Southern Baptists will practice their religious freedom June 8-11 by gathering in downtown Dallas for their annual meeting. They will visit exhibits and friends, hear reports and sermons, celebrate mission and ministry, and conduct business. Adopting resolutions will be part of that business. At least one of the proposed resolutions contains a puzzle for religious freedom.
Eight resolutions have been proposed for consideration during the 2025 Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting. One celebrates the 100th anniversary of the Cooperative Program. Another celebrates the 100th anniversary of the Baptist Faith and Message, with special honor for the 2000 version. And one is the annual expression of appreciation to the host city.
Then there are the headline-grabbing resolutions: condemnation of sports betting; a lengthy resolution to ban pornography; an even lengthier resolution on gender, marriage and family; a resolution to abolish abortion; and advocacy for international religious freedom.
It’s part of that last resolution that makes me say, “Wait a minute.”
Resolution on religious freedom
The proposed language of “On Advocating for International Religious Freedom” contends, according to Scripture, “there is one mediator between God and man, and that mediator is not the civil government but Christ Jesus.”
No argument there, but a hearty, “Amen.”
The resolution then quotes Article XVII of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000: “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it.”
There is no argument with God alone being Lord of the conscience. This is just a basic and historic Baptist principle.
There isn’t much debate anymore among Southern Baptists about what is “contrary” to God’s word, but there is significant disagreement across Baptists in general. Women pastors is but one example.
Sign up for our weekly edition and get all our headlines in your inbox on Thursdays
While most of the rest of the resolution wouldn’t raise much of an eyebrow with most Baptists, it’s the first “Resolved” that makes me say, “Wait a minute.”
The religious freedom puzzle
The first “Resolved” of the international religious freedom resolution should be read in its full context—placed after proposed resolutions on social and moral issues: sports betting; pornography; gender, marriage and family; and abortion.
I suppose there is some religious group that incorporates sports betting into their religious practice, though I can’t see how. I do know the other three resolutions intersect with religious positions that differ from Southern Baptists.
One ought to read the proposed resolutions that precede the one on religious freedom understanding there are religious groups who differ with Southern Baptists about what constitutes pornography, how to understand gender, what constitutes marriage, what is the appropriate structure of the family, and the use of abortion.
The issue here is not how the various religious groups disagree on these matters but that the various religious groups’ positions are religious positions.
With that understanding in mind, then read that first “Resolved:”
“RESOLVED, That the messengers … affirm that God has endowed every human being with the freedom of conscience and with the corresponding freedom to practice their religious convictions without undue interference from civil power (Baptist Faith and Message 2000, Article XVII)” (emphasis added).
Likewise, the second “Resolved:” “RESOLVED, We affirm that religious freedom is a human right given by God for all humanity to steward, and aids our work in fulfilling the Great Commission” (emphasis added).
The puzzle turns on the qualifier “undue” underlined above. We know what constitutes “civil power,” but what constitutes “undue interference” from civil power? This is an important question, because plenty can argue that Southern Baptists imploring the civil power to legislate certain social and moral issues in certain ways could result in “undue interference.”
Freedom for conflicting religions
Resolutions listed before the religious freedom resolution urge state and federal legislators to ban pornography in all media, call for laws allowing same-sex marriage to be overturned, and urge state and federal legislators to ban chemical abortion drugs.
Clearly, these resolutions seek to represent Southern Baptist religious views on these issues and to have Southern Baptist religious views encoded into state and federal law. But doing so may contradict Southern Baptists’ stated advocacy for religious freedom … unless Southern Baptists do not believe their legislative influence could result in “undue interference” with religious freedom.
So many beg to differ. So many see codified Southern Baptist moral positions as undue interference in their religious practices.
They don’t see how Southern Baptists can have it both ways—laws prohibiting such things as same-sex marriage while also upholding the God-endowed “freedom [for all] to practice their religious convictions without undue interference from the civil power.”
This points the debate directly at who religious freedom is for. The resolution in question states, “Advocating for religious liberty is a hallmark of Southern Baptist belief and practice and applies equally to all peoples, in all places, at all times.”
Given the resolution’s own language, adoption of all the proposed resolutions as currently worded presents a religious conflict. And if the aims of the social and moral resolutions are codified in state and federal law, the religious conflict will be realized.
Southern Baptists owe it to themselves and their neighbors to think through this puzzle.
Unqualified religious freedom
Religious freedom doesn’t mean anything goes, but to maintain religious freedom does mean some things will have to be allowed to go. What should those things be? We each have our ideas.
I do believe there need to be certain legal constraints on social and moral matters. Determining what those constraints should be in a diverse society is difficult … if we intend to keep a diverse society, and I hope we do.
Don’t understand me here to be advocating for pornography, abortion and any particular view of gender, sexuality and marriage. I’ve already stated my position on the latter.
My point here is if Baptists—Southern or otherwise—are going to advocate for religious freedom, then we must advocate for religious freedom, not qualified religious freedom, not religious freedom for those who think, believe, practice and worship just like us.
If we advocate for religious freedom only for those like us, there will come a day when those unlike us will impose “religious freedom” only for those like them. Southern Baptists, of all people, shouldn’t show them how to do that.
Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.
We seek to connect God’s story and God’s people around the world. To learn more about God’s story, click here.
Send comments and feedback to Eric Black, our editor. For comments to be published, please specify “letter to the editor.” Maximum length for publication is 300 words.