The problem of religious liberty

It seems especially appropriate to write about religious freedom on July 4, which marks Independence Day in America. But it is perhaps a bit unusual to mark the day by warning Christians about the dangers of religious freedom. Nevertheless, bear with me. Important issues are afoot, ones that are rarely discussed.

I have the opportunity to speak around the world about North Korean Christians and about Christian martyrs in general. I can tell you that the most common prayer that is prayed by my gracious hosts right before I preach or teach often goes something like this: “Lord, thank you for the religious freedoms we have in our country. Thank you that here we can worship and pray freely without fear.”

It is a very understandable prayer and no doubt a heartfelt one when Christians thank the Lord that they don’t live in (or like) North Korea. But there’s something potentially unhelpful to Christians back of a prayer like that, and quite telling.

One of my favorite writings from Rev. Richard Wurmbrand, the founder of Voice of the Martyrs, is a little-known piece entitled Preparing for the Underground Church. (For English language readers, the easiest place to find this is in a book entitled Triumphant Church, in which it appears as one of three essays. If you buy the book, go for the spiral bound version, since it will remind you that Rev. Wurmbrand’s essay is intended as a practical how-to guide, covering things like how to practice suffering and resist torture, how to pray when you have been so tortured that you can no longer remember the Lord’s Prayer, and how to cultivate solitude and silence, which Rev. Wurmbrand bemoans is in short supply among non-persecuted Christians, to the detriment of the church and the world.)

In the essay, Rev. Wurmbrand emphasizes the importance of spiritual exercises for Protestant Christians preparing for persecution. (“I am very sorry that spiritual exercises are almost unknown in Protestantism,” he writes. “We have to revive them in the Underground Church.”) He offers the following spiritual exercise for Christians in wealthy nations:

I live in the United States of America. Can you imagine what an American Supermarket looks like? You find there many beauties and dainties. I look at everything there and say to myself, “l can go without this thing, and that thing: this thing is very nice, but I can go without: the third thing I can go without, too.” I visited the whole Supermarket and did not spend one dollar. I had the joy of seeing many beautiful things, and the second joy to know that I can go without.

For the Christian, religious freedom is a beauty and a dainty–a very pleasant thing to have whenever it is around, and a good for which we can and ought to give thanks to God. But it ought to brings us joy to know we can go on quite splendidly without it, and we should regularly envision and plan for the practice of our faith in its absence–and not only with teeth gritted and fear in the pits of our stomachs. Many Christians in religiously free countries admit that they are uncertain whether they would be able to practice their faith were it not free to do so. That ought to concern us (and them). We would do well to remember that religious freedom is not a prerequisite for any part of the bountiful and blessed Christian life.  Romans 8:28 does not depend on human enforcement or just laws. It is as true in a North Korean concentration camp as it is on Main Street, USA (or Main Street, Brazil, since Brazil is now purported to have more religious freedom than the US.)

But religious freedom is not only dispensable for Christians. It can also be potentially dangerous if mishandled. “Mishandled” here means factoring religious freedom into one’s faith practice in any way, shape, or form, either consciously or unconsciously. If religious freedom (or its lack) influences for us what is safe and unsafe, suitable and unsuitable for us to practice, then the contours of our Christianity will be subtly reshaped by what religious freedoms governments grant and withhold.

And indeed, as I travel around the world, I see signs that contemporary Christianity owes more than a little of its present form to the space governments are willing to allow it to occupy–and that is true in religiously free countries, not only religiously restrictive ones. It is no coincidence that Christianity is increasingly understood today by Christians and non-Christians alike, in “open” countries and “closed”, as primarily an interior faith: Christians are those who pray, study the Bible, sing songs, and believe certain things. (One of those things, ostensibly, is that believing certain things is necessary and sufficient to constitute both identity as a Christian and faithful adherence to the fullness of the faith, which is both a recent revision to the faith and simultaneously its oldest heresy.) 

Governments tend to like to round off what appear to them to be the pointy edges of religions–the things that poke and prod and cause pain to the society at large. Pointy edges tend to be those things that stick outside the interior of a person or a religious building and which are incompatible with governments’ own social religions. Often those are the very same pointy edges of Christianity that Christians themselves don’t like so much either. Laws and social sanctions discouraging such practices end up working frighteningly well for both sides.

