Why Christianity Mattered, and Still does. Part 2: Baptists Brought us Liberty of Conscience, the Freedom to Believe what you Want

Baptists Brought us Liberty of Conscience, the Freedom to Believe what you Want

For the unchurched, hearing the term “Baptist” probably conjures an image of a steeple and a couple dozen straight laced moral purists with outdated worldviews. While that may be true of some Baptist Churches, history tells a story of how the Baptist movement uniquely brought to both America and the West, a new way of living. The story of the Pilgrims has been recounted many times. What they ultimately sought was the ability and right to experience religious freedom by separating from the Church of England and transplanting to America. Other groups and sects had obviously pushed for religious freedom and freedom of conscience before the Baptists, but it was the Baptists who helped codify and establish religious freedom as the norm. What ultimately developed out of religious freedom for all was liberty of conscience. Which, ultimately, became the impetus behind the first amendment.

Liberty of conscience – often be interpreted as religious freedom – really just means the right to worship however you want, or to not worship or believe. Maybe the clearest way to define it is as “Co-Existence”. Groups in power being tolerant of other groups who hold no power. The Pilgrims left England because they had no voice within the Church of England or even a voice to separate and believe what they wanted. Maybe to hone in and focus on liberty of conscience, the best definition is, FREEDOM. Freedom to believe, freedom to speak, freedom to write, freedom to EXPRESS. Roger Williams and the Rhode Island Colony helped to push this idea into the light, but before we explore his contributions, a little look into the greater Baptist influence on religious freedom and ultimately, liberty of conscience.

    For one to understand why Baptists fought so hard for religious liberty (Eventually leading to a broader meaning that would include freedom of thought), it is necessary to go across the Atlantic one hundred and fifty years before America became a country. Thomas Helwys, a colleague of John Smyth (John Smyth a founder of the Baptist tradition), was among the first of the Baptist tradition to stand for the idea of religious freedom and tolerance. He believed that civil authorities were not to intrude into religious matters. He had this to say in his 1612 work, Short Declaration of the Misery Iniquity: “Let them be Heretiks, Turcks, Jewes, or whatsoever, it appertynes not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure”.¹⁵ This is essentially the beginning of the Baptist belief in religious liberty, which impacted the thought of Baptists in America and the West. Baptists throughout the following centuries have for a large part carried on the tradition and idea proposed by Thomas Helwys. The idea being that people of all religions and belief systems should be able to freely worship. This foundational concept arose again when American Colonies began to form their own government; the topic of religious freedom took center stage and was an enormous point of emphasis with Baptists in the American Colonies.

              When the Revolutionary war broke out, the Baptists in Virginia started pushing that the state drop its support of a state religion – which ultimately led to anyone who was not in that religion being persecuted. The Virginia Declaration of Rights specifically enabled all Virginian citizens to worship with a “free exercise of religion”. This concept would be reaffirmed a short fifteen years later in the first amendment. Baptists largely communicated that if Baptist support for the Revolution was to be present, persecution needed to end – it did. That was, until Patrick Henry, famous for the “Liberty or Death” speech proposed a bill to resume tax funding for religion in Virginia. Henry, though, attempted to find a middle ground. Instead of these taxes only being used to fund one official state religion as was common in Virginia before the Revolution, he proposed that individuals’ taxes could be earmarked for certain religious denominations.¹⁶ This concept even found traction with the first president of the U.S. George Washington. Despite the initial popularity of this taxation, the opposition eventually won out and a previous bill proposed by Thomas Jefferson for universal Religious Freedom was used as the foundation for establishing a new standard of universal religious freedom in Virginia.

In 1787, the new U.S. Constitution was being formed in an attempt to strengthen the nation in contrast to the weaker Articles of Confederation. While Religious freedom had been cemented on the state level, there was fear from Virginia Baptists that their newfound freedom might be disregarded by a stronger central government. In his book, The Baptist Heritage, Leon McBethclearly states the biggest proponents of religious liberty were John Leland and the Baptists. Leland was acquainted with both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Leland was a Baptist preacher and leader in the state of Virginia. He and his supporters had been behind Jefferson and Madison’s push to make religious freedom a reality in the state of Virginia. Despite their past agreement on religious toleration, Leland did not agree with the way Madison was approaching the concept of religious freedom within the new U.S. Constitution. Madison viewed the state protections to already be ample, however, Leland and other Virginia Baptists were not so inclined. Leland still had a strong presence in the state of Virginia because he was living there. He possessed more support and votes then did Madison for the Orange County seat at the Virginia Convention on ratifying the U.S. Constitution. Since Madison had written much of the Constitution and held the power to change portions of it, Leland dropped out of running for the seat if Madison would give his word to include a freedom of religion clause – and the first amendment Freedom of Religion clause is born. The constitution at the time did not include any guarantee of religious liberty across the board. Upon hearing these concerns, James Madison asked for grievances in writing, explaining their issues with the new constitution. Madison and others addressed these concerns with the first amendment, and without Baptist support, the constitution would not have passed in Virginia, meaning the constitution as Americans know it would probably not exist without Baptist influence. ¹⁷

