Should Christians support religious freedom? John MacArthur controversy

[KingsGambit]

I'm surprised nobody has commented on the controversy over John MacArthur's sermon a couple months ago on religious freedom. Even most Christian sources who have discussed it have weighed in against him, so I'm just going to link to the actual text of the sermon:

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/81-101

He pulls no punches, implying that supporting religious freedom is in essence idolatry: "Now I told you last week that I do not believe as a Christian that I can support strongly freedom of religion, because that would be to violate the first commandment, right? “Have no other gods.” You say, “Well, doesn’t the church need freedom of religion to move forward?” No. In no way does any political law aid or hinder the church of Jesus Christ." This does go against a long history in America (Roger Williams, William Penn, etc.), though in church history itself, the stance is not unique (we know John Calvin supported the death penalty for heretics). Even very conservative Christians seem upset about this, and I understand it given how the tide seems to be turning against Christianity right now, and some Christians are reliant on the First Amendment to protect their freedom.

Of course, just reading the Old Testament, it seems MacArthur has a point. When we look at what a government under God looked like, it sure doesn't look like religious freedom. On the other hand, in the New Testament, Paul was not afraid to invoke his Roman legal rights to support the spread of the gospel. So this is an interesting topic.

[KingsGambit]

Edit: I have no idea why this is showing up as a poll or how to get rid of it.

[Cow Poke]

Edit: I have no idea why this is showing up as a poll or how to get rid of it.

It was a much easier argument to make back when Christianity was pretty much accepted as the de facto religion in our schools.
As other religions began making headway, it became obvious that this was a touch subject.

We want Christians to be able to say prayers in school, but we don't want Muslims to do so. That was the rude awakening.

I think the problem with a First Amendment argument is that people always focus on the 'establishment clause' and ignore the prohibition clause.

[Cow Poke]

Edit: I have no idea why this is showing up as a poll or how to get rid of it.

Oddly enough, it also created an entry on the Tweb Calendar!

[KingsGambit]

It was a much easier argument to make back when Christianity was pretty much accepted as the de facto religion in our schools.
As other religions began making headway, it became obvious that this was a touch subject.

We want Christians to be able to say prayers in school, but we don't want Muslims to do so. That was the rude awakening.

I think the problem with a First Amendment argument is that people always focus on the 'establishment clause' and ignore the prohibition clause.

There probably won't be too many public schools out there with Muslim prayers, but maybe the best test for me is whether I would want a kid in Utah to have to do a school prayer led by the teacher. I certainly wouldn't. Frankly, I probably don't want my kids' teachers leading school prayers either in general, even not being in Utah. I don't know what they believe, and they might feel like they have to water things down anyway to please anyone. Progressive Christianity is probably more popular in my town than traditional biblical Christianity. So I don't have a problem with leaving religious instruction to parents and churches, which is where it belongs anyway.

Based on my reading, I think what MacArthur is more broadly getting at is whether these religions should even be allowed to exist in the first place.

[Cow Poke]

There probably won't be too many public schools out there with Muslim prayers,

They usher it in as a cultural experience - the town I moved from actually had a Muslim prayer room all set up, and encouraged all students to visit it. They even pushed the celebration of Ramadan in place of Easter or Resurrection Sunday or "Easter Break".

but maybe the best test for me is whether I would want a kid in Utah to have to do a school prayer led by the teacher. I certainly wouldn't. Frankly, I probably don't want my kids' teachers leading school prayers either in general, even not being in Utah. I don't know what they believe, and they might feel like they have to water things down anyway to please anyone. Progressive Christianity is probably more popular in my town than traditional biblical Christianity. So I don't have a problem with leaving religious instruction to parents and churches, which is where it belongs anyway.

That is the conclusion to which I eventually matured.

Based on my reading, I think what MacArthur is more broadly getting at is whether these religions should even be allowed to exist in the first place.

Can you expound on that, please?

[KingsGambit]

They usher it in as a cultural experience - the town I moved from actually had a Muslim prayer room all set up, and encouraged all students to visit it. They even pushed the celebration of Ramadan in place of Easter or Resurrection Sunday or "Easter Break".

