A Sermon on Freedom of Conscience

By Archbishop Ambrose (Klyucharev) of Kharkov and Okhtyrka (+1901),

On the Day of the Accession to the Throne of the Most Pious Sovereign Emperor Alexander II Nikolaevich, February 19, 1875, in the Great Dormition Cathedral in Moscow.

 

 

For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience?

…for why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience? (1 Cor. 10:29)

 

One of the most important questions, which according to the needs of our time requires careful clarification, is the question of freedom of conscience.

We know that by the very attempt to begin explaining and resolving this question from the church pulpit, we arouse in many people perplexity and apprehension. Today, in Christian countries, it has become a political question, and therefore many may suppose that we are entering a sphere that does not belong to the word of the Church, or at least that we cannot be impartial in judging it. But in order to remove all misunderstandings, we must say that the question of freedom of conscience is first of all a moral question, just as conscience itself is the principal agent of the moral life. Therefore, even in order to see to what extent and from which sides it may enter the sphere of political questions, and whether any dangers threaten our moral life from its incorrect understanding and from erroneous methods in resolving it—even for this purpose we must return the question to its proper place and examine it in that sphere of concepts in which alone it can be resolved.

Let us say even more: this is precisely our question, belonging to the sphere of church teaching, because the very doctrine of freedom of conscience became known to the world only through divine revelation. The ancient pagan philosophers, with all their efforts, were unable even to conceive of that height of moral perfection where freedom of conscience begins for man; and the philosophers of modern times have only confused this teaching, as they have many other pure Christian concepts, by mixing them with ideas of a philosophical character. Therefore, with the full boldness of a clear consciousness of the truth, we affirm that in resolving the question of freedom of conscience, this highest manifestation of the true freedom of man, the first place must belong to the Orthodox Church. And whoever knows well the Orthodox Church and her spirit will share with us the conviction that she will never place anyone in a false or unclear moral or social position, provided only that we, the preachers of her teaching, faithfully follow her guidance and direction.

The chief difficulty in applying the Christian teaching on freedom of conscience to life today arises from the fact that many address demands to the ecclesiastical and civil authorities for freedom of life on the basis of the inviolability of conscience, proceeding from an incorrect understanding of this teaching. All such demands, despite the diversity of views and conclusions on which they are based, are reduced to one general proposition: “everyone has his own conscience, and therefore in all his actions he should be left to himself, provided that his actions do not violate the personal freedom of others or public order and security.” It is true that conscience is a sacred and inviolable possession of man as a rational and moral being; it is his chief guide in the striving for perfection along the path of truth and righteousness, and to compel people to act against conscience means to deprive them of their inner light and strength, to morally distort and corrupt them. In a general sense, or, as philosophers say, in an abstract and ideal conception of man as he ought to be, this is entirely correct. But we do not arrive at such a conclusion when we carefully observe man in the experience of real life. What could seem better than to allow people to proceed freely along the straight path toward the knowledge of truth, without restraining or hindering the independent development of their diverse intellectual powers and gifts by any external influence? Yet in reality it turns out that the greater part of them must be taught and guided all their lives on the path toward truth; because they themselves do not find this path, and do not even see or recognize it when it is clearly shown to them. What could be better than to give people freedom to exercise their liberty in independent activity according to the laws of divine and human righteousness, without any intervention of external guides, and simply to rejoice at the manifestation in them of the particular perfections of human nature proper to each person? But in reality, it turns out that they sometimes forget and trample upon these laws to such a degree that it becomes necessary to bind them and confine them in prisons. If such is man in relation to the knowledge of truth and to free activity according to the laws of righteousness, can he be otherwise in his conscience, which is the expression of the general inner state and direction of a person and, so to speak, the conclusion drawn from the whole of his activity? Obviously, he cannot.

