Freedom and the Ecumenical Consistory

Liberty from a Religious Point of View

By John Taylor; 2009 Sep 01, Asma 13, 166 BE

Absolute freedom, like all absolutes, is only possible for God in relation to Himself. This understanding predates monotheism, as evidenced by Aeschylus, who wrote: "For know that no one is free, except Zeus." Human freedom, then, is relative to our nature, which is both physical and spiritual. The physical requires us to compromise spiritual aspirations to some extent. Every religion teaches that we often must choose animal freedom or freedom born of Spirit. Christianity, for example,

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (2 Cor 3:17, KJV)

Islam emphasizes that higher knowledge offers a paradoxical freedom in which submission to a higher Will is the highest ideal. "Indeed, man transgresseth in thinking himself his own master: for to your Lord all things return." (Qur'an 96:1) Justice and righteousness are the outcome of absorption in the Will of One Who knows all.

"Amongst us are some that submit their wills (to God), and some that swerve from justice. Now those who submit their wills - they have sought out (the path) of right conduct." (Qur'an 72:14, Yusuf Ali, tr.)

This is also the essential spirit of Judaism, which has Satan, in guise of a serpent in the Garden of Eden promise Eve that, "Ye shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:5) Freedom on the spiritual level comes of admitting that we can never know what is good or evil on our own, or control what is inherently beyond our nature in a world of materiality. Instead, spiritual freedom is imitation of the deity, who liberates selflessly by nature and by example.

"Therefore be merciful, even as your Father is also merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Set free, and you will be set free." (Luke 6:36-37, WEB)

Animal liberty is purely physical and therefore based on rule of the strong over the weak; the former fight their way to the top with force and violence. It is not free but only a masked form of slavery. Even the top dog expresses his freedom by indulging bodily desires and appetites that have only ephemeral results. Spiritual freedom is the fruit of imitating an all-loving God, who inculcates virtues like benevolence, wisdom, independence and moderation. These virtues raise the human spirit above violence and the contradictions inherent to carnal leanings.

Immanuel Kant correctly recognized that we will never attain this higher liberation completely or be rid of the damaging freedom of a bestial nature unless and until national governments submit their sovereign authority to a world government. Then the individual will finally be free of injustice, inside and out.

"However fantastical this idea (a league of nations) may seem -- and it was laughed at as fantastical by the Abbe de St. Pierre and by Rousseau, perhaps because they believed it was too near to realization -- the necessary outcome of the destitution to which each man is brought by his fellows is to force the states to the same decision (hard though it be for them) that savage man also was reluctantly forced to take, namely, to give up their brutish freedom and to seek quiet and security under a lawful constitution." (Kant, Cosmopolitan History, Seventh Thesis, p. 256)

Such is the nature of religious freedom. It has implications that we have hardly begun to explore on the international scene. For example, any future world government that is not a tyranny would have to recognize a universal right to convert from one religion to any other religion. This right would only be tolerable to faith groups when it is widely recognized that there are features -- and not peripheral ones but essentials -- of all religions that are part of a faith heritage common to all thinking humans. This emerging entity let us call the One Common Faith, or OCF.

An increasing awareness of our OCF heritage would do more than just give a new human right, the right to convert, to every citizen in the world -- even those who live in regions where compulsion in belief is traditional. It would also enable a world parliament of religion -- an institution that Comenius called the Ecumenical Consistory -- to come into existence. This parliament would do just what the word "consistory implies. It would take the values, ideals and features that are consistent across major religions through the ages, principles like love of one's neighbour and the Golden Rule, and put them into effect on the personal level in order to enable progress on the local and international levels as well. Comenius pointed to this as the common purpose of liberation for all religions:

"For the goal of this first individual reform is that everyone should release himself from the powerful grip of external things and be restored to himself and God, for the purpose of asserting his freedom of thought, will and action upon things which make for his welfare here and to all eternity." (Panorthosia, Ch. 20, para 7, p. 22)

The very existence of a right to convert, an OCF and an Ecumenical Consistory would force all religious groups to raise their standards in order to compete with others. This would benefit all by canalizing the same competitive forces that made the modern business so potent, influential and efficient. As Kant perceived, this restraint on the baser urges of religious groups would, paradoxically, free them to attain higher levels of excellence; it would act on the social aspect of faith like the restraints that train an individuals animal nature to submit the soul to the Spirit, the true and universal liberator. 

::