Info on New Baptist Covenant Regional Meetings

Ethics Daily has posted a story about the plans for New Baptist Covenant Regional meetings.

In January 2008 more than 15,000 Baptists from across the United States, Canada and Mexico met for the first ever meeting to celebrate a New Baptist Covenant. The covenant represented the commitment of more than 20 million Baptists in North America to fulfill our "obligations as Christians to promote peace with justice, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless, to care for the sick and the marginalized, welcome the strangers among us, and promote religious liberty and respect for religious diversity." The covenant also reaffirmed our "commitment to traditional Baptist values, including sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ and its implications for public and private morality."

The leaders of the New Baptist Covenant, representing more than 80 Baptist Conventions, fellowships and organizations in North America, agreed to meet collectively every three years to renew this commitment. Between these triennial meetings, the leaders of the New Baptist Covenant called for regional meetings that would gather to unite Baptists from our various Conventions, fellowships and organizations to celebrate, exhort, network and encourage one another in fulfilling the obligations of our new Baptist Covenant.

Brian Kaylor's report on Ethics Daily provides information about three of the NBC regional meetings that have been planned -- in Birmingham, Ala., in January, Kansas City, Mo., in April, and Norman, Okla., in August.

Peace in the Abrahamic Faith Traditions

I spoke at a peace conference in Ames, Iowa Wednesday evening. Below is the text of some of my remarks.

Let me say thank-you to Ahmad Dursan and the Niagra Foundation for inviting me to speak this evening and thanks to the Ames Public Library for hosting this event. I am both honored and humbled by this request. I am humbled because I am not a scholar of Jewish or Muslim thought -- and there are many who might say that I don’t have a very good grasp of Christian thought either.

I don’t make any claim to being a scholar. All I claim to be is a student who has done some research into Muslim thought, a little more research into Jewish thought, and a lot of study of Christian thought. I will share with you something of what I have learned, but I am still learning and I fully expect to learn something new today from some of you before we are through.

I suspect that what brings me here more than anything else is that I am a person with faith in the God of Abraham who is deeply concerned that, as people of faith, we related to each other peacefully and with all due respect. One of my firmest convictions is that those who believe in the inevitability of a “clash of civilizations” between the Christian and Muslim world do not know much about the kind of God we worship and the values we share.

It was requested that I speak about the understanding of peace in the Abrahamic faith traditions – the traditions who worship the same God, i.e. the God of Abraham. That requires that I start at the very beginning of recorded history – literally. The text we all share in common – the Hebrew Bible – says that:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.” (Gen. 1:1-2)

Our scriptures are very much in agreement with modern scientific explanations that tell us that the universe began with a big bang. It is not hard to imagine that God simply spoke and all the matter and energy of the universe exploded into existence. The opening words of Genesis note the chaotic nature of those first moments of cosmic time. The earth was without form and void. Then we are told that the Spirit of God himself was already moving to create order out of this chaos and make a place for the kind of peaceful, harmonious relations between God and humanity and between men and women that will soon be described in the garden of Eden.

From the very beginning God has revealed himself to be a powerful creative being striving to give order to the universe and working to bring peace to the world that he made for men and women that he created in his image. The God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad is a God of peace.

Peace (shalom) in the Hebrew Bible means more than the mere absence of conflict and strife. It speaks about the joy, prosperity, well-being, and wholeness of a life that exists when men and women are in proper, loving relationship with God and each other. Peace is so central to Jewish thought that the renowned rabbi Hillel defined the heart of Judaism as “love peace and pursue it” (m. Abot. 1.12) and the sages who compiled the Mishnah said that “All that is written in the Torah was written for the sake of peace.” (Tanhuma’ Shofetim 18)

In Jewish thought peace (shalom) is associated with the idea of a covenant between God and his people. Shalom is a gift from God that men and women have the responsibility to maintain. Fidelity to the covenant means living in accord with the terms of God’s covenant -- the righteous and just laws and principles that preserve and promote peaceful and loving relations.

The shalom of covenant relations stands against oppression, deceit, fraud and anything that violates the order that God intends for life. Standing against injustice leads to conflict and conflict can lead to violence. Conflict and violence upends orderly relations and creates chaos. Whenever chaos reigns in human relations, you can be sure that the Spirit of God is moving to find someone who will work to restore order and peace.

God’s preferred way for restoring order and peace is to call a prophet. The prophet speaks a word from God against injustice and he, or she -- [Miriam (Moses sister, Ex. 15), Deborah (Judges 4) and Huldah (2 Kings 22) are called “prophetesses” in the Hebrew Bible] – incarnates God’s message, i.e. making it clear by standing before the people visibly, by speaking in an audible voice and by seeing that it is written down. The prophets call for repentance and work to renew the peace and harmony of covenant relations.

I do not believe that God ever intended for peace and order to be restored by violent means. If men and women would hear and heed what is spoken, the prophetic word alone has sufficient power and authority to create peace.

The problem is that people don’t all listen at the same time. Our ears are not in sync. Both individually and collectively people hear and receive the word of God’s covenant at different historical moments. Restoring law and order and making peace by the power of the word alone takes time.

In the meantime, few men and women have patience for the work of the prophets. The children of Israel demanded a king like other nations. They wanted someone who would organize them and restore order by force and violence if necessary -- leading them in battle against those who oppressed them. The prophet Samuel warned them that this was a mistake and that, in the end, their kings would be their oppressors. But the sons of Israel insisted and God relented, and the rest is history. The Hebrews got their king, but centuries passed before the gentile world began to hear and receive the word of the covenant. Still more centuries passed before the sons of Ishmael were reminded of the covenant God made with their ancestor Abraham.

Throughout the scriptures a social order that is truly honoring to God is understood, in a world of kings, to be a kingdom of peace and righteousness. As the prophets of Israel repeatedly attest, every historical social order falls woefully short of the kind that God intends for us. The rule and reign of God is always beyond the best human efforts.

Any sign that a kingdom of peace and righteousness is near is “good news” to the poor, the oppressed, the sick and the brokenhearted – that is, it is “good news” to all those who have come out on the short end of the equanimity and justice that makes life harmonious and peaceful. It is “good news” to those whose lives have not been characterized by the joy, prosperity, well-being, and wholeness of shalom.

