LINK to SBC (Southern Baptist Conventioin)
Date: June 1, 1967
Event(s): 1967 Annual Meeting
Topic(s): church, state
WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention reiterated in 1963 its historic position for separation of Church and State in its statement on “The Baptist Faith and Message” in these words: “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 any other . . . the Church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work . . . the State has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion.” and,
WHEREAS, We desire to see all rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights secured unto all persons, and
WHEREAS, An increasingly complex society constantly raises new questions in application of the separation principle,
Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That this 1967 session of the Southern Baptist Convention reaffirm its 1963 declaration for separation of Church and State, and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we urge the Congress of the United States to enact legislation which would help clarify responsibility of the judiciary to interpret the meaning of the United States Constitution for separation of Church and State, including constitutionality of federal funds in church-sponsored programs, and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we remind all who call themselves Baptists, distinguish carefully the services that are publicly supported from the Christian ministries that should be supported exclusively by the churches and hold to programs that are clearly committed to Christ and His kingdom.
In fact, notice the resolution in 1981 that talks about government interference or tax support
Date: June 1, 1981
Event(s): 1981 Annual Meeting
Topic(s): freedom of speech, religious freedom, religious liberty
WHEREAS, The United States Constitutional principle of religious liberty has given freedom for expression of the separation of the church and state; and
WHEREAS, This precious principle is under constant attack by those who would serve sectarian purposes; and
WHEREAS, The growth of government poses a constant threat of intrusion upon this indispensible principle; and
WHEREAS, The Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, the Christian Life Commission, and other agencies are deeply committed to the principles of religious liberty and separation of church and state; and
WHEREAS, These agencies have repeatedly given leadership and assistance to Southern Baptists involved in problems regarding religious liberty and the separation of church and state; and
WHEREAS, The need is evident for continued vigilance and determination to preserve religious liberty;
Be it therefore RESOLVED, That we express our gratitude to the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, the Christian Life Commission, and other agencies for their efforts in defending Christian morality and ethics; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we affirm our belief that religion flourishes best without government’s interference or tax support; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we caution schools directly or indirectly connected with this Convention to give serious study to the high price which government usually exacts for its favors; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we call on our people to support the institutions which serve our religious objectives; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we voice our earnest protest against tax proposals which would finance educational and other activities of churches or religious gorups; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That the Southern Baptist Convention, in accordance with and in commitment to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and to the historic Baptist principle of church and state separation, deplore and reject the arrogation of the right of any group to define and pronounce for all people what is the Christian faith, and to seek through political means to impose this faith upon the American people under a government which is mandated to safeguard and respect the people of all religious and no religion.
Be it finally RESOLVED, That we express our thanks to God for courts which uphold the First Amendment against the enormous pressures of our time.
Here’s one from 1968. Notice the part about taxes being used for any religious or sectarian causes
Date: June 1, 1968
Event(s): 1968 Annual Meeting
Topic(s): religion, state, taxes
WHEREAS, The doctrine of soul liberty is basic to Baptist beliefs, its corollary being the doctrine of a free church in a free state, and
WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention has often expressed itself for separation of church and state, and
WHEREAS, In the passing years there has been an increasing complication in church-state relations in such matters as tax money in the form of grants and loans available for private and sectarian institutions, tax privileges for religious groups, religious ministries to armed service personnel, public assistance to dependent persons, international emergency needs, and basic health services, and
WHEREAS, Organized society has increasingly undergirded the provision of care for people in need because of age, lack of job skills or opportunities, illness, death of the breadwinner, or other emergencies, and
WHEREAS, Many, if not most of the new church-state issues are arising through federal and state-administered programs or through urban planning and growth, and
WHEREAS, We are called upon continually to make a more precise definition of the separation of church and state as applied to these changing relations and programs,
Therefore, be it RESOLVED, By the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting at Houston, Texas, June 7, 1968, that we reaffirm our basic doctrine of soul liberty and the corollaries of religious liberty for all men and a separation of church and state, and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we reaffirm our faith in the principle that tax funds came from all citizens and should not be used to further the advantages of any religious or sectarian causes, and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we commend those who have made studied analyses of these changing situations in an effort to safeguard our basic insights on freedom and on human dignity and need, and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we urge Baptist agencies and institutions to assign leadership responsibilities concerning church-state relationships designed to safeguard both the people’s rights under government and their freedom under God.
1977 references the Constitution
Date: June 1, 1977
Event(s): 1977 Annual Meeting
Topic(s): church, taxation, taxes
WHEREAS, The Internal Revenue Service on January 4, 1977, issued rules amending #1.6033-2 of the Income Tax Regulations in order to define an “integrated auxiliary” of a church, convention, or association of church, and
WHEREAS, In so doing the Federal Government has attempted in part to define the mission and role of a church and has assumed for itself the function of determining that which is not an agency integral to the religious mission of the church, and
WHEREAS, The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States forbids government from making any laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and
WHEREAS, The Supreme Court of the United States has held in numerous cases that government may neither aid nor inhibit religion and may not become excessively entangled with religion ,and
WHEREAS, The amendments to #1.6033-2 of the Income Tax Regulations have a chilling effect on religion, serve to inhibit religion, and lead to excessive government entanglement with religion.
