RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THE KINGDOM?

It must be evident that the final and perfect union of church and state in the coming Kingdom will also put an end to what we call "freedom of religion." The American policy of complete separation of church and state, which most sensible men fully approve under present conditions, is not however the ideal policy. It is rather a policy of precaution in a sinful world, where political and ecclesiastical powers too often get into the wrong hands, and the result is intolerable oppression. But under the personal rule of the Messianic King the union of church and state will not only be safe; it will also be the highest possible good. For, if religion is of any essential value in human life, and if there is some one true religion, and if there is coming a time when both political and religious authority will be exercised by a wise and loving God acting supernaturally in human affairs - it follows logically that in that day what we call "religious freedom" must come to an end. Today men are allowed to rebel against the true God, but there is no freedom to rebel against the State! In the days of the coming Kingdom, both political and religious rebellion will become high treason against God and humanity.

Therefore, as we might expect, the prophets take cognizance of this problem. After asserting that in the Kingdom the various nations shall come up to Jerusalem to worship the Mediatorial King, Zechariah discusses the possibility of dissent. "And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain" (Zech. 14:17). In the case of lands like Egypt, there will be a "plague" to smite the nation (Zech. 14:17-19). In other words, the divine procedure will simply be to deprive the dissenters of the Kingdom blessings of food and health. The divine King who controls all the factors of physical environment will need no armies to rule the nations. The sanction of hunger alone would be a sufficient deterrent to all rebellion.

The idea of sin and rebellion in the future Messianic Kingdom has been severely criticized by anti-millennial writers. How account for such things in an otherwise perfect millennial state? The answer should be obvious: Since human life will proceed under the natural laws of procreation, children will be born with a sinful nature and with sinful tendencies. Such a state of affairs should not trouble the anti-millennial theologians who believe that Messiah's Kingdom is already now established on earth! And if, according to the premillennial view, the same sinful tendencies continue to exist in the future Kingdom, there will be one great advantage: Such tendencies will then be under divine and supernatural control. For that matter, even in the eternal state when God will rule over all, sinners will continue to exist in the eternal prison-house of the lost. The curious objections raised by some anti-millennialists against the idea of sin present in the coming Kingdom might make one wonder whether they believe in the reality and eternity of hell. If a loving God can tolerate hell in the eternal future, is there anything irrational in the divine toleration and strict control of sinful tendencies for a thousand years in Messiah's Kingdom on earth? Or do they suppose that there can be sinners in hell without sin?"

Some have objected to such a method of control, arguing that in God's Kingdom He rules by love and spiritual influences; that the use of force is the mark of "carnal" ideas of the Kingdom. A sufficient reply to such objections is (1) the heavy hand of God in the material world where there is no forgiveness for violators of its laws; and (2) the reality of a future and final place of punishment for the lost. For hell is a place where the naked force of Deity will be applied without reserve to all incorrigible rebels against the goodness of God. If the doctrine of hell is consistent with the idea of divine goodness, then there can be nothing unreasonable about a kingdom on earth where righteousness is enforced among the nations. And in the latter case there will still be mercy available for all, but in hell there will be no mercy.

There is a great deal of intellectual confusion regarding the place of religious freedom in the Kingdom of God. Some of this is the result of wrong notions about the nature of the Kingdom itself. Several years ago the Baptist World Alliance, meeting in London, adopted a five-point statement on the subject of religious freedom. With much of this statement, in its application to the present age, all religiously inclined men of goodwill should agree, regardless of their affiliations. Religious freedom is properly defined as "not only freedom to worship privately and publicly, but the right to teach, preach, publish, and advocate, openly and without hindrances, the Gospel of Christ or other religious convictions." But the statement concludes with an irreconcilable conflict of ideas: "We will not rest content until we witness the achievement of religious freedom and individual liberty throughout the world. We believe this is an essential part of our contribution to the thought of the church, as well as to the establishment of Christ's reign on the earth." Certainly these churchmen are right in battling for complete religious liberty on behalf of all men here and now. On the other hand, according to both Scripture and reason, the establishment of the Kingdom of Christ on earth could never make room for liberty on the part of false and degraded religions to propagate and practice their iniquitous delusions. If it is the business of the Christian Church to establish "Christ's reign" on earth, as the Baptist World Alliance seems to assume, then it ought logically to enter the field of religious preferentialism and suppression. But if the Church of the present age finds its greatest good under the political rule of full religious liberty, as it indubitably does, then such liberty must be an interim policy, useful only until the Kingdom of Biblical prophecy arrives; and that Kingdom will not be realized on earth until God in Christ comes to set it up.

What we see unfolding is what men did with the doctrinal purity that Christ spoke when talking of God and His teachings. They did not want Him teaching any doctrine which differed from their beliefs. The only way to deal with Him and His teachings concerning God and the coming kingdom, which differed from their beliefs, was to remove Him from the picture. We see America in the same process although not as bloody for that would uncover their base motives. It will come to that day again and I think soon. True Christianity and its true beliefs will not be accepted. For, if religion is of any essential value in human life, and if there is some one true religion, those who believe Christ was too singularly narrow won't even let a manger scene that remembers Him to exist for others to see and thereby consider.