After perusing comment after comment on social media in response to Sentry’s rather peculiar view on Religious Liberty, I compiled a list of general objections that I believe capture the gist of critics’ objections to our position.
Why do you attack fellow Christians to defend those not of our faith?
This question reveals a misunderstanding of both our position and the principles of liberty. We do not attack fellow Christians, but rather the misguided attempt to enforce a Christian uniformity upon the public by means of legal and cultural coercion. To defend the religious rights of others, even those outside the Christian faith, is not an attack on fellow believers but an affirmation of a truth central to Christ’s teachings. When Jesus declared, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21), He established a boundary between civil authority and divine allegiance by outlining the distinction between the spheres of the spiritual and the temporal. In protecting the rights of others to worship—or not worship—according to their conscience, we uphold this divine principle, and allow God, not fallible man, to arbitrate His own precepts.
In accordance with the principle of the Golden Rule, to deny religious liberty to those not of our faith is to invite the same denial of our own rights. History bears witness that when the sword of persecution is wielded against one group, it eventually strikes all. As Alonzo T. Jones wrote in the American Sentinel of April 1, 1888, “The purpose of civil government is civil, not moral… Morality must be rendered to God; civility, to the State.” We must defend freedom of conscience of all men, even when the individual’s conscience is wrong, because that conscience is accountable to God alone, and is therefore sacred.
What is the big deal with legislating Christian morals? Don’t we all agree these standards are good?
Morality, as the reflection of God’s law, is indeed good, but it cannot be imposed by the State without corrupting both church and government. The law of God takes cognizance of the inmost motives of the heart, as seen in Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. To hate is as grievous as murder; to lust is as sinful as adultery (Matthew 5:21-28). Civil governments, being limited to external actions, can address incivility, such as theft or violence, but they cannot legislate righteousness, which belongs to the realm of God alone.
If the State attempts to enforce Christian morality, it assumes the role of God, demanding what only He can require: willing obedience from the heart. As Waggoner noted, “The church is the conservator of morality, not the State.” Attempts to legislate morality will inevitably lead to tyranny, for the State becomes an arbiter of conscience, a role reserved for the Holy Spirit Himself.
Why don’t you want to stem the tide of secular humanism?
Secular humanism is not defeated by coercive legislation; it is overcome by the power of truth and the witness of a transformed life. The gospel’s call is voluntary: “Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Revelation 22:17). Compulsion undermines the gospel, turning a message of love and freedom into one of oppression and fear.
To combat secularism through civil means is to betray our own principles. Christianity flourished in the Roman Empire not because of state support but because of its spiritual power. In fact, the Church grew the most when it endured persecution. When Constantine blended church and state, the purity of the church was compromised, and persecution against dissenters followed. It is true that Christianity spread during the Age of Exploration and Colonialism, but this was a nominal, not genuine, Christianity, and was often enforced at the point of a sword. As defenders of liberty, we must guard against repeating this tragic history.
You are not truly Christian if you seek to allow others their idolatry of false religions.
This argument overlooks the example of Christ. Though He was the embodiment of truth, He did not force others to follow Him. When the rich young ruler rejected His call, Christ did not compel him but allowed him to go his way (Mark 10:21-22). The gospel respects free will, for true love cannot exist without choice.
To suppress the rights of others is to deny the character of God, who “makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good” (Matthew 5:45). By defending the religious freedom of all, we demonstrate the true spirit of Christianity—a faith that seeks to persuade, not coerce.
Conclusion
Religious liberty is not merely a Christian duty but a reflection of the very character of God, who respects the freedom of every soul. To advocate for the rights of all is to affirm the sacredness of conscience, which God alone can govern. Let us not seek to wield the temporal sword for the kingdom of God, but instead, let us wield the sword of the Spirit, which alone can transform hearts. In doing so, we honor Christ and safeguard the principles of liberty for all generations.