That is the “good news” that Jesus proclaimed. Jesus proclaimed the “good news” that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. Like the prophets before him, he spoke against injustice. Like the prophets before him, he incarnated God’s message -- making it clear by standing before the people visibly, by speaking in an audible voice and by seeing that it was written down. Like the prophets before him, he called for repentance and worked to re-create the peace and harmony of covenant relations.

But he was different from the prophets before him. One way he differed was the way he spoke of God. He spoke of God as his father with a familiarity and intimacy that was unique. He called God “Abba” which is equivalent to calling him “Daddy.”

Another way he differed was the way he separated religion and government. He told his disciples to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and render unto God the things that are God’s. He said God’s kingdom was not an earthly kingdom, but a spiritual kingdom, and he told his disciples that the kingdom of God is within you (Luke 17:21). He said greatness in God’s kingdom is associated with the moral authority of humility and servanthood -- not with the kind of prestige and influence that adheres to wealth and power. He rejected every temptation to assume political power, or to associate the kingdom of heaven with any temporal kingdom, or to exercise physical force and employ violence. He told his disciples to turn the other cheek when struck with a fist, to return good for evil, to love even their enemies, and he commanded them to put away their swords when the authorities came to arrest him. His way of ushering in the kingdom of God, restoring order and bringing peace was the arduous, time-consuming way of self-giving service, non-violent resistance, and sacrificial love.

Before the days of the Roman Emperor Constantine, Christians were a small and oft persecuted group. They proclaimed God’s word without the use of force or violence. For the most part, they practiced their faith in humility. Religion and government -- the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of man -- were viewed as separate and distinct. But that all changed when Constantine decided to employ the Christian faith to pacify conquered nations and unify the Roman Empire.

The Pax Romana had as little to do with the peace of God’s kingdom as does the Pax Americana today. Every association of the tenuous, violence prone peace forged by earthly empires with the kind of peace that Jesus proclaimed is sacrilegious and idolatrous. The truth is, none of the theories used to justify war have any basis for support in the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. In my opinion -- which is rooted in the tradition of the radical reformation that gave rise to the Anabaptists, Mennonites, Amish, and Quakers -- throughout history, the most faithful disciples of Jesus have been actively engaged pacifists who oppose injustice with the conviction that God expects them to voluntarily surrender their lives before participating in another cycle of violence.

Unfortunately, Mohammad never witnessed the kind of faith among Christians that Jesus preached. The Constantinian form of Christianity had been around for 250 years by the time he was born. Mohammad, peace be upon him, is the messenger or prophet of God’s covenant in the Muslim world. Islam is a derived from the word “salaam.” The root meaning of Islam literally means peace, security and well-being. Concern for peace is at the very core of Islam.

Like the Hebrew prophets, Mohammad denounced polytheism and proclaimed monotheism. Like the Hebrew prophets, he spoke against injustice. Like the Hebrew prophets, he incarnated God’s message -- making it clear by standing before the people visibly, by speaking in an audible voice and by seeing that it was written down. Like the Hebrew prophets, he called for repentance and worked to create the peace and harmony of covenant relations.

Unlike Jesus, Mohammad condoned the use of force in self-defense. Unlike both Jesus and almost most of the Hebrew prophets, Mohammad combined the role of prophet and commander-in-chief in his own person.

It should be noted that Mohammad assumed leadership of military forces somewhat reluctantly and for the purposes of securing peace and self-defense. Early in his ministry he avoided conflict by sending his followers to Yathrib, latter renamed Medina, because their lives were threatened in Mecca. He accepted the role of chief arbitrator in Medina in order to help settle the grievances between the local tribes that disturbed the peace of the city. Creating a just and peaceful order for the city prompted him to draft a covenant, what we would call a social contact -- the Constitution of Medina -- which essentially created the first Islamic state. That same constitution preserved the rights and religious freedoms of other “people of the book” (specifically, Jews and Christians).

Mohammad’s role as leader of military forces emerged as he successfully defended Medina when an army from Mecca besieged the city over a dispute involving trade caravans. Then, within three years, his forces had conquered Mecca and had subdued, unified and brought peace and order to the tribes of the entire Arabian Peninsula.

Despite Mohammad’s approval of the use of military force, there is remarkably little in the Qur’an that condones violence in the name of God. Frankly, there is nothing that stands comparison to what can be found in the Hebrew Bible (cf. 1 Sam. 15) or to what can be found in fundamentalist Christian interpretations of the New Testament book of Revelation.

I have heard people call Islam a “blood thirsty religion.” The most blood thirsty verse, if you want to call it that, I have found in all of the Qur’an is Sura 5:33 which talks about slaying, crucifying or cutting off an alternate hand and foot of one who wages war against Allah and his messenger. That verse is immediately preceded by these words:

“He who slayeth any one, unless it be a person guilty of manslaughter, or of spreading disorders in the land, shall be as though he had slain all mankind; but he who saveth a life, shall be as though he saved all mankind alive.”

The major thrust of the Qur’an teaches Muslims to be forbearant and forgiving toward those who do wrong to them, to be patient and longsuffering in times of persecution, and to trust that, in his own time, Allah will judge evil and secure a just punishment for it. The words of Sura 42:20 are typical:

“But there shall be a way open against those who unjustly wrong others, and act insolently on the earth in disregard of justice. These! A grievous punishment doth await them. And whoso beareth wrongs with patience and forgiveth; -- this verily is a bounden duty;”

Of course, there is no guarantee that Muslims will be faithful in putting into practice the harmonious covenant relations and peaceful intentions of the Qur’an. Certainly, no more than Christians are guaranteed to put the teachings of Jesus into practice or that Jews will be faithful to put the shalom of Hebrew covenant relations into practice.

Historically, there is sufficient evidence to condemn all of our faith communities of some of the vilest forms of infidelity in regard to the use of violence. Frankly, I am convinced that the failures within the Christian community are the most egregious and inexcusable. The overwhelming majority of Christians continue to justify and condone the very forms of force and violence that Jesus adamantly condemned and rejected.

Despite our shortcomings in this regard and despite the shortcomings of the Jewish and Muslim community in regard to violence and war, all three of our faith traditions share a similar hope for peace that, while not being secured in the real world, is envisioned in an ideal future. It is the hope that was proclaimed by the Prophet Isaiah:

Now it will come about that
In the last days
The mountain of the house of the LORD
Will be established as the chief of the mountains,
And will be raised above the hills;
And all the nations will stream to it.
And many peoples will come and say,
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
That He may teach us concerning His ways
And that we may walk in His paths.”
For the law will go forth from Zion
And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
And He will judge between the nations,
And will render decisions for many peoples;
And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not lift up sword against nation,
And never again will they learn war.
Isaiah 2:2-4

Let us all pray that conscientious and faithful people in all of our traditions – Jews, Christians and Muslims -- will rise up together and work to see that the peace that Isaiah proclaimed does become a reality.

