By Zachary Bailes
In his Letter to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport, George Washington wrote in 1790: “May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”
Growing up Baptist, if someone had told me that Washington had written a letter assuring safety of a “Hebrew congregation,” I’m not sure I would have believed it. This is because I was either explicitly or implicitly taught that Christians and Jews are not to mingle. Yet in Rhode Island, it was Baptists who created the space for Jews to worship as they pleased.
Today, fundamentalist viewpoints have conflated Israeli identity with Zionist belief. As the record will show, Israel does not demonstrate the most tolerant attitude when it comes to other religions. And, yet, it was Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission this past week that advocated for America to “bless the Jews” so that God will “bless America.”
Land’s words are neither constructive for the Middle East peace process, nor do they reflect the highly held value of religious liberty. Land’s thought conflates theology with public policy in a disastrous manner. Indeed, his words stir the boiling pot of militant activity. His theological belief creates political action that demeans the religious identity of Palestinian Christians and Muslims.
It is at this point Land stands against his Baptist heritage, the same heritage reflected in George Washington’s letter. While Washington affirmed safety for those who were the minority, Land affirms political belief rooted in theological reflection that restricts constructive conversation between religions and governments.
This is not a new “line” in conservative thinking, but it startles this young Baptist each time this type of statement is made.
Implicit in Land’s comments is the necessity of “not blessing” Palestinians, and he makes no mention of how a constructive peace process can occur in the war-ravaged area. While Land says that he is a social conservative because he believes in the Bible, I’m a social progressive because I believe in the Bible. Before my belief in the Bible, however, is my belief in Jesus Christ and his emphatic emphasis on love and peace.
Land sacrifices his conscience to presidential hopefuls and forsakes the Baptist identity that makes religious liberty valued.
I am a Baptist because I have chosen to uphold freedom of conscience and embrace transformative conversation. I remain a Baptist because in this increasingly pluralistic and globalized world the Baptist identity possesses remarkable potential for conversation between people of varied faith backgrounds. Baptist identity possesses potential for peace, but as we have seen with Richard Land that identity seems distant and hard to reach.
There are many young Baptists like myself who have contemplated switching denominations, and this includes many young ministers. This doesn’t occur because they are weak of faith, but because other denominations have done a more thoroughgoing job of living into building relationships with those not thinking, looking and believing as they do.
As a young Baptist I am thankful there are several role models for developing a critical and constructive faith that also happens to be Baptist. They inspire me and grant me hope for a better world.
One thing, however, is certain: in our increasingly pluralistic world we need more critical thinking and less close-mindedness. Or, to put it bluntly, we need fewer Richard Lands and more peace mongers, hucksters of love and globally aware people of faith.
It was, after all, a Baptist that first argued for religious liberty in America, and that value is still fought for tooth and nail by Baptists, Jews, Sikhs and Muslims — together. We need Baptists that see the larger picture, and the larger possibilities — not political candidates and policy kowtowing.