Yes, and hasn’t the limits of our knowledge been clearly shown over the last year and a half?
In retrospect, the various mandates make more sense when you consider that officials knew that vaccines were in the works and coming online. There are things going on behind the scenes we are not privy to.
Yes, I agree there are times when we should say no or otherwise dissent, even in our present situation with COVID. But we should do it with humility, sobriety, and full understanding of the moral responsibilities we are taking on. The first step should be using ordinary means (petition, elections, the courts, etc.), and if those fail, then conscientious objection that patiently endures suffering for the sake of righteousness. My concern is that people are jumping immediately to extraordinary means, insincerely employing conscientious objection, and having more concerns about their rights than in acting righteously.
I just finished reading the Banner edition of Bunyan’s Grace Abounding (his spiritual autobiography). The publisher included Relation of Bunyan’s Inprisonment which is instructive. Bunyan makes a few comments about his conscience. He was imprisoned for unlawful assembling (conventicles).
After a short time in prison, he was brought back before the justices to be examined. Justice Keelin (talking like a good KJV-only-er) said,
“…we know the Common Prayer Book hath been every since the apostles’ time, and is lawful for it to be used in the church.”
Bunyan responded,
“Show me the place in the epistles where the Common Prayer Book is written, or one text of Scripture that commands me to read it, and I will use it. But, yet, notwithstanding, said I, they that have a mind to use it, they have their liberty; that is, I would not keep them from it; but for our parts, we can pray to God without it. Blessed be his name.”
Later in his sentence, the justices sent a Mr. Cobb, Clerk of the Peace, to admonish Bunyan. Bunyan records his recollection of the dialogue. Here’s a section of their dialogue:
Cobb: You know, saith he, that the Scripture saith, the powers that be, are ordained of God.
Bunyan: I said, Yes, and that I was to submit to the king as supreme, also to the governors, as to them that are sent by him.
Cobb: Well then, said he, the King then commands you, that you should not have any private meetings; because it is against his law, and he is ordained of God, therefore you should not have any.
Bunyan: I told him that Paul did own the powers that were in his day, as to be of God; and yet he was often in prison under them for all that. And also, though Jesus Christ told Pilate, that he had no power against him, but of God, yet he died under the same Pilate; and yet, said I, I hope you will not say that either Paul, or Christ, were such as did deny magistracy, and so sinned against God in slighting the ordinance. Sir, said I, the law hath provided two ways of obeying: The one to do that which I, in my conscience, do believe that I am bound to do, actively; and where I cannot obey actively, there I am willing to lie down, and to suffer what they shall do unto me."
Bunyan’s imprisonment was more than theoretical and the persecution under which he lived was more intense than anything we have encountered. Even still, in such an extreme situation, he shows that he is a) not willing to force his conscientious objection on other men (the first example) and b) not willing to foment rebellion when his conscience leads to the state’s thrust of the sword. Good example of humility for us.
I will eagerly await this post. Would be a very helpful read for me. There, now you’re officially committed. 
I’m thankful to read all this discussion.
Wow this thread got long fast. I am very grateful for this statement. I have at times felt stuck between two extreme positions on COVID as a very real disease, and then on the vaccines as a very unreal solution.
I’m supportive of Christian liberty of conscience with regards to vaccines that won’t eradicate the disease or really even stop the spread.
I’m also skeptical that such claims can apply equally to timely/sensible mask requirements, and should probably be strengthened to require masks certified to actually filter airborne viral particles.
But what I found most helpful was the part that spoke of the decline of the consent of the governed. This really is a matter of authorities’ intemperate policies causing the diminishment of their own station.
As noted above some of these policies violate the conscience of Christian’s. I agree. But to say that a Christian is not obligated to obey their own conscience as justification for not supplying religious exemption letters of support, seem inconsistent.
