Jailed for Your Ideas: R.B.C. Howell, Pastor of FBC Nashville, and His Imprisonment by the United States Government

R.B.C. Howell (1801-1868)

Patrick Henry once said, "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." Our Founding Fathers understood that a free country has a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Countries without freedom have governments over and separate from the people. This is why Thomas Jefferson once wrote "What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?"

Recently, the government of the United States has admitted targeting certain political groups for IRS audits. Franklin Graham has written a poignant letter to President Obama asking why the Billy Graham Association was targeted. It seems that the United States government is acting like a bully, infringing on personal freedoms, demanding ideological conformity, micro-managing personal affairs, burdening future generations with debt by borrowing more than half it spends, and acting as if the government is the final authority on all matters, including those moral and spiritual.

There are number of people who have been expressing ideological differences with the present administration of the United States government, and it is now public that the government targeted some of those dissenters. Is there a precedence in America for anyone being imprisoned by Federal government for simply expressing ideological convictions different than the government's?

Of course there is.

Robert Boyte Crawford "R.B.C." Howell (1801-1868) was the Pastor of First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennessee, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention from 1851 through 1858 (an unprecedented seven years), and according to  Cathcart's Baptist Encyclopaedia  "one of the ablest and most learned men in the South." In 1862 the Federal government declared Nashville part of a military territory and installed Andrew Johnson as territorial governor. Governor Johnson demanded every Nashville citizen, particularly prominent ones like  Dr. RBC Howell,  swear an oath of allegiance to the United States government. The oath went like this:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and government of the United States against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any laws, ordinance, resolution or convention to the contrary notwithstanding; and further, that I do this with a full determination, pledge and purpose without any mental reservation or evasion whatsoever; and, further, that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties which may be required of me by law. So help me God."

Pastor R.B.C. Howell refused to take the oath. The Federal government disbanded his church and imprisoned Dr. Howell for several months. My great-great grandfather (F.T.D. Cherry) was imprisoned in Nashville with Howell for a few days before F.T.D. was transferred to Rock Island. Dr. Howell used the time he spent in jail to handwrite the history of First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennessee. Last week Rachelle and I were in Nashville for couple of days, and while she was at Vanderbilt, I went to the Tennessee State Archives to study the handwritten history of FBC Nashville. To my surprise, I came across a letter Dr. Howell wrote to Governor Andrew Johnson explaining the reasons why he would not take the oath of allegiance to the federal government, a letter that preceded his imprisonment. I have since discovered that Howell's letter has never been published via the Internet.

I am posting R.B.C. Howell's letter as an example of cogent, Christian thinking during times when people may be unable to swear their allegiance to a government.  Dr. Howell died shortly after being released from prison and is buried in historic Mt. Olivet Cemetery in Nashville. The Nashville Banner described the funeral procession of the venerable pastor as "the longest this city has ever witnessed." I would encourage you to read the following letter slowly and contemplate the principles stated, particularly those in numbers 3, 4, 6, and 7 (a PDF of the letter can be found here).

__________________________________________


Governor Johnson - Sir:

Summoned  before you I am requested to take the following oath:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and government of the United States against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any laws, ordinance, resolution or convention to the contrary notwithstanding; and further, that I do this with a full determination, pledge and purpose without any mental reservation or evasion whatsoever; and, further, that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties which may be required of me by law. So help me God." 

I have ever scrupulously conformed myself to the government under which I have lived. I do this as a religious duty. I have never knowingly violated any law of the Federal Government, of the state government, nor of the military government now established. I am informed that no violation of the law is charged against me. My purpose is to pursue the same course hereafter. I intend not to resist "powers that be," but to comply with their requisition as far as they do not come in conflict with my duty to God. Respectfully I feel myself obliged to say that I cannot do it (take the oath) for several reasons, some of which I beg permission very briefly to state.

First - I cannot take this oath, because there are some parts of it which I do not understand. When I am requested to swear that I will "bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the Constitution and government of the United States, any law, ordinance, resolution or convention to the contrary notwithstanding", I am at a loss as to the meaning. What law, ordinance, resolution or convention is referred to, I know not. I cannot tell whether reference is had to some existing law, ordinance, resolution or convention which I am likely to suppose obligatory upon me, or to something of the kind which may hereafter be inaugurated. Nor do I know who is to be the judge, I myself, or someone else, whether such laws, ordinances, resolutions or convention, if there be any such, are or are not in conflict with the Constitution and government of the United States.

