Christians throughout history have often faced a paradox when it comes to religious liberty. When in the minority or under persecution, Christian groups have championed freedom of conscience; yet when holding power, those same groups have sometimes been quick to deny others the liberty they once sought. This inconsistency raises important questions about the Christian basis for religious freedom. Should followers of Christ defend the freedom of all faiths, even “false” ones? Or is it justified to restrict other beliefs in the name of protecting truth? This article explores the theological foundations of religious liberty, the philosophical value of allowing people “the freedom to be wrong,” and historical case studies—from early America to John Calvin’s Geneva—that illustrate how religious freedom has been applied differently depending on who holds power. It will conclude with a persuasive argument that Christians, true to their own principles, should support robust religious freedom even when they are in the majority.
Theological Foundations: Scripture and Christian Views on Religious Freedom
Freedom and Coercion in the Bible: The Christian case for religious liberty finds substantial support in Scripture. The Bible portrays genuine faith as a matter of the heart and conscience, not something that can be forced. Jesus never compelled anyone to follow Him by the sword; instead, He invited listeners and allowed even the rich young ruler to walk away sorrowful rather than coerce his obedience (Mark 10:21–22). In the New Testament, the spread of the gospel is through preaching and persuasion (e.g. Acts 17:2–4), not through legal mandate. Jesus taught, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight” (John 18:36), implying that the advancement of God’s kingdom wouldn’t be by worldly force. The apostles likewise emphasized that faith comes from hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17) and that each person must be “fully convinced in his own mind” (Romans 14:5) in matters of belief. Such verses suggest that God desires willing devotion, not compulsion. As one Baptist leader famously put it, “God wants free worshipers and no other kind” (What the Bible Says about Religious Liberty | Lifeway). Christians are called to persuade, not to threaten or subjugate, those who hold different convictions (What the Bible Says about Religious Liberty | Lifeway). The apostle Paul writes, “We try to persuade people” (2 Cor. 5:11) and reminds believers that “the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh” (2 Cor. 10:3–4) (What the Bible Says about Religious Liberty | Lifeway). In fact, whenever the church has used earthly coercion “to legislate away false belief or convert people at the point of a gun,” the result has been spiritually disastrous – churches filled with hypocrites and a faith “weakened and secularized” by entanglement with power (What the Bible Says about Religious Liberty | Lifeway). Rather than fighting spiritual battles with worldly weapons, the New Testament calls Christians to “stay focused on spiritual warfare” and let the state allow freedom of conscience for all (What the Bible Says about Religious Liberty | Lifeway).
“Let Both Grow Together”: A Divine Endorsement of Tolerance: Jesus’ own teaching includes parables that support patience and tolerance toward those who believe wrongly. In the Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds, the servants ask if they should pull up the weeds (representing false believers or evil). The master replies, “No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest” (Matthew 13:29–30). Christians have often interpreted this to mean that ultimate judgment of belief belongs to God at the end of the age, not to us now. As one commentary notes, “Christ has commanded us not to set about ridding the world of the weeds of false belief… We are not suited well for that task – we tend to damage the wheat” (What the Bible Says about Religious Liberty | Lifeway). In other words, attempts to forcibly stamp out religious “weeds” risk harming the good crop. Therefore, many theologians argue that allowing the freedom even for erroneous beliefs is part of Christian obedience, entrusting judgment to God in His time.
Conscience and the Image of God: A core theological reason to uphold religious freedom is the Christian understanding of human dignity. The Bible teaches that humans are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and endowed with a conscience and free will. While Christians believe there is absolute truth in the gospel, they also recognize that faith must be freely embraced. Coerced faith is no faith at all – it produces only outward compliance without genuine heart change. The early church father Tertullian, living under Roman persecution, proclaimed a fundamental principle: “It is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions.” This idea, echoed by later thinkers, aligns with the belief that each soul is ultimately accountable to God alone. No government or church can force a person to believe; belief by its nature must be voluntary. As historian Robert Louis Wilken observes, a trio of themes emerged in early Christian thought on this topic: “(1) religious belief is an inner conviction accountable to God alone and resistant to compulsion, (2) conscience is a form of spiritual knowledge that carries an obligation to act, and (3) human society is governed by two powers, God and the state.” (Religious Freedom Is a Christian Idea) In other words, because faith is inward and owed directly to God, no external authority has rightful power to coerce it. Furthermore, the division of authority between God and Caesar (“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” – Mark 12:17) implies that the state should not usurp God’s realm by dictating conscience. Roger Williams, the devout Puritan-turned-Baptist who founded Rhode Island, called this principle “soul liberty.” He argued that God alone is Lord of the conscience and therefore the civil state must not interfere with an individual’s quest for religious truth () (). If genuine faith requires free assent, then “adherence to a particular faith must be voluntary” (). Williams observed that no one can be coerced into being a Christian, so any attempt to force religious conformity not only fails to produce true belief but also “contradicts the essence and search for religious truth.” () ()
