First Amendment restrictions
apply to government, not citizens, say
Baptist scholars
by Tammi Reed Ledbetter
FORT WORTH—The
Baptist definition of “separation of
church and state” is quite different
from the secular-humanist definition
formulated by the American judiciary
over the past half century, Barrett
Duke, vice president of the Southern
Baptist Convention’s Ethics and
Religious Liberty Commission, said
during a roundtable discussion that
closed out the first Baptist
Distinctives Conference at Southwestern
Baptist Theological Seminary Sept. 9-10.
“It is more appropriate to talk about
separation of state from church than
separation of church and state,” Duke
said, adding that he “couldn’t say it
any better” than Article 17 of the
Southern Baptist Convention’s 2000
Baptist Faith and Message:
“‘God alone is Lord of the conscience,
and He has left it free from the
doctrines and commandments of men which
are contrary to His Word or not
contained in it. Church and state should
be separate. The state owes to every
church protection and full freedom in
the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In
providing for such freedom no
ecclesiastical group or denomination
should be favored by the state more than
others. Civil government being ordained
of God, it is the duty of Christians to
render loyal obedience thereto in all
things not contrary to the revealed will
of God. 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. The state has no right to
impose penalties for religious opinions
of any kind. The state has no right to
impose taxes for the support of any form
of religion. A free church in a free
state is the Christian ideal, and this
implies the right of free and unhindered
access to God on the part of all men,
and the right to form and propagate
opinions in the sphere of religion
without interference by the civil
power.’
“The First Amendment doesn’t address the
church at all,” Southwestern Seminary
President Paige Patterson observed,
adding that only limitations on
government are mentioned. The
government cannot establish or interfere
with the church, he explained, noting
the warning against the encroachment of
government on the spiritual life of
people.
“Naturally it affects the church in
that, no matter how much I’d like to see
how it would look, I can’t insist only
on having Baptist legislators, a Baptist
president and Baptist courts,” Patterson
said
“We’ve tried those Baptist presidents,”
reminded Russell Moore, dean of the
theology school at Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary, drawing laughter
from the crowd.
“That was rough,” Patterson added.
“There is ample evidence that just
because a man has membership in a church
with a Baptist shingle out front does
not qualify him to be president, and
being a Baptist does not necessarily
mean he will make a good president,”
Patterson later stated in answering a
question about evaluating candidates.
“Oftentimes,” he said, it is necessary
to vote for the person who “will bring
the least evil.”
Agreeing that Southern Baptists ought to
guard against unqualified political
allegiance to a particular party, he
expressed greater frustration at the
lack of prophetic ministry by Baptist
preachers given the opportunity to visit
the President of the United States.
“They left their prophetic credentials
in the car when they went in and were so
honored to be in the Oval office they
forgot why they’re there.”
Retired Judge Paul Pressler of Houston,
on the other hand, offered a positive
assessment of the influence of Southern
Baptists on the culture, in general.
“Southern Baptists have been able to
exert some pressure to move us back in
the right direction on some of these
things,” Pressler stated. “I think we’re
gaining a little bit of ground, though
Dr. Patterson would say I’m overly
optimistic.”
More specifically, American society’s
view of religious liberty gives reason
for concern, several panelists argued.
Daniel Heimbach, professor of Christian
ethics at Southeastern Baptist
Theological Seminary, recalled an
earlier address by ERLC President
Richard Land on the modern American
judiciary’s shift in the meaning of
separation of church and state.
Referring to two major shifts, Heimbach
said, “One came from viewing the
religion clause as a restriction on the
government from interfering in the
religious life of the church and
individuals, to a restriction of
individuals and the church from
influencing in any way the workings of
government and public policy.
“That was a big shift,” Heimbach added.
A
second, possibly related shift is seen
in moving from separating the
institutions of the church and the state
to separating any type of faith
conviction from influencing the public
order, Heimbach said.
Heimbach observed that Thomas Jefferson,
on the day after he wrote the reference
to separation of church and state to
Danbury Baptists, traveled to the House
of Representative’s chambers for a
religious worship service.
“That was not considered a violation (of
the First Amendment),” Heimbach noted.
Instead of the reference being made in
regard to certain activities such as
chaplains in the military, he said it
addressed official institutional
endorsement.
“There is a shift from that to more and
more trying to absolutize a separation
of politics from religion so that [the
First Amendment inhibits] anything that
has religion for its foundation and
motivation.” He added, “All morality
comes from religious presuppositions,
whether traditional or not.”
Heimbach distinguished between religious
liberty and true religious autonomy with
no limitation. “There are limits with
respect to harming others, flying
airplanes into trade towers, sacrifices
or even [use of] narcotic drugs,” he
noted.
Pressler added that an individual who
tries to rationalize drug use by
appealing to religious liberty is
governed by the laws of society. “If
society cannot protect itself against
those things that would destroy society,
then society is a mess. The right of
protection of society itself outweighs
his religious liberty to use this drug,”
he said.
Heimbach reiterated the concept that
government has an obligation to protect
the public, “as in the case of adults
preying sexually on young people and
taking advantage of trusted positions to
do so,” referring to the recent scandal
among Roman Catholic priests.
“It was handled absolutely correctly,”
Patterson said of the government
prosecuting criminals, not the Catholic
Church. “They didn’t prosecute them
because they were Catholics or priests,
but because they were criminals. Then
the Catholic Church has gotten the
penalty for not supervising its own by
individual tort actions by the people
victimized.”
Then again, religious liberty cannot be
forced at the point of a sword nor
through the pouring of water, Duke said.
“It has to be through the preaching of
the Word,” he insisted.
Asked whether international missionaries
should advocate the Baptist ideal of
religious liberty, particularly in
countries where it does not exist,
Patterson said missionaries should not
be diverted from their primary purpose
in sharing the gospel. Political
activity must not hinder the
presentation of the gospel, he said.
While missionaries have to respond to
their consciences leading them, Duke
said they must “act in accordance with
what God would have [them] do.”