• Religious Freedom and the Baptist General Conference
• Influence of C. E. Carlson and Walfred Peterson on the BJC
• The Meaning of Religious Liberty
• Seminar in April to Focus on Baptists and Religious Liberty

Religious Freedom and the
Baptist General Conference

by Virgil A. Olson

In 1951 when the Baptist General Conference met in Oakland, Calif., it adopted the statement known as “An Affirmation of Faith.” Article 10 expressed well a commitment to religious freedom and has been a centerpiece in the history of the Baptist General Conference. One of the pioneer preachers and planters of Swedish Baptist churches in the mid-19th century was Fredrik Olaus Nilsson. Nilsson was banished from Sweden in 1850 because he would not conform to the teachings of the State Church (Lutheran).

Nilsson was beaten and imprisoned by the police because he was considered a heretic, a despised Baptist. Finally he was summoned to the high court in Jonkoping to stand trial. He was accused of saying that “infant baptism was not commanded in the Holy Scriptures; it is but of human invention.” He believed that only baptism of consenting, believing persons was true to the Bible.

Nilsson acknowledged that he had baptized people and organized Baptist churches, which were not subservient to the State Church and its teachings. His sentence ends by saying, “Nilsson has made himself incriminated to what is stated in the 1st chapter, 4th paragraph, 1st moment of the Criminal Law, the Kingly High Court in power of the commandment of the Law passeth judgment to sentence Nilsson for the offense to be banished from Sweden.”

After a short stay in Denmark, Nilsson and his wife made their way to America, the land of freedom, arriving in 1855 at a Swedish community west of Minneapolis, close to Waconia, which was called Scandia.

Nilsson kept a diary. On March 20, 1857, Nilsson wrote: “I went to Minneapolis on Wednesday to prove up my land, taking with me brother Andrew Petterson as my witness… Praise be unto the Lord, who has privileged me to own a little earthly home at the age of 48 years. It comprises 160 acres. . .the cost is $1.25 per acre or $200, of which sum five dollars was for proving up, and two dollars for I know not what.”

This exiled preacher could now enjoy religious freedom, he could own land, and he could participate in a democratic government. On May 12, 1867, Nilsson wrote: “Have been to Carver attending a Republican convention as delegate for Scandia on behalf of Representative Mr. Meyers.” On June 1, he wrote, “Voting in Scandia for representative to Constitutional Assembly.”

Nilsson was one of many who suffered religious persecution and who emigrated from Sweden to come to the land of religious liberty.

The history of the Conference Baptist Church in Stanchfield, Minn., tells of several other settlers who, in 1866, came from the province of Dalarna, Sweden, primarily from the city of Orsa. Many of these settlers had suffered persecution because of their Baptist faith.

One member of the group, Maser Anders Person, when in Dalarna, had been imprisoned for 23 days on water and bread because he refused to give up his Baptist convictions. Twenty-eight days on water and bread was considered the equivalent of life imprisonment.

A transcript of the record of the county prison at Falun, Sweden, lists many Baptists who were imprisoned for their faith. In 1854, the record states that their crime was “mockery of the Word of God and the Sacraments.”

Little wonder, then, that the believers in Swedish Baptist churches 100 years ago treasured religious freedom. They were suspicious of any hierarchical control, whether by civil government or ecclesiastical powers. They jealously guarded their personal liberties and made sure that no power would jeopardize the local autonomy of their Baptist congregations.

Resolutions at the annual meetings of the Swedish Baptist Conferences (that became the Baptist General Conference after the Swedish language was no longer used) reveal the concerns for separation of Church and State.

In 1892, when the Swedish Baptist Conference met for its annual meeting in Oakland, Neb., resolution #5 read: “We strongly protest the attempt of the Catholic Church to have their private schools underwritten with state tax money to maintain their operations.” A similar resolution was written the next year when the Swedish Baptist Conference met in Chicago.

In the 1960s, several resolutions were adopted, called “Standing Resolutions.” The conference stated that these resolutions, rather than being adopted year after year, would become a part of the conference statement about the issues confronting society. The 1968 Religious Liberty resolution reads as follows: “We believe that the Christian citizen has a responsibility to his government in defending and promoting human liberties and rights by opposing discriminatory practices based on religion, race, economic or social status; by resisting any forms of totalitarianism, such as communism or fascism, that deny these basic rights; and by positively fulfilling the goals of religious liberty by being obedient to the first and great commandment: To love the Lord our God with all our heart, our soul, our mind, and our neighbor as ourselves.”

