A+ A-  

Chapter 6.
Conclusion: What Does All This Say to Us Today?

Both John Milton and Roger Williams undoubtedly made outstanding contributions to the causes of liberty. They especially influenced the development of religious liberty, freedom of conscience, religious toleration, and the separation of church and state. In addition, Milton made even more outstanding literary contributions to the excellence of English poetry, including the sonnet, epic poetry, and dramatic epic. His prose talents, significant as they were, are superseded by his poetic talents. Roger Williams, however, was not noted at all for his poetic abilities or even for great literary prose. His sentences sometimes ran on interminably, making it difficult to understand clearly what he is trying to present as his main topic or thesis. His method of reasoning or "proving" his ideas in many respects is not always satisfactory for the modern reader. We must remember, however, that for most of his 17th-century readers, simply the quotation of scripture was sufficient "proof" of his thesis.

Both John Milton and Roger Williams Had Their Shortcomings

Nevertheless, both John Milton and Roger Williams were unable to see the inconsistencies in some of their writings. They and many of their contemporaries were very close to each other on the general theory of freedom. The principal problem, however, is the application of their theory of freedom to the realities of life around them.

It appears that they could not comprehend what full economic freedom implied for the masses of people of their generation. Of what use is it to tell poor, unemployed, social outcasts that they have a right to freedom if their stomachs are empty, their children are not properly clothed, and they live in a hovel or shanty that cannot keep out the winter's cold? Thousands of homeless families were living in terrible conditions in the English forests in the 17th century because they had no "master" to support them and no work skills or income. They literally had to live off the forest land. They had no prospect, moreover, of ever owning an acre of land.

It is not that no one else in England had any enlightened concern for poor people. There were many who recognized this problem and offered solutions, but they were rejected by the wealthy, the gentry, the merchants, and the religious leaders. Gerrard Winstanley, a contemporary of Milton, said "Everyone talks of freedom, but there are few that act for freedom." He added, "the actors for freedom are oppressed by the talkers and verbal professors of freedom." He asked, "If the common people have no more freedom in England but only to live among their elder brothers [landlords] and work for them for hire, what freedom then have they in England more than we can have in Turkey [a Moslem country] or France [a Catholic country]?" Winstanley constantly proclaimed that "A man had better have no body than to have no food for it" (A Letter to the Lord Fairfax and His Council of War, 1649). Yet one will find no such sentiment in the works of John Milton, the English Patrician, or of Roger Willaims the Colonial Reformer. This may be true because both knew that to move too far too fast toward full democracy for all would arouse fears of anarchy. Also, it would probably defeat any smaller gains they might make under the prevailing circumstances of their time.

If anyone understood the value of education, John Milton did. But his 1644 pamphlet on education (Hughes ed., 630-639) concerned ideas for the education of young patrician boys like himself. He knew that people needed to be properly educated to be prepared to assume the responsibilities of freedom. Milton appeared unable, however, to conceive of a universal public education program such as that developed by Horace Mann in the mid-19th century in the United States. Neither did Roger Williams appreciate the need for educating all children so they would grow up to understand how a democracy works and to participate in it intelligently. There were certain liberal minds in their day who knew quite well that the uneducated masses were lacking in what they called "virtue." However, they offered nothing like a universal public program of education that would provide the base of informed, thinking citizens in a true democracy. This idea was simply dismissed by the intelligentsia, the gentry, the patricians, and the royal classes. Rather than educate the masses of people, the privileged leaders and high ranking citizens preferred to leave them out of any modified democratic process. Democracy, in other words, was only for the higher social classes and the property holders.

Milton and Roger Williams appeared to recognize these facts in theory, and they must have been uncomfortable with being unable to carry out in reality the full scope of the freedoms that they advocated. They must have realized that educating all the children of the country would be an enormous undertaking that would take a great deal of wealth and effort. They saw that their society, the people of their generation, were not ready to assume such a tremendous responsibility of full public education for everyone. So, even if it occurred to them as a theoretical idea, they never wrote or spoke publicly about it. However, perhaps it is best that we not be too critical of them for being unable to see clearly what it took progressive societies and nations many more generations to see.