Be it therefore RESOLVED, That the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in its 1977 annual session in Kansas City, Missouri, express its concern over this violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of separation of church and state, and
Be it further RESOLVED, That it finds the amendments to #1.6033-2 of the Income Tax Regulations defining an “integrated auxiliary” to be unacceptable both scripturally and legally, and
That it request the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs to make this Convention’s opposition known to the President, the Commission of Internal Revenue, the Congress, and, as appropriate, the judiciary.
So who are the kooks that are trying to go against tradition in favor of a *new*, religious right organization that WANTS to be involved in government and force, instead of religious freedom, their own view of what everyone has to believe? And that from a couple of guys who were involved in sex abuse, including Paul Pressler “a dangerous predator”. He is one of the two that worked very hard to change the SBC in the mid-1980s.
What makes Pressler’s case so enraging to many Southern Baptists, however, is that his abuse has been detailed for years. A lawsuit, filed by a former Pressler assistant named Gareld Duane Rollins Jr. claiming the older man abused him for decades, has been making its way through the courts since 2017. (The suit, which named Pressler, the SBC, and other Baptist entities, was settled in December.)
In 2004, the year Pressler was first elected vice president, his home church warned in a letter about his habit of naked hot-tubbing with young men after a college student complained that Pressler had allegedly groped him, according to the Texas Tribune. That same year, Pressler agreed to pay $450,000 to settle Rollins’ earlier claim that Pressler had assaulted him in a hotel room. When Pressler stopped making the agreed payments, Rollins sued again, this time alleging sexual abuse.
How the devil was disguised in the SBC and Paul Pressler’s Conservative Resurgence – During the Conservative Resurgence, I thought we were fighting for the Bible. Instead, we were also political pawns for an abuser.
The resurgence began because the SBC’s seminaries had been influenced by scholars who held to less literal interpretations of the Bible, which clashed with the more conservative views local churches and pastors tended to hold.
Pressler used that tension to gain power — and along the way, crushed countless vulnerable and innocent people, who were labeled as liberals and enemies of the church.
Tragically, Pressler pretended to believe in conservative Christian sexual ethics while allegedly raping and abusing boys and young men for decades. Some of these victims were supplied to him by his own political party.
Rumors and accusations about Pressler’s conduct — which led to him failing a background investigation for a job in the George H.W. Bush presidential administration — were brushed off as the stratagems of apostate, power-hungry liberals.
Pressler and Patterson were hailed for years as heroes — and many of their disciples went on to positions of power in the SBC, running SBC seminaries and entities, filling powerful pulpits and denominational appointments…..
By the late 1980s, Pressler was president of the CNP and, along with other members of the organization, wrote a letter to then-Vice President George H.W. Bush that, Downen reports, “promised to deliver evangelical voters in exchange for ‘direct access’ to the White House.”
Madison on Separation of Church and State
Here’s from the NPS (National Park Service on Separation of Church and STate history. I pasted in the entire article because Felon Trump has been tryingi to remove history from the parks
Separation of Church & State History
I infer that the sovereign, original, and foundation of civil power lies in the people.—Roger Williams, 1642
A historical perspective
What does the phrase, “the separation of church and state” mean? The earliest mention of that metaphor comes from Roger Williams, a minister, lawyer, and merchant who desired a way to worship freely. Williams referenced ‘a high wall’ between church and state to keep the ‘wilderness’ of the human institutions out of the affairs of religion. He strove to prevent the corruption of government from corrupting a person’s freedom of conscience. Or as he called it in 1636, “soul freedom.”
Today, the US Constitution’s First Amendment gurantees religious liberty by forbidding congress from establishing a religion or preventing the free exercise of faith. Even more, the form of government that the Constitution creates was designed to limit the authority of the government to only civil matters and made the people the foundation of civil power.
As a result, it protects individual liberty to worship however one chooses without the government being allowed to interfere. Religious freedom was made possible with the establisment of democracy, by resting decisions in the hands of the people. At the time, this radical system was called “a lively experiment.” But why did Roger Williams and his followers risk trying something so new and radical?
Divine Right to Rule
Before the founding of the colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations (today known as the State of Rhode Island), governments claimed to derive their authority from an almighty source. In some cases, the leader of a country was considered a god (ancient Rome, or Japan until 1945, for example), a political system called a theocracy. If a citizen questioned the authority of a law, they could be accused of defying the will of god. This system of power is known as “the divine right to rule.”
In the centuries after the fall of Rome, European kings adopted Christianity as their religion. Over time, a common religion became a political and spiritual mechanism that connected kingdoms to each other.
