Freedom of Expression: A Christian Perspective on a Distorted Right
By Christophe Foltzenlogel, European Center for Law & Justice legal expert
“The views and opinions expressed above are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the Jubilee Centre or its trustees.”
Introduction: A Troubled Landscape of Expression in Europe
In contemporary Europe, freedom of expression is hailed as one of the most sacred democratic rights—an inherent, inviolable liberty tied to the autonomy and rationality of the individual. It is protected in international treaties and constitutional laws, designed to preserve open discourse and democratic deliberation. However, this apparent neutrality and universality mask a troubling reality: the right is often not upheld at all. And even more often freedom of speech is not upheld equitably. Christians increasingly find their speech dismissed, marginalized, censored and sometimes criminalized, especially when it involves affirming moral absolutes or expressing doctrinal truths. This article explores the true nature and purpose of freedom of expression from a biblical perspective and examines how current legal and societal practices diverge from that understanding, often weaponizing this right against those who ought to be its most natural beneficiaries—witnesses to the truth of the Gospel.
Biblical Foundations: Expression of a Divine Mandate, Not Individual Right
In the Scriptures, freedom of expression is never exalted as an abstract or inalienable right of individuals. Rather, it is a divinely delegated responsibility with specific moral and theological ends. Under Mosaic Law, expression was conditioned by the overarching requirement to honor God, to speak the truth and protect the chosen community. Freedom of expression was not theorized or established as a right with conditions or as a broad freedom theorized by thinkers like Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. However, strict and clear limits were immediately established against direct affront to the sovereign God. Blasphemy (Exodus 20:7, Leviticus 24:16) and false testimony (Exodus 20:16) were therefore capital offences.
However, within this framework, the prophets possessed total freedom of expression. Their mandate was to reveal God’s will, but also to denounce infractions of the law, social injustice, and the corruption of temporal and spiritual elites (e.g., Nehemiah 5:7-8, Isaiah 10:1-2, Ezekiel 3:17-21, Amos, John the Baptist in Mark 6:18). This freedom was not an individual right but a divinely granted tool for justice and faithfulness. These prophets challenged established power, often at the risk of their own lives, because God willed that His people repent rather than perish (Ezekiel 18:23). Scripture records the fierce opposition they faced: the rejection of Amos (Amos 7:10-13), the death of Zechariah (2 Chronicles 24:20-22), the censorship and imprisonment of Jeremiah (chs.36-38) and the killing of Uriah (Jeremiah 26:20-23). Tradition holds that Isaiah was sawn in half by Manasseh, Jeremiah stoned, and Ezekiel killed in exile. Yet, their words could also be fruitful, as demonstrated by Jonah, who reluctantly went to Nineveh knowing God is merciful (Jonah 4:2) and would forgive if they repented. Jesus Himself would later use the people of Nineveh as a standard of judgment against his own generation (Matthew 12:41).
We remark that the opposition the prophets faced was rather denounced as a manifestation of evil on earth instead of an injustice per se. It is something the prophets were to accept and cope with, for the glory of God. Does it contradict our modern practice of fighting this injustice per se? Should we accept to be prosecuted for repeating the words of the prophets because, that’s just the way it’s been for the last thousands of years? …
The prophetic mandate is extended to all Christians in the New Covenant. Jesus declared, “I have spoken openly to the world” (John 18:20) and commissioned those He healed to testify to God's mercy, like the demon-possessed man (Luke 8:39) or the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:29). Believers are called to “proclaim the praises of him who called [them] out of darkness” (1 Peter 2:9). This is not a right to be claimed but a supernatural duty for every Christian, made a priest for God (Revelation 1:6), founded on the new covenant (Ezekiel 36:25-28). The purpose is to call for adherence to Christ's teachings in all spheres of life. This freedom is absolute, as death no longer holds power over it. However, it is also bound by higher standards; the Gospel elevates the law, forbidding not only false witness but also idle oaths and curses (Matthew 5:34-37, James 3:10), reminding the believer of his dependence on grace. We are to witness “with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15).
The Modern Inversion: A Freedom Against the Faithful
Modern democratic theory, emerging from Enlightenment rationalism (from Kant to Habermas), redefines freedom of expression as a self-referential right grounded in human reason and autonomy. Detached from any divine source or moral truth, speech becomes a function of personal identity, often wielded in service of relativism. This shift has produced a paradox: while courts and institutions claim to safeguard pluralism, they simultaneously restrict expressions of many, among which Christians, who’s faith is deemed offensive, intolerant, “hateful” or “non-inclusive.”
