what I have below is a quote from Patrick of Ireland (from two different translations). In his letter to the soldiers of Coroticus Patrick asserted that Christians should be able to exist and worship free of molestation, appealed not to authorities but directly to the guilty parties, and showed that those who had molested Christians were guilty before God and that God, not Patrick, would take care of it.

“That is why I will cry aloud with sadness and grief: O my fairest and most loving brothers and sisters whom I begot without number in Christ, what am I to do for you? I am not worthy to come to the aid either of God or of human beings. The evil of evil people has prevailed over us. We have been made as if we were complete outsiders. Can it be they do not believe that we have received one and the same Baptism, or that we have one and the same God as father. For them, it is a disgrace that we are from Ireland. Remember what Scripture says: ‘Do you not have the one God? Then why have you each abandoned your neighbour?’”
From Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus © 2011 Royal Irish Academy

“Because of all this, my voice is raised in sorrow and mourning. Oh, my most beautiful, my lovely brethren and my sons ‘whom I begot in Christ,’ I have lost count of your number, what can I do to help you now? I am not worthy to come to the help of God or men. ‘We have been overwhelmed by the wickedness of unjust men,’ it is as if ‘we had been made outsiders.’ They find it unacceptable that we are Irish. But it says ‘Is it not true that you all have but one God? Why then have you, each one of you, abandoned your own neighbor?’”
From Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus, translated by John Skinner in his book The Confession of St. Patrick

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Practical thoughts on religious liberty and spiritual adultery

Often when we speak and write on religious liberty versus spiritual adultery we may speak in abstract terms of doctrine, without understanding or explaining how the right view of doctrine applies to our practice. There is a fine line for Christians to walk between supporting freedom of religious views and actions while not bidding Godspeed to those who do not hold the true doctrine of Christ. Trying to find exactly where this fine line is can be a matter of Christian liberty. Here are some (in my opinion) practical suggestions on dealing with religious liberty and spiritual adultery.

I have mentioned a number of times the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and the Muslim mosque amicus brief. I am not a Southern Baptist and the outcome of their internal debate is not personally applicable to me. We do not support the SBC Cooperative Program or the ERLC, neither do we engage in any denominational programs, policies or politics in such ways. Nevertheless, the situation has brought forth a broad debate concerning religious liberty and spiritual adultery, not only among Southern Baptists, but a broad spectrum of Christians throughout the United States. It is a debate that should be had. [See More on Moore.] I don’t believe there is some vast sin or collusion with evil in simply presenting an amicus brief that asks a government to abide by the laws it has on the books. I don’t see this as the same as aiding and abetting the spread of Islam. That said, if I had been making the decision, I wouldn’t have filed the brief. Not filing the brief is not the same as actively working against the right to religious freedom, and entering the legal arena is not the wisest use of church time and money. [E.g., “The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends.” – Baptist Faith and Message]

A recent freedom of religion situation in Georgia involves a preacher of a different faith and practice than Baptists. Eric Walsh, a doctor who is also a lay preacher in the Seventh Day Adventist Church, accepted employment as a director for the Georgia Department of Public Health. Walsh is a highly regarded and highly accomplished member of the medical community. Shortly after he accepted the position, someone found out from his sermons online what he believed on homosexuality (among other things). The Georgia Department of Public Health retracted his job offer.[i] Despite having serious disagreements on doctrinal issues with the Seventh Day Adventists, I find no compromise or spiritual adultery in defending and supporting the rights of Eric Walsh. My support for his right to employment free from inspection of his religious beliefs does not equal support for his religious beliefs. Such support could, at least in theory, increase his ability to proclaim the doctrines which he believes and I do not. Yet that support is not spiritual adultery, but rather support of religious liberty.