Someone better than I must assess the developing trends among conference Baptists to see if the constituency believes that the convictions of the leaders of years gone by are still valid for this new century. How should Conference Baptists respond to President Bush’s “faith-based” initiatives and support for non-public school vouchers?

As one reading history, I am not comfortable with the trends of creeping magisterial control over ecclesiastical institutions or with the subtle erosion of the Christian’s spiritual rights in religious liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, to be able to interpret the Scriptures for himself under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I would be pleased if there would be some active effort to instruct the people in conference churches concerning the 10th article of “An Affirmation of Our Faith.”

Influence of C. E. Carlson and Walfred Peterson on the BJC

By G. William Carlson

The Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs opened a full-time office in Washington, D.C. in 1946 to “defend and extend God-given religious liberty for all, bringing a uniquely Baptist witness to the principle that religion must be freely exercised, neither advanced nor inhibited by government.”

The Baptist General Conference joined the BJC in 1949, and in 1953, Dr. C. Emanuel Carlson, dean of Bethel, became the executive director (1953-1971). The BJC wanted an “experienced educator to plan an educational program that would reach across the lines of regional cultures and across racial and national backgrounds.”

Carlson hoped to stimulate our theologically competent Baptist brethren to re-dig their “‘old spiritual wells’ on the theology of God and of men,” hoping that they “might all agree that God cannot be legislated, administered, nor adjudicated.” Baptists, he argued, “can neither ‘put God’ nor ‘prevent the presence’ of the Spirit from entering either persons or groups.”

Under Carlson’s watch, the BJC developed a sophisticated staff to research and advocate for Baptist principles in public policy. The enhanced organizational structure was perhaps Carlson’s greatest accomplishment. It better “enabled the staff to work on public issues such as funding of private schools, religion in public schools, tax exemption for churches, federal aid to sectarian hospitals, diplomatic ties to the Vatican, and the 1960 election involving a Catholic presidential nominee.”

C. Emanuel Carlson was born in Alberta, Canada, in 1906 to Swedish immigrant parents who converted to Christianity as a result of a pietistic Baptist influence. He received his B.A. degree from the University of Alberta in 1927. In 1932, he earned a M.A. degree in history and political science and completed his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota in 1949.

In 1927, he started teaching at Bethel Academy, a secondary school in St. Paul. In 1931, the Academy became a junior college, and then in 1946 a four-year college. As the first dean of the four-year college, he helped ensure the success of the college in the post-World War II era.

Carlson’s devotion to truth and freedom led to his “thirst for knowledge subject to inquisitive and tenacious analysis and a religious faith, which produces a Christian ethic and devotion to freedom.” This theme would permeate his work at the BJC. He saw Christianity as a faith that is based on knowing God personally and being so committed to doing His will that believers become non-conformists. Carlson wanted Bethel students and faculty to understand the need for modern day prophets who were informed by understanding the mind of God and who spoke His will in principles that were valid for public policy concerns.

A second Baptist General Conference leader participated in the life of the BJC. Dr. Walfred H. Peterson, professor of political science at Bethel, in 1965 became director of research services. He held that post for three years before he accepted a faculty appointment at Washington State University.

Peterson grew up, a life-long Baptist, in Moline, Ill. He graduated from Bethel and received his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. He served as professor of political science at Bethel from 1950-1965.

One of Peterson’s major contributions to the discussion of religious liberty was his book Thy Liberty in Law. It dealt with the Supreme Court decisions on church/state issues in the 1960s and 1970s. He argued that “since liberty cannot be absolute, a free land will never lack for disputes. The question for our nation is not whether these disputes arise. Rather, it is our disposition in handling them.”

For Peterson, the Baptist commitment to religious liberty was based not only on principles of Scripture, but also on the emergence of a just community. Do we use our freedom “to promote the good life by our standards? Liberty is for something. It is not an end in itself. It is the most ideal society and people can develop in its realm. It is a means to a higher end.” Therefore, with our abundant freedom, we have a responsibility to use it for the “common good. Paradoxically, liberty gives more, not less, duty.”

Walfred Peterson and C. Emmanuel Carlson served each other well at the Baptist Joint Committee. When C. E. Carlson died in 1956, Peterson held a moment of respect in his political science class at Washington State University. He stated that Carlson was the “best teacher I ever had. He was the most demanding teacher I ever had. He made students care about truth and scholarship. He picked up a great many like myself and turned us around 180 degrees, changing our views of what was good and valuable. When Carlson lectured, most listened. When he questioned, most benefited. . . As a creative leader in Washington, D.C., Carlson tried to educate his constituents to a reasonable position where most had previously known only doctrinaire slogans…I had to honor him in the classroom today.”

During C. Emanuel Carlson’s tenure at the Baptist Joint Committee he helped the Baptist communities wrestle with four major religious public policy issues:

1. Carlson helped the BJC understand and appreciate the multi-ethnic nature of the theological Baptist heritage. This included an effective integration of the African-American Baptist denominations. He also built bridges to other religious communities, developed the Religious Liberty Conferences and encouraged a broad based discussion of religious liberty issues.

2. The BJC under Carlson’s leadership advocated religious liberty in such areas as tax exemption for churches and the development of guidelines for the proper use of religion in public educational institutions.

3. Carlson was very concerned about the misuse of political power to enhance a civil religion. He supported the Supreme Court decisions that declared unconstitutional a prayer sanctioned by the New York Board of Regents in the public school system and a practice that required public school children to read the Bible and recite the Lord’s prayer. He opposed an amendment to declare America a Christian nation and one that allowed for required prayer in the public schools. Carlson reminded Baptists that prayer was too sacred an act of worship to be used for “civil religion” in the public schools.

4. Carlson reached out to Catholic leaders on areas of mutual concern. These included tax exemption for church properties and programs seeking economic and social justice. However many Baptists opposed the election of John F. Kennedy on church/state grounds. Carlson met with Kennedy for thirty minutes on August 24, 1960. Kennedy announced that he would oppose parochial aid and an ambassador to the Vatican. He would also support the principles of the separation of church and state.

The Meaning of Religious Liberty

By Walfred Peterson

…Let me offer the following as a working definition-­Religious liberty in America is the total of those acts, which the courts will protect in the event of legal controversy. It is not a static thing, for while in legal terms the court’s protection rests on sentences in the Constitution, judges have interpreted these sentences in ways that admit change.

To some, this definition will sound too “statist,” for it makes religious freedom dependent upon the courts. Yet, in the practical sense, we have only such liberty as the courts allow. Ideally, we may wish it otherwise, but “thy liberty in law” means “thy liberty in court.” If we insist on the exercise of religious liberties that the courts will not permit, we find ourselves in jail. For most of us, religious liberty behind bars is highly theoretical.

The courts, of course, determine their definitions of religious freedom within a carefully prescribed set of rules developed over the centuries in English and American legal practice. Words in the Constitution are the starting point in this procedure. The First Amendment (1791) states:

From these few words the courts have created the American concept of religious liberty. Notice, “separation of church and state” and “freedom of religion” do not appear. If the courts use these phrases, it is by way of interpretation.

It is obvious that our religious liberty was not produced by the founding fathers at one stroke. They did not make the First Amendment applicable to the 13 original states for a number of reasons. Some had laws restrictive of religious liberty, and others still had established churches. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights would surely have been defeated if our early political leaders had proposed religious freedom as we know it today.

Despite uninformed statements to the contrary, many of the early colonists came to these shores quite willing to get freedom only for their religion to dominate by means of state support. Roger Williams and others like him were advanced radicals on matters of freedom of religion and separation of church and state, and their ideas were not implemented in many of the states until well into the 19th century-long after the Bill of Rights had been adopted. This lesson from American history should remind us that our cherished religious liberty has not been defined once and for all.

Some people find this hard to believe. They idealize the work of the Philadelphia convention and are convinced that in 1789 (or 1791 when the First Amendment was ratified) a kind of perfect freedom, justice, balance of powers, etc. was achieved that should be maintained forever. The best cure for this illusion is to read what the founding fathers said about their achievements. They thought the record was far from satisfactory. Many of them engaged in a bitter campaign, often against leading Protestant clergymen, to get rid of established churches-a vital part of the broader struggle in America for religious freedom. Those who fought in it helped lead us toward the freedoms of today. They had to fight much of this battle after 1800, and many did not live to see its successful conclusion.

For the person interested in the development of religious liberty, the appointment of judges by the president and the approval of their appointments by the Senate are critical acts. The closest attention must be paid to them. Religious liberty requires this vigilance.

Walfred Peterson was a former political science teacher at Bethel and political research director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs. He completed his academic career at Washington State University. The above essay has been edited for readability and clarity.

Walfred Peterson, “Religious Liberty in the United States,” Bethel Seminary Quarterly, November 1961, pp. 20-24.

Steering Committee of Friends of the Baptist General Conference History Center
Richard Turnwall, chair; Diana Magnuson, archivist; Alvera Mickelsen, editor, Trailmarkers; John Anderson; G.William Carlson; Jonathan Larson; Mary Jo Monson; Shirley Olseen; Virgil Olson; James Spickelmier; Florence Walbert