Oklahoma's Monument to American Theocracy, Part 2

DOES THE MONUMENT ENDORSE A SECTARIAN INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE?

The monument at Stigler endorses a Reformed Protestant interpretation of the Ten Commandments. The division and numbering of the commandments on the monument follows a scheme that has been accepted by most Protestants, other than Lutherans, since the sixteenth century.

The Monument Endorses a Christian Interpretation of the Bible.

The original language of the Ten Commandments is Hebrew. Every translation from one language to another necessarily involves some interpretation of the text. The Ten Commandments monument at Stigler engraves excerpts, with some additions and changes, from the English language translation of the Bible that was authorized by King James I and first published in 1611.

The division and numbering of the commands of the Decalogue into Ten Commandments also involves interpretation. Interpretations differ according to the theological concerns and emphases of the various faith and sectarian traditions.

The Jewish division of the Decalogue begins with an affirmation rather than a prohibition. For Jews, the first command is a statement of faith, "I the LORD am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage." The second command, for Jews, combines the prohibition against "other gods" and the prohibition against "graven images." Since the first Jewish command literally applies exclusively to Jews, Christians have interpreted the passage as a mere preamble. The divergence between these interpretations is fraught with substantial theological and historical consequences for the communal identities of the differing faith traditions. (Click here to see a chart that shows different translations and numberings of the Ten Commandments.)

The monument at Stigler omits the first command in the Jewish interpretation of the Ten Commandments. In the eyes of some Jews, the Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the courthouse at Stigler sends an unmistakable signal that the Christian interpretation of the Bible is being endorsed and that millennia of Jewish scholarship -- reflecting theological nuances based on the original Jewish division of the Decalogue -- has been repudiated.

The Monument Endorses a Reformed Protestant Interpretation of the Bible.

The Ten Commandments monument at Stigler reproduces the Reformed Protestant numbering and division the Ten Commandments which reflects the iconoclasm of early Protestantism. The Protestants of the early Reformed tradition condemned the use of images and pictures in Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches in the strongest terms.

[For example, Calvin's appraisal of the religious images of renaissance art is characteristic: "The pictures or statues that they dedicate to saints -- what are they but examples of the most abandoned lust and obscenity? If anyone wished to model himself after them, he would be fit for the lash. Indeed, brothels show harlots clad more virtuously and modestly than the churches show those objects which they wished to be thought images of virgins. For martyrs they fashion a habit not a whit more decent. Therefore let them compose their idols at least to a moderate decency, that they may with a little more modesty falsely claim that these are books of some holiness!" John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Ed. John T. McNeill, Vol. I, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), pp. 106-07. Calvin devotes more than twenty pages and two chapters to the discussion of images in his Institutes, see Vol. I, pp. 99-120.]

Opposition to images led John Calvin, the foremost leader of the Reformed tradition, to contend that "Any use of images leads to idolatry." His interpretation of the Ten Commandments singled out the prohibition against "graven images" for emphasis and set it aside from the prohibition against "other gods." (Click here to see chart)

Lutherans and Catholics followed the Jewish division of this commandment which viewed the prohibition against "graven images" in conjunction with the prohibition against "other gods." Lutherans and Catholics merely advanced the numbering for the command. Whereas Judaism viewed it as the second commandment, Catholics and Lutherans viewed it as the first commandment. Historically, the divergence between these varied interpretations of the Ten Commandments has, at times, contributed to conflict and strife between Christian sects.

[For example, in 1520-21, at a crucial moment during the reformation in Germany, Luther was excommunicated and forced into hiding in the Wartburg. During his absence, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt filled Luther's pulpit at Wittenberg. In January 1522 the town of Wittenberg passed an ordinance calling for the removal of images from the churches and Karlstadt published his On the Putting Away of Pictures arguing that the worship of images was idolatrous. An iconoclastic riot ensued. Luther had to risk leaving his hideaway to restore order. Karlstadt was dispatched and Luther eventually wrote a refutation of Karlstadt's opinions under the title, Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments (1525)].

Some Protestant sects still teach their adherents to avoid social contact with Roman Catholics as much as possible because they consider the images associated with their worship to be idols.

The monument at Stigler highlights the prohibition against "graven images" as a single command separated from the prohibition against "other gods." Roman Catholics and Lutherans who compare the numbering and divisions on Stigler's Ten Commandments monument with the numbering and divisions of the Decalogue that are published in the books and catechisms of their own faith traditions will note the discrepancy. In the eyes of some, the Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the courthouse at Stigler sends an unmistakable signal that the Reformed Protestant interpretation of the Bible is being endorsed and that millennia of Roman Catholic and Lutheran scholarship -- reflecting centuries of theological nuances and divisions of the Decalogue within those faith traditions -- has officially been rejected.

In my opinion, yes, the monument endorses a sectarian "Reformed Protestant" interpretation of the Bible.

DOES THE MONUMENT ENDORSE A CHRISTIAN COVENANT?

The Mayflower Compact exemplifies government as formed by Christian covenant. The Compact reads, "We . . . covenant and combine ourselves together in a civil body politic." The basis of this covenant and the government formed by it was the Pilgrims' common Christian faith. The Compact reads, "For our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid." The aforesaid ends were, "for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith."

Clearly, the Mayflower Compact is a religious covenant that was made entirely between Christians. No non-Christian was party to the agreement. No provision was made for a non-Christian to become a member of this covenant community apart from conversion to the Christian faith.

Memorializing the Mayflower Compact in a stone monument necessarily involves a judgment that there is something of value in that Christian covenant that is worth remembering and calling to the attention of posterity. In the eyes of the average person in Stigler who reads the Mayflower Compact from the monument on the grounds of the courthouse, the most obvious and apparent value is that it openly and publicly affirms the Christian faith. This writer heard that value expressed repeatedly by speakers that spoke at the rally to "save" the monument on November 19, 2005. Keynote speaker, U. S. Senator Tom Coburn, summarized the meaning of the monument succinctly when he said, "The greatness of America depends on its faith, nothing else. . . . We can either deny our heritage, . . . or we can embrace it." Indeed, there were appeals at the rally for attendees to accept Christ as Lord and Savior and impromptu public testimonies of faith that gave the rally an atmosphere like that of a religious revival meeting. At that time, one of the Haskell County Commissioners expressed the strength of his faith in such strong terms that he said that if anyone wanted to remove the monument he would stand in front of it they would have to run a bulldozer over him.

