Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Freedom of religion. They're important. They're in the news. How do they relate to Christianity? Let's start thinking through it.

What does the Bible have to say about them?

Take John the Baptist as an example. He was the essential free speaker, the "voice of one, crying in the wilderness", preparing the way for God. He spoke freely, declaring a new, living religion. But then Herod stepped in, captured him, imprisoned him, and killed him. John (I have something I must speak freely about) is the good guy; Herod (I don't like your speech) is the bad guy.

In Daniel 6:7-23, there's the famous story of Daniel and the lions' den. Daniel was cast to the lions because he was speaking freely -- praying to Jehovah, not to King Darius -- against an edict of the government. Daniel's the good guy. Darius, until he repents, is the bad guy.

Perhaps the most powerful Biblical example is found throughout Jesus's ministry, which required freedom of speech -- the freedom to form, teach, and create a new religion. His free speech revolutionized the thoughts of his listeners. And, what did the powerful religious leaders of the day do? They accused him of blaspheming. They tried to trap him. To get him to recant. To be quiet. He knew that he couldn't do that; His mission was to bring new truths to a thirsty world.

There's a great "free speech" scene during Jesus's entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, in Luke 19:37-40:

"And when He was already near to the descent of the Mount of Olives, all the multitude of the disciples rejoicing began to praise God with a great voice for all the works of power that they had seen, saying, 'Blessed be the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest!' And some of the Pharisees from among the crowd said to Him, 'Teacher, rebuke Thy disciples.' And He answering told them, 'I say to you, If these should be silent, the stones would cry out.'

These are pretty clear examples. The Bible values freedom of speech.

Free speech and free thought are closely related. Deep communication is a big part of what makes us human. Humans developed the ability to have large scale cooperation through shared stories. If we can't speak freely, we lose the ability to communicate real thoughts, and we lose the ability to share new ideas, and our potential drops away.

Here are three excerpts from Swedenborg's works that relate to this:

"...when free speech and freedom of the press are curtailed, freedom of thought, that is, of examining matters in a full and complete way, suffers as well.... Our higher understanding, then, adapts itself to fit the amount of freedom there is to say and do what we are considering." (True Christian Religion 814).

"No one is reformed in a state of intellectual blindness, either. These individuals, too, are not aware of truths and do not know about life, because it is our discernment that must instruct us in these matters and our volition that must act them out. When our volition is doing what our discernment tells it to, then we have a life in accord with truths; but when our discernment is blind, our volition is blocked as well." (Divine Providence 144)

"No one is reformed in states where freedom and rationality are absent." (Divine Providence 38)

I was talking about this with a friend, and he reminded me that there are grey areas, where some freedom and discernment exist, but they are limited. I think he's right; we're mostly living in these grey areas. There are probably rare cases where freedom and rationality are at zero -- maybe when someone is in a coma. And I doubt if anyone has 100% freedom or discernment. In some ways, this makes free speech and free thought even more important. Life is not crystal clear, or free, and things that can help us as we seek understanding and freedom are really precious.

The example of Helen Keller bears on this. She called the day that Anne Sullivan arrived at her house "my soul's birthday". In her autobiography, The Story of My Life (1903), Keller described the moment when she realized that the motion of Anne's fingers, spelling w-a-t-e-r into her hand symbolized the water that she was pouring over her hand:

"I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motions of her fingers. Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten — a thrill of returning thought; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me.... The living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, set it free!"

Helen Keller also said, “One can never consent to creep when one feels an impulse to soar.”

Free speech and free thought need each other. And... what about religion?

Religion is a core set of thoughts. If you're not free to speak, your thinking is trammeled. If you're not free to think, how can you hope to get to the core ideas about why we exist, and what we are going to do -- how we are going to live? Religion is at the heart of it. Even if you reject religion altogether, you're still living by some sort of belief system, even if it's materialistic or nihilistic.

If you're told what you have to believe, it doesn't usually work out very well. There's a natural tendency to rebel. We need that freedom to figure things out for ourselves.

Albert Einstein said something that speaks to this:

“It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom. Without this it goes to wrack and ruin without fail.” - Paul Schilpp, "Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (1949) ‘Autobiographical Notes’"

And... here's another excerpt from Swedenborg's work, Heaven and Hell:

In a word, anything that does not enter us in freedom does not stay with us, because it does not belong to our love or intentions; and anything that does not belong to our love or intentions does not belong to our spirit. The actual reality of our spirit is love or volition - using the phrase "love or volition" because whatever we love, we intend. This is why we cannot be reformed except in a state of freedom. (Heaven and Hell 598)

M. Scott Peck reinforces this idea:

There is no such thing as a good hand-me-down religion. To be vital, to be the best of which we are capable, our religion must be a wholly personal one, forged entirely through the fire of our questioning and doubting in the crucible of our own experience of reality. - M. Scott Peck - The Road Less Travelled

Finally, let's go back to see what the Bible says about it, in these two stories:

Saul of Tarsus was persecuting Christians -- trying to destroy their freedom of religion. He had a miraculous conversion experience that led him to be renamed Paul, the great Christian teacher and evangelist. (See Acts 9)

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were persecuted - thrown in a fiery furnace - for worshipping in their own way, denying the edicts of Nebuchadnezzar. They were saved by an angel, who kept them from being burned. (See Daniel 3)

Wrapping it up...