Here’s an illustration of how I try to walk the fine line and reconcile the existence of religious liberty and spiritual adultery. I believe in religious liberty. I believe we should avoid spiritual adultery. I believe the group called Jehovah’s Witnesses do not hold the true doctrine of Christ. If a Jehovah’s Witness owns a mini-mart I don’t automatically refuse to shop there based on that fact[ii] – even though I realize if the owner is an active Jehovah’s Witness that he or she may use some of the proceeds from the business to support their false worship. But I am not supporting the false worship. I am simply shopping at a business, and the owners choose to do what they will with the profit from their business (as with any owner of any business). If we can’t do any business with anyone engaged in false worship “then must we needs go out of the world (I Cor. 5:10).” On the other hand, the Jehovah’s Witnesses might host a bake sale to raise money for their Kingdom Hall. I can support their freedom to have the bake sale free of molestation and with the same rights as any other group that might host a bake sale – but I won’t be buying any of their bread. This is directly and deliberately supporting their false worship. Christians may have trouble deciding and even come to different answers whether shopping at a store owned by a Jehovah Witness, buying the Jehovah’s Witnesses’s bread at their fundraiser, or supporting their right to have the fundraiser are all the same kind of relationship of the Christian to those who do not hold the true doctrine of Christ (or if they are substantially different).




[i] Walsh won a suit against the Georgia Department of Public Health for religious discrimination. Dr. Eric Walsh Exonerated in Georgia Discrimination Case
[ii] Actually I am never consumed with the idea of finding out who owns a store where I shop.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Biblical principles of religious liberty

In our current climate some American Christians, lacking a firm foundation in the faith, are questioning and even renouncing the ideal of religious exercise for all, free of government compulsion or restriction.

Biblical principles of religious liberty can be found in:
  • The supernatural creation of mankind. God made man in his image, and he is the supreme authority to whom they must give account. Only God and his moral law bind our consciences. Obeying God may mean disobeying lesser authorities (Cf. Dan. 3:1-30; Acts 5:29).
  • The exclusivity of God’s salvation. God can and does reveal himself to man, and individuals are only able to deal with God through the mediator Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:4-6). Neither priests nor powers may mediate God’s salvation to man, and individual Christians and churches only proclaim it. Salvation is of the Lord, by grace through faith, not by man or his works – most certainly not by the works of human power, the sword or coercion![i]
  • The specific nature of the Lord’s commandment. The Lord’s commandment to his churches is to make disciples by preaching the gospel, baptizing them in water, and teaching them all things he has commanded (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:46-49; Acts 1:8). We have no commission of force, no commission of coercion.[ii] But we have a commission. It belongs only to the Lord’s churches and not to human authorities or secular governments. The state has no ecclesiastical function and a church has no civil authority.[iii] As individuals we seek God’s kingdom and His righteousness; as churches we preach the gospel, baptize and teach the commands of Jesus. The world is at enmity with God and His righteousness; we must not be complicit with the world. There is a command to preach the gospel; there is no command to compel others to accept it.
  • The otherworldly distinction of the Lord’s kingdom. God’s kingdom and his people are “not of the world.” The kingdom of heaven and the kingdoms of this world are distinct, and operate in different spheres on different principles. The sword of the kingdoms of this world is a sword of steel, but the sword of the kingdom of heaven is the sword of the Spirit, the word of God. The sword of the kingdoms of this world operates in the temporal realm, enforcing outward conformity and punishing evildoers and lawbreakers. The sword of the kingdom of heaven operates in the spiritual realm, convicting and convincing sinners in their hearts and souls. There is neither precept nor example of the Lord’s New Testament churches exercising rule by the sword of the flesh. They have been given one sword. They operate by the sword of the Spirit.
  • The suffering of the saints and their general predisposition toward non-violence. “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:10). Jesus calls upon his people to suffer for the cause of Christ and not resist or retaliate.[iv] Put up the sword and rather be struck upon the cheek.  The servant aspect of Christian leadership is found in the explicit declarations of our Lord (Matthew 20:25-27; John 12:26; 15:20) and in the example of the towel and the basin (John 13). Jesus’s washing his disciples’ feet teaches us a perspective on power. It teaches us to serve God by serving others.
  • The ultimate judgment in God’s hands. The Parable of the Wheat and Tares (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43) inculcates this truth for us regarding non-interference. For the protection of the wheat we are not to root out tares – lest in so doing we injure the wheat also. In the world, both wheat and tares grow together. God will separate them, unsparingly and with divine precision. In the gathered body, the church exercises spiritual judgment (1 Corinthians 5-6), and God judges those in the world (1 Corinthians 5:12-13).
Following these principles, we humble ourselves to worship the God of heaven and earth and carry forth his gospel to the ends of the earth. We desire to inoculate against feignedly worshiping God or promoting feigned worship. Since faith is a gift of God that cannot be forced or compelled by man, we will not use or promote either religious or secular methods that compel others to an outward conformity of faith apart from the work of God. We leave them alone to answer before God, for all must “give account of himself to God”. (Romans 14:12)



