Protecting one’s moral faculties to pursue moral goods by law ensures human beings and communities reach their proper end, which is consistent with the idea of the common good in Christian social teaching. From this perspective, free speech is a matter of political justice, since speech allows us as created beings and citizens to obtain the goods necessary for our flourishing.

Abstract

This essay develops a distinctly Christian theology of free speech in response to mounting threats of censorship across Western societies. We argue that freedom of speech is not merely a political concession of liberal democracies but arises from humanity’s nature as rational agents made in the image of God, created to be seekers and speakers of truth. Speech is both a constitutive feature of human selfhood and an instrumental good through which individuals and communities pursue moral goods and the common good. After examining the biblical purposes of speech, the limits of civil government’s authority, and the moral logic of human rights, we contend that a Christian account of free speech requires a dual affirmation: positively, that individuals have a duty to speak truthfully; and negatively, that governments bear a heavy burden of proof before restricting expression. Free speech thus serves as a shield against government overreach, a safeguard of human fallibility, and a vital condition for truth-seeking in a pluralistic world. While not absolute, free speech must enjoy a presumption of liberty if societies are to order themselves toward truth and resist the perennial temptation of tyranny.

The post-war liberal order was premised on the idea of the open society: that Western democracies would demonstrate their superiority by their commitment to openness, transparency, and the free exchange of information and ideas. Yet at present, we are witnessing a great closing of the very societies that once prided themselves on the free exchange of ideas. These regimes, which still see themselves as opposing totalitarianism and censorship, are falling prey to soft and hard forms of both.

New examples seem to emerge almost weekly. To name but a few:

• In the United Kingdom, pro-life advocates have been arrested and convicted of violating “buffer zone” laws for offering a consensual conversation, holding a sign, or silently praying outside abortion facilities.
• In Ireland, a teacher was arrested for refusing to use a student’s opposite-sex pronouns. In the United States, public schools punished several teachers for using biologically correct pronouns and forbade a 12-year-old student from wearing a t-shirt that said, “There are only two genders.”
• In Finland, a longtime member of parliament, Paivi Räsänen, is on trial at the nation’s highest court for merely expressing her Christian beliefs on marriage.
• According to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, the US government actively pressured social media companies to censor dissenting voices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Months later, Zuckerberg acknowledged that Meta’s content moderators had been guilty of letting political biases influence their content moderation decisions.
• In August 2024, ahead of a planned X interview with then-candidate Donald Trump, the European Commission publicly warned Elon Musk to police content on X that “may incite violence, hate and racism.” The Commission vowed to “make full use of our toolbox” under the Digital Services Act, a 2022 EU law that enables online censorship.
• In the media, it is not uncommon to see mainstream outlets like The New York Times or Washington Post run headlines questioning robust free speech protections—for example, “The First Amendment Is Out of Control” and “Why America Needs a Hate Speech Law.”

Famed writer Walter Kirn, by no means a conservative, observed in September 2024,

The last few days have seen an almost symphonic surge of attacks on our most fundamental rights, by officials, newspapers, politicians, celebrities, & academics. It’s not rhetoric anymore, it’s an organized massing of institutional forces prior to big moves which seem imminent.1

Americans often take for granted the value of free speech, viewing it not just as beneficial but essential to our political order. Meanwhile, a growing number of right-leaning thinkers are calling for increased restrictions on speech. But what does Christianity have to say on the matter? Do Christians, as Christians, have anything distinct to contribute to the conversation on free speech?

While Christian reflection on free speech as such has been admittedly thin, we contend that Christianity offers a rich foundation for grounding a modern concept of free speech.

The purpose of this essay is to explore the connections between Christian theology and free speech.2 Our thesis is that human beings, as rational agents made in God’s image, are made to be truth-seekers and truth-speakers. These dual realities of man’s nature and purpose ground a Christian theology of free speech. Obtaining the truth by receiving it through speech acts—and supremely, the speech act of God as revealed in Scripture—compels the Christian to speak faithfully in accordance with the truth. We will also consider the effects of sin on society and its institutions, and how ideas like human fallibility and eschatology should caution us against granting the government too much authority over the boundaries of speech.