Mankind Has Made Tremendous Progress in the Last 400 Years

Many things have happened in the last four centuries that show the enormous progress mankind has made in expanding personal and political freedoms worldwide:

On the other hand, one could also list ways in which we still have our shortcomings in matters relating to freedom:

Perhaps there is something to the old Pilgrim view of what is known as "progressive revelation." This is the doctrine that no generation has all the light on any given subject, but that further enlightenment comes progressively to future generations. That was true in biblical days and during the Middle Ages. It was true in the Puritan enlightenment about liberty in the 17th century. It is still true today. The old Puritans were limited by their times, culture, educational and religious backgrounds, and historical and social influences. These things made it impossible for them to see fully and clearly all the way down the road ahead of them.

A recent speaker pointed out that when we drive a car down the highway toward a destination fifty miles away, we can never turn our headlights on and see all the way to our journey's end. We can see only so many yards ahead, and when we drive that far we find that we can see a bit further ahead. If we keep on doing that, we can finally arrive at our destination, even in the darkness of night. Perhaps that is what the early Pilgrims meant when they said, "God has more light that He wants to give." He does not give it all at once, however, to any one person or generation. Milton's great concern was that to deny the rights of speech, writing, and publishing would result in the "discouragement of learning and the stop of truth …" He contended that this would hinder "the discovery that might be yet further made both in religious and civil wisdom" (Aeropagitica, Hughes ed., 720).

Puritans, Independents, liberal thinkers, and the "radicals" had a certain amount of enlightenment concerning liberty in the 17th century. However, they did not have it all, and what they did have, they did not have completely right. Nevertheless, they deserve much credit for what they did understand and apply as far as they could go then.

John Milton wrote fearlessly and spoke out courageously about the great danger of a religion-based political party. In his day the Anglican Church and later the Presbyterians had what amounted to a religion-based political party. They lobbied for certain principles, practices, and laws to be incorporated in the political platforms, policies, and legislation of their generation. Milton would have no part of such church and state entanglement. For this he was, as he said, "Church-Outed." He expressed outrage against those who would try to "silence us from reading, except what they please." He was especially angry with the prelates who would restrict the freedom of writing and publishing (Areopagitica, Hughes ed., 738-39).

There is still great danger in a religion-based political party. This should be quite evident in any enlightened democracy. Certain other nations where a dominant religion permeates every aspect of the culture, social life, and politics of the country have difficulty accepting this principle. Most Americans contend, however, that even for such countries a religion-based political party and government, uniting church and state, is ultimately bad for both the nation and the people. A better approach would be to begin immediately an educational process to bring people into the 21st century so they can understand and enjoy the more democratic government, life, society, and culture that the rest of the world is moving toward. This will take time. How long, nobody knows. We think, however, they should begin right away.

Liberty in the USA Today: Is the Religious Right Wrong?

To see what happens in modern times when politics and the state are united, look at Iran, Ireland, Bosnia, Serbia, and Afghanistan. In the United States, look at the Christian Coalition and other similar religious movements that teach a "benign" union of church and state or union of Christians and Political Parties.

The Christian Coalition

Today a growing segment of the American public is unhappy with the Christian Coalition's influence in one of the two major political parties of our time. The Christian Coalition is active in the development of strategy, organization, policy, platform, and legislative agenda of that party in ways that affect the lives and well-being of all Americans. This affects the nature of government and future of the country.

The Christian Coalition is an extremely conservative and politically powerful advocacy group that is closely tied to one large political party. The Coalition leaders distribute millions of "voters guides" and "scorecards" for national, statewide, and local political races. These guides and scorecards "have been criticized for transparently endorsing particular candidates or points of view" according to The Christian Century (Oct. 16 1996, 958 [vol. 113 no. 29]). The Coalition continues such political activities despite the fact that the Internal Revenue Service has stated that nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations, including churches, cannot legally participate in or intervene, either "directly or indirectly, in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to any candidate for public office."

