Religious Liberty and Consistent Christian Witness

By Nick Spencer

Danbury Institute Fellow

In this series we have attempted to cover a fair amount of ground in limited space. We began by examining how the nation’s founding fathers saw immense value in the public use of religion only to later be misunderstood by the Supreme Court. Last week, it was shown that public discourse is inherently religious in nature and that restricting explicitly Christian declarations from the public square does not remove religion from it but rather chooses which religious expression is acceptable and which is not. Free religious expression is thus an essential element of true public debate, and is an element that, for Americans, has an undeniable place in our nation’s history. However, as a Christian who holds to sola scriptura, neither the Constitution nor the uninspired writings of dead men hold ultimate authority over my life—especially on issues of faith and practice. Thus, the final piece in this series seeks to argue there is proper Scriptural warrant to conclude that Christians are expected to integrate their religious convictions into their public life, and that religious liberty is worth protection as a matter of law.

First and foremost, Christians are expected by Scripture to live according to their convictions in public. One tremendous example of this truth is that of Daniel’s companions Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in Daniel 3. When commanded to bow down and worship a golden statue of Nebuchadnezzar, the three men refused—even under the threat of punishment. Today, the threat to the Christian faith is not necessarily bowing down to a physical statue or idol, but rather a form of intellectual and cultural submission to idols of the LGBT agenda, unfettered access to the murder of unborn children, the allowance of women into the pastoral office, and a disordering of loves which neglects one’s family and neighbors as it neglects the rule of law.

Christians continue to be told that by resisting these perversions we are failing to love as Christ loved. We are told by government officials like Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson that if we object to our children being forcibly exposed to LGBT material in school, we should just send them elsewhere. If we dare to defend the value of every human life no matter the circumstances of that life’s conception we are told—as Vice President Vance was attacked by Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY)—that we should have someone in our own family suffer sexual violence and assault.

Neither Old Testament nor New Testament writings have any concept of the idea that an individual believer even has the possibility to keep their faith at home or within the four walls of the church. Out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks, the feet move, and the hands act (Luke 6:45). If we are to have our hearts and minds truly transformed by the message of Christ (Rom 12:2), there is no possible sense in which Christians could possibly separate our inner faith from our outward actions in the world.  

Finally, if Scripture shows that we cannot separate our internal convictions from our outward actions, how does Scripture view religious liberty as a concept? Does Scripture not prohibit idolatrous worship and acts? This is a question which is at the same time complex and multifaceted, but also incredibly simple. For sake of time, yes, Scripture does identify idolatrous worship as sin, but it does not authorize governmental authorities to regulate public worship which does not conflict with basic, universally-applicable principles of natural law, nor does God permit man the knowledge or authority to judge the heart of another. It is beyond mere human knowledge what is in the heart of another, and thus government is unable in a full sense to punish false belief.

Knowledge of man’s heart rests in God alone (1 Sam 16:7). Government is only authorized to punish that which is evil and promote that which is good in accordance with universally-applicable principles of natural law (Rom 13:1-7). Further, nothing government does can in any knowable sense coerce a man’s conscience to ascent to a particular set of beliefs. Government is certainly able to coerce an individual into refraining from physically murdering their neighbor, but it cannot compel an individual to stop thinking about it. Murder by one’s own hand is within the purview of government, murder committed in one’s heart is the purview of God’s judgement. Because one’s religious convictions involve one’s deepest set of internal beliefs, and thus are outside the jurisdiction of government forces, the ability to live in accordance with those beliefs ought not be abridged.

Ultimately, we as Christians have no ultimate reason to fear competition in a religious public square. We know how the story ends. We know what is true and what is false. We know how Christ has taught us how to live and interact with those around us. How others respond to those truths is not ultimately our doing, but rather is the work of God in the heart of each person. We are only accountable for proclaiming the good news to the best of our ability as God leads us, not for how others respond to that proclamation. I fear at times that Christians can be persuaded to crack down on all false beliefs in fear of competition, but we have no reason to fear. The Christian message is the only true way of life and salvation. We must simply pray that God works through us in a noisy world to draw others to Himself. He is faithful, and He will surely do it.

---

Nick Spencer serves as the Director of Policy for The Family Foundation, a nonprofit organization that stands for Kentucky families and the biblical values that make them strong by advocating for God-honoring public policy in the Commonwealth.