(ANALYSIS) In the midst of heated debates about female pastors and the morality of in vitro fertilization, the national Southern Baptist Convention recently passed a religious liberty resolution that — in terms of Baptist history — was rather ordinary.

But these are not ordinary times in American life.

Messengers from autonomous SBC congregations resolved: “That we encourage and support robust Christian engagement in the public square, including individual Christians who pursue elected or appointed office in order to influence government by living out their Christian worldview while advocating Christian morals with respect for the consciences of all people.”

The “resolved” clauses then became much more specific:

“That we oppose any effort to establish a state religion of any nation, including the United States of America; that we refute the idea that God has commanded any state to establish any religion or any denomination; and we reject any government coercion or enforcement of religious belief, including blasphemy laws. ...

“That we oppose any effort to use the people and the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to establish Christianity as the state religion of the United States of America.”

During debates on the convention floor, that blunt line in Resolution 2 — opposing efforts to establish a Christian “state religion” — was challenged by the Rev. Justin Ramey of Crider Baptist Church in Eddyville, Kentucky.

“What does that mean?” he asked. “Should we remove ‘In God We Trust’ from our currency? Does it mean we should remove ‘under God’ from our Pledge? I’m grateful that our government at one time at least acknowledged Christianity as our foundation and encouraged it.”

The final Resolution 2 text failed to include two important words in today's fiery debates about religion in American life, according to Mark Wingfield of the progressive Baptist News Global website.

“The debate on this resolution,” he wrote, “mirrors the dividing line between those labeled as Christian nationalists — who believe God ordained America as a Christian nation — and those who seek religious liberty for all.”

Southern Baptists will continue defending religious liberty while recognizing that — in recent decades — U.S. courts have also been swamped with cases in which sexual revolution doctrines have clashed with the beliefs of traditional Christians, as well as Jews, Muslims and other worshippers, said Daniel Darling of the Land Center for Cultural Engagement at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

“There are Christians who are asking: ‘Is this system we have here in America still working? Is religious liberty still being protected?’ We can't ignore that issue,” said Darling, who was part of a circle of leaders from several seminaries who drafted Resolution 2.

One goal, he said, was affirming that “Baptists are not secularists. Baptists are not trying to keep believers locked out of public life. We believe in a robust engagement between people of faith and life in the public square.”

Nevertheless, the 2024 gathering offered evidence that some Southern Baptists are convinced that their core religious beliefs are being threatened.

Before the convention, the Rev. David Mitzenmacher of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, Florida, submitted a resolution that included: “We steadfastly oppose all legislation that would designate any part of the Holy Bible as hate speech, or impose any restriction on proclaiming God's Word.”

When his text didn't reach the convention floor, Mitzenmacher sought a Resolution 2 amendment adding some of his language expressing opposition to what he considers political efforts to “stifle the religious liberty of Southern Baptists.” His amendment failed.

When he asked about his own resolution, the “response I got back was that the resolution committee believed that the broader issue of religious liberty was better addressed in Resolution 2,” he noted in a Founders Ministries podcast about the convention. The final religious-liberty resolution was “clearly focused on condemning Christians trying to use the government to create a state religion of Christianity — whereas my resolution was talking about the state trying to infringe upon the religious liberty of Christians.”

While tensions are high heading into the 2024 presidential contest, Mitzenmacher said that he does not believe that there are serious threats to create a theocracy in America.

“Just taking a step back and being very pragmatic,” he said, “I’m not aware of a Christian prince on the ballot.”

COPYRIGHT 2024 ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION

Terry Mattingly is Senior Fellow on Communications and Culture at Saint Constantine College in Houston. He lives in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and writes Rational Sheep, a Substack newsletter on faith and mass media.