The Federal Election Commission, with the unanimous bipartisan support of its two Democrat and two Republican commissioners, has initiated a lawsuit against the Christian Coalition for illegal politicking on behalf of Republicans through three election cycles (Church & State October 1996, 6 [vol. 49 no. 9, 198]). In the Coalition's "Road to Victory" Conference, held September 14, 1996, in Washington, D.C., the 4,000 attendees cheered when their founder, Pat Robertson, attacked the Supreme Court decisions upholding church-state separation. They applauded loudly when he added: "We considered ourselves in 1956 to be a Christian nation." Speaker after speaker suggested in belligerent terms little use for church-state separation, public liberties, or public schools. They made it clear that they favored every effort to move the U.S.A. toward a fundamentalist theocracy. Echoing precisely such a sentiment, Representative Tom DeLay (R-Texas) urged the crowd to "take America back and deliver it to the Lord" (p. 197). No particular American group can deliver America to the Lord. Only God's Holy Spirit could accomplish such a miracle—by a powerful spiritual renewal and by His own might, not by any human organization.

The Danger in Religion-based Censorship Policies

Another danger posed in extremist Religious Right movements like the Christian Coalition is the danger of religion-based censorship policies. A couple of decades ago concerted efforts were made by almost 200 powerful groups in the United States determined to censor library books and curriculum texts of the public schools. These groups objected to certain words that they considered obscene, or to educational ideas or methods considered too progressive, or to certain novels or fiction considered "anti-God."

In the words of Edward B. Jenkinson, author of Censors in the Classroom, they opposed books "about life as young people experienced it in language that teenagers frequently used." Many parents wanted only "noncontroversial novels written in genteel language." They objected to sex education and drug education courses for their sons and daughters. They were not impressed by educators' talk about making schools "exciting places that prepared students for the real world." New ideas like "values clarification" threatened them. They were disturbed by the removal of officially-sanctioned prayers from classrooms, since they thought this meant the removal of God from the schools.

Such parents feared that teachers were teaching students to question the values of their parents and their churches. They lost sight of the basic reasons for having a universal system of public education in a pluralistic society. They called for the "removal from the public schools of those books, teaching materials, and courses they considered to be anti-God, anti-parent, anti-country, or immoral" (xv). Concerned parents failed to appreciate how difficult it is to agree on what is obscenity or immorality in printed material. At what age are most students old enough and mature enough to read, judge, and handle some books with some questionable four-letter words in them?

Secular Humanism

One great enemy of religion, as imagined by groups trying to censor public school library books and curriculum texts, is what they have labeled "Secular Humanism." They charge that the public school educational philosophy is based on this secular humanism which they claim is a religion, or the equivalent of religion. Of course, they view it as opposing their traditional Judeo-Christian faith and way of life. The dictionary definition of "secular" is: "1. pertaining to worldly things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; 2. not pertaining to religion, or 3. concerned with non-religious subjects." Humanism means: "1. any system or way of thought concerned with the interests and ideals of people; 2. the study of the humanities."

Most conservative Evangelical Christians usually prefix these two words "secular humanism" with an adjective like "evil" or "godless." This gives them a tangible and personalized opponent with an evil nature that they can use as a straw man in their self-righteous cause. They accept as axioms that the public school textbooks, and many library books, along with many educational programs and methods used in public school education, are all based squarely on this "evil secular humanism." The Barbara M. Morris Report (June 1974, 6) provides a typical example of this rhetoric:

In light of the ban on prayer in public schools, it is incredible that the principles of Godless Secular Humanism have become the basis of much of public education. To committed Christians and those who uphold our Judeo-Christian ethic, it is an intolerable tragedy and the ultimate hoax of modern times" (quoted in Jenkinson 96-97).

Robert Boston, in Why the Religious Riqht is Wronq About Separation of Church and State says that the Religious Right defines secular humanism as "anything they don't like that goes on in the public schools."

War Declared on the Public Schools

As we approach the turn of the century we still hear of this continuing battle favoring the censorship of books and other printed and electronic media based on religious doctrine. Such misguided efforts can keep quality instructional material or good literature from getting into the hands and minds of our youth and adults as well. This is bad enough, but recently this fanatical war has taken an even worse turn. Now the target is not just the censorship of books, but the destruction of an entire educational system—that is, the public school system. Many believe this is one motivation behind the popular cry for the elimination of the Federal Department of Education. Before we rush precipitously into such a risky course of action, we would do well to ponder John Milton's definition of education or of the educational process: "I call therefore a complete and generous education that which fits a man to perform justly, skillfully, and magnanimously all the offices, both private and public, of peace and war" (Of Education, Hughes ed., 632). Obviously, many citizens have not thought through the question, "What is the purpose of a public educational system?" This question must be thoughtfully considered and answered before the responsible federal department is abolished.

