John MacArthur Wrongly Opposes Religious Freedom

California preacher John MacArthur, who has a national following, and who has been litigating against pandemic restrictions, recently denounced religious freedom in several sermons.  On January 17 he preached:

The new administration will uphold religious freedom? I don’t even support religious freedom. Religious freedom is what sends people to hell. To say I support religious freedom is to say I support idolatry, it’s to say I support lies, I support hell, I support the kingdom of darkness. You can’t say that. No Christian with half a brain would say, ‘We support religious freedom.’ We support the truth! 

And:

We will proclaim the exclusivity of the gospel, the unique revelation authority of Scripture. We’re not going to lobby for freedom of religion. What kind of nonsense is that? We are in the world to expose all those lies as lies.

On January 24 MacArthur preached:

Now I told you last week that I do not believe as a Christian that I can support strongly freedom of religion, because that would be to violate the first commandment, right? “Have no other gods.” You say, “Well, doesn’t the church need freedom of religion to move forward?” No. In no way does any political law aid or hinder the church of Jesus Christ. We are a separate kingdom. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world My servants would fight.

MacArthur added:

Well, people would say that’s a terrible thing to say. What about Christianity? Christianity advances whether there is religious freedom or not. And there’ll always be religious freedom for all the lies. Every false religion is going to be free because it’s linked to the kingdom of darkness that operates in the world. And Christians, whatever the label of religious freedom might be in its broadest sense, Christians are always the target even with religious freedom, of the hostility of sinners.

And later MacArthur explained: 

I told our congregation a few weeks ago that I could never really concern myself with religious freedom. I wouldn’t fight for religious freedom because I won’t fight for idolatry. Why would I fight for the devil to have as many false religions as possible and all of them to be available to everyone?

Religious freedom in nothing, according to MacArthur:

You say, ‘Well, isn’t religious freedom important for Christianity?” No, it’s meaningless. It doesn’t matter what law governments make or don’t make. They have no effect on the kingdom of God.

Religious freedom is not meaningless. And it is not about defending idolatry or “false religions.” It’s a concept that originates in Christian teaching and is intrinsic to Christian anthropology.  It has been a biblical insight to affirm each person’s ability to think and practice beliefs without coercion.  As former U.S. diplomat Tom Farr wrote for Providence:

The origins of the Christian understanding of human freedom reside in the scriptures. The book of Genesis declares that each of us is created in the image and likeness of God. Consider the implications of this idea. First, if each of us bears God’s image, we are in a profound sense equal to each other. Second, in imaging God, each of us possesses intellect and will, the wellsprings of free choice. Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection emphasized these ideas of equality and freedom by freeing each of us from the bondage of sin. As Paul puts it, “For freedom Christ has set us free.”

And:

The Christian logic of religious liberty is this: true liberty is the freedom to choose God, in this life and therefore in the next. But, notwithstanding his desire that we do so, God does not coerce us to choose him. Jesus did not coerce obedience or belief. To do so would have eliminated the way we image God with our intellect and will, and the source of our dignity and our human agency. Each of us is truly free because we are capable of choosing, and free to choose, the true and the good.

Farr noted of early Christianity: 

The experience of persecution, combined with reflection on the scriptures then being placed into the canon, yielded remarkably rich, forward-looking, and optimistic reflections on religious freedom. The works of early church fathers such as Tertullian and Lactantius posit a revolutionary idea: the very nature of religion requires free choice. Accordingly, justice requires freedom for all in matters of religion.

Tertullian argues that religious freedom was a natural right, a capacity inherent in nature that “every man should worship according to his own convictions.”

Lactantius moved this idea to the level of policy, arguing in his Divine Institutes that a just governor would protect religious freedom. This idea found its way into the so-called “Edict of Milan,” issued in 313 by Emperor Constantine. The Edict declared religious freedom for all throughout the Roman Empire. This was history’s first declaration of universal religious freedom.

Obviously as the Church gained in power it often violated its own insights about religious freedom and rights to conscience.  But these insights were not smothered. As Farr noted about early America:

The founding generation venerated the role of the religious conscience in human nature and social flourishing. James Madison defines religion as “the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it.” He understood conscience as a primary means by which people discerned and carried out that duty. The duty of following one’s religious conscience, that is to say the duty of religion, is so important that, as Madison puts it, it is “precedent, both in order of time and degree of obligation to the claims of Civil Society.”

As the church historian Robert Louis Wilkens discovered, Thomas Jefferson directly traces some of his religious freedom beliefs to the church father Tertullian.

Religious freedom isn’t tangential to Christianity.  It reflects the essence of God’s character and His will for fallen humanity. The Church, if it is faithful to its teachings, and seeks His will on earth, opposes coercion in matters of religion and belief, governmental or societal.  A just society in approximate sync with divine purposes respects freedom of conscience.  Societies that disdain conscience rights, now or across history, are crueler, more inhumane and ungodly.

MacArthur is right that the Church does not “need” religious liberty.  Its work continues regardless of government policy or societal attitudes, although that work is typically diminished by persecution.  Compare Christianity in South Korea with North Korea.  The church supports religious liberty for all because God is honored when people are treated decently.  Societies protecting religious freedom are likelier to better respect human dignity in other ways.  Societies that persecute based on religion are typically tyrannical and privilege a few whose power depends on falsehoods and exploitation.

No, Rev. MacArthur, religious freedom does not, as you asserted, send people to hell.  But the denial of religious freedom, along with other liberties and decencies, does contribute to hell on earth.