TJ and the Liberties: Who were those pesky Baptists

I neglected to mention last time the outcome of the "Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion" -- it failed. Perhaps you already guessed that. 

I should also point out Patrick Henry's reasoning on the bill. Simply put people who follow religion -- and yes, I know that whole argument about how "Christianity's not a religion, etc." -- and who regularly attend churches for religious instruction tend to be the kind of citizens we want to foster: prone to follow rules (laws), not given as much to being quarrelsome, more generous than the average unchurced person, regular nice people. And government should want to prop up an institution that creates these law-abiding, somewhat passive citizens.

I see this reasoning quoted in an annual ad by a commercial business that used to appear in the papers I read. Ben Franklin -- hardly a Christian icon -- and George Washington -- pretty much your standard Anglican churchgoer -- believed the same thing. 

But certain denominations of Christianity had experienced the downside of this government support -- that governments could decide which Christian groups tended to be the most cooperative, while others held ideas that made them different but insisted on being give the same voice as the preferred groups. 

What was even worse, these different groups -- the technical term is heterodox -- didn't want the government to actively discriminate against them or levy taxes to support churches whose understanding of religion varied from their own. 

Often the differences were pretty stark. Quakers didn't do almost anything like a traditional church, but at least during the colonial and early American periods, held to fairly traditional doctrines. Baptists, on the other hand pretty much differed from the traditional churches over the meaning and practice of the two central rites of Protestantism, baptism and the Lord's Supper. Still, they were kinda cranky about their ministers having to obtain a license to preach and conduct worship. Oh, and that tax thing. (Also Baptists don't always consider themselves to be Protestant, but the key thing for us is that they were different enough for churches such as Congregationalists and Anglicans to feel free to discriminate against them.)

In the days of Jefferson and Madison and the battles over what religious freedom meant, one particular association of Baptists consisting of 23 churches in Connecticut and three in New York met -- in 1800 --to discuss the issue and how to influence the government of Connecticut to disestablish religion in the state. A year after that meeting the association enlisted six of their leaders to write to President Thomas Jefferson to enlist his support in their cause.

You should note that I wrote "President Thomas Jefferson" in that previous sentence. Contrary to popular belief, then, this was no ordinary letter to someone famous who took the time to express his personal opinion on the matter. No, this was an official letter from a disaffected group to the head of the American government seeking his policy on an important matter. 

After the standard congratulations on Jefferson's election -- some would say overt sucking up -- they got to the heart of their concerns:

"Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty—That Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals — That no man aught to suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions — That the legetimate Power of civil Goverment extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbour ... " but "... what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expence of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistant with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondred at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretence of goverment & Religion should reproach their fellow men—should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.." (Nonstandard spelling in the original.)

They go on to say that they understand the President doesn't make the laws but that they hope his sentiments on the matter, "... like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States ... " and indeed the world. 

You can read the full letter here: Letter from the Danbury Baptist Association

Image: Logo of the current Baptist Church of Danbury, retrieved from the church's Facebook page.Copyright to the church.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Road not Taken

TJ and the Liberties: That infamous letter

A Cautionary Tale