Christian Arguments Against Religious Liberty: Despite these strong theological foundations for freedom of religion, there is another thread in Christian history that has argued against extending liberty to false faiths or heresies. Some Christians have feared that tolerating other religions or divergent doctrines is equivalent to condoning dangerous falsehood. They point to the Old Testament example of Israel, where idolatry was strictly forbidden and punished (Deuteronomy 13), or to the exclusivity of Christ’s claims (“No one comes to the Father except through me” – John 14:6) as reasons to shield society from spiritual error. In times when Christian leaders had political power, many believed they had a duty to “protect” people’s souls by suppressing blasphemy, heresy, or idol worship. This view was memorably expressed in the maxim: “Error has no rights.” In the classical Christian worldview (especially articulated by medieval Catholic thinkers), only the truth has rights, and therefore falsehood can claim none (Religious Freedom | Georgetown University Library). From this premise, it was held that if a society is officially Christian, it should not allow the open propagation of what is believed to be soul-damning error. An influential formulation distinguished between an ideal and a practical concession: in the ideal (“thesis”), the one true faith should be exclusively established and all contrary worship banned; in a regrettable “hypothesis,” toleration of other faiths might be temporarily allowed only if suppressing them is impossible (Religious Freedom | Georgetown University Library). In other words, intolerance was the rule; tolerance only a grudging exception when the faithful lacked power to enforce orthodoxy (Religious Freedom | Georgetown University Library). This hardline stance motivated many episodes of persecution carried out “for the good” of society and the erring individuals.
Biblical warrant was sometimes claimed for religious coercion. St. Augustine of Hippo, for example, initially opposed using force against heretics, but after seeing some Donatist schismatics rejoin the church under state pressure, he changed his mind. Augustine famously cited Jesus’ parable of the great banquet: “Compel them to come in, that my house may be filled” (Luke 14:23). If Christ said “compel them,” Augustine argued, then a degree of coercion could be an instrument of loving correction (Augustine – Letter 93 to Vincentius – Compel them to come in). He noted that God himself “compelled” St. Paul by knocking him to the ground and blinding him on the road to Damascus, thereby bringing about Paul’s conversion (Augustine – Letter 93 to Vincentius – Compel them to come in). In Augustine’s reasoning, just as a father might discipline a wayward child for his long-term good, so the Church (with the help of Christian rulers) might use the “rod” of temporal consequences to bring wandering souls back to the truth (Augustine – Letter 93 to Vincentius – Compel them to come in) (Augustine – Letter 93 to Vincentius – Compel them to come in). Later generations took up similar arguments: medieval inquisitors and Reformation-era magistrates alike believed they were acting in benevolent concern for purity of souls and society. They warned that allowing false teachings to spread would “infect the world with … heretical poison,” as Geneva’s authorities described the heresies of Michael Servetus (Religious Toleration Versus Religious Freedom | Libertarianism.org). To their minds, stamping out false religion was as much a public duty as protecting citizens from crime or disease.
This tension between two sets of Christian impulses – one toward freedom of conscience, the other toward zealous defense of “the one true faith” – lies at the heart of the paradox of religious liberty. It explains why the same community might fiercely advocate liberty under one set of circumstances and curtail it under another. The next sections will examine how this paradox played out in philosophy and in historical practice.
The Freedom to Be Wrong: Philosophical Perspectives on Error and Truth
One of the key principles underlying religious liberty in Western thought is the “freedom to be wrong.” In a free society, people must be allowed to hold and express beliefs that others (even the majority) consider incorrect, because only through such freedom can truth ultimately be discerned and genuine faith take root. This idea has been championed by philosophers and theologians alike, often in dialogue with Christian concepts of conscience and truth.
Value of Free Conscience: The English philosopher John Locke – himself a Protestant Christian – argued powerfully in A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) that true religion cannot be forced. Locke observed that belief “consists in the inward and full persuasion of the mind,” which by its very nature cannot be compelled by outward force (Amendment I (Religion): John Locke, A Letter concerning Toleration). If a government commands someone to adhere to a religion that the person doesn’t truly believe, the result is not genuine faith but hypocrisy. The person might outwardly conform to avoid punishment, but inwardly they offer “such a worship as [they] esteem to be displeasing unto Him [God],” thereby only adding the sin of insincere worship to their tally (Amendment I (Religion): John Locke, A Letter concerning Toleration). Far from honoring God, state-compelled religion produces “hypocrisy and contempt of his Divine Majesty,” as Locke put it (Amendment I (Religion): John Locke, A Letter concerning Toleration). This aligns closely with Christian theology: God abhors lip service and desires worship “in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). Thus, forcing religious conformity is not only a violation of individual conscience but an offense to God, who alone can judge the heart. Locke concluded that the civil magistrate has no authority from God to “compel any one to his religion,” and even if people wanted to give that power to the state, they could not, because “no man can so far abandon the care of his own salvation” as to let someone else choose his faith (Amendment I (Religion): John Locke, A Letter concerning Toleration). In practical terms, “it is one thing to persuade, another to command; one thing to press with arguments, another with penalties.” (Amendment I (Religion): John Locke, A Letter concerning Toleration) Truth may be spread by preaching and reason, but the coercive power of law is inept at changing hearts and minds (Amendment I (Religion): John Locke, A Letter concerning Toleration) (Amendment I (Religion): John Locke, A Letter concerning Toleration).