[i] Ephesians 2:8; Faith is a gift of God that cannot be forced or compelled by man.
[ii] The Baptist church ideal of voluntary baptism and church membership based upon true conversion through repentance, belief and a profession of faith is in full accord with this principle. Membership in a Baptist church is always voluntary – both on the part of the church and the person requesting membership. None are compelled to be members. Churches affirm those who have repented, believed, and been baptized. Church membership is voluntary with regard to outward coercion, but demanded obedience according to the command of Christ (Heb. 10:25).
[iii] That is, it is the duty of government to establish laws and punish civil crimes, such as murder and theft. A church may “punish” these as sins – not by the sword, but by exclusion from church and/or Christian fellowship. The government’s authority exists temporally over those within its geographical realm, and a church’s authority exists spiritually over those within its local gathering. In Matthew 22:20-22 it is recorded that Jesus delineated a clear distinction from what is given to God and what is given to the state, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”
[iv] The true churches suffer rather than inflict suffering.

Footnotes on Religious Liberty

In Biblical principles of religious liberty I began with the phrase “In our current climate.” I decided some people might immediately think of Donald Trump and the current government, so I want to clarify. There are some issues that the President has waded into – e.g. promised to repeal the Johnson Amendment – but that was not foremost in my mind. Three examples of what is foremost in my mind are:
According Philip Wogaman, absolute religious liberty is defined as “the internal freedom to believe and worship as one pleases.”[i] We advocate that without restriction. Absolute religious liberty is sometimes “qualified” in both the freedom to express one’s faith or to act in accordance with one’s beliefs without restraint. Activities that a government deems harmful to other people under its supervision may cause them to limit or restrain the liberty to act.[ii] This might be summed up by saying that the right of conscience/right to believe is absolute and inviolable; while the right to practice is not absolute in reference to government regulations (polygamy and human sacrifice are not allowed under the U.S. vision of religious liberty). The Religious Freedom Restoration Act also recognizes this and seeks to strike a balance between religious liberty and government interest, providing that the United States can burden “a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

In situations like the internal problems in the Southern Baptist Convention with the ERLC and IMB, all should promote, support and defend religious liberty, while understanding that on some of the details of how to accomplish that they may have to “agree to disagree”. In cases like Arlene’s Flowers, interested individuals (such as the complainants) and the government should give the widest latitude possible to conscience. In hiring and firing, employers should not apply religious tests that do not relate to that employment.




[i] Philip Wogaman, Protestant Faith and Religious Liberty, Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1967, pages 182–90.
[ii] (1) In speech, for example, slander or incitement to illegal action being considered harmful to the general welfare of all citizens, the words are restrained and not considered “free speech” or “freedom of religion”. (2) In action, murder being considered harmful to others, religious human sacrifice is restrained by the governmental authority in most countries. An individual may be free to believe human sacrifice is required, but restrained from acting in that form of worship – or punished if that form of worship is acted upon.

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

More on Moore

At the Southern Baptist Convention meeting last June (2016), an Arkansas pastor addressed ERLC President Russell Moore: “Yes. My name is John Wofford. I pastor Armorel Baptist Church in Armorel, Arkansas and I have a question for Dr. Moore. I would like to know how in the world someone within the Southern Baptist Convention can support the defending of rights for Muslims to construct mosques in the United States when these people threaten our very way of existence as Christians and Americans. They are murdering Christians, beheading Christians, imprisoning Christians all over the world. Do you actually believe that if Jesus Christ were here today that He would support this and that He would stand up and say, ‘Well, let us protect the rights of those Baal worshipers to erect temples to Baal?’ Do you believe that Dr. Moore?”

Moore replied, in part, “Sometimes we have to deal with questions that are really complicated and we have to spend a lot of time thinking them through...sometimes we have really hard decisions to make. This isn’t one of those things. What it means to be a Baptist is to support soul freedom for everybody...The answer to Islam is not government power. The answer is the gospel of Jesus Christ and the new birth that comes from that.”

Following up later in the Arkansas Baptist News, Pastor Wofford complained that this is a ‘spiritual issue’ – an issue of unequally yoking together with unbelievers and bidding them God speed – and that Moore did not answer his question. There is a fine line for Christians to walk between supporting freedom of religious views and actions while not bidding Godspeed to those who do not hold the true doctrine of Christ. Perhaps both Pastor Wofford and President Moore both missed the mark.

Pastor Wofford said that he was addressing a spiritual issue of yoking with unbelievers and bidding them God speed – rather than the issue of religious liberty. We ought to accept his explanation, whether or not one agrees with his position. On the other hand, Wofford and others on his side are too hard on Russell Moore about not answering the question. Yes, Moore promoted religious liberty and didn’t really address the “spiritual issue” put forth at the end of the question. Wofford’s “set-up” to his question was somewhat distracting from the point. In the beginning Pastor Wofford apparently alludes to the brief filed by ERLC. Then he goes into the fact of Muslims threatening “our very way of existence,” not only as Christians but also as Americans. When we bring “Americans” into it, it is no longer just a spiritual question, but a temporal one as well. If Pastor Wofford wanted to know about the spiritual issue aspect he didn’t give the best introduction he could have. He must take some responsibility for getting the answer he got and not just blame that on Russell Moore. Moore addressed religious liberty, soul freedom and the right to build – more than specifically whether the ERLC including their name (and that of the SBC) on an amicus brief was a spiritual issue, some kind of unequal yoking with unbelievers. Moore was wrong, and even comes off a bit flippant, when he says “sometimes we have really hard decisions to make. This isn’t one of those things.” But avoiding spiritual adultery while supporting religious liberty is an issue with which many are struggling, and they need “hard” answers that address the entire scope of what they are asking. Some seem to backing into the corner of religious liberty without dealing with spiritual adultery.

I think a sane mind must realize that a major part of the problem is the word “Muslim”. There have been no previous outcries over the ERLC (or IMB for that matter) signing amicus briefs[i] that support or ally with some other religion (for example, the amicus brief in the Little Sisters of the Poor case).[ii]

The government should/must recognize the same kind of religious rights for Muslims as everyone else; I would not go on a crusade to help them get mosques. I agree with the thrust of the brief, which is that “A Muslim mosque cannot be subjected to a different land-use approval process than a Christian church simply because local protesters oppose the mosque.” I believe in our American judicial system. For it to work every person must be given a fair trial with the best legal counsel available. I could not defend someone I knew was guilty. I would support their having someone else do so, because that’s necessary for our system to work. Supporting religious liberty from both a biblical and civil standpoint can be like that.



[i] When you get into issues like the IMB and ERLC filing amicus briefs you also get into an issue of Southern Baptist people feeling like “you are taking my money to further a cause I don’t believe in.” That is always a source of frustration.
[ii] “Revolting as the pagan religion is, it is no better, nor is it any worse than any other worldly religion.  It possesses the essential elements of the religion of Cain, delusion and bloodshed.  It is doubtful whether the human sacrifices made to their idols would suffer by comparison with the religion of the world which in this day claims the Christian name, either papal or Protestant.” – Gilbert Beebe, Signs of the Times, January, 1871

Friday, June 24, 2016

Muslims, Southern Baptists, Religious Liberty and Spiritual Adultery

Sometimes, some Baptists get out of kilter on religious liberty. Not all Baptists are in as much agreement as some might think we are. A motion and a question at the June 2016 meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention highlight that fact.