In my opinion, yes, the monument endorses a Christian covenant.

Tomorrow I'll blog about the following question:
Does the monument endorse a Christian Theocracy?

Technorati Tags Ten Commandments, Stigler, Oklahoma, Church and State, Theocracy, Haskell County, Dominionism

Regarding AP Coverage of the New Baptist Covenant Meeting in Norman

Having responded to no less than five of the six e-mails that I received on August 5th alone from the reporter for the Oklahoma office Associated Press, I was suprised to read misleading statements in the coverage of the New Baptist Covenant meeting that could have easily been corrected by a simple inquiry by e-mail.

Here is a copy of an e-mail that I recently sent to Oklahoma AP Reporter Murray Evans:

Dear Murray,

I am disappointed to find that your coverage of the New Baptist Covenant meeting as recorded in the Georgia Ledger Inquirer leaves the impression that Anthony Jordan, Executive Secretary of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma was slighted by the steering committee of the New Baptist Covenant.

Actually, he was honored with an invitation that was not extended to the leader of any other Baptist convention in our region.

Former President Carter held a private luncheon with the members and spouses of the steering committee that organized the Midwest Regional Meeting of the New Baptist Covenant. As a courtesy, we extended an invitation to Anthony Jordan that was not extended to anyone else who was not a member of our steering committee. When Dr. Jordan responded that he and his spouse would not be able to attend, we went a second mile and extended an invitation to a member of his staff and spouse. There was no response to that invitation.

Invitations to attend our meeting were extended to all the public by news stories and paid advertisements in several local newspapers including the Oklahoman.

Knowing how careful you were to abide by all the security precautions that would be necessary for former President Carter's visit, I trust that you will be equally as careful to correct any misperceptions that might arise from your report.

Sincerely,

Dr. Bruce Prescott
Chair, Steering Committee for the Midwest Region Meeting of the New Baptist Covenant

Announcing a New Baptist Covenant Weblog

Every day between now and Jan 30th I will be scouring the blogosphere and the web to see what people are saying about the New Baptist Covenant. Then, I'll be writing blogs about it on my unofficial weblog for the New Baptist Covenant.

Once a week, I will post a round-up of the news in the blogosphere. Blogs like this one On the SBC's Vendetta Against the New Baptist Covenant.

Mostly, I'll just be scouring the web to see what people are saying. Then I'll be making it easy for readers to view the broad range of opinions about the possibility that some Baptists could rise above their differences and work together to share the good news about God's love for all people.

I'll do that by linking to progressive bloggers like Future Bard who wrote a blog today about how the New Baptist Covenant is "Restoring Baptist Pride." I'll also be linking to fundamentalist bloggers like the SBC Ghost Recon who wrote a blog last week questioning "Goodwill Baptists?" I'll be looking for the full range of opinion about this historic event.

If you write a blog about the New Baptist Covenant, send me a link. I won't promise to post every link that I get, but I'll post as many of the thoughtful blogs -- from every perspective -- as I am able.

On the Letter and the Spirit

"For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory . . . For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory." (2 Corinthians 3:9-11)

The Old Covenant was a covenant of the law. Its letters were engraved on tablets made of stone. The Old Covenant had its glory, but it was a transient glory that cast a pale and fading reflection of God's glory. It could point to God's nature, but it could not embody his character.

The New Covenant is a covenant of Spirit. It is inscribed on the hearts of men. The New Covenant has its own glory. It is a permanent glory that projects a vivid impression of divine glory. It does more than point to God's character, it makes holiness manifest in the flesh.

The ministry of condemnation provides no more than a background on which the glory of righteousness can be highlighted. The brilliance of God's righteousness is most visible when men open their hearts and the dead letters of the law are replaced by the life and liberty of the Spirit.

Oklahoma's Monument to American Theocracy, Part 3

DOES THE MONUMENT ENDORSE A CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY?

The combined effect of engraving both the Mayflower Compact and the Ten Commandments on the same monument is to give a very strong endorsement of a theocratic form of governance. Comprehending the full strength of that endorsement requires a review of the history of Puritan and Separatist Christianity, of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and of the Baptist struggle for religious liberty in colonial America.

During the sixteenth century several movements sprang up in England hoping to reform the Church of England. Most called for a return to the simple teachings and practices of the Bible. The most influential and militant group was the Puritans who were deeply influenced by John Calvin and the reform of the church that he instituted in Geneva, Switzerland. They were called "Puritans" because they insisted on purity of doctrine and practice in the church.

The Pilgrims were "Separatists." Most Separatists were discouraged Puritans who had given up any hope of purifying and reforming the Church of England from within. Instead, they separated themselves from the Church of England and formed independent congregations. These congregations were formed by a covenant between members. Early leaders in this movement were Robert Browne, John Greenwood, and Henry Barrowe. In 1593, English law made it illegal to attend any meetings of these Separatist "conventicles" or covenant congregations. Greenwood was hanged in 1593.

Covenants are mutual agreements in which the parties accept obligations and receive privileges. Separatist covenants were patterned after the covenants that the God of the Bible made with his people. Biblical covenants obligated people to live according to God's law and promised that God would bless them if they did. One of the central covenants in the Bible was the covenant between God and the children of Israel at Mount Sinai (Exodus 19) that culminated in the giving of the law (Exodus 20) as summarized by the Ten Commandments. That covenant founded Israel as the people of God.

The historical lineage of the Pilgrims' congregation was a Separatist congregation that was formed in Gainsborough, Lincolnshire around 1606. John Smyth became its leader. The congregation grew so rapidly that the large size of the gathering made it dangerous to meet. The congregation divided. Smyth continued to lead the congregation that remained at Gainsborough. Another congregation formed at Scrooby Manor. John Robinson became that congregation's pastor. By 1608 both congregations had fled to Holland to escape persecution. Smyth's congregation settled in Amsterdam. Robinson's congregation settled for a time in Leyden. From Holland both the history of Separatism and the way that Separatist congregations came to relate to government diverged. Sometimes the differences were bitter. Both sides of the division had an influence on American history.