Senator Dan Coats (R-Illinois) and Representative John Kasich (R-Ohio) introduced legislation in Congress in the summer of 1996 that would "provide tax funds, in the form of vouchers, for parents to send children to private schools, including schools operated by churches and other religious organizations" (Report from the Capital, September 3, 1996 [vol. 51, no 17]). Mary Knox, the author of this article in the Baptist Joint Committee's Report from the Capital, says that special deals for education (such as vouchers) are bad ideas because, among other reasons, "they undermine public education—arguably the most important natural resource for the nation's future—by enabling the middle class to abandon those schools, creating an educational ghetto."

We know by the comments and speeches from leaders and consultants of the Christian Coalition that this is exactly what they hope for—that the public educational system will die. At the September 1996 "Road to Victory" conference in Washington, D.C., Roxanne Premont, of the North Carolina Education Reform Association, told the attendees that coalition activists must move incrementally, not all at once, toward a voucher system in each state. She added,

"The trick is not to go to vouchers directly. Use an intermediate step that will create a large supply of independent schools, called charter schools. Once vouchers are unleashed, these schools can easily be converted to private schools. We must eliminate public education as it is structured today and reinvent it in a new form" (Church and State, October 1996:7, vol. 49 no 9: 199).

We learn in the same article that another panelist at the Christian Coalition conference, Patrick Reilly, warned activists to remain united and "break the teachers' unions, and when we get control of the schools we can do what we want with them." Their intent could not be more clear. They seek vouchers, but this is not revealed in the first step. The intermediate goal is the charter school. The real goal is to legalize vouchers and eliminate the public school system as we know it as a vehicle for educating those who will soon be participating in a democratic form of government. This public school system is the only way to produce citizens who can think for themselves and make sound judgments based on the full and free flow of information.

This effort to destroy the public school system, and to make public tax funds available to support private and religious schools, using vouchers, charter schools, or some similar scheme, is one objective of both the Christian Coalition and the Republican Party. GOP loyalists must ask if this is really what is best for the party and the country. If the tide is to be turned back toward a moderate, centrist, mainstream position, the action must be quick and decisive. Otherwise the Religious Right extremists will take over the national Republican party as they have already practically taken over several state party organizations. Political writer Lee Brandy of Columbia, S.C., has recently written that "Things have reached the point now that it's difficult to tell [in South Carolina] where the coalition ends and the GOP begins." This is a trend that the Christian Coalition would like to see continue all over the nation. Almost half of those identified with the Religious Right, according to a recent Gallop poll, support a constitutional amendment declaring the United States a "Christian nation" (Church and State Sep. 1996: 9).

Can There Be A Christian Nation?

Of course this idea of declaring the United States "a Christian nation" is preposterous. A nation cannot be Christian. Only people can be Christians. According to Evangelical beliefs, individuals become Christians by deciding voluntarily to turn from their sins and accept Jesus Christ by faith as their personal Savior. This idea of personal redemption is directly opposed to the concept of a Christian nation. In spite of Ralph Reed's boast about having more religious conservatives on the floor of the 1996 Republican Convention than any convention of either party in modern American history, America is not becoming "a Christian nation." If this idea of a "Christian Nation" should prevail, nothing could prevent another religion, when it becomes a majority, from demanding that the United States should become a "Moslem nation," a "Buddhist Nation," a "Mormon nation" or an "atheist nation." There are already more Moslems in the United States than there are Presbyterians. If current demographic trends continue, it is only a matter of time before white Baptists in states like Texas become a minority religious group.

Many Ways to Kill Books

John Milton understood quite well that there are many ways to kill books. He wrote specifically about killing books, and therefore ideas, by the power of government to refuse permission to print or publish. He also mentioned killing books by banning or burning them, or refusing to allow their importation from other countries, or prohibiting the general reading of books considered by some to be harmful to religion or morals. Milton was against all these methods of killing books.

It is hard to say for certain what John Milton or Roger Williams would have said about a religion-based political party such as the Christian Coalition. Similarly, we cannot be sure what their position would be in today's environment of the effort to drive science out of the schools and force religious "creationism" into the curriculum. We can, however, use our imagination and at least have some fun guessing how we think it might have been.

