The Baptist preacher, Roger Williams, was the first person to speak of a wall of separation between church and state. Though now admired as a great defender of religious liberty and the founder of Rhode Island, Williams was despised by many in his day and ultimately exiled from Massachusetts Bay in 1635. His commitment to liberty of conscience caused him to be a man without a home on many occasions. At best, he was viewed as a contentious troublemaker, at worse, an ungodly heretic. Yet his views on religious tolerance arose, not out of indifference to religion, but from deep religious conviction.

Williams grew up in the Church of England. He graduated from Cambridge in 1627 and accepted employment in the Church of England in 1629. During this turbulent time, many puritans were unhappy with the "middle road" of the Church of England, and sought religious reforms to purify her. Their efforts consistently failed. But the New World across the ocean held out hope for reform. If a true Church of England could be created in America, then it could possibly bring reform to the national church. Many puritans set sail for the New World with this hope in mind. Roger Williams and his wife Mary were two people who did just this, accompanying John Winthrop to Massachusetts Bay in 1631.

While in Boston, Williams' "conviction gradually formed that separation from the Church of England had to be complete and without hesitation or ambiguity" (p.25). John Winthrop, on the other hand, desired to remain bound to the Church of England in order to purify the national church. Williams questioned such loyalty. He sought a place where a complete break from the Church of England could be achieved. Rejecting the opportunity to be Boston's chief minister, he left the city. Over the next few years, his growing convictions caused him to live for a short time in Salem and Plymouth, only to return to Boston where he was ultimately exiled from Massachusetts Bay for his views on religious liberty in 1635. He then journeyed to the headwaters of Narragansett Bay, occupying land by agreement with the Indians. He named the place Providence. There he formed a community bound by twelve articles of agreement. The second article clearly confirmed the importance of "hold[ing] forth Liberty of Conscience."

In 1643, Williams traveled to London to secure a charter for his colony and find a printer for his writings. Parliament granted a charter in 1644. While in England, he argued with the Westminster Assembly over religious freedom, sighting the English history of bloodshed over religion as proof for the necessity of liberty of conscience. "Doctrinal definitions, backed by the power of the state, produce only one result: oceans and oceans of blood" (p.67).

Returning to New England, he was elected "chief officer" of the colony in 1654. In 1663, King Charles II granted Rhode Island's first truly royal charter. The King considered it "a lively experiment" to prove whether "a most flourishing civil state may stand and best be maintained... with a full liberty in religious concernments" (p.158). This experiment would prove successful and become the basis for the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Almost a century and a half later, Thomas Jefferson's suspicion of religion wedded to power would lead him to write of a necessary separation between church and state. His successor, James Madison, would be the primary author of the First Amendment. The initial version read: "The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed." Three months later this would be modified to its current reading: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The issues that Williams wrestled with are still alive today. Even though our Constitution and Bill of Rights ultimately sided with Williams, there is still much turbulence over the proper relationship between church and state. Most everyone agrees that church and state are distinct. The argument is over how they relate to one another. How can one have both freedom from and freedom for religion? If history teaches us anything, it certainly demonstrates that this is not an easy relationship to negotiate. Williams' insights on why the separation is necessary continue to provide insight in this regard.

Williams clearly distinguished between Christianity and Christendom. He firmly rejected "Christendom" - the mixture of politics with religion. He believed that the refusal to distinguish between church and state had resulted in the bloodletting of thousands. Christendom created a political church, hungry for power, and too closely aligned with the state. Williams desired to see a pietistic church that rejected political patronage and power. Citizens should have the power to create government, but not baptize it.

People should have liberty of conscience in regard to religious matters, but not liberty of conscience in regard to civic responsibility. Though all may not choose to participate in religion, all should responsibly participate in creating and maintaining a civil and just society. Civil institutions certainly have the right to punish civil offences, but not religious offenses. Incivility, not impiety, should be properly punished. Religious persecution (which is almost always doled out by the state) is a violation of Christ's law. Jesus would not use weapons but only persuasion and love. According to Williams, to violently force someone to accept religious truth against their conscience is "spiritual rape." This forced conversion is no conversion at all, but merely an act of the powerful on the powerless that demonstrates nothing has been learned from history.

Williams' chief combatant, John Cotton, argued that corrupt people and unbelievers cannot be allowed to corrupt others, so the use of the "Civil Sword" in religious matters is entirely appropriate for the good of society. After all, 2 Chronicles 15:13 says, "That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." Williams responded that religious laws for a whole nation were appropriate in Moses' time. But this was not true for Christ and his church - a reality that is not ethnic or national. Thus, Williams would not be happy to hear of arguments for a return to "Christian America." To him, this is Christendom and not Christianity - a rejection of true piety for political patronage and power.

The same debates occur today, especially among those hungry to possess political power for the purpose of enforcing religious beliefs and practices upon others. Williams' arguments remain relative to our situation for Williams did not argue for mere tolerance (like John Locke) but for full religious freedom. Liberty must be given to "Papist, Turk, Jew, and infidel" (p.140). Only full religious freedom - freedom for the atheist to the most devout believer and everyone in-between - provides the environment for true spiritual expression to take place. Liberty of conscience is not simply a right for religious people. It is the right of all people in a free society. To force someone to be or act religious against their conscience is to advocate the shell of religion without the heart.

© Richard J. Vincent, 2004