Book Review: The Gospel & Religious Liberty
A lengthy review of a short book, exposing common errors in our contemporary conversations.
Russell D. Moore and Andrew T. Walker, eds., The Gospel & Religious Liberty, The Gospel for Life (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2016).
Introduction
The Gospel & Religious Liberty is part of a series (The Gospel for Life) of short books published by B&H Publishing Group in 2016 and 2017. The series editors, Russell Moore and Andrew Walker, aimed to create concise and accessible resources for Evangelicals on a wide range of topics, including pornography, work, marriage, and racial reconciliation. Moore and Walker were both Southern Baptists at the time of these publications, but they have collected a pretty wide range of authors to contribute to these short books. The authors might collectively be described as broadly Evangelical, though they are writing from a Baptistic perspective in this particular book on religious liberty.
I say “Baptistic” because there is not a specific reference to a distinctively Baptist ecclesiology or political theology. This, as my post’s subtitle suggests, is a fundamental error in our contemporary conversations about what religious liberty is and how it should be applied. Baptists may sometimes even disagree with other Baptists on this subject, but Evangelicals are simply too broad of a category in which to find unity on religious liberty. Furthermore, Evangelicals often speak for Baptists, assuming agreement and unanimity where there is none. Ecclesiology matters, and it has huge implications in this conversation especially.
Book Summary
Andrew Walker – Introduction and Chapter 1
Andrew Walker provides the introduction for this short book on religious liberty. He claims that the “perspective of this book is neither Left nor Right; liberal nor conservative.”[1] “Instead,” he says, “we believe we can have meaningful discourse about religious liberty, free of any conspiracy to promote a particular political viewpoint.”[2] Of course, the assumed political viewpoint of this book is, however, distinctly American - and the American political philosophy did not arise from nowhere.
Walker offers the reader his own definition when he writes, “Religious liberty means we have the freedom to pledge allegiance to a power greater than the state itself.”[3] Indeed, he says that “Religious liberty is the right that secures and anchors all other rights.”[4] And Walker signals his historic connection to Separatist and Baptist forebears in America when he says that “Religious liberty arises from the truth that a person’s relationship with God is the most important relationship a person can have… no law or state, should be able to interfere with a person’s relationship to God or his or her ability to live out his or her faith.”[5] Such a notion is an echo of the sorts of arguments made by eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Baptists in New England and elsewhere in the newly developing American experiment.
The rest of the book is a kind of call to Christians in America to think, speak, and act for the purpose of recovering and promoting a historically American view of religious liberty. Chapter one is Walker’s explanation of a positive affirmation regarding religious liberty. He wants Christians in America to be “for” something and not just “against” negative cultural or political trends. Walker says, “The rights of individuals to seek and understand who God is – even when they perceive wrongly – is something that can only be determined between a person and who they perceive God as.”[6] And he goes on, “Each person, as an image bearer, is created with a conscience; and Christians should respect the consciences of those who come to a different opinion about who God is.”[7]
The concept of a freedom of conscience and the affirmation of personal determination in the arena of religious beliefs and practices, says Walker, is “an implied truth of Scripture, one we see throughout, though not explicitly stated.”[8] He says, “when you look at the narrative of Scripture and what realities the Scriptures are pointing us to, religious liberty and the commitment to free expression are central to God’s story.”[9] For a specific example, Walker points to Romans 13, and he says, “government’s role is limited and its authority delegated… the ideal government is one that operates in its proper jurisdiction – administering law and protecting citizens – and doesn’t attempt to absolutize its claims over every area of a person’s life.”[10]
Therefore, says Walker, “Religious liberty entails the careful balancing of a state’s right to uphold public order and the rights of citizens to freely exercise their religion in peaceful ways.”[11] Practically, then, Walker asserts, “the state should not set itself up as lord or god over the conscience… [and] government employees shouldn’t be intercessors and… judges shouldn’t be the priests.”[12] Thus, Christians in America should argue for religious liberty so that every citizen is free to engage in the public forum of ideas. In such a pluralistic society, all religions are free to compete, and the gospel is free to advance. Walker is clear to note that the gospel will advance with or without governmental toleration, but he argues that “religious liberty is vital to the advance of the gospel.”[13]
Russell Moore – Chapter 2
Russel Moore offers his contribution to this book by drawing a distinction between “nominal” Christianity and a “vibrant, gospel-focused, cross-preaching, evangelizing book-of-Acts” kind of Christianity.[14] Nominal Christianity (i.e., Christian in name only), says Moore, is a “pseudo-Christianity” and a “decaffeinated Christianity” that “simply affirms whatever the outside culture sees as good and virtuous as useful.”[15] He says, “It is precisely this pseudo-Christianity with which the outside culture has never and will never have a problem.”[16] But, Moore writes, “One of the most counterproductive ways to defend religious liberty is to make Christianity seem normal.”[17]
Instead, what Christians in America must do is “fight for religious liberty” by taking up the responsibility “to shape consciences that know how to stand up and assert the freedom of the church in a free state.”[18] Moore argues that Christians must “clarify the message even further” when they seem to be well received among society.[19] The gospel itself has far greater implications for individuals and societies than the justification of guilty sinners before a holy God. Moore says, “The freedom that we petition for is not a freedom to preserve our traditions or our comfort. It’s a freedom to be relentless in pressing the gospel call for everyone everywhere.”[20] And this work of petitioning and pressing for a comprehensive practice of Christianity is a task for every Christian, not just church leaders.
