“RELIGIOUS LIBERTY OR
RELIGIOUS MONOPOLY?”
Dr. Stephen D. Jones, preaching
Text: Matthew 22:15-22; Galatians 5:1, 13-14
January 20, 2008
For the first forty years after St. Louis was founded in 1764, it was an untamed
frontier outpost of fur-traders, scouts, saloon owners, and pioneers. At the
time, Missouri was first ruled by France and then Spain. As the capitol of Upper
Louisiana, vast stretches of untamed land fell under the administrative control
of St. Louis. When President Jefferson secretly negotiated the Louisiana
Purchase with the King of France in 1804, Missouri suddenly found itself the
possession of the United States. Most of the whites and Africans spoke French.
The streets still had French names. And the French elite of St. Louis remained
in control. The Indian nations surrounding St. Louis were restive, stirred up in
part by the British who formed an alliance attempting to take over the Missouri
Territory.
Under Spanish and French administrations, Missouri had a state religion in which
only Catholicism was recognized. Protestants were not allowed to cross the
Mississippi. The Catholic Church had a religious monopoly.
The Spanish Commandant General Gayoso stated on Jan. 1, 1798, “No preacher of
any religion but the Catholic shall be allowed in (Missouri).” And, “Freedom of
conscience is not to be extended beyond the first generation: the children of
immigrants must be Catholics.” At one point the Spanish governor in Cape
Girardeau issued an order that all people within 15 miles of his mansion should
attend Catholic mass on a certain day. The few Baptists residing in that
district dared to disobey his order and narrowly escaped penalty. The few
priests serving in Upper Louisiana received a small stipend from the
government.
The first Baptist preacher and probably the first Protestant to hold services in
St. Louis was John Clark. Clark lived on the Illinois side of the river, and,
beginning in 1798, crossed secretly over at night near St. Louis to hold house
meetings. The Spanish Governor at the time, more lenient in practice, waited
until he thought the Baptist preacher had about completed his round of visits
among the Protestant families and then sent him word he must leave within three
days, or be imprisoned.
In practice, there was a decided lack of piety among the earliest settlers.
Revelry disrespectful of religion was common in St. Louis. In 1814, in a survey
of the Illinois Territory, missionaries found it “deplorably destitute of
Bibles.” Of the 2,000 residents of St. Louis in 1814, one-third were
“Americans” (non-French or British) and very few of them were religious. As Peck
observed, most of the citizens were nominal Catholics. The first Catholic
Church, a primitive log cabin, was founded in 1770, but the first priest didn’t
arrive until 1776. In early 1815, it was reported that Catholics in St. Louis
had “calloused hearts” and “extreme indifferentism.” The only Catholic Church in
St. Louis had fallen into disrepair when Bishop DeBourg arrived in 1818,
bringing new vitality to the Catholics of the city.
Even though the Louisiana Purchase happened in 1804, it wasn’t until December of
1817 that John Mason Peck and John Ely Welch arrived in this city as the first
Baptist missionaries and found seven Baptists in the village. Rev. Solomon
Giddings, the first Protestant missionary, began a Presbyterian church in St.
Louis on November 15, 1817. The Baptists soon followed organizing “The Baptist
Church of St. Louis” on February 18, 1818, and built the first Protestant house
of worship in St. Louis. The Episcopal Church was organized here in 1819 and the
Methodists in 1821. All these Protestant groups had a very small population on
whom to focus because the French were culturally Catholic and exhibited little
interest in their missionary work.
Certainly the dominance of the Catholic Church in St. Louis today is due in part
to this heritage of its monopoly as a state church in Missouri. Within a few
years of the construction of the early Baptist church, the city of St. Louis
decided to widen the street in front of the church essentially making the
building inaccessible. The city refused to reimburse the church because it did
not recognize the Protestant church as a legal entity in St. Louis! When a hail
storm broke the windows of the church, the city condemned the building. It was
hard-going for Protestants in St. Louis in those days.
This historical context reminds us of how dear religious liberty is to Baptists,
how long-awaited it was in coming to Missouri, and how Baptist faith thrives
when liberty is offered to all. It has been this way since the very beginning of
the Baptists in England.
Thomas Helwys returned with the first band of English Baptists from exile in
Holland in 1611. Helwys’ wife had earlier been imprisoned in England for her
beliefs. Upon returning to
England,
they defiantly established their church outside the London walls. Helwys wrote a
book advocating religious liberty. It was a stand that would eventually cost him
his life. The
Anglican State
Church would tolerate no such challenge from the Puritans, the Separatists, or
the Baptists.
Later, in the American colonies, Baptists again were persecuted for their
beliefs. “Through loose-fitting windows, the cold east wind from Boston harbor
blew into the courtroom. A lean-faced magistrate stirred and loudly spoke his
mind: ‘This Roger Williams, with his heretical beliefs, is unsettling our
colony. . . I will have no more of his false teaching about freedom, and about
paying the Indians a larger price for the land. We must have him arrested
forthwith and banish him to England.’ A few miles to the north through the woods
was Salem,
another crude cabin settlement like
Boston,
where Roger Williams lived, the preacher who had come from England seeking
freedom from the restrictions of the Church. . .The magistrate arose from his
seat and strode toward a red-faced captain.. ‘Captain Wainwright,’ he shouted,
‘We want you to sail your ship out of
Boston
Harbor. . .Slip quietly into anchorage at Salem harbor, just about dark. Then
you and two of your crew are to go to the log house of Elder Roger Williams and
place him under arrest. Here are your papers.’ The captain saluted and left on
his assigned mission. But when the men reached
Salem,
they found no trace of Williams.
He had escaped to the wilderness in the middle of the winter, normally certain
death. Williams was a strong advocate of Indian rights and found a welcome among
them. The Indians led him through the cold winter to a new home he purchased
from them. “Standing upon a rock, Roger Williams named the place ‘Providence,’
in honor of the God to whom he gave thanks for their safe arrival. . .Soon
others joined Roger and Mary Williams, even Catholics and Jews, and a great idea
was launched in this new American colony.
Liberty
of conscience was to be the ruling principle, separating church from state and
giving freedom to all minorities to practice their faith according to the
dictates of their own soul.”
No group fought harder for religious liberty in the colonies than our spiritual
ancestors. We challenged the Congregationalists and their state church in New
England, and the Anglicans and their state church in
Virginia.
When it fell to us to establish a colony, Baptists refused to hold a monopoly on
religion, and Rhode Island became the first to offer full religious liberty.
The government would not favor any church, and no church would receive revenue
from the state. It was a unique experiment that was to define American
governance.
In my childhood years, my father contributed to an organization called
“Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.” When I became old
enough to differentiate my politics from my father’s, his concern for that
separation seemed out of step with the times. And it had the suspicious overtone
of separating politics from religion.
I no longer feel that way. Because the Baptists were dominant in my small town,
I recall only one public school teacher who ever offered a prayer in her
classroom during my public school years. It was frowned upon, not because we
didn’t fervently believe in prayer, but because we didn’t believe in government
mandated prayers for the public schools. That was typical of Baptists then.
Sadly, that has changed.
Every denominational family within Christendom has a special contribution to the
whole. And for Baptists, clearly, our unique contribution is our freedom.
Baptists are dominant in the Free Church tradition. No other group is so defined
by freedoms as Baptists.
Our freedoms are at times cumbersome and awkward. They make us appear needlessly
individualistic and disorganized. Our church and denominational life are often
messy and chaotic, and no one seemingly has the authority to bring things back
together once scattered apart. We start new churches more often by splitting old
churches than by planned new church development. In our most chaotic moments,
every Baptist has prayed for a Bishop to ride into town on a silver stallion and
sort things out!
There was once a terrible shipwreck, and there were only six survivors, all of
whom miraculously swam to an uninhabited island for refuge. And as it turned
out, two of the survivors were Jewish, two were Catholics, and two were
Baptists. It’s just human nature, that before very long the two Jews got
together and formed the Beth Israel Synagogue. And then, the two Catholics got
together and formed the Blessed Virgin Catholic Church. And not to be out-done,
the two Baptists got together and formed the First Baptist Church. . . And
then, the Second Baptist Church!
Over the next three Sundays, we will identify five freedoms that express the
genius of being a Baptist.
In Paul’s Corinthian correspondence, he urges freedom in the Spirit, and against
adherence to a written, legal code. “Christ set us free, so then we should
remain free!” (Galatians 5:1) The issue for Paul is not how well you follow the
rules or keep the commandments, but how freely you allow the Spirit to work its
way in your life. A written code, even the magnificent Law of Moses, can bring
uniformity and therefore restriction. It tells what you can and can’t do. It’s
an external source of authority. But the work of the Spirit inside our lives,
transforming us into an ever greater reflection of Christ (4:18) brings freedom.
He writes to the Galations, “Live by the Spirit!” (5:16) And to the Corinthians,
“Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Corinthians 3:17) Does
your faith tell you what you can and can’t do, or does it offer you the freedom
to follow your conscience and the leading of the Holy Spirit?
Religious liberty raises tough questions: Should the government employ chaplains
in the military, in prisons, in government hospitals? Should the words, “In God
We Trust” appear on our dollar bills? Should the Senate or House employ a
chaplain? Should clergy be given tax exemptions? Should houses of worship be tax
exempt? How can the government regulate bogus religions, set up exclusively to
escape paying taxes? Should the government allow for conscientious objection on
grounds of faith? Should parents be allowed to withhold medical treatment from
their child on grounds of faith? Should the United States appoint an ambassador
to the Vatican?
Should parochial schools receive tax dollars? Should the holy days of every
religion be respected by government and business? Can the government interfere
with what I preach from this pulpit? Does the government have the right to tell
Second Baptist Church how we can use our building to house or feed the homeless?