Evangelism is an obvious example of this phenomenon. Most Christians don’t like to do it. Some are even philosophically  troubled by the idea. So it does not trouble most Christians that evangelism is increasingly restricted, regulated, and socially rejected in free societies, for the very reason that it infringes upon society’s prevailing understanding of religion as a personal and private experience that should be untrammeled by externals. Freedom of religion becomes in practice freedom of worship–the right to believe and do most things inside one’s own mind and one’s own properly registered religious building, without interference. Provided it occurs among consenting adults and provided that anything that emerges from one’s private and corporate ruminations functions more or less compatibly with a government’s social agenda, a surprising number of countries around the world are quite willing to grant this kind of religious freedom.

Even our popular images of Christian persecution become reshaped by the way we prize religious freedom as interior liberty. The prototypical persecuted Christian is one who “stands up” for their beliefs and “would rather die than deny” Jesus. In reality, however, throughout history Christians have generally been persecuted not for what they believe but for how they act on those beliefs. Even in North Korea, individuals who are Christians in their own minds (and, with some limitations, even their own homes) stand a reasonable chance of survival, provided they are savvy as regards their dealings once they step outside the door. The fact that we so highly regard Christians who don’t “deny their beliefs” is symptomatic of our relegation of Christianity to the interior spaces of life. We would prefer a world where everyone can believe whatever they want to believe and engage in their own spiritual disciplines, so long as they don’t interfere with our own and we can still post our opinions about it all on Facebook.

But Christ did not die so that we might have freedom of religion. The liberty he brings is not primarily personal, but interpersonal. “Christian” is neither an identity nor an ethnicity but a description of how we relate to others, no longer regarding them from a human standpoint but instead receiving and responding to each one as unto Christ himself, regardless of the personal consequences. That this is rooted in beliefs is absolutely true, and crucial; that such beliefs are quite literally meaningless as interior states is the consistent testimony of Scripture.

As regards Christianity outside of our own minds and buildings, to co-opt a Reformation dictum, Christians relate to others not according to law(s) but according to God’s grace. As such, Christianity can never be framed, granted, restricted, rest within, nor be shaped by governments. If it could, our manner of relating would not arise from grace and it would not be Christian. For the Christian, the laws in our given country of residence (where we only ever remain resident aliens, since we are citizens–fully–of another kingdom) can only determine how others (including governments) react to us, not how we react to others (including governments).

And as faithful Christians know, governments have no corner on the principalities and powers market. Corporations, sports teams, malls, even languages all seek to conform us to their image as we alternatively submit ourselves to transformation by Christ. The idea that the authentic Christian life is somehow more amenable in some countries than others–ostensibly because of a country’s Christian heritage or liberal social values–is sinking sand at best and dangerous to Christianity at worst. As the Apostle Paul notes,

There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power.

As I have traveled, I have not noted that people in any nations are exempt from these characteristics, or that any laws or any national religious heritage mitigate or exempt individuals from the disastrous effects of original sin. As Ezekiel affirms, God does not grant indulgences for heritage but rather traffics in the faith of the living, not the dead:

The word of the Lord came to me: “What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:

“‘The parents eat sour grapes,
    and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

“As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die.

In short, it is just as easy to sin in America as it is in North Korea, and the trip to hell is the same distance from every country on earth.

It may sound cavalier to regard religious freedom so lightly and to highlight its danger to Christians rather than its desirability. “Would you rather live in a nation with religious freedom or without it?” seems to be little more than a rhetorical question. And yet I suspect that that is because we have not yet comes to terms personally, psychologically, theologically, or missionally with the challenges of living the Christian life in the “free” world, and we have not fully experienced the freedom in Christ that is not government’s to grant or to take away. Christians do live in countries without religious freedom, and God is hardly distant and powerless there. It is worth noting that in the Apostle Paul’s one recorded encounter with a society espousing religious freedom–Athens, in Acts 17–Paul does not breathe a sigh of relief, hang a flag on his porch, or espouse the virtues and wisdom of religious plurality. Instead, he is “greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols” (Acts 17:16).