Our central task is to develop a “theology of free speech.”3 We do so by exploring (1) the relationship between the image of God and the purpose of freedom; (2) the purpose of human speech in Scripture; (3) the purpose of civil government and the jurisdictions it can claim rightful authority over; and (4) a Christian understanding of human rights. Once those areas are explored, a fifth section ties these reflections together to posit a theology of free speech. In this final section, we give sustained attention to defining free speech theologically in the context of human rights while considering the proper scope of free speech in the law.

1. Freedom and the Image of God

A central tenet of Christian theology is that human beings are made in the image of God (Gen 1:26–28). The Christian tradition has offered a rich and profound evaluation of the ontological worth of human beings. While theologians have differed on the precise meaning and scope of the imago Dei, there is broad agreement that bearing God’s image involves at least three essential aspects: rationality, self-constitution (or agency), and freedom.

The first element, rationality, refers to the notion that God has made human beings unique in our cognitive powers. Unlike the rest of creation, we can deliberate and make choices. In addition, we can speak—that is, create meaning with the sounds of our mouths or the writing of our hands to reflect the deliberative judgments of human cognition. In this, we reflect our Creator, whose words correspond to his mind, will, and action.4 Indeed, we cannot overlook the significance of God’s creative agency in what the Bible refers to as the “Word,” identified as Jesus Christ in John 1. The “Word” and “words” share a coterminous origin in creative and purposeful agency.

The second element, self-constitution, refers to human beings’ capacity to live authentically according to the settled judgments of their conscience. How humans communicate is an emanation of our own willful choice to order our lives how we see fit. Humans exercise a God-like agency in their ability to create and name (Gen 1:3; 2:19). Indeed, central to the task of exercising dominion is “vice-regency”—a call to rule and reign on behalf of God—and this includes speaking as a constitutive element of being human.

A third element of bearing God’s image is the freedom we possess. God grants us ontological freedom, ensuring that we are not automatons. We also possess moral freedom in how we choose to order our lives. Though constrained by the effects of sin, rationality and self-constitution require a corresponding catalyst for their fulfillment: freedom. Yet freedom, in the Christian view, is not merely a lack of constraint upon human decision-making. Rather, certain human choices will align with God’s created order and purpose, and freedom exists precisely for this end.

Without freedom, a rational agent’s self-constituting dynamism is extinguished, reducing him to a kind of robotic slavery or servitude. In Christian nomenclature, freedom is not merely the ability to pursue whatever desires well up inside us; freedom is constrained by the reality of order and purpose. Freedom as wants versus oughts is the decisive factor in understanding Christian liberty. Christian liberty, properly understood, is not synonymous with using one’s agency however one wishes. Instead, true liberty is the ability for the moral agent to order his or her actions in conformity with God’s will for creation. Speech is an essential property, corollary, and outworking of our rationality and agency that seeks outward propulsion in bringing order to God’s world.

2. The Biblical Purpose of Speech

Scripture is rich with moral instruction on the purpose of our speech. In Matthew 15, Jesus says that the character of our speech reflects the state of our relationship with God (Matt 15:17–19). It has a life-giving and preservative element (Col 4:6). Speech is assumed to be both the platform and method of interaction and coordination between individuals and entire societies. It is no exaggeration to say that the drama of Scripture unfolds primarily through speech acts.

Scripture implies that speech is creative, arising from a conscientious declaration of settled judgments (Gen 1:3, 2:19; Rom 14:5). Speech is likened to sustenance that nourishes (Prov 10:21). We are called to honor God in every area of life, including with our speech (1 Cor 10:31). Speech is a form of intellectual interrogation and expression through which to contend for Christianity’s truthfulness (Col 2:8). Speech is critical to preaching and evangelism (Matt 28:19–20; Acts 17; 22–26; Eph 6:19–20). Indeed, if there is a meta-telos of free speech, we might locate it in 1 Thess 2:15–16. These verses highlight both the imperative of proclaiming the gospel and the severe consequences of losing free speech. Those who censor the gospel are described as “hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved.”

