Apology from Platt over Islamicus Brief Debacle

Thanks for posting this.

From the article:

"Tennessee pastor Dean Haun resigned as an IMB trustee in November because he said joining the brief did not comport with IMB's mission and could be viewed as an improper alliance with followers of a religion that denies the Gospel."​

What is most frustrating about this is that Pastor Haun does not seem to recognize that those who are ignorant of the purpose and meaning of amicus briefs should actually take steps to learn what they are all about instead of simply attacking people in ignorance.

Pastor Haun probably is not IMB trustee material if he doesn't understand the importance of not being hypocritical on the matter of religious liberty.

 

I see this as a very important issue. We are not as Believers to support the religion or theological beliefs of those going to hell in anyway. It sends mixed signals and in that way tempts them to believe we are saying their beliefs are OK before God.

This seems easy from biblical grounds. We are called to be separate and holy (2 Corinthians 6:14-18) and to have no union at all between the church of God and idols.

 

StefanM, I'm sorry but I do not understand the relation to David Platt and the incident in question. Could you explain?

 

He got his "wings clipped."

It's an expression when you get put in your place by higher authorities.

 

Ah, thanks. Perfect analogy and photo.

 

Yes, it is fundamental to the heritage of the Baptist movement.

That's not what an amicus brief does. It is a "friend of the court" argument urging the court to take into consideration certain parts of the law.

Only those who don't know what amicus curiae briefs are all about would assume that. Since Baptists historically have files amicus curiae briefs on behalf of many groups for the preservation of religious liberty, even a casual observer would know that no endorsement is involved.

And we don't. But preservation of religious liberty rights for Muslims is preservation of religious liberty rights for Baptists too. Moreover, it is loving our neighbor.

Just because one is an advocate for Muslims to have the same rights as others does not make one a supporter of Islam.

 

Thank you for linking the amicus information. I stand informed. Nevertheless, it still seems like a form of support for the mosque, even if just moral support.

However, I did wrestle with whether this is loving our neighbor or becoming united with an idolatrous religion before posting. I can definitely see where you coming from as a result. Recently I tend to err on the side of holiness over what may be seen as tolerance, given that I believe this culture tempts us into compromising our holiness at nearly every juncture of daily life. That said, tolerance may be loving in this case, but for now I don't see it that way. I'll have to mull this over and study the Word.

 

It is terrible sign of the times, when we have to defend evil to protect good.

 

I think it is important to recognize that it was in support of religious liberty (free exercise) with incidental support of the plaintiff as a natural consequence of the affirmation of God-given religious liberty rights. If I rescue a Muslim man from being beaten and murdered by robbers, does that mean I am supporting Islam? Well, some might see it that way. But what I am really doing it preserving the right of any man to walk down the street without being molested or killed. It is only incidental that the man is Muslim.

 

And I wonder what sycophant they'll install in his place.