Why Blasphemy Laws Are Wrong
— Saturday, September 8th, 2012 —
News reports tell us that Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, a Christian minister sentenced to death in Iran, has been released and acquitted of blasphemy. Advocates of human rights and religious liberty are rejoicing all over the globe. At such a time, it’s worth Christians asking: just why are blasphemy laws wrong?
Now, obviously, as Christians we disagree with Islam and its teachings. And, obviously, we stand in solidarity with our persecuted brothers and sisters in Christ. But why would such laws against blasphemy not be appropriate in the reverse case. If a Christian majority existed in a country, with the will to enforce all the laws it could, would this country be justified in outlawing Islam or atheism or Wicca? Why not?
Fundamentally, this is because blasphemy laws and other uses of state power to enforce religious belief or worship are themselves a repudiation of the beliefs themselves. A religion that needs state power to enforce obedience to its beliefs is a religion that has lost confidence in the power of its Deity.
Christians should fight for the liberty of Muslims in America and around the world to be Muslims, to worship in mosques and to freely seek to persuade others that the Koran is a true revelation of God. This isn’t because we believe in Islamic claims but precisely because we don’t. If we really believe the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, we don’t need bureaucrats to herd people into cowering before it.
The gospel is big enough to fight for itself. And the gospel fights not with the invincible sword of Caesar but with the invisible sword of the Spirit. When we seek to freely persuade our neighbors, and not to coerce them, we are confessing that the Spirit of God is mighty enough to convict of sin, to pull down strongholds and fortresses of the mind and the conscience.
Christians learned this the hard way. Some of us have tried to follow the way of the flesh and to enforce our gospel the Caesarian way. This doesn’t lead to the triumph of Christianity. It only covers paganism in a Christian veneer. The Church of England is more pageantry than coercive these days, but the state establishment hasn’t led to revival in the United Kingdom. The old Puritan colonies of New England drove out dissenters, true enough, and Christianity was as official as could be, and those places are now as burned over and secular as it gets in the United States.
We don’t just object to the Islamic persecution of Christians because we don’t want to be persecuted ourselves. We ought to work with freedom-loving Muslims and with other people to see to it that no person is imprisoned or executed for religious belief or practice. That’s not because we think all religions are relative or because we think religion doesn’t really matter all that much.
It’s because we come before the state with the same kind of confidence Jesus did in the court of Pilate. Jesus knew where Pilate’s authority was, and where it wasn’t. With the calm tranquility of the One who knew he was in the right, Jesus simply said, “If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting” (Jn. 18:36). But, he said, “My kingdom is not of this world.”
Let’s let the Word of our God stand there with all the other words. And then let’s see what Word can convict hearts and move wills, without the coercion of jails or guillotines. Let’s love our neighbors as they seek to persuade us that “There Is No God but Allah and Muhammed is His Prophet.” And let’s seek to persuade those same neighbors, with love, that “Jesus Is Lord.”
The kingdom of God doesn’t consist in talk but in power. Right? And that’s a power the state, any state, cannot handle.
Thank you Dr. Moore for this. I have many a Christian brother who think that way to move forward is to go to war with Muslim countries so that Christianity (by which they mean democracy and American values) can come in and “fix”the place. I have tried to be an advocate for Jesus’ kingdom ethics, but I’m usually just dismissed as an idealist at best, or at worst, a freedom-hating coward.
I have many Muslim friends who I think would appreciate your post, and so again I thank you for your words.
“Christians should fight for the liberty of Muslims in America and around the world to be Muslims, to worship in mosques and to freely seek to persuade others that the Koran is a true revelation of God.”
Um, what if their liberty to “be Muslims” includes a) honor killings for daughters who marry outside the faith, or b) persecuting and/or murdering those who convert to Christianity (see the story of Rifqa Bary, and hear also her stories of female friends murdered by their parents) , or c) getting Christians arrested for preaching the gospel to them (look up Acts17 and the Dearborn case) or d) bullying law-abiding citizens for some normal activity that happens to “offend” them (look up the recent case of a Canadian who dared to walk his dog too close to “their women” and got manhandled by some police officers who told him to scram or be handcuffed)?
Anybody who thinks that Muslims are being oppressed or don’t have enough religious liberty, or that they’re just peace-loving people who want the freedom to worship quietly in their own homes… is more than a little naive.
Did Moses lose confidence in God? Lev. 24 (I don’t support blasphemy laws, but the argument seems faulty.)
”Christians should fight for the liberty of Muslims in America and around the world to be Muslims, to worship in mosques and to freely seek to persuade others that the Koran is a true revelation of God.” Really? Because according to God’s
law a false prophet was to be put to death. Of course, our government won’t do that. But, if God felt that way about false prophets, should we really fight for the Muslim’s freedom to worship according to a faith that was founded by a false prophet and for their ability to continue spreading that lie? No, God does not need a government to justify His truth or prove His truth right. However, God did put in place governments to punish evil and praise good (Romans 13.) What is evil but lawlessness? Blasphemy against the one true God is clearly disobedience to God’s moral law.
@Adam Ryan,
Adam,
Read Paul’s letters (esp. 1 Timothy and Titus) to see how we as the NT church deal with false prophets (teachers). Paul never appealed to the empire, but instructed the believers and pastors (Timothy) on how to handle them. We should always filter OT teachings (within a theocratic society) through the grid of the New Covenant.
Blessings,
Brian
Coercion never changes people’s hearts. The only reason why there were laws like this in the OT was because in this case Israel was both a nation AND God’s chosen covenant people. Scripturally, we expect that God works in the hearts of His people within the context of His covenant community. No other nation in history has that claim because the CHURCH is God’s NT covenant community, and it is within THIS context that He does His work in people’s hearts. Yes, Paul says in his letter to Romans that civil authority is from God and is meant to punish the wrong and reward the good, but how far do we take that. In the context of Roman society, Paul was not talking about what the civil authorities SHOULD be doing, but what they actually WERE doing (under God’s providence). They certainly were not enforcing the laws of God concerning man’s relationship to Him. Rather, they were working to keep social order by punishing civil injustices and crimes that people committed against one another. That is the scope and realm of civil government.
@Ryan Groene, Wait, are you trying to set the OT laws in their canonical context and read Paul in light of history instead of just lifting verses to make your point? That’s craziness. If we all started doing that, then we might all have good theology! And what would happen to the internet?
;)
Great points, Ryan.
Another pertinent point on this topic is that by fighting “for the liberty of Muslims in America” we are actually fighting for our own religious liberty as well. When the power to dictate religious practice is first ceded to government, it will not be easily reclaimed, no matter which religion was in power at the time of the ceding. Which is to say, if a “Christian” government annexes the authority to enforce Christianity, what will Christians do when the majority of the government becomes Muslim or Hindu or Jewish? It is better to preserve strict religious freedom as a protection for everyone, including ourselves. And, while Dr. Moore is not here suggesting this, one might be persuaded to go out one limb further and propose that this principle applies not only to blasphemy laws, but to many non-violent moral issues that are the fruit of a Christian ethos.
The theonomists at-large on the internet are going to have a feeding frenzy on this post, but here’s something to consider:
When Israel tells Samuel that they want a king so they can be like all the other nations, Samuel is enraged and grieved — and God soothes his grief by saying, effectually, “They have not rejected you: they have rejected me.”
Dr. Moore’s comments here rely on this view of God’s people, it seems to me.
I have the same reservations with other posters who want to see the question nuanced with an analysis of state-sponsored blasphemy laws as seen in the Old Testament.
“Religion that needs state power to enforce obedience to its beliefs is a religion that has lost confidence in the power of its Deity.” This is such a poweful and convicting statement. As evangelicals become more passionate about carrying the banner of the Republican Party than the banner of the Jesus Christ we further reveal our lost confidence in the power of the Gospel.
Dr. Moore,
I am tremendously grateful for your ministry, but think you missed the mark on this one. Even if one agrees that the civil penalties of the law should not be applied today, I do not think your rationale in this post should be accepted as biblical.
The Holy Spirit was no less necessary before the coming of Christ than after to bring true conviction of sin and yet God still used the threats of his law to restrain sin and encourage righteousness.
Deuteronomy 13:10-11 is very clear in this regard. “10 You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11 And all Israel shall hear and fear and never again do any such wickedness as this among you.”
God’s law was and continues to function in one of its uses to restrain sin and encourage righteousness inside and outside the church.
-So for instance the people of God are told to fear the punishing power of the sword if they are doing wrong in Rom. 13 in addition to the issue being a matter of conscience.
-We are reminded how God spread dead bodies all over the ground as a punishment for sin in 1 Corinthians 10 and told that this was written for us.
-We are told that God has made some sick, some weak, and that some have died because of their sin in relation to the Lord’s Supper so that we might not do what they do but treat it in a holy manner in 1 Corinthians 11.
-In Acts 5 Ananias and Sapphira are put to death for their sin by a direct act of God. Just like in the Old Testament the result of fear (presumably leading to being careful not to do the same and to speak truthfully) sezied the whole assembly and all who heard about the events (vs. 11).
