Pastor Resigns as IMB Trustee over Support of mosque construction

[rlvaughn]

Of course they have, when appropriate. The SBC's home missions board, whose interjection into this stateside issue would have been more plausible, did not.

I think a number of things are at issue here, including whether it was appropriate for the IMB. There seems to be at least three, maybe more, questions.

• There is the question some people have whether Baptists should provide any active support of religious liberty in a case that might further the cause of a false religion (as in this case, which might help toward Muslims getting a mosque built where they can promote their beliefs).
• There is the question some Southern Baptists have whether their entities, any of their entities, should be using Southern Baptist dollars to provide active support of religious liberty in a case that might further the cause of a false religion (as in this case, using whatever time and money goes toward filing this amicus brief).
• There is the question some Southern Baptists have whether this particular entity, the IMB, should be involved in a case that is not related to their mission and purpose.

I have heard all of these, and you could add to that from some of us whether there ought to be all these boards in the first place, but that is kind of irrelevant in that there are, and that there is a controversy regarding how they act, and that is what the discussion is about.

When you look at the "SBC legal" of the ministry and mission of the IMB, it does seem to be very hard to discover what this case has to do with the ministry and mission of the International Mission Board. Seems that this is really under the purview of the ERLC (which also filed an amicus brief). I am not aware that David Platt, president of the IMB, has given any rationale as to why they did this. Has he discussed their reasoning?

But...one also has to wonder if the pot isn't being stirred somewhat because of personalities. 1. Platt seems to be a magnet for controversy, especially between Calvinist and Traditionalists. 2. The particular religion -- Islam -- and their relationship to terrorism is certainly part of what is adding fuel to the fire. If this had been Mormons or Roman Catholics, there wouldn't have been the same hue and cry. Aaron Weaver also wrote that "For many years, the IMB has regularly weighed in on church-state issues in U.S. courts." I wonder, if Weaver is correct, have Southern Baptists previously raised the banner high against the IMB filing briefs in church-state issues, or is this becoming controversial now for this first time?

 

[Baptist Believer]

I believe the concern is that if the government can stop a mosque then they can stop any church in the same way.

This is the essential point of this whole discussion.

Well said!!

 

[Jerome]

Aaron Weaver also wrote that "For many years, the IMB has regularly weighed in on church-state issues in U.S. courts."

Did CBF spokesman Aaron Weaver reveal when this started happening or the names of any cases?

 

[rlvaughn]

All he said about it that I know is at SBC Voices (the post I linked previously). But no one there challenged or denied it. If that is true, then why the sudden backlash in this one case?

 

[Salty]

My disagreement is that the Church, even understanding future potential consequences to the Church, was never commissioned to defend secular law or constitutional rights.

and someday - it could be Baptist churches that will not have a right to build a building.
and as rlvaughn said in post # 5 - ""An amicus brief does not defend the parties in the case; it defends the LAW."

 

[JonC]

and someday - it could be Baptist churches that will not have a right to build a building.
and as rlvaughn said in post # 5 - ""An amicus brief does not defend the parties in the case; it defends the LAW."

I agree, and Baptists so convicted should take that stand. But not churches and certainly not international mission boards funded and operating by local churches for the purpose of sharing the gospel.

 

[Jerome]

as rlvaughn said in post # 5 - ""An amicus brief does not defend the parties in the case; it defends the LAW."

Federal Rule 29 Brief of an Amicus Curiae

(4) Contents and Form....the cover must identify the party or parties supported and indicate whether the brief supports affirmance or reversal...

And from the actual decision:

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs The Islamic Society of Basking Ridge ("ISBR") and Mohammad Ali Chaudry, Ph.D.'s ("Dr. Chaudry") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings...
.....
On December 12, 2016, the Court granted leave for two amici to file briefs in support of Plaintiffs' Motion.
The first amicus curiae submission ("First Amicus Brief) was filed by...International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention

 

[JonC]

This is the essential point of this whole discussion.

I disagree that this is where the essential point exists as it can be applied to any number of situations. I agree that we have liberties in this nation and that when we see them being taken away it can serve as a reminder that we may be next. That said, I still stand by my conclusion. Let’s look at another example involving the freedom’s afforded to us in this nation:


Suppose that I want to open an adult book store and am running into opposition. Do you think that Baptist Churches should petition to allow the store?


Why or why not?

My answer – no, for the exact same reasons that the Baptist Church should not petition to all a mosque built. Here are afew:


1. Just like with the mosque, the book store has a potential to influence members of the church. Today, many Christians already believe that Islam and Christianity worship the same God. Doctrine has been downgraded to facilitate this form of “tolerance” (not all tolerance, but it is not difficult to see that this type exists…just watch Oprah or The View). If Baptist churches actively petition to allow adult book stores then they are allowing this same kind of danger into their churches.