Avenues for the "killing" of books are opened wide by the power of religion-dominated political parties in authority in various echelons of government, from local school boards to the federal level. It difficult to imagine any circumstances where John Milton could have agreed with any of the positions of the Christian Coalition as it exists today. Milton would resist this evangelical coalition as he resisted the Anglican prelates and the Presbyterian clergy of the 17th century. If he had the evidence that we have today, Milton would not support the so-called "creation science" of modern Religious Right extremists. He would probably be thrilled with our American system of free universal compulsory public school education. He would reject the undue restraints of narrow censorship, and he would probably fight the domination of a single religious party over a society where everybody is supposed to have a fair chance. So, too, would Roger Williams and other contemporaries who believed in liberty.

The Work of Liberty is Never Done

Gains in liberty usually come slowly rather than suddenly in great revolutionary movements, and these gains can have reversals along the way. Eternal vigilance is indeed the price of freedom.

Many freedoms dreamed of and fought for in the English Civil War were lost in the Restoration in 1660. Some of the same goals, however, were eventually realized in the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 and in the Act of Toleration passed then. Like the supporters of a representative parliament in England during the Civil War of 1638-1660, the American colonists a hundred years later felt justified in rising up against a tyrant who denied them their civil and religious rights. With the adoption of the Bill of Rights they insured that their rights and freedoms were specifically included in the Constitution of the United States of America. The First Amendment (1791) guarantees the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the press, peaceful assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

To understand John Milton's thought on liberty, as this book has attempted to illustrate, is to better understand the American experiment in individual freedom and in democratic government. Such an understanding helps all citizens to appreciate their heritage and to be aware of threats to our liberty from all directions.

The work of liberty is never really finished. We still have more work to do. We must allow our courts to do their work. Legislative bodies, too, must do their work. Academic freedom must be protected. We must recognize the students' right to know, read, and learn. Everyone must also recognize the teachers' right to teach. Some would limit the right of secondary school teachers to academic freedom, while granting it to university professors. Judge Richard P. Matsch's opinion in the Bob Cary case (Aurora, Colorado, 1977) supported the right of even secondary school teachers to academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas (Jenkinson 144-45). In that ruling Judge Matsch said, "It would be inappropriate to conclude that academic freedom is required only in the colleges and universities." Other lower federal U.S. courts and judges have recognized the need for academic freedom in high schools.

It is reasonable to provide more supervision for secondary school teachers, especially for newer, inexperienced teachers and those not fully or adequately trained, than for tenured university professors. Also, teachers should stay within their assigned subject matter and use acceptable teaching methods and text books generally approved by their supervisors and employers. Judging from what he wrote in his pamphlet Of Education, we can safely assume that John Milton would have strongly contended for academic freedom in our modern environment.

In the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) case, the Court stated: "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the school house gate." Jenkinson has provided many examples of court cases and controversial episodes across the country showing that many courts have supported the "right of students to receive information that they and their teachers desire them to have" (152). This includes access to necessary and useful books in the library. As Judge Joseph Tauro (U.S. District Court, Massachusetts, 1976) has said, the library is "a mighty resource in the marketplace of ideas" and "an effective antidote to the poison of mindless orthodoxy" (154-155). Milton would have applauded such clear support of liberty, and so should all Americans who cherish the Constitution.

A single complaint from one angry parent should not be adequate grounds for a school administrator, principal, or librarian to remove a book from the library or classroom. If that book has been reviewed by a qualified committee following established procedures for ordering books and handling complaints, removing the said books should be quite rare. On the other hand, schools must communicate effectively with parents and constituents regarding their policies and procedures for dealing with such matters as curriculum texts and library books. As Jenkinson wrote: "The schools need to do a far better job of explaining what they teach, why they have chosen specific teaching materials, and how those materials meet the objectives of the courses" (161).

Sincere parents who ask for more information should never be treated in a condescending way, but overzealous religious groups who thrive on belligerent controversy should be exposed to the public for what they are. Fair publicity would cause some of them to run for cover. They usually do not want their flimsy ideas exposed to public scrutiny. It would be good to give parents from the Parent Teachers Association more of a representative voice in the education of their children. They could serve on curriculum and library committees, and on some decision-making committees at the local school level. Such parents, however, will need to study material to acquaint themselves with school problems. Also, they must be objective and open-minded as they contribute at every level to the public education task.

