Danbury Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson

The letter of Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association – with the phrase “separation between church & state” – is oft-mention in both historical and political discussions. The letter from the Danbury Baptists is not as well known. A transcription of it can be read at the National Archives online.

Danbury Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, [after 7 October 1801]

“…though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.”

Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, 1 January 1802

“The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction.”

Interestingly, there is also a Draft Reply to the Danbury Baptist Association, showing how Jefferson started and then edited the letter to be more concise.

“I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.”

Vaccines and your conscience

Both Robert Jeffress and Pope Francis want you to get vaccinated, says Mark Wingfield in the liberal Baptist News Global. Wingfield quotes Jeffress – pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas – as saying, “There is no credible religious argument against the vaccines,” and “There is no legitimate faith-based reason for refusing to take the vaccine.” What Pope Francis says may create difficultly for Catholics with conscientious objections. Because of local church autonomy, what Robert Jeffress says should carry little weight beyond his local congregation.

Apparently, Jeffress is referring to the concerns of some about the ties to fetal cell lines derived from aborted babies. Various religious leaders have expressed concerns about this, though it seems the view of the most hi-profile leaders is that the time line is so far removed from the actual abortions (1970s-1980s) that there is no moral issue – or some express it that the good of the vaccine outweighs the evil of the abortions.

Some have expressed objections in terms that make it sound like baby parts have been taken from current abortions to use in these vaccines. That is not correct. Here are some facts.

• Janssen Research/Johnson & Johnson used abortion-derived fetal cell lines in the development, confirmation, and production of its vaccine.
• Moderna, Inc./National Institutes of Health and Pfizer/BioNTech performed confirmation tests using abortion-derived fetal cell lines, but did not use them in production.
• AstraZeneca/University of Oxford used abortion-derived fetal cell lines in confirmation tests, design & development, and production.

The difference between fetal cell lines and fetal tissue. Fetal cell lines are cells that grow in a laboratory. They descend from cells taken from elective abortions in the 1970s and 1980s. Those individual cells from the 1970s and 1980s have since been grown in the lab for 30 to 40 years, creating fetal cell lines.

Consider the position of Robert Jeffress and others. If you find it compelling, make it part of your conscience. However, if you conscientiously object to the vaccine, do not feel compelled to kowtow to the views of some hi-profile religious leader (or some combination of them). Each Christian believer needs to decide whether he or she feels OK with the way these vaccines were produced. Follow your own conscience!

(Information source, the Charlotte Lozier Institute)

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

Toleration and Liberty

There is a wide difference between toleration and liberty. Toleration implies that somebody falsely claims the right to tolerate. Toleration is a concession, while liberty is a right. Toleration is a matter of expediency, while liberty is a matter of principle. Toleration is a gift from man, while liberty is a gift from God. It is the consistent and insistent contention of our Baptist people, always and everywhere, that religion must be forever voluntary and uncoerced, and that it is not the prerogative of any power, whether civil or ecclesiastical, to compel men to conform to any religious creed or form of worship, or to pay taxes for the support of a religious organization to which they do not believe.

George Washington Truett, Baptists and Religious Liberty, an address

Freedom Day

President Donald J. Trump Proclaims January 16, 2018, as Religious Freedom Day -- "Our forefathers, seeking refuge from religious persecution, believed in the eternal truth that freedom is not a gift from the government, but a sacred right from Almighty God."

Religious Freedom Day -- "Each year, the President declares January 16th to be Religious Freedom Day, and calls upon Americans to 'observe this day through appropriate events and activities in homes, schools, and places of worship.' The day is the anniversary of the passage, in 1786, of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom."

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom -- "...to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical..."

A Christian Nation?

It is interesting to me 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! Andrew Daugherty provides one example in No, Pastor Jeffress (and others), America is not a Christian nation. And here’s why it matters.

Daugherty points out that “The message that ‘America is a Christian nation’ is flat-out false factually, legally and practically” and that “It is the latest sideshow in the endless culture war built on the fiction that the Framers in Philadelphia in 1787 intended to constitute a Christian nation.”[i] He quotes Baptist forefather John Leland: “The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever.”[ii] He might also have quoted National forefather John Adams: “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

But then, to make his case, he exhibits a clear bias toward believing in some instances the United States ought to operate in a manner that fits his view of Christian policy (and condemns when it does not). “Contrary to Jeffress’ claim, we can’t put kids in cages and call ourselves a Christian nation. We can’t deny healthcare to people who can’t afford it and call ourselves a Christian nation.” Now, I ask, Mr. Daugherty, if you argue that the United States is not (and never has been) a Christian nation, why are you expecting the nation to operate according to your own view of Christian principles? Consistency, thou art a jewel.

