The BJC issue - a Baptist solution

The issue confronting the denomination is whether to remain affiliated with the Baptist Joint Committee. Some of us disagree with the approach taken by the BJC, others to their positions on issues. Other Seventh Day Baptists consider their work to be an integral part of the Baptist commitment to religious liberty. The disagreement is fundamental. There is an approach that would permit each side to be true to its principles - and that approach is provided by the BJC. The BJC makes it possible for individuals to support their work.

One of the fourteen bodies represented on the BJC Board is the Religious Liberty Council. From the Baptist Joint Committee website:

Religious Liberty Council

The Religious Liberty Council of the Baptist Joint Committee is an association of individuals that works to provide education about and advocacy for religious freedom and the separation of church and state and to ensure adequate funding for the BJC. ...

RLC members receive:

• Report from the Capital, the monthly newsletter of the Baptist Joint Committee;
• RLC Action Alerts, informing you when issues arise that warrant grassroots action;
• Invitations to workshops and conferences.

All donors to the Baptist Joint Committee automatically qualify for membership in the Religious Liberty Council.

If the denomination withdrew from the Baptist Joint Committee, those of us who object to aspects of its work would no longer be implicated in them. Those who wish to support the work of the BJC could become members of the Religious Liberty Council. This solution would seem consistent with Baptist liberty - no-one would be forced to submit to a majority position. To support, or not support, the BJC would be an individual decision.

Source: Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty

Seventh Day Baptists and the BJC

I am one of several Seventh Day Baptists who have been asked to contribute a paper for or against withdrawal of the General Conference from membership in the Baptist Joint Committee. Those position papers and related information will be mailed to the churches early in 2007. The vote will take place during the General Conference sessions at the end of July and will be a "vote by churches."

What follows is my contribution to the debate. I would be happy to publish other Seventh Day Baptist points of view.

An argument for non-affiliation with the Baptist Joint Committee.

The Seventh Day Baptist General Conference is a member of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. I believe it is time to end the relationship.

The purposes of the BJC are unexceptionable - we all support religious liberty and the separation of church and state. But agreement on those principles doesn’t settle the issue. Does “separation of church and state,” for instance, mean a “wall of separation” or something less absolute which still protects churches from government interference?

Membership in any organization, the purpose of which is to lobby legislators and to bring litigation in the courts, carries certain implications. When the representatives of the BJC introduce themselves at the beginning of their testimony, they indicate that they represent “fourteen Baptist bodies,” of which we are one. Do they, in fact, represent the views of Seventh Day Baptists?

For instance, in its actions and publications, the BJC:

• opposes most “faith-based” government initiatives.
• opposes school voucher programs if schools that offer religious instruction are included.
• opposes display of the Ten Commandments on public property, contending that it represents a government “endorsement” of religion.
• is critical of governmental acknowledgment of God’s authority – for instance the “under God” phrase in the Pledge – as “civil religion.”
• expresses constant worry about the [alleged] malign influence of the “religious right.”
• opposes voluntary prisoner rehabilitation programs that incorporate religion as a motivation.

The BJC also does many good things, frequently in association with groups that would not agree with any of these items. The BJC has no monopoly on concern about religious liberty – more conservative groups also fight for the free exercise of religion. There are, of course, groups that are more radical “wall of separation” advocates than the BJC, for example American United for Separation of Church and State, a group which has benefited from the services of several former and current BJC staff members.

A clear sense of the BJC staff can be found by examining their website, http://www.bjcpa.org, - especially by reading the columns written by Executive Director Brent Walker and General Counsel K. Hollyn Hollman. The things they choose to comment on in their blog are also instructive.

The Board of Directors of the BJC on which our representative sits, meets only once a year and seldom, if ever, actually votes to determine the position the BJC takes. If the Board doesn’t decide, then, by default, the BJC staff must make those decisions. It is my contention that the BJC staff has adopted a hard-line “wall of separation” doctrine which has led them to take positions most Seventh Day Baptists would consider extreme.

It may be argued that withdrawal from the Baptist Joint Committee will damage our relations with other Baptists, harm our ecumenical efforts, and reduce our visibility in the Christian community. No doubt participation in the meetings of the BJC has been rewarding for those who have had the opportunity to attend and to meet and interact with those who were there. However it is unlikely the impact of our participation has been any greater or gone any further than that. On the other hand, our association with that group does identify us, for those who care, with the positions taken by the BJC and with a position in the religious/theological spectrum no longer [if ever] characteristic of Seventh Day Baptists.