“Liberty to Be Wrong” and the Search for Truth: Enlightenment thinkers and founders of modern liberal democracies often echoed a principle that can be traced to both Christian and classical roots: Truth does not need coercion to triumph. Thomas Jefferson, though heterodox in some of his beliefs, captured this idea eloquently in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786). That law – which was heavily influenced by Baptist and Presbyterian advocates as well – declares “that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate.” (Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom | Thomas Jefferson\’s Monticello) In other words, truth has the inherent strength to emerge victorious in a fair contest of ideas. Only when authorities interfere – “disarming” the process of open argument by suppressing certain views – does falsehood gain an undue advantage. This is a profound affirmation of the freedom to be wrong: errors can be safely tolerated because in a climate of free debate, errors will “cease to be dangerous” as people gravitate toward truth (Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom | Thomas Jefferson\’s Monticello). Such confidence in truth’s power resonates with Christian convictions that God’s truth, like light, ultimately overcomes darkness (John 1:5). It also aligns with a humble recognition that human authorities are fallible. If we suppress dissenting voices, we risk suppressing truth itself or preventing the correction of our own errors. Many Christian philosophers have agreed that allowing people to err is part of respecting their God-given autonomy and is necessary for authentic belief. C.S. Lewis noted that God in His omnipotence chose to create creatures who could choose wrongly, because free will is the only thing that makes genuine love and faith possible. By analogy, a society that allows wrong choices (within limits that prevent violence) is one that treats its members as responsible moral agents rather than as children to be coerced “for their own good.”
Alignment and Tension with Christian Thought: The notion of freedom of thought and the “right to be wrong” largely complements Christian theology, but not without tension for some believers. On one hand, as we have seen, Christianity teaches the primacy of conscience and the need for willing faith. The freedom to reject Christ is implicit in the call to accept Him – otherwise acceptance means nothing. Furthermore, many Christians recognize that coercing others in matters of religion violates the Golden Rule taught by Jesus: “Whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them” (Matthew 7:12). If Christians plead for their own freedom to worship and evangelize, consistency demands they grant the same freedom to those of other faiths. On the other hand, devout Christians also believe that souls hang in the balance. They may worry that “freedom to be wrong” could lead many into damnation. The fear is that a policy of tolerance might look like indifference to truth, or that it gives equal platform to what they see as soul-threatening lies. A candid expression of this concern appears in one Christian author’s confession: “We believers cannot shrug off false religions as though they were inconsequential… We see them for what they are: Demonic lies that seduce people away from the truth and drag deceived souls to Hell. …Giving religious liberty to others can feel like we are lying down and giving over the field of battle to a bloodthirsty enemy” (What the Bible Says about Religious Liberty | Lifeway). Here the value of freedom conflicts with an urgent desire to save souls from error. This perspective has driven many well-meaning Christian restrictions on other faiths: they arise not always from hatred, but sometimes from a sincere (if misguided) conviction that it is merciful to prevent people from being damned by heresy or idolatry.
Philosophically, however, one must ask: Can truth be effectively served by coercion? The overwhelming consensus of Christian history, especially after the Enlightenment, is no. Coercion might enforce outward conformity, but it cannot produce genuine conviction – it can only create “compliant hypocrites rather than converted souls,” as one historian observes (Locke on Religious Toleration by Mark Goldie). Worse, it can breed resentment and push people further from the gospel. The long saga of religious conflicts in Europe taught many Christian thinkers that attempting to violently suppress “wrong” beliefs often leads to endless wars and a corrupted church. By allowing the freedom to err, Christians place their trust in God’s sovereignty and the persuasive power of the truth, rather than in the unstable tool of state power. This philosophical stance is actually an act of faith: faith that God’s truth can defend itself, and that “the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (James 1:20).
In summary, the freedom to be wrong is not a concession to relativism, but a commitment to seeking truth through free conscience and open dialogue. It aligns with the Christian understanding that love and faith must be freely chosen, and it guards against the arrogance of any group (even a Christian majority) assuming the role of infallible enforcer of truth.
Religious Liberty in American History: Principles and Paradoxes
The history of the United States offers vivid examples of the religious liberty paradox at work. America’s story includes inspiring advances in freedom of religion, but also glaring inconsistencies where those in power denied liberty to others. Understanding this history provides context for why Christians today should champion religious freedom for all, regardless of which group holds the majority.
