Do people have a basic human “right” to religious freedom? James Durham, a seventeenth-century Calvinist, did not think so. According to him, the tolerant consider error “no hurtful thing.” To be tolerant, he believed, is to “account little for the destruction of souls.”
He and other Christian forebears had no interest in universal religious freedom. They wanted to practice their own faith without undue interference. But on the question of religious liberty for others, they were quick to insist that “error has no rights.”
Our mood is different today. We cling to notions of pluralism and equality. But in the interest of toleration, has our society become preoccupied with individual rights? A number of contemporary social theorists—especially those who espouse a “communitarian” perspective—insist we have. There is a lot to be said for their point. According to the Bible, our purpose in life is not to do our own will but to serve and glorify God. An obsession with human “entitlements” does not sit well with that view.
Does that mean, then, that from a Christian point of view, talk of a right to religious freedom is off base? And was the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrongheaded when it affirmed that our “right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” is so basic that “[n]o one should be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice”? Or do we, in fact, have a legitimate human right to religious freedom?
Putting God’S Rights First
The theologian Jürgen Moltmann has put the issue of human rights in its proper biblical context. In a 1976 position paper on the subject, he insists that we base our Christian understanding of human rights “on God’s right to—that is, his claim on—human beings, their fellowship, their rule over the earth, and their future.”
Moltmann’s point is profound as it applies specifically to religious freedom. In the most fundamental sense, religious freedom is a matter of God’s rights. The Creator has an unassailable “entitlement” to our praise and obedience, “for his name alone is exalted; his glory is above earth and heaven” (Ps. 148:13). This God-centered perspective suggests two principles regarding our right to religious freedom.
First, no human power has the right to prevent or inhibit the worship of the true God. Scripture provides ample evidence for this. Daniel, the young men in the furnace, the apostles in the Book of Acts—all recognized that the call to honor the claims of the true God is far more compelling than the edicts of earthly authorities.
Second, the religious freedom we claim must be extended to people who claim very different religious loyalties. While few would dispute the first principle, the second may generate much debate. Below are three arguments in its defense.
First, it is precisely because God is sovereign that we must leave matters of unbelief to him. We cannot force others to believe in certain ways. God alone calls people to true religion. And it seems clear that he chooses to save people in a manner that respects and preserves the integrity of human choice. Even the Canons of Dort—without question the harshest of Calvinist predestinarian documents—insist that when God draws us to himself, he does so not by violating our wills, but by gently wooing us by the tender ministrations of his grace.
Second, questions of religious freedom, including religious freedom for non-Christians, are often matters of basic justice. The desecration of Jewish synagogues by neo-Nazis is an abomination—as was the harassment and abuse of Muslim schoolchildren in California during our war with Iraq. But the list cannot end there: Christians should cry out against the persecution of Baha’i adherents in Iran, the campaigns against Gypsies in Eastern Europe, the killing of Buddhist monks in Southeast Asia, and so on. To be deaf to these people’s cries is to be insensitive to God’s call for justice.
Third, religious freedom is crucial to society’s good order and health. Religious fervor can pose a genuine threat to social stability. Because religious beliefs stem from the deepest parts of ourselves, religious issues loom large in those divisions that threaten to weaken or destroy the social fabric. The tensions between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland and between Muslims and Jews in the Middle East bear testimony to the disrupting power of religious conviction. But the granting of religious freedoms reduces the threat to public order.
No Bed Of Roses
While we have every reason to expect—even demand—full religious liberty, we know better than to expect the right to exercise our faith without obstacle or opposition. Scripture does not promise that the path of faithfulness will be an easy one. And, we live in a time of widespread rebellion against the will of the Creator. We should, therefore, beware when others, including the powers that be, speak well of us, taking no offense at the cause of the gospel.