The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), based in Strasbourg and claiming jurisdiction over 46 European Countries, starkly illustrates this imbalance. In E.S. v. Austria (2018), the Court upheld the criminal conviction of a woman who described the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to a child as pedophilia, deeming her comments a threat to “religious peace” over factual truth. Conversely, in Bouton v. France (2022) and the “Pussy Riot case” (Mariya Alekhina and others v. Russia, 2018), the Court ruled in favor of blasphemous performances mocking Christianity, even in sacred spaces, framing them as political critique. The Court has refused to protect Christians from offense, as in Asociación de Abogados Cristianos v. Spain (2023), where it declared inadmissible a case against an artist who used 242 consecrated hosts to spell the word "pederastia," citing a failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
This double standard extends to moral and social issues. In Hoffer and Annen v. Germany (2011), the Court validated the conviction of anti-abortion activists for comparing abortion to the Holocaust ("babycaust"), yet in Oberschlick v. Austria (1991), it was deemed acceptable to accuse a politician, whose programme included removing abortion from the list of reimbursed medical services, of having a programme similar to that of the Nazi party. The Court condemned Portugal in Women on Waves v. Portugal (2009) for blocking a pro-choice ship, stating that "it is precisely when ideas that offend, shock or disturb the established order are presented that freedom of expression is most precious," a principle it seems hesitant to apply to Christian speech. In Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland (1992), the Court condemned Ireland for prohibiting the dissemination of information on abortion abroad, failing to properly consider if the unborn child constituted an "other" whose right to life was protected under Irish law.
This legal inconsistency is also evident in the workplace. Following a series of CJEU cases (e.g., C-157/15 & C-188/15), employers can now impose a general policy of "neutrality," prohibiting employees from manifesting their religious beliefs through words or clothing. This effectively silences Christians who wish to speak of their faith. Furthermore, the ECHR has validated convictions for speech against immigration, as seen in Zemmour v. France (2022) and CNEWS v. France (2023), where critiques of Islam and immigration were deemed incitement to hatred.
Postmodern Ironies: Inclusion That Excludes
This incoherence arises from the postmodern ethos that underpins European legal and cultural institutions. Freedom of expression is no longer anchored in truth or the common good, but in the expression of subjective identities. All voices are supposedly equal, but in practice, those voices that proclaim moral absolutes—especially Christian ones—are stigmatized as “harmful,” “divisive” or “discriminatory.”
Religious expression in the workplace is similarly curtailed under the pretext of neutrality. EU directives allow private employers to prohibit all visible expressions of belief, so long as such policies are applied equally. But this “equal treatment” effectively silences religious employees, particularly Christians who wish to share their religious views, to pray, or to wear symbols of faith. A Christian who speaks about Muhammad in a critical way based on historical sources risks dismissal or prosecution, while other ideologies, such as socialism, enjoy institutional favor.
Christian Witness: Speaking Truth in Hostile Times
Faced with this climate, Christians must remember that their right to speak does not come from a constitution, an international treaty, or the jurisprudence of an international court, but from the new covenant in Christ. It is exercised not in pursuit of tolerance or inclusion, but in obedience to a divine commission: “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel” (Mark 16:15). The Christian speaks under divine mandate, not to win approval but to call the world to repentance and faith, knowing that the message itself reveals sin (John 15:22).
This freedom is accompanied by sacrifice. Jesus was crucified for his words. The apostles were martyred because their message was uncompromising. Today’s believer must be prepared to suffer legal penalties and social scorn for upholding biblical truth. This requires submission to authorities, but also a readiness to "obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29), a principle historically articulated in works like Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex. If secular lobbies campaign with zeal for their ideologies, Christians have even more reason to persevere in promoting biblical values without compromise.
Conclusion: The Gospel is Not a Hate Crime
Freedom of expression in Europe, while nominally universal, is increasingly hostile to many. By absolutizing subjective identity and relativizing moral truth, legal systems are paradoxically curtailing the very speech that upholds the dignity of the human person. Christians must resist the temptation to retreat or conform. They must continue to speak, not out of entitlement, but out of obedience, taking comfort that this perseverance produces hope (Romans 5:3-4). True freedom of expression, in the biblical sense, is not the freedom to say anything, to be vulgar, as if being shocking or stupid was an end, but the freedom to say things that truly matter, to seek for the truth, etc. If Europe forgets this, it may still claim to protect expression—but it will have lost the very truth that gives freedom its meaning.
