This past week, the 187th annual meeting of the Baptist General Association of Virginia was held at the Hampton Roads Convention Center. Among items to be discussed and voted on, a resolution from the BGAV’s religious liberty committee was brought before the body. It is my belief that the resolution, and the spirit behind it, poses a great threat to the unity of our body as a whole.
I first heard of this resolution through a pastor friend of mine. In an article dated Oct. 26, Religious Herald Managing Editor Robert Dilday lays the groundwork for how this resolution came to be.
Joseph Giles
|
“The Virginia Baptist Mission Board has approved a ‘2010 History Project’ to publish a document to correct ‘certain influential versions of American history [which] … mistakenly minimize or deny the grounding in this nation’s history of the Baptist principles of religious liberty or its safeguard, the Baptist principle of church-state separation ….’ The project, recommended by the Baptist General Association of Virginia’s religious liberty committee, is a response to what the religious liberty committee called recent revisions of American history which minimize or deny separation of church and state or government neutrality toward all religions and non-religions.”
Immediately upon reading this article, with the resolution, I saw mistakes and I saw one group’s interpretation being forced on another.
In the first “whereas” article of the resolution, religious liberty and separation of church and state (or government neutrality toward all religions and nonreligion) are defined as Baptist principles. First, these principles are not inherently Baptist. They are American. It is true that Baptist forefathers had a voice in creating the principle of religious liberty, but to call it a Baptist principle is to state that Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians and other denominations do not value these principles. Secondly, in the Baptist Faith and Message statement (1963 or 2000, both are identical on the issue), while religious liberty is mentioned as a Baptist principle, no where do we find separation of church and state.
As I pointed out in my opposition to the resolution, the term “separation of church and state” was never a legal term until the mid 20th century. Thomas Jefferson used this phrase in a reply to the Danbury Baptist Association, which had written a letter to him concerning religious liberty. At the time, their state constitution did not guarantee religious liberty. Jefferson’s response on the “wall of separation between church and state” is understood that government would have no influence in a person’s personal religious belief.
The way the term “separation of church and state” is used in our society today is not what Thomas Jefferson or the founding fathers had in mind. Jefferson’s response is clear: the government shall have no coercive influence on a person’s choice of religious belief or affiliation. Unfortunately, that term has too often been reversed to mean that religious bodies and religious principles are to have no influence in government matters, which is a notion that is ridiculous and that I believe our founding father’s would laugh at if they were still alive.
During the BGAV meeting, in regards to religious liberty, the phrase “people have freedom of religion, to have religion, or from religion” was used in a similar context. Our founding fathers never guaranteed freedom from religion. Religion is everywhere. Your constitutional rights say you have the freedom to worship, or not to worship, as you will. However, to believe that it guarantees you freedom from religion is impossible, because then you would have to limit the freedom of religion for other individuals. Ridiculous! Yet because of erroneous interpretation of the term “wall of separation between church and state,” that is exactly what we have done.
Revisionists of American history — not the people mentioned in the original resolution, but the people who started revising history books in the early part of the 20th century — are responsible for our misunderstanding of historic principles. Whereas history was once taught in full — meaning that everything was taught, from economic conditions to the patriots of the American Revolution who were also ministers — in the first part of the 20th century revisionists began to rewrite history.
We no longer teach names like Rev. Dr. Jonathan Mayhew and Rev. Dr. Samuel Cooper. The Rev. Charles Finney and Rev. John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg, a name that all Virginians should know, are no longer taught to our children in school. David Barton, who this resolution originally attacked, shares with his readers the names and reasons to why our history was rewritten. Between 1920 and 1950, historical penmen such as Charles and Mary Beard, W.E. Woodward, Fairfax Downey and many others, believing that the only motivating factor in life was money, began to teach American history with that emphasis. The “economic approach to American history” became the guidelines to history book writers to this day.
When you ask students today for the reason behind the American Revolution, you will hear “taxation without representation.” Barton points out that since this is the sole economic clause in the Declaration of Independence, the revisionists made this one clause the sole force for the colonists’ desire for independence (David Barton, The Role of Pastors and Christians in Civil Government, 2008, Wallbuilder Press, Aledo, Texas). Always wanting to check my sources, I reread the Declaration of Independence. There are 27 charges levied against King George, and only one was on taxation.
Whereas the resolution by the religious liberty committee, entitled “Inaccurate History Threatens Religious Liberty,” accused such men as David Barton, the late W. Cleon Skousen, other “Reconstructionist authors, and those on the Texas Board of Education who shaped the ‘conservative’ recommendations” as being a threat to historical accuracy, it is in fact those very people who are trying to reclaim the history we have lost.
I find it interesting that the four great historical documents of our country — the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance and the U.S. Constitution — each invoke God and faith in some form or fashion. It was never the intention of our founding fathers to create a nation free from religion, but free for religion.
The founding fathers intentions are clear, but we have forgotten them. The pastor from the church I grew up in told me that today, in our modern time, religious liberty and separation from church and state only apply to the Christian faith. He must be right, because when I watch the news and read the papers — it is only the Christians who are persecuted for sharing their faith. Other religions, such as Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. are never discouraged, and in fact are encouraged, to share their faith and culture in schools, colleges and universities, and in the civic arena. Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU) and even our own Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty constantly attack Christians when they step outside the walls of their churches but encourage other religions in their efforts.
The Bible is not the only thing open to interpretation. Most of my brothers and sisters in the BGAV interpret Scripture different than I do. I readily admit that I am theologically conservative, yet we still work together. However, history, law and historical terms are also interpreted differently. The BGAV passing a resolution such as this is no different than an activist judge legislating from the bench. Everyone has a different interpretation of religious liberty and separation of church and state. I am concerned when a group recognizes that the voting body has not the understanding to make an informed decision but demands a vote anyway. I have concern when a group forces its interpretation of historical principles onto others.
I mentioned in closing at the convention that when John Upton was elected executive director, he used terms such as “Virginia Baptists are a big tent organization” and “there is room at the table for everyone.” Yet when we pass resolutions such as this, we are essentially circling the wagons closer together, we are making the tent smaller and we are removing chairs from the table.
I agree with some of the conclusions of the resolution. I agree that religious liberty, as defined in the Baptist Faith and Message, is vital to the free church/free state system that E.Y. Mullins and other notable Baptist figures believed in and supported. I agree that it is vital to the Baptist faith as a whole. I agree we need to redouble our efforts to know and teach the historical foundation and meaning of religious liberty and the true meaning, the original understanding of the “wall of separation between church and state.” I agree that when our history is “revised,” it is a threat to who we are, where we come from and where we are capable of going. I agree that we need to be diligent in resisting and correcting any such mistaken version of our history. However, the spirit of this article and the spirit of the Resolution presented at the convention are far from unified.
The resolution, as amended, passed. I voted against it because I still worry about passing resolutions people do not truly understand. I encourage you to learn more. I encourage you to study this topic, and others that may broach our business sessions in the near future. I encourage you to not simply rely on the research and understanding of other people, but think for yourselves. Finally, I encourage you not to take my word for it, but to find out for yourself!
May God bless each of you, and may God once again be involved in the United States of America!
Joseph Giles Jr. is pastor of James Square Baptist Church in Lawrenceville, Va. He holds a bachelor of arts degree from Bluefield College with concentrations in church history/theology and a master of arts degree from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary with concentrations in theology/church nistory.