A thousand years later, the Catholic Pope Leo X granted King Henry VIII, the title Defender of the Faith. It solidified England’s bond to Spain and other Catholic nations. In this way, political power was consolidated across Europe and beyond.
Much to the dismay of European powers, Henry broke from the Catholic political structure and established the protestant Church of England. Henry argued that he wasn’t a servant of the Catholic faith because he ruled “by the grace of God alone.” Starting in the 1530s, Henry ruled England as both the king and the head of the English Church. Still, although England has a representative body, only the monarch allows it to meet.
By the early 1600s, it was well accepted in England that the government carried out the will of the Christian God through the king and his church. The English King James I commissioned a translation of the Bible that is still used today.
But a group of religious reformers disapproved of the practices of the Anglican Church, believing that they were too ritualistic. They argued that their own, simpler and more spontaneous way of worship reliant on the Bible, was the true way. And they set out to correct the King’s church, to “purify” it. These people became known as Puritans. With their words and acts of civil disobedience, sedition, treason, and violence, they insisted on worshipping how they saw fit. In the eyes of the government though, they were challenging both the spiritual authority of God and the political authority of the King.
The King’s solution to this political conflict was to include non-conformists into Britain’s efforts toward the colonization of America. Many of these non-conformists were granted the opportunity to leave England and settle in North America in exchage for land, sending back resources, and a bit of political independence.
Non-conformists in America
In the Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth, and other colonies, religious non-conformists set up new governments with the same source of power – religious authority. These governments claimed that their right to rule was granted to them by the Christian God, and therefore they had power to punish people for their thoughts, beliefs, words, actions, and even bad luck. People were humiliated, banished, fined, beaten, mutilated, tortured, and killed. These punishments were based on interpretations of divine law.
In 1635, this punishment happened to Roger Williams. He was banished from his home in Salem for preaching “new and dangerous opinions” such as religious freedom, spiritual equality of all people, and limiting the authority of magistrates. With arrest imminent, he fled. After months on the run, he was offered refuge by the Narragansett in a place called Moshassuck. Roger renamed it Providence, “with a sense of God’s merciful providence unto me in my distress . . . I desired it might be a refuge for persons distressed of conscience.” Before long, several English families were living there.
To protect their personal freedom to follow faiths that were right for them, Williams and his followers chose to create a government with limited powers. This was a radical new idea. The laws of this government would only address civil matters. It would have the power to decide issues such as taxes, public works projects, citizenship, property laws, and military affairs, yet could not make any rules addressing religious or spiritual matters.
He stated that the government shall “have no more power, nor for no longer time, than the civil power or people consenting and agreeing shall betrust them with.” By creating a government of the people, Williams freed everyone to follow their own conscience, as he called it, “soul freedom.”
Because they needed a fair way to make decisions without drawing on a religious docterine, they chose to use democracy. Democracy proved to be an effective system for limiting the power of governments, granting its citizens exceptional freedoms.
Democracy
When a government claims to derive its authority from a deity, then any decision made by the state is considered a fundamental truth; its citizens no longer have personal freedom. Roger Williams argued that a person’s freedoms are inherent to their birth; any law addressing religious docterine, even if the docterine is true, denies its citizens any freedom.
It becomes possible for democratic systems to emerge once the power of government is limited to only civil matters. In democratic systems, citizens or their representatives make laws. Because people are imperfect, this system allows for flawed decisions. Laws and bureaucracies can be repaired and made better over time.
Williams expected flaws in civil government and fiercly defended the rights of people that even he believed to be misguided. For him, it was not only a way to protect his own freedoms, but it was also an act of religious duty.
Roger had to convince a lot of people that a government can be orderly even though a civil law is nothing more than an agreement among the people decided by vote; and that the consent of the people is enough to maintain order as long as the authority of the government remains separate from spiritual affairs.
Many different religions thrived in Rhode Island. For example, Roger Williams gathered the first Baptist church in America. His theology made plain that only because of the separation of church and state, a person may join a church purely of their own free will.
The system of government first used by the people of Providence is an early example of the enlightenment thinking that led to the genius of our founding fathers’ philosophy and enshrined in many of their early documents.
The Constitution
Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to the Danbury Baptists reiterates that
religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State..
Is it possible that Jefferson was inspired by Roger Williams to use the “wall of separation” metaphor? We may never know. Jefferson never mentioned Roger Williams.
The First Amendment prevents congress from creating or establishing a religion, and thereby prevents the power of the government from expanding beyond civil matters. The First Amendment also protects people’s right to worship however they choose, or to not worship at all. Protecting people’s right to decide what is right for themselves without government interference is a key foundation (and result) of our democracy.
In 1788, our nation’s Constitution was ratified with the opening words,
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This sentence assures all the world that the United States government derives its authority from “the People,” and that in striving for “a more perfect Union,” it is flawed and can and should be changed to reflect the will of the people.
