Our story this months picks up in June 1636, when Williams and several followers met up and began to plan out a new colony: Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. To begin, they drafted a “compact” that would govern them until they were granted colony status by the King. Even in this early framework, you can observe the cardinal ethic that would guide them: religious freedom. We’ve seen that this is an historic hallmark of Baptist belief—it has remained with us since. The compact clearly stated that ordinances would govern residents, “only in civil things.” As to the religious life of the people, the 1663 charter for the Colony makes clear that:
No person…shall be in any wise molested, punished…or called in question for any differences in opinion in matters of religion…but that all…persons may…freely have and enjoy his and their own judgments and consciences in matters of religious concernment.
It should be noted that there was a
long wait between the original compact (1636) and the official Colonial Charter
from the King (1663). During the intervening years, Williams had much work to
do, drawing on friendship connections he’d made with legal colleagues from his
youth. His education, and their advice, give him important insights for drawing
up a Charter that would be acceptable to the King. It took some campaigning on
his part as well. In the early 1640s Williams traveled back to England in order
to seek favor from the right people. It
was there that he composed his famous tract, The Bloudy Tenent of
Persecution (1644). Though the wording was clunky, it remains one of the
most powerful and stirring calls for religious freedom known to our country’s
history. In the tract, Williams used Romans 13 to argue that God commanded a
two-fold structure of authority: a civil state, with civil officers wielding civil
weapons (law and force); and a spiritual state, with spiritual officers
wielding spiritual weapons (2 Cor. 10:3-5, Eph. 6:10-18). He argued that the
civil state only had authority to govern in the civic sphere, making laws
governing lawful conduct and just treatment. To put it another way, he believed
that the civil state was only given authority governing the “second table” of
the Ten Commandments, all of which deal with our conduct toward others. The
“first table,” or first half of the Commandments, deal with our relationships
with and duties toward God. First-table matters were the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Church, not the State. He
used the analogy of a ship to make this clearer: when a ship was out on the
seas, the captain of that ship had all authority to set rules and judge
infractions. Once the ship reached port, however, the captain’s authority
vanished. He himself came under the
authority of the local magistrate.
Obviously, Williams was passionate about freedom of religion. We need to take care not to read this with the jaded eyes of today’s postmodern society which will permit no absolute rule of truth. Williams was no situational ethicist; he absolutely upheld the authority of Scripture and would not hesitate to condemn wickedness where he saw it and the Bible clearly defined it. Williams’ stand on religious freedom was not an attempt to escape God’s truth and accountability to it. Civil authorities were there to punish lawlessness, and the Church was there to rebuke error. At the same time, Williams’ had seen English Christians martyred for their faith in his boyhood, London home. During his legal apprenticeship in his youth, he saw horrible miscarriages of justice -- persecution, banishment and executions -- against those who conscientiously disagreed with Church authorities. He and his friends had experienced persecution for themselves in Massachusetts. And though he firmly upheld God’s truth, he saw that the wickedness of men employing cruelty in the name of the Lord had to be stopped. Baptists have since held religious freedom close to their hearts. We believe each person is free and accountable to worship and follow God in accordance with Scripture and the dictates of conscience. But especially in our day, we see that a good thing can become a dangerous thing when carried too far. Next month, I hope to share some thoughts on the need for Baptists to carefully watch the line between faithful freedom and antinomianism.
Your Brother and Servant,
Pastor Scott.
Note: my sources for this article include The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness by H. Leon McBeth (Broadman Press, 1987), The Rhode Island Royal Charter of 1663 (https://docs.sos.ri.gov/documents/civicsandeducation/teacherresources/RI-Charter-annotated.pdf) and The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution by Roger Williams (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65739/65739-h/65739-h.htm)
No comments:
Post a Comment