Tag: liberty

Book Plunge: Liberty and the Things of God

What do I think of Robert Louis Wilken’s book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The subtitle of this book is the Christian Origins of Religious Freedom. At the start, Christianity was not treated well by the Romans. Tertullian was the first to actively speak about the freedom of religion in his apology for the Christians. (For those who don’t know, an apology is a defense in the ancient world. He is not saying the Christians had done anything wrong.)

As Tertullian says in chapter 24 of the work:

Let one man worship God, another Jupiter; let one lift suppliant hands to the heavens, another to the altar of Fides; let one — if you choose to take this view of it — count in prayer the clouds, and another the ceiling panels; let one consecrate his own life to his God, and another that of a goat. For see that you do not give a further ground for the charge of irreligion, by taking away religious liberty, and forbidding free choice of deity, so that I may no longer worship according to my inclination, but am compelled to worship against it. Not even a human being would care to have unwilling homage rendered him; and so the very Egyptians have been permitted the legal use of their ridiculous superstition, liberty to make gods of birds and beasts, nay, to condemn to death any one who kills a god of their sort. Every province even, and every city, has its god.

And thus, we have the first argument for freedom of religion, fifteen centuries before the Constitution.

Wilken also has an interesting section on conscience. The ancients would not find it sensical to say with Jiminy Cricket, “Let your conscience be your guide.” We read it individually in a passage like Romans 2. The ancients would have read it collectively. It was the idea that your actions had moral significance and could be judged by others. It comes from two words, scientia and con, meaning knowledge with.

By the time we get to the Reformation, this has changed in that conscience is more of an internal guide. (Now also, we often say it can be the voice of God, which is a much bigger problem.) So can one say that Luther was wrong when he invoked conscience in making his defense? If you do, you have to be aware that several Catholics at the time also invoked conscience for their own freedom to worship as they saw fit. Luther, like the Catholics of his time, was to some extent a product of his time.

From the Reformation on then, we have countless battles and controversies going on. The church used to be a solidifying factor of stability, but what happens when the church itself has divisions in its ranks? This is where the majority of the book looks. The main idea is often that there are two swords, the sword of the spiritual kingdom and the sword of the physical world and the kings have no jurisdiction on the former.

This is also why it’s such a big deal when the King of England breaks away and starts the church of England. All of a sudden, you have a king who is in charge of both spiritual and physical matters. What is to be done then?

When you read through the book, you also see that in all of this, both sides did awful things to each other. You will grimace at some of the ways that Catholics treated Protestants. It will be just as hard to read of the ways that Protestants treated Catholics. The freedom of religion that those of us in America today have is something we dare not take for granted.

While Wilken goes through many thinkers of the time in looking at the topic of freedom of religion, I have one major criticism of the book. I would have at least liked to have seen one chapter dedicated to the American experiment. How did our Founding Fathers take all of these and make freedom of religion so important in our country? What has been the result? Are we in danger of losing that freedom? (By the way, the answer to that last question is yes.)

If you like history and political ideas, this is a worthwhile book to read. Many times, people in our times look at where we are and think that it’s obvious that all should have this position today. It rarely is. Books like Wilken’s remind us that there were a lot of hard questions to ask along the way.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Is Holston Home Practicing Hate?

Was a Jewish family the victim of hatred? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In a news story, a Jewish Couple went to Holston United Methodist Home for Children. They applied to adopt a child, but they were turned down because of their Jewish faith. Immediately, the conclusion was hatred and discrimination. Is this what’s really going on? Is the home anti-Semitic?

No, actually. Let’s suppose a family came that was Messianic Jewish and this included being Jewish by birth. They had come to embrace Jesus as the Messiah and agreed with the statement of faith of Holston. Would they get to adopt? Yes.

It’s not about being Jewish in the sense of genetic, but about is the child going to be raised in a home where their spiritual needs will be met, including being raised to believe in Jesus. The Holston group doesn’t want them to be put in a family where they will be told something false about Jesus and risk having their soul be lost forever. Whatever you might think of their actions, that is not a bad motive.

Now some secularists might complain, but that is misunderstanding the way a religious faith operates. Meeting the material needs is good, but meeting the spiritual needs is absolutely essential. A Christian organization cannot in good conscience deny such needs.

