A needed reminder from Thomas Helwys

"That the magistrate is not by virtue of his office to meddle with religion, or matters of conscience, to force or compel men to this or that form of religion, or doctrine: but to handle only civil transgressions (Rom 13), injuries and wrongs of man against man, in murder, adultery, theft, etc., for Christ only is the king, and lawgiver of the church and conscience. James 4:12)." 

Article 84 of Helwys' confession of faith.

"the King is but an earthly King, and he hath no authority as a King but in earthly causes, and if the Kings people be obedient & true subjects, obeying all humane lawes made by the King, our lord the King can require no more:  for mens religion to God, is betwixt God and themselves;  the King shall not answere for it, neither may the King be judgd (i.e., judge) betwene God and man.  Let them be heretikes, Turks, Jewes, or whatsoever it apperteynes not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure."

  

No words in the book are more forceful than the preface.

"Heare, 0 King, and dispise not ye counsell of ye poore, and let their complaints come before thee.  The King is a mortall man, and not God[:]  therefore hath no power over ye immortall soulles of his subjects, to make lawes and ordinances for them, and to set spirituall Lords over them.  If the King have authority to make spirituall Lords and Lawes, then he is an immortall God, and not a mortall man.  0 King, be not seduced by deceivers to sin so against God whom thou oughtest to obey, nor against thy poore subjects who ought and will obey thee in all things with body[,] and goods, or els[e] let their lives be taken from ye earth.  God save ye King."

From The Mistery of Iniquity, Thomas Helwys 

Franklin Proposes Prayer

James Madison preserved for us this bit of American history which casts light on the all too shadowed relationship of church and state. If there is any doubt concerning the soil in which their thoughts were planted this motion by Mr. Franklin is representative of their thoughts. While they understood that a particular church should not be sanctioned they likewise understood, and grasped, the foundational concept that "God governs in the affairs of men" (Franklin).

Doctor Franklin to Mr. President

The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks
close attendance & continual resonings with each other - our different
sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes
as ays, is methinks a meancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human
Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom
since we have been running about in serach of it. We have gone back to
ancient history for models of Government, and examined the differet forms of
those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution
now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe,
but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were
in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when
presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once though
of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our
understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we
were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine
protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously
answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed
frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that
kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the
means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now
forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need
his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the
more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs
of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his
notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have
been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House
they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also
believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political
building no better that the Builders of Babel; We shall be divided by our little
partial local interests' our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall
become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And, what is worse,
mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing
Government by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war and
conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move- that henceforth prayers
imploring the assisatnce of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be
held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one
or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that
service.

It is vital to note that this motion was never voted on and the Assembly adjourned after some discussion. Among the points of discussion were the issues of concern for the perception that things had gotten so bad in the Constitutional convention that they had to resort to prayer! Also mentioned was the issue of having no finances with which to pay the clergy for their services. Though the motion was never ratified it set hearts and minds on a different track and soon after the Constitution was produced in its final form .

Franklin may not be the most religious of our Founders but he was certainly cognizant of the foundational role faith plays in life. Perhaps we should remember our history and stand firm on the foundations on which our nation was built.

Temporal and Spiritual

Began reading "Wrestlin' Jacob," by Erskine Clarke which revisits religion in the old South, particularly Liberty County, Georgia and its surrounding environs. I immediately ran across the following lines which gave me pause as they resonated with the thoughts already rattling around in my head about this deeply important question of church and state relations.

"'We are sensible," they wrote in the Articles of Incorporation, 'to the
advantages of good order and social agreement, among any people, both for
their Civil and Religious Benefit. . .' For theses Puritan setlers, the government of
such a commuinty would consist of two coordinate branches: the Church and
the Society. The church would be governed by the male communing members who would administer spiritual affairs; the Society would be composed of all males who would subscribe to the Articles of Incorporation, whether they were communing members of the Church or not, and would administer temporal affairs. If this
were not a "Holy Commonwealth," it was clearly a Christian Society they wished to establish on the Georgia coast...At the center of this community stood the church." (emphasis added)

I find it instructive that for our Founders, and the society in which they lived and breathed, issues of faith played a central, undeniable role; particularly issues of the Christian faith. You will find this singular fact borne out in the architectural fabric of almost every community in this great land where standing in the midst of the places of law and merchandising are the places of faith and worship.

Can there be any denial that the ground from which the early thoughts about our nation grew was a thoroughly Christian ground?

Questions I Am Pondering...

I enjoyed the unique opportunity to hear Dr. Martin Marty speak earlier this week at Samford University. It has sparked several thoughts in my heart and head, most unresolved but not unimportant. I list a few of them here for initial consideration with the hope that I can flesh these thoughts out in future posts.

1. Dr. Marty states that it is "historically untrue that our laws are "Christian" laws and that the Founders did not set out to create a "Christian" nation. That said there can be no doubt that Christian thought exerted a strong influence on the thinking of the Founders."

My response: Is it possible that though it may not have been the intent it was, however, the inevitable result?

2. Dr. Marty spoke of the harmful result of "privileging" the church citing the example of Finland where the "official" religion is Lutheranism. 94% of the population is Lutheran and only 2% attend services with any regularity.

My response: I think he is on to something significant here.

3. Dr. Marty asked, "Can the church be prophetic if it is privileged?" and then quoted John Leland (I believe) "Whoever takes the King's shekels gets the King's shackles."

My response: I have always been more than a little suspicious of the "Faith-based Initiatives" approach from government. The church can only speak to power when it is clearly not beholden to that power.

4. Dr. Marty speaks of the Deism of Benjamin Franklin and it being a poor example for the religiously passionate.

My response: While I agree that Franklin is, at best, pragmatic in matters of faith I must call to question his commitment to Deism. If I correctly understand the notion of Deism being that of a disinterested Deity, then many of Franklin's statements fly counter to that notion. One cited by Dr. Marty is a fine example, "A super-intending providence...God governs in the affairs of men." (From Franklin's speech to the Continental Congress, June 27th, 1787). This does not sound like a man who would advocate for a God who made the watch, wound it up and left it to run it's course. It sounds suspiciously like someone who believes that somehow God is engaged directly in the comings and goings of the lives of all mankind.

5. Dr. Marty noted that Franklin did indeed propose that prayer be offered at the Continental Congress but that the motion was not acted upon. The reason being that those present recognized the terrible can of worms this would open. Would the prayer be Anglican or Congregational?

My response: This is a cogent point. Though not well remembered, 9 of the 13 colonies had "official" religions. (Always an interesting recollection as they were steadily recreating what so many of them had fled, i.e. religious persecutions.) A similar point I often make in discussions of this nature concerns prayer in the public schools, who will lead the prayer? Here in the Bible belt I have a reasonable assurance that it will be a "Christian" prayer of some sort. In some other part of our nation it might be a Mormon prayer, or a Muslim prayer, or perhaps even Wiccan! Who is to decide and am I willing for others to be teaching my child, or anyone's child, how to pray?

What response do these thoughts spark in your head and heart?

Breathtaking Confession

Breathtaking.

That's all I can say about Gov. Mark Sanford's press conference today.

Image by [ r ♥ c e y t ♥ y ] {I br♥ke for bokeh} via Flickr

By way of quick review here's what we saw:

• A man take full and personal responsibility for his actions. No finger pointing. No whining. No paper thin double talk about word definitions (i.e. Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.") Just a man simply saying, "I was wrong."
• A public figure using words like "sin," "God's moral law," and "forgiveness" with a straight face and with the expectation that those listening would understand what he meant. (I think many, if not most, did understand.)
  
• A man clearly stating that though the sin was committed by him it had serious and far reaching ramifications in the lives of many others.

I may find words later. For now, I am breathless.

Left Wing Christianity or Right Wing Christianity

Another engaging post over at Pragmatic-Eclectic. Mark raises the specter of Christianity's all too comfortable relationship with right-wing politics. I must agree in principle with this as I have, on several occasions, been a guest in churches in which being a Democrat would be akin to punching one's ticket to hell. Beloved, this should not be the case. I have stated on numerous occasions that our salvation will not arrive on Air-Force One or with the ascension to power of any political party. We would do well to heed James' declaration that "the anger of man does not produce the righteousness that God requires." (James 1:20).

Mark goes on to remark that Jesus' teachings sound "left-wing" and wonders how "the message of Jesus ever become [sic] aligned with big business, military spending, gun ownership, tax cuts and disdain for the environment?" Cogent questions all.

I take issue with Mark in that he creates a false dichotomy. I do not believe it is an either/or proposition but a both/and. Just as an airplane needs a right and a left wing to fly, I likewise believe our political process, and our Christian involvement therein, needs both wings.

Mark questions the conservative penchant of preserving the status quo. Understandable, but I would posit that it is oh-so necessary. Without the "status quo" of solid theology the church would have, on many, occasions wandered into the spiritual wilderness never to return. Likewise without the left-wing radicalism of men and women like Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther, William Carey or Mother Teresa, who took seriously the command to care for others we would be the inheritors of a stale and lifeless theology.

The ongoing discussion of the Christian's role in the political process is an important one for us as believers. We need to get this right. If we, as the church, desire to change our society and our culture we must do it by changing the hearts and minds of those within that culture. Yet, we also bear a responsibility to speak up for those who are without a voice, be they the unborn or the underprivileged. We must be conservative in our theology ("Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" Jude 3) and liberal in our praxis ("In as much as you've done it to the least of these my brethren, you've done it unto me." Matt. 25:40).

When Is It Right To Rebel?

I participate in a men's discussion group on Sunday evenings and the following question was raised. When is it "right" for a Christian to rebel against authority?

Our entire cultural identity finds its roots in a rebellion against authority. The American revolution is a well documented and much discussed moment in history. That it was influenced and, largely, directed by men who saw the world through a Judeo-Christian lens is often commented upon. The founder's own words clearly acknowledge God's activity in their lives and in the workings of the world in which they lived. Refresh your memory with these words from The Declaration of Independence.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Furthermore, considering that 40 of the 56 signatories of the Declaration were members of Christian churches, among them Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Episcopalian, Anglican, Quaker, and Roman Catholic, there can be little argument that these men were committed, admittedly to varying degrees, to the ideals presented in Scripture.

With that in mind we perused Paul's instruction in Romans 13 and Peter's exhortation in 1 Peter 2. I print these passages here for your consideration.

"Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor."
1 Peter 2:13-17

"Let evey person be subect to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed and those who resist will incur judgment. "
Romans 13:1-2

That last line from Romans 13:2 caused quite a bit of consternation for us. It would seem from that instruction that we as a nation were set upon a path to "incur judgment" from the very foundations of the revolution because we, as a nation were clearly "resisting the authorities." Just how did the Christian men of 1776 reconcile this issue?

Our discussion wandered to Martin Luther and his nailing of the 95 theses to the Wittenburg door. He too was resisting the authorities. We found that we stand in a long line of "rebels," John Knox, William Tyndale, John Bunyan, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, to name just a few. Were they out of line scripturally? If not, what standard should be used to determine when rebellion against authority is merited?

We came to no clear cut answers and deferred the discussion to our next meeting. We would love to have the input of people like you. What do you think? When is it right to rebel?

Well Said Fred!

I get a weekly installment of wisdom from the files of Fred Smith. This particular was worthy of sharing on the blogosphere.

Responsibility of Privilege

Gibbons listed one of the elements of Rome's fall as "getting to the point where they craved excitement. This ultimately led to moral abuse." I am convinced an unbridled craving for excitement leads to moral abuse - - - always. it seems to me we need more Horatio Algers and a whole lot less Supermen. Any time our longing for thrills outdistances our urging for accomplishment, we are in trouble. Whenever we trade entertainment for attainment, we are headed down.

Recently, I was debating at a Chamber of Commerce meeting. In a dramatic moment, he rose to a grand crescendo and declared, "Communism moves forward on an empty belly." I had to refute him. "Communism doesn't move forward on an empty belly --- it moves forward on an empty soul." If it were empty bellies, then our forefathers in Jamestown would have given up hope of democracy. But they didn't. They had something to build for --- they had something in their souls.

We must watch that law remain prohibitive, and not permissive. Our freedom is at risk when the law tells us what we can do, not just what we cannot.

We, as Americans, must not sacrifice freedom for security. I like the difference between the American oyster and the American eagle. When God made the oyster, He put a big thick shell around him, put him deep in the water, and provided him constant nourishment. Whenever he gets hungry, he just opens his mouth, sucks in food, and then shuts his jaws. When God made the eagle, He put out in the mountains and said, "Build your own nest and fight your own enemies, and raise your own young, and provide your own food, and stand against the wind and the rain. But I will give you the great blue sky to fly in and the strength to endure." I am so thankful we are Eagle, not oyster, people.

It seems to me people are talking more about rights, than about responsibilities. The 19th century focused on responsibilities --- we are creating a century of rights. I think difficult times follow the emphasis on claiming our rights rather than recognizing our responsibilities.

Gibbons was an infidel. Yet, as a true historian, he gave this reason for the fall of Rome: the decline of religion. As I travel, I see people who are afraid, yet turning to faith for answers. What happens when people become afraid? Panic breaks loose. What's the cure for it? Faith. Faith in ourselves, each other, and in God.

If there is any lesson I would like to leave with you, it is this: people fail through fear, not inability. We in America must keep our faith. It's our great privilege to be an American. It's our great responsibility because there is the responsibility of privilege.

To that I say, "Well said, Fred!"

Monday Morning Message - Looking for Josiah

Here's the short version of much more involved set of thoughts surrounding this remarkable King of Judah. You can read his story in 2 Kings 21-23 and 2 Chronicles 34-34.

Josiah is commended in 2 Kings 23:25 with these words, "Before him there was no king like him, who turned to the LORD with all his hear and with all his soul and with all his might, according to al the Law of Moses, nor did any like him arise after him."

This young king led a reformation of his nation that was, and is, unparalleled. It was a time of national renewal that, though remarkable, was insufficient. While Josiah was apparently pursuing the reformation with a pure heart it is evident that the people were simply "along for the ride." Josiah made it "hip to be holy" and people joined in with zeal. It is saddening to realize that the people of Judah were "doing all the right things" but their hearts remained far from God.

Sounds painfully familiar. We live in culture that is obsessed with looking good. I assure you that if it became the fashionable thing to be "holy" people would be lining up to be among those counted as "holy." We would love to have a Josiah arise in our day; someone with rock star appeal who genuinely pursued God. We would love to have someone like this champion our pet causes and who would lead our nation to return to its spiritual roots. As much as we would love to have that happen it is not what we need.

Josiah brought about public renewal that did not result in personal renewal. We need personal renewal that will result in public renewal. We are looking for Josiah but we need Jeremiah.

I will explain further next week.

Monday Morning Message - At The Corner of Church and State

Little did I know just how timely this message would be. This message has been rolling around in my heart and head for several months now and on my preaching schedule since July. Imagine my surprise upon discovering that September 28th had been declared "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" by the Alliance Defense Fund. While I wholeheartedly agree with the principle and notion that the government has no right or authority to dictate what is proclaimed from the pulpits of the churches of this nation, I must disagree in point with the manner in which this is being carried out. It would seem that this was an exercise in tweaking the nose of the government. For more on this just keep reading.

All across this great land of ours, in towns very much like the one in which you live, churches sit on the corner of Church and State street. This visible expression of a salient, if inconspicuous, reality is a cogent reminder that at some point church and state do indeed intersect. What is to be the resultant relationship between the two is the lingering and nagging question? Part lesson in history, part commentary on current events, and part exposition of scripture, this message seeks to grapple with this foundational concept of freedom.

I fear that we, both religious and secular, have forgotten our heritage and have wandered into a most dangerous forest. Unless the path to clarity, the path blazed by those who have gone before, is rediscovered we may all find ourselves in places we have no desire to be.

There are four options when it comes to the relation of Church and State. They are as follows:

1. The Church is above the State, a theory held by those who claim that their ecclesiastical head is the Vicar of Christ on earth.
2. The Church is alongside the State, a theory held by the State Churches of various countries.
3. The State is above the Church, a theory held by the totalitarian governments.
4. The Church is separate from the State, championed by Baptists everywhere, and held by those governments that have written religious liberty into their fundamental laws.

As a Baptist it is of particular importance and interest to me to call to remembrance the heritage of religious freedom that is mine. I have often said that as a child I was a Baptist by convenience but as an adult I am a Baptist by conviction. Men like Thomas Helwys and John Smyth, the "George Washington" and "Thomas Jefferson" of Baptist history, along with Roger Williams, that renegade protestant who dared to found a colony upon the principle of religious freedom for all, have left a legacy we all do well to remember. These men, and many others like them, understood that genuine faith cannot be forced or denied by the state.

Thomas Helwys wrote the following into his personal confession of faith,

"That the magistrate is not by virtue of his office to meddle with religion, or matters of conscience, to force or compel men to this or that form of religion, or doctrine: but to handle only civil transgressions (Rom 13), injuries and wrongs of man against man, in murder, adultery, theft, etc., for Christ only is the king, and lawgiver of the church and conscience. James 4:12)." Article 84 of Helwys' confession of faith.

This statement seems innocuous enough to those of us who are the inheritors of the freedom of religious expression. Yet for Helwys, and others of his day, these were words to get a man killed. Indeed they ultimately cost Helwys his life as he died in prison for his views. Daring to defy the king and defend religious liberty for all, Helwys struck a flame that continues to burn to this day; a flame that is threatened by those who would unwittingly blur the lines between the role of the church and the state.

The mixing of these two institutions has a long history of being a patently bad idea. One can look to the tales in current events of persecution of Christians in Muslim and totalitarian states (Visit Voice of the Martyrs for current stories) as well as to the heinous history of Christian persecution of others (even other Christians!) in the not so distant past. Tony Campolo famously stated, "Mixing church and state is like combining ice cream and horse manure. It may not do much damage to the manure, but it's sure going to mess up the ice cream."

While this blurring of the lines is of concern on several fronts, the one that concerns me most is the apparent hijacking of faith for other purposes. In much that I see, hear, and read there is a blasphemous form of worship that is arising. I fear that in many places the worship of the One True God is being substituted by a secular religion worshiping God and Country. I know that sounds terribly un-patriotic, I assure you it is not. I am not anti-American, I'm just pro-God. I am incredibly proud to be a citizen of the USA. I am thrilled that my children have the opportunity to grow up in a nation with unparalleled freedoms. I can't think of another nation I would want to call home. However, as a Christian, my first loyalty is not to the Stars and Stripes, my first loyalty is to the one by whose stripes we are healed.

Note the following statements made by prominent politicians from both political parties. See if you discern a disturbing note in what they say.

"The ideals of the America are the hope of mankind. This light shines in the darkness and the darkness will not overcome it." George W. Bush, 2002

"This country is the last great hope of the planet." Barack Obama, 2008

"The global success of liberty is America's greatest strategic interest as well as its most compelling moral argument...In it rests our faith in the greatness of America, the last, best hope of earth." John McCain, 2002

Do you see it? If you are not a believer you may not see anything disagreeable in these statements. If you are a believer these statements should cause you to pause and consider what is being said. Each of these leaders, and many others like them, state, with clear conviction, "The United States of America is the hope of the world." I must forcefully disagree. There is but one hope of the world and it is Jesus Christ. Paul clearly states that he is "not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation." (Romans 1:16) Salvation will not come from Washington, D.C., nor will it flow from the seats of power scattered across the state capitals of this land. Salvation will only be found, for individuals and for nations, in the person and finished work of Jesus Christ. And let me be clear, salvation certainly has to do with an eternal destination but it also has to do with our current situation. Salvation gives the believer no reason to be "so heavenly minded as to be no earthly good."

We must regain the power and influence of the early church which, though brutally persecuted, had a profound impact upon the culture in which it found itself. I challenge any and all to demonstrate from the New Testament any instance in which the church focused on getting Rome to pass laws to alleviate problems of any sort. The early church did not see the government as the solution to the problems of the day, they understood the church to be uniquely situated and uniquely called to address the brokenness in the world. A brokenness that is ultimately not one of systems but spirit.

