« Baptist Thanks | Main | USA Today on Religious Blogging »
Dissent, Religious Liberty, and Dr. Bart Barber
Posted by Robin Foster | November 25, 2007
Recently Dr. Bart Barber posted an article on his blog Praisegod Barebones that dealt with dissent and religious liberty. Baptist are living in a time where influences from the world are becoming prevalent in our conversations. One such area is the repackaging and redefining of Baptist historical theology in the way of terms and identity. Below, Dr. Barber has presented a correction to the unfortunate twisting of dissent and religious liberty as Baptists see it.
The idea of dissent as a virtue—whether a Baptist virtue or otherwise—is among the most nonsensical theories promulgated among mankind.
Dissent is neither a virtue nor a vice, so far as its intrinsic properties go. Dissenting to pay your taxes is generally a vice. Dissenting to participate in a plot to assassinate the President is generally a virtue. The act of dissenting, in and of itself, is neither noble nor vile—’tis all in the subject matter of one’s dissent.
Dissent is a part of the Baptist story, but dissent is not a distinctive of Baptist identity (or if it is, it has often been a part of the darker side of our identity). Where dissent is laudatory in Baptist life, it is because Baptists were willing to take unflinching stands on matters that other people saw differently or deemed tertiary.
Although dissent is not a Baptist distinctive, religious liberty is. Baptists are a people committed to religious liberty for all people. What is religious liberty? It is important to know, for false versions of this principle are seemingly omnipresent. Religious liberty is the conviction that the temporal sword ought not to be employed in strictly spiritual matters. So, unless it has to do with policemen, armed troops, vigilante mobs, judicial rulings, or legislative dictates, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Baptist principle of religious liberty.
Indeed, it was the conviction of our Baptist forebears that churches and associations had the obligation to govern their own affairs according to their doctrinal convictions. It was precisely because they wanted to be more strict WITHIN their own churches that they wanted the government to be less strict—nay, uninvolved altogether—in governing their churches from without. Those who made scruples over baptism and regenerate church membership, believing in a more restrictive purity in church membership were the Baptist objects of state-sponsored persecution. Religious liberty enabled Baptists to form congregations composed only of those who did not dissent from their pursuit of obedience to Christ’s commands.
Certainly there is not the slightest scintilla of biblical witness for dissent as virtue. There are, however, volumes of evidence for the idea that the temporal sword ought not to be wielded in spiritual matters. There are two realms, typified by Roger Williams’s idea of the “Two Tables of the Law.” The Baptist position is not that spiritual matters ought not to be governed, but simply that the state has not the authority to govern them. Rather, that authority belongs solely to the church. The effect of course, is that every individual has liberty—if one differs with the governing decisions of one’s church, one can leave it and join with (or even form) another church more to one’s liking, and the church cannot invoke the powers of the state to stop it. Our commitment to religious liberty means that we believe it is the obligation of the government not to punish dissent over matters strictly dealing with one’s relationship with God.
Yet the biblical model is a church strictly and powerfully governed. I almost mentioned this in my earlier post about the death penalty—the early church not only wasn’t opposed to the death penalty, but they also executed it themselves. But please note, they did it by exercise of the spiritual sword—the power of God—and not by the power of the government. The church that slays people for discrepancies in their contribution statements bears absolutely no resemblance to these modern-day coffee klatches so careful to tiptoe around matters that God has declared but people have relegated to tertiary status, but it also resembles not at all the church so spiritually weak that it must call upon soldiers or policemen to do its fighting for it.
I’m thankful for the Baptist commitment to religious liberty. It reminds the government not to presume to take up authority that belongs to God alone. It reminds the church not to trust in chariots or horses. Let’s not mutilate it into yet another postmodern exaltation of “diversity” over substance. We belong neither to pre-modern society, modern society, nor post-modern society. We are citizens of Heaven, and once we arrive there, dissent will be entirely a thing of our past. Thank you, Lord.
Topics: Baptist Identity, Dissent, Religious Liberty |
November 26th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I agree that dissent in and of itself is not a virtue, nor a vice. I think dissent is what happens when one person or group sees an error they want corrected. So when theological liberals controlled the SBC, theological conservatives dissented, and the error was corrected. However, I wonder if your post misses the point by confusing religious liberty with Christian liberty. Religious liberty is a dream come true for those in western countries. Religious liberty is a pipe dream in China or Saudi Arabia. God never ordained religious liberty or freedom of unhindered worship. He ordained freedom of conscience that may receive worldly persecution, yet heavenly reward. Christian liberty is absolutely biblical and Paul deals with it extensively. Am I reading you rightly on this?
November 27th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Dissent is simply a thematic tool used to uncover the motive of the heart.
Religious Liberty is a privilege put in place in some cultures.
Liberty is the soveign grace and pursuit of our Lord.
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
(Luke 4:18-19)
Religious Liberty is not required to have Liberty.
I think that was the point of your final paragraph…??
Blessings,
Chris
December 1st, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Dissent may be the wrong word in this entire debate. There is no virtue in simply being contrary. however, Scripture is full of stories where one person stood against the majority, and that one was in the right. Elijah on Carmel. Micaiah against the cacophany of positive false prophets. Jesus against the entire religious establishment.
The Bible defends the truth that one man can be right and the overwhelming majority can be wrong.
Unity is not advanced by stifling dissent and ostracizing dissenters.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:44 am
Brother Dave,
We find ourselves looking at two very different issues. The examples that you described are of dissenters standing for the truth–the One true God–not standing against others that serve and are surrendered to the truth. The situation we find ourselves and the purpose behind the censure is not about Gospel issues. The issues that Brother Wade has brought to the fore front are issues that will not distract from the Gospel. The censure, as I understand it, places the IMB in a position to move forward in ministry without being constantly distracted. This distraction is consistently tied to issues the entire board voted on and approved, and these issues were not the direction that Brother Wade thought the board should go.
Therefore, if one decides to make issues out of, what some call second or third tier doctrines, there needs to be someplace that the board should draw the line. One other reminder. Do not think for one minute that the administration could not have stopped this censure.
Blessings,
Tim