John Clarke’s Four Religious Principles

After the arrest of Baptists John Clarke (1609-1676), Obadiah Holmes (1610-1682), and John Crandall (1618-1676), for holding an unauthorized religious service in Massachusetts, Governor Endicott replied that they deserved death! He instead ultimately challenged them to a discussion with their ministers, which John Clarke accepted. According to Henry Sweetser Burrage (A History of the Baptists in New England, American Baptist Publication Society, 1894, pp. 35-36), Clarke proposed four points of discussion – of which Burrage gives excerpts. I followed this back and found the complete information in Clarke’s Ill News from New England.

The Testimony of Iohn Clarke a prisoner of Iesus Christ at Boston, in the behalf of my Lord, and of his people, is as followeth.

1. I Testifie that Iesus of Nazareth, whom God hath raised from the dead, is made both Lord and Christ; this Iesus I say is the Christ, in English, the Anointed One, hath a name above every name; He is the Anointed Priest, none to, or with him in point of attonement; The Anointed Prophet, none to him in point of instruction; The Anointed King, who is gone unto his Father for his glorious Kingdom, and shall ere long return again; and that this Iesus Christ is also The Lord, none to, or with him by way of Commanding and ordering (with respect to the worship of God) the household of Faith, which being purchased with his Blood as Priest, instructed, and nourished by his Spirit as Prophet, do wait in his appointment as he is the Lord, in hope of that glorious Kingdom which shall ere long appear.

2. I Testifie that Baptism, or dipping in Water, is one of the Commandements of this Lord Iesus Christ, and that a visible beleever, or Disciple of Christ Iesus (that is, one that manifesteth repentance towards God, and Faith in Iesus Christ) is the only person that is to be Baptized, or dipped with that visible Baptism, or dipping of Iesus Christ in Water, and also that visible person that is to walk in that visible order of his House, and so to wait for his coming the second time in the form of a Lord, and King with his glorious Kingdom according to promise, and for his sending down (in the time of his absence) the holy Ghost, or holy Spirit of Promise, and all this according the last Will and Testament of that living Lord, whose Will is not to be added to, or taken from.

3. I Testifie or Witness, that every such believer in Christ Iesus, that waiteth for his appearing, may in point of liberty, yea ought in point of duty to improve that Talent his Lord hath given unto him, and in the Congregation may either aske for information to himself; or if he can, may speak by way of Prophecie for the edification, exhortation, and comfort of the whole, and out of the Congregation at all times upon all occasions, and in all places, as far as the jurisdiction of his Lord extends, may, yea ought to walk as a Child of light, justifying wisdom with his ways, and reproving folly with the unfruitfull works thereof, provided all this be shown out of a good conversation, as Iames speaks with meekness of wisdom.

4. I Testifie that no such believer, or Servant of Christ Jesus hath any liberty, much less Authority, from his Lord, to smite his fellow servant, nor yet with outward force, or arme of flesh, to constrain, or restrain his Conscience, no nor yet his outward man for Conscience sake, or worship of his God, where injury is not offered to the person, name or estate of others, every man being such as shall appear before the judgment seat of Christ, and must give an account of himself to God, and therefore ought to be fully perswaded in his own mind, for what he undertakes, because he that doubteth is damned if he eat, and so also if he act, because he doth not eat or act in Faith, and what is not of Faith is Sin.

Ill Newes from New-England, or, A narative of New-Englands persecution wherin is declared that while old England is becoming new, New-England is become old, by John Clark, London: Printed by Henry Hills, 1652, pages 9-10.

The current state of separation of church and state

As were our Baptist forefathers, so am I a proponent of the free exercise of religion – that is, in regard to state interference in it (we are not free from God). However, I think that oft times in the modern U.S., our first amendment has been stood on its end, making it an enemy of religion rather than a friend. This reason for this is that secularism often functions in the place of a state-adopted religion.

When secularism functions as the state religion, then it is given preference over religion under the guise of separation. That sends a message to all residents of the United States that non-religious secularism is better than religion. If you are not a religion, then we will give you this, and support you in that. If you are a religion, we will shut you out.