Let us explain these thoughts in greater detail. What is conscience? It is called the law of God impressed upon the soul of man, the inner witness of our life, the inseparable judge of our thoughts and deeds, and the like. All these expressions, though correct, only comparatively describe the various actions and states of our conscience. In a more precise definition, conscience is the inner feeling of peace and well-being which we experience when we observe the law, and the feeling of sorrow and suffering when we violate it. What law is meant here? That according to which we are created and by which we ought to live, that is, the law of God. This law of life, placed in the nature of every being, everywhere manifests the same effects: when it is observed, order and well-being are spread abroad; when it is violated, disorder and suffering appear. This is, so to speak, the conscience of all nature as a whole and of each creature separately. The difference with respect to various beings is that inanimate nature does not feel the action of this law in itself or upon itself; animals feel it, but do not understand it. Let us consider examples of the violation of the law. A plant does not develop into the form proper to it, but languishes and withers when the conditions necessary for its nourishment and existence are not maintained, yet it does not feel this. An animal in illness feels suffering (as does a man who lives only the life of an animal, for example in infancy or unconsciousness), but it does not understand either the cause of its suffering or the possibility of escape from its distressing condition. But man, when he fully possesses his powers in his inner spiritual life—for example when he loses innocence, violates the laws of honor, justice, or love for his neighbor—both suffers and at the same time understands why he suffers, how he has fallen into this state, what he felt before his fall, and thereby becomes convinced that in order to regain inner peace and contentment with himself he must necessarily emerge from this unnatural condition. It is clear that here the activity of properly human faculties enters in: rational self-judgment and free self-determination. Therefore, human conscience, like everything founded upon gradually rising free self-development, is subject to change; and because man may violate the law and fall into various errors and delusions, conscience is easily disturbed, shaken, darkened, and perverted. No one knows the various diseased states of the human conscience better than the holy Church. From her instruction, more than from any psychological investigations, we know that there is a coarse conscience, insensitive to the inner sufferings of the spirit even when grave crimes are committed; in such a state a person, like one who is dying and does not feel the destruction of his body, does not perceive the nearness of eternal ruin; or like a poor man accustomed to the stifling air of his dwelling, he breathes in his infected moral atmosphere without burden or revulsion. To such people applies the exhortation: “Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead” (Eph. 5:14). There is also a careless and negligent conscience, when a man, not watching over his thoughts and deeds, passes from small violations of the law to greater ones, and by mixing faults with crimes, ignoring rebukes, gradually becomes more deeply corrupted day by day, and, as Scripture says, “when he has come to the depth of evils, he becomes careless” (Prov. 18:3). There is, according to the Apostle Paul, the seared conscience of hypocrites (1 Tim. 4:2), when through habitual calculations of self-love, ambition, and greed, false teachings and false interpretations take the place of truth in a person’s mind, and the triumph of passion in the corrupted heart replaces the consolations of conscience. There is the conscience of literalists, who are more ready to forgive crimes than deviations from an external rite, as the Apostle Paul indicates when he says: “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3:6). There is a deceitful conscience, when a person excuses and justifies his evil deeds with plausible pretexts. For deliverance from this vice the Church teaches even the ministers of the sacraments to pray: “Cleanse, O Lord, my mind and heart from an evil conscience.” There is a fanatical conscience, when a person, through a burning desire to spread the faith or to establish law and order, is ready to act by violent measures, forgetting the personal rights and freedoms of others; this the Apostle calls “zeal not according to knowledge” (Rom. 10:2). There is a servile conscience, when a person, oppressed by the power of sinful habits or passions, suffers inwardly, fears eternal condemnation, seeks a way out of his condition and does not find it. To this moral state applies the word of the Savior: “Whosoever commits sin is the servant of sin” (John 8:34). There is also a fearful conscience, when a person loses the calm and clear disposition of spirit, being troubled by fear of condemnation for the inevitable sins of human weakness. Here we have indicated only the principal forms of diseased states of conscience. In real life these defects of conscience in our souls are so united, intertwined, and assume such diverse shades and degrees of strength that it is impossible either to trace them all or to describe them in detail. Yet even in this general outline each of us, if he carefully examines himself, will find much that applies to himself as well, that constitutes his own inner illness. Reflecting in this way upon people who are morally sick and corrupted—as we all are more or less—what freedom of conscience could we wish for them? Permission to proclaim aloud what they still inwardly feel ashamed of? To expose before everyone what they carefully conceal? To do openly and before all what, because of the remnants of conscience, is still done within four walls and in the darkness of night? Or, on the other hand, should we allow people freedom, to the harm of others, to do what schemers, hypocrites under various names, unrestrained fanatics, shameless debauchees, thieves, and robbers do according to their conscience? But would this not mean to throw wide open the doors to the immeasurable quantity of evil hidden in human hearts, and permit it to burst forth without restraint—to the scandal and corruption of the innocent and inexperienced, to the temptation of the wavering, to the weakening of those who patiently labor in works of goodness and honor? Clearly, this would not be freedom of conscience, but the release of men from the supervision and judgment of conscience, or in other words the trampling down and destruction of conscience itself.