William Estep, in his essay, Church and State, says, "Undeniably, the separation of church and state does produce a vacuum in society, or a 'naked public square.' In this fact lies the glory and the challenge of religious freedom." On one corner of that "naked public square," at the intersection of Church and State, sits the church. We, the church, are tasked with declaring a simple message to a listening and watching world, Christ died for sinners and rose again. "If the Christian faith is unequal to the task, no amount of propping up will do the job. Then with Thomas Jefferson, I would say, 'Let it fall,' but with Roger Williams and John Leland, I am convinced it will not, for I am persuaded that 'the gospel is still the power of God to salvation' for mankind and nations." (William Estep, Church and State.)

The apostle Peter, writing to a church under severe persecution by the government, gave the following instruction, "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor." (1 Peter 2:13-17) May we follow these goodly and God-ly instructions by...

V - Voicing our concerns to God. In prayer we find the power and perspective to rightly interact with the world in which we live.

O - Opening our Bible and living by it. If this, or any nation, is to be a "Christian nation" it will not happen because of a declaration by those in governance over us but because of the clear conviction of lives changed by the power of God. we will be a "Christian nation" only when we are a nation of Christians.

T- Telling others. Too many believers are content to let their lives do the talking for them. While I readily agree that our walk must match our talk, there must be some talk involved. As Paul stated, "How are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone telling them?" (Romans 10:14)

E- Engaging and Explaining. I have said it once and I will say it again, the "bomb throwing" tactics of engaging our culture will never produce the desired result. In fact, I question whether biblical foundation can be found for this type of "culture war." Those outside the church are keenly aware of what we are against and many bear the scars to prove it. I wonder how many know what we are for? Jesus stated, "Those who are well have no need of a doctor, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice." (Matthew 9:12-13) We spend far too much time with the "well" and not nearly enough time with those who are "sick." Something has to change. The church at the corner of Church and State must engage those who think differently, talk differently, and act differently, not to change them into people who look like, talk like, and act like us, but to change them into people who follow Jesus.

"But in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15-16) Does anybody want to know about the hope you have?

Talking Out of Both Sides of Your Mouth

I found this story in the latest edition of The Alabama Baptist and confirmed it with a simple web search. It seems the king is talking out of both sides of his mouth. On one hand you have good King Abdullah calling for reconciliation among various religions and on the other is the desperate reality of those citizens in his nation that are not followers of Islam. I find it intriguing that a mere two weeks after the King's much ballyhooed leadership toward interfaith cooperation that his surrogates continue an unrelenting campaign of religious intolerance. It seems that dialogue in Spain is fine but arrest, interrogation, and imprisonment are better at home.

Claude Salhani praises the good King's efforts saying, "In addressing the issue of religion as a source and motivation for today's violence, the king is moving in the right direction." King Abdullah's Experiment, Claude Salhani, The International Herald Tribune, July 29, 2008 (emphasis added). With all due respect, Mr. Salhani, I disagree completely. It would seem by his actions that the King is simply perpetuating the religious source and motivation for today's religious violence rather than addressing it.

The Audacity to Hope

Barack Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright (and Sen. Obama) have taken a lot of heat lately over this sermon. As a pastor I was interested to see what was causing all the noise so I tracked it down and read it for myself. I post it here for your consideration. As in all things, rather than let someone else form your opinion for you, take some time and think for yourself. Radical, I know.

The Audacity to Hope

Several years ago while I was in Richmond, the Lord allowed me to be in that city during the week of the annual convocation at Virginia Union University School of Theology. There I heard the preaching and teaching of Reverend Frederick G. Sampson of Detroit, Michigan. In one of his lectures, Dr. Sampson spoke of a painting I remembered studying in humanities courses back in the late '50s. In Dr. Sampson's powerful description of the picture, he spoke of it being a study in contradictions, because the title and the details on the canvas seem to be in direct opposition.

The painting's title is "Hope." It shows a woman sitting on top of the world, playing a harp. What more enviable position could one ever hope to achieve than being on top of the world with everyone dancing to your music?

As you look closer, the illusion of power gives way to the reality of pain. The world on which this woman sits, our world, is torn by war, destroyed by hate, decimated by despair, and devastated by distrust. The world on which she sits seems on the brink of destruction. Famine ravages millions of inhabitants in one hemisphere, while feasting and gluttony are enjoyed by inhabitants of another hemisphere. This world is a ticking time bomb, with apartheid in one hemisphere and apathy in the other. Scientists tell us there are enough nuclear warheads to wipe out all forms of life except cockroaches. That is the world on which the woman sits in Watt's painting.

Our world cares more about bombs for the enemy than about bread for the hungry. This world is still more concerned about the color of skin than it is about the content of character—a world more finicky about what's on the outside of your head than about the quality of your education or what's inside your head. That is the world on which this woman sits.

You and I think of being on top of the world as being in heaven. When you look at the woman in Watt's painting, you discover this woman is in hell. She is wearing rags. Her tattered clothes look as if the woman herself has come through Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Her head is bandaged, and blood seeps through the bandages. Scars and cuts are visible on her face, her arms, and her legs.

I. Illusion of Power vs. Reality of Pain

A closer look reveals all the harp strings but one are broken or ripped out. Even the instrument has been damaged by what she has been through, and she is the classic example of quiet despair. Yet the artist dares to entitle the painting Hope. The illusion of power—sitting on top of the world—gives way to the reality of pain.

And isn't it that way with many of us? We give the illusion of being in an enviable position on top of the world. Look closer, and our lives reveal the reality of pain too deep for the tongue to tell. For the woman in the painting, what looks like being in heaven is actually an existence in a quiet hell.

I've been a pastor for seventeen years. I've seen too many of these cases not to know what I'm talking about. I've seen married couples where the husband has a girlfriend in addition to his wife. It's something nobody talks about. The wife smiles and pretends not to hear the whispers and the gossip. She has the legal papers but knows he would rather try to buy Fort Knox than divorce her. That's a living hell.

I've seen married couples where the wife had discovered that somebody else cares for her as a person and not just as cook, maid jitney service, and call girl all wrapped into one. But there's the scandal: What would folks say? What about the children? That's a living hell.

I've seen divorcees whose dreams have been blown to bits, families broken up beyond repair, and lives somehow slipping through their fingers. They've lost control. That's a living hell.

I've seen college students who give the illusion of being on top of the world—designer clothes, all the sex that they want, all the cocaine or marijuana or drugs, all the trappings of having it all together on the outside—but empty and shallow and hurting and lonely and afraid on the inside. Many times what looks good on the outside—the illusion of being in power, of sitting on top of the world—with a closer look is actually existence in a quiet hell.