It's pretty clear that free speech, free thought, and free religion are part of the same fabric. They're very much part of being human. They're well supported in the Bible. They've been woven into the better governments of our time.

We need to take good care of them. They're necessary for us to be able to learn truth, and reject falsity -- and to "Cease to do evil, learn to do good." (Isaiah 1:16)

9277. 'In like manner you shall do with your vineyard, with your olive grove' means that this is to be so with spiritual good and with celestial good. This is clear from the meaning of 'vineyard' as the spiritual Church, dealt with in 1069, 9139, and so spiritual good, which is the good of charity towards the neighbour, since this good constitutes the spiritual Church; and from the meaning of 'olive grove' as the celestial Church, and so celestial good, which is the good of love to the Lord, since this good constitutes the celestial Church. What the spiritual Church and its good are, and what the celestial Church and its good are, and also what the difference is, see 2046, 2227, 2669, 2708 (end), 2715, 2718, 2935, 2937, 2954, 3166, 3235, 3236, 3240, 3246, 3374, 3833, 3887, 3969, 4138, 4286, 4493, 4585, 4938, 5113, 5150, 5922, 6289, 6296, 6366, 6427, 6435, 6500, 6647, 6648, 7091, 7233, 7474, 7977, 7992, 8042, 8152, 8234, 8521.

[2] The fact that 'olive grove' means the celestial Church and so celestial good is clear from places in the Word in which 'the olive tree' is mentioned, such as in Moses,

You will plant and dress vineyards, but you will not drink wine or gather [the fruit], for the worm will devour it. You will have olive trees within all your borders, but you will not anoint yourself with oil, because your olive tree will be shaken bare. Deuteronomy 28:39-40.

This describes the curse if other gods were worshipped and if statutes and judgements were not kept. 'Olive trees within all the borders' are forms of the good of celestial love within the whole Church, which come from the Lord through the Word. 'Not being anointed with oil' stands for nevertheless remaining untouched by that good. 'The olive tree will be shaken bare' stands for a warning that this good will perish. Something similar occurs in Micah,

You will tread olives but not anoint yourself with oil, and tread the new wine but not drink wine. Micah 6:15.

[3] In Amos,

I struck you with blight and mildew; your very many gardens, and your vineyards, and your fig trees, and your olive trees the caterpillar devoured. Yet you did not return to Me. Amos 4:9.

'Vineyards' stands for forms of the good of faith, 'olive trees' for forms of the good of love. Being punished for not welcoming those forms of good is meant by the caterpillar devouring the olive trees. In Habakkuk,

The fig tree will not blossom, neither will there be any produce on the vines; the olive crop will fail, ¹ and the field will not produce food. Habakkuk 3:17.

'The fig tree' stands for natural good, 'the vine' for spiritual good, 'the olive' for celestial good, and 'the field' for the Church. In Zechariah,

Two olive trees are beside the lampstand, one on the right of the bowl and one on the left of it. These are the two sons of pure oil, standing beside the Lord of the whole earth. Zechariah 4:3, 11, 14.

'Two olive trees beside the lampstand' stands for celestial and spiritual good, which are to the right and to the left of the Lord. 'The lampstand' means the Lord in respect of Divine Truth.

[4] In the Book of Judges,

Jotham said to the citizens of Shechem who made Abimelech king, The trees went out to anoint a king over them; and they said to the olive tree, Reign over us. But the olive tree said to them, Shall I stop producing my oil ² which God and men honour in me, and go to sway ³ over the trees? And the trees said to the fig tree, You come [and] reign over us. But the fig tree said to them, Shall I stop producing ⁴ my sweetness and my good fruit, and go to sway ³ over the trees? Then the trees said to the vine, You come [and] reign over us. But the vine said to them, Shall I stop producing ⁴ my new wine, cheering God and men, and go to sway ³ over the trees? And all the trees said to the thornbush, You come [and] reign over us. And the thornbush said to the trees, If you are in truth anointing me as king over you, come and take refuge ⁵ in my shade. But if not, let fire come out of the thornbush and devour the cedars of Lebanon. Judges 9:7-16.

None can know what is implied specifically by the things said here unless they know what 'the olive tree', 'the fig tree', 'the vine', and 'the thornbush' mean. 'The olive tree' means the internal good of the celestial Church, 'the fig tree' the external good of that Church, 4231, 5113, 'the vine' the good of the spiritual Church, but 'the thornbush' spurious good. The things that are said therefore imply that the people, who are 'the trees' here, did not want celestial good or spiritual good to 'reign over them', but spurious good, and that the people chose the spurious in preference to celestial or spiritual good. The 'fire' coming out of the spurious good is the harmfulness of evil cravings, 'the cedars of Lebanon' which it would devour being the truths of good.

[5] Since 'the olive tree' was a sign of the good of love received from the Lord and offered to the Lord, the cherubs in the middle of the house or temple were made of olive wood, as were the doors to the sanctuary, 1 Kings 6:23-33. For 'the cherubs', and also 'the doors of the sanctuary', were signs of the Lord's protection and providence, guarding against access to Him except through the good of celestial love. This was why they were made of olive wood. All this shows why it was that the tabernacle and the altar were anointed with oil, also the priests, and at a later time the kings, and why it was that olive oil was used in lamps. For 'oil' was a sign of the good of love from the Lord, see 886, 3728, 4582, 4638, and 'anointing' was a sign that they should accordingly represent the Lord.

Footnotes: