Religious Liberty for All?

Andrew Walker proposes provocative new arguments for religious freedom in his book Liberty for All, reviewed by Ian Speir in Providence. Here I chat with Walker, who teaches at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Speir, a lawyer and religious freedom expert. Speir challenges and agrees with Walker’s suggestion that religious freedom and pluralism are provisional for the present age.

Tooley: Hello this is Mark Tooley, editor of Providence: A Journal of Christianity & American Foreign Policy, as well as president of the Institute on Religion & Democracy. We recently published in Providence a wonderful review of a new book called Liberty for All about religious freedom, authored by Andrew Walker, a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. The review was written by Ian Speir, an attorney and expert on religious liberty issues, based in Colorado Springs, Colorado. So, I’m delighted to have the two on for at least a brief discussion of the book and the review. So, Andrew and Ian, thank you so much. Andrew, starting with you, just tell us a little bit about what this book is, why you wrote it, why it’s needed, and what are the particular and unique arguments that you offer up for religious liberty.

Walker: Sure. Thanks, Mark. It’s good to be with you. I was thinking about this. I’ve known you now for like over a decade, which is just crazy to think about.

Tooley: Well, you were about nineteen when I first met you.

Walker: And I still had hair probably. So, the book is an adaptation of my dissertation, and what I hopefully did, Ian read it and hopefully he can testify to this, I tried to strip out of the book a lot of the more academic verbiage and make it a little bit more accessible than a pure dissertation. But the reason I wrote this book was it came out of a research paper that I wrote in my doctoral studies, where I was looking at how religious liberty was conceived of in Protestant social ethics. And within that more narrowly, evangelical social ethics. And what I realized was that there have been kind of piecemeal arguments made about religious liberty from the Bible, but those arguments were never grounded in anything more substantively than kind of traditional systematic theological categories. And so, what I wanted to do was basically ask the question in my research are there more traditional foundational ways to conceive of religious liberty that give it a larger framework, a larger architecture, than simply the idea that John Locke gave us religious liberty. Or simply, one of the arguments is well, because you can’t force someone to believe something, therefore, you have to allow for religious liberty. Which I agree with that argument, but I’m asking the question okay, non-coercion, free response, are those grounded in any Christian particularities themselves? And I think the answer is yes. So, this was an attempt to think about religious liberty from explicitly within the DNA of Christian theology. And so, the main contribution I think the book is attempting to make is to ground religious liberty in three overarching categories. And Mark, you can tell me if you want me to elaborate on these at a greater length, otherwise I might go the full twenty minutes just on this.

Tooley: Well, be brief initially, then we will come back to it.

Walker: The categories are eschatology, anthropology, and missiology. The idea that because Christ is king, in an eschatological sense, he has unique authority over the domain of the conscience. And so, if Christ has authority over the conscience, the government does not. When you look at a category like anthropology, that’s simply looking at how has God made us as rational moral agents who have the desire for self-constitution, who have a conscience, who have freedom. How do we kind of orient ourselves to the world in terms of how we understand what truth is and to live in response to truth. Then lastly, this category of missiology is simply the idea that no, religious liberty isn’t an interim social ethic, as I call it, but it’s given to the Church right now as a vehicle for us to bring our convictions into the public square. And so, whenever we are organizing as Christians around any moral concept in society, that assumes some implicit idea of religious liberty. What I’m trying to do in the book is to say okay, well, our desire for public ethics, that assumes something about the agency to bring those ethics out into the public. What does that reveal about how God has made this age and has brought the church to function within this particular age? And that is an issue of religious liberty. So, eschatology, anthropology, missiology, that’s kind of the unique angle the book is trying to talk about these issues on.

Tooley: Now Ian, tell us a little bit about your review, which, of course, was favorable but maybe had a little bit of pushback. And you suggested Andrew’s argument for religious liberty was more concessional or conditional, at variance perhaps with more traditional Christian arguments for religious liberty. And please share your own perspective in terms of core arguments for religious liberty.

Speir: Thanks for the good question. And as we were talking offline before you even began recording, and I’ll just say it again, I want to just commend Andrew on what I think is a really remarkable book, because it does bring together in a very systematic way what religious liberty is for the Christian and how Christian doctrine and principles can ground a concept of religious liberty. Under Andrew’s argument, and I think it’s right, it’s not simply a matter of political rights or political expediency. This notion of religious freedom is grounded in the Bible and in what it means to be Christians and to live in a Christian way. I think the biggest contribution from my perspective that Andrew makes, at least the thing that really shaped my thinking on this or kind of shook me up, was this notion of a secular age, or the eschatological gap, if you want to call it that, between resurrection and the second coming of Christ. How do we live now in this gap? And what Andrew really does well I think is ground a notion of religious freedom in this concept of two ages, the present age and the age to come. And as I point out in the book review, Calvin made a move like this when arguing, John Calvin, the great reformer, made a move like this when arguing for religious liberty. Grounded in what I call kind of spatial domains, the civil sphere versus the religious sphere or the domain of conscience. And what Andrew does really well is kind of helps shift the paradigm a bit into a temporal distinction between the present age and the age to come, and argues pretty persuasively that religious freedom, diversity, pluralism, all of these are features of the present age, they’re not things to be lamented except insofar as they are passing away. But we should respect them in the present age. And that growth out really of the moral agency of human beings, and you get into this Andrew in the anthropology piece, the power to choose, to choose right or wrong, good versus evil, to choose God or to reject him. And then, of course, that that informs or shapes the mission of the Church, which is to bring people into a knowledge or relationship with him. And that, of course, demands some form of religious freedom, both that the mission of God can go forth, but also that people can freely choose respond to the message of the gospel. So, all of that I think is an insightful, wonderful kind of systematic account of religious liberty from a Christian perspective. So, you’ve done an excellent job there. It looks like you’re ready to respond. Go for it.  

Walker: Yeah, I wanted to respond. Thank you for picking that up. I feel like every author thinks they’re crafting a truly unique argument. That’s just the nature of how authors think about themselves. I think one of the areas that I’m really trying to focus in on, and you brought it up and I thank you for that, was this notion of Christian secularism. You hear the term secularism and you hear the name Richard Dawkins, you think of social justice, you think of kind of progressive ideologies. What I’m trying to do in the book, which informs so much of especially kind of the eschatological horizon of religious liberty, is to say this age that we are living in, it’s a temporal age, which means religious liberty is an interim ethic. It’s not an ethic that extends into the eschatology, that extends into the new creation. Christ is going to bring false belief to an end at some point, but because that’s his authority, it means that institutions and other agents in this particular age are not possessed or authorized with that particular form of judgment and adjudication. So, as I’ve been kind of thinking about what is religious liberty at almost the 30,000 metaphysical foot level, is it’s really helping us understand and negotiate the power claims between eternal realities and temporal realities. By the way, I think that was really helpful, and I think I’m going to use that in interviews moving forward. You said understanding this in a temporal domain, rather than kind of civil, what was the phrase you used with Calvin?

Speir: Yes, spatial versus temporal. To Mark’s question, one of the areas where I sense some tension in the argument is between this notion that religious liberty is kind of grounded in the freedom of conscience, which itself is grounded in a notion of the imago Dei, the image of God in every human being. Under that conception, religious liberty kind of grows out of who we are as humans, and yet, the arguments based on eschatology and the mission of God’s kingdom and mission of God really do suggest, as you’ve pointed out, that religious liberty is a kind of interim ethic. An interim social ethic, not so much a core or intrinsic right that we have as human beings. So, I wondered if, to Mark’s question, if you sensed some of that tension between those ideas? And how those might be resolved.

Walker: I think that’s a perceptive thing to say, and I as a Baptist, and I wrote this as an explicitly Baptist perspective, I have to argue for a couple things that could appear to be at odds with each other. One of them is on what I think is the theological necessity of religious liberty that’s tied to the Baptist tradition. Secondly, for the good of public expressions of religion. Mark and I are on the same page especially in kind of the Tocquevillian needs for religion as forming the seedbeds for civil society. But how can you argue for disestablishment while also arguing for the public good of Christianity? And that’s the tension point in the book. And I feel like almost if someone were to say to me that I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth at times. I actually think that’s a fair critique, and it’s a fair paradox and tension of the book that I’m going to have to live with. Because I’m simultaneously saying religion is good, but you can’t have particular manifestations of religion in society that would want to link church and state. So, I think a critic of my book could say well then, how can you actually hope to have religion be at the center of society in order for your grand vision for a morally consented civil space to persist? And I think my response to that is I would say that I’m amillennial in my eschatology. And to simply note that I think civilizations can come and go and wax and wane in history. We are living at a very volatile time I think for the future trajectory of religious liberty. And I write this in the book. If we continue down the pathway that we’re going as a civilization, I do not see religious liberty surviving very well. I don’t see it surviving much beyond what you are allowed to say and do within the four walls of your church, which we, interestingly enough, just saw over the weekend that Finland has brought charges of incitement against a Lutheran bishop for her preaching, or publishing a booklet, simply talking about Christian beliefs on human sexuality. So, I mean, that’s a perfect example of if a society ceases to be Christian, I don’t see religious liberty persisting. I don’t think of religious liberty as this kind of self-contained vacuum sealed idea that can exist independent of kind of communitarian values. At the end of the book, I quote Roger Scruton basically arguing that liberal democracy is only good in so far as is the tradition informing liberal democracy. And so, progressive liberal democracy is going to be inimical to religious liberty. To me, I don’t know if it’s exclusively; I would say though Christian forms of liberal democracy are what allow for religious liberty. And that’s simply because I think a Christian understanding of liberal democracy decouples the temporal and the eternal, and it doesn’t seek to immanentize the eschaton. And where we have kind of progressive social ideologies begin to dominate, what they do, they would never say that they’re doing this, but they’re immanentizing their version of the eschaton. It’s a material eschaton. It’s a secular eschaton devoid of God, but where those get immanentized, what happens? Well, you lose the principled case to extend difference to those who you think are an impediment to your social vision for progress. And so, I think this is one of the aspects of the book I’m going to have to live with, it’s a book of expressed tension. And I don’t know if that’s necessarily a problem, in as much as I think that’s an accurate reflection of the volatility and precariousness of any age that the church finds itself within. That civilizations can flourish and civilizations can decline. And I, very soberly and sadly, I think our civilization is in decline.

Tooley: Well, as a final question for both of you, starting with Ian, your book, Andrew, is obviously written for Christians, giving them arguments for religious freedom. That seems to be very timely. As you alluded to, there is even among Christians now growing skepticism about what some may call liberalism, which certainly includes religious liberty. So, Ian, do you see this growing doubt about the utility of liberalism and religious freedom? And, if so, what should our response be?

Speir: Yeah, it’s a great question, Mark. And Andrew, I agree with you in your read of what the future holds for Christians, for people of faith, more broadly, for religious liberty as a value or a social ethic. I think it will continue to be in decline, and that’s going to have real effects for people of faith, for the way that they exercise their freedom to exercise their beliefs, whether within the four walls of their church, in the marketplace, and in the world doing ministry and missions work. So, I agree with that assessment. I am saddened by it, but I think we’ve got to sober up to that reality. That is the reality that’s coming. What should the response be? One of the lines Andrew that I loved in your book, and that I’d love to see us as Christians explore more, perhaps in your next book, is that religious liberty ultimately models God himself and his humility coming in the form of human flesh, during the scorn of rejection even unto death. Yet, doing it out of love. And that’s because Jesus teaches us in Mark 10 that the Kingdom of God is not about dominance or coercion, it really is about humility, sacrifice, and love. Jesus says the son of man came not to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many. And when we model God in that way, we are pointing to the greater truth of who God is. So, just as he doesn’t sort of seek to coerce our own stories but invites us into his own, we as Christians have to do the same in the world around us. People will know who God is, that we’ll be pointed to Christ because of our acts of love and justice in the world. Whether or not we have the freedom to continue those acts of love and justice and service in the same way, we’ve still got to be faithful to that vision that Christ gave us. Regardless of these social or legal circumstances that we find ourselves in, that is our ultimate vocation as Christians, pointing the world to him. And in doing so, I think we point implicitly to religious liberty as a value, because we live out a different kind of choice when we do so. When it’s countercultural or even illegal in certain instances, we are saying that we have a right and a responsibility to choose to follow God, as revealed in Christ, based on the Bible and tradition. And whether or not that’s subject to punishment, coercion, or whatever, our lives as Christians must continue to bear witness to that truth. So, that’s what I would say, Mark. It’s not a specific guidance for Christians, that’s going to be facts and circumstances, but I think that is the vision for us as the church going forward.

Tooley: Andrew, final thoughts?

Walker: Yeah, I want to echo that. As Ian was making those remarks, it made me think of the idea that these ideas of love, humility, justice, truth, they’re non-instrumental goods. They’re basic, essential goods in the sense that they are to be pursued always, not necessarily for what they achieve, but because they reflect who Christ is. And so, those really kind of pernicious arguments that progressives will make about religious liberty that it’s really about protecting the Christian’s ability to discriminate or simply an appeal for their social privilege or their social power, I would say to that, well, on the one hand there’s no doubt that religious liberty allows religion to flourish more broadly, but then I would also say that, following the meekness and humility of our Lord, we believe in religious liberty because of these truths that we are bound to recognize and order our lives around. Not because they’re beneficial, necessarily beneficial, as a social utility, but because they bear witness to the very kind of incarnation of witness of Christ himself. And so, in that sense, I think of religious liberty as the very antidote to so-called power seeking or privilege. If you have Christians who are going over and above saying to non-Christians hey, we are protecting the integrity of your conscience to live as you understand ultimate reality or your moral convictions to direct you, there is something non-coercive about that. That doesn’t mean, obviously, I feel like I have to go over and above saying this, religious liberty is not protecting the merits of everyone’s viewpoints. It’s not trying to say they’re all radically coequal or relativize the distinctions between these beliefs. There are times for governments to restrict religious exercise, that’s to be done through deliberative bodies working through constitutional mechanisms and procedures. But, more importantly, when we are defending other people’s religious liberty, we’re protecting the integrity of their conscience, but then also, we’re recognizing and respecting the integrity of their personhood in the sense that we believe this person has to come to a saving knowledge of who Christ is for themselves. You can’t lure, blackmail, or coerce someone into the Kingdom of God. And by virtue of us stating that, we are saying that power for power’s sake is not the way of the Kingdom.

Tooley: Andrew and Ian, thank you for a very insightful conversation. And Andrew, I see it over your shoulder there, if you would please hold up a copy of Liberty for All? Excellent. Gentlemen, thank you again.