Pastor Resigns as IMB Trustee over Support of mosque construction

[JamesL]

I think it's tragic that on the issue of religious liberty, everybody likes to say it's a God-given right.

However, I've never seen anyone quote scripture directly on the issue. In every instance, the quotes are from the U.S Constitution.....

 

[JamesL]

https://baptistnews.com/article/imb-trustee-resigns-over-new-jersey-mosque-flap/#.WI0-0MtMHqC

From the article.....

"Publicly supporting religious liberty for Muslims in the U.S. also gives IMB workers credibility when they lobby foreign governments to afford similar protection to Christian minorities overseas, the statement says."

 

[JonC]

you claim to be Baptist and don't support religious liberty for others, you either don't know .

This is where I think your confusion lies - you are addressing "me", what "I" would or would not support. This is a misunderstanding. I am saying that the IMB has no authority to even accurately represent my view in other than they were so commissioned.

 

[Jerome]

[CBF spokesman] 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?

One needs to be asking first if it is true, as the CBF spokesman you quote says, that the SBC's IMB has been doing this "regularly" "for many years," because from what RSR presents it seems to be a recent phenomenon within just the last few years:

The IMB joined an amicus brief in 2014....The same year....In 2015....In 2011...

I'm sure there are others.

 

[Rob_BW]

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.

I don't know enough about Islamic jurisprudence, but would imagine that what happens in the Dar al-Harb wouldn't garner any goodwill back in the Dar al-Islam.

 

[JamesL]

I don't know enough about Islamic jurisprudence, but would imagine that what happens in the Dar al-Harb wouldn't garner any goodwill back in the Dar al-Islam.

For sure.

I wasn't agreeing with the IMB, just bringing out a point I hadn't seen in this discussion.

I think they ought to be ashamed of themselves. Trying to jockey for Muslim favor is akin to Abram telling Sarai to tell Pharaoh she's his sister

 

[Baptist Believer]

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

And they oppose God to do it.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I think it's tragic that on the issue of religious liberty, everybody likes to say it's a God-given right.

However, I've never seen anyone quote scripture directly on the issue.

There's not an easy prooftext for it, but it is a thread woven throughout the teaching of Jesus.

Jesus clearly teaches that the standing of Caesar and the standing of God are different. Caesar has authority on what one can do with the body, but we are created in such a way that no one can control whether or not we worship God. Our calling is not only to worship God, but to engage in that worship by making disciples through persuasion. Jesus taught that his kingdom is not of this world, therefore there are things that are under God's authority that He has not placed under the authority of human governments.

Jesus also taught that we are not to hinder or harm those who are not His. For instance, in this parable:

Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43 (ESV)​

[Jesus] put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field,but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ He said to them, ‘And enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, "Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"
…
Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are he sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.​

There will come a day at the end of the age when the Master will discern who is to be spared and who will be destroyed. Until then, we leave them alone.

 

[JamesL]

There's not an easy prooftext for it, but it is a thread woven throughout the teaching of Jesus.

Jesus clearly teaches that the standing of Caesar and the standing of God are different. Caesar has authority on what one can do with the body, but we are created in such a way that no one can control whether or not we worship God. Our calling is not only to worship God, but to engage in that worship by making disciples through persuasion. Jesus taught that his kingdom is not of this world, therefore there are things that are under God's authority that He has not placed under the authority of human governments.

Jesus also taught that we are not to hinder or harm those who are not His. For instance, in this parable:

Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43 (ESV)​

[Jesus] put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field,but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ He said to them, ‘And enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, "Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"
…
Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are he sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.​

There will come a day at the end of the age when the Master will discern who is to be spared and who will be destroyed. Until then, we leave them alone.

I agree with you that the standing of Caesar and the standing of God are different.

Jesus said fear not those who can kill only the body but cannot destroy the soul, but fear Him who can cast both body and soul into hell.

My point is that a human government, a secular government, maybe a godless government, might very well impose a ban on Christian worship. The Christian is to ignore any such ban and confess the name of Christ before men. And then trust God with the results.

So any time you have a group of so-called Christians who are attempting to jockey their way into the favor of men, they are clearly not trusting God.

 

[rsr]

The thrust of Jon's objections, if I understand it correctly, are that:

1. The IMB should not be spending Cooperative Fund money on such things.

2. The IMB should not be taking a stand unless it directly affects the Southern Baptist Convention.

3. Upholding the rights of a non-Baptist is beyond the scope of the IMB's responsibility.

Since the briefs are being prepared by a third party, there seems to be little or no expense for the IMB, so I think the first objection can be overcome.

As to the second point, I think it is prudent to assume that challenges to free exercise may affect Southern Baptists tomorrow even if they do not today and proactive measures should be taken.

As to the third, I would assume that a subordinate agency should act in accordance with what it believes to be in its best interests, and the best interests of the convention, absent direction otherwise.

Looks like the IMB has been sufficiently chastened on this matter and will leave such defenses of free exercise to Russ Moore, who may well be on his way out. And then the historic defense of free exercise will have ceased to be a concern for Southern Baptists unless our own ox is gored.

 

[rlvaughn]

One needs to be asking first if it is true, as the CBF spokesman you quote says, that the SBC's IMB has been doing this "regularly" "for many years," because from what RSR presents it seems to be a recent phenomenon within just the last few years:

Jerome, do you feel like Weaver is lying or misrepresenting the facts?

To prove if it is true, one would need to go back and find amicus briefs filed by the IMB over the course of several years, further back than what rsr cited that would be in the tenure of two IMB presidents (and mostly one). But the fact that rsr only mentioned back to 2011 is not proof there are none further back. Anyone who wants to can go back and search it out. I don't mind being proven wrong on this point, but as it stands I really can't think of any reason Mr. Weaver would lie about it.

And whether or not Weaver is correct, we do see the briefs from 2011 to the present. One could always point out where the hue and cry has been over these, if there has been.

 

[rsr]

Yes, Robert, I did not assert that the list I compiled was exhaustive; I simply listed the ones that were readily available in my limited search. There may well be earlier examples, or there may not. Besides, "many" is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[rsr]

I don't know enough about Islamic jurisprudence, but would imagine that what happens in the Dar al-Harb wouldn't garner any goodwill back in the Dar al-Islam.

There are two responses to this. No, there is no chance that Saudi Arabia will pay any attention to such things. However, the IMB is active in many Muslim and non-Muslim nations that are not imposing sharia law (India, Malaysia and Egypt, for example) and it is an argument worth making when the IMB argues against restrictions on worship, or retribution against those who convert to Christianity there. Consistency in witness is not a bad thing.

 

[rsr]

So any time you have a group of so-called Christians who are attempting to jockey their way into the favor of men, they are clearly not trusting God.

I read somewhere that Christians should be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. That fellow must have been wrong, I guess.

Paul stood upon Roman law repeatedly when it was to his advantage. And he curried favor with the Pharisees at one point, pitting them against the Sadducees, when it was to his advantage.

 

[rlvaughn]

Besides, "many" is in the eye of the beholder.

Good point. I looked him up online and see that Aaron Weaver looks like a relatively young fellow and has been in the communications department of the CBF about 5 years. So I span of 6 or 7 years may seem like "many years" to him.

I was interested that you can find the amici you mentioned online:
2011 Hosanna Tabor Evangelical Lutheran School
2014 Parsonage allowances
2014 Beard of prison inmate
2015 Little Sisters of the Poor

 

[JamesL]

I read somewhere that Christians should be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. That fellow must have been wrong, I guess.

Or perhaps you're wrongly assigning a meaning which he never intended?

Paul stood upon Roman law repeatedly when it was to his advantage. And he curried favor with the Pharisees at one point, pitting them against the Sadducees, when it was to his advantage.

Is there any biblical evidence that Paul was right in doing so?

 

[JonC]

https://baptistnews.com/article/imb-trustee-resigns-over-new-jersey-mosque-flap/#.WI0-0MtMHqC

From the article.....

"Publicly supporting religious liberty for Muslims in the U.S. also gives IMB workers credibility when they lobby foreign governments to afford similar protection to Christian minorities overseas, the statement says."

I think that there are several issues, both pros and cons, to shifting from advocating the State protect religious freedoms and specifically fighting for the religious freedoms of one group.

For example, publicly supporting the building of the mosque may not only give the IMB workers credibility when they lobby foreign governments, but it may give the IMB credibility among Muslims here in the US. They may look at the SBC as less "intolerant" than Christians are often presented. The flip side is that others may look at this as an affirmation that Islam and Christianity worship the same God, it facilitates the growth of a religion opposed to Christ, and it brings into question the role the church as a corporate body is to play in regards to the world.

Reading of the lawsuit brought against the township by the Islamic Society, and the couple of hundred thousand dollars the township has already paid in legal fees in opposition to the mosque being built, I can’t help but wonder what they think of Southern Baptists. It is easy to fight for the religious liberty of a new mosque being built if it is not your community. It is easy to say that the fears are unreasonable if those fears are not your own. Do I think it is discrimination? Yes, I do. I think it is discrimination out of fear. But do I think that the SBC should run to defend the mosque? No, I don’t. That is not the purpose of the Convention, and that is not the purpose of the IMB.

Here is the heart of this issue: The IMB acted in a way contrary to the belief of many of the churches it represents (as evidenced by the objections presented against the action). The IMB was not created to fight for the religious freedoms of non-Christian faiths.

The SBC is becoming (some would say has become long ago) too large and independent of the churches it was formed to represent.

 

[stevewm1963]

My personal opinion and I believe scripture backs me up on this..The church should not involve itself in anything ungodly ever! Supporting anything the Muslims do is ungodly and goes against scripture!

 

[Salty]

My personal opinion and I believe scripture backs me up on this..The church should not involve itself in anything ungodly ever! Supporting anything the Muslims do is ungodly and goes against scripture!

Muslims do not believe in drinking alcoholic beverages -
Do this come under "Supporting anything the Muslims do is ungodly and goes against scripture!"

I do not believe that Muslims do not worship the same God we do
However, JonC, brought up some very good points.


From JonC post "The SBC is becoming (some would say has become long ago) too large and independent of the churches it was formed to represent." xxx
The SBC was formed for the purpose of missions - and if this will help up to bring Christ to Muslims - then so be it.

-Many preachers , currently and in past years said TV was of the Devil - yet, how many come to Christ as well as live a better Christian life becasue of Christian TV.

 

[McCree79]

My point is that a human government, a secular government, maybe a godless government, might very well impose a ban on Christian worship. The Christian is to ignore any such ban and confess the name of Christ before men. And then trust God with the results.

So any time you have a group of so-called Christians who are attempting to jockey their way into the favor of men, they are clearly not trusting God.

So when Mordechai went to Esther, who was talked into influencing Xerxes, was that "clearly not trust God"? So that was wrong?

You say "trust God with the results." God has a habit of using men and women to get those results.


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk