Whitten Responds to Jeffress

Dr. Mark Whitten, author of the Myth of Christian America and Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Tomball College, has written a response to Dr. Robert Jeffress' assertion in a comment on this weblog that no "substantive error" had been demonstrated regarding his claim that America was a Christian nation. Jeffress is pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas. Here is the text of Whitten's response to Jeffress:

Dr. Jeffress,

You posted on Bruce Prescott's blog that it had yet to be demonstrated that you had made a substantive error in your claims that America is a 'Christian nation' and that the Supreme Court declared that Christianity was the 'established religion.'

Here is that demonstration of factual and interpretive error.

The Supreme Court decision Church of Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) was not a church-state decision. The issue was neither to decide nor to declare whether the America was a 'Christian nation.'

Like many advocates of the claim that America is a 'Christian nation' you fail to distinguish between two senses of 'Christian nation':

1. the institutional -- legal sense, in which the laws and political institutions have Christianity as their doctrinal-philosophical foundation.

2. the historical -- cultural sense, in which the American people and their cultural-social institutions are predominately influenced by Christianity.

Josiah David Brewer's majority decision makes it quite clear that he held that America was a Christian nation in the second sense, not the first,

"This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of the continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth . . . These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." [emphases added]

Brewer later wrote a book entitled The United States: A Christian Nation (1905) in which he made clear his view:

"But in what sense can the United States be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that people are compelled to support it. . . . Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition for holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal institution is independent of all religions." [emphases added]

Brewer's words are a part of the 'dicta,' providing the rationale of the decision. They were not a part of the 'findings' of the decision. Even if Brewer were asserting that America is a Christian nation in a legal-political sense, and he was not, dicta establish no precedent and establish no principle of law.

Nowhere in the decision is the term 'established' used to describe the relation of the Christian religion to the legal-political institutions of American government.

Beware of basing your case upon a corrupted text of the decisions that is widely disseminated among those who advocate your position. (The following words in italics are spurious -- they are not contained in the Holy Trinity decision.)

"Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. And in this sense to the extent that our civilization and institutions are emphatically Christian . . . This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of the continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth . . . These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

I will look forward to your acknowledgment that factual and interpretive errors in your case have now been demonstrated.

You can demonstrate your integrity by acknowledging this on Prescott's blog comments section.

Sincerely,
Mark Weldon Whitten

Setting the Record Straight

The Baptist History and Heritage Society, the most prestigous and reliable source for historical information about Baptists since 1938, recently released its Summer/Fall 2008 issue of their journal. The entire issue deals with "Baptists and the First Amendment."

Doug Weaver's historical overview of Baptists and the First Amendment alone is worth the price of a year's subscription. Particularly noteworthy is Weaver's treatment of the influence of Baptist Supreme Court Justices like Charles Evan Hughes (1862-1948) and Hugo Black (1886-1971) on the Supreme Court's decision making.

I just received my order of about a dozen single copies of this recent issue and plan to send copies of it to the Baptist county supervisors in Henrico County Virginia and to Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas. These prominent Baptists have been confused or misguided about the Baptist legacy in regard to separation of religion and government long enough. It's time we set the record straight.

Then again, you can lead a horse to water, but . . .

Read Some Original Baptist Sources

Over the weekend Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, commented on my blog about the "Misguided Rhetoric at First Baptist Dallas." Jeffress quotes a commentary from former Supreme Court justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) as an authoritative interpretation of the original intention of the U.S. Constitution.

Associate Justice Story was a child when the Constitution was being written and was merely ten years old when it was adopted (1789). Undoubtedly, his understanding of the intentions of our nation's founders was from second-hand sources and hearsay evidence that would not bear scrutiny in a court of law.

Furthermore, Story was from Massachusetts, the state that was the very last state to disestablish the church and bring its state constitution into line with the federal constitution. Massachusetts did not disestablish its church until 1833 -- the same year that Story's commentary was published. On the topic of church-state separation, both Story and his native state were obviously out-of-step with the rest of the people in the country.

I've been suggesting to Jeffress that he read source documents instead of second-hand documents for his understanding of the intentions of the founding fathers and the mindset of revolutionary America. The primary source to read is James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance. Madison is the primary author of the Constitution and of the Bill of Rights.