Colonial Beginnings – Idealism and Intolerance: Many of America’s first European settlers came seeking religious freedom for themselves. The Pilgrims (Separatists) and Puritans fled persecution in England in the early 1600s with visions of building communities where they could worship according to their convictions. John Winthrop, governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, famously envisioned his Puritan settlement as a “city upon a hill” – a godly commonwealth to shine in the New World. However, the reality on the ground often contradicted the ideal of liberty. The Puritan fathers of Massachusetts Bay “did not countenance tolerance of opposing religious views. Their ‘city upon a hill’ was a theocracy that brooked no dissent, religious or political.” (America\’s True History of Religious Tolerance | Smithsonian) In other words, once the Puritans had established their community, they were no more willing to tolerate deviation than the bishops in England had been willing to tolerate them. Dissenters within the Puritan fold, such as Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, were famously banished from the colony for challenging the religious uniformity. Williams had advocated that civil government should not enforce the first table of the Ten Commandments (the religious duties toward God) and that colonists should purchase land from Native Americans – radical ideas that Massachusetts’ leaders condemned as “Satan’s work” (Roger Williams Banished). Forced to flee in 1635, Williams went on to found Rhode Island, a colony established on the unprecedented principle of religious freedom for all, including Jews, Quakers, and even skeptics. Similarly, Hutchinson’s theological meetings and claims of personal revelation led to her exile. Massachusetts’ treatment of the Quakers was even harsher: Quakers were banned from the colony, and four Quaker missionaries were hanged in Boston between 1659 and 1661 for persistently returning to preach after being expelled (America\’s True History of Religious Tolerance | Smithsonian). To the Puritan authorities, these Quakers were heretics undermining the social order; to later generations, their execution starkly symbolized religious intolerance by those who had once sought refuge for their own faith.
This pattern repeated elsewhere. In Anglican-dominated Virginia, there was little room for dissent prior to the Revolution. Baptists and Presbyterians who preached without a license were harassed or jailed. Young James Madison, a Virginia Anglican-turned-Episcopalian, wrote in 1774 of his dismay at seeing “what pious people ☒ Please [???] (fix)* Baptist ministers being arrested in his home county simply for preaching the Gospel** (America\’s True History of Religious Tolerance | Smithsonian). The climate of colonial Virginia was such that taxes supported the established Anglican Church, and dissenters had to fight for legal toleration. (Maryland, founded by Catholics, passed a Toleration Act in 1649 protecting “Trinitarian” Christians, but even that was overturned when Anglicans took power later.) In short, early America was not uniformly a bastion of religious freedom. As one historian bluntly states, “from the earliest arrival of Europeans on America’s shores, religion has often been a cudgel, used to discriminate, suppress and even kill” those of different faiths (America\’s True History of Religious Tolerance | Smithsonian). Protestants persecuted Catholics and vice versa; majorities repressed minorities. The “land of the free” had to learn by painful experience that peace and flourishing required a different approach.
The First Amendment and Its Christian Roots: The founding generation of the United States drew lessons from this history. By the late 18th century, many Americans—Christians of various denominations included—had come to believe that only a secular government neutral in matters of religion could ensure peace and justice in a pluralistic society. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1791, famously forbids Congress from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This dual guarantee (no establishment, free exercise for all) was revolutionary. It arose not from indifference to religion, but from a profound concern—often articulated by devout people—that faith must be voluntary and that civil power over religion is dangerous. James Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance (1785), written to oppose a Virginia bill that would have funded Christian teachers, encapsulated the Christian philosophical case for religious freedom in the new republic. Madison argued it is a “fundamental and undeniable truth, that religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator… can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” (James Madison\’s Memorial and Remonstrance | Teaching American History) Therefore, he wrote, each person’s faith must be left “to the conviction and conscience of every man,” and this right is “unalienable” because it is a duty each person owes directly to God, prior to any duty to the state (James Madison\’s Memorial and Remonstrance | Teaching American History). Madison, a Christian himself, warned that if the government can dictate one’s religion, it trespasses on God’s authority and effectively sets up an idol in place of the true God (since the state would be demanding the honor due only to the “Governor of the Universe” in matters of conscience) (James Madison\’s Memorial and Remonstrance | Teaching American History). He also noted a practical political reality: “no other rule exists by which any question that may divide a society can be ultimately determined than the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.” (James Madison\’s Memorial and Remonstrance | Teaching American History) In other words, simple majority rule is not a sufficient principle in religion—the majority’s power ends where an individual’s right of conscience begins.
These arguments triumphed in Virginia with the passage of Jefferson’s Statute for Religious Freedom (1786) and ultimately informed the First Amendment at the national level. It’s noteworthy that some of the strongest proponents of church-state separation were religious minorities like the Baptists, who, remembering their own persecution, insisted that religious liberty for one group must mean liberty for all. As Baptist leader John Leland quipped, government has no more right to “meddle with the religion of others” than it has to meddle with their “coffee or tea”. Such views were persuasive because they combined Enlightenment reasoning with lived Christian experience of persecution.
