Read Some Original Baptist Sources

Over the weekend Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, commented on my blog about the "Misguided Rhetoric at First Baptist Dallas." Jeffress quotes a commentary from former Supreme Court justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) as an authoritative interpretation of the original intention of the U.S. Constitution.

Associate Justice Story was a child when the Constitution was being written and was merely ten years old when it was adopted (1789). Undoubtedly, his understanding of the intentions of our nation's founders was from second-hand sources and hearsay evidence that would not bear scrutiny in a court of law.

Furthermore, Story was from Massachusetts, the state that was the very last state to disestablish the church and bring its state constitution into line with the federal constitution. Massachusetts did not disestablish its church until 1833 -- the same year that Story's commentary was published. On the topic of church-state separation, both Story and his native state were obviously out-of-step with the rest of the people in the country.

I've been suggesting to Jeffress that he read source documents instead of second-hand documents for his understanding of the intentions of the founding fathers and the mindset of revolutionary America. The primary source to read is James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance. Madison is the primary author of the Constitution and of the Bill of Rights.

Jeffress would know that if he knew his Baptist history. It was Baptist evangelist John Leland and the Baptists in Virginia who convinced Madison that he had better add the First Amendment if he wanted to get the Constitution ratified in Virginia. After the U.S. Constitution was adopted, Leland wrote a pamphlet entitled "The Rights of Conscience Inalienable" (1791) that explained the intention of the First Amendment and Article VI of the Constitution:

"The federal constitution certainly had the advantage of any of the state constitutions, in being made by the wisest men in the whole nation, and after an experiment of a number of year's trial upon republican principles; and that constitution forbids Congress ever to establish any kind of religion, or to require any kind of religious test to qualify for any office in any department of federal government. Let a man be Pagan, Turk, Jew or Christian, he is eligible to any post in that government."

(L. F. Greene, ed. The Writings of John Leland. New York: Arno Press, 1969, p. 191)

Regarding the inequities of the state constitution in Massachusetts, here's what Leland said to the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1811:

Government should be so fixed, that Pagans, Turks, Jews and Christians, should be equally protected in their rights. The government of Massachusetts, is, however, differently formed; under the existing constitution, it is not possible for the general court, to place religion upon its proper footing. (p. 358)

In times past I could only quote the references and hope that readers would be able to find a copy of Leland's writings in a local library. Today, anyone can download the book from Google Books and check the reference for themselves at their leisure both online and on their own laptops and computers. So there is no longer any excuse for Baptists to not be familiar with the writings of the Baptist leaders who led the struggle for religious liberty in America.

Here's a link to "The Writings of the Late Elder John Leland." (1844)

Here's a link to Massachusetts Baptist leader Isaac Backus' "Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty: Against the Oppressions of the Present Day" (1773).

The Roots of Religious Liberty: The Edict of Milan

A couple years ago I wrote an opinion for the District Court regarding the Ten Commandments monument on the courthouse lawn in Haskell County, Oklahoma. In that opinion, I discussed Roger Williams' position regarding religious liberty and believed, at that time, that his understanding of forced religion as "molestation" and his equating it with "soul rape" was uniquely his own.

Since that time, I have found no earlier thinker who has described forced religion as the rape of the soul, but I have found what may well be the first description of it as a "molestation." The rescript of Licinius, published in 313 A.D., documents the Edict of Milan formulated by Constantine and Licinius. Though they failed to abide by this edict, it is a remarkably enlightened statement and may well be the earliest legal document affirming religious liberty.

Here is an English translation of the Edict of Milan:

When we, Constantine Augustus and Licinius Augustus, had happily met together at Milan and considered all things which pertain to the advantage and security of the state, we thought that, among other things which seemed likely to profit men generally, we ought, in the first place, to set in order the conditions of the reverence paid to divinity by giving to Christians and all others full permission to follow whatever worship any man has chosen. Thereby whatever deity there is in heaven may be benevolent and propitious to us and to all placed under our authority. Therefore we ought, with sound counsel and right reason, to lay down this law, that we should in no way refuse to any man any legal right who has given up his mind either to the observance of Christianity or to that worship which he personally feels best suited to himself -- to the end that the Supreme Divinity, whose worship we freely follow, may continue in all things to grant us his accustomed favor and good will. Wherefore your excellency [addressed to the governors of the provinces] should know that it is our pleasure that all provisions whatsoever which have appeared in documents hitherto directed to your office regarding Christians and which appeared utterly improper and opposed to our clemency should be abolished, and that all who wish to worship as Christians may now freely and unconditionally do so without any annoyance or molestation. These things we thought it well to signify in the fullest manner to your attention, that you might know it well to signify in the fullest manner to your attention, that you might know that we have given free and absolute permission to the said Christians to practice their worship. And when you see that we have granted this to the said Christians, your excellency will understand that to others also a full and free permission for their own worship and observance is granted, for the tranquillity of the times, so that every man may have freedom in practice of whatever worship he has chosen. (Emphasis mine)