By David Gushee
What is the proper relationship between conviction and freedom? By “conviction” I simply mean clear theological and ethical beliefs and the willingness to communicate such beliefs just as clearly, one goal of such communication being to persuade others to share those beliefs. By “freedom” I mean a commitment to valuing and respecting personal liberty, especially liberty of religious conscience.
My experience of conservative Baptists in the South has been that conviction is very highly valued. Those considered leaders are often elevated to their status because of their perceived clarity of conviction and their willingness to communicate such convictions resolutely and passionately. To be called “convictional” in that sector of the Baptist world is a high compliment.
The potential downside of being “convictional” is obvious, of course. Clarity of conviction can easily shade over into intolerance of other convictions, loss of nuance and an apparent unwillingness to ever consider modifying one’s convictions on the basis of new evidence. Often, though not always, such “convictional” leaders tend to focus little on the freedom of other Christians to believe differently and at least on debatable matters still be found pleasing in the sight of God.
My experience of the moderate Baptist world has, in general, been that the freedom/conviction polarity is reversed. Freedom is highly valued. Everyone bends over backward to respect personal liberty and freedom of conscience. This is elevated as among the highest of Christian values.
It is harder to find resolute and passionate expression of clear convictions on this side of the Baptist fence, other than perhaps the expression of a commitment to individual liberty of conscience.
Example 1: Talking with a member of a moderate Baptist church struggling to meet its budget, I asked what the pastor taught about the responsibilities of members in the area of giving or tithing. She answered that he did not attempt to teach anything in particular in that regard, because he did not want to violate people’s individual freedom.
Example 2: Each semester in my introduction to ethics course I ask students to write a final paper that takes the form of a sermon or teaching text on a specific moral issue. I ask them to offer moral instruction on that issue for the people of God in some particular setting. Each semester students struggle with this assignment because they are not familiar with that kind of instruction or have not developed a convictional repertoire clear enough to communicate in this way.
Example 3: Almost every time I speak in a non-SBC Baptist setting about my beliefs on a social-ethical issue, I am asked by someone in the crowd whether it is really appropriate for Christians to bring their faith into public life — because that might violate someone else’s freedom of conscience and religious liberty.
I always respond that the constitutional provisions banning the state from hindering religious liberty or establishing a state church have nothing to do with the right and responsibility of Christians as citizens to bring their faith-rooted moral and political convictions into the public square, just like everyone else does. Sometimes a few heads nod in agreement. But often it seems a new idea.
There is no intrinsic conflict between conviction and freedom, either in church life or in the public arena. People have always brought their most dearly held convictions into the common space of community, where they are met by others’ most dearly held convictions in the nonviolent combat of moral deliberation.
Eventually, some convictions are found to be more persuasive than others, decisions are made by the community, and life goes on until the next round of arguments begin. This process is the lifeblood of democratic communities, whether civil or religious.
I am hoping the next generation of moderate Baptist leaders will develop confidence that a robust convictionalism of this type poses no threat to liberty of conscience but may instead be its precondition.