By not adopting a state religion, the United States has on the other hand developed a religion of state, a secular type of “religious non-religion” that functions as religion. There is no way our forefathers could have foreseen this. They set the constitutional idea of freedom of religion in place in a culture saturated with a Judeo-Christian ethic. In practice, Christianity often functioned beneath the surface as the de facto “state religion” without it being established as such – simply because of the large number of people who were Christians, at least functionally, or at least accepted the general principles found in the Bible as legitimate and good. We are no longer there.

Over the years, secularism has taken over as a de facto state religion with Christianity incrementally being rooted out of the public square. In our current applications of state religion, any “moral” philosophy that claims to arise from some source other than “religion” is given preference or ascendancy over any moral philosophy that rises from a religious base. Therefore, very truly the state functions in supporting one (yes, establishing secularism to function as religion) while opposing the other (actual religion).

I see the problem, but do not have the answer for it. Perhaps we are beyond implementing any answer even if we had one. Perhaps it will “solve itself” (and perhaps not in the way we might prefer). It seems likely that we have reached a time and place in the history and culture of the United States where there is going to be a separation of those who are heart Christians and those who are nominal Christians.

“So there was a division among the people because of him” [i.e., Jesus Christ]. John 7:43.

Dresses are reasonable attire for Christian women

Dresses and skirts are reasonable attire for Christian women. Some Americans do not think so. Even some churches, Christians, and Christian women no longer think so. However, the EEOC thinks so, and now Wellpath healthcare services does too.

Malinda Babineaux, a nurse and member of the Apostolic Pentecostal Christian Church, wanted to be able to both work and live by her beliefs as well. Living out those beliefs includes wearing a scrub skirt (as opposed to scrub pants) while she is working. When Wellpath, an organization who hired Babineaux, found out her faith and practice, they denied her clothing request and took away the job they offered her.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, a nurse who is a practicing Apostolic Pentecostal Christian was hired by Wellpath to work in the GEO Central Texas Correctional Facility in downtown San Antonio. Before reporting to work, the nurse told a Wellpath human resources employee that her religious beliefs require her to dress modestly and to wear a scrub skirt instead of scrub pants while at work. In response, Wellpath denied the request for her religion-based accommodation and rescinded the nurse’s job offer.

Philip Moss, a trial attorney for the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office, said, “Under federal law, when a workplace rule conflicts with an employee’s sincerely held religious practice, an employer must attempt to find a workable solution.” Apparently the EEOC felt that Wellpath made no such attempt, and took them to court. And won.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination against a person based on such things as religion, race, and sex are prohibited. Employers are required to offer reasonable accommodations to an individual’s “sincerely held religious beliefs unless it would pose an undue hardship,” the EEOC stressed.

It’s official, legal – and probably even biblical – skirts and dresses are reasonable attire for Christian women!

Read about it here:

• Wellpath to Pay $75,000 to Settle EEOC (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) Religious Discrimination Case
• Healthcare provider to pay $75K to nurse in ‘scrub skirt’ religious discrimination lawsuit
• Health care provider pays $75,000 in ‘scrub skirt’ religious bias suit

Founders Religion

The opinions writers to “Letters to the Editor” of the Nacogdoches Daily Sentinel newspaper provide an ongoing source of entertainment, if not knowledge. On Sunday February 23,[i] correspondent Ron Hurst regaled us with the fact that the United States is not a theocracy, supported by half-truths such as:

• “Furthermore, not once is the word ‘god’ mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution.”
• “The majority of our forefathers, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and James Monroe were not Christians. Most of them were deists or theistic rationalists.”

On Tuesday Robert Ault countered, telling us that “Nature’s God” and “Creator” are found in the Constitution. He felled the final blow – We know the founders were Christians based on their appearance in a vision to Mormon Apostle Wilford Woodruff.[ii] I am certain that non-Mormons of every stripe (religious and irreligious) were quite convinced!!

On Wednesday Hurst was back, picking Ault’s nits. Assuredly, “the words ‘to which the laws of nature and natures God entitle them’ and ‘that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights’” were not in the Constitution. “They were in the Declaration of Independence instead.”[iii] True enough, though Hurst was not man enough to admit that he had it half-wrong on Sunday just as much as Ault was half-wrong on Tuesday!