We shall be told: “But who understands freedom of conscience in such a way? This is an obvious absurdity.” We agree. Yet precisely this absurdity, or inner falsehood, concealed by various sophisms, lies within the modern notion of freedom of conscience that we mentioned at the beginning. “Allow everyone to act according to his own conscience, since conscience is sacred and inviolable.” What does this mean? It means: entrust the moral order of society to the personal conscience of each individual—and first of all to our conscience, to the conscience that we, the preachers of new teachings, possess. But we have the right to say to them: first show us what sort of conscience you have, so that we may know whether it can be trusted. There is a universal human conscience, upon which the universal laws of life are established, expressed in the writings, traditions, rules, and customs of entire nations. Does our personal conscience perhaps contain something diseased, distorted, or deformed? There is also a Christian conscience, guided by divine laws. How does your conscience relate to these holy and immutable laws of morality, which the better part of humanity honors, including the Orthodox Church? Does your conscience, in relation to them, perhaps contain something offensive, hostile, or destructive?

It is impossible to discuss matters according to the laws of any religion with the materialists and their followers, when they reject every religion. They can be judged only by the universal human conscience and by historical conscience. From their actions we shall take those which fall under such judgment. When a man who is married seduces an innocent maiden, and, abandoning his wife and children, enters with her into open cohabitation, by what conscience does he do this? When a wife says to her husband: “I love another; release me quietly, give me all or half of the children, and return my dowry or assign me suitable maintenance from your property,” from what conscience does such a proposal arise? When the husband, respecting this supposed sanctity of his wife’s feeling, himself delivers her into the hands of another, rewards her, and even attends the celebration of the new marriage, not hiding it even from his children—by what conscience does he act? Not by a free conscience, but by a conscience stupefied by sensuality, a conscience deaf to every prompting of shame, moral propriety, parental love, and sound reason, according to which even nations scarcely emerging from ignorance place true family happiness and the firm foundations of upbringing and public well-being in monogamy. They say: “We do not restrict the personal freedom of others and do not produce public disorder.” But the whole world knows that for moral freedom temptations and bad examples present greater dangers than external constraint and restraint; that family disorders are the seeds of every kind of social disorder and calamity. It is time, in warning Christian families, to set the seal not only of social condemnation, but also of ecclesiastical condemnation, upon these preachers of debauchery under the name of freedom of conscience.

What, then, does true freedom of conscience consist in? Not in external rights and advantages—social and political—but in the inner liberation of the spirit from all obstacles to the observance of the law that are encountered in the corrupted human nature; and then in the consciousness of righteousness, in the undisturbed feeling of inner peace and well-being, and in the right to relate to the prescriptions of ritual law according to a higher understanding of the laws and purposes of morality.