Suppose it was a Jewish organization that wanted to insist children be adopted into the Jewish faith and would not let anyone who believes Jesus is the Messiah or disbelieves in God adopt a child. That is their freedom. Suppose a Muslim organization didn’t want to give a child to a family that denied that Muhammad was a prophet. That was their freedom. Suppose an atheist organization didn’t want to have a child placed in the home of a crazy religious fanatic. That is their freedom. No adoption agency is obligated to give you a child because you want one.

This is also not denying that the families could be good and loving families. It is just saying that the belief system is the most important aspect. Rightly or wrongly, that is how it is and Holston should not be forced to act within their statement of faith.

In another link about this story, there is an interesting quote.

“The Tennessee Constitution, like the U.S. Constitution, promises religious freedom and equality for everyone. Tennessee is reneging on that promise by allowing a taxpayer-funded agency to discriminate against Liz and Gabe Rutan-Ram because they are Jews,” said Alex J. Luchenitser, associate vice president and associate legal director at Americans United. “Laws like House Bill 836 must not stand when they allow religion to be used to harm vulnerable kids and people like Liz and Gabe who want to provide those children with safe and loving homes.”

It’s amazing that within the first two sentences, Luchenitser contradicts himself. The Tennessee Constitution promises religious freedom. Then he says because of that, the Holston agency cannot turn down a couple because they are Jews. However, that is part of the religious freedom of Holston, to see that children are raised in Christian homes.

No one’s religious freedom is being denied except for Holston’s honestly. They are being told they have to put a child with a family even if it goes against their statement of faith. The Jews are allowed to be Jews still and there are plenty of other organizations they can adopt from.

I’m also unsure what is meant by religious equality? Is this saying that all religions are equal? All one needs to do is study them to see that isn’t the case. Is it saying that all religious beliefs don’t matter? That’s something the state should have no say on. What it is doing now is essentially saying “Yes, Holston. We understand you think a child needs to be raised in an environment where they can grow up to embrace Jesus, but we don’t think that matters and you must agree with us.” The people complaining that Holston is discriminating are wanting to push a discrimination of their own actually.

In reality, discrimination is to some degree unavoidable. We all do it. We all have to do it. If I drive somewhere and I don’t think the area is safe, I lock my doors. (I do that anyway, but I definitely make sure my car is locked if I think there’s danger.) When we choose where to go to school or who to marry or who to babysit the kids, we discriminate. A person could show up at your door and say “I want to babysit your kids for you” and you have no obligation to let them do it.

Imagine being an atheist and hearing someone wants to tutor your elementary school children. Okay. You might be interested. Then you hear that they’re a young-earth creationist who wants to teach them science. Do you accept that? Are you being discriminating if you say no? Are you denying a child an education?

The problem with a story like this is it pulls at emotional heartstrings way too easily and most of us think on how we feel about the story instead of how the story is. When you hear the story, it’s too easy to assume anti-semitism at the start. When you look, it makes sense why Holston is doing this, and you could think they are wrong in their beliefs and/or actions still, but I would hope you would at least understand it.

Also, whatever faith you are or lack of faith you are, remember that as soon as the state takes a side on any religion whatsoever, they could just as well do the same to you. Do I want the state to determine that all atheist households are unfit homes and no one can let a child be adopted into one? No. I want every organization to have the freedom to choose who they want the child to adopt to barring some physical exceptions, such as registered sex offenders definitely can’t adopt.

Some have said the state should cease funding the Holston Home. If they want to, they are free to do so. The state can tell them that unless they adopt to all, then they can’t get federal funding. I don’t think I agree with that, but the state doesn’t owe them anything. Technically, we could even say it should be up to the state taxpayers since they are the ones who are providing the state with the money anyway.

There is no doubt this is a complicated issue hinging on personal and religious freedom. One thing to avoid is accusations of moral turpitude. I can understand why the Jewish family wants to adopt. I can understand why Holston only wants to adopt to Christians as is clear from statements on their website.

That’s also the first step in resolving this. Truly understanding where everyone is coming from.

Too bad we never seem to get to that step.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)