Jeffress would know that if he knew his Baptist history. It was Baptist evangelist John Leland and the Baptists in Virginia who convinced Madison that he had better add the First Amendment if he wanted to get the Constitution ratified in Virginia. After the U.S. Constitution was adopted, Leland wrote a pamphlet entitled "The Rights of Conscience Inalienable" (1791) that explained the intention of the First Amendment and Article VI of the Constitution:

"The federal constitution certainly had the advantage of any of the state constitutions, in being made by the wisest men in the whole nation, and after an experiment of a number of year's trial upon republican principles; and that constitution forbids Congress ever to establish any kind of religion, or to require any kind of religious test to qualify for any office in any department of federal government. Let a man be Pagan, Turk, Jew or Christian, he is eligible to any post in that government."

(L. F. Greene, ed. The Writings of John Leland. New York: Arno Press, 1969, p. 191)

Regarding the inequities of the state constitution in Massachusetts, here's what Leland said to the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1811:

Government should be so fixed, that Pagans, Turks, Jews and Christians, should be equally protected in their rights. The government of Massachusetts, is, however, differently formed; under the existing constitution, it is not possible for the general court, to place religion upon its proper footing. (p. 358)

In times past I could only quote the references and hope that readers would be able to find a copy of Leland's writings in a local library. Today, anyone can download the book from Google Books and check the reference for themselves at their leisure both online and on their own laptops and computers. So there is no longer any excuse for Baptists to not be familiar with the writings of the Baptist leaders who led the struggle for religious liberty in America.

Here's a link to "The Writings of the Late Elder John Leland." (1844)

Here's a link to Massachusetts Baptist leader Isaac Backus' "Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty: Against the Oppressions of the Present Day" (1773).

The Roots of Religious Liberty: The Edict of Milan

A couple years ago I wrote an opinion for the District Court regarding the Ten Commandments monument on the courthouse lawn in Haskell County, Oklahoma. In that opinion, I discussed Roger Williams' position regarding religious liberty and believed, at that time, that his understanding of forced religion as "molestation" and his equating it with "soul rape" was uniquely his own.

Since that time, I have found no earlier thinker who has described forced religion as the rape of the soul, but I have found what may well be the first description of it as a "molestation." The rescript of Licinius, published in 313 A.D., documents the Edict of Milan formulated by Constantine and Licinius. Though they failed to abide by this edict, it is a remarkably enlightened statement and may well be the earliest legal document affirming religious liberty.

Here is an English translation of the Edict of Milan:

When we, Constantine Augustus and Licinius Augustus, had happily met together at Milan and considered all things which pertain to the advantage and security of the state, we thought that, among other things which seemed likely to profit men generally, we ought, in the first place, to set in order the conditions of the reverence paid to divinity by giving to Christians and all others full permission to follow whatever worship any man has chosen. Thereby whatever deity there is in heaven may be benevolent and propitious to us and to all placed under our authority. Therefore we ought, with sound counsel and right reason, to lay down this law, that we should in no way refuse to any man any legal right who has given up his mind either to the observance of Christianity or to that worship which he personally feels best suited to himself -- to the end that the Supreme Divinity, whose worship we freely follow, may continue in all things to grant us his accustomed favor and good will. Wherefore your excellency [addressed to the governors of the provinces] should know that it is our pleasure that all provisions whatsoever which have appeared in documents hitherto directed to your office regarding Christians and which appeared utterly improper and opposed to our clemency should be abolished, and that all who wish to worship as Christians may now freely and unconditionally do so without any annoyance or molestation. These things we thought it well to signify in the fullest manner to your attention, that you might know it well to signify in the fullest manner to your attention, that you might know that we have given free and absolute permission to the said Christians to practice their worship. And when you see that we have granted this to the said Christians, your excellency will understand that to others also a full and free permission for their own worship and observance is granted, for the tranquillity of the times, so that every man may have freedom in practice of whatever worship he has chosen. (Emphasis mine)

Lynn Raps Dems for Orchestrating Faith Meeting

Barry Lynn is taking Democrats to task for orchestrating an interfaith gathering at the Democratic Convention center in Denver. He says it was "so highly promoted that it had the whiff of pandering."

