Featured Pastor Resigns as IMB Trustee over Support of mosque construction

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?

 

This is the essential point of this whole discussion.

Well said!!

 

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

 

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?

 

Federal Rule 29 Brief of an Amicus Curiae

And from the actual decision:

 

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!

 

Ask and ye shall receive.

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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

 

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

 

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.