Tertullian was a prominent Latin Church Father of the second and third century, probably a jurisconsult in Rome, and one of the best legal minds in the history of Western Civilization. Among his writings are the earliest and most coherent formulations of legal principles now commonly known as “freedom of conscience” and “consent of the governed”. In more than one ways, these principles are corollaries of Judeo-Christian morality. First, the belief in God as the Author of Moral Law places both the individual and the government under moral obligations, both being accountable to the Supreme Lawgiver. Second, as Christians were a minority subject to prejudices and persecutions of an overwhelming majority, it was necessary for them (to put it bluntly, for their very survival) to defend their beliefs and practices on legal and rational ground.
Freedom of Conscience
In no case ought I to be necessary to another, while he is doing what to me is unlawful. Hence I ought to understand that care must be taken by me, lest what I am forbidden to do be done by my means.
–Tertullian, “On Idolatry”
A human being shall not act, nor be compelled to act, against his conscience. He shall not be, nor be compelled to be, an accomplice to an act against his conscience.
If I understand the principle of freedom of conscience correctly, this is what it means: If a Christian is a carpenter, he ought not make a wooden statue for a client if he knows it will be used in idol worship; If a person intends to purchase a gun with a clear or express intent to commit murder, the shop owner shall not sell it to him. However, if they sell things in an open market, and have no control over how their products will be used by their clients, they are not responsible if their clients engage in unlawful acts with their products, for the clients make their own independent choices.
To make a cake or flower arrangement specifically ordered for a wedding ceremony is to endorse and facilitate the union consummated by said ceremony, I would think. If a Christian, or a practitioner of other religions, believes homosexuality is immoral, he is obligated not to participate or aid in any such activity. In other words, if he refuses to provide products or services specifically ordered for a same-sex wedding ceremony, his freedom of conscience should be protected by the law.
Consent of the Governed
It is not enough that a law is just, nor that the judge should be convinced of its justice; those from whom obedience is expected should have that conviction too. Nay, a law lies under strong suspicions which does not care to have itself tried and approved: it is a positively wicked law, if, unproved, it tyrannizes over men.
–Tertullian, “Apology”
A just law is one that both the lawgiver and the people governed by it are convinced of its justice. Attempting to legislate morality without the willing consent of the people will result in violence and tyranny.
Even the Almighty does not impose laws on his chosen people without their consent. He blesses peoples and nations that follow Him willingly, those whose heart and mind have been transformed by grace, who acknowledge the wisdom of the Law of God and embrace it cheerfully and wholeheartedly.
Regarding the recent US Supreme Court case Masterpiece Bakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, I agree with the State’s interest in protecting the community against discrimination and requiring that products and services be made available to all remembers of the community. However, I cannot agree with the opinion that the baker discriminates based on identity. That allegation would be true if a) the baker refuses to sell any cakes to a homosexual customer, when they are not specifically ordered for a same-sex wedding ceremony; or b) he sells cakes specifically ordered for same-sex wedding to a heterosexual customer. Neither is true. Therefore, the allegation does not stand. Objecting to a specific conduct is not the same as discriminating against the person.
Religious Freedom
Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things.
Galatians 5:19-23
Christians are commanded to love our neighbour as ourselves, and love our enemies as God has loved us. Even if our neighbours don’t share our beliefs and values, we are still commanded by Christ to love them, and tend to their physical and spiritual needs. This is true religious freedom in Christianity, as I understand it.
Living and writing in a pagan culture that persecuted Christians for their religion, Tertullian was very much concerned with helping Christians practice self-control and godliness, in opposition to the dominant culture. He objected to Christian participation in government and the army, partly because both institutions were dominated by worship of the pagan deities. The earliest Christians preached orthodox faith and practiced charity. They cared for the poor, the sick, the powerless and the downtrodden. Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Origen and Tertullian, boasted that the Romans would never catch a Christian engaging in an immoral or unlawful act. As history shows, Rome was transformed from a nation that worshipped pagan deities and persecuted Christians into one that established Christianity as state religion.
By contrast, we’re witnessing a severe decline of Christian influence in America. I’m afraid Christian Churches have lost moral ground and credibility when prominent ministers and priests are found guilty of infidelity and child sexual abuse. We had abandoned religious freedom, the freedom exemplified by Jesus and the earliest Christians, long before the law that redefines marriage was put in place.
Related Posts:
- On the Dignity of the Person: Freedom of Conscience (2)
- On the Dignity of the Person: Freedom of Expression
References:
- “Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 3.Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian“. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Accessed October 22, 2018.http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.html.
- Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 US _ (2018). Oyez. Accessed October 22, 2018. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111
The baker in the Masterpiece case acted out of hatred, not conscience. Read the testimony of the mother who was present when the baker verbally abused her son about his sexual orientation. The baker’s argument about religious freedom was a pretext cooked up after the fact.
More importantly, what kind of a terrible person would act so unkindly to another human being in such circumstances? Certainly not a disciple of Christ.
Just as importantly, religionists must act with humility when conducting commercial activities which occur in the human, not the religious sphere. The truth claims of their religion, whichever they practice, are implausible and might be wrong. That understanding demands humility. With that understanding, a religionist must not put his religion ahead of common courtesy to another human when conducting business.
Hi Brad,
Thank you for your comment.
The focus of my post is on the Oral Argument of the case, as I try to understand the viewpoints of both sides, as well as the concern of the Justices. I haven’t made any truth claim with regard to Christianity in this post, at least not that I”m aware of. I’m basing my argument on the common understanding of “freedom of conscience”, which does not have to be objectively true to be protected by law.
I tend to think that “hatred” and “unkind” are subjective value judgments that are not necessarily based on the facts, for our perceptions of other people’s attitudes may very well be clouded by our own (emotional) biases. If you post a link to the testimony of the mother, I would be more than happy to discuss it, if you like.
Nemo
P.S. I understand you mean well, and, speaking as a “religionist”, I agree that “religionists must act with humility”. But, is it an act of humility for a non-religionist to tell what religionists must do with their religion and how they must conduct their business?