Bannerman says God is Lord of the conscience, and as long as we are in agreement that some of the policies violate the conscience of Christians, shouldn’t we also acknowledge that leaving a Christian unsupported in correctly obeying their conscience is really no different than failing to preserve their life and guard their soul against corruption. Just a thought. If the sheep is to be devoured, shouldn’t the shepherd at least lay down at the gate?
Depends what you mean by “devoured”. I think we would all agree that we should be patient and tender with the people in our churches when they are undergoing pain for the sake of conscience. But, in this particular case, nothing further is needed on the part of church authorities than to acknowledge, in writing if necessary, that you believe their belief to be sincerely held. And if that’s all that’s necessary, then why do more?
But it’s worth pointing out one other thing. Even as we are tender with our people about their consciences, we also have a duty to inform and instruct their consciences. In one discussion I had, the example of having a fear of flying was brought up: should you force someone to get on a plane if they are terrified to do so?
My answer was “not necessarily”, but you must also try to point out that the fear is irrational, given the level of risk they are willing to take on in, say, driving in a car. And that all gets back to the theme of weighing the relative cost/benefit of various ways of responding to this pandemic.
In his letter, ‘To the Judge Advocate, Dr Roeder’ (June-August 1943) he argues that he saw it his duty as a German not only to respond to military calls (essentially conscription as he argues throughout these letters) but also to submit to the government. He references his section on Romans 13 in ‘The Cost of Discipleship’ as validating his statement that ‘the appeal to subjection to the will and the demands of authority for the sake of Christian conscience has probably seldom been expressed more strongly than there [ie in TCoD]’ (see also his letter 2 August 1943 where he writes more about Christians responding to the draft).
His views on submission to the government do not call for an unqualified submission, as he makes clear in the prologue to his ‘Letters and Papers from Prison.’ But equally important is his view that neither conscience nor duty nor ‘private virtuousness’ keep one unsullied by the times in which we find ourselves.
I do understand that most of his ‘Letters and Papers from Prison’ should be read very carefully, as he is making a legal case for the tribunal that will eventually condemn him to death. It’s not as simple as a straightforward acceptance of his surface argument or rejection of these letters as subterfuge. I also think he draws a distinction between fighting for his nation as a son of that nation and fighting for the Nazis - whether or not that argument is compelling to us is a different question. But I think it’s there in his writings. It’s not the romantic distinction between the SS and the German army so often shown in film that was manufactured post-war to vindicate the common officers and soldiers. He is also clear that Christians have a duty to obey their government and suffer when they’re not able to legitimately fulfil what their government calls them to do. ‘Just following orders’ isn’t an excuse for him. But he also has a hefty dose of what @Joel pointed to.
Ty @adionne. And yet, I wish Banner had used the more helpful “Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners” or “Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners: A Brief Relation of the Exceeding Mercy of God in Christ to His Poor Servant”. But alas, maybe even Banner can now merely tolerate “Grace Abounding”…
Oh maybe… prevented from working and thus living, prevented from traveling, prevented from worshiping. My uncle in Australia is living through all of that right now.
While most in America had a temporary taste of of it, many are certainly being threatened with it permanently if they don’t get vaccinated, not just for a few weeks.
This is not just about preferences, this is about being willing to associate those who are being threatened unjustly, and to speak openly in their defense. And again, we aren’t talking about theoretical misconceptions but the very real injustices conceded here in this statement.
As a Baptist, or as some might say, a recovering Baptist, I agree with Pastor Tim’s assessment here. It’s not that all Baptists currently or historically hold to this libertarian doctrine of conscience, but all have been affected by or infected with the disease. Historically, the problem was that Baptists did not limit individual conscience as Pastor Tim noted.
In chapter 20, paragraph 2 of the Westminster Confession it states, “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.” In paragraph 4 it states, “And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.”
The 1689 muddles paragraph two in the Westminster by saying in chapter 21, paragraph 2, “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also.” The 1689 confession completely strikes Westminster’s paragraph 4, which was a grave mistake.