We should withdraw from the Baptist Joint Committee.

Additional posts on the BJC and related issues can be found here.

BJC intervenes

The Baptist Joint Committee has decided to involve itself in the deliberations of Seventh Day Baptists about affiliation with it. At the SDB website (but not, at least anywhere obvious, on the BJC website), a news release, letter and resolution - "BJC Resolution supports SDB participation":

"At their annual meeting October 2-3, Directors of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC) spent considerable time discussing their relationship with the Seventh Day Baptist General Conference.

In light of the upcoming vote at Conference 2007 (for SDBs to either withdraw or remain with the BJC), the Directors of the Baptist Joint Committee unanimously approved a “Resolution of Recognition, Encouragement and Hope,” conveying their desire that Seventh Day Baptists maintain their historic relationship with the BJC."

There follows the letter and resolution adopted by the BJC Board of Directors. In the cover letter appears the following:

"In anticipation of this subject being addressed by Seventh Day Baptist churches prior to and during your Annual Conference in 2007, our BJC staff soon will be sending additional educational information to be provided through your churches as well, further amplifying our mission and highlighting our cooperative endeavors on behalf of the cause of religious freedom."

This is an interesting development. The Baptist Joint Committee and its affiliates are, of course, not members of the Seventh Day Baptist General Conference. The Conference is a member of the BJC. Shouldn't the debate be between SDB advocates and SDB opponents of affiliation? I have no problem with Seventh Day Baptist supporters of affiliation soliciting (and using) ammunition from the BJC for their cause - but should the BJC itself intervene in the debate? Should those of us opposed to affiliation invite outside groups to intervene? I won't.

Baptist Joint Committee II

Continuing the discussion of the vote at the next General Conference on disaffiliation from the Baptist Joint Committee [see "Baptist Joint Committee I" below]:

A group with which the BJC has had a long and close association is Americans United for Separation of Church and State. When founded, in 1947, its offices were in the BJC's garage.* The BJC's current General Council, K. Hollyn Hollman, is a member of Americans United's Board of Trustees. James Dunn, Brent Walker, Stan Hastey and others associated with the BJC have either served as trustees or been on the AU staff. American's United is an extreme proponent of the "wall of separation" doctrine and has challenged [unlike the BJC, which took no stand] the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the public schools as a violation of the religious freedom of schoolchildren. In other words, although more extreme than the BJC, and inclined to take on more issues, it inhabits a similar place in the ideological spectrum. Needless to say, a member of the Board of Trustees of an organization will not necessarily agree with everything that organization does, but continued presence probably indicates general agreement. Moreover, Hollman is lead lawyer for the BJC, with important responsibility for its legal direction.

The Baptist Joint Committee's former Executive Director, and primary spokesman for decades, was James M. Dunn. His political inclinations are easily discovered:

"I’m convinced that good people of every spiritual hue, precisely for their decency, cannot comprehend how profoundly outrageous the goals, evil the methods and pervasive the influence of religio-political extremists. Many see those so labeled as merely religious and political conservatives. How dangerous our naivete! How frightening our ignorance! Thank God for the Anti-Defamation League’s publication of The Religious Right: The assault on Tolerance and Pluralism in America." [Report from the Capital, Sept. 20, 1994]

A Missouri Baptist Layman's Association website identifies the groups Dunn describes as "religio-political extremists":

"The groups...the ADL book deals with...in separate chapters are: Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition; David Barton’s Wallbuilders; James Dobson’s Focus on the Family; Don Wildmon’s American Family Association; Paul Weyrich’s Free Congress Foundation; Robert Simonds’ Citizens for Excellence in Education; Beverly LaHaye’s Concerned Women for America; Lou Sheldon’s Traditional Values Coalition; Randall Terry’s Operation Rescue; Jerry Falwell and Phyllis Schlafly."

Although I would choose not to identify with some of these organizations, others are well within my boundaries of political acceptability.

According to an article in Focus on the Family's Citizen magazine, Dunn's distaste for his political opponents was frequently extreme:

Dunn railed frequently against the "radical religious right," which he described as "a bunch of crazies-people like Gary Bauer, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority types." In one of his more memorable rhetorical flourishes, he compared Christian conservatives to the Crusaders (circa 1000 A.D.): "Full of hate, killing people in order to save them, dehumanizing and bloody."