The Baptists were often tortured and ridiculed in their early years. Stanton Norman highlights why Baptists pushed for a separation of church and state, “Our Baptist ancestors lived as an oppressed and persecuted group of Christians for centuries, constantly seeking relief from their tormentors”.¹⁸ This constant persecution by civil authorities led to the doctrine of separation of church and state becoming a necessity. Separation of Church and State is a hot topic in many evangelical churches, but especially modern Baptist churches. With the modern shift away from traditional values of religious freedom, many church goers desire to see Christianity play a larger role on the national scale. These suggestions can vary wildly, usually, they revolve around some elected official wielding his authority to somehow enforce or introduce specifically Christian ideas. In many cases, this can (potentially), break the barrier of church and state separation. That term, separation of church and state, what does it mean? Essentially, it is the separation of two entities: the church (religion in general), and the state (the government). It defines a distance or barrier between the two, not allowing religion to interfere in the government, and not allowing the government to be involved in the church.

 While we know what Leland and the Baptists had done during the formation of the constitution. However, a look at earlier developments can give us a deeper understanding of church and state separation. Some of the patterns of persecution experienced across the Atlantic in England were beginning to surface in the colonies. Roger Williams stood as a beaming example of defense against encroachment upon religious freedom. Although he did have himself baptized and took the name of a Baptist, he later renounced the action; nevertheless he still had a tremendous influence upon Baptists in the colonies. In 1644, he published his work known as, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, although it was not published in the colonies but in England, it was spawned by experiences Williams had previously in Massachusetts. Williams had been critical of the magistrates and their approach to religious toleration and consequentially was banished from the colony. Having been banished, he fled and founded the colony which is now known as Rhode Island.

Williams expressed his disgust “First. That the blood of so many hundred thousand souls of Protestants and Papists, spilled in the wars of present and former ages, is not required nor accepted by Jesus Christ the prince of peace”.¹⁹ It is interesting that Williams does not include only Protestants in his thesis statement for religious freedom, but also “papists” are mentioned as being part of this unjust persecution. This shows the heart and conviction with which Williams held to religious liberty. Later in his work, he expresses the doctrine of separation of church and state, “Fifthly. All civil states, in their respective constitutions and administrators, are proved essentially civil, and therefore not governors, or defenders of the spiritual, or Christian state and worship”.²⁰ This is one of the earliest articulations for separation of church and state. Williams goes to Matthew 13, “Because Christ commands, that the tares and wheat, should be let alone in the world, and not plucked up until the harvest, which is the end of the world”.²¹ Williams believed that it is Christ who will separate saved from the lost, he believes it is the church’s job to evangelize as Jesus commanded in Matthew 28. Since it is Christ who will judge the saved and the lost, it is certainly not government’s prerogative to enforce religion upon its subjects. This work of Williams was a powerful and persuasive argument for the separation of church and state and was important for the growth of religious liberty.  Our good friend, John Leland, discussed earlier has something to say on the topic of church and state separation:

Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny – the    worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial bates to collect toll. It converts religion into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven forbids the bans of marriage between church and state; their embrace therefore, must be unlawful²²

Why Religious Freedom is Important

              I will answer the section title above. It is because at your core as a human, it is your right to believe how and what you want. That question being, “What higher power will I serve and how will I do it; or I don’t believe in a higher power, and I choose to live my life in such a way that reflects that belief”. As previously seen throughout this work, Baptists have been a proponent of religious liberty and freedom of thought. David Basinger, in his work on religious diversity, mirrors this idea that Christian’s have impacted religious liberty, “Religious diversity exists most noticeably at the level of basic theistic systems”.²³ Take for an example the different denominations that exist within the Christian tradition: Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Catholic – they all present a standardized view of religious freedom. Religious diversity is a fact of life that most humans will have to deal with at some point. Basinger in his article goes on to say this off religious tolerance, “While some (many) issues that philosophers discuss have practical implications for how we view ourselves and treat others, none is more relevant today than the question of religious diversity”.²⁴

              Why is this topic so important? Because it serves as the launching point into matters of conscience. Matters of believing what you would like and having the ability to express whatever beliefs you hold. The question must be raised as to why certain religious groups garner the right to not follow certain laws and gain special protections that normal companies or groups do not. Brian Leiter, the professor and director for the Center of Law for the University of Chicago, explores this idea in his book, Why Tolerate Religion. He quotes English philosopher Bernard Williams to give a definition and launching point for his coming points, “A practice of toleration means only that one group as a matter of fact puts up with the existence of the other, differing group. It is necessary that there should be some belief or practice or way of life that one group thinks wrong, mistaken, or undesirable”²⁵ That seems to be an accurate definition and idea on the topic of tolerance. Why then should religion be tolerated – or not be tolerated according to Leiter? The question of toleration between groups or people is certainly a topic worthy of thought, but the more immediate issue is that of how the State tolerates and allows religious freedom. Leiter says this of the matter, “the historical problem about religious toleration was generated by conflict among religious groups, the contemporary problem, at least in post- Enlightenment secular nations is different: it is why the state should tolerate religion at all”.²⁶ Thus, the issue is not the fight between religious groups, such as the Anglican Church of England versus Baptists or other religious groups. It has now become a question of how and why the state should tolerate religious groups and their claims to freedom of religion and liberty of conscience.