Joe Carter – Chapter 3
Joe Carter offers the reader his assessment of the present cultural and political situation, at least as he perceived it in the mid-to-late 2010s. Carter says he believes “the state of religious liberty in America is desperate but not serious.”[21] By this he seems to mean that the threats to religious liberty are great and growing, but that the present status is not so serious that Christians are facing the sort of persecution that could compare with the Roman empire in the first or second century AD. Therefore, Carter urges Christians in America to take advantage of their fleeting opportunity to push back against the trend. He says, “each of us is called to partake of at least one of the following tasks: identifying and predicting future threats… working to roll back current restrictions… preventing further restrictions… [or] protecting and defending those who are or will be affected by such restrictions.”[22]
Jennifer Marshall – Chapter 4
Jennifer Marshall calls the reader to engage in the effort of preserving religious liberty in America by participating as part of a local church. She writes, “The future of religious liberty in the United States rests largely on churches’ willingness to stand on the truth of God’s Word, to equip Christians to speak and to act on that truth in their everyday lives, and to convey that we do so out of a desire for the good of all.”[23] The gospel calls sinners to trust in Jesus Christ to save them and also to pledge allegiance to Jesus Christ as Lord. The local church, then, is responsible to “articulate how faith transforms the Christian individual, the church community, and groups gathered around the tenants of the faith.”[24]
Marshall describes local churches as institutions with an authority established in God’s “purposes in creation” and in His “plan of redemption.”[25] But this does not mean that churches should be unnecessarily aggressive or antagonistic toward civil government or other societal institutions. Marshall says, “Church leaders should consider the exercise of its liberty in the public square case by case, committing themselves to prayer and using three criteria as a framework to discern when to speak out on specific issues of public life as the church.”[26] First, they should consider “the clarity of the Bible’s normative standard on the issue.”[27] Second, they should weigh, to the best of their ability, “the severity of the situational challenge to this truth.”[28] And third, they should speak and act based on “their responsibility to equip believers and to reach nonbelievers with a clear testimony to the lordship of Christ over all creation.”[29]
Hunter Baker – Chapter 5
Hunter Baker invites the reader to think about the benefits of religious liberty for a broader swath of citizens than just those who share the same religious convictions. He argues that “Religious liberty is a value that explicitly rests upon the idea that religious ideas and practices exist that are not necessarily embraced by a majority of citizens.”[30] Indeed, the rights enumerated in the American Constitution and Bill of Rights (as well as the seventeen additional amendments that have been added over the years) are intentionally designed as a protection against the tyranny of the majority. Baker says, “Religious liberty is the kind of principle we establish in our best and highest moments to defend against the things we might do when our passions are inflamed. Constitutional rights, then, are often counter-cultural in nature, especially when it comes to their application to specific areas.”[31]
Baker asserts, “If you look at the history of the church in the West, it has really operated on two models: the comprehensive church and the regenerate church” (emphasis added).[32] He says that “the height of European Christendom [is a key example] of the comprehensive church.”[33] This is when the state’s citizens and the church’s membership were essentially one and the same. But, Baker says, “In the United States, we had formal disestablishment early on in our history.”[34] Of course, he is referring here to the success of those Baptists and other Evangelicals who advocated for the freedom of churches to operate without the state compelling religious belief or adherence. This effort was based on the idea that membership in a church is dependent on personal conviction and commitment, what Baker defines as regenerate church participation.
Though the formal establishment of a state-church in America was toppled during the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century, an informal establishment of religious influence and prestige in the American culture continued for quite some time. Today, Baker says, “the Christian church of America… is not comprehensive in either the formal or informal senses.”[35] According to him, the societal and political winds have shifted to such a degree that virtually no one is a member of a church unless he or she consciously means to be. And Baker sees no reason to think that “in this age” there is any chance “that we will again be Christians in the comprehensive mode.”[36] Therefore, Christians must argue for religious liberty all the more fervently since they are now the ones who are most in need of the freedom to be a participating minority within a culture that often despises their convictions.
Evaluation and Critique
Overall, this book is an easy-to-read and light introduction to the topic of religious liberty in America. There is nothing in this book that is not stated more comprehensively, consistently, and/or precisely in other books, but it was not published as comprehensive, consistent, or precise book. The Gospel & Religious Liberty was published as an introduction from a variety of perspectives within the Evangelical tradition. And it was published for a reading audience already within that same Evangelical tradition, especially Southern Baptists. With such an aim in mind, one might find this book to be a helpful conversation starter among fellow church members who are rethinking their own perspective of religious liberty in an American cultural and political scene that has changed so much since the book’s publication.
