If there is a wall of separation between church and state, its first line of defense surely includes the Washington, D.C.—based Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs (BJCPA). For 50 years, the cooperative agency, representing nine Baptist bodies, has been promoting religious liberty.
In the recent past, however, the largest of those nine bodies, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), has openly questioned whether the Joint Committee truly represents Southern Baptists. The SBC and the BJCPA have landed on different sides of some liberty-related issues, most notably school prayer.
Southern Baptist coffers provide 75 percent of the Joint Committee’s funds. At the SBC’s annual meeting in June of this year, messengers (delegates) voted against a proposal to discontinue SBC funding for the Joint Committee and “establish an exclusive Southern Baptist presence in Washington for the purpose of more truly reflecting our views.” Delegates did, however, refer the matter to the SBC executive committee.
Edward J. Drake, a Dallas attorney and a member of the SBC executive committee, said, “There is a strong feeling that as large as the SBC is, it ought to have a separate voice in Washington, unimpeded by and unrelated to other Baptist organizations.” Drake observed that even though Southern Baptists supply three-quarters of the Joint Committee’s funding, only 15 of BJCPA’s 42 board members are Southern Baptists.
In September, the SBC executive committee appointed a seven-member panel to study the relationship between the SBC and the BJCPA. The panel is examining the constituency of the Joint Committee and the scope of its program assignments.
An Interview With James Dunn
What kinds of things does the Baptist Joint Committee do?
We spend more than 90 percent of our time serving the editors of the 40 or so Baptist papers in all our denominations, as well as state executives and their staffs. They request everything from a hotel room in Washington to help from a government agency to an interpretation of a bill before Congress. We function like a congressman’s office, serving our constituents.
What are your thoughts on the panel appointed by Southern Baptists to study the Joint Committee?
I’m certain we will get an open and fair hearing. We welcome the opportunity to put the facts about what we do on display.
Some Southern Baptists have called forSBCto halt its funding of the Joint Committee. What are their objections?
The most confusing charge is that we’re not actively prolife in the abortion battle. Our response is simple: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention has the assignment to deal with issues like abortion.
What about the disagreement on school prayer?
In 1982, the SBC passed a motion approving the prayer amendment. This motion was factually erroneous. It stated that a White House description of the prayer amendment would not require prayers to be written by the state. In fact, the White House said, “If groups of people would be allowed to pray, someone must have the authority to compose a prayer.” We tried to point out the factual error in the motion, but the convention went ahead and passed it anyway.
What I don’t understand is why so few have noticed our fight for the free exercise of religion in public schools. I have trouble understanding why people have not been as eager to recognize our work on equal access as they have our opposition to the prayer amendment.
Some have alleged you are partisan in handling your leadership role.
When I worked in Texas, it was no secret that I was a Democrat. Here in Washington, I have been extremely cautious about working with everyone. The closest friends the committee has, in terms of people we work with on Capitol Hill, are almost all Republicans. Some of the strongest champions for religious freedom and church-state separation are Republicans, and others are Democrats.
Very few of the calls we get for help could be considered even remotely political. One very sensitive matter we’re involved with now concerns an endangered missionary overseas. We have an excellent relationship with Attorney General Ed Meese’s office, which has the power to intervene. We work with people, including preachers, who are politically motivated, but that doesn’t mean the nature of each issue is political.
What about the criticisms of your style?
I’ve been in the social concerns and political action arenas for 20 years. One does not fight social and political battles that long without being an equal-opportunity offender: I’ve managed to offend nearly everyone.
But according to my understanding of the Christian’s involvement in the social order, our relationship to God depends not upon always coming up with the right answers. Particularly when we operate with limited information, we’re not required always to be right; we are required to act on our conscience, our insight, and our understanding of God’s will as best we know it at any moment.
What would happen to the Joint Committee if the SBC voted to stop funding it?
We have talked a lot about that possibility. We have a staff of ten, who have families with budgets and car payments to make. We are greatly encouraged and deeply gratified by the hundreds of Baptist individuals, churches, associations, and even state conventions who have expressed to us their commitment to continue working with other Baptists. Much of the Southern Baptist money that goes outside the local church is designated.
So the question is not whether we’ll be funded by Southern Baptists, but how much. We’re convinced enough Southern Baptists are committed to funding the committee that we could continue.
The Joint Committee recently celebrated its fiftieth anniversary. What do you see as you look ahead to the year 2000?
The next 14 years will bring an uneasy relationship between the institutional expressions of religion and the necessary institutions of government. We try to clarify the distinction between mixing politics and religion, which is inevitable, and merging church and state, which is inexcusable.
Some have deliberately attempted to collapse this distinction, and these people are not always on the radical Right. For example, anyone who says Pat Robertson doesn’t have a right to run for President because he’s a preacher is collapsing the distinction. The mixing of politics and religion has to happen. Merging church and state must never happen.
The Rise Of Tension
Baptists established a presence in Washington in 1946, largely in response to the initiatives of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt had appointed a personal representative to the Vatican with the rank of ambassador. He had also prodded Congress to provide federal assistance, including transportation and scholarships, to parochial schools. In addition to opposing both initiatives, Baptists became concerned about the closing of churches in Romania.
The tension in recent years between the SBC and the Joint Committee coincides with two developments: the increasing influence of conservatives within the SBC, and the unapologetic leadership of James Dunn, who has served as the Joint Committee’s executive director since 1981 (see interview).
Dunn, himself a Southern Baptist, led the Christian Life Commission of the Baptist General Convention in Texas before moving to Washington. He has been criticized both for the issues he has emphasized and for his combative style. The SBC’s Drake said Dunn is “perceived to be politically and theologically liberal in his thinking.”
Dunn has deliberately confined the work of the Joint Committee to matters of church-state separation. BJCPA championed “equal access” for high school students, helping successfully to shepherd legislation through Congress in 1984 that guarantees the right of students to hold Bible studies on school property. The Joint Committee has opposed tuition tax credits, the appointment of a U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, and organized school prayer.
The Joint Committee first challenged school prayer in the 1960s; it drew criticism from Southern Baptists for defending Supreme Court actions banning state-sponsored prayer in classrooms. In 1982, the SBC passed a resolution affirming a prayer amendment. The Joint Committee disapproved, again coming under fire largely because of Dunn’s admittedly “outspoken, vigorous opposition.”
The Baptists’ official press service notes that 1986 is the fourth consecutive year the SBC executive committee has heard criticism of the Washington group. In 1983, the committee encouraged BJCPA “to be sensitive to the concerns of Southern Baptists.” In 1984, critics called for the defunding of the Joint Committee; the SBC executive committee declined to act. Last year, the committee rejected a move to set up a separate Southern Baptist office in Washington.
Staying The Course
Dunn’s conflicts with those who view church-state matters differently seem to have made him more adamant about defending religious liberty. In an article released to Baptist newspapers, he wrote, “The theology that fuels our missionary fires and ignites our evangelistic warmth is predicated upon our belief that all persons come to God freely, voluntarily, one at a time or not at all.… In matters of faith, any coercion—any force, however subtle or small—is out of bounds. The business of blessing religion, conducting worship, supporting any church or all churches is not Caesar’s.”
Dunn said of the Joint Committee: “This agency has never been as needed as it is now. I think it’s very important that Baptists of all sorts have one meeting place where they get together and communicate with one another.”
By Beth Spring.