Although there were 1689 Baptists who were more Westminsterian (for example the Broadmead Church) the vacuum left by the 1689 confession allowed for the libertarian or Anabaptist view to completely define what it meant to be a Baptist in the future.
It was a great evil that Baptists infected Western Christendom both directly and indirectly. Directly by those who held/hold to this libertarian heresy and indirectly by those who, for the sake of a broader coalition of Baptists, did not define and defend sphere authority permitting individual sovereignty to be king.
What we are now experiencing is the fruit of this poisonous tree of libertarian liberty. Of course, it was not just Baptists and we are now to the point where we must confess that we are all Baptists now.
Were, and are, there other contributing factors among Baptists? Absolutely! Where there contexts with various intentions? Again, yes! But regardless of context or where one falls in the intentional or unintentional spectrum, the results are the same.
All this began with unchecked individual liberty of conscience in religious matters. It has expanded to unchecked individual liberty of conscience in every matter with many believing every matter is religious.
To see that this mindset has been with us a long time here are a few quotes from the Rev. John Quincy Adams (not the 6th President). These quotes are from a series of lectures titled “Baptist Thorough Reformers” that were later published. It should be noted that he is speaking of “religious matters” but even in the most generous estimate of his meaning of such, it will be clear that these principles are poisonous and are driving our modern difficulties.
"I shall endeavor here to define what religious liberty is. The views of many Protestants, even in this land of liberty, are exceedingly imperfect, and in some instances surprisingly erroneous, on this subject. Many consider toleration as synonymous with religious liberty; but a moment’s consideration will exhibit the vast difference between the two. Toleration is the allowance of that which is not wholly approved. As applied to religion, the term is objectionable; because it presupposes the existence of some mere human authority, which has power to grant to, or withhold from man the exercise of freedom in matters of religion – and this is Popery. Our Creator, however, has nowhere delegated such authority to king, or priest, or any human organization whatever; on the contrary, he has shown, by the very nature of the soul of man, and the Revelation given to him, that it is his inalienable right to exercise his judgment without restraint in religious matters, and give expression, freely and fully, to his religious convictions, without human dictation or interference.
"It is manifest, that if the right to tolerate exists in man, the right to prohibit, and to dictate to the conscience, must also exist with it; and thus toleration becomes merely another name for oppression. Toleration, therefore, is not religious liberty.
“Religious freedom recognizes in no human organization the right or the power to tolerate. It does not stoop – either to magistrate or minister, pope or priest – to humbly ask leave or beg permission to speak freely, or act out its convictions; but it speaks and acts, because, in the exercise of its own right, it chooses to do so. It simply asks, with Paul, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” and having ascertained God’s will, it goes forth to do it, though a host of priests, or a thousand executioners, stand ready to execrate and slay it. It acknowledges no human authority competent to come between the conscience and its Maker in reference to his will and its duty. Religious liberty does not exist where there is no recognition and acknowledgment of this right – the right of every individual of the human race, to think, and choose, and act for himself in religious matters.”
“Infant baptism they [Baptists] regard as one great source of the destruction of religious liberty; in laboring therefore to lead its adherents to abandon it, they are seeking to effect a reform which will leave the conscience free to act according to its own convictions of God’s requirements, which Pedobaptism prevents it from doing.”
“While others clamored for liberty and toleration when they were oppressed, and then, as soon as they came into power, began to oppress others, Baptists have claimed religious liberty for all, and have heroically suffered that all men might be free. Not in the age, but in the error of infant baptism, lies the root of state churches and religious persecutions; and only as Baptist influence keeps these in cheek, will Pedobaptism be prevented from bringing forth its legitimate fruit in the destruction of religions liberty.”
“Wherever Pedobaptism has had the opportunity to develop itself, it has always produced oppression and persecution, both in Romish and Protestant communities. Its direct tendency is to crush religious liberty, and destroy the rights of conscience.”