Leading up to the Convention, Christian Index Editor Gerald Harris asked Do Muslims Really Qualify for Religious Freedom Benefits? -- illustrating a prominent SBC leader opposing full religious liberty for Muslims. At the Convention on Tuesday, June 14, 2016 an Arkansas pastor moved “that all Southern Baptist officials or officers who support the rights of Muslims to build Islamic mosques in the United States be immediately removed from their position within the Southern Baptist Convention.” (The motion was ruled out of order as exceeding the authority of the messengers.) Then on Wednesday morning, during the question-and-answer segment of the report of the Ethics and  Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC (ERLC), the same pastor asked ERLC President Russell Moore: “I would like to know how in the world someone within the Southern Baptist Convention can support the defending of rights for Muslims to construct mosques in the United States when these people threaten our very way of existence as Christians and Americans. They are murdering Christians, beheading Christians, imprisoning Christians all over the world. Do you actually believe that if Jesus Christ were here today that He would support this and that He would stand up and say, ‘Well, let us protect the rights of those Baal worshipers to erect temples to Baal?’ Do you believe that Dr. Moore?”

Moore replied, “What it means to be a Baptist is to support soul freedom for everybody. Brothers and sisters, when you have a government that says 'we can decide whether or not a house of worship can be constructed based upon the theological beliefs of that house of worship,' then there are going to be Southern Baptist churches in San Francisco and New York and throughout this country who are not going to be able to build...” Following up in the Arkansas Baptist News on Monday, June 20th Pastor John Wofford complained that this is a 'spiritual issue' -- an issue of unequally yoking together with unbelievers and bidding them God speed -- and that Moore did not answer his question.

Let's back up a moment and see Wofford's issue with Moore and the ERLC (and the IMB of the SBC. [1] On May 11, 2016 the ERLC and IMB with 16 other groups filed an Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs in The Islamic Society of Basking Ridge v. Township of Bernards.[2] This was in support of a suit in a religious land use case. The planning board of Bernards Township, New Jersey denied the building of a mosque, ostensibly in a way they would not or had not denied other religious groups. The thrust of the brief of the 18 parties was that “A Muslim mosque cannot be subjected to a different land-use approval process than a Christian church simply because local protesters oppose the mosque.”

Religious liberty
The situation in New Jersey is broadly a First Amendment case, but specifically The Islamic Society lawsuit accused the planning board of Bernards Township with violating 42 U.S. Code § 2000cc - Protection of land use as religious exercise. This law was passed by Congress unanimously in 2000. It protects all houses of worship from undue burden by land use regulations. I agree with the law and the thrust of the brief. The law affords for a Muslim mosque the same rights as a Christian Church, Jewish Synagogue or other religious body. The planning board of Bernards Township would need to show their decision “is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” From what I have read about the case, the planning board did not show compelling governmental interest and rather made the decision based on their feelings about Muslims and terrorism. If I were on the planning board of Bernards Township, I would decide the law allowed the Islamic Society to build a mosque.[3] They should not have an undue burden different for them from other religious groups. That much seems clear-cut to me, and easy to come down on the side of religious liberty as an American citizen. The state should preserve religious liberty for all, equally.

Spiritual adultery
Now for a Christian (at least some Christians) the “spiritual issue” is where the waters get muddy. In his explanation of his question, Pastor Wofford cited such verses as “Thou shalt have no other gods before me...love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind and with all thy strength....Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve...have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather to reprove them...be no unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” He mentions that the apostle John warned us that “if someone comes to us who does not bring the doctrine of Christ, we are not to bid him 'God speed'.” I don't know how far I can go in agreeing with Pastor Wofford, but many have misunderstood his main point and have not directly addressed it: “Would Jesus Christ stand in a court of law, defending the rights of a false religion to erect mosques, temples or other places of worship which are clearly in violation of the First and Second Commandments of God?”

Religious liberty v. Spiritual adultery
As I see it, Pastor Wofford is not discussing what the planning board of Bernards Township should do, but rather what his denomination should do. He is a Southern Baptist. The ERLC is commissioned and supported by Southern Baptists. Is their aligning with false religions in support of a false religion a case of spiritual adultery that violates the Christian's separation from unbelievers and direction to serve God only?