There's no denying the fact that Democrats have been falling all over themselves this year to demonstrate that they are friendly to people of faith -- people of all faiths. That is one way that Democrats can distinguish themselves from Republicans who have a sizeable constituency that refuses to accept placing a Mormon on their ticket.

I am as uncomfortable as Barry is about the prominence of religion in the electoral process. Martin Marty hits the nail on the head when he says both parties are "Using God Politically."

All that the interfaith gathering in Denver demonstrates is that religious people from all faiths and people on both sides of the political aisle are willing and eager to let their faith become a tool in the hands of politicians.

On Religion as Public Utility

There have been a lot of insightful analyses to Rick Warren's forum for Presidential candidates at Saddleback Church last week. Aaron Weaver at the Big Daddy Weave blog provides links to many of the best responses by Baptists.

The best analysis I've seen is by church historian Martin Marty who faults Warren, McCain and Obama for "Using God Politically." Here's a quote:

William Lee Miller a half century ago noted that the American founders, friendly to religion as they were, found ways to draw a line of distinction between religion and the civil authority but still found religion useful. Just as there are "water works" and other utilities, religion (and God) became utilities, noted Miller. They would support morality. Fine. But in the world of party politics it is almost impossible to talk about candidates' inner spiritual life without putting them in the place where they give answers that will help them build support or lose it.

When a Jimmy Carter said that as a Baptist he believed in "soul liberty" and held views about human rights that could complicate foreign policy, we were alerted and took that into consideration when voting. Voters knew what they were getting in policy, not in matters of the heart. Ronald Reagan did the same with other policy issues. But if or when either of them or their successors had or has to show how much they love Jesus and how fervently they call upon God, they are asked to step over a line, and they do. Religion is then a "public utility," something which confuses public policy and does authentic religion no favor

No, it is not violating the separation of church and state to ask and answer "soul" questions, and yes, you cannot keep faith and politics apart. But "faith" as it affects policy is one (admittedly tricky) thing; faith as faith cannot be enlarged upon in the public forum without coming close to exploiting religion and making God part of campaign slogans.

PFAW's Take on Richard Land

Kyle at People for the American Way has posted an expose of some of Richard Land's most recent electioneering activity. Land is Director of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Here's a quote:

Land goes on to rule out potential VP’s like Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge while praising Mike Hucakbee, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Eric Cantor, and reiterating his attack that Barack Obama is the “most radically pro-abortion candidate to ever be nominated by a major party” and predicting that Obama will have no success in his efforts to “peel off a sizeable chunk of white evangelicals” because they have no intention of “surrendering their pro-life values.”

But still Land insists that not only is he not endorsing any candidate, he’s not even supporting one, while still making his preference clear to anyone who can connect the dots:

Why do Southern Baptists put up with someone who shades the truth as the head of their ethics agency? Why would people supposedly concerned with ultimate truth put up with anything but absolute honesty from any of their leaders.

What kind of witness is this?

1463 Treaty Between Ottoman Sultan and Bosnian Christians

One of our visits on our trip to Bosnia-Hersegovina was to the mosque at the village of Milodraza. The mosque is in the process of building a monument to memorialize a treaty that is among the oldest decrees to grant religious liberty. Here's what is written on the temporary memorial that they have erected at the site:

AHDNAMA OF THE SULTAN MEHMED II EL FATIH

MEHMET THE SON OF MURAT-KHAN, ALWAYS VICTORIOUS!

THE COMMAND OF THE HONORABLE, SUBLIME SULTAN'S SIGN AND SHINING SEAL OF THE CONQUEROR OF THE WORLD IS AS FOLLOWS:

I. THE SULTAN MEHMET - KHAN INFORM ALL THE WORLD THAT THE ONES WHO POSSESS THIS IMPERIAL EDICT, THE BOSNIAN FRANCISCANS, HAVE GOT INTO MY GOOD GRACES, SO I COMMAND:

LET NOBODY BOTHER OR DISTURB THOSE WHO ARE MENTIONED, NOT THEIR CHURCHES. LET THEM DWELL IN PEACE IN MY EMPIRE. AND LET THOSE WHO HAVE BECOME REFUGEES BE AND SAFE. LET THEM RETURN AND LET THEM SETTLE DOWN THEIR MONASTERIES WITHOUT FEAR IN ALL THE COUNTRIES OF MY EMPIRE.