We have said that the teaching on freedom of conscience is properly a Christian teaching, and therefore its explanation must be sought in the sphere of Christian truths and church institutions. In the Church we know two kinds of laws: moral laws, the establishment of which in the life and activity of the spirit is the goal of all human labors and efforts; and ritual laws, or educational laws, which assist a person in mastering all his moral powers in order to observe the former. The holy Apostle Paul calls the ritual law of the Old Testament, which imposed upon the members of the Old Testament Church strict rules concerning bodily purity, sacrifices, feasts, distinctions of food, a tutor unto Christ (Gal. 3:24), that is, an educator or guide to Christ. The ritual laws of the New Testament Church have the same significance, such as the times of divine services, feasts, fasts, rules concerning preparation for Communion, domestic prayer, and other religious exercises. Their purpose is to accustom Christians, through experience or moral instruction, to the gathering of the mind, the discernment of thoughts and movements of the heart, self-control and patience in the struggle with the passions of the flesh, self-denial in works of charity, and the perception of higher influences from the spiritual world, which awaken in our soul the striving for a higher and eternal life. In these exercises pure conceptions of good and evil, of the duties of man, of true perfection, and of the means of correcting our innate corruption are continually instilled. Here the natural promptings of conscience are clarified, corrected, and strengthened, so that the divine law is both called forth from the soul itself as something innate, and at the same time introduced into us from without as divinely revealed and positive, and from both together there is formed a complete and clear knowledge and awareness of the will of God concerning man. All this is accomplished under the living influence of the pastors and teachers of the Church, where the human conscience is protected by the veil of profound secrecy, where a person is persuaded but not compelled to moral struggles, where external exercises visible from outside pass into inner and invisible labor before the eyes of God, where the morally sick are lovingly reproved and healed, but not insulted or humiliated. But the inner power, essence, and soul of all these laws and exercises are the holy mysteries (sacraments), in which, through the power of the sacrificial Cross of the Redeemer, the grace of God is communicated to the Christian—grace that regenerates our corrupted nature, assists us, cleanses and sanctifies us. For only the blood of Christ, according to the teaching of the Apostle, cleanses our conscience from dead works (Heb. 9:14) and frees us from an evil conscience (Heb. 10:22). “If the Son therefore shall make you free,” says the Lord, “you shall be free indeed.” (John 8:36).

It is evident that these ordinances, which are difficult for beginners, become easier for those who make progress, and almost imperceptible—losing, as it were, their obligatory force—for perfect Christians. For the one to whom it is the same, like the Apostle Paul, to endure hunger or to be filled, to abound or to suffer need (Phil. 4:12), the fasts, which are so burdensome for us, are scarcely noticeable; for the one who prays without ceasing (1 Thess. 5:17), prolonged services are not difficult; for the one who walks in the Spirit (Gal. 5:16), the pleasures of the flesh—delicious foods, costly wines, feasts, spectacles, and the like—are not tempting. In general, whoever has introduced into his nature, as a need and necessity, the fulfillment of the moral law, for him the means that only lead toward this perfection lose their force. “He who has,” says the holy Apostle Paul, “the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, goodness, mercy, faith, meekness, temperance—against such there is no law” (Gal. 5:23). “The law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless” (1 Tim. 1:9). “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law” (Gal. 5:18). See upon what moral height the banner of freedom of conscience is raised! Here a man says: “All things are lawful for me” (1 Cor. 10:23), because he knows that he will not only refrain from doing anything harmful or unlawful, but will not even desire it. He says: “I can do all things through Jesus Christ who strengthens me” (Phil. 4:13), because he feels within himself the abundance of moral strength proven by struggle and replenished by the grace of God. He says: “Why should my liberty be judged by another’s conscience?” (1 Cor. 10:29), because he bears within himself the Spirit of God, which illumines his conscience (Rom. 9:1). What external signs of freedom, what rights, can ecclesiastical authority grant to such people? The Church herself venerates them as her teachers, guides, examples, and luminaries in the ecclesiastical firmament, whatever their rank may be—bishops, humble monks, slaves, or miners. And what rights of freedom of conscience can state authority give them? They desire none, because they already possess everything. They rejoice when the Church of God is not persecuted, but peacefully and freely accomplishes the great work of the salvation of mankind; yet they also endure persecutions with submission to the will of God that permits them, and afterwards exhort all Christians: “Submit yourselves to every human authority (whether of the same faith or of another) for the Lord’s sake” (1 Pet. 2:13); “servants, obey your masters not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake” (Rom. 13:5). Toward all authorities they give Christians one general rule, which protects them from every displeasure of authority: “Do you wish not to fear the authority? Do what is good” (Rom. 13:3). Happy is that Christian state in which such free fulfillers and zealots of the law do not become scarce! From them come servants of the fatherland who labor for it their whole life without thought of ranks or rewards; from them come incorruptible judges, truthful and fearless advisers to the sovereign; from them in the armies are formed thunderous legions.

