Towards a Christian Understanding of Religious Liberty

As far as metrics are concerned, quantifying Religious Liberty is a nearly impossible task. The current methods of appraising persecution have proven themselves to be woefully inadequate, often confusing democracy itself with the true object of Christian martyrdom. Even the act of defining Religious Liberty is a complicated undertaking.

For starters, it is impossible to limit religious life to any single aspect of society. A church is certainly the primary institution for spiritual life, but it is far from the only one. By their mere existence, every single establishment is forced to either acknowledge this spiritual life or deny it, for the spiritual realm cannot be relegated to a single societal expression. Erroneous views of this subject, intentional or not, contribute significantly to the number of poorly written treatises on church/state relations.

On that note, it is truly strange to see a number of cultural commentators acting as if they have finally calculated the exact amount of religious liberty we currently possess. Armed with a handful of court cases and a chip on the shoulder, these strange influencers take a gnostic-like approach to the term. “By any reasonable definition,” argues David French, “American Christians are not persecuted, and the legal protections for religious liberty are stronger than at any time in American history.”¹ Yet the confidence of the orator has little to do with proving such a claim, which, given the nature of the problem, would be impossible to quantify.

Some men contend the issue more narrowly. Supreme court cases, insofar as they reflect the government’s attitude towards the Christian religion, are often heralded as the final gauge of religious liberty. This is certainly an important discussion to have, but to pretend that a collection of court cases are able to mark the boundaries of religious liberty is laughable. Court cases represent a single branch of government. How could they possibly be used to define the liberties of spiritual life in the broader society? Yet, over the years, this inadequate view still manages to persist. The court system became a filter through which all questions of liberty were assessed. A hardened mindset began to form, one that didn’t care if Christians were arrested so long as they had a good chance of eventually winning the inevitable legal battle that ensued.

The exact origin of this line of thinking remains a bit of mystery. Perhaps it simply evolved over time. Regardless, this mindset that elevated the court resulted in the fabrication of two trains of thought. Both contribute to the redefinition of religious liberty in their own way, each attempting to confine the principle to a democratized system. These two theories are commonly known as Secularism and Pluralism.

The Secular State

It is difficult for me to offer a charitable definition of secularism. Like all isms, varying degrees of advocacy can be found among its supporters, making the difference between a total secularist and a partial secularist an interesting distinction. But in general, secularism is aptly dubbed “political atheism.”

By stripping the civil government of any religious embellishments, secularists hope to propagate a state that is effectively blind to religious matters. By systematically reducing religion in politics, the secularist hopes to create a state totally devoid of any religious assertions or acknowledgments. Because of this, secularism cannot possibly be understood as an outworking of natural law, much less a system for protecting religious liberty. Like the atheist, the secular state operates on the assumption that physical life is all there is, struggling to ascertain self-evident yet incorporeal matters from atoms. If you are incapable of recognizing the Creator, you are incapable of utilizing natural law.

As far as religious liberty is concerned, the secular state is perhaps one of the worst offenders rather than defenders. Dedicated to spiritual blindness, the secularity is often incapable of recognizing when it treads upon basic religious expressions. Churches are treated like businesses, which can be shut down at the convenience of public health officials. Families become little more than roommates, which can be separated without fault. The secular state, intent on excluding religious life, is necessarily against it.

Pluralism

The pluralist takes the opposite approach. Instead of isolating religious life, the pluralist society embraces it. It functions as a sort of “spiritual democracy,” where the decrees of each god are given a seat at the political table. Every proposed policy concerning religious expression is actually an attempt to assimilate them all. Rather than shying away from it, the levers of the state become heavily invested in religion, leasing the sword to every religious group that needs it.

Pluralism operates on a paradox. The state wants to support every religion’s right to self-determination yet acts as the arbiter of religion instead. Every religion is allowed, but only the safe and inclusive parts that work well with others. Pluralism operates on what some call an “ideology of sameness.” Rather than allowing religions to reach their full potential, they are handicapped by the state; they are encouraged to reach certain heights but discouraged from going any further. The paradox of pluralism is that by uniting every spiritual kingdom together, the arbiter destroys them.

“We cannot defend both the ideal of a unified world and the right of peoples to self-determination, for nothing guarantees that they will determine themselves in the sense of this ideal. Equally, one cannot defend pluralism as the legitimisation and respect for differences while advocating for the equalisation of conditions which will reduce these differences.”
Alain De Benoist, “View from the Right, Vol. 1”

Some Christians mistakenly believe that their religion would thrive under this political system. This view was espoused by the late Tim Keller, who believed Christians were uniquely poised to offer one of the “main factories” for citizens in the pluralistic system. “It could be argued that America has never really been a genuinely pluralistic, perspective-diverse, free society,” he wrote, “What will it take to create genuinely pluralistic society?”²Keller saw a world where tolerance, humility, and patience — practiced on a local level — would provide a better starting point for genuine pluralism than court cases.

In a way, he was right.

Religious liberty cannot be measured by court cases, and a single branch of government cannot hope to determine the bounds of pluralistic spiritual life. The state is not capable of establishing religious life, so other aspects of society are expected to fill in the gaps. Citizens must be educated, and institutions must be trained in the religion of tolerance. The pluralistic society is a miserable one, and the Christian who believes his religion will thrive in it is sorely mistaken. If authentic pluralism is to maintain itself, it must subsume every aspect of society, for anything that does not contribute to this ideology of sameness is against it.

A Better Standard

We are living in an era where the myth of neutrality has been thoroughly debunked. Previously held conceptions of religious liberty will need to be reimagined, along with a redefinition of their end goal. If we want the state to defend religious liberty, then the goal cannot be an indifferent government. If we want the state to encourage a healthy religious life, the ideal government cannot be a force for spiritual unity and assimilation. Most conceptions of religious liberty still cannot articulate their ideals. Therefore, the term must be thoroughly reconsidered if it is to still be of use.

Every religion represents a kingdom, and any time a religious act is protected, a statement is made about which kingdom is allowed to claim which ground. These spiritual kingdoms manifest in the temporal world in very real and very powerful ways. For Christians, the visible church is the most significant outworking of this kingdom, yet it is far from the only manifestation of Christ’s spiritual domain. Colossians 1:19-20 makes clear that His will extends beyond the spiritual elements of the church, touching both the things in heaven and the things on earth. God wills that every soul be subject unto the higher powers. So, for Christians to enjoy true religious liberty, the government cannot set limits on the things that belong to Christ’s kingdom or take from His people the things that belong to God. To sell out Christ’s claim to the highest bidder — allowing false religions to abuse what rightfully belongs to Him — is to pick a fight with the one true God and to oppress his people.

I find it very hard to believe that Christ is pleased by the current state of religious liberty in this country. As I peruse the Supreme Court rulings of the last century, I struggle to find even a single instance of the government recognizing and affirming the exclusive claim of Christ’s kingdom. Instead, I see a nearly anarchical pattern of rulings, most of them attempting to acknowledge the claims of multiple kingdoms at the same time. Not only is such a thing impossible, but it is ludicrous to even try. To subsume and destroy religious life in this way is simply unconscionable.