Jenkinson concludes his study as follows:

Freedom of speech, freedom to read, the right to know, and the right to teach are among the first targets of totalitarian societies. Those freedoms have been severely challenged in the United States—particularly in the public schools. Concerned citizens must form groups to preserve those freedoms for the children of America (163).

We must allow our best citizens, with the keenest minds, and the highest ethical standards, to do their work of thoughtful study, intelligent analysis, sound reasoning, and wise leadership. Whatever is done in our generation, it can doubtless be improved on by the next generation. Part of this process is to inform and educate all our citizens about the nature of freedom and its development and place in our society. Everyone needs to be vigilant and to enhance the understanding and protection of liberty.

One problem that American society faces in our day is that the idea of "liberty" has been associated with the word "liberal" in a way that prejudices many people against it. There is nothing ugly about the word liberal when properly associated with words such as "democracy." Since its founding the United States has been an example of a liberal democracy, in the sense of a democracy based on the ideas of liberty and individual rights. C. Wilson Gaddy, in his recent book Faith and Politics, writes that "Liberty generally constitutes the centerpiece around which citizens build their political convictions within a democracy." He says that it is problematical whether the Bill of Rights and the first ten amendments to the Constitution could be adopted in today's environment. Then he adds, "Freedom has become a precarious priority within our democracy" (69). Precarious it is, but it is also very precious and worth preserving.

Many Americans voice opinions that sound much like many of Milton's contemporaries, reflecting a fear that unrestricted liberty would lead to anarchy and the corruption of morals. Milton's thought on this is: "if it come to prohibiting, there is not aught more likely to be prohibited than truth itself" (Areopagitica, Hughes ed., 748).

Full freedom includes freedom to believe things that are contrary to truth. Where this is accepted, anyone who chooses to do so is free to believe in lies, superstitions, propaganda, and unscientific claims. There is then an awful price to be paid. A few years ago I attended a meeting of my denominational convention and was astounded at the extremist statements of many speakers and the reaction of the crowds. One speaker thought he was heroically defending the authority of the Bible as he loudly proclaimed that "if the Bible says that pickles have souls, then all of our seminary professors are obligated to teach that pickles have souls." I was shocked at such a statement, but I was even more astounded by the deafening applause and foot-stomping from the wildly cheering crowd.

If the Bible seems to say that error is truth, then something is wrong with our interpretation of the Bible, not with the Bible itself. For centuries millions of Christians mistakenly believed that because some passages in the Bible seemed to imply that the sun, moon, and stars revolved around the earth, all seminary professors, theologians, pastors and preachers were obligated to teach and preach that error as doctrine. Had the truth not been admitted to open consideration by intelligent people, the church would still be in the Dark Ages.

The church has learned that freedom means the freedom to keep an open mind, liberty to change, freedom to use our God-given faculties of thinking and reasoning. John Milton pioneered the way to freedom in thinking, believing, and practicing our beliefs according to a free conscience. If such a new understanding of liberty comes to fruition throughout "this pendant world" in the next century, it can banish the "visible darkness" of willful ignorance, open the "eyelids of the morning," and introduce the dawn of a new day for all mankind.

Notes

  1. Hamilton, L. D. ed., The Selected Writinqs of Gerrard Winstanley (Cresset Press), 122-23. Ouoted by Hill Christopher, and Dell, Edmund, ed., The Good Old Cause: The Enqlish Revolution of 1640-1660 Its Causes, Course and Consequences, 2nd edn (London: Frank Cass & Co, 1969), 388.
  2. Jenkinson, Edward B., Censors in the Classroom: The Mind Benders (Carbondale, II: Southern Illinois University Press, 1979), xii, LB 3047 J46.
  3. Boston, Robert, Why the Reliqious Riqht is Wronq about the Separation of Church and State (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1993), 120.
  4. Knox, Mary, "Vouchers: America's mess of beans," Report from the Capital, September 3, 1996, vol 51, no 17. Report from the Capital is published by the Baptist Joint Committee, Washington D.C. Mary Knox is associate editor of The Baptist Standard, weekly newsmagazine of the Baptist General Convention of Texas.
  5. Gaddy, C. Welton, Faith and Politics: What's a Christian to Do? (Macon, GA: Peake Road, 1996), 68.