Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 03:1 (Nov 1940)
Article: Christian Missions And The Civil Magistrate In The Far East
Author: Johannes G. Vos

---

WTJ 3:1 (Nov 1940) p. 1

Christian Missions And The Civil Magistrate In The Far East

Johannes G. Vos

IN DISCUSSING Christian missions and the civil magistrate in the Far East we shall deal chiefly, though not exclusively, with those countries of the Far East where the most difficult problems in the relation between Christianity and the State have arisen in recent years, namely the Japanese Empire (including Korea and Formosa), Manchukuo and those portions of China which have come under Japanese occupation. We shall consider the conception of religious liberty in relation to missions, the ways in which the freedom of Christianity is infringed by the State, and the reaction of missions and churches to the demands of the State, and then we shall seek to formulate a Scriptural course of action with reference to these demands.

I. The Conception of Religious Liberty in Relation To Missions

The conception of the limited function of the civil magistrate has long been recognized, though not always fully realized in practice, in Western countries, but in the Far East it is almost unknown, and to the Oriental — often even to the Oriental Christian—almost incomprehensible. Although nearly all countries embody in their fundamental law some kind of statement about religious liberty, still this is frequently quite unrelated to the real situation in particular countries. In order to grasp the present status of missions in the Far East, it is necessary to bear in mind the distinction between religious liberty and religious toleration. Although these may seem to be synonymous terms, they are really contrary to each other.

WTJ 3:1 (Nov 1940) p. 2

True religious liberty is a natural, God-given human right, which ought to be recognized and protected by the civil magistrate, but which does not originate in the magistrate’s authority any more than the right of parents to rear their own children originates in the magistrate’s authority. Religious toleration, on the other hand, is based on the assumption that the civil magistrate is supreme in the sphere of religion. The magistrate authoritatively tolerates certain religions, not as a matter of intrinsic human right but as a matter of privilege which it is proper for him to grant or to withhold. This toleration implies that the magistrate may restrict and regulate that which he has officially tolerated. Such toleration is often called “liberty” and at the same time represented as being granted by the State. The claim of the civil magistrate to supremacy in the sphere of religion is a seed of error which has taken firm root in the Far East, and which when fully developed cannot but bring forth a harvest of bitter fruits.

True religious liberty necessarily includes three elements: (1) freedom of th...

visitor : : uid: ()