Among Smyth's congregation in Amsterdam was Thomas Helwys. In 1611, Helwys returned to England and established the congregation that founded the Baptist denomination. He also launched a movement that advocated separating church and state and demanded religious liberty for all persons. Shortly after his return, Helwys sent an autographed copy of his book A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity (1610) to the King. The book may have been the first treatise advocating absolute religious liberty ever published on English soil. In his own handwriting on the flyleaf of his book, Helwys advised King James I that he was a "mortal man and not God, therefore had no power over the immortal souls of his subjects." Shortly after the King received his book, Helwys was imprisoned until his death. He died around 1616.

[Helwys handwritten flyleaf note to King James has recently been reproduced in Thomas Helwys, A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity, ed. Richard Groves (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998), pp. vii. Inside the book, Helwys argued that, "Men's religion to God is between God and themselves; the king shall not answer for it, neither may the king judge between God and man. Let them be heretics, Turks, Jews or whatsoever, it appertains not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure." p. 53.]

Among Robinson's congregation in Leyden were William Bradford and William Brewster. In 1620 Bradford and Brewster led some members of the congregation and others to set sail for America on the Mayflower. These are the "Pilgrims" that signed the Mayflower Compact. They founded Plymouth Plantation and the Congregational Church in America. These Pilgrims desired religious liberty only for themselves. They set up what James Ernst described as a "democratic theocracy." Their government was dominated by their church:

[A highly respected standard reference for American church history summarizes the Mayflower Compact with these words: "The Mayflower Pilgrims landed at Cape Cod, which was too far north for their Virginia Company patent to be of any value to them. . . . they came to rest in a region for which they had no legal authority. It was this unanticipated predicament, plus the 'mutinous speeche' of some of the London 'strangers' that prompted the colonists to enter into the so-called Mayflower Compact. This document was nothing more than a church covenant, such as bound together the Leyden church, put to civic use." See H. Shelton Smith, Robert T. Handy, and Lefferts A. Loetscher, American Christianity: An Historical Interpretation With Representative Documents, Vol. 1 1607-1820 (New York: Charles Scribners, 1960), p. 92. Sixty-one of the passengers aboard the Mayflower were "strangers" picked up around London by the merchant adventurers. Only forty-one of the passengers came from the Leyden church. The "mutinous speeches" were statements by the strangers "That when they came a shore they would use their own libertie; for none had power to command them." After signing the "Compact" or covenant, "they mette and consulted of lawes and orders, both for their civill and military Govermente, as the necessity of their condition did require, still adding thereunto as urgent occasion in severall times, and as cases did require."]

The colony also excluded persons from other sects and faiths:

[James Ernst described the religious atmosphere of Plymouth Plantation: "Although the Pilgrims were more tolerant than the Boston Puritans, they were nevertheless a persecuting church. With all civil governments of their day, they assumed the right to determine the religious beliefs of their colonists. Mr. Oldham, 'a mad jack in his mood' was forced out of the colony. And the sniveling minister, John Lyford, a 'canting hypocrite,' so the Pilgrims said, was banished for attempting to reform the Pilgrim church. Thomas Morton of Merry Mount who scandalized the Pilgrims by setting 'up a Maypole, drinking and dancing about it for many days together,' was silenced by God's people. When a third of the colonists desired to celebrate Christmas Day, 1621, 'in the streets, openly with such ungodliness as pitching a bar and playing ball,' they were suppressed with the grim New England humor that they might do it out of sight. Mr. Bradford was pleased to note that since then they did not play ball, 'at least openly.'

The Pilgrim Fathers allowed neither religious liberty nor separation of church and state. Nor did Barrow and Brown, their predecessors. Everywhere the reformed churches became the national or state churches." Ernst, p. 74. See also Smith, Handy and Loetscher, pp. 82-185.]

Historically, as Massachusetts was colonized, the center of power and the most important settlements developed at Salem and Boston around the Massachusetts Bay. Under their system of law and jurisprudence, Baptists, Quakers and other religious dissenters were severely persecuted:

[In the summer of 1651, John Clarke, John Crandall, and Obadiah Holmes -- all members of the Baptist Church at Newport, Rhode Island -- were arrested and imprisoned for holding an unauthorized worship service in the home of a blind Baptist named William Witter who lived at Lynn, Massachusetts outside Boston. They were sentenced to be fined or whipped. Fines for Clarke and Crandall were paid by friends. Holmes refused to let friends pay his fine and was publicly whipped on the streets of Boston on September 6, 1651. In 1653, Henry Dunster, the first president of Harvard University, refused to have his fourth child baptized as an infant and proclaimed that only believers should be baptized. He was forced to resign from his position and banished from Cambridge, Massachusetts. In 1663, John Myles moved an entire Baptist congregation from Wales to escape the religious persecutions authorized by England's 1662 Act of Uniformity. They first settled in Massachusetts, but by 1667 the authorities forced the congregation to move to the frontier in Rhode Island.

The persecutions that began when the Colony was founded were not temporary and limited to the earliest stages of settlement. Nearly a century later, Baptists were still suffering persecution in Massachusetts. Early Baptist historian, Isaac Backus, told the story of an elderly widow named Esther White, who lived in Raynham and was a member of the Baptist church that Backus pastored in Middleborough, Massachusetts. She refused to pay a tax to support the minister of the established Congregational church in Raynham on the grounds that she was a dissenter from that church and had become a Baptist. The town of Raynham refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of her church and put her in jail. Though she could have paid the tax and been released at any time, she remained in jail for thirteen months. City leaders finally became so embarrassed that they released her from the charge. Others paid a steeper price. Baptists founded a church in Ashfield, Massachusetts (then known as Huntstown) in 1761. 1763 the town's Congregationalists hired a minister, built a meeting house, and taxed the Baptists to help pay for it. Pastor Ebenezer Smith and his congregation refused to pay the religious tax. The town then seized the Baptists' land -- some of the best in the town -- complete with cemetery, apple orchard and houses. The land was auctioned to their Congregational neighbors for a pittance of its value. A total of 398 acres was seized, including ten acres from Ebenezer Smith and twenty acres from his father, Chileab Smith.]

