This article is part of the Religious Freedom Reframed series, which is exploring perspectives on religious freedom that have historically been left out of public discourse, as well as implications for individuals, institutions, and society overall. In this series, authors will use a public justice framework to explore narratives that are traditionally left out of the conversation on religious freedom. This series is designed to introduce fresh perspectives, feature new voices, and examine historical and present injustices in the application of religious freedom. The Center for Public Justice, a Christian faith-based organization with a strong commitment to religious freedom, has intentionally invited authors from diverse faith traditions and perspectives on religious freedom to share their insights and experiences of religious freedom in the United States.
BY JOSHUA SEIERSEN
Blindness is a recurring theme throughout the Gospels. Jesus is approached by the blind in search of healing, rebukes his disciples for their spiritual blindness, and is crucified by those who were ‘blind’ to their deeds. Immediately before his death, Jesus prays that his persecutors would be forgiven, “for they know not what they are doing” (Luke 23:34). The scene is nothing less than striking. Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s exegesis of this passage emphasized that “Jesus was nailed to the cross not simply by sin but also by blindness”, that his crucifiers “were not bad men but rather blind men.” That begs the question: how are followers of Christ to avoid blindness?
In Mark 8:22-26, Jesus healed a man who could not see and clearly implicated the man’s spiritual life in the act of healing. Instead of instantly restoring sight, Jesus heals him in two stages: first, the man can begin to see, but not clearly; then, when Jesus touches the man’s eyes again, he is restored to full vision. It is a powerful metaphor for a believer’s continuing dependence on Jesus for spiritual health and clarity. It is subtly yet profoundly instructive for faithful Christian engagement in politics.
Christians are tasked with somehow bringing this spiritual dependence on Christ to bear on their own lives and their conduct in the public square. In a pluralistic society, that is seldom an easy task – but the calling remains. Loving God means loving one’s neighbors well, in public and in private, even across difference. This article will explore how Jesus’ teachings about blindness relate to religious freedom in America, particularly focusing on the ways religious freedom was shaped by white Christians and continues to benefit them.
CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE AND FORMATION
Discussion of religious freedom in America would be incomplete without an adequate understanding of its formation, what it was intended to accomplish, and how it has actually impacted those in society. A close look at the history of religious freedom in America reveals that its formation was driven by a particular group: Protestant Christians, most of whom were white, western European men. This particularity had consequences, some intended and others unintended, which will be further explored below.
Legal scholar John Witte Jr. wrote that among the four main viewpoints on religious liberty at the time of Americas’ founding, there was an unmistakable Christian influence common to each (particularly Calvinism and Anabaptism). So, even while these various groups crafted protections for religious minorities, the Protestant Christian faith was their reference point, resulting in protections largely fit to Protestant Christian beliefs and practices.
The First Amendment instituted a framework of protection for religious freedom that was novel, according to Witte, because it prohibited any national establishment of religion and simultaneously guaranteed free exercise to all peaceable faiths. This framework did not achieve its aspirational vision at the outset; rather, it favored its creators, only extending to other groups over time and incompletely. Witte overviewed the framers’ intentions for religious freedom, distilling them into six “essential rights and liberties” that are encapsulated in the First Amendment religion clauses. These principles include (1) liberty of conscience; (2) free exercise of religion; (3) religious pluralism; (4) religious equality; (5) separation of church and state; and (6) disestablishment of religion. Though arguably underemphasized in the language of the First Amendment, these protections have also created an environment in which religious institutions, like houses of worship, schools, and nonprofits, can flourish in their own distinctive ways. And these protections, unsurprisingly, interlock well with Protestant beliefs.
On the other hand, faiths of different structures – because they were not adequately represented or perhaps even considered by the framers during the drafting of the First Amendment – can fit quite awkwardly. As religious studies scholar Michael McNally writes, these protections exist “within a discourse of religious freedom that naturalizes and universalizes Protestant Christian traditions of the interior, subjective and unmediated relationship between the faithful individual and God.” It is thus not altogether clear how other belief structures, such as “complex land-based and intrinsically collective Native American traditions,” should systematically fit into these protections. That means (Protestant) Christians are at a substantial advantage in terms of their ability to raise claims that are comprehended and redressed by the law.
Prior to the Civil War, religion played a pivotal role, both for good and for ill, in an issue fundamental to the wellbeing of Black people: slavery. The actions justified by the faith commitments of both Blacks and whites were pivotal in this period, a fact that was perhaps unsurprising in an era when religion was a significant force in the lives of the overwhelming majority of the population. A hundred years later, while the centrality of religion had declined to some extent, it was still a potent force in the United States. Once again, religiously inspired action was critical to another great event in the lives of Blacks, the Civil Rights Movement. The life and work of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. provides a powerful example from that era. By the dawn of the twenty-first century, there had been a further decline in the societal influence of religion, but in the Black community, faith commitments have remained strong and continue to play an important role in meeting the needs of the poor. Clearly enacted religious freedom has been important for Blacks throughout their history in the United States. A discussion of the paradox of their failure to engage in the struggle to ensure support for religious freedom in the current period, given its importance in their history, closes the article.