One of my own encounters with James Dunn occurred at a General Conference he attended at which an anti-abortion resolution was being considered. In our conversation he was strongly [vehemently] pro-choice and very critical of those who would outlaw abortion.

James Dunn is personally charming and his down-home folksy manner and mastery of the evangelical idiom disarmed many potential critics of BJC among Seventh Day Baptists. But it is clear that if there is a "religious right" [and there is], he is on the "religious left," and further, that an organization which employed him for two decades as its executive, and which he still serves as President of the BJC Endowment, must be quite comfortable with that fact.

* 1/17/2007 - Revised to remove "...and until the last few years, I'm told, the BJC provided them (AU) with offices." These words do not appear to have been accurate.

Kevin Butler is right and I am wrong

In the materials sent to Seventh Day Baptist churches about SDB disaffiliation from the Baptist Joint Committee, one of the sections is written by Kevin Butler, editor of the Sabbath Recorder - and Seventh Day Baptist representative to the BJC. Kevin is a good friend, a person of absolute integrity, and a minister of the gospel. He and I disagree on this issue.

At one point in his argument appears this passage:

In one blog I read against the BJC, the author stated that the group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State began in 1947 and shared office space with the BJC "until the last few years." Well, in the scheme of eternity, I guess that nearly six decades ago could be viewed as "the last few years." AU vacated the BJC office in 1948. We need to be careful with "facts."

As readers of "One Eternal Day" know, this is the blog he is quoting. I know Kevin wouldn't say anything he didn't believe to be true. And I certainly agree that we should be careful with facts. I also agree that sixty years ago isn't recent. So I re-checked. I have been unable to find the evidence for my assertion. Kevin is correct. I regret the error.

I would note, however, the accuracy of the account of the origins of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. From a tribute delivered by Kent Walker, current executive of the BJC:

Finally, Dawson[Note: then the BJC executive] was instrumental in founding Protestants and Other Americans United for the Separation of Church and State in 1947. POAU now, of course, is Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Dawson counted his role in forming POAU and serving as its first secretary one of his most important contributions to the defense of religious liberty. [...] According to Dawson, "POAU had not a penny on which to operate" and thus began in a single room in the offices of the Joint Committee. [emphasis added]
Source: Baptist Joint Committee

In 1947, Joseph Dawson, executive secretary of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, founded Protestants and Other Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
Source: Washington Times

The organizations remain very close ideologically and in terms of personnel - and that is certainly more important than physical proximity. Among the BJC personalities who serve or have recently served on Americans United's governing board are James Dunn, Stan Hastey, Brent Walker and K. Hollyn Holman. As the previous post indicated, the BJC and Americans United are frequent allies, and have been ever since the BJC founded Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

"Court is where policy is made"

Those few of you who have followed this blog since it began know my opinion of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. Although my denomination belongs, it does not represent my views. It is absurdly doctrinaire in its application of the "wall of separation" between church and state, and, politically, it is comfortable within Washington's liberal establishment. Some recent news, noted on the SDB Exec blog, does nothing to increase my confidence in the organization.

Last week we were informed that the BJC's Executive Director, Brent Walker, met with a delegation of Saudis. One might have hoped that the executive of an organization devoted to religious liberty would have a great deal to say to "nine officials from the Saudi Ministry of Education" about the absence of religious freedom in their country, and the treatment of other religions in the texbooks used in their schools, but no, we are told the meeting was about how the United States practices religious liberty — one somehow doubts that will have any impact on the practices of the Saudi government.

Now we learn of the BJC's enthusiasm for President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Souter on the Supreme Court. The BJC liked Souter a lot:

"More than any other justice, Justice Souter has reflected the Baptist Joint Committee's understanding of the proper interpretation of the religion clauses and how they apply to contemporary church-state issues," said BJC Executive Director J. Brent Walker.

And, they say, Sotomayor will be a really good replacement for Souter. Well, Jeffrey Rosen at The New Republic has been interviewing people who have worked with her, and:

.... The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?") ...

In a later post Rosen provided this from the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary:

Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed. "She is a terror on the bench." "She is very outspoken." "She can be difficult." "She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry." "She is overly aggressive—not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament." "She abuses lawyers." "She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts." "She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn't understand their role in the system—as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like."