Contemporary Church–State Debates: In modern America, Christians are no longer a beleaguered minority; in most regions, they form the majority or at least a culturally influential plurality. This shift has brought new challenges in applying principles of religious freedom. Ideally, the First Amendment’s promise of free exercise and non-establishment protects Christians and non-Christians alike. And indeed, Christians have often been at the forefront of defending religious liberty in general. Yet there are ongoing debates about what religious freedom means when Christians hold cultural power. For instance, in public schools and government settings, majority-Christian communities sometimes desire to express their faith (prayer at school events, Ten Commandments displays, etc.), whereas minority faiths or secular voices raise concerns about exclusion or coercion. Conversely, when minority faiths assert their rights (a Muslim group seeking to build a mosque, for example), some Christian residents have resisted, perhaps forgetting that the same freedom protects their own churches. Recent Supreme Court decisions have highlighted these tensions. Some rulings, often supported by conservative Christians, have expanded protections for individual religious exercise – such as upholding a coach’s right to pray on a football field or a business owner’s right to refuse services for activities that violate their religious beliefs (The contested nature of religious liberty in today’s America | OUPblog) (The contested nature of religious liberty in today’s America | OUPblog). Proponents say these decisions correctly shield people of faith (often Christians) from government pressure. Critics, however, see a paradox: “the concept of religious liberty has increasingly been used to suppress minority or disempowered voices.” (The contested nature of religious liberty in today’s America | OUPblog) In other words, they argue that “religious liberty” is sometimes invoked by a Christian majority in ways that undermine the rights of others, such as LGBTQ individuals or religious minorities. The very notion of religious freedom becomes contested – is it a shield for everyone, or a sword for the culturally powerful?
This predicament is not entirely new. American history shows that whenever one faction (even a religious one) gains dominance, the temptation arises to impose its values on society through law. The Founders’ genius was to set up a framework where no single religion could be officially established, forcing all groups to coexist and compete through persuasion, not coercion. That framework has largely held, and it allowed the U.S. to become a haven for diverse faiths. To this day, one can find hundreds of Christian denominations, alongside every other world religion, flourishing on American soil. Such pluralism is a testament to the principle that faith can thrive in freedom. As evidence, by the mid-20th century, the United States remained far more religiously active than European nations with long histories of state churches. Liberty, it turned out, was good for the church.
Yet the paradox of religious liberty still rears its head in public discourse. Christian nationalism – the idea that America should be an explicitly “Christian nation” with laws to match – has gained some popularity in certain circles, directly challenging the ethos of pluralistic freedom. Those who advocate a Christian nation often say they support “religious freedom,” but they sometimes mean freedom for Christian practices in public life, not necessarily equal freedom for others. For example, a city might readily allow a Christmas display at City Hall but balk at a display for a non-Christian holiday. Or a school board might permit Christian prayers but not see equal room for other faiths’ expressions. These debates call Christians to clarify what religious liberty truly means. Is it a universal principle based on justice and love of neighbor, or merely a tactical position one takes until one’s own group can secure privilege? The American experiment – reinforced by Christian leaders like Madison, Williams, and Leland – insists on the former: that religious liberty is for all people, precisely because of the Christian conviction that faith must be free.
John Calvin’s Geneva: A Cautionary Tale of Enforced Uniformity
One of the most striking historical examples of Christians restricting religious liberty when in power is the case of John Calvin’s Geneva in the 16th century. John Calvin, a French theologian, was a second-generation Reformer who led the city of Geneva (in present-day Switzerland) in establishing a Bible-based commonwealth. Under Calvin’s influence, Geneva became a model of a Protestant “godly” city – but also an example of how a community of the devout can enforce religious uniformity with an iron hand.
The Ideal of a Holy Commonwealth: Calvin fled Catholic France to escape persecution and sought to build in Geneva a society fully conformed to God’s Word. He believed that the civil authorities had a duty to uphold true religion and suppress blasphemy and heresy. In practice, this meant Geneva’s city council, working closely with church authorities (the Consistory), passed laws requiring church attendance, enforcing moral discipline, and outlawing teachings deemed false. Calvin did not formally hold political office, but his theological and moral authority was immense. By mid-century, it was hard to draw a line between the church’s authority and the city government’s authority – Geneva effectively became a theocracy in the sense that religious law and civil law blended to direct all aspects of life.