That is exactly where Hannah is in 1 Samuel 1 :1-18. Hannah is top dog in this three-way relationship between herself, Elkanah, and Peninnah. Her husband loves Hannah more than he loves his other wife and their children. Elkanah tells Hannah he loves her. A lot of husbands don't do that. He shows Hannah that he loves her, and many husbands never get around to doing that. In fact, it is his attention and devotion to Hannah that causes Peninnah to be so angry and to stay on Hannah's case constantly. Jealous! Jealousy will get hold of you, and you can't let it go because it won't let you go. Peninnah stayed on Hannah, like we say, "as white on rice." She constantly picked at Hannah, making her cry, taking her appetite away.

At first glance Hannah's position seems enviable. She had all the rights and none of the responsibilities—no diapers to change, no beds to sit beside at night, no noses to wipe, nothing else to wipe either, no babies draining you of your milk and demanding feeding. Hannah was top dog. No baby portions to fix at meal times. Her man loved her; everybody knew he loved her. He loved her more than anything or anybody. That's why Peninnah hated her so much.

Now, except for the second-wife bit, which was legal back then, Hannah was sitting on top of the world, until you look closer. When you look closer, what looked like being in heaven was actually existing in a quiet hell.

Hannah had the pain of a bitter woman to contend with, for verse 7 says that nonstop, Peninnah stayed with her. Hannah suffered the pain of living with a bitter woman. And she suffered another pain—the pain of a barren womb. You will remember the story of the widow in 2 Kings 4 who had no child. The story of a woman with no children was a story of deep pathos and despair in biblical days.

Do you remember the story of Sarah and what she did in Genesis 16 because of her barren womb—before the three heavenly visitors stopped by their tent? Do you remember the story of Elizabeth and her husband in Luke I? Back in Bible days, the story of a woman with a barren womb was a story of deep pathos. And Hannah was afflicted with the pain of a bitter woman on the one hand and the pain of a barren womb on the other.

Hannah's world was flawed, flaky. Her garments of respectability were tattered and torn, and her heart was bruised and bleeding from the constant attacks of a jealous woman. The scars and scratches on her psyche are almost visible as you look at this passage, where she cries, refusing to eat anything. Just like the woman in Watt's painting, what looks like being in heaven is actually existence in a quiet hell.

Now I want to share briefly with you about Hannah—the lady and the Lord. While I do so, I want you to be thinking about where you live and your own particular pain predicament. Think about it for a moment.

Dr. Sampson said he wanted to quarrel with the artist for having the gall to name that painting Hope when all he could see in the picture was hell—a quiet desperation. But then Dr. Sampson said he noticed that he had been looking only at the horizontal dimensions and relationships and how this woman was hooked up with that world on which she sat. He had failed to take into account her vertical relationships. He had not looked above her head. And when he looked over her head, he found some small notes of music moving joyfully and playfully toward heaven.

II. The Audacity to Hope

Then, Dr. Sampson began to understand why the artist titled the painting "Hope." In spite of being in a world torn by war, in spite of being on a world destroyed by hate and decimated by distrust, in spite of being on a world where famine and greed are uneasy bed partners, in spite of being on a world where apartheid and apathy feed the fires of racism and hatred, in spite of being on a world where nuclear nightmare draws closer with each second, in spite of being on a ticking time bomb, with her clothes in rags, her body scarred and bruised and bleeding, her harp all but destroyed and with only one string left, she had the audacity to make music and praise God. The vertical dimension balanced out what was going on in the horizontal dimension.

And that is what the audacity to hope will do for you. The apostle Paul said the same thing. "You have troubles? Glory in your trouble. We glory in tribulation." That's the horizontal dimension. We glory in tribulation because, he says, "Tribulation works patience. And patience works experience. And experience works hope. (That's the vertical dimension.) And hope makes us not ashamed." The vertical dimension balances out what is going on in the horizontal dimension. That is the real story here in the first chapter of 1 Samuel. Not the condition of Hannah's body, but the condition of Hannah's soul—her vertical dimension. She had the audacity to keep on hoping and praying when there was no visible sign on the horizontal level that what she was praying for, hoping for, and waiting for would ever be answered in the affirmative.

What Hannah wanted most out of life had been denied to her. Think about that. Yet in spite of that, she kept on hoping. The gloating of Peninnah did not make her bitter. She kept on hoping. When the family made its pilgrimage to the sanctuary at Shiloh, she renewed her petition there, pouring out her heart to God. She may have been barren, but that's a horizontal dimension. She was fertile in her spirit, her vertical dimension. She prayed and she prayed and she prayed and she kept on praying year after year. With no answer, she kept on praying. She prayed so fervently in this passage that Eli thought she had to be drunk. There was no visible sign on the horizontal level to indicate to Hannah that her praying would ever be answered. Yet, she kept on praying.

And Paul said something about that, too. No visible sign? He says, "Hope is what saves us, for we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen is not hope. For what a man sees, why does he have hope for it? But if we hope for that which we see not (no visible sign), then do we with patience wait for it."

That's almost an echo of what the prophet Isaiah said: "They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength." The vertical dimension balances out what is going on in the horizontal dimension.

There may not be any visible sign of a change in your individual situation, whatever your private hell is. But that's just the horizontal level. Keep the vertical level intact, like Hannah. You may, like the African slaves, be able to sing, "Over my head I hear music in the air. Over my head I hear music in the air. Over my head I hear music in the air. There must be a God somewhere."

Keep the vertical dimension intact like Hannah. Have the audacity to hope for that child of yours. Have the audacity to hope for that home of yours. Have the audacity to hope for that church of yours. Whatever it is you've been praying for, keep on praying, and you may find, like my grandmother sings, "There's a bright side somewhere; there is a bright side somewhere. Don't you rest until you find it, for there is a bright side somewhere."

III. Persistence of Hope

The real lesson Hannah gives us from this chapter—the most important word God would have us hear—is how to hope when the love of God is not plainly evident. It's easy to hope when there are evidences all around of how good God is. But to have the audacity to hope when that love is not evident—you don't know where that somewhere is that my grandmother sang about, or if there will ever be that brighter day—that is a true test of a Hannah-type faith. To take the one string you have left and to have the audacity to hope—make music and praise God on and with whatever it is you've got left, even though you can't see what God is going to do—that's the real word God will have us hear from this passage and from Watt's painting.

There's a true-life illustration that demonstrates the principles portrayed so powerfully in this periscope. And I close with it. My mom and my dad used to sing a song that I've not been able to find in any of the published hymnals. It's an old song out of the black religious tradition called "Thank you, Jesus." It's a very simple song. Some of you have heard it. It's simply goes, "Thank you Jesus. I thank you Jesus. I thank you Jesus. I thank you Lord." To me they always sang that song at the strangest times—when the money got low, or when the food was running out. When I was getting in trouble, they would start singing that song. And I never understood it, because as a child it seemed to me they were thanking God that we didn't have any money, or thanking God that we had no food, or thanking God that I was making a fool out of myself as a kid.