And further, when I am called upon to swear "that I will well and faithfully perform all duties which may be required of me by law," I perceive no conditions nor limitations. What laws may be adopted by the United States and by the State of Tennessee, who knows? They may be laws in conflict with my duty to God; they may be laws in collision with the Constitution; they may be laws in antagonism with other laws claiming my obedience. Such compliance with them is impossible, yet it is demanded of me to swear that "I will well and faithfully perform all duties required of me by law" without condition and without limitations.

An oath so vague, indefinite and impracticable respectfully I must decline to take.

Second- I cannot take this oath because once having sworn to support the Constitution of the United States, and having up to this hour faithfully complied with the obligation, and receiving now no office nor privilege of any kind under the government of the United States nor of the State of Tennessee there is nothing known to me in the Federal Constitution, nor in the constitution of this state, nor in the laws made in the pursuance of either which requires me to repeat that oath. The demand that I shall do so under the circumstances in which I am placed implies that I am offender against the Constitution or the laws, or both. That implication I respectfully decline to countenance by taking the oath.

Third - I cannot take this oath because, since the present government of the United States, and the Constitution of the United States, are in some respects at least confessedly in antagonism, to "support, protect and defend" both is clearly impossible.

To support, protect and defend the one is necessarily to oppose and resist the other. To keep this oath, therefore (I speak for myself only) is impracticable. Perjury is inevitable. From taking it, therefore, I must be excusable.

Fourth - I cannot take this oath because it binds me to support and protect and defend the "government of the United States," by which doubtless is meant the government of the United States as at present administered. Already the administration has done many things which I cannot support and defend, and which I cannot conscientiously swear that I will support and defend: what it may do hereafter, and what its successors may do, I cannot tell. This oath makes me swear without conditions and without limitations "that I will support, protect and defend the government of the United States."

To do this would be to "resign my right of thought" and to renounce my liberty as a free citizen of my country.

Fifth - Nor can I take this oath as a measure of expediency. By expediency I refer to the fact that since an oath taken under duress is not binding then on those who resort to save their families from suffering and themselves from punishment. I have a large, helpless and dependent family; I am myself not indifferent to the ease and comforts of life, but I cannot avail myself of this plea for several reasons, one only which need be mentioned. This oath makes me swear that I will take upon me these obligations "without any mental reservations or evasions whatever:" that is as I understand it, that I do not avail myself of this expedient, but take the obligation heartily and in good faith. In me, who cannot disregard its moral binding force, this would be perjury.

Sixth - I cannot take this oath because it would be a violation of my duty to God. My duty to God requires that I shall take no oath the entire import of which I do not fully understand, that I shall not swear unless there be good and sufficient reason for it, that I swear to do contradictory things, that I shall not do impracticable things, and that if I do swear that I shall not swear falsely, but shall truly and fully perform my oath. To take this oath would therefore be to violate my duty to God.

Seventh - Without an oath I shall in future, as I have heretofore, perform as a religious duty every just obligation to the "powers that be," but this oath I cannot take. I cannot take it as a measure of expediency; I cannot take it at all. I most respectfully decline it and take the consequences.

R.B.C. Howell
January 28, 1862

It Is Time to Get New Friends When...

On Tuesday mornings I meet with a group of men for fellowship and discipleship. Our small group, which has met for twenty-one years, alternates between theological books studies and chapter by chapter inductive Bible studies. Right now we are going through Jeff VanVonderen's book Tired of Trying to Measure Up. Jeff has a been a friend for many years. He is the author of several books and the professional interventionist on the Emmy winning show Intervention.

In this morning's study from the book, on page 181, we read a quote that struck us as pretty profound. Jeff wrote:"If the relationship you have in God's name don't say about you what God says about you, I recommend that you seek new ones."

Two things are needed to understand that statement: (1). A knowledge of what God says about you, and (2). A willingness to let go of Christian friends that don't say the same thing about you that God says.

Friends who shame you, friends who harbor grudges against, friends who expect or demand certain performance from you, friends who are disappointed in you as a person, friends who won't forgive you, friends who don't/won't/can't give you freedom, friends who get angry with you and close off emotionally from you, and friends who expect/need certain things from you are saying, "I have placed you on a platform of performance expectations, and if you don't meet my expectations,  I want nothing to do with you."

God does not treat you in this manner. If you have Christian friends who relate to you like this, then it is time to get new ones.

Sharia Law Should Be Resisted in the 21st Century Like Nazism Was Resisted in the 20th Century

Oklahoma is one of a handful of states who has been actively engaged in the political arena in opposing any possible foothold of Sharia Law within our borders. Our state has undergone a heavy dose of criticism for what is perceived by elitists as a bigoted and backward political maneuvering.