Some Quakers, among them Mary Dyer, defied orders of banishment and were executed:

[William Robinson, Marmaduke Stephenson, and William Leddra are listed among the Quaker martyrs in Massachusetts. The last Quaker martyr in Massachusetts, Mary Dyer, was hanged in the Boston Common on June 1, 1660. All died in defiance of a law banning Quakers from Massachusetts Bay Colony. A statue of Mary Dyer now stands in front of the State Capitol in Massachusetts as a constant reminder of the Colony's shameful legacy of religious intolerance.

Before resorting to executions, Ahlstrom records other ways that the authorities dealt with Quakers, "In July 1656 the ship Swallow anchored in Boston Harbor. It became known quickly that on board were two Quaker women, Mary Fisher and Ann Austin, who had shipped from Barbados. The authorities moved swiftly. The women were kept on ship while their belongings were searched and more than one hundred books confiscated. Although there was as yet no law against Quakers in Massachusetts, the two were hurried off to jail, stripped of all their clothing, and inspected for tokens of witchcraft. After five weeks, the captain of the Swallow was placed under a £100 bond to carry them back to Barbados."]

Theocratic governance of Massachusetts began with the signing of the Mayflower Compact. Those who signed the Compact covenanted to "enact, constitute and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony." In their eyes, the most "just and equal laws" were those that God gave Moses. In simplest terms, they were covenanting to live together under biblical law as summarized by the Ten Commandments. In practice, all of the commandments were enforced, including the first four commandments regarding worship.

In my opinion, a monument to the Mayflower Compact -- all by itself, without the addition of a Ten Commandments monument -- could be perceived to be endorsing the democratic theocracy that the Compact inaugurated.

Whether the monument actually endorses theocracy or merely commemorates a historical event in the colonizing of America requires an examination of the setting and context in which it is placed.

Tomorrow I will examine the question, "Does engraving both the Mayflower Compact and the Ten Commandments on the same monument send a strong signal that a Christian democratic theocracy is being endorsed?"

Technorati Tags Ten Commandments, Stigler, Oklahoma, Church and State, Theocracy, Haskell County, Dominionism

Preparing for the New Baptist Covenant II

Oklahoma City Meeting of the New Baptist Covenant II

Nov. 17-19, 2011 St. John Missionary Baptist Church in Oklahoma City will host the second ever gathering of the New Baptist Covenant. American Baptists, Cooperative Baptists, Free Will Baptists, Missionary Baptists, National Baptists, Progressive National Baptists, Southern Baptists and other Baptists from across the spectrum of ethnic backgrounds will be uniting for a special time of worship and work.

The Nov. 17-19 meeting will be part of the second gathering to celebrate the New Baptist Covenant movement which began with a historic meeting at Atlanta in 2008. That meeting brought 15,000 Baptists from 40 different Baptist denominations and groups together.

As many as 30,000 to 35,000 people are projected to participate in the New Baptist Covenant II meeting which will be coordinated from the anchor city of Atlanta and broadcast live to simultaneous worship services in regional meetings across the country. Former president and first lady Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter and other prominent Baptists will speak live by satellite. Each regional meeting will feature “live and in person” their own slate of speakers, choirs, musicians, workshops, and breakouts.

The Oklahoma City meeting will feature the Ambassador Concert Choir on the evening of Thursday, Nov. 17. John Reed, pastor of Fairview Baptist Church in Oklahoma City and President of the National Baptist Convention of Oklahoma, will be the keynote speaker on the morning of Friday, Nov. 18. That afternoon St. John will offer screenings and panel discussions of the documentary films “Gospel Without Borders” about immigration and “Beneath the Skin” about racism. There will also be opportunities to hear sermons by Dr. Lee Cooper, Pastor of Prospect Baptist Church in Oklahoma City, Dr. Tim Eaton, President of Hillsdale Freewill Baptist College, Rev. Todd Littleton, pastor Snow Hill Baptist Church in Tuttle, Dr. Wade Smith, pastor of First Baptist Church in Norman, and Dr. Charles Johnson, pastor of First Baptist Church of Desdemona, Texas. Other workshops include sessions about what is wrong with Oklahoma’s payday lending law and a Spanish language breakout on immigration law and procedure.

For additional information, visit our website: www.newbaptistcovenant.org

On Fearing God

My thinking has been so deeply influenced by the phenomenological hermeneutic of Paul Ricoeur that whenever I disagree with him, I do so with trepidation.

Nevertheless, I have always been uncomfortable with Ricoeur's interpretation of "the fear of God" as described in his book The Symbolism of Evil. The biblical text at issue is Jeremiah 32:40:

I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me. (NIV)

Ricoeur's hermeneutic attempts to "re-feel" the full emotive force expressed by the word "fear." He does not reduce its literal evocation by reducing its affectivity to "awe" or "reverence" as many interpreters do. For him, fear has a positive function and exists in a dialectical relation with desire. Since fear cannot be completely cast out until the eschaton, in the world of time and history, it can only be transmuted. For Christians, the fear that God inspires is transformed from "fear of vengeance to love of order." Ricoeur goes on to explain that, "a whole part of human existence, the public part, cannot raise itself above the fear of punishment and . . . this fear is the indispensable means by which man advances toward a different order."

Ricoeur's interpretation betrays a predilection for giving weight to the corporate and communal perspective when viewing divine-human relations. Being a Baptist, I prefer to give weight to a more direct, intimate and personal perspective.

I would not treat this passage in isolation from previous verses (Jeremiah 31:28-33) where the "everlasting covenant" is described as a "new covenant" that is inscribed on individually transformed "hearts" and "minds." From this perspective, the "fear" associated with the everlasting covenant is not transmuted into a "love of order," but redirected toward the "law of love" that Jesus summarized by the command to love God with "all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" and to "love your neighbor as yourself." (Matt. 22:37-39 NIV)

When the covenant is understood as the "law of love," the fear that God inspires takes on a different character. It becomes the "fear of not loving enough" that Ricoeur himself recognizes as "the purest and worst of fears."

Podcast: Walter Shurden's Speech to Mainstream Baptists

The coverage of the Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant by Associated Baptist Press, Ethics Daily, by Bloggers like Melissa Rogers, Ben Cole, Brian Kaylor, Aaron Weaver, The Bold Confessor and others. Videos of the sermons and speeches are being posted online at the New Baptist Covenant website.

I have no desire to duplicate their fine efforts. Here's something unique to Mainstream Baptists. Dr. Walter Shurden, premier historian among moderate Baptists, gave a speech at the Mainstream Baptist Network breakfast this morning on the historical significance of the Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant. Here's a link to a podcast of his speech (31 MB MP3). Here's one of the many significant statements that he made:

"The Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant is not an effort to form something together, it is an effort to say something together -- about what we ought to be doing together."

What we ought to be doing together is taking seriously what Jesus took seriously -- promoting peace with justice, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, caring for the sick and marginalized, visiting the imprisoned and welcoming strangers.

Unofficial "New Baptist Covenant" Weblog Launched

News and interest concerning the Celebration of the New Baptist Covenant has been picking up since they launched their website.

I've launched a new unofficial New Baptist Covenant weblog to serve as a center for discussion in the blogosphere about the Celebration in Atlanta on January 30-February 1, 2008.

If you are interested, take a look.

If you are very interested, click here to sign-up to become a member of MyBlogLog community for the New Baptist Covenant weblog.

More Abysmal Media Coverage of the New Baptist Covenant

Kudos again to Robert Parham for correcting the errors in the Wall Street Journal's reporting on the Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant.

The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal have both produced recent examples of why millions of Americans are abandoning newspapers and getting their news from the internet. People who are accustomed to sorting truth from error as it is being posted on the internet have little tolerance for journalism that mimics the worst distortions and inaccuracies of uninformed bloggers and ideologue trolls. (I cancelled my "Kindle" subscription to the Wall Street Journal today)

Anyone interested enough to learn what really happened at the Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant can watch the videos posted at the New Baptist Covenant website. Those who prefer that the media filter their news, slant it, and reframe it to fit their ideological preconceptions can view the commentary at the Washington Post or read the pseudo-analysis from the wine and cheese "deputy taste editor" at the Wall Street Journal.

New Baptist Covenant Fellowship to Meet Triennially

Leaders from the participating organizations within the New Baptist Covenant fellowship have agreed to meet triennially and host regional group meeting in years between NBC Celebrations. Here's a link to the press release from the March 12 meeting of leaders for the New Baptist Covenant.

The next national meeting for the New Baptist Covenant will be in 2011.

Young Southern Baptists Criticize Elders

Associated Baptist Press has published some comments by young Southern Baptist leaders that challenge the severely critical reaction that SBC denominational leaders have had toward the New Baptist Covenant group. Here's an excerpt:

Wade Burleson, a leader in the network of reform-minded conservatives who elected Page as president, said Chapman's and Page's criticisms are uncalled-for.

While not familiar with Covenant and it's leaders, Burleson said, "it would be difficult for me to criticize any evangelical Christian movement whose stated goals are to live out the gospel through doing justice and loving mercy."

"There comes a time when we as Southern Baptists should simply remain silent if we cannot say anything supportive of other Baptist attempts at addressing pressing social and cultural issues in a prophetic manner," Burleson, an Oklahoma pastor, told Associated Baptist Press. "To provide a public defense of our convention's record, while at the same time criticizing others, seems to be acting in a manner contrary to the spirit of our Lord and the good of His kingdom at large. I wish nothing but success for all Baptists who seek to live out the gospel for a world in need of a Savior."

Ben Cole, another leader of the young reformers and a blogger at baptistblog.wordpress.com, also criticized his SBC colleagues.

"I am not surprised to see a response movement beginning to develop to provide balance to the fundamentalist tire-slashers who have managed to arrest the microphone of public witness among Southern Baptists," Cole said in a statement to ABP. "Neither am I surprised to read the prejudicial criticisms already being lobbed at Carter and Clinton by some of my fundamentalist brethren."

"Southern Baptists had better be careful when it comes to criticizing efforts to unite people of faith who seek social justice for the poor and oppressed," said Cole, a Southern Baptist pastor in Arlington, Texas "The role of the Levite or the priest in Christ's parable of the Good Samaritan is not one to be preferred. It could be that men whom the Southern Baptist fundamentalist elites regard as undesirable are the very ones who gain heaven's blessing in their efforts to bind up the wounds of those in our society who have fallen among thieves."

Cole said he shares the Covenant group's desire for more Baptist voices to be heard.

"The Southern Baptist Convention has gained a great deal of media attention in the last quarter-century, and our spokesmen have not always reflected with fairness the diversity of Baptist identity on issues of political or social importance," he said.

The reaction of young SBCers should be a hopeful sign for David Goatley pictured above as he spoke at the New Baptist Covenant press conference. Goatley is Executive Secretary of Lott Carey Foreign Missions and President of the North American Baptist Fellowship. He has been working diligently to bring all Baptists in North America together in a regional grouping of the Baptist World Alliance.

Important Articles in the July Baptist Studies Bulletin

The July Issue of the Baptist Studies Bulletin is online with some important book reviews by Walter Shurden and a discussion of the North American Baptist Covenant by Bill Underwood.

Shurden is Executive Director of the Center for Baptist Studies at Mercer University. Underwood is President of Mercer University.

Here's a quote from Shurden's book review:

Though I vigorously applaud American Gospel and The Baptizing of America, Kingdom Coming by Michelle Goldberg is my favorite of the three books. Since she is a secular Jew of New York and I a progressive Baptist of Georgia, why am I most engrossed with Goldberg's analysis? Three reasons! One, Goldberg, a senior journalist for Salon, writes crisply and engagingly. And she researched this book the way journalists always research books: she went to the people she was writing about, observed their meetings, and heard their speeches. She has also read their books. Two, and this is the golden virtue of the book: Goldberg understands the vast overlapping network of the contemporary religious right, and she connects the dots for the reader. Three, some of her suggestions for taking on the religious right appear to me to be unusually fair and savvy, in keeping with her civil libertarianism.

If, like most, you don't have time to read all three books, please read Goldberg's introduction, "Taking the Land," and her conclusion, "Exiles in JesusLand." My guess is that after that, you will want to read all of her book and maybe the other two as well. "Take and read."

Goldberg was recently a guest on Welton Gaddy's State of Belief radio program. Here's a link to a brief podcast from that interview. I'll be interviewing Michelle on my Religious Talk radio program in the next few weeks.

After you've listened to Michelle Goldberg tell the story about the new faith-based policies of the Salvation Army in New York City, you'll find that whatever despair you might feel for the state of liberty of conscience in America may be alleviated by reading Underwood's discussion of the North American Baptist Covenant.