As Christians we should faithfully teach and firmly practice that Jesus is the only name under heaven whereby men must be saved. That cautions in choosing with whom to be involved in various endeavors, and whether those endeavors might compromise our faith and practice. Does filing a brief in a case of undue burden regarding land use and zoning regulations yoke us with unbelievers? Certainly the names of the ERLC and IMB stand equally beside the Interfaith Coalition on Mosques, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Sikh Coalition, and Unitarian Universalists. But does this yoke them with unbelievers? Not necessarily. Does it support “another gospel”? It cannot be refuted that the mosque will teach, proclaim and promote another religion, another guide book and another form of salvation than Jesus Christ as the way, the truth and the life.

The government should/must recognize the same kind of religious rights for Muslims as everyone else. I support them being treated equally, but I would not go on a personal crusade to help them build mosques. If the Jehovah's Witnesses set up a bake sale to raise money for their Kingdom Hall, I support their freedom to do so — but I won’t be buying any of their bread.

Quotes
“All external things including life and limb are subjected to external authority. But no one may coerce of compel true faith in Christ, for it is concerned not with temporal but eternal life.” — Pilgram Marpeck, 1531

“...Christ hath not commanded any king, bishop, or minister to persecute the people for difference of judgment in matters of religion...the king and parliament may please to permit all sorts of Christians; yea, Jews, Turks, and pagans, so long as they are peaceable, and no malefactors, as is above mentioned; which, if they be found to be, under two or three witnesses, let them be punished...persecution for religion is to force the conscience; and to force and constrain men and women's consciences to a religion against their wills, is to tyrannize over the soul, as well as over the body...persecution for difference in religion is a monstrous and cruel beast...No king nor bishop can, or is able to command faith; That is the gift of God, who worketh in us both the will and the deed of his own good pleasure.” — Leonard Busher, 1614

“This spiritual administration of Christ's power is in and over the spirits and consciences of man. It extends to all the inward and hidden motions and acting of the mind. It also extends to all the outward manifestations of its powerful commands in the outward man, in reference unto God, and especially unto such as pertains to the visible worship and service of God. God has declared Himself to be a spirit, and will be worshipped in spirit and in truth, and seeks such, and only such, to worship him.

“This spiritual administration, as it is concerned with the outward man, is to managed not by a sword of steel which cannot come near or touch the spirit or mind of man, but by the sword that proceeds out of the mouth of his servants, the word of truth. This is especially so as to the efficacy, and to the inward man, by the two edge sword of the spirit. But that spiritual law and light by which these candle are enlightened, by Himself, Who is that light that lights every man who comes into the world.” — John Clarke, 1652

“Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.” — John Leland, 1790

[1] Some might question whether this is in the purview of their Mission Statement -- “The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission exists to assist the churches by helping them understand the moral demands of the gospel, apply Christian principles to moral and social problems and questions of public policy, and to promote religious liberty in cooperation with the churches and other Southern Baptist entities.”
[2] The 18 groups named on the brief are: American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Center for Islam and Religious Freedom, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Interfaith Coalition on Mosques, International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Muslim Bar Association of New York, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, National Association of Evangelicals, New Jersey Muslim Lawyers Association, Queens Federation of Churches, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Sikh Coalition, South Asian Bar Association of New Jersey, South Asian Bar Association of New York, and Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of New Jersey.
[3] From the viewpoint of a New Jersey pastor and former president of the Baptist Convention of New York, the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge was not treated differently than Christian churches. He told Baptist Press that the mosque “received the same treatment from our local planning boards that many of our churches do...I have seen how difficult it can be for area churches to receive building and expansion permits from the local planning board. A few years back I sadly watched as a local Baptist church attempted to relocate within our township only to be voted down by the planning board. The church spent hundreds of thousands of dollars only to be told that their site plan did not, and probably would never, meet all the requirements. Local residents raised even more money to defeat them...The same scenario played out for the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge, Inc...The majority of residents in Bernards Township seem dead set against any [emp. mine, rlv] new religious facility being built in their backyards.” This does not prove that the planning board did not violate Congress's Religious Land Use Act, but suggests that they did not act differently toward Muslims than they have acted toward any other religious group.