The question of practice has always been central to the issue of religious freedom. While the First Amendment is undeniably a noble statement protecting religious freedom, its framers acted in a way that undermined religious freedom. The very act of formulating the laws of the colonies was a denial of the freedom of enslaved people who shared the faith of the writers. Action based on religious belief and the assumption of the right to be guided by those beliefs has continued to be extremely significant in American society. Many actions motivated by religious beliefs are carried out without any reference to religious freedom; rather there is an unquestioning presumption of the right to exercise that freedom, to act as one’s faith convictions dictate without the expectation that such an action might be prohibited or otherwise constrained. This is what I have been referring to as enacted religious freedom: acting in a manner consistent with faith commitments even when appeals to religious freedom are not expressly articulated by the actors.
COLLATERAL RAMIFICATIONS
American culture has undergone significant demographic transformations in the last 30 years, and reverberations from this are felt in the sphere of religious freedom. Public perception of religious freedom has shifted accordingly. Conservative white Protestants have increasingly turned to the courts to protect their religious rights or maintain their grip on culture. Religious freedom, which “used to cut across groups and cross partisan lines,” is now considered to be an issue championed primarily by conservatives. Debates around religious freedom issues like birth control, baking, and bathrooms tend to dominate the headlines, and, as Christianity has lost cultural ground, these battleground issues have fueled a narrative of religious persecution.
Religious freedom has also been used by Christians in outright damaging ways. Dr. Jacqueline Rivers, founder of the Seymour Institute for Black Church Studies, recounts how “whites have used their religious freedom to the great detriment of blacks.” Rivers notes that “the whites who most vigorously made appeals to religious freedom were those associated with the defense of slavery and with racial hatred.” People of color and minority religious groups may therefore feel ambivalent about defending religious freedom or at least unsympathetic to white Christians’ claims of religious persecution.
“Protecting one’s own rights while denying them to others is not only politically unjust – it is also, from a Christian perspective, spiritually corrupt.”
Meanwhile, the protections themselves leave much to be desired for groups like the San Carlos Apache tribe. As Becket Law notes, American law and culture has had little understanding or compassion for Native American sacred practices. Indeed, many practices, such as Sun Dances, Ghost Dances, and Pipe Ceremonies, were illegal until the 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act was passed. Minority religions, especially those that do not bear a passing resemblance to commonly accepted Christian practices, may feel the need to explain their religion to outsiders, dilute their religious expression, express their beliefs more privately out of fear of stigma, or worse – have to choose between pursuing their deepest convictions and obeying the law.
Having benefited historically – and often unfairly – from religious freedom protections, white (Protestant) Christians have had plenty of reason to “willfully [forget] about the religious violence that they perpetrated.” Religious scholar and historian John Corrigan comments that American Protestants have “repeatedly boast[ed] about the First Amendment,” sometimes as a means to distract from abuses or deflect criticism. As a result, “diversionary, self-congratulatory public celebrations of freedom of religion often took place in the wake of religious violence.” These excesses and abuses within certain Christian communities in America point once again to the need for humility, sober judgment, and continual dependence on Christ.
Protecting one’s own rights while denying them to others is not only politically unjust – it is also, from a Christian perspective, spiritually corrupt. Christians ought to know firsthand that a Christ-like concern for the rights and wellbeing of one’s neighbors is the only sort of foundation that a pluralistic society can securely rest on.
PUBLIC JUSTICE, PLURALISM, AND HAVING EYES TO SEE
Protestantism’s privileged position in the world at large and in American religious freedom more specifically does not mean that it has nothing to contribute toward a healthier vision of religious freedom. Some Protestants have labored against the evils and intolerances of their fellow believers in the hope that society can be made more just for all. Perhaps one of the most promising innovations the Western European Protestant tradition has offered came from Abraham Kuyper, a 20th century theologian and Prime Minister of the Netherlands.
Kuyper dedicated much of his life to cultivating pluralism in the public ethos. As noted by James Bratt, professor of history at Calvin University, Kuyper “proposed for religious believers to bring the full weight of their convictions into public life while fully respecting the rights of others.” An overriding belief that all in this cosmos belongs strictly to God drove Kuyper to embrace the multifaceted character of pluralistic society. This belief motivated him to encourage confessional differences and protect their varied manifestations structurally. To Kuyper, it was simple; government and civil society existed to, together, protect each person and institution’s ability to freely pursue their beliefs.
It is evident from Kuyper’s writings that he was constantly curious about his neighbors of differing religions. He sought common ground rather than domination because of his firm hope in Christ’s lordship over creation. The differences and disagreements that might have otherwise been contentious each, in Kuyper’s view, played a unique role in God’s redemptive plan for creation. For example, Richard Mouw, Ph.D. explored Kuyper’s fascination with the Islamic faith, noting that Kuyper viewed it as a sort of ally due to its shared belief in one transcendent God. According to Mouw, Kuyper’s impulse toward commonality is instructive for Christians and Muslims today, because “each of our communities worries much about the ways in which many of the dominant patterns of the larger culture [...] pose a serious threat to the maintenance of these deep convictions.” Pluralism necessitates courageously and compassionately engaging with those different from us, defending their rights as if they were our own, and trusting in God’s faithfulness.
Despite all that can be drawn from Kuyperian thinking, his grievous legacy on race must be acknowledged. At times Kuyper displayed overt racism in public lectures and writing. Mouw presents this lamentable side of Kuyper’s legacy as an inconsistency, an instance of Kuyper’s life not matching up to his ideas, and one that “requires straightforward repudiation.” Others may rightly conclude that Kuyper’s racism was integrated into his overall animating worldview, because it was part and parcel of the social values of the society he lived in. It could easily be argued and defended that racism was so integrally enmeshed in the culture and structures that shaped Kuyper’s environment that he was like a fish not perceiving the nature of water.
And yet, because of God's eternal and transcendent character, the good can be taken with the bad. Kuyper was at once broken and redeemed, now and not yet. He was imperfect and sinful – but not outside of God’s redemptive plan for creation. Kuyper’s deep-seated racism thus does not render his ideas about how to love one’s neighbor in a pluralistic society completely unusable. Rather, this apparent embodied paradox gives us all an opportunity for reflection about the capacity for brokenness and redemption within us all, and therefore also a new urgency to engage his ideas with the rights of others as our priority. It is ultimately the Love commands that ought to shape human relationships in the here and now. Kuyper’s ideas are thus useful for Christians only insofar as they facilitate loving one’s neighbor – that is their aim and limit.
“Loving God means loving one’s neighbors well, in public and in private, even across difference.”
With that in mind, Kuyper’s views shape the basis of the public justice perspective. Government is tasked with promoting the common good through its laws and policies while also creating space for the unique and valuable contributions of civil society institutions. Civil society and the individuals who comprise it are covenantally bound, like the government, to promote the common good and create a just society. Institutions like churches, families, businesses, schools, and more can solidify structural and confessional pluralism; by bringing their unique beliefs to bear on society, they not only make a difference in their communities but also can draw attention to previously unnoticed areas of discrimination in society. Both government and civil society are accountable to each other, but first and foremost to God.
Similarly, the Center for Public Justice’s Guideline on Religious Freedom recognizes that human beings made in the image of God “bear ultimate responsibility to their Creator.” No other human authority – not even government – can define for someone what their responsibility is before God. Therefore, government ought to protect the right to religious freedom equally for those of differing faiths and do so without favoring either religion or nonreligion. In certain cases, when human life or public order are threatened by a religious group, government is obligated to step in to “uphold the peace and welfare of the political community.” However, even in those cases, government must not overstep its bounds or unnecessarily trample on what is considered sacred.
Christians are called to care for the least of these and to watch out for self-interest’s temptation toward apathy and inaction. Scripture commends this much, and Christ clearly models it as a way of life. In a pluralistic society, that means embodying a consistent, Christ-like regard for the rights of others in one’s own life and in the public square. It further means that Christians should keep a watchful eye on their own actions and intentions, constantly self-examining in light of the ways their actions have impacted others.
For white (Protestant) Christians, that begins with hearing and standing alongside their neighbors of racial and/or religious minorities. Pluralism provides a framework for doing so, but in turn it asks every person to remove the planks of judgmentalism and defensiveness from their eyes so they can see clearly what they owe to their neighbors. Toward that end, the remainder of this series will explore other viewpoints and expressions of religious freedom, with special attention to the voices that have historically been left out of this conversation.
Joshua Seiersen graduated with a BA in political science from Whitworth University in 2021 and now works for A Tiny Home for Good to provide affordable, stable, and supportive housing to formerly homeless individuals in Syracuse, NY.
READ MORE FROM THIS SERIES
Introducing Religious Freedom Reframed by Joshua Seiersen and Chelsea Langston Bombino
The Paradox of the Black Church and Religious Freedom by Jacqueline C. Rivers, Ph.D.
Religious Freedom Reframed: A Conversation with the Next Generation by Minister Kerwin Webb
WANT TO GET INVOLVED?
1. Sign up to receive Shared Justice's monthly newsletter and stay up to date on the latest content, resources, and highlights.
2. Write for us! Email sjsubmissions@cpjustice.org for more information.
3. Form a Political Discipleship group and advocate for religious freedom in your community. The Center for Public Justice’s Political Discipleship is a guide for active Christian citizenship, designed to empower people with skills and tools to shape policy and address inequality and injustice in their communities. To learn more about starting a group, visit our website or contact katie.thompson@cpjustice.org