Underwood speaks about the possibility that 20 million moderate and progressive Baptists -- Baptists who remember their denomination's legacy in support of liberty of conscience -- might unite and work to reclaim their heritage after the leaders of 16 million Southern Baptists have spent three decades working to destroy that legacy. Here's the electrifying first paragraph from Underwood's discussion:

There are whispers of an exciting new movement emerging in Baptist life. Within the past several weeks, leaders of Baptist organizations representing more than 20 million Baptists have launched an unprecedented initiative to advance the Kingdom through the combined voice and work of Baptists throughout North America. Baptists from the North and from the South. Black and white Baptists. conservative, moderate and progressive Baptists joining together in a covenant -- the North American Baptist Covenant -- to affirm "their desire to speak and work together to create an authentic and genuine prophetic Baptist voice in these complex times."

New Baptist Covenant Midwest Region Meeting Announced

The Steering Committee for the New Baptist Covenant Midwest Region is pleased to announce that the New Convention Center in Norman, Oklahoma has been selected for the first ever meeting of the Midwest Region of the New Baptist Covenant.

The meeting will be held on August 6-7, 2009.

Former President Jimmy Carter has agreed to speak at our meeting.

We will be celebrating the 400th anniversary of the founding of the Baptist denomination.

To see the full press release click here.

Will Clinton Stay on Message?

The Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant is a week away and, for the first time, I am starting to have an uneasy feeling about what Bill Clinton will say at the meeting.

I attended the press conference last April when Carter and Clinton announced the Celebration to the public. At that meeting, I heard Clinton openly speak about his faith and left convinced that his profession of faith in Christ is genuine, that his grasp of Baptist pinciples is profound, and that his commitment to separation of church and state is sincere. If Clinton speaks at the Celebration the way that he spoke during that press conference, then my uneasiness about the speech he will give at the Celebration will prove unfounded.

Last April, however, no one suspected that an African-American would be the chief rival standing between Bill Clinton's wife and the presidency. Then, no one suspected that the African-American community would be severly divided about who they would support for president. T. DeWitt Smith, President of the Progressive National Baptist Convention, joked at the press conference that his son was impressed that his father would be meeting "the first African-American President." The possibility that Clinton would be tempted to veer away from a message about faith to make a statement in support of Hillary's candidacy seemed remote.

Now we know that the stakes for the February 5th Democratic primaries are enormous. Now we know that Bill's role in Hillary's campaign has been to "lash out" against Obama and that his message is targeted towards African-Americans and young people.

There are going to be a lot of African-Americans and young people at the Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant. The temptation for Bill to deliver a political message, instead of a spiritual message, will be great.

It may be too great a temptation.

I pray that it isn't.

This entry is cross-posted from the New Baptist Covenant weblog.

New Baptist Covenant in the News

The religion sections of newspapers around the country are publishing stories about the coming Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant. Here are some links:

Atlanta Journal Constitution

Augusta Chronicle

Columbus Ledger Inquirer

Fort Worth Star-Telegram

News & Observer

New York Times

Washington Post

Winston-Salem Journal

(This entry is cross-posted from the New Baptist Covenant weblog.)

List of News coverage of the New Baptist Covenant Meeting in Norman

Here's a list of news stories written about the New Baptist Covenant Meeting in Norman, Oklahoma on August 6-7, 2209. This entry will be updated as news stories are discovered.

The Oklahoman

Former President Carter says Christian Division like a Cancer (8/7/09) with video.

Former President Jimmy Carter seeks Christian Unity (8/8/09)

Oklahoma Gov. Henry says he's glad he found faith young. (8/8/09)

Podcast of Carla Hinton's Interview with former President Carter.

Former President Carter Trying to Unify Baptists (7/25/09)

The Norman Transcript

Jimmy Carter Urges Unity Along Common Christian Principles (8/8/09)

Carter Remembers Oklahoma Visits Fondly (8/8/09)

Racism Addressed at Baptist Conference (8/7/09)

Former President to Speak in Norman (8/1/09)

Oklahoma Gazette

Former President Carter Plans Norman Speech (7/31/09)

Ethics Daily

Building Bridges: Crossing Valley of Racism (8/7/09)

Attend Immigrant Luncheon at New Baptist Covenant Meeting (7/22/09)

Upcoming Oklahoma Gathering Models Baptist Inclusiveness (7/10/09)

Associated Baptist Press

Oklahoma Governor says faith sustained family in loss of child (8/7/09)

Baptists Challenged to Overcome Racial Barriers (8/7/09)

On the Profanity of Ten Commandments Monuments

I was interviewed this morning by Mick Cornett and Kent Meyers for a segment of their television program The Verdict that is scheduled to air for the first time on Oklahoma's Cox Cable Network on July 5th. The program was about the Ten Commandments monument that the state legislature recently authorized for installation at the Oklahoma state capitol.

The first question called for an opinion about such monuments. My response to that question took on a more personal and subjective character than usual when the other guest, who spoke before me, closed his remarks with an insinuation that no one who affirms the value of the ten commandments could oppose the erection of the monument.

Under the glare of the lights, in the eye of the camera, and in the heat of the moment, I cannot remember exactly what I said. Here's a close approximation that records what I think I said:

With every fiber of my being I am convicted that it (the monument) is profane. It takes a sacred oath and covenant and converts it into a symbol of profanity. To understand that, you have to understand what the Supreme Court has said about the Ten Commandments.

The Supreme Court ruled that the display of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky was unconstitutional because there it had a religious purpose and meaning. The court ruled that the display of the Ten Commandments in Texas was legal because there it had a secular meaning and purpose.

I believe that the Ten Commandments are a sacred oath and covenant between God and his people. The Supreme Court has no authority to interpret the scriptures and pass judgment on its meaning.

And worse, every one of these displays has the name of God chiseled on it saying "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." Violating that command is precisely what the Supreme Court says makes monuments to the Ten Commandments legal. Taking the name of the Lord in vain means taking it lightly -- as though God's name and his person had no ultimate significance and religious meaning. That is why I am convicted that Ten Commandments monuments on public land are taking a sacred oath and covenant and turning it into a symbol of profanity.

6/3/09 Note: This program is scheduled to air on Cox Communications Channel 7 in Oklahoma City and on Cox Communications Channel 3 in Tulsa at the following times: at 9:00 AM on Sunday, July 5, at 9:30 AM on Monday, July 6, at 10:00 AM on Tuesday, July 7, and at 10:00 AM on Wednesday, July 8.