The point is that this use of the law remains whether we apply the death penalty for blasphemy or not.
When speaking of the convicting power of the Spirit unto Salvation in Christ we are speaking of a different use of the law altogether. Your post is thus mixing categories.
Justin Taylor had a great post here on legislating morality…
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/02/16/you-cant-legislate-morality/
Blessings,
Andrew
When I struggle to support your rights to worship God as your heart and mind dictate to you, I am also struggling.to maintain those same rights for myself.
Who would argue that legislating Christianity as Constantine did, brings about a true conversion and, therewith, salvation unto everlasting life? When Constantine defeated armies of other kingdoms his commandimg generals would have all the captives march through a river and declare them to be baptised Christians. This is a farse, we know. So to is a farse are those countries who legislate any faith.
I would encourage those who follow Jesus as I do to remember that salvation is a personal experience. Conviction leading to repentence and a life changed to glorify God through Jesus Christ is the true sign of a.believer which can not be given or mandated by any government.
If you have the opportunity, I would recommend you consider taking a course that will truly enlighten you to the history of Islam and show you the struggles and hardships anyone who wishes to leave that faith faces. I found it enlightening.
Do you support the 10 commandments being in the Capital and the Supreme Court and just about every Capital of this land? Are we to govern according to these laws? If not, what laws do we govern according to; from where do they stem? Is not the law written on the hearts of the Gentile nations (Rom. 2); what law was that if not at least the summary law that Jesus gave to love the Lord thy God with all your heart, soul, mind and to love your neighbor as yourself (Mat. 22:36-40); and if so, then, what Lord is to be promoted and obeyed; if it is the Lord, then does not respect for the Lord’s name come into play at all?
True, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. The church is the kingdom of Christ and the church does not fight with the sword. But, the duty of civil government, ruling as an expression of the law written on the heart, is to use the sword for lawbreakers. If so, then again we ask, which law?
Brother, having a Christian worldview and having biblical glasses, we cannot escape the reality that the law written on the hearts of men is none other than the law of YHWH and our risen Lord Jesus Christ, who is the creator of our hearts. The law written on the heart is not some natural law and principles stemming from some neutralized origin. Otherwise, we would be arguing from the perspective of our fellow pagans - and you are not one of them.
Therefore, for the church there can be no coercion by threat or sword - though we must call our neighbors to repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; but for the State there can be laws against spitting on the side walk (negotiable) or cursing YHWH (negotiable ??) or murder (non-negotiable) or stealing (non-negotiable) or lying (non-negotiable) or the outcomes of greed/coveteousness, like blackmail and extortion (non-negotiable) or adultery (non-negotiable, should be) or or or.
Of course, the church can pray for the salvation of our leaders to govern according to our God’s laws (1Tim 2). Until then, we are in exile (in our ‘Babylon’) living under pagan law and we groan with all creation until King Jesus brings His kingdom to bear - crushing all others.
But, for you and the church to argue that God’s laws should not be the law of the land is a scary proposition. You are throwing out the very worldview of the creative order that you teach in your church. You as a representative of Christ must not throw His good law under the bus. You must not argue that there are two sets of laws: one for the church and another for the State. Yes, the church as a people have additional laws with additional promises under the NC that do not pertain to the State (we recognize there there are two kinds of people in the world - one under Christ the church, bride of Christ and the other under Satan the people of this world); but as far as the law of our God written on all our hearts exposed at Sinai is concerned, then the law is the same for the church as well as the State, the kingdoms of this world (Classic confessionalism according to Westminster and the 1689). The problem is that the State is in rebellion to the Kingdom of Christ (we are still under that 4th kingdom of Daniel 2).
Brother, please consider these thoughts, though I am still wrestling with these as well and claim no perfection. But a final question:
Was King Nebuchadezzar in the right?
Daniel 3:28-30 28 Nebuchadnezzar spoke, saying, “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, who sent His Angel and delivered His servants who trusted in Him, and they have frustrated the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they should not serve nor worship any god except their own God! 29 “Therefore I make a decree that any people, nation, or language which speaks anything amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made an ash heap; because there is no other God who can deliver like this.” 30 Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego in the province of Babylon.
