What do the words religious liberty actually mean? At least three definitions exist. These might be called the atheistic, the theocratic, and the biblical.

The Atheistic Definition

The atheistic definition of religious liberty is summarized well in Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted by the National Assembly of France on August 26, 1789. Article 10 states, “No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.”¹ While the first half of this statement appears to guarantee freedom of religion and protect liberty of conscience, the second half places the actual exercise of those freedoms within the jurisdiction of “public order” and whatever laws that may exist. In other words, religion is tolerated only within limits set by the state, not as an unalienable, divinely granted right.

Karl Marx developed this atheistic view of religious liberty further when he framed religion as an illusion from which the state, as a benevolent power, has a duty to free people. Writing in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Marx stated, “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness,” and “Religious suffering is…the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the opium of the people.”² Vladimir Lenin pushed this atheistic view further when he wrote, 

“We must combat religion…The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion.”³

The atheistic view, therefore, frames religion as a dangerous social force that stands in the way of true human development, achievement, and fulfillment. In this view, “religious liberty” points ultimately to the state’s supposed right and responsibility to liberate humanity through the suppression and eventual destruction of religion. 

The Theocratic Definition

A theocracy is a “government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In many theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state’s legal system is based on religious law…Contemporary examples of theocracies include Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Vatican.”⁴ Because the Vatican plays a central role in global political and religious affairs figures so prominently in Bible prophecy, we will investigate some of its statements regarding religious liberty.

The modern Roman Catholic definition of religious liberty is explained in Dignitatis Humanae, released in 1965 as part of Vatican II. It begins with a reaffirmation of the Church’s traditional claim to be the only way to salvation.

“First, the council professes its belief that God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church[.] … On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it.”⁵

The document next asserts that a properly constituted human conscience will naturally lead individuals and society to recognize these claims of the church: “This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force.”⁶ With these building blocks in place, the document finally mentions religious freedom for the first time. 

“Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”⁷

This statement positions religious freedom first as a guarantee that the state cannot prevent people from joining and publicly participating in the “true religion.” In other words, religious freedom is formulated primarily as a guarantee that nothing prevents the “moral duty of men and societies” to recognize the authority of the church. 

The document continues with a secondary explanation of religious freedom as it pertains to the individual:

“…the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.”⁸

It will be noted that the private and public expression of religious belief is here permitted only “within due limits,” a provision that echoes the atheistic conception of the priority of the “public order” over individual conscience. This position is clarified in the Catechism’s discussion of the first commandment and the duty to serve and worship God. 

“The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error, but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.”⁹ 

Here, religious liberty is defined as freedom from coercion rather than freedom to follow convictions of conscience that may differ from the Church’s definition of truth. 

Obviously, a government united with the church or controlled by the church will offer the least resistance to the public expressions of worship mandated by the church. Therefore, the theocratic definition of religious liberty invariably supports and even demands the cooperation, and ideally the unification, of church and state. Consider this statement from The Catholic Encyclopedia: 

“As it is unnatural for a married couple to live separated, although separation may be defended in particular instances as the better or less harmful arrangement in view of quarrels which have arisen, so also the ideal relation between Church and State is to be found, not in the separation of the two, but in their harmonious co-operation.”¹⁰

This, of course, has been the Church’s traditional teaching on the responsibility of individuals, society, and government to submit to its teachings. Based on its own statements, the separation of church and state is an undesirable situation, and it is willing to grant genuine religious freedom only when compelled to do so by the state.

To summarize, the theocratic view of religious liberty upholds society’s moral duty to follow the Church’s definition of truth and simultaneously denies the right of individuals or governments to prevent people from joining the Church and publicly participating in the rites of the Church. Noticeably absent in this definition of religious liberty is the right of individual people to define truth for themselves based on their own convictions or understanding of the Word of God.

The Biblical Definition

The biblical definition of religious liberty rests on four foundations. First, God alone is Lord of the conscience. “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Hebrews 9:14). The state and the church may claim authority over the conscience, but only Christ can purify it. He owns the conscience by right of creation and redemption. 

Second, the legitimate and unique authority of church and state and the importance of keeping them separate within their divinely given spheres. The principle arises from Jesus Christ’s words in Matthew 22:21. “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” Neither the state nor the church has a right to dictate, coerce, prevent, or compel the conscience, particularly in matters pertaining to the worship and service of God.

Third, truth must be individually understood and voluntarily accepted. The early Christians in Berea were described as “more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). Their freedom in Christ arose from a determination to understand and accept truth for themselves. They experienced the blessing that comes from answering the challenge made by Joshua, “Choose you this day whom ye will serve” (Joshua 24:15). 

Finally, biblical religious liberty protects the individual’s duty to obey God above human authority when that human authority contradicts the commands of God. When the religious leaders attempted to stop Peter and John from preaching in Christ’s name, the apostles responded, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). The same courage and conviction have been required for true followers of Christ in every age.

Endnotes

1. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp
2. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm
3. Vladimir Lenin, The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion; https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm
4. https://www.britannica.com/topic/theocracy
5. Dignitatis Humanae §1, https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2108,  https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/catechism/#!/search/2104-2109/fnref/2108.37
10. cf. Pius IX, Encyclical “Quanta cura” of 8 December, 1864; Syllab. prop. 55. Pohle, Joseph. “Religious Toleration.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912; https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14763a.htm