That reminds me of a disturbing news story I read out of California this morning. I'm sort of waiting to hear the "full story" because as of now, it's only conservative or Christian sites really talking about it, but it looks pretty bad so far. Apparently the California Department of Education has some sort of cultural tolerance proposal where students chant to specific Aztec idols, including the god of human sacrifice. https://www.christianpost.com/news/c...ztec-gods.html

Can you expound on that, please?

Ultimately, what religious freedom comes down to is the right to worship God however you want without somebody (probably the government) stepping in. So if religious freedom is a violation of the Ten Commandments as MacArthur says, the logical conclusion would be that non-Christians should be prevented from practicing those religions. (And some Christians in church history have followed this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, such as Geneva prosecuting Servetus for his denial of the Trinity.)

[Cow Poke]

That reminds me of a disturbing news story I read out of California this morning. I'm sort of waiting to hear the "full story" because as of now, it's only conservative or Christian sites really talking about it, but it looks pretty bad so far. Apparently the California Department of Education has some sort of cultural tolerance proposal where students chant to specific Aztec idols, including the god of human sacrifice. https://www.christianpost.com/news/c...ztec-gods.html



Ultimately, what religious freedom comes down to is the right to worship God however you want without somebody (probably the government) stepping in. So if religious freedom is a violation of the Ten Commandments as MacArthur says, the logical conclusion would be that non-Christians should be prevented from practicing those religions. (And some Christians in church history have followed this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, such as Geneva prosecuting Servetus for his denial of the Trinity.)

Hmmmm

[NorrinRadd]

Pretty much the ONLY time I've been able to agree with J-Mac on an issue of controversy is the one about opening church in defiance of lock-down decrees.

I strongly disagree with him on this topic. Carried to its logical conclusion, his view leads to abolition of the First Amendment and establishment of a theocracy or theonomy. I don't want that, even a "Christian" one, not least because if someone like J-Mac were making the "nomies" of the theonomy, Christians like me would be second-class at best.

[KingsGambit]

Pretty much the ONLY time I've been able to agree with J-Mac on an issue of controversy is the one about opening church in defiance of lock-down decrees.

I strongly disagree with him on this topic. Carried to its logical conclusion, his view leads to abolition of the First Amendment and establishment of a theocracy or theonomy. I don't want that, even a "Christian" one, not least because if someone like J-Mac were making the "nomies" of the theonomy, Christians like me would be second-class at best.

In practice, it does seem like Christians who take that tack end up going after actual Christians too (like when the Puritans kicked Roger Williams out of Massachusetts over disputable matters).

[alaskazimm]

I agree with NorrinRadd on this one. If the pre-mil futurists are in power and decree that is the proper interpretation and law of the land, I would be outlawed. Then if the next person who comes to power is an a-mil perterist the coin would be on the other foot.

[Cow Poke]

I've really been trying to understand this, but keep coming back to...

"Now I told you last week that I do not believe as a Christian that I can support strongly freedom of religion, because that would be to violate the first commandment, right? “Have no other gods.” You say, “Well, doesn’t the church need freedom of religion to move forward?” No. In no way does any political law aid or hinder the church of Jesus Christ."

So, what does the First Amendment actually say?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The first part is the "establishment clause" - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
The second part is the "prohibition clause" - or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Personally, I'd love to see the First Amendment abbreviated to the first five words - Congress shall make no law - but that ain't gonna happen.

So I'm still not getting MacArthur's purpose in opposing the concept of "religious liberty" - if, in fact, that's what he's doing.

[KingsGambit]

I've really been trying to understand this, but keep coming back to...

"Now I told you last week that I do not believe as a Christian that I can support strongly freedom of religion, because that would be to violate the first commandment, right? “Have no other gods.” You say, “Well, doesn’t the church need freedom of religion to move forward?” No. In no way does any political law aid or hinder the church of Jesus Christ."

So, what does the First Amendment actually say?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The first part is the "establishment clause" - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
The second part is the "prohibition clause" - or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Personally, I'd love to see the First Amendment abbreviated to the first five words - Congress shall make no law - but that ain't gonna happen.

So I'm still not getting MacArthur's purpose in opposing the concept of "religious liberty" - if, in fact, that's what he's doing.

Now I see where you're getting confused. MacArthur said the first commandment, not the first amendment. His point is that allowing freedom of religion is, by definition, opening the door up to people having other gods.

[Cow Poke]

Now I see where you're getting confused. MacArthur said the first commandment, not the first amendment. His point is that allowing freedom of religion is, by definition, opening the door up to people having other gods.

Laughing... I knew it had to be something stupid on my part!

[Rushing Jaws]

I'm surprised nobody has commented on the controversy over John MacArthur's sermon a couple months ago on religious freedom. Even most Christian sources who have discussed it have weighed in against him, so I'm just going to link to the actual text of the sermon:

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/81-101

He pulls no punches, implying that supporting religious freedom is in essence idolatry: "Now I told you last week that I do not believe as a Christian that I can support strongly freedom of religion, because that would be to violate the first commandment, right? “Have no other gods.” You say, “Well, doesn’t the church need freedom of religion to move forward?” No. In no way does any political law aid or hinder the church of Jesus Christ." This does go against a long history in America (Roger Williams, William Penn, etc.), though in church history itself, the stance is not unique (we know John Calvin supported the death penalty for heretics). Even very conservative Christians seem upset about this, and I understand it given how the tide seems to be turning against Christianity right now, and some Christians are reliant on the First Amendment to protect their freedom.

Of course, just reading the Old Testament, it seems MacArthur has a point. When we look at what a government under God looked like, it sure doesn't look like religious freedom. On the other hand, in the New Testament, Paul was not afraid to invoke his Roman legal rights to support the spread of the gospel. So this is an interesting topic.

It depends entirely on what is meant by “support”, by “religious”, by “freedom”, and by “religious freedom”. I’m in favour of repressing a religion, or aspects of it, if it is a proven menace to the public. There is no reason why religions should not be prosecuted if they are a danger to the public - no-one’s conscience is being violated, when Catholic predator priests or Muslim jihadis are sent to prison for their crimes. An evil religion is not a contradiction in terms - religions are no less capable of heinous crimes than any kind of society. It is not persecution to hang a jihadi bomber, to execute Jews for treason, to gaol Catholics for espionage or for acting as predators. Regardless of their religious affiliations, if any, people who commit such crimes are criminals - not oppressed martyrs.

I look forward to hearing the MacArthur sermon. I think Sebastian Castellio was wiser and more Christian regarding the execution of heretics than Calvin was, but, in defence of Calvin, it is only fair to point out that Catholics, EOs, and most Protestants accepted the rightness of executing heretics. Calvin’s error, if it was one, was in no sense unusual, let alone peculiar to him. It is a shame that Calvin did not see better than most of his contemporaries, but that IMO is the worst that can be said against him. I don’t think the Servetus affair deserves to be treated as the enormous objection to Calvin that it often is; and, while David Hunt makes a lot of it in “What Love Is This ?”, and is right to see a connection between one’s moral actions and one’s theology, I don’t think Calvin’s work as a theologian and pastor is fatally undermined by such a blindspot. It is perfectly possible to admit the greatness and fruitfulness of Calvin’s achievement as a theologian, churchman, preacher, interpreter of the Bible, and theologian, without having to regard his every decision as Christian, praiseworthy, wise, or even morally good. A Parthenon with thousands of flecks of sandstone in it is still built of marble, and is still the Parthenon.

It is grimly amusing that Biblical heroes such as Moses, Joshua, Elijah, & good King Josiah, were all vigorous persecutors of false religion. And that the “ecumenical” King Saul is severely criticised in 1 Kings for allowing his foreign wives to worship their gods. Good Israelite kings are intolerant of religious pluralism - these men of God were closer in spirit to ISIS, than to the First Amendment.

It is perhaps worth pointing out that the Reformation seems to have had little effect on the penal laws of Protestant countries and jurisdictions. Why that is, who knows ? The real change to those laws seems to have come in the 18th century.

Laws allowing liberty of worship, propagation, etc., to false religions, are regrettable, but a necessary evil, to avoid evils such as rebellion and civil war & bloody repression.