Enforcement and Punishment: Within this framework, religious liberty as we understand it today did not exist in Calvin’s Geneva. Dissent was regarded as sedition. Historian Mark Valeri notes that in such Protestant establishments, there was a “demand of a society and its intellectual leaders for consensus and uniformity” so strong that “individual conscience and belief was seen as undermining society.” (Michael Servetus: To Kill a Man Does Not Defend an Idea – Toward Freedom) This captures the mindset: allowing each person to choose their religion was thought to threaten the entire social order and provoke God’s wrath on the community. Thus, Geneva’s authorities took severe measures against those who deviated. The most infamous example is the case of Michael Servetus, a Spanish physician and theologian who denied the Trinity. Servetus, already condemned as a heretic by the Catholic Church, foolishly came to Geneva in 1553. He was recognized, arrested, and tried for heresy under Geneva’s laws. Despite pleas for mercy from some and Servetus’s own provocative insistence that Calvin was the real heretic, he was sentenced to death (Religious Toleration Versus Religious Freedom | Libertarianism.org) (Religious Toleration Versus Religious Freedom | Libertarianism.org). In October 1553, Servetus was burned at the stake outside Geneva – a grim echo of the Inquisition’s tactics, but this time carried out by Protestants. This execution was not a moment of mob frenzy; it was a deliberate act supported by Calvin and by other Swiss Protestant leaders who were consulted. No major Reformer protested Servetus’s death (Michael Servetus: To Kill a Man Does Not Defend an Idea – Toward Freedom). At that time, to the majority of Reformation leaders, executing a blasphemous heretic seemed both justified and necessary to preserve the purity of the church and the stability of society.
Dissenting Voices and the Birth of Toleration: Yet, even in the 1550s, there were Christian voices who found this logic troubling. Servetus’s execution sent shockwaves through the Protestant world and sparked what became a watershed debate on religious toleration. Sebastian Castellio, a scholar and one-time friend of Calvin, was outraged by Servetus’s death. Under a pseudonym, Castellio penned a scathing critique of the persecution of heretics. He famously wrote, “To kill a man is not to defend a doctrine; it is to kill a man.” (Michael Servetus: To Kill a Man Does Not Defend an Idea – Toward Freedom) No matter how false or dangerous Servetus’s ideas were thought to be, Castellio argued, the gospel could never be advanced by murdering the heretic. He and others asserted that forced orthodoxy is a betrayal of Christ, who never compelled belief by fire and sword. Castellio even quipped, “If you want to defend a doctrine, burn books, not men.” Such arguments were revolutionary in their context. They laid early groundwork for the idea that the error of a dissenter does not strip away his human rights – an idea that would take root more fully in later centuries.
It must be said that Calvin was a man of his time: nearly all Christian jurisdictions in the 1500s, Protestant or Catholic, believed in punishing heresy (in some places, Anabaptists were drowned; in others, Catholics and Protestants burned each other’s followers). Geneva under Calvin was relatively orderly and, by some accounts, even moderate compared to say, the Spanish Inquisition. Nevertheless, by modern standards it was a regime of “spiritual tyranny,” where citizens could be punished for naming children after Catholic saints, for missing church, or for uttering dissent (Discipline in Calvin\’s Geneva – The Puritan Board). The consistency and strictness of Calvin’s theocratic vision have made Geneva a byword for religious intolerance in the name of faith. Historians note that “by historians Calvin is typically counted as the most intolerant of the Reformers” (Religious Toleration | Christian Library). Geneva’s experiment showed how even those who suffered persecution (Calvin’s followers had been hounded in France) could become persecutors when in power – illustrating the paradox of religious liberty once again.
For modern Christians, Calvin’s Geneva serves as a cautionary tale. It forces reflection on questions like: If we had the power of the state at our disposal, how would we treat those of other faiths or of no faith? Would we repeat the mistake of Geneva, conflating God’s kingdom with an earthly regime and crushing conscience for the sake of uniformity? Many theologians today view Geneva’s enforced uniformity as inconsistent with the gospel’s spirit. Yes, it aimed to honor God’s truth, but in doing so it violated other core Christian principles – love of neighbor, the example of Christ’s humility, and the teaching that wheat and tares must grow together until God’s judgment. The legacy of Geneva, along with the broader history of religious persecution, heavily influenced later Christian thought. By the 17th and 18th centuries, an increasing number of Christians concluded that religious coercion did more harm than good, often even leading Christians to persecute fellow Christians who differed only in denomination (What the Bible Says about Religious Liberty | Lifeway). This realization helped propel the Christian acceptance of the idea that “faith cannot be forced” – a viewpoint that Catholicism, for instance, officially embraced in 1965 with Vatican II’s declaration Dignitatis Humanae, and that virtually all Protestant denominations uphold today.
Why Christians Should Champion Religious Freedom – Even in the Majority
Considering the theological, philosophical, and historical insights above, a compelling case emerges for why Christians should consistently support religious freedom for everyone, not just for themselves. In this final section, we turn explicitly persuasive. The argument is simple: Christians have the best reasons to champion genuine religious liberty, and doing so is both faithful to Christ and beneficial for society and the church. Here’s why:
Christ’s Example and Teachings: Jesus Christ refused earthly power and did not enforce belief by law or violence. He said, “If anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet” (Matthew 10:14) – move on, don’t call down fire from heaven. When Peter drew a sword to defend Him, Jesus told him to put it away (John 18:10–11). The one time Jesus’ disciples wanted to punish a non-believing town with fire from heaven, He rebuked them (Luke 9:54–55). Christ’s way was invitation, not compulsion. If our Lord honored the freedom of individuals to say “no” to Him, how can His followers do otherwise? To be Christlike is to love and serve, not dominate. Moreover, Jesus taught the Golden Rule, which applies pointedly here: since Christians rightly desire freedom to practice and share their faith, they must “do unto others” by defending the same freedom for people of other faiths. It is a matter of integrity and obedience to Jesus’ command of neighbor-love.
The Nature of Faith: From a theological standpoint, a coerced “conversion” is spiritually worthless. God desires children, not prisoners; sincere devotees, not fearful subjects. As the early church father Lactantius wrote, “Religion cannot be imposed by force; the matter must be carried on by words rather than blows.” For a Christian to force another person into baptism or church attendance under threat is to misunderstand how God works. The Holy Spirit, not the government, is the agent of conversion. Thus, protecting each person’s freedom of conscience is actually in service of the gospel: it allows room for the Spirit to work and for individuals to come to faith without compulsion. One Baptist preacher in colonial America, Isaac Backus, likened forced worship to “medicine poured down a sick man’s throat” – it does not heal, it only chokes. On the contrary, when faith is freely chosen, it tends to be more genuine and enduring.
Preventing Hypocrisy and Resentment: As John Locke and James Madison pointed out, using legal force in religion tends to fill churches with hypocrites – people who go through the motions to avoid punishment – which is an affront to God (Amendment I (Religion): John Locke, A Letter concerning Toleration). It also breeds resentment and even hatred toward the faith that is enforced. History shows that persecuted groups often become bitter or permanently alienated from the majority religion. By contrast, when people are granted freedom, they are more likely to be open to listening. Christianity has always spread best by witness, service, and reasoned persuasion, not by compulsion. The blood of the martyrs, not the blood of their opponents, is the seed of the church. Therefore, even from an evangelical perspective, religious freedom is the preferred “strategy.” It keeps the forum open so that the church can preach and testify without provoking defensive backlash that coercion creates. As one modern Christian leader put it, “Let the church stay focused on spiritual warfare and let the state acknowledge freedom of conscience for all people.” (What the Bible Says about Religious Liberty | Lifeway) In our pluralistic age, our battle is for hearts and minds, not legal dominion. If we truly believe the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, we won’t fear competing ideas; instead, we’ll engage them in love and truth.
Learning from History – Avoiding a Cycle of Persecution: The historical record is clear that whenever Christians have seized the sword of state to enforce doctrine (whether in Constantine’s Byzantine Empire, medieval Europe, Calvin’s Geneva, or Puritan New England), two things inevitably happened: (1) other Christians with differing interpretations ended up persecuted (since once you start enforcing “truth,” you often target those nearest to you who deviate slightly), and (2) the faith itself became entangled with power, leading to corruption and decline. As noted earlier, “in every epoch of history in which Christians rejected religious liberty and endeavored to enforce right belief, those Christians wound up persecuting other Christians” (What the Bible Says about Religious Liberty | Lifeway). We dare not repeat that pattern. By upholding religious freedom even when we’re in charge, we break the cycle of persecution. We also set a precedent that safeguards the church’s future. No earthly majority is permanent. If today Christians were to establish a coercive religious state, tomorrow that machinery could fall into the hands of another group and be used against Christians. By defending a neutral principle of liberty for all, Christians ensure their own long-term protection as well. Madison warned that a government that can favor one faith today can just as easily favor a different one tomorrow (James Madison\’s Memorial and Remonstrance | Teaching American History). The safest course, and the most just, is to bind government to impartiality.
Social Peace and Justice: A society that respects religious liberty is generally more peaceful and just. When people don’t fear oppression for their beliefs, they can live together despite deep differences. This doesn’t mean Christians celebrate every belief as equally true – certainly not. But it means we commit to resolving differences through dialogue, prayer, and example, rather than force. This approach honors the God-given dignity of all people, even those in error. It also tends to create goodwill. When non-Christians see Christians defending their right to worship freely, it powerfully reflects Christ’s love and the impartial justice of God “who shows no favoritism” (Acts 10:34). It’s a winsome witness. Conversely, if Christians were to seek dominance and crack down on others, it would discredit the gospel in the eyes of the world (and rightly so, for it would be a betrayal of gospel principles).
Theological Confidence: Ultimately, Christians believe that God is sovereign over history and the Holy Spirit can convict the world of error (John 16:8). We do not need to play God by controlling others’ beliefs. Our job is to proclaim and live the truth, and to trust God with the outcome. Supporting religious freedom is a way of saying: “We trust that God’s truth, given free opportunity, will win hearts without needing a government mandate.” It is also an act of humility, acknowledging that we as human beings might be wrong in some of our interpretations and therefore should not arrogantly force them on others at gunpoint. As the Apostle Paul said, “For now we see in a mirror dimly” (1 Cor. 13:12); our knowledge is imperfect. The early Americans embraced this humility. They saw that if Congregationalists, Anglicans, Baptists, Quakers, and Catholics all insisted on imposing their own creed as the law of the land, the result would be endless strife. The better path was liberty, where each could follow conscience and compete in good works and persuasion.
In light of all this, it becomes clear that Christians should be the champions of religious freedom, not reluctantly, but wholeheartedly. Far from being a mere political compromise, religious liberty can be understood as a positive good flowing from Christian convictions: the dignity of God’s image in man, the supreme value of sincere faith, and the ethic of treating others as we’d hope to be treated (). By defending the right of others to disagree with us, we honor the very freedom that God grants to all: the freedom to choose or reject Him, a freedom without which love is meaningless.
Conclusion
The paradox of religious liberty in Christian experience – liberty for me, but not for thee – is resolved when we return to the heart of the Christian faith. The Lord whom Christians serve wielded no sword and forced no consciences; He spoke truth and gave Himself up in love. A church confident in Christ and His truth does not need the crutch of coercion. History has shown the pitfalls of both persecuted Christians who later became persecutors, and of well-intentioned zeal that produced oppression. Conversely, history and scripture together testify that allowing freedom of religion is both the just path and ultimately the most effective one for the cause of Christ. As one modern Baptist statement declares, “The Bible and the history of Christian thought provide a strong theological foundation for supporting religious liberty and protecting the freedom of conscience.” () Christians should embrace that heritage. Whether in the minority or the majority, Christians are called to be people of the truth and people of love. That means upholding a society where truth can be proclaimed but never imposed by force. In practical terms, it means standing up not only for our own right to worship, but for our neighbor’s right – be he Muslim, atheist, Hindu, or anything else – to do the same.
In the end, supporting religious freedom is not a sign of weakness or compromise by Christians; it is a sign of fidelity to the teachings of Jesus and the apostolic faith. It recognizes that God alone is the sovereign of the human soul. It trusts in the power of truth and love over the coercion of law. And it affirms that a church freed from entanglement with coercive power is free indeed – free to follow its Lord and to serve the world as salt and light. Such a stance, consistently applied, transforms the paradox of religious liberty into a powerful testimony of Christian integrity and charity. Far from surrendering to “demonic lies,” a commitment to religious liberty is, as one writer put it, actually “spiritual warfare” of a higher sort (What the Bible Says about Religious Liberty | Lifeway). It refuses to fight on Satan’s terms (force and fear) and instead overcomes evil with good. By championing the freedom of others, Christians most authentically live out the grace that God has shown to all. This is why, in any position of influence, Christians should use their voice to say: “Yes, religious liberty for all!” – confidently believing that in this freedom, God’s truth will prevail.
Sources:
Holy Bible (ESV/NIV) – John 18:36; Matthew 13:24–30; Romans 14:5; etc.
Lifeway, “What the Bible Says about Religious Liberty” (What the Bible Says about Religious Liberty | Lifeway) (What the Bible Says about Religious Liberty | Lifeway) (What the Bible Says about Religious Liberty | Lifeway) (What the Bible Says about Religious Liberty | Lifeway) (What the Bible Says about Religious Liberty | Lifeway).
Georgetown Univ. (J. Courtney Murray), “Religious Freedom: Catholic Debate” (Religious Freedom | Georgetown University Library).
Augustine of Hippo, Letter 93, in Early Church Texts (Augustine – Letter 93 to Vincentius – Compel them to come in) (Augustine – Letter 93 to Vincentius – Compel them to come in) (Augustine – Letter 93 to Vincentius – Compel them to come in).
John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) (Amendment I (Religion): John Locke, A Letter concerning Toleration) (Amendment I (Religion): John Locke, A Letter concerning Toleration).
James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance (1785) (James Madison\’s Memorial and Remonstrance | Teaching American History) (James Madison\’s Memorial and Remonstrance | Teaching American History) (James Madison\’s Memorial and Remonstrance | Teaching American History).
Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786) (Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom | Thomas Jefferson\’s Monticello).
Smithsonian Magazine, “America’s True History of Religious Tolerance” (America\’s True History of Religious Tolerance | Smithsonian) (America\’s True History of Religious Tolerance | Smithsonian) (America\’s True History of Religious Tolerance | Smithsonian).
Libertarianism.org, “Religious Toleration vs. Religious Freedom” (Religious Toleration Versus Religious Freedom | Libertarianism.org) (Religious Toleration Versus Religious Freedom | Libertarianism.org).
Toward Freedom, “Michael Servetus: To Kill a Man Does Not Defend an Idea” (Michael Servetus: To Kill a Man Does Not Defend an Idea – Toward Freedom) (Michael Servetus: To Kill a Man Does Not Defend an Idea – Toward Freedom).
Family Research Council, “Biblical Principles for Religious Liberty” () () () ().
OUP Blog (Mark Valeri), “The contested nature of religious liberty in today’s America” (The contested nature of religious liberty in today’s America | OUPblog) (The contested nature of religious liberty in today’s America | OUPblog) (The contested nature of religious liberty in today’s America | OUPblog).