The Declaration mentions God. The Constitution does not. The first document tells us why our founders separated from England. The second document establishes the laws of those who separated from England.

The United States is neither a theocracy nor an atheist-ocracy (which seems to be what some like Hurst want). The United States is a Constitutional Republic that guarantees freedom of religion.

The Founders’ religious beliefs are found in their writings. Their religious connections are found in their church affiliations or lack thereof. Read their writings. Look up their church memberships. These facts, found, will not support Hurst’s “most of them were deists or theistic rationalists” theory. The fact that “most of them were Christians” would not mean they started a theocracy. Baptist preachers, in fact, were some of the most avid opponents of anything that smelled like a theocracy. They did not, however, promote the popular nonsense of this day that Christians should sit inside their churches and shut up!

Yes, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were Deists. On the other hand, most signers of the Declaration were active churchgoers, including at least one Christian minister![iv]Here is a quote from one of our founders, President George Washington, at his first inaugural address:

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency…I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my Country can inspire…Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained…

Washington’s inaugural address is not quite the blatant rationalistic deism Hurst would have us accept! It is clear that George Washington believed in a Creator, in prayer, in God’s providential dealings in history, in eternal truth – and that he thought most of the citizenry shared his beliefs.

---

[i] “Founders views on religion,” Ron Hurst, The Daily Sentinel, Sunday, February 23, 2020, page 5B.

[ii] “The Founding Fathers told us their views on religion,” Robert Ault, The Daily Sentinel, Tuesday, February 25, 2020, page 5A.

[iii] “More on church and state,” Ron Hurst, The Daily Sentinel, Wednesday, February 26, 2020, page 6A.

[iv] Presbyterian minister John Witherspoon. Benjamin Rush was co-founder of the Philadelphia Bible Society. Many other such religious connections can be easily discovered by those willing to do so. A good list of the church affiliations of the signers of the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, and the U. S. Constitution can be found at Adherents.com.

More Tolerance

The past weekend I read I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup. It’s a little scattered and a bit of a hard read, in my opinion, but it brings out a succinct point about tolerantism. The author, someone named Scott Alexander, unveils this hidden jewel. Beginning with G. K. Chesterton’s The Secret of Father Brown, Alexander points out that you can’t “forgive” something you don’t think is wrong. From there he moves to tolerance, showing that it is not meritorious to tolerate something with which you agree! He gives the following illustration:

The Emperor summons before him Bodhidharma and asks: “Master, I have been tolerant of innumerable gays, lesbians, bisexuals, asexuals, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, transgender people, and Jews. How many Virtue Points have I earned for my meritorious deeds?”

Bodhidharma answers: “None at all.”

The Emperor, somewhat put out, demands to know why.

Bodhidharma asks: “Well, what do you think of gay people?”

The Emperor answers: “What do you think I am, some kind of homophobic bigot? Of course I have nothing against gay people!”

And Bodhidharma answers: “Thus do you gain no merit by tolerating them!”

There is a lot to wade through, some of which I found extraneous and some with which I didn’t agree, but if you follow the rainbow you will find this pot of gold at the end.

But the best thing that could happen to this post is that it makes a lot of people, especially myself, figure out how to be more tolerant. Not in the “of course I’m tolerant, why shouldn’t I be?” sense of the Emperor in Part I. But in the sense of “being tolerant makes me see red, makes me sweat blood, but darn it I am going to be tolerant anyway.”

My point in highlighting this is this: much of what is called tolerance really isn’t, if Alexander is right (and I think he is concerning that). When we look we find many (most?) of those who are preaching tolerance are for tolerating people and ideas with which they already agree, and not anything that “makes them see red.” So is their highest ideal really anything at all?

Roger Williams and Massachusetts Bay

An outline of the issues raised by Williams and uncompromisingly pressed includes the following: (1) He regarded the Church of England as apostate and any kind of fellowship with it as grievous sin. He accordingly renounced communion not only with this church but with all who would not join with him in repudiating it. (2) He denounced the charter of the Massachusetts Company because it falsely represented the king of England as a Christian, and assumed he had the right to give his own subjects the land of the native Indians. He disapproved of “the unchristian oaths swallowed down” by the colonists “at their coming forth from Old England, especially the superstitious Laud’s time and domineering.” He drew up a letter addressed to the king expressing his dissatisfaction with the charter and sought to secure for it the endorsement of prominent colonists. In this letter he is said to have charged King James I with blasphemy for calling Europe “Christendom” and to have applied to the reigning king some of the most opprobrious epithets in the Apocalypse. (3) Equally disquieting was Williams’ opposition to the “citizens’ oath,” which magistrates sought to force upon the colonists in order to be assured of their loyalty. Williams maintained that it was Christ’s sole prerogative to have his office established by oath and that unregenerate men ought not in any case to be invited to perform any religious act. In opposing the oath Williams gained so much popular support that the measure had to be abandoned. (4) In a dispute between the Massachusetts Bay court and the Salem colony regarding the possession of a piece of land (Marblehead) claimed by the latter, the court offered to accede to the claims of Salem on condition that the Salem church makes amends for its insolent conduct in installing Williams as pastor in defiance of the court and ministers. This demand involved the removal of the pastor. Williams regarded this proposal as an outrageous attempt at bribery and had the Salem church send to other Massachusetts churches a denunciation of the proceeding and demand that the churches exclude the magistrates from membership. This act was sharply resented by magistrates and churches, and such pressure was brought to bear upon the Salem church as led a majority to consent to the removal of their pastor. He never entered the chapel again, but held religious services in his own house with his faithful adherents.

The decree of banishment (Oct. 19, 1635, carried into effect Jan., 1636) was grounded on his aggressive and uncompromising hostility to the charter and the theocracy, and was the immediate result of the controversy about the Marblehead land…

“Williams, Roger,” by A. H. Newman, in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Volume XII, Trench—Zwingli, Samuel Macauley Jackson, editor-in-chief, New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1912, pp. 369

Freedom of Speech or Freedom to Squelch

Our time-honored value of freedom of speech is now regularly offered up on the altar of tolerance. Freedom of speech is often replaced by the freedom to squelch. The first amendment restricts Congress from making a law “abridging the freedom of speech.” We understand that freedom of speech is not absolute, and can exclude that which is blatantly obscene or an incitement to harm others[i] – e.g. the proverbial “shouting fire in a crowded theater”. The framers of our Constitution held freedom of speech in high esteem, a value that promotes and protects the welfare of its citizenry. Behind binding Congress from abridging speech rests the value of individuals giving wide latitude to others to freely speak their minds. The free exchange of ideas is not only a fundamental right, but also a fundamental! Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy, promotes the free exchange of ideas, undergirds effective decision-making, and protects the minority from the majority.

The sway of this value is slowly shrinking – has been for quite some time. Unfortunately, our higher education system is a primary purveyor of vitiating the value of free speech. A recent Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) survey found that 9 in 10 American colleges restrict free speech. Another FIRE survey of the students found general lip-service for the concept of free speech that waned considerably in specific situations. FIRE Director of Communications Nico Perrino said, “This is troubling because it suggests a surface-level understanding of the free speech protections that underlie the First Amendment and an unwillingness to see them applied to the protection of expression some find offensive or objectionable.” The results play out daily in our society.

In Portland, Oregon, protesters – unable to get their way by stopping the invitation – disrupted the talk of author, scholar and feminism critic Christina Hoff Sommers “with chanting and loud music.” In February 2017, the University of California at Berkeley “canceled a speech by then-Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos due to fires, injuries, and vandalism caused by rioters. A month later at Vermont’s Middlebury College, a discussion featuring academic and writer Charles Murray was shut down mid-speech when a hostile mob drowned out Murray by chanting throughout his talk.”[ii]

At a recent California Democratic presidential candidates’ forum Kamala Harris’s appearance was interrupted by a protester who grabbed her microphone. Not only that, but when “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) took the stage at the California convention and called for national unity...Her comments didn’t go over very well with some people in the audience, who shouted her down by yelling ‘Impeach,’ referring to President Donald Trump.”

Meanwhile in Washington, DC, a Theater cancelled Kristy Swanson and Dean Cain’s pro-Trump performance over ‘threats of violence’. “...the Mead Theater notified the producers of FBI Lovebirds: UnderCovers that they would no longer participate in the production due to concerns over ‘threats of violence’.” Though the threats of violence were likely real, there was also concern that the “Theater withdrew the event…in…an attempt to squash the content of FBI Lovebirds: UnderCovers and what it reveals about the anti-Trump forces in the government…They just don’t want the truth out there… the theatrical establishment is really afraid of the way we are using Verbatim Theater, which utilizes only the actual words and texts from Strzok and Page…The intolerant left can’t challenge the actual, verbatim text.”

In a mix of abridging freedom of speech and freedom of religion, a Bible Study battle has gone Federal after a Christian couple was threatened with eviction. The Evergreens at Smith Run, a senior community in Fredericksburg, Virginia, seemingly cannot tolerate a Bible study in the living quarters of its residents and have threatened octogenarians Ken and Liv Hauge with eviction if they do not cease and desist!

A common thread in much anti-free speech rhetoric is to claim the opposed speech violates the rights of others/someone. The courts have weighed in on many cases, attempting to distinguish between speech that is controversial and offensive versus speech that is dangerous and harms others. Speech does not violate your or my rights just because we don’t like it. The zenith of free speech is vigorously defending the rights of speech that you don’t like! The nadir is “we support free speech – just not your free speech.”

Other anti-free speech advocates no longer feign intellectual opposition, but use the heckler’s veto of brute force.[iii] If we have the strength of numbers to shout you down or shut you down – we will!

---

[i] Even then, courts do not always agree what constitutes these actions of obscenity or harm.

[ii] In the aftermath, protestors damaged Murray’s car as he tried to leave, and put Professor Allison Stanger in a neck brace after “one of the demonstrators pulled Prof. Stanger’s hair and twisted her neck.” Having not learned their lesson – or having learned the wrong lesson – Middlebury College cancelled a talk by conservative European politician Ryszard Legutko of Poland “for safety purposes.” The correlation in the heckler’s veto seems to not be left-side or right-side political views, but unresolved anger. Hecklers from the right shouted down California attorney general Xavier Becerra at Whittier College in 2017, apparently because of California’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over DACA. Protestors on either side of the ideological spectrum resort to this low when they believe it suits their purpose.

[iii] Another iteration of this tactic features using the power of the purse to bully one with opposing views into submission.

At it again

Early this month the Student Government Association of Trinity University recommended in a resolution that Chick-fil-A be removed from the campus. Similar to the rhetoric of the city council, Trinity’s SGA emphasizes “Trinity is a university that emphasizes its commitment to diversity and inclusion.” Chick-fil-A supports such heinous organizations as the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes! The SGA hopes you will not notice their dirty little secret. Their diversity excludes those who are too diverse for their adamantine attitude, and their inclusion only includes those whom they approve.

How diverse is that?

Praying in Pennsylvania

On Monday, March 25, a prayer by a Christian lawmaker in Pennsylvania stirred up a hornet’s nest. Before each session the House rules call for opening in prayer as the first order of business. That Monday, the opening prayer was given by freshman Representative Stephanie Borowicz. If transcribe correctly, here is what she said:

Let’s pray. Jesus, I thank you for this privilege, Lord, of letting me pray, God, that I, Jesus, am your ambassador here today, standing here representing you, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the Great I Am, the one who is coming back again, the one who came, died, and rose again on the third day. And I’m so privileged to stand here today, so thank you for this honor, Jesus. God, for those that came before us like George Washington and Valley Forge, and Abraham Lincoln who sought after you in Gettysburg, Jesus, and the founding fathers at Independence Hall, Jesus, that sought after you and fasted and prayed for this nation to be founded on your principles and your word and your truth. God forgive us. Jesus, we’ve lost sight of you. We’ve forgotten you, God, in our country, and we’re asking you to forgive us, Jesus, as your promise in your word says that if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek your face, and turn from their wicked ways, that you will heal our land. Jesus, you are our only hope. God, I pray for our leaders, Speaker Turzai, Leader Cutler, Governor Wolf, President Trump for his [stance] that he stands beside Israel unequivocally, Lord. Thank you, Jesus, that we’re blessed because we stand by Israel, and we ask for the peace of Jerusalem as your word says, God. We ask that we not be overcome by and that we overcome evil with good in this land once again. I claim all these things in the powerful, mighty, name of Jesus, the one who at the name of Jesus every knee will bow and every tongue will confess, Jesus, that you are Lord. In Jesus name. Amen.

Her prayer has brought rancor, condemnation, applause for a Muslim prayer, and a Resolution “urging members of the House of Representatives who have the opportunity to offer a prayer in the course of a legislative session to craft a prayer respectful of all religious beliefs.” What irony that the decriers evidently wish to be “respectful of all religious beliefs” except beliefs like those of Representative Borwicz! Democratic Governor Tom Wolf – one of those prayed for – was “horrified” by the prayer and averred, “Pennsylvania was founded by William Penn on the basis of freedom of conscience” – just not freedom of conscience for Stephanie Borowicz or those who believe as she does! Freedom only for those who kowtow to the beliefs of Wolf and those on his side. Very few like Wolf see the contradictions of their own claims.

I would not have prayed as did this representative. Her prayer seems sort of weird, according to my own standards. However, it is never inappropriate for a person to pray according to her sincerely held religious beliefs just because someone is present who holds different beliefs, or someone disagrees. Prayer is an act of communing with and/or making a petition to God. If this legislature really intends to have prayer, then leave each pray-er to pray according to the dictates of his or her own heart with governmental interference. Anything less is either a sham or a formality.

I liked the “old days,” when we stood for free exercise and free speech even for those who differed with us, rather than limiting free exercise and free speech to that which agrees with our own opinions.

• “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” – Thomas Jefferson
• “Every man must give an account of himself to God, and therefore every man ought to be at liberty to serve God in that way that he can best reconcile to his conscience.” – John Leland
• “The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man: and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.” – James Madison
• “Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend…The proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate’.” – Samuel Alito, in Metal v. Tam
• “To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.” – G. K. Chesterton

Chick-Fil-A “set free”

Chick-Fil-A. I could eat there seven times a day
Where the people laugh and children play;
Oh, I’m in love with Chick-Fil-A.

Suddenly, I need waffle fries in front of me
With some nuggets and a large sweet tea;
Oh, Chick-Fil-A. You set me free.

The Chick-Fil-A Song by Tim Hawkins

According to a news report earlier this month, a Christian Dean at Rider University Resigned in Protest of Campus Chick-Fil-A Ban. Rider claimed “the company’s record widely perceived to be in opposition to the LGBTQ+ community” and their “corporate values have not sufficiently progressed enough to align with those of Rider.”[i]

Cynthia Newman, dean of the College of Business, announced that she resign, stating, “I am a committed follower of Jesus Christ. As such, I endeavor every day to do exactly what Chick-fil-A puts forward as its overarching corporate value: to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to me and to have a positive influence on all who come into contact with me.”

On the heels of that, the San Antonio City Council voted 6-4 last Thursday (March 21) to keep Chick-Fil-A out of the San Antonio International Airport. (See, e.g., San Antonio City Council votes to stop Chick-fil-a from opening at airport.) District 1 Councilman Roberto C. Treviño made the motion to exclude Chick-Fil-A. He said, “San Antonio is a city full of compassion, and we do not have room in our public facilities for a business with a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior.”

The purported “anti-LGBT behavior” apparently is Chick-Fil-A’s positive support for traditional marriage, and donations to entities such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (gasp!) which also support traditional marriage. Though Councilperson Treviño said, “Everyone has a place here, and everyone should feel welcome” he and five others made it clear that Chick-Fil-A and those who support it do not have “a place here” and “should [not] feel welcome.” So much for welcoming and affirming. Just like the rest of us, intolerant people “welcome and affirm” who and what they believe in, and “exclude and deny” who and what they don’t believe in!