2. Just like with the mosque, the Church is not called to defend the rights people have under our constitution to open an adult book store or sell the material. The Church is called to be Holy, to be set apart, and to Kingdom Work.

3. Just like with the mosque, Baptist churches who speak out against allowing the adult book store may be persecuted as “intolerant”, or as jeopardizing the future of free speech that they enjoy. But Churches need to step back and look to their First Love. It is not our freedoms here. It is Jesus Christ.

 

[stevewm1963]

As a Christian I believe the purpose of the church is to stand against evil and to spread the Gospel of Christ to all that will hear it! I do not believe we should stand in support of anything Muslims do! We can stand for religious liberty without lending a helping hand to Muslims or any other evil movement!

 

[rlvaughn]

When you look at the "SBC legal" of the ministry and mission of the IMB, it does seem to be very hard to discover what this case has to do with the ministry and mission of the International Mission Board. Seems that this is really under the purview of the ERLC (which also filed an amicus brief). I am not aware that David Platt, president of the IMB, has given any rationale as to why they did this. Has he discussed their reasoning?

Ask and ye shall receive.

David Platt now said something about it, which is reported by BPNews HERE. Following are some excerpts.

"As a result of discussions among IMB trustees and staff over recent months, we have revised our processes for our legal department filing any future amicus briefs. IMB leaders are committed in the days ahead to speak only into situations that are directly tied to our mission."

Platt cited the BF&M in his statement to BP and noted, "We continue to affirm that everyone should be able to freely worship according to their religious convictions."

Platt continued, "At the same time, our primary purpose as an organization is 'to partner with churches to empower limitless missionary teams who are evangelizing, discipling, planting and multiplying healthy churches, and training leaders among unreached peoples and places for the glory of God.'"

The ISBR amicus brief states it was filed by attorneys with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the New York City firm of Reich and Paolella and the Center for Islam and Religious Freedom. No attorneys paid with Cooperative Program funds are listed as having prepared the brief.

 

[Jerome]

More from the latest 'Isl-Amicus' story from Baptist Press:

Out of a commitment to "speak only into situations that are directly tied to our mission," IMB leaders have "revised" their process for filing amicus briefs, Platt noted. He also expressed gratitude for Haun's trustee service. [Platt advisor Clyde] Meador told BP he did not know the former or current IMB protocol for joining amicus briefs. The IMB's legal department was not available to explain its protocol before BP's publication deadline

 

[JonC]

I think Revmitchell has good points. Most of the outrage here is not just because of this one issue, but because of what the SBC has become and and is becoming (the difference is what side of the issue each SBC member falls).

Ask and ye shall receive.

David Platt now said something about it, which is reported by BPNews HERE. Following are some excerpts.

I like Platt, but I think he is stretching things here.

XV. The Christian and the Social Order

All Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society. Means and methods used for the improvement of society and the establishment of righteousness among men can be truly and permanently helpful only when they are rooted in the regeneration of the individual by the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ. In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography. We should work to provide for the orphaned, the needy, the abused, the aged, the helpless, and the sick. We should speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death. Every Christian should seek to bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love. In order to promote these ends Christians should be ready to work with all men of good will in any good cause, always being careful to act in the spirit of love without compromising their loyalty to Christ and His truth.

XVII. Religious Liberty

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.

http://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfm2000.asp

 

[rlvaughn]

JonC, I don't really understand to what part you are referring when you say Platt is stretching. Please clarify.

But I definitely agree, as an outside observer, that a lot of the angst regarding Platt and the IMB, and Moore and the ERLC, has as much to do with the Calvinism debate as anything else.

Regarding the IMB filing this brief and now changing their policy, I doubt there was anything especially "sinister" there. I suspect one commenter on SBC Voices is right. There probably hasn't every been much of any kind of policy regarding such matters "before this blowup" and that one leader likely just continued to follow the precedent of another as they had done these things in the past. The personal issue, again, is why I am questioning whether Southern Baptists have ever complained before about the IMB filing amicus briefs in church-state cases.

 

[JonC]

JonC, I don't really understand to what part you are referring when you say Platt is stretching. Please clarify.

But I definitely agree, as an outside observer, that a lot of the angst regarding Platt and the IMB, and Moore and the ERLC, has as much to do with the Calvinism debate as anything else.

Regarding the IMB filing this brief and now changing their policy, I doubt there was anything especially "sinister" there. I suspect one commenter on SBC Voices is right. There probably hasn't every been much of any kind of policy regarding such matters "before this blowup" and that one leader likely just continued to follow the precedent of another as they had done these things in the past. The personal issue, again, is why I am questioning whether Southern Baptists have ever complained before about the IMB filing amicus briefs in church-state cases.

His reference to the BF&M stating that "everyone should be able to worship according to their religious convictions" in defense of fighting to allow a mosque be built seems to be a stretch.