“Remember, religious liberty involves the right to think, examine, decide, and choose for ourselves in all matters between the conscience and its Maker. This, Baptists seek to propagate; and to this, Pedobaptism, both in the Romish and Protestant bodies, is opposed. In contending, then, for the baptism of believers only, we contend for man’s dearest rights – the rights of conscience.”
“Let Baptist principles prevail, and there will be no forcing the conscience, no forestalling the judgment; but man, free to act intelligently and understandingly, according to the light he possesses, will render to God voluntary obedience, none desiring to ‘molest him or make him afraid.’”
As a Credobaptist, I am ashamed that this has become definitional of what it means to be a Baptist. It is really Anabaptist sentiments that have won the day even though Baptists originally desired to be identified with their Reformed brethren and not the Anabaptist heretics.
I believe the problem in 1689 consisted of three main parts. First, their desire to have the strongest minority coalition of Credobaptists as possible. Second, they allowed their position on conscience to be defined by their minority status. Third, they were willing to trade an essential truth for a nonessential practice. Truly, a little leaven leavens the whole lump.
Today, the Americanized version of the Anabaptist liberty of conscience is being Munsterized, but not so much in the historical German Anabaptist sense as much as the 1950’s sitcom sense.
Thank you brother. I listened to the episode on my drive to West Virginia yesterday for a family reunion. The first half made good points about not having a magic button when it comes to your children’s salvation. We must point our children to Christ and then use wisdom when educating them. I have some areas where I might have questions in that first half but for the most part, I agree. It’s when you turn to Covid and in particular the binding of conscience about masks that I think it goes screwy. You sensed it, Lucas, and asked some good questions but the answers given were self admittedly Ad Hominem. I’ve been told I have to learn to argue better but the argument used in defense of your requiring masks and accusing others of binding the conscience is bad.
Here is what the argument sounds like in simplistic terms.
1: We require masks here.
2: Really?
1: Yes
2: I think you’re binding my conscience
1: No you’re just being rebellious
3: Hey if you got good elders don’t divide over this but if your elders already have issues and now require masks they are binding your conscience, you should go elsewhere where the elders aren’t requiring masks
1: hey #3, you’re binding the conscience of number #2 by telling him that we are binding his conscience, stop causing divisions
2: but you’re the one binding my conscience by requiring
1: well we don’t really require require masks
2: oh so you mean if I don’t wear one, no one will say anything to me and you’ll treat me the same as those who do
1: well, we might say something to you and you’ll feel shamed and we probably won’t ask you to be a leader or anything but no we don’t require and those other guys are just rebels and revilers binding your conscience
I know you will hate me for saying that but that’s what it sounds like. If it is as your say that wearing or not wearing masks is not sin or getting or not getting a vaccine is not sin, simply say so and stop requiring masks. My church has had no division over masks. We don’t require them. We don’t forbid them. We don’t even talk about them. I preached one sermon on them in which the passage in question was talking about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and I said, we will not divide over masks. Be settled in your hearts about your conviction but don’t judge your neighbor who comes to a different conviction. We have had people who have come who have worn masks and we haven’t judged them. We had a young man whose unbelieving mother required him to wear one and we encouraged him to honor his mother.
The only issue I’ve had to contend with is dealing with people who don’t understand the division between you and Moscow. People have assumed you require masks and I’ve defended you saying you don’t but then in this podcast you say you do.
I believe there could be peace between sides and am hopeful that our statement on mandates would be the vehicle for it. But you all have to want it.
As a Baptist (NOT Babtist!) who doesn’t see Baptist Theology as a condition to recover from (wink/nudge), I think the issue is less Baptists becoming Presbyterians and more non-Reformed types adopting Reformed Theology (perhaps insufficiently?). In my experience, the most dedicated and adamant (and occasionally belligerent) Reformed and Presbyterian types are those who converted from vanilla-evangelical (including but not limited to Baptist) theologies.
I don’t have the time this weekend to develop my case, so the three (okay, two!) of you who care will have to wait with bated breath till Monday to see my argument. But I think this conscience question is a lot more complicated than a Baptist/Presbyterian theological dynamic.
