Baptist Faith and Message 2000: Article XVII. Religious Liberty
In 1801, Pastor John Leland was so appreciative of Thomas Jefferson’s support of religious liberty that he convinced the ladies of his church in Cheshire, Massachusetts to make him a lot of cheese. This was to be a gift of appreciation.
These Baptist ladies went to work. The cheese was so big that it made it into the newspapers. 900 cows donated milk to this project.[1] It was close to 4 feet in diameter, 12.5 feet in circumference, and 17 inches thick. It weighed in at a whopping 1,325 pounds.[2] On the side of this cheese was stamped, “Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God”, which was the phrase written upon Thomas Jefferson’s seal. Every guest that entered Jefferson’s house for the next few years ate from that cheese until it was so spoiled that it was likely dumped into the river.
But, why the cheese?
And why begin with the cheese?
Because religious liberty has been important to Baptists since long before the creation of the Southern Baptist Convention. We don’t feel it today, but many people persecuted Baptists even here in America. And Baptists fought long and hard for religious freedom even after the Revolutionary war had ended. And this history serves as a major influence upon our statement of faith today. It is not that there is no Scripture concerning the matter, Daniel and Acts are primary texts for us in this matter. So, we have Scripture. It’s just that it means a lot to us because of our history.
Thomas Nettles wrote in his article concerning this Article, a series of quotes from historic Baptists concerning religious freedom. Here are two from very early Baptists.[3]
“The prince must leave the Christian religion free to every man’s conscience.” (John Smyth d. 1612)
“Let them be hertiks, Turcks, Jewes or whatsoever it apperteynes not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure.” (Thomas Helwys d. 1616)
Picking up on this idea we see the idea of religious freedom placed in the confession of faith that most Southern Baptists eventually held to here in America at the beginning of the Southern Baptist Convention. In the 1689 London Baptist Confession we read,
“God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from all doctrines and commandments of men which are in any respect contrary to His Word, nor not contained in it.”[4]
Baptists were a persecuted minority both in Old England and New England. They were a persecuted minority in Virginia and in other places in the South. And out of that persecution developed an intense interest in the freedom of religion.
It was a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association that led to Thomas Jefferson that led to his remarks on the Separation of Church and State that has garnered so much attention from folks in our day.
Here is the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, who had already worked for religious freedom in his own state of Virginia.
Sir,
Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others cloth their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty—that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals—that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of religious opinions—that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made conincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and again under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men—should reproach their order magistrate, as a an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to His heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed on behalf of the association,
Nehemiah Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson[5]
It is obvious that their concern was that of religious freedom. And it was not for freedom that was just granted by the state. It was for inalienable religious freedom, or freedom given by God that the government can’t touch.
In response to this letter Jefferson wrote,
Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802. [6]
Notice who the wall of separation is there to protect, not the government but religion. This wall of separation is obviously about protecting the religious freedoms of the people from State.
Today we have similar problems but a different starting point. In that day the State was religious and tended to make laws concerning religious practices. Baptists were often locked in prison or pilloried for their beliefs both in England and here in America. That was because they were not congregational, like the rest of those who came over here from America. As Baptists, we understand that the Puritans did not travel over here to establish religious freedom. They came over here so that they could practice their religion freely. And so, no matter where Baptists were, they would be persecuted. But right now, religious freedom is under fire from a secular state. We currently live in a country whose preferred religion is secular and is often attempting to make laws in accordance with that religion.
Satan is crafty. But it doesn’t seem like he’s all that creative. There really is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9).
So, whereas our history led us to these convictions. Our current day informs us that they need to remain important. Christian adoption agencies have been told that they cannot discriminate against people whose lifestyles go against Scripture when placing children. Bakers, photographers, and florists have been in trouble for not participating in homosexual weddings. Christian Universities are being forced to house transgender people with people of different biological sex (This whole sentence doesn’t really make sense because of the nature of the thing, but I hope you get it.) It seems that case after case is making its way to the Supreme Court concerning religious freedom. And it seems that religious freedom may not last a lot longer here in the United States if the people are not careful.
So, after that rather long introduction, here is The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 on Religious Liberty,
XVII. Religious Liberty
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.
Genesis 1:27; 2:7; Matthew 6:6-7,24; 16:26; 22:21; John 8:36; Acts 4:19-20; Romans 6:1-2; 13:1-7; Galatians 5:1,13; Philippians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:1-2; James 4:12; 1 Peter 2:12-17; 3:11-17; 4:12-19.
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it.
No person or entity can bind the conscience but God alone. It is God who has decided what is right and what is wrong. It is also God who has delivered to us His Word. And it is God who has told us how we can be brought into His family. Therefore, no one has the right to tell us to do anything that goes against God’s Word.