Yesterday the Australian news agency's Channel 7 broadcast a two-part special entitled ABANDONED. It is the gut-wrenching story of an Australian woman named Alicia Gaili who was brutally raped and beaten in Dubai by three men. According to Yahoo News: "Alone and frightened, Alicia took herself to hospital. What she didn’t know is that under the UAE’s strict sharia laws, if the perpetrator does not confess, a rape cannot be convicted without four adult Muslim male witnesses. Alicia was charged with having illicit sex outside marriage, and thrown in a filthy jail cell for eight months."

Does Oklahoma look so backwards now? In this age of political correctness, it is incumbent upon Americans who know their history and the Judeo-Christian heritage of United States law to not just say "no" to Sharia Law, but to oppose it like the greatest generation of Americans past opposed Nazism and Bolshevism.  Neville Chamberlain tried to make peace with Adolph Hitler, believing Hitler had no desire for expansion of the Aryan ideals and principles throughout Europe. He was wrong, and it cost the lives of millions of people.

Winston Churchill rightly understood that any government which relies on terrorism to maintain its regime is built on an ideology that must be opposed by civilized people. Churchill said about Bolshevism: "I yield to no one in my detestation of Bolshevism, and of the revolutionary violence which precedes it. ... But my hatred of Bolshevism and Bolsheviks is not founded on their silly system of economics, or their absurd doctrine of an impossible equality. It arises from the bloody and devastating terrorism which they practice in every land into which they have broken, and by which alone their criminal regime can be maintained. ... Governments who have seized upon power by violence and by usurpation have often resorted to terrorism in their desperate efforts to keep what they have stolen, but the august and venerable structure of the British Empire ... does not need such aid. Such ideas are absolutely foreign to the British way of doing things."

It's time those who love freedom to realize that Sharia Law is as dangerous to our modern day as Nazism and Bolshevism was a century ago.

Life Is Not Always Fair: Dr. Samuel Mudd

Life is not always fair.

Dr. Samuel Mudd was awakened by knocking on his Maryland farmhouse front door around 4:00 a.m. Saturday, April 15, 1865. Feeling a little ill, Dr. Mudd asked his wife Sarah if she would get up and go see who it was. Sarah told her husband she was frightened because of the hour and the persistent knocking, so Dr. Mudd hauled himself out of bed, cinched his nightgown and went to greet his unexpected guest. Dr. Mudd found two men on his front porch, one injured, supported by a friend. The uninjured man did all the speaking and said that his injured friend, whom he called Tyson, had broken his leg when his horse had stumbled and fallen. "Could you set my friend's leg?"

Dr. Mudd looked closely at the injured man. He had a full set of whiskers, and his neck and lower jaw were covered by a shawl. Dr. Mudd could hear moaning. Dr. Mudd told the two men to come into the house. The Dr. used a living room couch to set the broken tibia bone. Then, after payment of $25.00, Dr. Mudd told the men they could use the spare bedroom upstairs and get a few hours of rest before they continued their journey. After thanking Dr. Mudd for his services, the friend helped Tyson upstairs and put him to bed. Dr. Mudd saw the men again late in the afternoon of the next day, when he gave them directions on how to navigate a local swamp as they continued their journey. It was only after the men were gone and Dr. Mudd heard that the President of the United States had been assassinated that Dr. Mudd became suspicious. He voluntarily reported to the Union soldiers in Bryantown that he had opened his home to two strangers, one of whom needed medical attention.

Two days later detectives from the War Department came to Dr. Mudd's home to interview him. Dr. Mudd and his wife told them everything they knew. The detectives left. Three days later, the detectives came back and asked Dr. Mudd if he would come with them to Bryantown to meet with their superior. They assured Sarah Mudd that her husband would quickly return. When Dr. Mudd walked out the door that Friday morning, April 21, 1865 his wife could not have known that she would not see her husband again for four years. He was arrested, imprisoned, tried and convicted for conspiracy to murder Abraham Lincoln. His crime? He treated the broken leg of John Wilkes Booth, the man identified to him as "Tyson." Dr. Mudd came within one vote of a military tribunal of being hung, but instead he was sentenced to life in prison at a place called Fort Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas, 70 miles west of Key West.

Rachelle and I were at the Dry Tortugas this past Thursday. After researching Dr. Mudd's life for

years, there was an eerie feeling standing in the very place where Dr. Mudd was imprisoned from 1865 to 1869.  When he arrived at the prison, Dr. Mudd's four children were between the ages of six months and seven years. Dr. Mudd missed his family terribly. It is hard to imagine all that he endured. He had to wear a ball and chain around his ankle (ordered by the War Department). He was tasked with hard labor, sweeping the floor of Fort Jefferson's bastion of all sand and dirt every day. His jail cell was infested by mosquitos and bed bugs, and it was plagued with perpetual dampness. Two months into Mudd's imprisonment, the commandant of the prison gave Mudd a copy of Les Miserables, believing as did many that Dr. Mudd was innocent of complicity in Lincoln's murder. What carried Dr. Mudd through those dark days was an abiding faith in God's providence and His grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

Eventually, mostly due to Dr. Mudd's heroic efforts in battling to save lives of officers (and their dependents), soldiers and prisoners from the deadly effects of Yellow Fever, President Andrew Andrew Johnson pardoned Dr. Mudd. When Samuel Mudd arrived back at his Maryland farm in the spring of 1869, he found his children grown, his wife destitute, his farm destroyed, and his career ruined.

Life is not always fair.

Nearly a century before Dr. Mudd was arrested for conspiracy to assassinate the President of the United States, Thomas Lincoln and his brother Mordecai Lincoln were working in the Kentucky fields with their father Abraham Lincoln (not the President). Suddenly, an Indian hiding in the nearby woods shot and killed Abraham Lincoln. Mordecai ran to the house to get a gun, while young Thomas Lincoln knelt beside his fallen father. As Mordecai returned to the field, he saw an Indian sneaking up behind his brother Thomas, raising a hatchet ready to scalp Thomas Lincoln. Mordecai Lincoln shot and killed the Indian, saving his brother's life. Thomas Lincoln would later name the son born to him in 1809 Abraham Lincoln--yes, that Abraham Lincoln, the man who would become the nation's 16th President. Abraham grew up hearing the story how his uncle Mordecai had saved his father's life.

Uncle Mordecai Lincoln and his wife Aunt Mary were always very close to President Lincoln, and in fact, aunt Mary was called "Abraham Lincoln's favorite relative." The maiden name of the President's favorite relative was Mudd.  That's right, she was born Mary Mudd. Mary was the first cousin (two generations removed) of the man who would eventually be charged with conspiracy to murder President Abraham Lincoln. How do you go from being in a family beloved by the President to a man guilty of plotting to kill the President? You don't. Dr. Mudd was innocent of all charges.

Life is not always fair.

A couple of years ago I spent a few hours in a Mexico jail. I have researched Dr. Mudd's life for years, and I distinctly remember sitting in that Mexican jail, reflecting on Dr. Mudd's four year imprisonment. One of the great blessings of being familiar with the stories of other people is the added depth to one's perspective on life. The best antidote against self-absorption is reading about others. Next time you begin to feel sorry for yourself because someone lied about you, or that something was taken from you, or that somehow your character has been falsely sullied, remember Dr. Samuel Mudd.

Life is not always fair.

Grace to Those Coming Out of the Closet

I received my Sports Illustrated this week and on the front cover was a picture of NBA basketball player Jason Collins and the big bold words Jason Comes Out in the article itself. Jason announced to the world that he is attracted to same-sex sexual relationships. He said it was time to stop hiding in the proverbial closet, come out, and "live truthfully." Good for Jason. He is being honest about his desires to have sexual relations with men. Some might say, "No, he is only speaking about his sexual orientation. He is attracted to men." I respond, "Attracted in what sense?" Many of us (men) are attracted to other men in friendship, and attracted to men in relationship, and attracted to men in companionship. Jason is coming out and declaring his attraction to having sex with men--or possibly a man--and he is being honest about it. Again, good for him. Jason says, "greater openness and honesty promotes increased understanding, respect and acceptance." I agree Jason.

For example, I have a friend who is sexually attracted to exposing himself to women. He hid his desires--and behavior--for many, many years. When he finally came out of the closet with his wife, family and friends (including me), we began to understand him better. My friend will tell you he has never been loved and accepted by anyone the way he was when I went down to the police station and hugged him and told him I loved him and was there for him. I walked with him through the hurtful process of coming out of the closet and confessing to his sexual attraction to seeing the looks on women's faces when he exposed himself. I stood with him when the police mocked him. I stood with him when the judge sentenced him. Many people were disgusted with him because of his sexual orientation and his sexual actions. Not me. I accepted him, appreciated his honesty, and stood by him. His honesty with me helped me understand why he was attracted to exposing himself to women. I agree with Jason Collins: "Greater openness and honesty promotes understanding, respect and acceptance" -- at least with me.

I have another couple of friends who are sexually attracted to women who are not their wives, and on more than one occasion have acted out on those attractions. I would consider them two of my best friends. When they came out of the closet many years ago regarding their sexual orientations, I stood beside them, respected them and accepted them. Both confess to others that I helped save their lives, and both confess that their sexual orientations have not changed, only that they are beginning to understand the beauty of having sex with the person to whom God has given to them in the covenant of marriage.  In one case, a marriage was saved; in another, a marriage was not. My love for both men is present even when some in their own families turned against them. Again, I agree with Jason Collins: "Greater openness and honesty promotes understanding, respect and acceptance."

I have another friend who was arrested for solicitation of sex from a minor. He confesses to being oriented toward having a desire for sex with young people, particularly those who are in the age range of 10 to 12. He went to prison for his crime. He will tell you that I have stood with him, respected him and accepted him. Everywhere he goes in our church he must be announced as a "child predator." We know that many say a child predator is not a human being, but God forbid those words ever come from my mouth. When my friend came out of the closet several years ago, I accepted him, respected him and understood him better, even as we encouraged the courts to sentence him for his crimes. I agree with Jason Collins that "greater openness and honesty" promotes better relationships. My friend will tell you he has never been loved like I have loved him--by anyone.

I know some of you are saying, "Wait a minute! How can you compare the sexual orientations of a homosexual or an adulterer with those of a genital exposer or a child predator! The first two involve consenting adults! The latter two involve crimes perpetrated against the non-consenting or children!" I respond: Do you not know history? The Roman emperors during the Roman Empire declared sex between men and young boys both legal and beneficial. The Greeks considered men exposing themselves to women a sign of masculinity and patriarchal power. Just because sex with children goes against your sense of morality or exposing yourself to non-consenting women goes against your sense of morality, it doesn't mean that it goes against everyone else's sense of morality. Cultures change. As my friend John Blanchard says, "The new morality is actually old immorality."

The American culture is changing. It used to be that same-sex sexual conduct was illegal in America, punishable by a prison sentence. It used to be that adultery was illegal in America, punishable by a prison sentence. Some people in America are pushing to legalize sex with children, just as the ancient Romans did, because how can you call an act of love with a child wrong?

Here's the deal. I agree with Jason Collins: "We need more honesty." We need more people to continue to come out of the closet. We need more people to be transparent about their struggles with sexual orientation and their struggles in acting out. We need to commend Jason Collins--and anyone else for that matter--for coming out of the closet and making known their sexual orientation. And, we need to love them, respect them and accept them--as immoral people in need of God's grace.

This is the message of Christ. He is in love with sinners. He came for sinners, not the righteous, and until a homosexual, adulterer, sexual lover of children, or any other sexually immoral person can be honest and call their desires and actions sinful, there is no hope for ever trusting Christ and receiving God's forgiveness and transformative power to change. The standard of human morality is set by revelation not by speculation. The Scripture is clear: "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9-10).

All the friends mentioned above have come to Christ. Since becoming believers in Christ, all of their sinful orientations and desires have not disappeared. Coming out of the closet and admitting their orientation toward sexual immorality was a first step to finding grace. All of them have had sexually immoral desires since coming to faith in Christ, and most of them have been sexually immoral in conduct since coming to Christ. Yet, they continue to be honest about their struggles, and they call their acting out sexual immorality.  They have been loved and accepted by me as I've walked them through the process of continued healing and change, and I will be with them to the end.

I close with profound words from C.S. Lewis on sexual immorality, words that I pray characterize my love, respect and acceptance toward those who come out of the closet and the truth I will tell them when they do:

"Our warped natures, the devils who tempt us, and all the contemporary propaganda for lust, combine to make us feel that the desires we are resisting are so 'natural,' so 'healthy, and so reasonable, that it is almost perverse and abnormal to resist them. Poster after poster, film after film, novel after novel, associate the idea of sexual indulgence with the ideas of health, normality, youth, frankness, and good humor. Now this association is a lie. Like all powerful lies, it is based on a truth--the truth . . . that sex in itself (apart from the excess and obsessions that have grown around it) is 'normal,' and 'healthy,' and all the rest of it. The lie consists in the suggestion that any sexual act to which you are tempted is also healthy and normal. Now this, on any conceivable view, and quite apart from Christianity, must be nonsense. Surrender to all of our desires obviously leads to impotence, disease, jealousies, lies, concealment, and everything that is the reverse of good health, good humour, and frankness. For any happiness, even in this world, quite a lot of restraint is going to be necessary . . . For 'nature' (in the sense of natural desire) will have to be controlled anyway, unless you are going to ruin your whole life.

I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of  Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and backbiting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither."