|  Login
 
   

Location: BlogsThinking Out Loud: A Christian's Reflections    
Posted by: Mike Smith 5/2/2007

Religious freedom, actually radical religious freedom, is in the DNA of all healthy Baptists. Truth to tell, religious freedom may be the only special theological contribution Baptists may claim to have made to the broader Christian community.

Our Baptist forebears insisted such freedom must be absolute. It is for everyone, regardless of the decisions they may make with regard to religion. Thomas Helwys, one of the founders of the Baptist movement and a good layman to boot, insisted that government had no role to play in religious matters. To put it mildly, his position was considered radical in his time, when almost everyone assumed government and religion must be formally connected. Helwys used startling language when he argued that each person must be free to choose (without fear of government interference or hope of government support) any religion or no religion.

From their beginnings in England down through the middle of the twentieth century, Baptist leaders and churches held fast to such a position. Baptist leaders pushed for guarantees of religious freedom during the formative days of the United States, resulting in the first amendment to our constitution. Even in the trying years of the early twenthieth century, as the nation wrestled with issues related to the rise of Russian communism, economic dislocations, civil strife between big business and workers, and immigration Baptist leaders continued to insist on full religious freedom for all.

Something happened, though, in the latter half of the twentieth century. Many Baptists lost their nerve when it came to religious freedom. In part, this happened because Baptist churches failed to teach members about their heritage. Technology also fueled the change as television and radio ministries took off. For the most part, the media ministers did not believe in full religious freedom. They argued that government should support religion, especially their brand (whatever that might be). Many good Baptist people, both lay and clergy, fell prey to their teachings.

Mostly, though, many of us abandoned radical religious freedom because of fear. World religions moved to our neighborhoods, genuine diversity within broader American culture startled many Baptists, war and terrorism loomed, and yellow journalism thrived economically by packaging and marketing a culture of crisis. Many Baptists reacted fearfully and began to look around for someone or some thing to "protect" religion, especially our kind of religion. Turning our back on our heritage, we looked to the power of government. To use a biblical image, we swapped our inheritance for a bowl of stew.

Mostly, I think, we became afraid we were about to become a minority, with all the loss of power that entails. We forgot or chose to ignore that Jesus was in the minority and that following him faithfully more often than not will put us in the same position. Jesus respected the religious freedom of each person. He relied on persuasion, sacrifice and the work of Holy Spirit to lead others to God and to change their lives. That's how Christians who believe in religious freedom act.

Is religious freedom dangerous? Yes. Practicing religious freedom requires that we be willing to endure being a miniority, reject the lure of power, and face the possibility of suffering. Religious freedom, though, is the way of Jesus, and so is the only path open to those who would follow him.

Permalink |  Trackback

Comments (1)   Add Comment
Church and State    By Jim W on 5/3/2007
Interesting blog Pastor Mike. I think that you are right that we get too caught up in wanting the government to support our personal religious agendas instead of trying to be the alternative community to the issues propagated by the government.

It kind of goes in line with our views of the Bible, such as Paul and Revelation, we tend to think that something tells us something just because that is always how we have know it. It the case of Paul, we tend to think that we was a government sympathizer and with Revelation, we just assume that it have to do with some future end times thing.

But, if we take back out ability to read the Bible we will see something different when we read with a critical eye. Paul was more or less to me, advocating an alternative to the government. He was point out that the church should be an alternative, a better way, than what the state was preaching. The State preached peace through war and Paul was preaching peace through Jesus, community and to some degree passivity as it relates to war activities, somewhat subversive in nature, but fair from a government sympathizer.

Revelations, when read closely, appears to be more of a subversive letter regarding the Roman Empire and how the Christians can band together and find hope in Jesus. Not at all the end times stuff as much as it was a letter of hope to the 7 churches.

Part of the religious freedom understands that we are to be a community of Jesus, almost and alternative community to the government, but at the same we are called to function within the community or society.

Our goal is to look past the partisan issues to the only issues that matter, the issues of Jesus. If we stick with those, we should be able to bear witness to the community and the witness will speak volumes for who the Christian community.


Your name:
Title:
Comment:
Add Comment   Cancel 
 
 
       
    © 2007 FBC Murfreesboro   |  Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use