NEITHER MY ROYAL HIGHNESS, NOR MY VIZIERS OR EMPLOYEES, NOR MY SERVANTS, NOR ANY OF THE CITIZENS OF MY EMPIRE SHALL INSULT OR DISTURB THEM. LET NOBODY ATTACK INSULT OR ENDANGER NEITHER THEIR LIFE OR THEIR PROPERTY OR THE PROPERTY OF THEIR CHURCH. EVEN IF THEY BRING SOMEBODY FROM ABROAD INTO MY COUNTRY, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO SO.

AS, THUS, I HAVE GRACIOUSLY ISSUED THIS IMPERIAL EDICT, HEREBY TAKE MY GREAT OATH.

IN THE NAME OF THE CREATOR OF THE EARTH AND HEAVEN, THE ONE WHO FEEDS ALL CREATURES, AND IN THE NAME OF THE SEVEN MUSTAFAS AND OUR GREAT MESSENGER, AND IN THE NAME OF THE SWORD I PUT, NOBODY SHALL DO CONTRARY TO WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN, AS LONG AS THEY ARE OBEDIENT AND FAITHFUL TO MY COMMAND.

This ahdnama (treaty) which brings independence and tolerance to the ones who are from another religion, belief and race, is written by Fatih Sultan Mehmet, after the conquest of Bosnia-Herzogovina, in May 28, 1463. The origin of the ahdnama is at the Franciscan Catholic Church in Foznica, in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The edict issued the Sultan Mehmed II El Fatih to protect the basic rights of the Bosnian people when he conquered them in 1463. The original edict is still kept in the Franciscan Monastery in the vicinity of Foznica. The ahdnama of Fatih Sultan Mehmet, oldest human right declaration known in history, written in 1463. It was announced 326 years before the 1789 French Revolution, 485 years before the International Human Rights Declaration.

Obama Skates on Thin Ice with his Faith-based Partnerships

Advance information about the content of Barack Obama's speech this afternoon is springing up all over the internet. He will be speaking about his plans for "Partnerting with Communities of Faith."

It looks like Obama is trying to reinforce and expand policies that were in place for 501(c)3 religious non-profits before the Bush administration relaxed standards and doled money out to churches and charities to drum up political support in minority communities.

I predict that conservative evangelicals will resent the prominence Obama will give to Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services. Evangelicals will perceive that they are being marginalized and that mainline churches are being promoted -- at taxpayer expense. It will simply be a different form of religion being blessed by the President in the public square.

In my opinion, any politician promoting faith-based initiatives or "partnerships" is skating on thin ice. Governments have no business trying to use religion as an instrument of social policy. Churches have no business becoming tools of the government.

(Thanks to The JED Report for posting Obama's campaign fact sheet.)

Obama's Running for President, Not Prophet!

Somebody needs to tell Cal Thomas and Baptist Press that Barak Obama is running for President, not prophet.

In an essay posted by Baptist Press today, Cal Thomas examines statements about Obama's faith and finds them wanting. Here's a quote:

Obama can call himself anything he likes, but there is a clear requirement for one to qualify as a Christian and Obama doesn't meet that requirement. One cannot deny central tenets of the Christian faith, including the deity and uniqueness of Christ as the sole mediator between God and Man and be a Christian. Such people do have a label applied to them in Scripture. They are called "false prophets."

Someone also needs to remind Cal Thomas and the editors at Baptist Press to reread Matthew 7:1-5 and Matthew 7:15-27.

Criticize Obama's policies, challenge his credentials, critique him on political issues, but, to quote a fellow blogger, for God's sake 'Shut up' about his theology.

Constitutionally, there's no religious test for holding public office in this country. Obama's running for President, not pastor or prophet.