Conclusion: Hope is What Saves Us

But I was only looking at the horizontal level. I did not understand nor could I see back then the vertical hookup that my mother and my father had. I did not know then that they were thanking him in advance for all they dared to hope he would do one day to their son, in their son, and through their son. That's why they prayed. That's why they hoped. That's why they kept on praying with no visible sign on the horizon. And I thank God I had praying parents, because now some thirty-five years later, when I look at what God has done in my life, I understand clearly why Hannah had the audacity to hope. Why my parents had the audacity to hope.

And that's why I say to you, hope is what saves us. Keep on hoping; keep on praying. God does hear and answer prayer.

Jeremiah Wright is pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

An Artful Dodge

Browsing the morning on-line news ran across this Q&A concerning Mormonism. Interesting that the LDS church took a pass on seriously coming to grips with some of its most nagging questions. Funny reading their responses. Sounds like they've been listening to Collin Raye's "That's my story (and I'm stickin' to it)".

Let's face it, Mormonism, no matter what kind of socially acceptable dress you put it in, is still a very different theological animal than biblically orthodox Christianity. I've posted on this topic before and will likely post again because it will continue to come up with Mr. Romney's run for the Oval Office. (For the record, I have ZERO problem with him as a candidate for president because of his Mormon beliefs. "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (The Constitution of the United States of America) Still exploring the field to see who I like.)

Mormonism is like a birthday cake I once had the pleasure of eating. A "friend" baked a pone of cornbread and then covered it in wonderful butter cream icing and completed it with candles and birthday wishes. To all outward appearances it looked like a birthday cake but one bite quickly dispelled any notion that this was birthday cake. Mormonism looks like a Christian religion, but alas, it is not.

One question I would enjoy hearing the Mormon church come to grips with is the absence of archaeological evidence for this grand civilization which they purport existed in the western hemisphere. To my knowledge not one of the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon has ever been discovered.

Of Saints, Angels, and Politicians: A consideration of Jean Bastien-Lepage's Joan of Arc

Joan of Arc, 1879 Jules Bastien-Lepage (French, 1848–1884) Oil on canvas; 100 x 110 in. (254 x 279.4 cm) Gift of Erwin Davis, 1889 (89.21.1) Metropolitan Museum of Art New York City, New York

My friend Carol has given me an arduous task. The first part I volunteered for by suggesting that we collaborate on this project from our unique points of view. The second part was more than I bargained for! After refreshing my memory concerning Joan of Arc's story I had to introduce myself to Saints Catherine and Margret and upon completing that I was then engaged in revisiting the theology of saints and angels. I feel as if I am preparing for an undergraduate paper! (Here's hoping that what follows is not too sophomoric.)

Allow me to begin by offering my philistine observations of this painting. I would love to see this marvelous work personally. I somehow believe seeing it on a computer monitor does it a severe disservice. One thing that immediately catches my eye is the distinct difference in the figure of Joan and everything else in the painting. Joan is painted with an almost photographic clarity while everything else is impressionistic and ethereal. It would seem the message Bastien-Lepage is communicating through this is the clarity of purpose in Joan's life. There is also a note of urgency about her as the stool she was apparently sitting upon has been overturned in her pursuit of the path being laid before her by the voices of Michael, Margret and Catherine. I note that the path also stands out with unusual clarity (a clear path to follow?) even though it may wind with unexpected turns. The images of Michael, Margret and Catherine very nearly blend into the background. It is as if they are a part of the scenery until you look more closely and discover them "hiding" there. This is, I think, a clever representation of the influences upon Joan's upbringing as well as a commentary upon the forces that shape all of our lives; they tend to blend into the background yet exert great influence on the trajectory of our lives. A beautiful and meaning-filled message in paint.

Now to the theological and pastoral considerations of this subject. Let's talk first about Saints. Do I believe in them? Unequivocally yes. Hebrews 11 and 12 speak of our being "surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses". (On this note, Carol, you must find your way to Birmingham, AL and tour the Chapel of Beeson Divinity School for a marvelous rendering of this scripture). However, my protestant heritage and Zwinglian penchant for iconoclastic thinking prevents me from embracing the notion of long departed saints speaking any word to me other than through their example. I cannot imagine pursuing a course of action because Adoniram Judson instructed me to do so, but I can easily imagine following his courageous example because, like him, I too am called to be a follower of Christ. So, imagining Joan acting on the direction of these voices borders on the absurd for me. After all, people that hear voices of the long departed are either in the looney bin, taking serious medications, or giving psychic readings at Lilly Dale.

The only recollection I have from the Bible of the dead speaking with the living is that of Samuel being called upon by the witch of Endor at the request of King Saul (See 1 Samuel 28). It was not a happy reunion. So, can it happen? Yes. Is it a course of action recommended to us by Scripture? No.

I am aware, if dimly, that in the Catholic church and tradition there is the belief and practice of praying to the saints for help and direction. This is certainly reflected in Bastien-Lepage's painting and, apparently, in the experience of Joan of Arc. Candidly, I find this to be incredible on two fronts. First, as I have already mentioned, the notion of someone who is dead communicating with me in the here and now is not beyond possibility but it is beyond the norm. Secondly, my protestant background questions the efficacy of such an exercise. My theology informs me that through the sacrifice made by Jesus upon the cross there is no longer any wall of separation between me and my Creator. If I can go directly to the source why would I rely on or request the help of some lesser intermediary? As a follower of Jesus I am promised the presence of the Holy Spirit in my life, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all thing and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."(John 14:26). Having the very presence of God with me to guide and sustain me causes me to question why anyone would rely on something less.

As for angels, they have enjoyed a resurgence of interest over the last couple of decades. Our increasingly secular culture seems to be feeling that "God shaped void" of which Augustine speaks and is seeking to fill it with a variety of spiritual substitutes. Angels are a more palatable commodity than many things found in the modern spiritual marketplace. Typically imagined in feminine tenderness as a caregiver or rendered powerfully masculine as a defender and protector, the notion of "angel" brings to mind benevolent faces, gentle wings, and able defenders. This is so far afield from the Hebrew concept of angel that it is difficult to bridge the gap. Certainly there are Cherubim and Seraphim with wings, but most times angels appeared to individuals, in both the Old and New Testaments, as humans. What caused them to stand apart was the message they brought. In fact, the word "angel" means messenger.

Karl Barth has given the most extensive treatment of the subject of angels in any recent theology textbook and describes the topic as "the most remarkable and difficult of all." There are numerous references to angels in Scripture, however, the nature of those references is not very helpful in developing an understanding of angels. "Every reference to angels is incidental to some other topic. They are not treated in themselves. God's revelation never aims at informing us regarding the nature of angels. When they are mentioned, it is always in order to inform us further about God, what He does, and how He does it." (Millard J. Erikson, Christian Theology, p. 434).

