Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Revolutionary Freedom of Religion
JUST LAW AND RELIGION
by Michael Kessler
Independence Day is a good opportunity to take a moment to ponder how some of our forebears envisioned religious freedom--one of our most fundamental liberties.
There are many well-known examples of the Founders urging toleration about religious diversity. They argued for government restraint so that religion may thrive, particularly James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments and Thomas Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia and letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. These are worthy essays which we should contemplate and debate. Besides these luminaries, there are many other important voices in the chorus of early Americans calling for religious freedom.
One influential member of this chorus is the New England preacher Elisha Williams. He is not nearly as well-known as he should be. Williams' crucial sermon in 1744, called the Essential Rights and Liberties of Protestants, challenged a 1742 Connecticut statute that prohibited ministers from speaking outside of their own parishes. The statute was an attempt by the government to mute effects of the Great Awakening (by containing the rabble-rousing enthusiasts!) and to shore up the authority of the well-established Congregationalist churches.
Williams committed powerful words to paper, eloquently framing John Locke's theory of civil government and ideas of toleration and individual dignity for the American colonies, while arguing against any government encroachment into the human quest for religious meaning. The growing seeds of discontentment with English control over the colonies can be found in the sermon. Williams' sermon is considered widely influential on his contemporaries and served as a model for later political writings and sermons that called directly for open rebellion against the tyrannical, arbitrary, and unjust actions of the British King.
Williams' most immediate concern was the unjust insertion of the civil government into the private religious affairs of citizens and their church communities. His argument assumed Locke's theory of the natural and inalienable rights of the human, and put forth the idea that the human conscience is free and cannot be subjected to rule by another, especially in matters of religion:
"Every man has an equal right to follow the dictates of his own conscience in the affairs of religion. Every one is under an indispensable obligation to search the scripture for himself (which contains the whole of it) and to make the best use of it he can for his own information in the will of God, the nature and duties of Christianity. And as every Christian is so bound; so he has an unalienable right to judge of the sense and meaning of it, and to follow his judgment wherever it leads him; even an equal right with any rulers be they civil or ecclesiastical. This I say, I take to be an original right of the humane nature, and so far from being given up by the individuals of a community that it cannot be given up by them if they should be so weak as to offer it."
For Williams, the free conscience, guided by one's own reason and intuition, prayerfully searches the scriptures and encounters God in a manner unfettered by the rules imposed by external authorities. For Christians in early America, this meant that their individual encounter with the sacred scriptures was the sole "rule of faith and practice to a Christian." For Williams, faith can only lead to salvation if "every Christian has a right of judging for himself what he is to believe and practice in religion according to that rule."
Practically, this means that the "the civil authority hath no power to make or ordain articles of faith, creeds, forms of worship or church government...[which] can have no power to decree any articles of faith." If faith is the free movement of the will opening itself and being drawn back to God, through God's love and mercy, then Williams thought the civil government cannot accomplish anything in this salvation process.
The movement of faith--the conscience being reshaped by God's love--is "perfectly inconsistent with any power in the civil magistrate to make any penal laws in matters of religion." Williams argues that if faith is to work properly, it must be unfettered by the crude instruments of the civil law trying to force the conscience. If only God can save us, then only God can judge our religious lives. Individuals must have the civil right to make the wrong interpretations of scripture and lead the wrong kinds of religious lives. By Williams' reasoning, illogical doctrines and bad interpretations may be a spiritual fault, but they should not make us legally liable.
Williams believed there were great spiritual dangers for the civil ruler, and for the worshipper, if the government attempted to control the worship rituals and dictates of conscience: "if our consciences are under the direction of any humane authority as to religious matters; they cease to be under the direction of Christ." Under this premise, a civil ruler would not only muck up religion if they attempted to control it but, worse, they would usurp the proper role filled exclusively by God. The civil ruler is arrogantly sinful to think that God needs their help in bringing about the soul's salvation. And, to think that they know how to help increase the faithful flock by using the civil law is to stupidly misunderstand the process of faith.