Critiques of this book can fit under three headings: 1) diversity among the authors; 2) silence on areas of major disagreement; and 3) the lack of connecting ecclesiology to political theology.
Authorial Diversity
Some of the best books on a topic like this, where Evangelicals have areas of agreement and disagreement, are those that intentionally provide space for argument among the authors. For example, Four Views on the Church’s Mission offers the reader four different Evangelical views on the mission of the church as well as responses from each author. The Gospel & Religious Liberty included five different authors, and each wrote with a distinct definition of religious liberty and call to action, but the format of the book implied that all five authors were consistent with one another. This is simply not the case, and the book would have been better if the editors had either (A) provided a definition with which all the authors agreed or (B) clarified that there was variation among the contributing authors. Each chapter is basically consistent with itself, but if the reader seeks consistency throughout the book, then he or she will be frustrated.
Major Disagreements
Speaking of inconsistency, there are important disagreements among Evangelicals about the meaning and application of religious liberty. Rather than deny them or overlook them, this book would have done better to state some of them and offer argumentation for one view or another. One cannot fault the editors or authors of this book (published in 2016) for not knowing what would happen to America’s cultural and political climate after the election of Donald Trump as President in the fall of 2016, the riotous protests of police brutality during the summer of 2020, and the Covid policies that contributed to the amplified polarization that is only increasing. But these social and political phenomena only exposed the reality that Evangelicals in America (as well as other religious and/or political groups) are deeply divided on the meaning and application of religious liberty. The editors are either ignorant of these divisions or they decided to ignore them, and that makes it far less meaningful as a contribution to the ongoing conversation.
Ecclesiology & Political Theology
The most disappointing feature of this book on religious liberty is the fact that the authors did not make it clear that Baptist ecclesiology (and Baptist polity as a subcategory) is essential to the general concept of religious liberty described within. It is no coincidence that the American states (not England or Germany or Italy) ratified the Constitution and celebrated the Bill of Rights. It was among the American colonies that Baptists flourished, and it was largely a big-and-burgeoning Baptist population that advocated for the kind of religious liberty that has become established in Americas founding documents.
The Church of England, the Lutheran Church, and the Roman Catholic Church can all operate quite well (at least in theory and at least for a time) in nations where there is no freedom of religion. But Baptists, by definition of their ecclesiology and church polity, require a particular kind of religious freedom, else they are persecuted by secular, pagan, and even Christian magistrates alike. This book almost never uses the word “Baptist,” and it avoids entirely the reality that Baptist ecclesiology is the only doctrine of the church that gives rise to the sort of religious liberty we have enjoyed in America. The absence of this connection is unfortunate in a book published by Southern Baptists for Evangelicals, many of whom are Baptists.
Conclusion
If you already know a good deal about the meaning and practice of religious liberty, as we have it in America today, and you want to start a conversation with a fellow Christian who knows nothing on the subject, then this book is an unintimidating resource that might help. But if you want to learn more about the meaning of religious liberty, then I recommend First Freedom, edited by Jason Duesing, Thomas White, and Malcolm Yarnell. If you want to learn more about how religious liberty was debated in the founding of America, then I recommend The Founding Fathers and the Debate Over Religion in Revolutionary America, edited by Matthew Harris and Thomas Kidd. If you want to learn about how Baptists argued for religious liberty in the American colonies when the Congregationalists and Anglicans still maintained compulsory religious establishments in the land, then I recommend Let Men Be Free by Obbie Tyler Todd.
Today, many Christians (and especially Baptists) are rethinking their political theology. The bad news is that most seem to have no idea why they hold the convictions they do about this critical concept to social stability and cohesion. The good news is that Baptists of earlier generations have already thought and spoken quite well on this subject. What we need is a return to historic Baptist doctrine and practices, including Baptist ecclesiology and Baptist political theology.
[1] Russell D. Moore and Andrew T. Walker, eds., The Gospel & Religious Liberty, The Gospel for Life (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2016), 2.
[2] Moore, 2.
[3] Moore, 2.
[4] Moore, 1.
[5] Moore, 1.
[6] Moore, 11.
[7] Moore, 11.
[8] Moore, 6.
[9] Moore, 6.
[10] Moore, 15.
[11] Moore, 9.
[12] Moore, 9.
[13] Moore, 22.
[14] Moore, 28-29.
[15] Moore, 28.
[16] Moore, 28.
[17] Moore, 37.
[18] Moore, 29.
[19] Moore, 30-31.
[20] Moore, 37.
[21] Moore, 42.
[22] Moore, 44.
[23] Moore, 66.
[24] Moore, 68.
[25] Moore, 70.
[26] Moore, 72.
[27] Moore, 72.
[28] Moore, 72.
[29] Moore, 72.
[30] Moore, 85.
[31] Moore, 86.
[32] Moore, 97.
[33] Moore, 97.
[34] Moore, 97.
[35] Moore, 98.
[36] Moore, 98.