But what about Joan? She was apparently examined by the theologians in residence and was passed as sanely sincere in her pursuit of a path defined for her by long dead saints and a warrior angel. Is it possible that she had an encounter with the divine that shaped her destiny or is it possible that she became an unwitting, if powerful, pawn in a game of thrones that consumed her brief and bright life? In truth, both possibilities exist here. It is even within the realm of reason that both possibilities came together in Joan's life.

Carol, in communicating with me about this particular painting, mentioned "the conflation of religion and politics", a nice turn of phrase for an historically bad arrangement. It seems to be a particularly cogent point for the right understanding of this painting as well as the right understanding of many bad chapters in human history, both ancient and modern.

In Joan's life the vision of the warrior angel Michael holding forth a sword for her to take up combined with the martyred saints, Catherine and Margret, seem to play into her psyche. Michael clearly points toward a military role most unusual for a woman. Catherine, martyred for out thinking the political heads of her day, and Margret, martyred for maintaining her virginity against the advances of a powerful magistrate, both point toward her too young death. It is entirely possible that those in power saw in Joan an opportunity to play upon the naive faith of a desperate people to move them to action in accordance with their plans for power. It is not the first time this has been done, nor will it be the last time.

In our own day there are concerns about just this sort of thing happening within American Christianity. There are those who seem bent on imposing their view of the Christian faith, not only on other Christians, but also, upon all who fall under the reach of their influence. Are there truths we should uphold? Absolutely! Some of the truths which find their source in the understanding of the existence of God are firmly planted in the founding documents of our nation. Truths like, "all men are created equal", and "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are "endowed by our creator" upon all men everywhere. However, these very truths uphold the right of others to disbelieve. It is a perilous balancing act but one which must be maintained at all costs. "Baptists know from experience that when the interests of the church are no broader than the interests of the state, the church loses its leverage to reconcile those divisions that condemn the world to perpetual strife. The distinctive Baptist understanding of religious liberty is not some denominational oddity, a mere hiccup on the side of history. Rather it offers an essential contribution to the development of a post-9/11 geopolitic by enshrining the insight that the awesome spiritual power of religion may not be linked to the equally awesome temporal power of the state if any semblance of freedom is to survive." (Bill Hull, The Meaning of the Baptist Experience, p. 21, emphasis added)

Abraham Lincoln famously said, "Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right" This is indeed the great challenge of our present day and it will be the great challenge of every coming day, to be on God's side. May He grant us grace to follow so closely as to always be found on His side.

The Martyrs No One Cares About

Carol, over at Watch Me Paint, sent me this a few days ago. Thanks Carol, for uncovering this gem. I post it here for your consideration...

The Martyrs No One Cares About
By Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, August 1, 2007

The blood of innocent Christian missionaries spills on Afghan sands. The world watches and yawns. The United Nations offers nothing more than a formal expression of "concern." Where is the global uproar over the human rights abuses unfolding before our eyes?

For two weeks, a group of South Korean Christians has been held hostage by Taliban thugs in Afghanistan. This is the largest group of foreign hostages taken in Afghanistan since Operation Enduring Freedom began in 2001. What was their offense? Were they smuggling arms into the country? No. Inciting violence? No. They were peaceful believers in Christ on short-term medical and humanitarian missions. Seventeen of the 23 hostages are females. Most of them are nurses who provide social services and relief.

Over the past few days, the bloodthirsty jihadists have demanded that South Korea immediately withdraw troops from the Middle East, pay ransom and trade the civilian missionaries for imprisoned Taliban fighters. The Taliban leaders have made good on threats to kill the kidnapped Christians while Afghan officials plead fecklessly that their monstrous behavior is "un-Islamic."

Two men, 29-year-old Shim Sung-min and 42-year-old Pastor Bae Hyeong-gyu, have already been shot to death and dumped in the name of Allah. Bae was a married father with a 9-year-old daughter. According to Korean media, he was from a devout Christian family from the island province of Jeju. He helped found the Saemmul Church south of Seoul, which sent the volunteers to Afghanistan.

Across Asia, media coverage is 24/7. Strangers have held nightly prayer vigils. But the human rights crowd in America has been largely AWOL. And so has most of our mainstream media. Among some of the secular elite, no doubt, is a blame-the-victim apathy: The missionaries deserved what they got. What were they thinking bringing their message of faith to a war zone? Didn't they know they were sitting ducks for Muslim head-choppers whose idea of evangelism is "convert or die"?

I noted the media shoulder-shrugging about jihadist targeting of Christian missionaries five years ago during the kidnapping and murder of American Christian missionaries Martin and Gracia Burnham in the Philippines. The silence is rooted in viewing committed Christians as alien others. At best, there is a collective callousness. At worst, there is outright contempt -- from Ted Turner's reference to Catholics as "Jesus freaks" to CBS producer Roxanne Russell's casual insult of former GOP presidential candidate Gary Bauer as "the little nut from the Christian group" to the mockery of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Mormon faith.

Curiously, those who argue that we need to "understand" Islamic terrorists demonstrate little effort to "understand" the Christian evangelical missionaries who risk their lives to spread the gospel -- not by sword, but through acts of compassion, healing and education. An estimated 16,000 Korean mission workers risk their lives across the globe -- from Africa to the Middle East, China and North Korea.

These are true practitioners of a religion of peace, not the hate-mongers with bombs and AK-47s strapped to their chests who slay instead of pray their way to martyrdom.

More on the Separation of Church and State

I received a copy of Dr. William Hull's little book, The Meaning of the Baptist Experience in which, among other things, he comes to grips with the question of religiously inspired terror. The historic and modern illustrations of what occurs when religious fervor is given ready access to the power of the state is an unhappy, even tragic, scene littered with broken lives and broken faith.

Dr. Hull speaks to a growing mood among some Christians to bring about a new theocracy.

"One of the dangers...is that we become like our enemies. Already the lure of theocracy is all about us as various religious groups seek governmental favors in exchange for political support. But what if efforts are made in the name of a militant patriotism to co-opt Christianity as an American or a Western religion so that it no longer functions as a global religion without allegiance to any one country or culture?...Baptists know from experience that when the interests of the church are no broader than the interests of the state, the church loses its leverage to reconcile those divisions that condemn the world to perpetual strife. The distinctive Baptist understanding of religious liberty is not some denominational oddity, a mere hiccup on the side of history. Rather it offers an essential contribution to the development of a post-9/11 geopolitic by enshrining the insight that the awesome spiritual power of religion may not be linked to the equally awesome temporal power of the state if any semblance of freedom is to survive." (Emphasis added, The Meaning of the Baptist Experience, p. 21)

This idea of the state maintaining civil relationships between the citizenry and not dictating what the citizenry will or will not believe about their Creator is a good idea that should be preserved at all costs.

Roger Williams and Room to Grow a Soul

A spare few days after the good ship Lyon dropped anchor in Boston Harbor a delegation from the Church (note the capital 'C') in Boston came searching for one Mr. Roger Williams to offer him the privilege of pastoring their church. Having endured a perilous journey of two months in a winter sea and thanking God for the sight of land Mr. Williams received his visitors. This delegation made their offer to young Roger with a smug assurance that this young man would certainly leap at the opportunity to lead the First Church of the New World, the ecclesiastical plum of all the Americas. They were certainly taken aback as they heard him quietly tell them that he could not accept such a position in Boston, until they became clearly "a separated people" from the despised Church of England, and until they separated Church from State in their colony.

Williams had cultivated a deep hatred for State Churches. This was the very reason he endured 3000 miles of ice filled seas. He was searching for a place where "soul-liberty" could be experienced. He was looking for a place with room to grow a soul, and he had no intention of compromising that search with his first decision in the new world. Choosing principle over prestige he proceeded to pursue his passion.

This was only the first step among many that would lead him down a road filled with disagreement with those in authority. This road finally led him to the purchase of some land from the indians and the founding of Providence, Rhode Island. This was the first city of its kind in the New World. A city in which no discipline was dispensed in the interest of spiritual conformity. A city in which the Quaker (whom Williams never liked but never persecuted) and the Puritan could walk side by side.

This principle of religious liberty, which so possessed the soul of Roger Williams, would find it's full expression in the words found in the Constitution of the United States of America:

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

and

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

It was not always so in the New World. After Roger Williams it was and it remains so to this day. He is truly the father of the American dream of a genuinely free nation in which all are on an equal footing before God and the law without regard for their religious views. I am grateful to stand in the tradition of such an outstanding Christian.

The Bloody Tenet

This little stick of dynamite, written by Roger Williams in 1644, set off shock waves that are still being felt today.

THE BLOODY TENET OF PERSECUTION

Roger Williams

1644

Roger Williams, born in London in 1604 and educated at Pembroke College, Cambridge, emigrated as a Puritan to Massachusetts in 1630. In 1635, he was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony due to his Baptist views and advocacy of the rights of Indians. He moved south, where he purchased land from the Indians and founded the town of Providence. He was president of Rhode Island from 1654 to 1658. Williams’s belief in religious tolerance led Rhode Island to become the first colony to offer religious freedom. Understanding that religious "persecution for the cause of conscience" was counterproductive, Williams called for liberty not only for Christians but also for Jews, Turks, "anti-Christians," and pagans.

RJ&L Religious Institutions Group

FIRST, that the blood of so many hundred thousand souls of Protestants and Papists, spilt in the wars of present and former ages, for their respective consciences, is not required nor accepted by Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace.

Secondly, pregnant scriptures and arguments are throughout the work proposed against the doctrine of persecution for causes of conscience.

Thirdly, satisfactory answers are given to scriptures, and objections produced by Mr. Calvin, Beza, Mr. Cotton, and the ministers of the New English churches and others former and later, tending to prove the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience.

Fourthly, the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience is proved guilty of all the blood of the souls crying for vengeance under the altar.

Fifthly, all civil states with their officers of justice in their respective constitutions and administrations are proved essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of the spiritual or Christian state and worship.

Sixthly, it is the will and command of God that (since the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus) a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or antichristian consciences and worships, be granted to all men in all nations and countries and they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only (in soul matters) able to conquer, to wit the sword of God s Spirit the Word of God.

Seventhly, the state of the Land of Israel, the kings and people thereof in peace and war, is proved figurative and ceremonial, and no pattern nor president for any kingdom or civil state in the world to follow.

Eighthly, God requireth not a uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity (sooner or later) is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls.

Ninthly, in holding an enforced uniformity of religion in a civil state, we must necessarily disclaim our desires and hopes of the Jew's conversion to Christ.

Tenthly, an enforced uniformity of religion throughout a nation or civil state, confounds the civil and religious, denies the principles of Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

Eleventhly, the permission of other consciences and worships than a state professeth only can (according to God) procure a firm and lasting peace (good assurance being taken according to the wisdom of the civil state for uniformity of civil obedience from all sorts).

Twelfthly, lastly, true civility and Christianity may both flourish in a state or kingdom, notwithstanding the permission of divers and contrary consciences, either of Jew or Gentile.

Source: Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New-York (E.B. O'Callaghan ed., 1853-57).

Williams was the first champion of religious liberty and the separation of church and state. His memorable expression of this separation is the idea of the two tables of the Ten Commandments. Williams affirmed the right and responsibility of the civil government to enforce the public offenses against the second table, those commandments dealing with one's fellowman, but not the first table, those commandments having to do with one's relationship to God. In other words, the civil government should maintain relational civility between its citizens but not dictate a relationship with the creator for its citizens.

I am not willing to silence those who may disagree with me. Neither am I willing to be silenced by those who would disagree with me. Let freedom continue to ring! And let all who would declaim Christianity remember that Christians secured your right to believe as you will.

Faith and the Political Process

I was amused to read the headline, "Sen. Clinton: Faith Got Me Through Marital Strife." It is so interesting to watch the national media attempt to get a handle on this religion thing. It is really a simple matter. It is an unavoidable fact that faith and belief inform one's decisions. Therefore it is an important matter for people like me (who, according to most surveys, make up the vast majority of Americans) to know from what foundation my leaders will make decisions. Faith is important. Our founding fathers are noted for their strong sense of belief and were unapologetic in their pronouncements concerning the role of faith in the public life. Note the following quotes.

John Adams stated, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

George Washington stated, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible."

“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.” John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son.

“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel." Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention of 1787

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” Patrick Henry, May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses

Let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God [Exodus 18:21]. . . . If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted . . . If our government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws." Noah Webster, The History of the United States

It would seem that not much has changed in over 200 years. We may bicker over whether or not the 10 commandments should be displayed publicly, but to deny that the foundations of our nation are laid on biblical bedrock is to have one's head in the sand. The very reason that people of differing belief systems are able to co-exist in this nation is because the founders believed so strongly that God has given every individual the right to believe as they will. We deny this truth at our own peril, the peril of someone arising and insisting that all believe and behave as they say. So, I say hooray for John Edwards speaking openly and frankly about his faith. Hooray for Hillary stating that her faith helped her through a difficult time. Hooray for all who will stand and say, "This is what I believe." It helps me to know who they are.

Likewise I say boo to those who would hijack any faith for the purposes of political gain. Boo to those who will simply use the words of faith without living the life dictated by that faith. Boo to those who utilize faith as a whip to enforce their pet point of view. Boo to those who have utilized faith as a means to financial gain.

Our nation is a nation of faith and I say that faith has a powerful role in the political process of our nation. What do you say?