Featured Pastor Resigns as IMB Trustee over Support of mosque construction

I wonder if these lawyers are on staff, or do they bill by the hour?

 

There is an extended discussion of this at SBC Voices titled Does Denying Religious Liberty to Muslims Violate the Baptist Faith and Message? I think both sides are aired pretty fully and pretty well there.

While someone in the SBC may question whether they should spend their time and money on such things, hopefully most Baptists will and do support the fact that the US government and local governments should apply religious freedom equally to all. The author, Bart Barber, (I believe) explains correctly that "An amicus brief does not defend the parties in the case; it defends the LAW."

 

To be fair, is the IMB as an entity really part of the "the Church," or would it be composed of individuals who are part of the Church?

 

I think this is key. If we are talking about salaried staff lawyers, that's totally different from paying lawyers for hours billed working on the amicus brief.

Paying the lawyers by the hour (like outside counsel) would be, IMO, indefensible.

Staff lawyers? I think you can make a decent argument defending the action.

 

I'm not a Southern Baptist, so I have nothing "invested" in the argument, but from my point of view the IMB and ERLC is not "the church" (but obviously Southern Baptist churches pay for their existence).

If churches should not defend secular law or constitutional rights, I am curious, though, what you think about early Baptists petitioning for religious freedom in our constitution. Would you apply the principle to that as well, or do you view that as a horse of a different color?

 

According to the amicus brief it filed, the International Mission Board was upset that "the number of RLUIPA cases involving mosques is disproportionate to the percentage of Muslims in the U.S. population."

 

I don't know the exact answer to that question but Aaron Weaver wrote, "The General Counsel for IMB, Derek Gaubtaz, is considered a leading religious liberty expert by his peers from across the ideological spectrum. To my knowledge, he is the only person employed by Southern Baptists who actually writes amicus briefs. Most organizations have to contract outside experts to write briefs — the IMB does not."

interestingly, he pointed out that "virtually every SBC entity (including seminaries) has filed an amicus brief at some point." I think this one particularly raised the ire because of who and what it is.

 

Do they keep their trustees in the dark when they do so?

From the OP article:

"Haun, who chaired the Northern Africa and the Middle Eastern Peoples Committee of the IMB for two years, said he received dozens of phone calls and emails from pastors across the state. “I had to tell them I knew nothing about the IMB joining in this amicus brief because we (IMB trustees) were not informed about its signing at our early May meeting,” he said. Haun contacted the office of IMB President David Platt and was referred to the IMB’s public relations specialist, Julie McGowan, who then referred him to several websites discussing religious liberty issues."

 

Wait, do we need to be specifically commissioned in order to justify standing for religious liberty? I doubt a biblical case can be made for this.

 

I don't. So much of the biblical principles on which we stand are taken up as political. Given that this country and its government was founded on biblical principles to have the church completely withdraw from government is to abandon our founding.

 

Don't know for sure, but I suspect that trustees (regardless of what is right or wrong) are often not informed about all the day-to-day workings of these boards, seminaries, etc. While transparency is best, it is not always what happens. I know our local school administration often operates on a "it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission" kind of policy!

Thanks for explaining your viewpoint.

As to the missions funding, this is one of the reasons our church chooses to fund missions directly where it only goes to missions, rather than through boards and agencies and the other things they might use it for.

 

Not to mention the fact that the concept of religious liberty as we know it didn't exist until hundreds of years after the Bible's last words were written.

 

I have no idea what you are intending to communicate with this.

 

I believe I may have misread your initial post. Apologies.

My point was that there is no concept of religious liberty (in a modern sense) in the Bible, so any defense of it is going to be made through extra-biblical reasoning, one way or another.

 

How is standing on biblical principles extra biblical? How is founding a country on biblical principles extra biblical?