The assassination last month of Charlie Kirk brought many Americans face-to-face with a gruesome reality encountered all too often across the globe: namely, that a man might be killed simply for expressing what he believes to be true.
“It would be a safe but sad bet that someone, somewhere in the world, is killing someone else at this very moment in the name of religion or ideology,” Os Guinness wrote in the first lines of his 2008 book, The Case for Civility.
During the past century, “the world’s most murderous century,” Guinness adds, “about one hundred million human beings were killed in war, another hundred million under political repression, and yet another hundred million in ethnic and sectarian violence.” The global scope of deadly persecution against Christians during the century was depicted powerfully in 1995 by Southern Baptist journalists James & Marti Hefley, in their book, By Their Blood: Christian Martyrs of the 20th Century.
Many recent events remind us how true Guinness’s assessment remains: the deadly attack on a Jewish synagogue in Manchester, England, on Yom Kippur (Oct. 2); the incessant and murderous attacks on Christian villages by Muslim terrorists in Nigeria, where 35 Christians are killed every day, according to Breakpoint; and the growing and sometimes violent persecution of Christians in India. Indeed, the Nov. 2 International Day of Prayer for Persecuted Christians should prevent this reality from escaping our attention.
Of course, not all attempts to repress people’s beliefs involve violence, as we’ve seen during the past decade even in the United States. For example, Christian bakers, photographers and counselors have faced repression in the form of lawsuits and governmental ordinances that aim to enforce the LGBTQ agenda.
Western culture’s slide into moral relativism may, at one time, have fostered a live-and-let-live sensibility within society. But in more recent years, according to Gene Edward Veith, postmodern relativism “has successfully dissolved our traditional conventions,” resulting in greater polarization within society. And now it has “hardened into new kinds of contending absolutist ideologies.”
In this cultural context, as historian Carl Trueman has noted, individuals create truth for themselves, rather than rightly submitting to God’s truth as revealed in both general revelation (God’s creation) and special revelation (Scripture). Moreover, as apologists Josh and Sean McDowell explain, anyone’s inability to accept or even praise the individual’s personalized truth claims is labeled as intolerance. Even the mere expression of disagreement may be viewed by some individuals as harmful bigotry. Sadly, as seen in previous paragraphs, this can lead to repressive lawsuits, unjust ordinances—and even violence.
Amid such incivility on both global and national levels, it is worth asking again the question that Os Guinness raises in The Case for Civility: “How do we live with our deepest differences, especially when those differences are religious and ideological?” It’s worthwhile to remember why the founders of the United States protected the liberty of the human conscience by affirming the freedoms of religion, speech, the press and assembly, as well as the right to petition the government. It’s worth our time and effort to reaffirm the reasons why Baptists have for the past four centuries defended the liberty of conscience—both for themselves and for those with whom they disagreed.
When our liberty-loving forefathers “removed the gags from all the heresies,” G.K. Chesterton wrote a century ago, “their view was that cosmic truth was so important that every one ought to bear independent testimony.”
Indeed, everyone must testify and ultimately give an account to God, the author of truth. For this reason, all people should be free to seek truth and declare their findings openly. This is one reason why early English and American Baptists defended religious liberty so stridently.
“Every man must give an account of himself to God,” Baptist Pastor John Leland declared in 1791. He added, “If government can answer for individuals at the day of judgment, let men be controlled by it in religious matters; otherwise let men be free.”
In a book showing the earliest Christian roots of liberty of conscience, historian Robert Louis Wilken writes, “Religious freedom rests on a simple truth: religious faith is an inward disposition of the mind and heart and for that reason cannot be coerced by external force.”
Last fall, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary President David Dockery and Research Professor of Theology Malcolm Yarnell helpfully explained why Baptists have defended the liberty of conscience—particularly, religious liberty—in The Southwestern Journal of Theology. They write, “The reason Baptists around the world argue passionately for freedom of religion, often at great personal cost imposed by secularists, other religious traditions, and other professed Christians, is because we believe it is grounded in, and therefore required by, both biblical revelation and general revelation.”
The following rationale for the liberty of conscience, which Dockery and Yarnell outline, are worth our careful reflection:
• “First, Holy Scripture makes every human being originally, currently, and finally accountable to God alone (Gen 2:16-17; Ezek 18; Rom 5:12; Rev 20:11-15).
• “Second, God’s Word also teaches that Jesus Christ alone is the one Mediator to whom all must look for salvation (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 Tim 2:5-6).
• “Third, the conscience within every person bears witness both to the reality of the law of God and to the forthcoming judgment of God. The witness of the conscience may be ignored, misled, and seared by a person, but that fundamental witness remains and requires an account before the throne of God (Rom 2:14-16).
• “Fourth, Baptists recognize religious liberty coordinates with their need to obey the Great Commission of Jesus Christ (Matt 28:16-20). The authority of Christ compels us to witness of the salvation only available in him. The freedom that provides room for us to propagate our faith is integral to the very practice of our faith.
• “Fifth, … respect for liberty of conscience is part and parcel of the character of our incarnate Lord Jesus Christ and of his express will for Christians to follow him in carrying our crosses. We certainly don’t put other people on crosses by binding their consciences.”
In an age of growing incivility, may we deeply appreciate and reaffirm the foundations for liberty of conscience. Moreover, may we make use of the freedoms we have in the United States to put into practice the words of the apostle Peter: “But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience” (1 Pet 3:15-16a, ESV).