(Last year, I signed – as executive director of Texas Baptists Committed – a letter opposing repeal of the “Johnson Amendment.” A few weeks ago, I received a most condescending and demeaning letter from the president of an outfit that calls itself “Alliance for Religious Freedom,” addressed to “Dear Religious Leaders -” attacking my “continued support of the ‘Johnson Amendment,'” and providing me a copy of his book entitled The Bible is the Higher Law in America. I have mailed him the following reply.)
Dear Fellow Religious Leader –
Thank you for your form letter addressed to “Dear Religious Leaders,” and the copy of your book The Bible is the Higher Law in America. You had me going for awhile there, but the further I read, I realized that no intelligent person could write such a letter or book in all seriousness. Kudos to you on the most elaborate – albeit transparent – April Fools joke ever played on me.
You really gave away the game on the Acknowledgements page of your book where you stated that “David Barton of Wallbuilders . . . has been the primary source of my research . . .” Then, on p. 14, you doubled down by stating, “David Barton of Wallbuilders is the foremost authority on the moral and religious foundations of our national constitution and history . . .”
“Foremost authority” . . . that sounded awfully familiar. Then I remembered . . . back when I was growing up in the 1960s, comic Irwin Corey billed himself as “The World’s Foremost Authority” in his many appearances on Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show and other such shows. The connection you were making became obvious. “Professor” Irwin Corey would sit down and begin expounding on any and all subjects, using long, complicated words and lengthy explanations ostensibly intended to obscure (but, in fact, making obvious) his utter lack of any factual knowledge about the subject. David Barton to a tee!
I first viewed Barton’s America’s Godly Heritage video in 1995. The next day, I called the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs (which today is the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty) and asked whether they had a response to Barton’s video. Sure enough, they already had prepared one, which they mailed to me. Today an updated version resides on the Baptist Joint Committee’s Web site; I’ve printed a copy and enclosed it for your edification.
In it, Brent Walker cites facts documented from reliable sources (what a novel idea) to knock down every point claimed by Barton, who had fabricated almost every word he claimed as fact about our Founding Fathers and “our national and constitutional history,” as you put it.
At least “Professor Irwin Corey” admitted his “World’s Foremost Authority” persona was an act!
But your citing of Barton as your “primary” source was just the first of your attempts at humor.
The main thrust of your letter was to address my “continued support of the ‘Johnson Amendment.’” I immediately recognized the humor in your claim (p. 43) that “. . . the repeal of the ‘Johnson Amendment’ . . . would allow pastors to speak Biblically from the pulpits, as they once did, on the political and cultural issues we face as a nation today.”
Your humor was evident, because anyone who has read the amendment knows that it never prevented such speech in the first place. I mean, if I thought for a moment that you were being serious – and that you had actually read the amendment – I would have to think you as much a liar and charlatan as David Barton. Jesus said of such people, “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.” (Matthew 7:15, NIV)
I’m certain that you couldn’t be so ignorant as to believe that the Johnson Amendment prevents pastors from preaching biblically about political and cultural issues from the pulpit. You, of course, know that its effect is much more limited than that . . . to prevent pastors from using their pulpits to engage in partisan political activity, in other words, endorsing specific political parties or candidates, and that’s it.
My church’s pastor, who supports the Johnson Amendment, preaches boldly – and biblically – on moral issues, challenging us regularly to follow the teachings and examples of Jesus and the biblical prophets in working actively to obtain justice for all people (not just believers) and to welcome and care for those whom society has ostracized and pushed to the margins.
I’m certain that you don’t want churches to turn away from their biblical purpose – to extend the Kingdom of God – by seeking to extend the empire of a party or candidate. Surely you don’t want houses of worship turned into political precincts, dividing God’s people over their voting choices and making tithes and offerings subject to the grasp of political action committees.
After all, when Satan tempted Jesus with political power (Matthew 4:9), it was with a caveat, that Jesus bow down and worship Satan. Jesus consistently rejected the pleas of those who sought a messiah who would give them authority over the political powers of their day.
So I’ll assume your attack on the Johnson Amendment is sharp humor intended to satirize the gullibility of those who have swallowed the lies of “false prophets” such as David Barton.
In return for your gracious gift of your book to me, I’m enclosing – as my gift to you – a copy of What a Touchy Subject! Religious Liberty and Church-State Separation, by J. Brent Walker.
In his book, Brent addresses Barton’s lying claim – which you hilariously include in your book – that separation of church and state is a myth (or a “lie,” as you put it). I love your humorously ignorant claim that the absence of the phrase “separation of church and state” in the Constitution proves that the concept is also absent. That would be as ludicrous as my claiming that, because the Bible never uses the word “pro-life,” it must be encouraging abortions.
I’m also returning the book you sent me. You might enjoy reading the notes I’ve scribbled in the margins. Following are a few highlights, with the book passage cited, followed by my comment in italics and, in some instances, further explanation of my comment:
- • pp. 12-14 – your lengthy discussion of abortion and the rights of the “preborn”
-
-
-
- o
“Why focus on only the unborn?”
-
-
-
-
-
- (I noticed a lot of stress on Psalms 139, Luke 1, and Isaiah 21, but nothing at all about Matthew 25 and those Jesus called “the least of these.”)
-
-
- • p. 18 – “In America’s republic we recognize an authority higher than the people, almighty God, as the source of our laws.”
-
-
-
- o
“tortured def. of republic”
-
-
- • P. 24 – “At the time the Constitution was written, the Bible was considered a comprehensive legal system . . .”
-
-
-
- o
“NOT the Bible’s purpose”
-
-
- • p. 32 – “Founding Father Daniel Webster said, . . .”
-
-
-
- o
“NOT!”
-
-
-
-
-
- (Daniel Webster was born in January 1782, 5½ years AFTER the signing of the Declaration of Independence; he was 5 years old when the Constitution was drafted. Perhaps, as a “preborn,” he had full personhood some 5 years BEFORE conception? . . . precocious indeed!)
-
-
- • p. 32 – “Loving our God is the foundation for loving your neighbor. We should seek Biblical laws that protect preborn children, marriages and families. The Christian community has been entrusted with the authority of our nation because Christianity ‘has so largely shaped and molded it.’”
-
-
-
- o
“What are ‘biblical laws’?
-
-
-
-
-
- o
“What does ‘entrusted with the authority of our nation’ mean?”
-
-
- • p. 34 – “. . .let us begin to judge every political principle from a Biblical point of view,. . .”
-
-
-
- o
“whose interpretation?”
-
-
- • p. 38 – “The ‘free exercise’ clause allows all Americans to worship God according to the dictates of their hearts.”
-
-
-
- o
“or not”
-
-
-
-
-
- (inserted between “worship God” and “according”)
-
-
- • p. 38 – “America was founded by Christians . . .”
-
-
-
- o
“WRONG”
-
-
-
- • p. 42 – “In 1954, the Courts began secularizing the pulpits when then
Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson passed a law
- restricting churches’ political involvement.“
-
-
-
- o
“One senator cannot pass a law.”
-
-
-
-
-
- (It was an amendment to a bill enacted as the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Both houses of Congress passed it without any discussion or debate.)
-
-
Warm regards,
Bill Jones