The Politics of Jesus & Religious Liberty

My friend (gosh I sound like McCain) Nathan Finn, a professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, spoke last week at First Baptist Church of Durham, North Carolina at The Politics of Jesus conference. The conference was sponsored by the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina. Finn's lecture was titled "The Pulpit and the Public Square: Some Observations from the Ministry of Charles Haddon Spurgeon."

You can read Finn's lecture here. Here's a snippet:

Now by assuming we all agree in principle to the separation of church and state, I am under no illusion that we would all agree as to the application of this concept. Some might even object to the language of church-state separation because of the way that various anti-faith agendas have co-opted the phrase and used it to undermine traditional values that many of us hold dear....The fact is American evangelicals have never marched in lock-step when it comes to applying the First Amendment, perhaps because there has never been one single understanding of what church-state separation actually means. At least two major views have been articulated by evangelicals, both of which have been ably defended by some Baptists. Some evangelicals argue for what might be called an accomodationist understanding of church-state separation. Most accomodationists argue that the government should accomodate religious beliefs and practices, provided that it does not show favoritism to a particular sect or belief. Isaac Backus is the most famous Baptist proponent of this view. Accomodationists tend to argue that the Constitution is positive in its assessment of religion and that the primary concern of the First Amendment is to guard against a state-established church. We might say that contemporary accomodationists tend to read the “non-establishment” clause of the First Amendment through the lens of the “free-exercise” clause. Though I confess that I cannot offer any quantifiable evidence, it appears to me that the majority of present-day politically engaged evangelicals tend toward an accomodationist understanding of church-state separation.[v]

Finn begins by stating his assumption that all of the Southern Baptists in the room "agree in principle to the separation of church and state" noting that not everyone in the room would agree "as to the application of this concept." I'm glad that a modern-day Southern Baptist is still willing to use the phrase. Finn states that "American evangelicals have never marched in lock-step when it comes to applying the First Amendment, perhaps because there has never been one single understanding of what church-state separation actually means." This is very true. Church-State expert Douglas Laycock has written at least a few articles on the "Many Meanings of Separation." Finn continues:

At least two major views have been articulated by evangelicals, both of which have been ably defended by some Baptists. Some evangelicals argue for what might be called an accomodationist understanding of church-state separation. Most accomodationists argue that the government should accomodate religious beliefs and practices, provided that it does not show favoritism to a particular sect or belief. Isaac Backus is the most famous Baptist proponent of this view. Accomodationists tend to argue that the Constitution is positive in its assessment of religion and that the primary concern of the First Amendment is to guard against a state-established church. We might say that contemporary accomodationists tend to read the “non-establishment” clause of the First Amendment through the lens of the “free-exercise” clause. Though I confess that I cannot offer any quantifiable evidence, it appears to me that the majority of present-day politically engaged evangelicals tend toward an accomodationist understanding of church-state separation.

Despite the present popularity of the accomodationist approach, there have always been some evangelicals who have argued for what might be called a strict separationist understanding of church-state relations. Most strict separationists argue that the government should be completely neutral concerning religious beliefs and practices, neither supporting nor harming any particular sect or belief.

The problem here is that so-called "accommodationists" are a mixed-bunch. There is DEFINITELY more than one "type" Accommodationist especially in the evangelical world. Further, Finn's definition of the "Accommodationist" position is EXTREMELY vague. Separationists such as myself also believe that government should accommodate religious beliefs and practices as long as the state remains neutral. Most separationists especially in Baptist life have consistently been advocates of policies such as the Equal Access Act which accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of students in the public school system. In light of Antonin Scalia's screwy decision in Oregon v. Smith, Baptist separationists supported the Religious Freedom Restoraction Act (alongside those from all corners of the political spectrum) as a means of accommodating the religious beliefs and practices of those who belonging to a minority sect.

Secondly, the popular view opposite of "Accommodationism" (which is a category that seems to be rarely used these days in church-state scholarship) is not "Strict Separationism." Again, there are many meanings of "separation." Carl Esbeck's often cited typology of church-state relations claims that there are 5 views: Strict Separationism, Pluralistic Separationism, Institutional Separationism, Nonpreferentialism and Restorationism. Oddly, Finn cites Esbeck's popular typology in a footnote by fails to utilize that typology in his lecture. Instead, he focuses on the so-called "strict separationist understanding of church-state relations." Many Baptists believe that "the government should be completely neutral concerning religious beliefs and practice, neither supporting nor harming any particular sect or belief." Few are "strict separationists." This is a weak and incomplete definition of "strict separationism." Seriously, what prominent Baptists or Baptist organizations could honestly wear this "strict separationist" label?

Esbeck, who Finn cites, describes strict separationists as wanting not only a separation of church and state but also a separation of religion from public life. Thus who are these "many evangelicals" who hold to strict separationism. In Baptist life, I am not aware of any groups or individuals (maybe one or two) who advocate a separation of religion and politics or religion from public life. Baptist religious liberty advocates like James Dunn repeatedly said during the 70s, 80s, and 90s that religion and politics will mix, should mix and must mix. Dunn's view as articulated above has been the prevailing view among Baptist separationists in recent decades.

Later in the lecture, Finn opines:

In my opinion it is a great tragedy that over the past couple of generations a good many evangelicals, including many of my fellow Baptists, have advocated positions that are closer to the People for the American Way or the ACLU than the framers of the Constitution, all in the name of preserving religious liberty. These misguided evangelicals have at times lent support to the anti-religion agenda, seemingly unaware (or at least unconcerned) that they are actually contributing to a climate that is poisoned against religious arguments and conservative moral convictions. One cannot help but think that a combination of party politics and poor education has much to do with evangelicals who attack religious freedom in the name of defending religious freedom.

Working alongside liberal advocacy organizations does not make one a liberal nor does it mean that a person's position is wrong. Richard Land has on more than a few occasions promoted policies through coalition work alongside liberals and secularists. That's how stuff gets done in Washington. After Scalia's atrocious decision in Oregon v. Smith, the Baptist Joint Committee led by Oliver Thomas put together an extremely diverse group of religious organizations to help pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. To pass this extremely important piece of religious freedom-protecting legislation, the Southern Baptist Convention joined hands with the ACLU and People for the American Way. A Tragedy Indeed! Actually, it was tragic that the Religious Right's darling Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Sclia, wrote the opinion which made RFRA necessary. Talk about a tragedy...

Speaking of the Framers of the Constitution, I'm pretty sure that the Chief Framer, James Madison, was a strong proponent of the concept of government neutrality toward religion and nonreligion - thus fitting Finn's vague definition of a "strict separationist."