Should the church receive police and fire protection without cost? Should
American flags be exhibited in houses of worship? Must Creationism be taught
alongside evolution if parents demand it? Can churches endorse candidates who
agree with their ideas? Can the state require religious groups to follow
standard bookkeeping practices? Can religious groups organize a ministry with
students in high schools? Can prayers be spoken at school baccalaureates? Should
children recite prayers in the public schools? Can Islamic girls cover their
faces in schools? Should the government fund the church’s social ministries with
the poor? Should people be allowed to swear in court on a Bible? Should crèches
appear on government property? Should United States postage stamps appear at
Christmas with Madonna and child?
There are no clear or simple answers to questions such as these. But our
tradition as Baptists requires that we seriously weigh these issues of religious
liberty.
How do we separate religion and politics? The truth is they cannot be separated.
What must remain separate is religion and partisanship. There can be no such
thing as a Democrat or Republican church. Churches cannot endorse political
candidates or allow themselves to be used for partisan goals.
There need not be hostility between church and state, but the separating line
between them must be defended.
Once Jesus was challenged by someone asking if it was lawful for Jews to pay
taxes to Rome. And Jesus answered, “Show me the coin used for the tax.” And they
brought him a Roman denarius. Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and
whose title?” They answered him, “The Emperor’s.” And Jesus said, “Give
therefore to the emperor the things that are his and to God the things that are
God’s.” There is a way to be responsible to the State while keeping that
distinct from our deeper allegiance to God.
But it isn’t always easy. During World War II, our government declared that
Japanese citizens living on the West coast were a threat to the security of the
nation, even though they posed no recognizable threat. German-Americans, for
example, did not have their property confiscated nor were they herded into
remote internment camps. One of my predecessors in Seattle, Dr. Harold Jensen,
stood up against the internment of the Japanese and illegally organized members
of his congregation to secretly store the possessions of their Japanese
neighbors while they were away. It was considered aiding and abetting the enemy.
Dr. Jensen recognized the injustice of the government’s actions and refused to
obey it. I served a church in Pennsylvania that offered sanctuary to illegal
Salvadoran refugees because we recognized that their lives were in danger if
deported by our government. Along with other pastors, I was arrested in
Philadelphia for blocking the entrance to the
Federal
Building as we protested the continuance of the war in
El Salvador
which we saw as immoral.
I recently found a formal warning sent to John Mason Peck by the Justice of the
Peace in St.
Louis. He
warned Peck that starting a school to educate black slaves was against the law
and that he could not expect to be shielded from punishment just because he was
an ordained pastor. Yet Peck defied the legal warning and continued to educate
black children. When the law was made even more severe, Black Baptist pastor
John Berry Meachum, whom Peck ordained, built a ship and ferried black children
into the middle of the
Mississippi River
where Missouri
law did not apply. This riverboat school continued for a number of years.
The actions of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were the defining moment of
civil disobedience in our country. If he hadn’t defied the law, racial
segregation might still be legal in parts of our country today. Near the end of
his life, Dr. King mounted the pulpit in his beloved Ebenezer Baptist Church in
Atlanta and said prophetically, If I die in this cause, let it be said at my
funeral, “Martin Luther King, Jr. tried to give his life serving others. . .I
want you to say that day I tried to be right on the Vietnam War. I want you to
be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry and clothe the naked.
Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for
justice. Say that I was a drum major for peace. Say that I was a drum major for
righteousness.” (p. 442, Let the Trumpet Sound, The Life of Martin Luther
King, Jr,. Stephen B. Oats)
In defending religious liberty, Francis Wayland said in the early days of
America, “in matters which concern our relations to God, the state has no
jurisdiction. It has no right to take cognizance of our duties to God. Hence it
is guilty of wrong, if it prohibit or annoy any form of Religion, if it favor
one more than another, if it restrict the exercise of any form of devotion,
either public or private” (223).
The Birmingham City Commission placed churches on special land use permits, and
for us to house the homeless in our building we had to submit a formal request
each year to the City Commission asking their permission. All the participating
churches in town followed this required procedure. Finally, it fell to the
Baptists to declare that we would no longer ask for permission to follow the
teachings of Jesus who declared, “For I was a stranger, and you welcomed me, I
was thirsty and you gave me drink” (Matthew 25:35). The city finally backed
down.
Wayland said, “Here, then, is the peculiar glory of the Baptists. While they
have suffered persecution at the hands of almost all the dominant sects that
ranged from the Reformation, their garments have never been defiled by any
violation of the rights of conscience. What Roger Williams claimed for himself,
he as freely granted to others. He tells us, ‘I desire not that liberty to
myself which I would not freely and impartially weigh out to all the consciences
of the world beside.”
Voices like these should be reverberating from our churches. The separation of
church and state has rarely been under attack as today. May these voices of
liberty again be heard, inside these walls, and beyond. Let us tell the world:
“You do not know the Baptists: for WE ARE A FREEDOM-LOVING PEOPLE!”
Amen.