Speaking in principle, ethical behavior is right for everyone, but the ethical behavior of each one will be based on his or her standards of right and wrong. Acting in ways consistent with one’s view of right and wrong will (or should) for the Jew be based on the understanding of the Old Testament, on the Bible (OT & NT) for the Christian, the Qur’an for the Muslim, the Bhagavad Gita for the Hindu, and so on. Since the United States of America is neither Jewish, Christian, Muslim, nor Hindu, the ethics of the U. S. as a nation must be based on its Constitution and laws, proceeding in ways consistent with those.

People have hearts. Nations have laws. The laws of all the other nations of the world are not the laws of the United States. If we as a nation are not following our own laws, we should hope to correct those. If we as a nation have laws that are not good, we should try to change those. If we as a nation have laws that are good, we should try to follow those. We who are Christians have a right to propose and promote laws in keeping with our Christian worldview, without expecting the United States of America to be a Christian nation.

---

[i] While on the one hand it is clear that the framers did not intend to constitute a Christian nation constitutionally and politically, on the other hand it is obvious historically that the primary heritage of our nation is from a Judeo-Christian worldview.

[ii] Leland also wrote, in A Chronicle of His Time in Virginia: “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.”

Baptists and Religious Liberty, reprise

From the distant and not-so-distant past:

• Four Aspects of the Baptist stand for Religious Liberty
• Legal and Biblical Considerations of Religious Liberty
• Standing for Truth
• The Interpretation and Application of Romans 13
• Footnotes on Religious Liberty
• A Well-rounded View of Religious Liberty
• Practical thoughts on religious liberty and spiritual adultery
• 20 quotes from Baptists on religious liberty

Religious Freedom Day

President Donald J. Trump Proclaims January 16, 2018, as Religious Freedom Day -- "Our forefathers, seeking refuge from religious persecution, believed in the eternal truth that freedom is not a gift from the government, but a sacred right from Almighty God."

Religious Freedom Day -- "Each year, the President declares January 16th to be Religious Freedom Day, and calls upon Americans to 'observe this day through appropriate events and activities in homes, schools, and places of worship.' The day is the anniversary of the passage, in 1786, of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom."

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom -- "...to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical..."

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

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.

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.

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

What about free speech?

Last week Rush Limbaugh clearly opened his mouth wide and stuck his foot in it. He almost swallowed it whole! A Georgetown Law School student testified before the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on Thursday February 23 about contraception and health care coverage. According to reports*, Limbaugh called her a “slut” and a “prostitute.”

The internet is covered up with this topic on blogs and forums. I don't want to directly address the views of Sandra Fluke (the law student), with which I disagree, or the tirade of Limbaugh, with which I also disagree. What has caught my attention is the reaction of opponents of Limbaugh, who have turned this into a crusade to get all his sponsors to drop him and have him fail so as to go off the air (or get kicked off). This brings to mind the question to me what these crusaders believe about free speech.

Should Limbaugh have called the lady these names? No. From what I read in her transcript she really didn't even speak for herself, but rather for others.  Makes me wonder whether Rush even read or heard what she said?? But what about the mentality that is not satisfied to disagree with and condemn his speech, and even quit supporting those who sponsor him. No, they have launched a national campaign to pursue him until he is driven off the air. Perhaps I just can't comprehend it because I don't have a protest mentality. I'm not into "boycotting". There are plenty on the right that share this protest mentality with the left and also follow in hot pursuit whenever they smell blood in the water. Seems to me a more balanced view of free speech disagrees, debates -- maybe even sues if libel is involved -- but is not maniacally driven to see that someone's speech is completely shut down. Clearly those sharks pursuing Limbaugh now aren't just protecting and supporting Sandra Fluke -- they have an agenda and they hate Limbaugh's speech.


Or am I missing something?

[*Note: there is no question that he did so, I only word it this way because I didn't hear it myself.]