The case of Rider University is a private institution making a decision they believe matches their values. I disagree with their decision and values in this case. Nevertheless, it varies somewhat from the San Antonio case, which is a government entity excluding a business based on its religious values and (private donation) practices. Chick-Fil-A’s DOES NOT practice excluding anyone from buying a chicken sandwich! There is no discrimination of that sort with which they are charged. Six members of a governmental entity called the San Antonio City Council excludes Chick-Fil-A on the religious beliefs they hold regarding marriage and the charities they choose to support. Isn’t this exactly what our Bill of Rights intends to bind governments from doing? I think so; however, I believe we will continue to see an increase in governmental entities excluding businesses that support traditional Christian causes.

---

[i] Fascinatingly, despite the views of the high mucks at Rider, when the university polled students to ask which restaurants they would like to have on campus, Chick-Fil-A was the “overwhelming favorite”!

Patrick Henry's Speech

The Baptist Memorial and Monthly Record, Volume 4, Number 5, May 1845, pp. 131-132

PATRICK HENRY’S SPEECH.

“May it please your worships: I think I heard read by the prosecutor as I entered this house the paper I now hold in my hand. If I have rightly understood, the king's attorney of this colony has framed an indictment for the purpose of arraigning and punishing by imprisonment, three inoffensive persons before the bar of this court, for a crime of great magnitude—as disturbers of the peace. May it please the court, what did I hear read? Did I hear it distinctly, or was it a mistake of my own? Did I hear an expression, as if a crime, that these men, whom your worships are about to try for a misdemeanor, are charged with, what!”—and continuing in a low, solemn, heavy tone, “for preaching the gospel of the Son of God!” Pausing, amidst the most profound silence and breathless astonishment, he slowly waved the paper three times around his head, when lifting his hands and eyes to heaven, with peculiar and impressive energy he exclaimed, “Great God!” The exclamation—the action—the burst of feeling from the audience, were all overpowering. Mr. Henry resumed:

“May it please your worships—In a day like this, when truth is about to burst her fetters—when mankind are about to be aroused to claim their natural and in alienable rights—when the yoke of oppression that has reached the wilderness of America, and the unnatural alliance of ecclesiastical and civil power, are about to be dissevered—at such a period, when liberty—liberty of conscience, is about to awake from her slumberings and inquire into the reason of such charges as I find exhibited here to-day in this indictment!” Another fearful pause, while the speaker alternately cast his sharp, piercing eyes on the court and the prisoners, and resumed: “If I am not deceived, according to the contents of the paper I now hold in my hand, these men are accused of ‘preaching the gospel of the Son of God,’—Great God!”—Another long pause, while he again waved the indictment around his head—while a deeper impression was made on the auditory. Resuming his speech—“May it please your worships: There are periods in the history of man, when corruption and depravity have so long debased the human character, that man sinks under the weight of the oppressor's hand and becomes his servile—his abject slave; he licks the hand that smites him; he bows in passive obedience to the mandates of the despot, and in this state of servility he receives his fetters of perpetual bondage. But, may it please your worships, such a day has passed away! From that period, when our fathers left the land of their nativity for settlement in these American wilds—for Liberty—for civil and religious liberty— for liberty of conscience—to worship his Creator according to his conceptions of heaven's revealed will; from the moment he placed his foot on the American continent, and in the deeply imbedded forests sought an asylum from persecution and tyranny—from that moment, despotism was crushed ; her fetters of darkness were broken, and heaven decreed that man should be free—free to worship God according to the bible. Were it not for this, in vain have been the efforts and sacrifices of the colonists; in vain were all their sufferings and bloodshed to subjugate this new world, if we, their offspring, must still be oppressed and persecuted. But may it please your worships, permit me to in quire once more, for what are these men about to be tried? This paper says, “For preaching the gospel of the Son of God.' Great God! For preaching the gospel of the Saviour to Adam's fallen race.” And in tones of thunder, he exclaimed, “What Law Have They Violated?” While the third time, in a slow, dignified manner, he lifted his eyes to heaven, and waved the indictment around his head. The court and audience were now wrought up to the most intense pitch of excitement. The face of the prosecuting attorney was pallid and ghastly, and he appeared unconscious that his whole frame was agitated with alarm; while the judge, in a tremulous voice, put an end to the scene, now becoming excessively painful, by the authoritative declaration, “Sheriff, discharge those men.”