All that to say, I’m not sure the Moscow issue is because of a latent Baptist undercurrent; and I’m pretty sure it’s not because of a WCF vs 1689 dynamic. I’m actually fairly confident it has more to do with a neophyte syndrome among those who convert to Reformed Theology out of a Dispensational or generic Evangelical background, as opposed to those who are brought up from infancy to love their mother church.
Lest I cause needless offence, I hasten to add that I think most of us are converts to Reformed Theology, whether Westminster Presbyterians or 1689 Baptists (shout out to any Continental Reformed types?), or somewhere in between. I’m glad for this migration. I’m a part of it.
Maybe that’s why I care that we accurately diagnose the root of this problem. Spoiler: I’m not sure it’s about polity at all.
Aaron, look very carefully at 1689, Westminster Standards, and the Preliminary Principles of American Presbyterianism. If men’s claims of the boundaries of freedom for conscience conform to 1689, rather than Westminster and PP, it is at minimum telling.
“Faith or worship.” Love,
The issue with Moscow has always been their promotion of schism. From the beginning, like Matt Trewhella, they have condemned churches, pastors, and sessions who have called their congregations to submit to the civil authorities concerning masks. They have encouraged souls to leave their church if their church officers commend submission to civil authorities. Sad it is, but there you have it.
Let this be noted and recorded for posterity. Men may wish to avoid thinking about it, but their schismatic words have divided many churches. Heard of another one yesterday.
For shame. Love,
I don’t have much to add to the discussion at this point other than, this has all been very helpful to read and think about.
I don’t know all the details about Wiggins in the link above, but it seems the NBA with its money and lawyers thinks it doesn’t have to allow religious exemptions.
In all honesty, I would have been rather sympathetic, and maybe even supportive, if Biden had issued exercise and whole-food mandates to all Americans instead of pushing these silly vaccines, seeing how it is the lack of both that leads to the comorbidities associated with bad COVID outcomes (and to be frank, many of our country’s ills). But I have an authoritarian streak in me.
Hey Aaron, I will wait until Monday, although it will probably not be with bated breath, not because I am uninterested, but because it is Monday. I don’t know if Baptists in England experience this or not but on Monday’s I have a preaching hangover. Or, maybe, it’s from eating too much fried chicken on Sunday. I am not really sure but as you can see I am more Baptist than you may have thought. Is fried chicken even a thing in England? Regardless, fried chicken is one of the top qualifications here in the U.S. to be a Baptist.
In all seriousness though, my little “recovering Baptist” joke was for my Presbyterian friends, but for the sake of full disclosure, and to help us have a profitable discussion, I would rather be labeled as a Westminster Baptist or a Reformed Credobaptist (if we have to do this sort of thing) and not any of the American labels—General Baptist, Independent Baptist, Southern Baptist, Northern Baptist, Free Will Baptist, etc.
By this or what I wrote previously, I do not mean that I reject the 1689 but I do acknowledge its deficiencies and the deficiencies and sins of its adherents both corporate and individual. As a Baptist, this is my first responsibility. Why should I be focused on Presbyterian deficiencies and/or sins when I have plenty in my own life, my own family, my own church, and within my “Baptist” camp. Obviously, we must deal with all deficiencies and sins wherever they are found, but this is where we should start.
I know you are waiting until Monday but you were able to say quite a bit already that I do not want to get lost in the shuffle. Plus, I think it will help us have a more profitable discussion.
First, I did not say it was a Presbyterian/Baptist theological dynamic. I said it was an error by Baptists. We dropped the ball on the conscience issue.
Without a doubt there are “cage-stage” issues when one converts to anything, but I have been around American Baptists, mainly Independent Baptists and Southern Baptists, my whole life and I can say, without a doubt, that this doctrinal deficiency concerning individual liberty and conscience is genetic. It has become the essence of what it means to be a Baptist in America.
Most of us may be migrants to Reformed theology but migrants must become naturalized and assimilated. If not then they do not belong and are just stealing benefits from others without any real committment and desire to build. By this, I do not mean that we all have to become Presbyterians. The Reformed Church is bigger than any one of us. Yet, aren’t we always to be conforming to the Word of God? It is from Scripture that I say that the 1689 minimalization of and gutting of the Westminster chapter “Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience” was an error. I am not saying the typical Baptist view is in error because the Westminster Confession is the gold standard but because the 1689 Baptists were using it as a model for their own confession. It was not a lack of forethought, they deleted it. Instead of rewording it or expanding upon the truth contained in that chapter, they removed it and thereby removed all restrictions on individual liberty and conscience.
If there was any group who needed to hear and profess this line in the Westminster Confession it is Baptists.
“And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.”
Obviously, not all Baptists have or do hold to a libertarian view of liberty of conscience. Yet, most do and it has been devastating, not only for Baptists but the American Church and civil society. What I am saying is that Reformed Baptists/Reformed Credobaptists need to develop a more Biblical doctrine and practice concerning individual liberty and liberty of conscience.
With any issue, there are usually multifaceted contributions. Mostly, I was pointing out the problem of individual sovereignty. However, polity is an issue and I do not mean historical congregational polity is the problem. When we talk about congregationalism in the 17th and 18th Century we are talking about a completely different animal than 21st Century congregationalism.
So, I am not attempting to get Baptists to become Presbyterian even though I do not see why a congregational Baptist church (in the historical sense) is unable to affirm the Presbyterian polity. The differences between historical Congregationalism and American Presbyterianism seem petty to me. Don’t get me wrong, I completely understand why Baptists who hold to Democracy and individual sovereignty are unable to be associated with Presbyterians or any form of Reformed polity.
Regardless, my desire is for myself, and those Baptists who are identifying as Reformed, to repent of our sins and correct our errors. We should be calling on our Reformed Credobaptist brethren to be reconciled to our Reformed Paedobaptist brothers. This is not anything new. There were Baptists like the Broadmead Church and pastors like John Tombes, Henry Jessey, and John Bunyan who desired communion together despite our differences. Other Reformed camps also had men who were calling for Christian forbearance, reconciliation, and unity. For example, Walter Cradock, Jeremiah Burroughs, John Owen, James Durham, and James and Robert Haldane. Although there were others, unfortunately, it was a minority.
Regardless, it is our duty and responsibility to do the right thing today. Despite what happened in the past, we are responsible for our present attitude and behavior. If we are going to see the peace and unity of the Church strengthened, we Credobaptists need to humble ourselves, repent of our sins, amend our ways and love the brethren.
Looking forward to your analysis on Monday. Have a blessed Lord’s Day!
I took the time just now to read the 1689 confession chapter 21 and compare it to the WCF chapter 20. Until this thread, I had never read this argument, or had this difference pointed out.
The differences are striking, but I wonder if we have direct proof from the men who wrote the 1689? Do we have minutes of their deliberations?
I look forward to what Aaron Prelock has to say. I share his skeptical disposition toward this argument. I’d like to see more proof offered.
Postmodernism should figure into our evaluations of the divisions in the churches over Covid, right? The denial of objective truth, combined with anarchy in media and information, combined with the rise of television, the Internet and social media–all of that has to have a large impact on what we have been going through. In other words, I would want to make a more Neil Postman-style case. Everything is a meme. Everything is image and style. Typography is dead, so truth is dead. It’s whatever you want to be true, whatever you and your in-group need to be true.
The SCIENCE in-group tells me that men can menstruate, that abortion is no killing, and that men are evolved apes, and also that Covid is a dangerous disease. This culture is reinforced with a separate image and meme based media. With objective truth discarded, my right wing Christian in-group entirely dismisses the SCIENCE out-group and reinforces that with a separate image-based media culture. We are now off to the races.
You can blame 17th century Baptists for some things, but I wouldn’t blame them for postmodernism and the death of typography.
Ty Sir!