              So, why does religion gain special protection that others do not? Brian Leiter is suspicious of the idea of religion having its own niche of toleration based purely upon the fact that it falls under the category of religious belief. I agree to some level, and I think the founding fathers, and James Madison would have too. Leiter is coming at this more from a secular view of religious indifference. While he ultimately supports religious freedom to some level – it definitely is not because religion has done anything to stand in a special category of its own. It is because religion, for him, falls under the umbrella of liberty of conscience. This idea is shown in chapter five of his book, “The general principled arguments for toleration sketched do justify legal protection for liberty of conscience, which would necessarily encompass toleration of religious beliefs”.²⁷ So, let’s answer the question posed in the last paragraph. Why should governments, the U.S. government for example, provide any protection to religions? Leiter himself, and many others would agree, religion has not done anything specifically to separate itself from other liberty of conscience concepts such a freedom of speech, press, etc. The reason, painfully obvious as it might be, is of a slippery slope nature. If you begin to deny the right to religious freedom either philosophically as a thought project or fundamentally as an actual government policy – it ultimately leads one to a place where no liberty of conscience is recognized as protected. If no protection for religion, then why should speech and the other concepts included in the first amendment be protected? An undoubtedly extra slippery slope – one that could lead down the path taken by many a totalitarian government. One where people cannot find the core protections found within the first amendment and so important to Americans.

              There is some obvious merit to this idea of a relationship between religious freedom and liberty of conscience. The “obvious merit” of a relationship lies in the freedom of religion clauses being connected with four other topics found in the first amendment (Speech, Press, Assembly, and petition). The point of this ‘connection’ is not to determine how religious freedom should be categorized in 21^st century western thought. Rather, its more of a ‘what came first, the chicken or the egg’ situation. Let me explain what I am getting at: religious freedom is the mother of the modern liberty of conscience types of belief found in the first amendment. It is because Baptists, and other Christian denominations sought to further their rights of religious belief that ideas like those found in the 1^st amendment are a part of American life.  Herein lies the significance of all this speculating about Baptists, religious freedom, and liberty of conscience. The secular world needed Christianity and the concept of religious freedom to get to the point where one can argue about the validity of religious freedom. Christianity, specifically Baptists, have provided the framework from which we can even have the discussion about matters of freedom. The liberty of conscience, the first amendment and its freedom of expression rights, all exist because people wanted to believed what they wanted to believe about religion. The persecuted groups of Christianity past wanted liberty of conscience in the area of religious belief, and in that fight for religious freedom, have given us so much more. What they gave was a desire to believe what one wanted and to say what one wanted. Call this what you want: liberty of conscience, personal freedom, personal choice. It gave America the ability to test out this idea of freedom, the great experiment that has never been duplicated or matched to such a level. Without the right to believe what you want and to say what you want, it would not really be America. It is because of the Baptist fight for religious liberty that we now have all these other liberties of conscience that now makes America so unique. Thank the founding fathers for the 1^st amendment that inscribed the ideals of conscience liberty into our thinking –  but do not forget to thank the Baptists and Christianity for providing a framework for liberty of conscience.

15. Thomas Helwys, A Short Declaration of the Misery of Iniquity (1612; repr., London: Kingsgate Press for the Baptist Historical Society, 1935), 69.
16. McBeth, Leon. The Baptist Heritage. (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1987.) 283.
17. A Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion, Patrick Henry, Virginia House of Delegates, December 24, 1784. Broadside. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (133) https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html#obj133
18. R. Stanton Norman, The Baptist Way, Distinctives Of A Baptist Church (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2005), 164.
19. Roger Williams, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution [1644]. ed. Edward B. Underhill (London: J. Haddon, 1848), 193-94.
20. Ibid, Williams, 194.
21. Ibid, Williams, 195.
22. Leland, John. The writings of the late Elder John Leland. N.Y, 1845. Printed by G.W. Wood, 267.
23. Basinger, David, “Religious Diversity (Pluralism)”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/religious-pluralism/
24. Ibid, Basinger.
25. Leiter, Brian. Why Tolerate Religion? Princeton: Princeton UP, 2013. Print. Page, 8.
26. Ibid. Leiter, 14.
27. Ibid. Leiter, 67.