She also seems to be prone statements that might properly be be considered racist. From Stuart Taylor in National Journal Magazine:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001

The above assertion and the rest of a remarkable speech to a Hispanic group by Sotomayor — widely touted as a possible Obama nominee to the Supreme Court — has drawn very little attention in the mainstream media since it was quoted deep inside The New York Times on May 15. ....

Sotomayor also referred to the cardinal duty of judges to be impartial as a mere "aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others." And she suggested that "inherent physiological or cultural differences" may help explain why "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." ....

Indeed, unless Sotomayor believes that Latina women also make better judges than Latino men, and also better than African-American men and women, her basic proposition seems to be that white males (with some exceptions, she noted) are inferior to all other groups in the qualities that make for a good jurist.

Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority.

Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: "I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life" — and had proceeded to speak of "inherent physiological or cultural differences." ....

So far, we find that she is "a bully on the bench" and a believer that legal judgment is enhanced by one's gender and ethnicity. She seems to have applied what she believes.

Sotomayor will almost certainly be approved. The BJC will be happy. I won't be. I'm very sorry we are still affiliated with the Baptist Joint Committee.

Seventh Day Baptist - SDB Exec Blog, The Case Against Sotomayor, National Journal Magazine - Identity Politics And Sotomayor

"Echoes of fundamentalism"

The Associated Baptist Press has distributed a story by Robert Marus about the Seventh Day Baptist decision to remain affiliated with the Baptist Joint Committee (BJC). In it, this blog is quoted:

“The BJC has pursued a doctrinaire ‘wall of separation’ position with respect to the [First Amendment’s] establishment clause,” wrote James Skaggs, a retired Wisconsin teacher, in a June 5 entry on his “One Eternal Day” blog (www.one-eternal-day.com). Skaggs has been an outspoken opponent of continued Seventh Day Baptist affiliation with BJC.

“In alliance with a wide array of liberal religious and non-religious groups, it has filed briefs encouraging the courts to adopt that view,” Skaggs noted. “The cumulative effect of such court decisions is to reduce the ability of religion to influence government policy and to prevent government from using religious institutions for social good. It has also been a vehicle used by anti-religious groups in America to increasingly remove religion from the public square.”

Skaggs' arguments echoed those used by fundamentalists in the Southern Baptist Convention. In the 1980s, they began an effort — ultimately successful — to withdraw from the BJC. The move cut off the groups largest supporter, nearly crippling it. But the BJC has rebounded since.

Interesting. I wonder how the Associated Baptist Press defines "fundamentalist" in this context. It is a term seldom used in a non-pejorative sense these days. From The Associated Press Stylebook as quoted at GetReligion:

fundamentalist The word gained usage in an early 20th century fundamentalist-modernist controversy within Protestantism. In recent years, however, fundamentalist has to a large extent taken on pejorative connotations except when applied to groups that stress strict, literal interpretations of Scripture and separation from other Christians. In general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself.

The BJC issues had little to do with theology, and a great deal to do with church/state relations in Constitutional law and American history. If my arguments echoed those of "fundamentalists in the Southern Baptist Convention" (few of whose arguments I have read), they also echoed the arguments of First Things Roman Catholics and evangelicals, or National Review lawyers, or of social or traditionalist conservatives of no religious faith. It would probably have been better to simply summarize the arguments rather than attempt to draw parallels with controversies in other denominations — and thus risk committing "guilt by association."

Seventh Day Baptists to stay in Baptist Joint Committee

Politics and the pulpit

I think that partisan politics should ordinarily be absent from the pulpit. Liberals have typically been rather vehement and dogmatic on the subject. The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, which has consistently deplored pulpit advocacy for conservative candidates, summarizes part of the law thus:

.... Churches may not, however, support or oppose candidates for office without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status. This restriction includes a prohibition on endorsements or opposition for a candidate from the pulpit.

The Religion News Service reports "Hoping to avert disaster, Democrats turn to black churches":

.... The Democratic National Committee has dispatched staff to coordinate with black ministers as part of an aggressive get-out-the-vote mobilization, hoping to seize on early voting options in key states.

“We’re making sure that not only on Sunday that pastors encourage their community to go out and vote, but even during the weekday services,” said Regena Thomas, director faith and constituent outreach for the DNC.

