Gordon Clark: Religious Liberty (The Southern Presbyterian Journal)

1956. Religious Liberty. The Southern Presbyterian Journal. Feb. 22. pg. 5.

Religious Liberty

By Gordon H. Clark, Ph.D.

Once in a blue moon the left wing Christian Century, mirabile dictu, publishes a good article. In the issue of February 8, 1956, there is a discussion of the new Egyptian constitution. The terms of the constitution are important for the Christian missions that operate in Egypt. It contains an article which guarantees or at least promises "freedom of worship" to all religions.

Inasmuch as even Russia has a constitution that makes a pretense of guaranteeing freedom of religion, one may well ask, as the Christian Century does in this excellent article, what is the precise significance of "freedom of worship"? To quote, "Does freedom of worship mean freedom for worship assembly (or is only private worship permitted) ? Does it mean freedom to teach and catechize in a religion other than Islam? Does it mean freedom to convert Mohammedans to another faith?" And the article concludes, "Unless freedom of worship includes all this, it is an empty claim at best."

But it would appear that whenever the Christian Century publishes a good article, it contradicts its established policies. For in the same issue, on pages 166-168, there is a vitriolic article attacking the Lutherans who wish to exercise their religious liberty right here in the United States. In fact, there have been several articles recently attacking the Lutherans.

As is now well known, a Lutheran synod has tried a minister on charges of heresy. It was proved to the satisfaction of the court that this man did not believe in the resurrection of Christ, the inspiration of the Bible, the Virgin Birth, and intercessory prayer. And even the Christian Century gives no hint that the charges were false; it centers its attack on the fact that the Lutherans do not want such an unbeliever in their pulpits.

But do we not have freedom of religion in this land? Does not a church have the right to decide what it shall stand for? Is it not legitimate for a church to set up standards and then, having set them, uphold them? Indeed, can a fair minded man have any respect for a church that does not uphold its own standards? If we do not want Communists in the civil government, why should we condone heretics in the chinch? Why is it that loyalty and honesty, so highly commended in other organizations, should be denounced when they appear in the church? Why should the church alone make infidelity a virtue?