By Executive Director J. Brent Walker
A pastor friend recently asked me to write a short piece on the importance to Baptists of church planting. I agreed to do it, but only in the context of a larger discussion about the relationship between freedom and evangelism.
Historically, this has been a both/and proposition for Baptists. We are passionately committed to soul freedom for each and religious liberty for all; we are similarly dedicated to missions which includes evangelism and, even more tangibly, church planting. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is both a covenant of freedom and a mandate for sharing.
The Bible teaches both individual freedom and responsible evangelism. The Apostle Paul issues a clarion call for freedom in Christ to the Galatians when he said, “For freedom Christ has set us free, do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” (Gal. 5:1)
Paul was a freedom guy through and through. But he was also the great missionary of the early church. His embrace of freedom did not detract from — but added to — his enthusiasm for sharing the Gospel. And, Peter tells us in his first letter that we must “always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence.” (1 Peter 3:15) (emphasis supplied)
As far as we Americans are concerned, protections for religious liberty and freedom of speech are both ensconced in the First Amendment. We are able to practice our religion as we see fit and free to go tell others about it.
Respecting the other person’s soul freedom does not mean we cannot share our faith; it does mean, however, that we respect and honor that person’s right to say no. We must fight to resist others doing, or the church doing, or the government doing what even God will not do — to violate conscience or coerce faith.
Our commitment to religious freedom and sensitive evangelism has resulted in amazing religious and cultural pluralism. We no longer need to discharge the Great Commission to take the Gospel to “all nations” only by sending foreign missionaries. The “world” is now next door, down the street, in our workplace and throughout our culture.
Living alongside people from around the world allows us to get to know and understand them and their religious points of view. Ideally, “with-nessing” should come before “witnessing.” That makes what we say so much more effective and credible. And, it allows us to learn from the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Jew, the Muslim and countless others. As Christians, we believe we know the ultimate truth in the person of Jesus Christ, but we do not presume to know all the truth. We can learn a lot from our brothers and sisters from various religious traditions.
But what about the relationship between freedom and missions on the international front?
The human rights movement around the world has seen better days and, in many places, religious persecution abounds. In a recent op-ed piece in The Washington Post, Stephen Hopgood — professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London — attributes this diminution of human rights internationally, ironically enough, to the influence of religion. He blames, at least in part, the effects of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia, but also “the passionate evangelism shared by millions of Christians in the Americas and Africa particularly.” He also indicts the “nationalist, authoritarian and conservative-religious backlash against the language and practices of secular human rights … .”
This need not be the case. Religious freedom — including the freedom to share one’s faith and change one’s mind — is not antithetical to human rights. In fact, they are closely related.
People of faith were integrally involved in the drafting and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, J.M. Dawson, the first executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee, along with Gov. Harold Stassen (a Baptist from Minnesota), were instrumental in convincing the United Nations General Assembly to embrace the Universal Declaration in December 1948 as the aspirational goal for the post-World War II world. Both Dawson and Stassen understood religious rights and human rights go hand in glove. Moreover, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration itself recognizes the inextricable relationship between freedom (“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; …”) and evangelism (“… this right includes freedom to change [one’s] religion or belief … ”).
Although Hopgood deserves some criticism for setting up this dubious religious liberty vs. human rights dichotomy, he is to be applauded for his call for religious groups of all kinds to play a greater role in the struggle for human rights. He recognizes, as has been suggested by Pope Francis, that “the church has a deeper, more powerful, more attractive and more important spiritual message to spread” and the “weak grip of conventional Western human rights principles in individual communities is no match for the moral power of the church.”
Yes, in the U.S. and around the world, we must fight for freedom, standing alone and in league with the human rights movement. And we must be free, at the same time, to engage in missionary efforts, yet do it, as the Scriptures instruct, “with gentleness and reverence.”
From the January 2014 Report from the Capital. Click here for the next article.