No matter what position they hold.
Or how powerful they are.
God is Lord of the conscience.
The Book of Daniel is filled with this sort of thing. The people of Israel were defeated and carted off to Babylon where they had to live for a while. And there are three stories of rebellion against secular rulers and authorities that you have likely discussed with your children in the Book of Daniel that help us to understand that “God alone is Lord of the conscience”.
The first of these is when the king chose youths from the people of Israel that were “without blemish, of good appearance and skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning, and competent to stand in the king’s place, and to teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans.” (Daniel 1:3-4 ESV) And the king gave them a diet that consisted of what he ate, which was assuredly not kosher.
And Daniel refused.
“But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king’s food, or with the wine that he drank.” (Daniel 1:8a ESV).
The diet was a way of taking good care of these special Hebrew people. But Daniel would not partake. So, Daniel and his friends made a deal with he guard. For 10 days they would go on a veggie and water diet, which should have caused them to shrink and not look as healthy as the others. But it did not. God supernaturally worked in that situation and they did not do what the king had commanded. They were allowed to stay kosher and keep the Hebrew dietary laws.
The way a narrative is presented matters to us. In this instance and in the other instances in Daniel, it is obvious that the rebellion against authority and faithfulness to the Lord was the righteous thing to do.
Another rather informative instance is that of the golden image. King Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold and commanded the people to bow to it when the horns and instruments played. And those who refused would be thrown into the fiery furnace (Daniel 3:1-6). Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to do so. Here is what they said to the king.
“O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.” (Daniel 3:17-18 ESV)
And they were thrown into the fiery furnace, and it was to be heated seven times hotter than usual (Daniel 3:19). But again, God rescued His people from the furnace. And it brought about religious freedom for those who worshipped the One True God (Daniel 3:29).
And yet another instance from the Book of Daniel comes in Daniel 6. At this point we are dealing with King Darius because there has been a change of power, but the people are still exiles. Here a trap was laid out of jealousy for Daniel. King Darius was talked into making a law that no one should pray to anyone but him for 30 days (Daniel 6:6-7). Anyone who broke this law was to be thrown into a den of hungry lions (Daniel 6:8). Of course, Daniel did not comply. Daniel prayed to the Lord, and he did so as publicly as he ever did.
“When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem. He got down on his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously.” (Daniel 6:10 ESV)
And Daniel was thrown to the lion’s den (Daniel 6:16). But again, God delivered His faithful servant. Daniel was spared from being eaten alive by lions (Daniel 6:21). And again, religious freedom was given to those who worshipped the One True God (Daniel 6:25-27).
In all of these instances, leaders commanded people to do something against God’s Word and they disobeyed the command. They chose to remain faithful to the Lord rather than disobey God. In all of these instances God honored their decision and even chose to intervene on their behalf.
What does this tell us?
Well, it tells us that no earthly authority has the right to tell us to do or think anything that is contrary to God’s Word. God is the Lord of the conscience, not the president, congress, governor, mayor, or a police officer. God is the Lord of the conscience and no one can tell us to do anything that goes against God’s Word. And no one can tell us to do anything that would keep us from keeping God’s commands either.
Let us look at one more text. This one is in the Book of Acts.
“And as they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them, greatly annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they arrested them and put them in custody until the next day, for it was already evening. But many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand.
On the next day their rulers and elders and scribes gathered together in Jerusalem, with Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family. And when they had set them in the midst, they inquired, “By what power or by what name did you do this?” Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders, if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead–by him this man is standing before you well. This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus. But seeing the man who was healed standing beside them, they had nothing to say in opposition. But when they had commanded them to leave the council, they conferred with one another, saying, “What shall we do with these men? For that a notable sign has been performed through them is evident to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name.” So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.” And when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way to punish them, because of the people, for all were praising God for what had happened. For the man on whom this sign of healing was performed was more than forty years old.
When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them. And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit,
“‘Why did the Gentiles rage,
and the peoples plot in vain?
The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers were gathered together,
against the Lord and against his Anointed’—
for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.
And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.” (Acts 4:1-21 ESV)
The disciples refused to stop preaching. Though they were arrested by the powerful, they refused to disobey God’s command for them.
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and we are to disobey any authority that tells us to disobey God’s Word. They may tell us to sin by omission, or they may tell us to disobey God’s direct commands. Whatever the case may be, no government authority is lord of our conscience.
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it.
Church and state should be separate.
We do not mean by this what many people today mean by this. If you were to listen to or watch much of the news today, they would think this means that the two are to be rather uninvolved in each other’s affairs. But that is not what we mean by this statement in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
This is a statement with a lot of history. We won’t go into that now, but just know that this was not something that just began with the writers of the Baptist Faith and Message.