See how, from this height, the false direction of those Christians is clearly illuminated who demand freedom of conscience for themselves while possessing and having established within themselves none of the moral qualities that constitute the essential features of that freedom. The holy Apostles foresaw that in Christian societies there would be abuses of this lofty teaching. The Apostle Peter, defining the relations of the early Christians precisely toward rulers or civil authorities—and indeed toward pagan ones—says to them: “For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your freedom as a cloak for evil, but as the servants of God” (1 Pet. 2:15–16). The Apostle Paul, on the other hand, warns: “You have been called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an occasion for the flesh” (Gal. 5:13). In these two admonitions the two kinds of modern seekers of freedom in the name of conscience are precisely defined. Some demand that in Christian countries all measures of a religious character be removed from state institutions and laws that concern the education and preservation of public morality—such as the obligatory teaching of the Law of God in schools, the protection of Christian marriage, and the observance of church seasons requiring special reverence, and the like—on the grounds that everyone has the right to act according to his own conscience. Such a demand is a covering of evil or ill intent under the name of freedom. How can it harm the freedom of the Christian conscience to provide youth with sound and scientific knowledge of the Christian religion, to protect the purity of family life precisely from those unlawful unions of which we spoke earlier, or to warn the ignorant masses against drunkenness and disorder during sacred church seasons? These are aids, not obstacles, to the attainment of true freedom of conscience. But the seekers of freedom here are not concerned with conscience and its rights, but with the unhindered spread of their false and anti-Christian teachings. It is easy to disobey ecclesiastical authority and convenient to act to the detriment of the Church, but it is difficult to struggle against state authority. Here lies the true reason for their passionate attacks upon the protection of Christian morality provided by state legislation.

Another kind of abuse of the teaching on freedom of conscience, foretold by the Apostles, concerns the ritual or educational ordinances of the Church. Those guilty of this abuse are all those so-called educated people in our society who rise up against the strict regulations of the Orthodox Church. “Leave aside,” they say to us, “all your reminders about evening and morning services, about fasts and preparation for Communion; do not hinder us from attending theatres and concerts on the eve of feast days; we desire that theatres should be open even during the whole Great Lent, that even the number of your feast days should be reduced, because we need working hands for many necessary tasks, and so forth. Why this compulsion?” Here Christian freedom is turned into an occasion for indulging the flesh, and there is evident a complete misunderstanding that precisely in these church rules lies the path to freedom of conscience. The passion for bodily pleasures will always rebel against the rules of the Church, because the flesh submits to the spirit and its higher aspirations only with great difficulty. But the Orthodox Church knows no compulsion. In extreme cases she only renounces her disobedient children and separates them from herself. These lovers of pleasure are free to do what they wish, whatever their conscience permits. Yet it is regrettable that by such looseness toward the statutes of the Church they disturb the uniformity and order so important for the progress of Christian life; the younger generations become morally weakened, the simple people are scandalized, and the conscience of the zealots of Christian morality is troubled. Here lies a great danger of moral corruption—for the formerly unified and morally strong Russian people. True zealots of freedom of conscience do not act in this way: they are always the most strict observers of the Church’s statutes, and they use the right to depart from them, as we have said, only for higher moral purposes. Even in such cases they are careful that their freedom should not harm anyone, so that, as the Apostle Paul says, “their freedom may not become a stumbling block to the weak, lest through their higher knowledge the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died” (1 Cor. 8:9–11). In view of such dangers they say: “I will never eat meat again, lest I cause my brother to stumble” (1 Cor. 8:13).

Thus, freedom of conscience must be sought not in the sphere of earthly rights, but in the sphere of spiritual perfections. It must be expected not from state laws, but from our own moral labors and struggles, and it must be asked not of earthly kings and rulers, but of the Lord God.

In the sense of expanding rational freedom in social life, speak of the freedom of thought, the freedom of speech, the freedom of convictions, the freedom of confessions, but not of freedom of conscience. All these kinds of freedom may only be paths to freedom of conscience, but it itself stands above them. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:17). Amen.

 

Russian source: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Amvrosij_Klucharev/slovo-o-svobode-sovesti/