May Christ come soon and put an end to these kinds of discussions.
with love,
Steve Loeffler
I am trying again. I guess I do not make the cut. :)
Do you support the 10 commandments being in the Capital and the Supreme Court and just about every Capital of this land? Are we to govern according to these laws? If not, what laws do we govern according to; from where do they stem? Is not the law written on the hearts of the Gentile nations (Rom. 2); what law was that if not at least the summary law that Jesus gave to love the Lord thy God with all your heart, soul, mind and to love your neighbor as yourself (Mat. 22:36-40); and if so, then, what Lord is to be promoted and obeyed; if it is the Lord, then does not respect for the Lord’s name come into play at all?
True, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. The church is the kingdom of Christ and the church does not fight with the sword. But, the duty of civil government, ruling as an expression of the law written on the heart, is to use the sword for lawbreakers. If so, then again we ask, which law?
Brother, having a Christian worldview and having biblical glasses, we cannot escape the reality that the law written on the hearts of men is none other than the law of YHWH and our risen Lord Jesus Christ, who is the creator of our hearts. The law written on the heart is not some natural law and principles stemming from some neutralized origin. Otherwise, we would be arguing from the perspective of our fellow pagans - and you are not one of them.
Therefore, for the church there can be no coercion by threat or sword - though we must call our neighbors to repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; but for the State there can be laws against spitting on the side walk (negotiable) or cursing YHWH (negotiable ??) or murder (non-negotiable) or stealing (non-negotiable) or lying (non-negotiable) or the outcomes of greed/coveteousness, like blackmail and extortion (non-negotiable) or adultery (non-negotiable, should be) or or or.
Of course, the church can pray for the salvation of our leaders to govern according to our God’s laws (1Tim 2). Until then, we are in exile (in our ‘Babylon’) living under pagan law and we groan with all creation until King Jesus brings His kingdom to bear - crushing all others.
But, for you and the church to argue that God’s laws should not be the law of the land is a scary proposition. You must not argue that there are two sets of laws: one for the church and another for the State. Yes, the church as a people have additional laws with additional promises under the NC that do not pertain to the State (we recognize there there are two kinds of people in the world - one under Christ the church, bride of Christ and the other under Satan the people of this world); but as far as the law of our God written on all our hearts exposed at Sinai is concerned, then the law is the same for the church as well as the State, the kingdoms of this world (Classic confessionalism according to Westminster and the 1689). The problem is that the State is in rebellion to the Kingdom of Christ (we are still under that 4th kingdom of Daniel 2).
Brother, please consider these thoughts, though I am still wrestling with these as well and claim no perfection. But a final question:
Was King Nebuchadezzar in the right?
Daniel 3:28-30 28 Nebuchadnezzar spoke, saying, “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, who sent His Angel and delivered His servants who trusted in Him, and they have frustrated the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they should not serve nor worship any god except their own God! 29 “Therefore I make a decree that any people, nation, or language which speaks anything amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made an ash heap; because there is no other God who can deliver like this.” 30 Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego in the province of Babylon.
May Christ come soon and put an end to these kinds of discussions.
with love,
Steve Loeffler
Dear Russell,
I humbly disagree with your position. Short explanation:
3rd Commandment. The Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Longer explanation:
I think your argument wrongly conflates and confuses law and gospel. I would think that not even the most ardent theonomist would argue for legislating the Gospel. I don’t think they believe that the state will legislate anyone into salvation. The Kingdom of God is indeed the church, and no one gets driven in or out by a sword.
But here you are talking about a moral law. You are talking about an action, not a belief or sentiment. Just as the state does not legislate against hate, but it must outlaw murder. Unless the 6th Commandment too is just an OT thing, using the logic of some of the comments in this thread.
I do hope you will correct this. It seems many of your readers have too hastily jumped onto the argument.
Rev. Moore,
I stand with you 100% on this issue, especially when you wrote, “A religion that needs state power to enforce obedience to its beliefs is a religion that has lost confidence in the power of its Deity.”
Freedom of religion is part of the foundation that the U.S. was built upon. Blasphemy laws take that freedom away and might be used against Christians in the future.
IMHO, it’s certainly a good and right thing to have laws built on Judeo-Christian values and many of these exist (such as stealing; murder/killing; extensions of our excessive greed, like insider trading, tax and mail fraud, etc.). I doubt any of your readers would disagree with this.
Thank you for expressing your opinion on this timely and important subject.
P.S. Is posting to this blog a guy thing or something? It looks like I’m the first woman who has posted a comment.
As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. And we will not fight for the liberties of the Muslims. That is anti-biblical and anti-God. There is but one true God and helping others to serve a false God not only dishonors our God, it affirms their rejection of God and that cannot be a loving thing to do. We are guilty enough as it is having blood on our hands, we don’t need to do more in that regard.