Christians have long understood that God has two swords for governing the world. The Church and the State. Oftentimes, in older confessions of faith, the State was called “The Civil Magistrate”. The State exists to encourage good citizenship and punish evil. The Church exists to disciple the nations.
The State
Let’s begin with the State. The most direct passage of Scripture concerning governing authorities is Romans 13.
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.” (Romans 13:1-5 ESV)
We have already discussed the fact that God is the Lord of the conscience. But that does not mean that we are to ignore governing authorities. It is obvious from Romans 13 that they exist because God instituted them. And it is also plain here that God put governing authorities in this place for the purpose of punishing evil deeds, upholding good conduct, and encouraging good conduct. God has given governing authorities the sword for a purpose. Therefore, we should be good law-abiding citizens.
Notice what is said in the much older, 1689 London Baptist Confession.
“God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates to be under Him, over the people, for His own glory and the public good. For this purpose He has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of those that do good, and for the punishment of evil-doers.”[7]
So, we understand that the State has this role. They bear the sword, but they do not wield the same sword as the Church. They are separate. They have different functions. And they do not play the same role within society. “Church and State should be separate.”
The Church itself has a stated mission that does not involve punishing evil doers out in society.
“And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”” (Matthew 28:18-20 ESV)
These two commissions are not the same. The Church is to go forth and disciple the nations. And the State is to go forth and make the nations habitable.
The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends.
What is it that the State is supposed to be doing?
Well, it is obvious from Scripture that their role is to uphold good conduct, encourage good conduct, and punish wickedness. Because of this, we expect the State to protect us from those who would do us harm.
If a person, or group of people, were to line up outside and threaten us, we would expect the police to pick up the phone and do something about the mess happening outside. It is the State’s duty to do that sort of thing.
As a church we also know that the State owes us “full freedom in the pursuit of” our “spiritual ends”. We believe that the State has no right to interfere in the mission of the Church, which is to disciple the nations.
Now, if there is abuse or some other unlawful activity taking place in the Church, then the State has the responsibility to step in and act. We, as a church need to be cooperative in those endeavors if that were ever to happen.
For instance, if a person in our church were abused by someone in our church then we would do a few things. We would report it to the police so that it could be dealt with by the State. And we would also kick the person out of our church for having abused someone in our midst. We would obey Scripture as a church and remove the offender from our midst.
“I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people– not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler–not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”” (1 Corinthians 5:9-13 ESV)
So, criminal activity that happens within the church should be handled by the State. If someone were embezzling money from the church, we would probably file charges. If a husband in the church beat up his wife, we would recommend for her to file charges against her husband.
But with regard to matters of the church’s mission, the State has no authority whatsoever. And we do not expect the State to help us in our mission to discipling the nations.
In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others.
This moves us to think about history. No church or denomination should be favored by the State.
Historically this took place as a denomination dominated a country and every other denomination was persecuted in that country. If a country was Roman Catholic then everyone else found their self facing the sharp side of a sword. Likewise, if a country was Reformed everyone else would find their self on the wrong end of the sword. And since nowhere was Baptist they oftentimes found their selves receiving another baptism at the bottom of a lake or a river with stones tied around their ankles.
Even though this doesn’t happen in most of the world today there are still countries that do favor a certain denomination over another. One example that comes to mind is the Church of England. The Church of England still receives revenue from British taxes.
And what we are saying is that no denomination should receive that sort of treatment. And the reason is simply stated at the beginning of our statement today. God alone is the Lord of the conscience. And the State should not interfere in these matters.
Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God.
We have already discussed the fact that civil government is ordained by God (Romans 13). And because of this it is our duty as Christians to give to our governing authorities loyal obedience, in so far as nothing commanded is contrary to Scripture.
Having already discussed the disobedience of those in the Book of Daniel and in the Book of Acts, there is no need to rehash the already covered ground. But it is important to note that we do see in our statement of faith that there is a time to be disobedient to governing authorities, and it is anytime they command us to do something that would go against God’s Word.
We believe that we are to be good citizens. God has ordained the civil government and because of that we are to be loyal and obedient to our governing authorities.
As American citizens, we live with an incredible amount of freedom in this area. And the reason is simple, the highest civil authority in this land is the Constitution. This means that there really are times in which we can look at our governing authorities and tell them to take a hike and by doing so, we would be rendering loyal obedience to the authorities.
