“How should we define religious liberty? I contend that religious liberty is the principle of social practice wherein every individual, regardless of their religious confession, is equally free to believe or not believe, AND to live out their understanding of the conscience’s duty, individually AND communally, that is owed to God in all areas of life without threat of government penalty or social harassment.”
Dr. Andrew Walker – Baptist
Dean of the School of Theology, and Associate Professor of Christian Ethics and Public Theology.
It is difficult to imagine that Dr. Walker really believes the above.
By Dr. Walker’s definition or religious liberty Hindus should be allowed to practice Suttee, Mormons should be allowed to practice polygamy, Mooselimbs should be allowed to force the pagans to pay the Jizya tax, and Satan worshipers should be allowed to sacrifice babies. All of this in pursuance of the religious liberty to live out the understanding of their conscience’s duty.
Secondly here Walker talks about being free to live out their understanding of their conscience’s duty owed to God. Pray tell, which God is Walker talking about here. According to Allah, Mooselimbs have a duty to kill the infidel.
Verse 9:5 of the Quran, from Surah At-Tawbah, the full verse states (in a common translation):
“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans (infidels) wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and pay zakat, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
And what will Dr. Walker do with the God of the Talmud saying this?
“A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years.”✡️
Talmud: Sanhedrin 54b
Per Dr. Walker there must not be any government penalty or social harassment for this kind of conscience preforming duty.
Walker’s definition is not workable in a public square flooded with competing gods. Religious liberty once worked here but it was only because the religious liberty pursued was a religious liberty by differing expressions of the Christian faith. And even then, it was always dicey.
Some belonging to Walker’s school of thought have argued the following propositions,
The state remains temporary and limited. Final judgment belongs to Christ alone, so equal liberty of conscience must extend to every person.
BLMc responds,
The State is indeed temporary and limited. No Christian Nationalist argues to the contrary. But the temporary and limited character of the State is as under God’s authority. If it is not under the God of the Bible’s authority it will be, by necessity, under the authority of some other god or god concept or under the state as God. When that happens the state is neither temporary or limited.
Second here, it is a non-sequitur to say, that because the final judgment belongs to God therefore there must be equal liberty of conscience. The final judgment belongs to God but that doesn’t mean the state is not to judge pedophiles, trannies, and other assorted criminals. The final judgment of God does not mean the state has no role in bringing just judgment in space and time.
Another Walker follower suggested,
The gospel advances by faithful suffering not by securing political control or making one confession the foundation of civil law in this age. Doug Wilson has strong points in his Wall Street letter to the editor, but once unpacked it’s still just theonomic reconstruction made more palatable.
BLMc responds,
Who says the Gospel only advances in the context of faithful suffering? Who says the Gospel can’t advance in the context of faithful ruling? Why do these chaps suggest that Christians can only be losers and be slaughtered in this life?
Second, some one confession is always of civil law in this age. No law system comes to us absent of some religious confession that it is posited upon. Since this is true why shouldn’t Christians desire and pray and work towards our nation’s civil law being founded on a Christian confession?
This position above opposes theonomic reconstructionism in favor of humanist reconstructionism. It is never a question of whether or not reconstruction. It is only even a question of which religious reconstruction.
I am a Christian. Therefore, following Christ’s Kingship, I say to all rulers in all societies “kiss the Son, lest you perish in the way.”
Could we argue that this sort of liberty-fetishizing Baptist ideology (it would be too much to call it theology) could have arisen ONLY in the sheltered context, or in a corner of northwestern Europe that had been Christian for many centuries, and shielded from attacks by pagan barbarians? The context where Christian (and also White) ethics were somehow just naively taken for granted?
Hello Viisaus
Yes, I’d say that is a fair conjecture.