Thus for Williams, the separation between religious life and the civil government protects religion from the blunt instruments and arrogance by civil rulers, as well as creates a space for God to work salvation upon the people, unfettered by manipulation of political designs.
That religion flourishes when left alone by governmental control is a widely-shared idea among the colonists, Founders, and by many others throughout our political and religious history. If religious freedom is to matter--and if we are to fulfill our religious aspirations and callings--then we must be able to do so without the interference of others.
Happy Independence Day.
By Michael Kessler |
July 2, 2009; 6:00 PM ET
| Category:
Just Law and Religion
Save & Share:
Previous: Obama and Benedict |
Next: Health Care Reform, African Style
Posted by: SteveMD2 | July 6, 2009 4:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"There are many well-known examples of the Founders urging toleration about religious diversity. They argued for government restraint so that religion may thrive..."
I'll bet some of them argued for government restraint so that religion would just die away, as all superstitions should.
Posted by: PSolus | July 2, 2009 2:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Religions control of government? It appears to me the " secular humanists" are in control of our govenment and they claim not to be a religion so I'm not sure what is meant by religious control. I agree that no one religious group such as Baptist or Catholic should have any kind of control of our government but I believe that all types of "Christian" religious groups should have influence in the governing of a nation founded on "Christian" principles. Religion is an overused word in this country today. I don't want to see any "Muslim" influence in our government but I also don't want any government interference in their right to worship within reasonable circumstances.
There are many secular groups that are tax exempt, should they also lose that status?
I think it's time to tear down the artificial wall that has been erected to keep Christain influence out of the government of a Christain nation.
Posted by: gmcarnut | July 2, 2009 11:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Well, when a religion controls the government, government starts controlling religion.
While this article is only concerned with the freedom of *Christians,* (ignoring any mention that religious liberty must be extended to non-Christians and atheists as well, ...it's about the same freedom for all of us.
Certainly, if it's taken to be a reason for a 'Christian Nation,' ...well, Christians should know from history, this piece itself, in fact, that it never stops there. When they think non-Christians are 'out of the way' ...they go at each other.
Liberty's really the only defense against that.
Posted by: Paganplace | July 2, 2009 11:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The issue before us today is not government control of religion, but religion's control of the government. Ultimately, of course, this would lead to infringement of religious freedom for all who did not subscribe to the state's creed.
We are reaching a turning point. We must build that long-overdue wall of separation before it is too late. Religious institutions must not continue to receive tax exempt status. Faith-based funding must end. Locke would approve. Independence Day.
Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | July 2, 2009 9:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
"I think it's time to tear down the artificial wall that has been erected to keep Christain influence out of the government of a Christain nation."
Hey I am not christian - I gave up that s..t long ago. Pure BS. All the perfume in the world can't hide the stink.
If you want an example of what happens when religion controls govt, look at saudi arabia, iran, Afghanistan
We the people have the absolute right to be free of the influence of religion in our life if we choose. We'll stay out of the absolutist churches, but you must stay out of our life, our schools, our social values for those who don't believe what you believe, and have a right not to be hassled, and our childrens minds poisoned by your absolutism.
Absolutism, btw, is what gave the world the dark ages and nazi germany.
Keep out.
And we'll take our gay friends anyday to your denigrating of part of god's creation. All you want is to impose your will on others. Sorry. impose your will in your church, but not elsewhere.
And make sure your brainwashed don't try and impose your beliefs in the ballot box.
Freedom of religion impliess full freedom from religion.
If you don't like it, go sell a box of bibles on the street corner in Riyahd Saudi Arabia. They will then teach you about what happens in theocracies.
I'll buy you the plane ticket one way. Two way for me, so I can bring back video of your punishment by people just like you, but with a different variant of belief.
I only hope the swordsman sharpens the sword first, so you don't suffer to much on the beginning of your trip to hell.
Allahu Ahkbar -