For instance, if a police officer came to my house asking to investigate a crime, he must have something in his possession. He needs a warrant. If he does not have it, by law I can tell him to get off my property. And the reason for this is that our government understands that I have a right to be secure in my home and secure with regard to my property against “unreasonable searches and seizures” according to the Fourth Amendment. It can only be done if there is “probable cause”. And, I would argue that by allowing that police officer to search your home, you are chipping away at your own freedoms and the freedoms of others.
So, we are to be good citizens. And so, I would argue that we need to have a better understanding of what the law of the land is and be a good citizen. But if the governing authorities ever tell us to disobey God’s Word then we politely tell them that we would rather rot in jail than disobey God.
The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends.
We are laboring long and hard to say that Church and State have their own lanes that they should remain in. The problem is that there have been times in history that the Church has grabbed the sword of government and used it to attempt to do the work of discipling the nations.
Some of the most blatant cases of this are in the history books and you’ve all read about them. Events like the Spanish Inquisition’s Heresy trials and the persecutions of the English Civil Wars help us to see that real problems can take place when the Church uses the State for the work it should be doing. And so, we understand fairly easily that the Church should not “resort to the civil power to carry out its work”.
And the reality is that the State cannot do the work of the Church. And the reason is that “the gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends.” This is an endeavor that the State is not equipped to handle in the same way that we understand the Church to be ill equipped to handle crime in our city.
God works to make disciples of all nations through the Church. We do this by preaching and teaching the gospel to the nations. And we are empowered by the Holy Spirit. That is how our work happens, and we do it without the coercive force of the State.
The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind.
This statement is just as clear and straight forward as one can make it. We do not believe that the State can interfere with religion at all. If we go back to a historical statement from a Baptist in history it may help us here.
Above I quoted Thomas Helwys and we will look at it again here, because his statement is the sentiment presented here.
“Let them be hertiks, Turcks, Jewes or whatsoever it apperteynes not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure.” (Thomas Helwys d. 1616)
Heretics are those with unorthodox understandings of Scripture. Today we would say that people who believe that Jesus is not God is a heretic. Turks, especially in older writings refer to Muslims. Jews are those who are Hebrew. Our statement here is basically a restatement of Thomas Helwys back in the 1600’s.
We understand the beliefs of some of these groups to be horribly wicked. But the State has no right to interfere with their religious opinions.
The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion.
To us as Americans in the year 2022 this is so obvious that it could almost be left out. But it has not been so obvious in history. And it may not be abundantly obvious in the future. And since this has already been covered to some extent above in our discussion of favoring one religious group over another, we will spend very little time here.
In the same way that we believe no denomination should be favored over another by the State, we also believe that no other religious should be favored by the State. And this is going to be a problem for some Western Countries in the coming decades as Islam is growing at rapid speeds. As of right now we don’t see that taking place in the United States, but it is something that we should be prepared for nonetheless.
The growing secularism of our age poses a peculiar problem. There is a religious adherence to the principles of secularism. And because people don’t recognize it as such, they don’t see what is going on. But the principles upon which secularism are built are currently clashing head-to-head with the religious freedoms granted to us in the Constitution. And so, I would argue that secularism is not to be favored in society over religions either.
Again, God is the Lord of the conscience, and the State should stay out of religious affairs.
A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.
This is the ideal. All people should have the “right of free and unhindered access to God, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religious without interference by the civil power”.
It may seem strange to say that this is the ideal, for why wouldn’t the church seek the help of the State in propagating Christianity. But here is the truth of the matter. The freedom of religion that exists here in America, that is outlined here, led to an explosive boom of Christianity. For a long time, Christians were enabled by the State to work to make disciples of this country without he interference of the State and we did a pretty good job of it. There were some bumps along the way. And we could’ve done some things better. But Christianity flourished in this land in ways that Christians in other countries can only dream about at this point.
Conclusion
Religious Freedom has always been important to Southern Baptists. And it is something that is under fire today as our land becomes more and more secular. We are incredibly grateful for the freedom that we have here in the United States. And we understand that this is not the case everywhere. But it is here, so we are thankful for that.
But we also have our eyes open and understand that these freedoms are starting to fade right in front of our eyes. This growing secular society desires the eradication of these freedoms in the days ahead. So we work and pray for the propagation of the ideal, which is a lack of government interference in religion.
R. Dwain Minor
[1] https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/mammoth-cheese
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/07/13/an-edible-token-esteem-pound-cheese-given-thomas-jefferson/
[3] “An Exposition of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, p. 41. You can download this book here for free, https://www.sbts.edu/press/an-exposition-on-the-baptist-faith-and-message-2000/
[4] The Second London Baptist Confession 21:2.
[5] https://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/baptist.htm
[6] https://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
[7] 1689 London Baptist Confession, 24:1.