That said, I agree with you that nothing "sinister" was intended. There is no "take over" here, that I can see. Only a steady drift....away from some and, perhaps, towards others who currently call themselves Southern Baptist.

 

[rsr]

All he said about it that I know is at SBC Voices (the post I linked previously). But no one there challenged or denied it. If that is true, then why the sudden backlash in this one case?

Because it's a mosque.

The IMB joined an amicus brief in 2014 in the case of a Muslim prison inmate who wanted to grow a short beard.

The same year it joined an amicus (with Orthodox Christians, Muslims and Hindus) to defend the constitutionality of parsonage allowances.

In 2015 the IMB joined an amicus against ACA requirements that employer-provided health insurance pay for abortifacients.

In 2011 it joined a suit on the ability of a Lutheran school to dismiss a teacher.

I'm sure there are others. Some appear to directly affect the IMB, but others don't but are strictly questions of free exercise.

 

[rlvaughn]

His reference to the BF&M stating that "everyone should be able to worship according to their religious convictions" in defense of fighting to allow a mosque be built seems to be a stretch.

Thanks for the clarification. I think I understand you are saying that it is a stretch relative to this specific case, but I can see how it can be made to apply. The BFM states, "The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. [and they believe] the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power." They thought the civil power was interfering in the sphere of religion in this case, specifically in a way to treat some differently/unfairly in relation to how others were treated. I'm not saying that this logic can't be disagreed with, but I don't see it as a real tight stretch.

Because it's a mosque.

Yes, that is one of the two reasons I gave earlier (the other being, "Because it's Platt"). BTW, I'm not a defender of Platt and really thought he was an odd choice for president of the IMB. But it seems that no matter what he does some will find fault.

Thanks for noting some of the other amicus briefs joined by the IMB. Probably only one of those you mention was under Platt's tenure -- In 2015 the IMB joined an amicus against ACA requirements that employer-provided health insurance pay for abortifacients. Probably few would want to raise a ruckus about this one.

 

[rlvaughn]

Oh, rsr, your reason of greatest significance and the Platt reason second.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Let’s look at another example involving the freedom’s afforded to us in this nation:

Let's pause before we evaluate your hypothetical...

The freedom of conscience (which includes religious liberty) is not bestowed by any nation or law. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, it has been "endowed to us by our Creator." The laws of this nation and the Constitution only RECOGNIZE and support that right. If our Constitution or laws were to change, we would still have that right from God, but we may face persecution for it like Baptists in other parts of the world and in our not-so-distant past in the United States.

Suppose that I want to open an adult book store and am running into opposition. Do you think that Baptist Churches should petition to allow the store?

Of course not. It is not a Baptist essential like religious liberty. If you claim to be Baptist and don't support religious liberty for others, you either don't know what a Baptist is and/or don't understand religious liberty.

My answer – no, for the exact same reasons that the Baptist Church should not petition to all a mosque built. Here are a few:

1. Just like with the mosque, the book store has a potential to influence members of the church. Today, many Christians already believe that Islam and Christianity worship the same God. Doctrine has been downgraded to facilitate this form of “tolerance” (not all tolerance, but it is not difficult to see that this type exists…just watch Oprah or The View). If Baptist churches actively petition to allow adult book stores then they are allowing this same kind of danger into their churches.

You confuse endorsement of a particular religion or activity with the protection of God-given liberty for all.

2. Just like with the mosque, the Church is not called to defend the rights people have under our constitution to open an adult book store or sell the material. The Church is called to be Holy, to be set apart, and to Kingdom Work.

The rights related to religious liberty come directly from God. If we are doing Kingdom of God work, then we will speak to this issue. It IS Kingdom work.

3. Just like with the mosque, Baptist churches who speak out against allowing the adult book store may be persecuted as “intolerant”, or as jeopardizing the future of free speech that they enjoy. But Churches need to step back and look to their First Love. It is not our freedoms here. It is Jesus Christ.

Yes. Jesus taught that we are to give Caesar what is due and God what is due. Caesar does not have the right to usurp God.

 

[Salty]

Let's pause before we evaluate your hypothetical...

The freedom of conscience (which includes religious liberty) is not bestowed by any nation or law. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, it has been "endowed to us by our Creator." The laws of this nation and the Constitution only RECOGNIZE and support that right. If our Constitution or laws were to change, we would still have that right from God, but we may face persecution for it like Baptists in other parts of the world and in our not-so-distant past in the United States. ...

In theory you are correct - yet in reality- many governments DO restrict religious liberty.

 

[JamesL]

This issue was batted around some in a Facebook group I'm in (316 roundtable)

From what I understand, the IMB considers it a strategic move - internationally

If they go to bat for a Muslim cause here in the U.S., they can appeal to it later in their efforts to gain favor in Muslim areas around the globe.