The descendants of Patrick Henry are now members of Baptist churches; and, it is a fact worth recording, that in those counties in Virginia, where Baptists were once persecuted—treated as the offscouring of the earth, and their preachers were imprisoned and painfully suffered—and were maltreated by ruthless violence, which, in modern times, and in reference to other objects, has assumed the name of “Lynch-law,”—in those counties, Baptists are not only numerous and influential, but they constitute almost the entire religious population of that district. Verily, what hath God wrought?

J. M. P.

Philadelphia, March 25, 1845.

On the Hill and Around the World

The House has voted to release FISA Memo; FBI & DOJ now under investigation. The report is believed to contain allegations that the FBI obtained a surveillance warrant application for Trump adviser Carter Page using research funded by the Clinton campaign. The FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe quit ahead of the agency review. "An internal communication authored by Mr. Wray shows Mr. McCabe's early departure was the result of a forthcoming FBI inspector general report that concluded the agency must perform at the highest standards." (And some think Chief of staff Rybicki leaving government is also related. "Earlier this month, Rybicki was grilled by lawmakers on the House Oversight and Government Reform and Judiciary committees over the way the FBI handled the probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of State.")

The Department of Health & Human Services announced the creation of a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division. "The creation of the new division will provide HHS with the focus it needs to more vigorously and effectively enforce existing laws protecting the rights of conscience and religious freedom, the first freedom protected in the Bill of Rights."

A new poll in Costa Rica shows huge surge for evangelical pastor in the presidential race. "Fabricio Alvarado has leaped to the lead in voter support – from just three percent of voter support in December to 17 percent in January...The conservative presidential candidate attributed his boost in the polls to the rigid position he adopted after the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of same-sex marriage on Jan. 9."

“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

Will conservatives and liberals flip?

In 2015 Rowan County, Kentucky county clerk Kimberly Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples as a violation of her conscience and religious beliefs. After landing in jail, she requested the Democratic Governor for an exemption and accommodation of conscience. Davis’s attorneys argued that “Davis faces significant, irrevocable, and irreversible harm if she is forced to authorize and approve even one same-sex marriage license with her name on it, against her religious conscience.”

The Governor refused accommodation, stating “the legislature has placed the authority to issue marriage licenses squarely on county clerks by statute, and I have no legal authority to relieve them of their statutory duty by executive order.”

Now in 2017 the roles are reversed. A Democratic prosecutor, Aramis Ayala, “surprised many of her own supporters when she announced this week that her office would no longer seek capital punishment in a state that has one of the largest death rows.” Rick Scott, Republican governor, “promptly transferred a potential death penalty case — the killing of a police officer and a pregnant woman earlier this year — to another Florida prosecutor.”

Lawson Lamar, former State Attorney, said: “Anyone who raises their hand and takes the oath to be State Attorney must be able to go with the death penalty even if they feel it's distasteful.”

It appears that liberals and conservatives are defending conscience when the thing defended suits their conscience, and arguing that one must fulfill their oaths of office when it doesn’t suit their conscience. 

The liberals and conservatives have flipped their views in these cases.

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

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.

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:

• The assault on Christian individuals to compel their use of their artist talents in ways that violate their consciences – such as the Oregon case with Sweet Cakes by Melissa, the State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers, and so on.
• The dust-up in Atlanta when the mayor of Atlanta, Georgia fired the city Fire Chief – not because of his inability to do his job, but because of his published religious beliefs, and the lay preacher fired from his job as a director of Georgia Department of Public Health not for job inability – but regarding his sermons.
• Last but not least, the apparent turn of some Baptists and evangelicals against the ideal of religious liberty for all. For example, editor of the Baptist Christian Index, Gerald Harris, opposes full religious liberty for Muslims. Numerous Southern Baptists (and others) scored the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and International Mission Board for signing an amicus brief in support of Muslims in Basking Ridge, New Jersey who were trying to build a mosque – inciting a debate on Muslims, Religious Liberty and Spiritual Adultery. We Baptists as a whole, I believe, have become lulled to sleep on religious liberty through hundreds of years of enjoying it! Do we understand why we promoted religious liberty? How to avoid spiritual adultery while doing so?

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.