In general, Scripture depicts speech as a powerful tool capable of bringing about great harm or great good (Jas 3:2–12). Words are likened to spears, swords, and arrows in their ability to affect emotional states (Ps 57:4; 64:3; Jer 9:8). There are also biblical injunctions on speech. Scripture forbids falsehood, obscenity, slander, and corrupting talk (Exod 20:7, 16; Lev 19:11; Eph 4:15, 25, 29; Col 3:8–9; Titus 3:2). Above all, we are called to “speak the truth in love” (Eph 4:15).

This paper focuses on “speech” through verbal and written utterances. Speech by itself is an instrumental good that serves the pursuit of moral goods. The value of any particular utterance will vary based on its content, but the human faculty to speak such utterances always reflects the creative agency of God as inscribed on the human being as made in God’s image. Moral goods are self-evident and valuable ends of human action, reflecting human excellence by fulfilling our nature as human beings. Among these goods are life, play, practical reasonableness, knowledge, family, friendship, beauty, and religion.5

While the freedom to speak is an inherent, pre-political right, government recognizes this right by enshrining freedom of speech as a “negative” political and legal right, thus limiting state coercion in matters of expression. This negative right is intrinsically good because it safeguards the faculty of truth-seeking.

Fundamentally, utterances and expressions are not ends in themselves. A general “freedom of speech,” taken out of its political context and understood as an absolute theological right to say whatever one wishes, is alien to Scripture. In Scripture, truth and virtue condition our speech toward the highest virtue of love (Eph 4:15). Yet “freedom of speech,” as a negative political right, protects the faculty of truth-seeking. It is therefore a necessary means of securing an intrinsic human good.

3. Speech and the Purpose of Government

Scripture and the overwhelming testimony of church history affirm a positive role for government within God’s created order. For example, Romans 13:1–7 and 1 Peter 2:13–17 establish the government’s authority, mandate, and competency to maintain order and administer justice in political communities. Government exists to punish evil and protect the creational context in which the dominion mandate can unfold. Since Scripture does not grant government unlimited authority, it follows that its authority is inherently limited.

Throughout history, Christians have debated the precise spheres in which government is competent to exercise its authority.6 A helpful way to determine the proper scope of government authority and judgment is to consider three interrelated questions:7

tIn Christian theology, the government’s authority to judge has traditionally been limited to external arenas and physical interactions, given the difficulty of discerning what lies within a person’s heart and mind. Theologians have found in Matthew 22:15–22 a foundation for a broad distinction between man’s interior life (private and subject to God) and exterior life (public and subject to governing authorities).8 Admittedly, it is not always clear to which category speech belongs. While speech originates in the heart, it impinges on public order, which is doubtlessly within the purview of the government’s interest. Compounding the difficulty of speech’s exact domain, speech is a non-physical action that springs from an internal forum. Yet determining when and how speech-related issues may warrant government intervention is a highly volatile question, and Scripture gives no definitive guidance on the matter. On the surface, Scripture does not appear to grant the government explicit authority over speech. This absence is significant, especially given how deeply speech is tied to the interior life of the person. To place speech under government control, then, would be to cede tremendous authority over a fundamental liberty that implicates the soul.9

4. Christianity and Human Rights

“Rights” discourse always risks running afoul of the Bible’s language, since “rights-talk” is ladened with modern concepts of individualism that are foreign to Scripture. Indeed, rights-talk is now so pervasive in the West that it is used to justify both goods and evils alike.10 Still, Christian thought has reflected deeply on the relationship between Christian theology and natural political rights.11 A consensus has emerged that “rights,” as we know them, originate from moral duties that God commands of human subjects. Carl F. H. Henry states, “The Bible has a doctrine of divinely imposed duties; what moderns call human rights are the contingent flipside of those duties.”12 The Roman Catholic Church’s 1963 Pacem in Terris also grounds rights in duties:

The natural rights of which We have so far been speaking are inextricably bound up with as many duties, all applying to one and the same person. These rights and duties derive their origin, their sustenance, and their indestructibility from the natural law, which in conferring the one imposes the other.13

The encyclical explicitly cites free speech as a right: “The right to be free to seek out the truth [involves] the duty to devote oneself to an ever deeper and wider search for it.”14

The moral logic of rights is as follows: A duty—for example, to speak truthfully—requires the ability to exercise the moral power of speech.

Read More