The typical move here is to question, then, whether in the countries where we are living as resident aliens we ought to be about promoting religious freedom, or whether we should be about promoting Christian values in government, or whether that’s basically the same thing. But the move I am proposing is a different move altogether: principled indifference. Whether free or not, whether legal or not, we know exactly what is commanded of us as Christians. We can expect to be persecuted because he was persecuted and because everyone who seeks to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

From this there are no geographical exemptions, no reprieves due to national ideological compatibility. For Christians, there is only the holy task of daily pouring out the suffering love of Christ to all we meet without expectation of return, because this is how we learned it from our master, because this is how he first loved us.

Posted in religious freedom, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

God Always Heals

As a member of a prayer group at church, I receive many prayer requests from our congregation. Sadly, the majority of the prayer requests are related to health problems of a family member. Either an uncle or an aunt is undergoing a high-risk surgery, or a parent has been diagnosed with cancer. We ask God to heal every single person, yet not all seem to experience healing. Why does God heal some people while He lets others suffer? Is God truly just and good?

Being self-centered human beings that need to control every aspect of our lives, we often want God to heal in specific ways at specific times. If God manages to meet our deadlines and fulfill our expectations, we then consider Him to be good. If He doesn’t act exactly the way we want Him to, He becomes an unjust God who is unreasonable and cruel. With our narrow mindset we often trap God into these tiny boxes, limiting and reducing His greatness.

Regardless of our opinion of God, however, His goodness and character does not change. God heals. Just not necessarily the way we’d like Him to, but that doesn’t change three basic truths about Him. God is real. God is good. God loves you. The entire universe declares these truths and nothing can change that.

To watch other Voice of the Martyrs videos, visit the Voice of the Martyrs Video Page!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What the North Korean government understands about Christian martyrdom that we Christians sometimes forget

English language media today are reporting what at first sounds like predictable comments from North Korea’s state media: North Korea is displeased that its former captive Kenneth Bae is talking publicly and negatively about his time in a North Korean prison camp, and unless he stops talking in this way North Korea will not release any other American captives it is holding. Reuters is representative in the quote it pulls from the North Korean state media report:

“As long as Kenneth Bae continues his babbling, we will not proceed with any compromise or negotiations with the United States on the subject of American criminals, and there will certainly not be any such thing as humanitarian action,” the North’s KCNA news agency said.

“If Bae continues, U.S. criminals held in our country will be in the pitiful state of never being able to set foot in their homeland once again”.

The reports from other media outlets–AP, UPI, Fox, Vice, VOA, US News–all offer virtually the same details.

This appears to be a straightforward and relatively unremarkable story: Kenneth Bae was detained in North Korea. Kenneth Bae was released from North Korea. Kenneth Bae wrote a book about his experiences in North Korea. North Korea doesn’t like the book. North Korea warns that it will punish other prisoners for Kenneth Bae’s comments. It appears to be just another case of an outspoken former prisoner calling an oppressive regime to account, and the oppressive regime doing all it can to silence the complainant.

But there is a different question here than North Korea has been inclined to ask. Though North Korea’s threat is reported in the English language media, the substance of its concern is not. The particular allegation that North Korea makes relates not to Bae’s outspokenness but rather to what North Korea calls a “moral” question: Is it appropriate for a Christian to make promises and then break them? Here is North Korea’s own English language report:

There is a saying one’s kindness should be repaid. However, Bae returns evil for good. He has not built a bridge of friendship but erected a bridge of distrust and confrontation. Is it morally right?

Bae is the felon who betrayed not only human conscience but also religious devotion.

Before flying to the U.S., he told officials concerned of the DPRK that he is the churchman saying truth and religionist’s devotion to God is sacred and he can never betray it.

But upon returning to the U.S., he made a U turn, going busy hatching plots with the group of Satan falsifying facts. He is none other than Judas.

The English in the third paragraph is difficult to understand. It references comments made by Kenneth Bae while in North Korea regarding his release. Here are Bae’s original comments from that time, in Korean followed by our own English translation:

“나는 앞으로 미국으로 돌아가서 공화국을 헐뜯는 일은 하지 못한다. 인간적량심으로 봐도 내가 어떻게 나를 성의껏 대해준 공화국에 반하는 말을 할 수 있겠는가. 더우기 나는 있는 것을 그대로 말하고 본것을 사실대로 전하는 성직자이기때문에 더욱 그렇다. 종교인이 하느님앞에 다진 신앙심은 신성하다 결코 그것을 비난할 수는 없다.