Thomas, who is an African Methodist Episcopal pastor from New Jersey, said African-Americans are being encouraged to vote early, even “before and after Bible study.” ....

The Rev. Calvin McKinney, general secretary of the National Baptist Convention, USA, and a New Jersey pastor, said the DNC has worked with state leaders of his denomination to try to avert political disaster. ....

The Rev. Boise Kimber, a Connecticut pastor and a board member of the National Baptist Convention, USA, said he and other black clergy were already building bridges between churches and Democratic candidates even before the DNC came calling. .... [more]

Maybe panic is spreading at this very moment among those worried about religious involvement in politics periling the "wall of separation" between church and state, religion and politics. The ACLU may at this moment be preparing lawsuits, supported by the Baptist Joint Committee and Americans United — all of those who have threatened the tax exempt status of churches who expressly advocated support for or opposition to political candidates. Maybe the IRS is keeping track so they can revoke the tax-exempt status of offending congregations. Perhaps. I'm not holding my breath....

RNS Feature: "Hoping to avert disaster, Democrats turn to black churches"

"The Credibility Question"

In his column today, Albert Mohler responds to an article in USA Today:

Is Christianity in America losing its credibility? Oliver "Buzz" Thomas obviously thinks so. In his view, Christianity is losing credibility because so many Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin.

After responding to the substance of Mr Thomas's arguments, Mohler goes on to note:

Readers familiar with the recent history of the Southern Baptist Convention will recognize that Buzz Thomas was for many years counsel and staff member of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs (now known as the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty), a group defunded over a decade ago by the Southern Baptist Convention, which formally disassociated itself from the BJCPA. Anyone wondering why the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention was necessary should find ample evidence in Buzz Thomas's article.

Source: The Credibility Question

The Seventh Day Baptist General Conference is still a member of the BJC.

BJC, politics and "faith-based" initiatives

The following was found after about thirty seconds of "Googling" "Baptist Joint Committee" and "Americans United." It is a pretty good indication of the types of alliances the BJC joins on Establishment clause issues [on "free exercise" issues, the list would less ideological, and more acceptable, at least to me]. The list includes most of those one would expect in an explicitly liberal political alliance in Washington. The story is from 2001, but the example isn't isolated - I would invite anyone to do a similar search. It has been suggested that calling attention to such alliances is "guilt by association." However, the association was voluntary and not invented by opponents of the BJC. Of course, agreement on one issue doesn't imply agreement on everything - but it does mean agreement on that issue, and, when it happens again and again, it is fair to draw an inference.

WASHINGTON - April 11 - A broad coalition of religious, education, labor, civil liberties and health advocacy groups today urged the U.S. House to reject a bill that directs tax aid to houses of worship to provide social services. Two dozen groups representing millions of Americans said the "charitable choice" provisions of the Watts-Hall "Community Solutions Act" (H.R. 7) must be rejected. The provisions, which reflect the Bush administration's "faith-based" initiative, allow religious groups to get government funds without the church-state safeguards that have been in effect in the past. In a letter to House members, the groups said, "'Charitable choice' is an unconstitutional and dangerous proposal that will harm religion, authorize government-funded discrimination, undermine the accountability of taxpayer dollars, foster litigation against state and local governments and violate the personal rights of Americans seeking help."

Among the groups signing the letter is Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the group spearheading opposition to the Bush initiative. "Opposition to Bush's faith-based fiasco is building steadily," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "Until the plan is brought into line with the Constitution, Congress has a responsibility to reject it." In addition to American United, other groups signing the letter include: American Association of School Administrators, American Association of University Women, American Federation of Teachers, American Humanist Association, American Jewish Committee, Americans for Religious Liberty, Association of Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees, Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, Catholics for a Free Choice, Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers), Hadassah, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, National Association of Social Workers, National Council of Jewish Women, National Education Association, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, OMB Watch, People for the American Way, Service Employees International Union, The Interfaith Alliance, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Unitarian Universalist Association and Women of Reform Judaism. [emphasis added]

Source: Americans United for Separation of Church and State

The news release was posted on a "progressive" [read liberal] website by Americans United. The bill they were opposing back in those early days of the Bush administration, was co-sponsored by a Republican from Oklahoma and a Democrat from Ohio.

Baptist Joint Committee I

In its sessions at Houghton College last week, the SDB General Conference decided, in perhaps the only real controversy of the week, to vote next year on whether to withdraw denominational membership from the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

We should do so.

The BJC was founded in 1936 to represent Baptists on matters regarding religious freedom and the separation of church and state. The Seventh Day Baptist General Conference was one of the founding denominations and its representatives have sometimes played an important role in the organization. People who worship on the seventh day do have an interest in religious liberty and the BJC has acted on our behalf, both lobbying and bringing lawsuits, in situations that might have affected our freedom to observe the Sabbath. Nevertheless, Seventh Day Baptists should disaffiliate.

We learned at Conference last week that the Board of Directors of the BJC, on which representatives of its member denominations sit, meets only once a year, and seldom votes to determine the position the BJC takes on issues in Congress or the courts. That means, by default, the BJC staff must make those decisions, either on their own or in accord with their interpretation of the purposes of the organization. Since there seems to be little vocal dissent from the Board one assumes that most of its members agree with the staff. [The BJC Board had 42 members in 2005-2006, 28 represented Baptist denominations or parts of denominations (Kevin Butler was the SDB representative) of which six were from the American Baptists, 13 members represented something called the Religious Liberty Council” which seems to represent individuals who support the BJC, and one represented the Alliance of Baptists, an organization that has achieved some notoriety by traveling to Cuba and opposing the embargo on that country.] Even before the Southern Baptists withdrew their membership from BJC in the early '90s the organization was dominated by its more politically liberal members.

The inclinations of the staff [and perhaps the Board] can be discerned by looking at some of the positions they have taken. They seem to be committed to a doctrinaire concept of a "wall of separation" between church and state that isn't justified by either Constitutional or Baptist history. They lobby against educational vouchers when parents choose to use them for religiously affiliated schools. They have also brought suit to prevent voucher programs. They have initiated lawsuits to eliminate the presence on public property of representations of the Ten Commandments arguing that they are an "establishment of religion." They seem to believe that voluntary prayer at school functions like graduation seriously threatens religious liberty. The BJC opposes the direct involvement of churches in political campaigns - or at least church involvement on behalf of conservative candidates.

I'll have more to say later about other BJC positions on issues and about their staff.

Seventh Day Baptists and the BJC - Final Thoughts

Within the next two months Seventh Day Baptist churches that have not already done so will decide how their delegates to the next General Conference should vote regarding our affiliation with the BJC. The specific question is "Shall the Seventh Day Baptist General Conference withdraw its membership from the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty?"

Both sides have had the opportunity to make a case. There have been discussions online, emails have been exchanged, and I have certainly had the opportunity to make my argument for withdrawal. I don't intend to engage the question further unless it becomes necessary to clarify some point or other. In summary, then:

• The Baptist Joint Committee has supported much good legislation that protects religious expression and the free exercise of religion. When it has done so, it has almost always been in alliance with just about every other religious body or coalition, liberal or conservative, Christian or non, represented in Washington. The BJC has been on the right side of the "free exercise" clause causes - but so have other, more conservative groups.
• The BJC has pursued a doctrinaire "wall of separation" position with respect to the "establishment clause." In alliance with a wide array of liberal religious and non-religious groups it has filed briefs encouraging the courts to adopt that view. The cumulative effect of such court decisions is to reduce the ability of religion to influence government policy and to prevent government from using religious institutions for social good. It has also been a vehicle used by anti-religious groups in America to increasingly remove religion from the public square.
• Seventh Day Baptists who support the goals of the BJC are free to join it individually. There is no reason for those of us who don't support it to be involved merely because we belong to the denomination.

These arguments and others have been developed in the accumulated postings on the subject over the last ten months. Those can be found here.

The discussion of the issue that I have witnessed and in which I have participated, has, for the most part, been civil - avoiding personal attack and addressing the issues. If, in arguing my case I have ever failed in that regard, I am sorry. I am grateful for the openness and generosity of those with whom I have found myself in disagreement.

Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation

An atheist website, Daylight Atheism, lists those who have submitted friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the position argued by the Freedom from Religion Foundation [FFRF] on Hein v. FFRF [see here]. Our denomination is affiliated with the Baptist Joint Committee and, consequently, we once again find ourselves in interesting company.

The FFRF does not stand alone in this case. Friend-of-the-court briefs taking their side have been filed by the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Freedom, People for the American Way, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, American Atheists, the American Humanist Association, the Center for Free Inquiry, and a diverse group of eminent legal scholars and historians. The FFRF is also being represented pro bono by the Supreme Court Advocacy Clinic of the Yale Law School, and their oral arguments before the Court will be given by Andrew Pincus, former assistant solicitor general under the Clinton administration. [emphasis added]

Source: Daylight Atheism > FFRF at the Supreme Court

Vote by churches

At General Conference next summer Seventh Day Baptists will vote to decide whether to remain a member of the Baptist Joint Committee. The vote will be a "vote by churches" - a procedure reserved for controversial or especially important business. It is also something we haven't done in decades. In the 1970s and '80s there were several such votes on issues like abortion, SDB memberships in the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches, and adoption of our current Statement of Belief.

I have sometimes served as parliamentarian for the Conference sessions and, upon request, prepared the following explanation of the process:

The relevant Bylaw provision is found at Article IV. Delegates to General Conference

Delegates to meetings of the corporation shall be determined as follows: two delegates for each member church, as a church, and one additional delegate for each ten members of the church or major fraction of ten members. Churches not able to represent themselves by their own members may appoint, in writing, delegates from other member churches to represent them. Seventy-five delegates representing at least ten churches shall constitute a quorum.

Only delegates to General Conference are authorized to vote. They shall cast their votes on all questions as individuals, except when a vote by churches has been called. A vote by churches is an important vote in which each church casts the total number of votes to which it is entitled. A vote by churches shall occur only when General Conference votes to call one. General Conference shall frame the question to be voted upon and shall then refer it to the churches. General Conference may instruct that the churches vote by mail to the General Conference office, or that the vote be cast at the next Conference session. In either case, the question as framed is not amendable. Local churches shall determine how their votes are cast and may vote as a block or may split their votes.

Conference 2006 has set a “vote by churches” on the issue of denominational membership in the Baptist Joint Committee for Conference 2007. Churches are entitled to delegates based on this formula: “two delegates for each member church, as a church, and one additional delegate for each ten members of the church or major fraction of ten members.” The Conference will allocate delegates based on the statistics your church submits to General Conference Office, so it is especially important this year to submit accurate numbers. A church which has not submitted membership numbers will be allowed to cast only the minimum number of votes to which a church can be entitled, that is, three.

Your church will be entitled to cast all of the votes to which it is entitled, regardless of the number of delegates attending General Conference next year.

The question to be voted upon cannot be amended or modified in any way, so the only issue before you is how your church’s votes will be cast.

According to the Bylaws, past practice, or the action of Conference in 2006, your church has the following options:

• It may cast a unanimous [“block”] vote either “aye” or “nay” or it may divide its vote.
• It may send its delegates with instructions about how to vote or it may send its delegates uninstructed, allowing them to caucus at Conference to decide how the church’s votes will be cast.
• In the event that your church will not have delegates at General Conference next year, you may [by action of Conference 2006] mail your church’s vote to the General Conference Office or you may authorize, in writing, a delegate from another member church to cast your church’s vote [see Bylaw, Art. IV, par. 1].

The General Conference Office has announced that "The Conference will allocate delegates based on the statistics your church submits to General Conference Office by the end of February 2007...."

SDB Exec: BJC "Vote by churches"

The issue of SDB affiliation with the Baptist Joint Committee will come to a head at General Conference next summer. From the SDB Exec blog:

Every few years an issue will arise that is so controversial or so important, or both, that churches are asked to send their delegates to the General Conference session with instructions about how to cast that church's vote. This process is called a "vote by churches" and when it occurs it takes two years to complete. One Conference session will send the issue to the churches for a vote at Conference the following year. During the Conference session in 2006 such a vote was set for...the Conference 2007 session.

In a couple of weeks your church will receive a packet with info on the Baptist Joint Committee. In this packet there will be pro and con opinions on whether we should remain affiliated with the BJC.

Source: SDB Exec: December 2006

"Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ"

In the course of the Seventh Day Baptist debate about our affiliation with the Baptist Joint Committee, the BJC's approach to the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment has been a central issue. The "wall of separation" metaphor used by Jefferson has been often cited. Historical context is provided at The Wittenberg Door :

.... Back in 1791, the year the First Amendment was ratified, 9 of the 13 state governments had official, tax-supported churches. Since the amendment was seen as only applying to the federal government, nobody believed that there was any conflict—nobody, that is, except for Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut.

The Connecticut state constitution endorsed Congregationalism. Although the Baptists were tolerated, they had serious concerns about discrimination; they were also concerned that the state government would start interfering with the operation of the church. So, in 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association took a bold step and wrote to the newly elected President of the United States—Thomas Jefferson.

Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty – That Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals – That no man ought to suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions – That the legitimate Power of civil Government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbour: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our antient charter, together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted as the Basis of our government at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws & usages, & such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; & therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power & gain under the pretence of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men – should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Thomas Jefferson agreed with the Baptists that it was inappropriate for the state to interfere with maters of conscience, faith, and worship.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

If we are to use the term “separation between Church & State,” we must do so honestly, keeping the original context in mind: Thomas Jefferson was writing to Baptists who were being persecuted by an officially Congregationalist state government. Thus, he was not calling for a wall that protected the government from the church, but the church from the government—an important point to remember when discussing this topic.

Source: The Wittenberg Door: Separation of church and state

BJC mailing from the SDB Center

An announcement that a mailing containing materials about the "vote by churches" at Conference next year will soon be in the hands of Seventh Day Baptist churches:

A packet of information pertaining to the Conference vote regarding SDB membership with the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty was sent out to each church as ‘Certified mail, Return Receipt Requested.’ This underscores the importance of this matter.

The cover letter explains the vote-by-church procedure. The packet then contains a brief summary of the BJC “hot button issues”; solicited letters from SDBs on both sides of the question (to withdraw or remain); the “Resolution of Recognition, Encouragement and Hope” from the BJC, recognizing the longstanding relationship between them and SDBs; several comments from the “One Eternal Day” blog; and comments from our current SDB representative to the BJC Board.

Many churches plan to discuss this at their annual meetings. Please read the material and be informed.

Link to Seventh Day Baptist website

I'm back

During the past week my brother and I traveled to western New York to attend the sessions of the Seventh Day Baptist Allegheny Association in Little Genesee. I was invited to present my views about SDB membership in the Baptist Joint Committee. I had two opportunities to speak. First, on Sabbath afternoon, I was given half an hour to present the anti-BJC position and Pastor Ken Chroniger of the Alfred Station SDB church spoke in favor of continued affiliation. Then on Sunday morning the executive director of the BJC, Brent Walker [by telephone], and I responded to questions for about an hour.

It was an interesting experience and I was also able to see and talk to many good friends and a few relatives. The trip out and back was enjoyable, too.

I expect now to resume posting on a fairly regular basis.

Alliance of Baptists

The Alliance of Baptists is one of the affiliates of the Baptist Joint Committee - apparently representative of the "Southern Baptists" who wished to remain in the BJC. Albert Mohler's blog reports on some of its other affiliations:

In 2003, the Alliance of Baptists (formerly known as the Southern Baptist Alliance) and the UCC entered into a "partnership in mission and ministry." The groups recognize each other's ministers, etc.

Interestingly, the report of the UCC growth among liberal congregations disaffected from the SBC came just days after Andover Newton Theological School announced an October 25, 2006 "dialogue" between UCC representatives and officials of the Unitarian Universalist Association.

As the school announced:

Rev. John Thomas, General Minister and President of the UCC and Rev. William Sinkford, President, of the UUA, will reflect on the historical affinities and divisions between their denominations, and then go on to explore current realities and future possibilities. This exchange is of interest to clergy and congregants in both denominations because, despite theological differences and the historical controversy that led to their split, in recent years there has been a growing solidarity of the two groups. On a number of issues of progressive religious conviction and social justice the two share common perspectives, and in some communities there are some churches that have become aligned with both denominations.

Keep in mind the fact that the UUA does not even claim to be a Christian denomination. By definition, it is committed to Unitarianism and Universalism.

Source: Conventional Thinking

Seventh Day Baptists are still affiliated with the BJC.

Seventh Day Baptists remain in the BJC

The Seventh Day Baptist General Conference has been meeting this week on the campus of George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon. One of the primary business issues this year was a vote about whether to remain affiliated with the Baptist Joint Committee. The vote took place on Tuesday. 234 votes were cast for disaffiliation, but 279 votes were cast against - 46% for, 54% against. The motion lost.

The Conference also voted to communicate to the BJC the dissatisfaction of many Seventh Day Baptists with aspects of its behavior. This issue will not go away if the BJC continues as it has in the past.