“When I return to the US, I am unable to speak ill of the DPRK. Even with a proper human conscience, how can I speak against the DPRK which has treated me with sincerity? Moreover it is because I am a clergyman who says as it is and tells what I saw as it is. A religious man whose faith was built up before God is holy. Never can it be blameworthy.

It would of course be understandable to contend that Bae’s confessions, apologies, pledges, and promises were coerced or that he had even been brainwashed during his time in North Korea, and that he is thus no longer bound by anything other than conscience. Conscience would then, it seem, require that he be bold and outspoken in his characterization of North Korea as a prison-state that engages in wholesale brainwashing of its people. Further, it could be noted that his desire to continue to help North Korean people is laudable in light of all he has suffered.

But here Bae’s own recent comments regarding his apologies and confessions–to South Korea’s Unification Media Group via Daily NK–are worth noting. Bae says:

In the beginning, the reason why I acknowledged the things that I did is because the authorities there convinced me that if I admitted to everything, they would send me home. But as time went by, I realized admitting to things and apologizing was not the main issue. That’s because the state would tell me my repatriation depended on ‘what the U.S. decides to do,’ so I came to realize they saw me as a negotiating tool they could use with Washington.

Bae appears to describe his admissions and apologies as expedient rather than coerced or brainwashed. This dismisses the easy options and puts us back on the horns of the dilemma posed by North Korean state media (albeit posed in a hardly disinterested way):

Is it morally right?

That North Korea sets the modern curve for morally reprobate behavior is hopefully beyond dispute. From this, more than a few missionaries and activists contend that North Korea’s extraordinarily reprobate status means that activities or actions in service of a perceived greater good are accordingly legitimated. Deception can only be countered with counter-deception, the argument goes, and the counter-deception is justified because it is aimed at a moral end. For missionaries, for example, that may mean engaging in covert missionary activities under the aegis of business projects approved by the North Korean government, or in agreeing to certain things while inside North Korea that are nullified upon exit.

But North Korea, no doubt for entirely self-serving means, seems to intuit something about martyrdom that we Christians are perpetually in danger of forgetting when we are confronted by regimes cut from wholly evil cloth, namely:

Martyr means witness. Christian martyrs witness to the truth of Christ. Christ overcomes sin and its allies (which at one point included each of us) through his own suffering love. There is nothing expedient about his approach, and it forecloses literally every rational option.

But here the most distinguishable characteristic of Christian martyrdom eludes North Korea, in much the same way that it continues to elude us Christians. North Korea contends that Kenneth Bae should keep the promises he made in North Korea because North Korea was so charitable to him during his detainment. Human rights activists and some missionaries contend that Bae should not keep the promises he made in North Korea because North Korea is so uncharitable to its own people and was likewise uncharitable in detaining Kenneth Bae in the first place.

The most distinguishable characteristic of Christian martyrdom, however, is that our actions are not to be shaped or constrained by our persecutors but rather by Christ. Christ commands us and models for us that our yes is to be yes and our no is to be no, regardless of who is asking. Christ commands us that enemies–his and ours–are to be loved at the cost of our own lives; this, Jesus says, is basic discipleship, and the willingness to accept such is a condition for following him. Likewise, Christ commands us to speak truth to power–but it is to be the same truth before, during, and after power places its foot on our neck, because what we are called to speak is our witness to him.

None of these things is easy (they are in fact humanly impossible, according to the Bible), and falling short of these commands is not cause for judgment or condemnation. But falling short is cause for prayerful review, corporate repentance, and relearning, since martyrdom belongs to the church, not the martyr, and the church is always reforming so as to more biblically and richly form her martyr/witnesses. The early church stressed that the heavenly contest requires intensive training before Christians enter the arena. That training often takes the form of hearing, telling, repeating, and performing certain types of stories–martyr’s stories. These are stories where, more than outspokenness or outfoxing rogue regimes or outgiving them through NGO projects, disciples and their enemies–through simple lives of scriptural faithfulness, costly transparency, and self-denying enemy love–are confronted by the cross-shaped, infinite, pulsating power of God.

The North Korean government may not understand it. But even they can tell when we veer off script.

Posted in martyr | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment