Does Religious Liberty Flow from Religious Duties to the Creator?

On June 26, 2026, the Presidential Religious Liberty Commission (PRLC) issued its draft report, as required by Pres. Trump's 2025 executive order. As the report is pretty lengthy, I will not discuss the whole thing but focus on the question stated in the title of this post: Does religious liberty flow from religious duties to the Creator?

What Is the PRLC?

The PRLC is an advisory committee Pres. Trump created by an executive order. The members of the commission--12 conservative Christians and one conservative Jew--were appointed by Pres. Trump. The more prominent commissioners are Dan Patrick (Lt. Gov. of Texas), Ben Carson (former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development), Robert Barron (Catholic bishop from Minnesota and social media personality), Timothy Dolan (former Catholic archbishop of New York), Franklin Graham (Protestant minister), Dr. Phil McGraw (psychologist and TV host), Eric Metaxas (writer, speaker), and Paula White (Pentecostal minister, prosperity theologian, senior advisor to Pres. Trump).

This political and religious one-sidedness has caused some controversy. Some more liberal Christian individuals and non-Christian religious organizations filed a suit in February 2026 to challenge the lack of religious diversity in the commission that purports to advance religious liberty for all and that must comply with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972. A Catholic member, Carrie Prejean, was dismissed from the commission after she questioned witnesses about the difference between antizionism and antisemitism.

The PRLC is not to be confused with the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which was created by the Congress as an independent, bipartisan federal agency, whose nine members are appointed by the President and Congressional leaders of each party.

Religious Duties and Religious Freedom

Following James Madison, the PRLC defines religion as "the duty owed to the Creator and the manner of fulfilling that duty." Report p. 28. Because all have this duty, all have the right to fulfill this duty, which governments ought to protect.

From Luther's perspective, this definition of religion and religious rights invites the key question based on the First Commandment: Who is the Creator? Related to this first question are other questions: What duty is owed to him? And do those who disagree on who the Creator is also have the right to fulfill the duties owed to whomever they think the Creator is?

Despite the majority of Christians on the PRLC, the report does not state that the Creator is the Holy Trinity. The Jewish commissioner, Rabbi Soloveichik, while politically conservative, would likely have voted against this statement.

Accordingly, the report proceeds in a more diffuse, humanistic manner, describing religion as the quest to answer "ultimate questions" about "the meaning of life and of suffering." While "faith" is the answer to this question for many people, ultimately each person must be free to ask and answer ultimate questions for themselves, without government interference. Report p. 28-29.

From Luther's perspective, this definition of religion as "quest," and "faith" as the answer for many, invites the question what this "faith" is. The report does not define it in any discernible Christian sense as faith in Christ or faith in the one true God. Again, the Jewish commissioner would have voted against this.

Indeed, the PRLC asserts that "religious liberty is for everyone," "for all faiths." "Faith," therefore, seems to be synonymous with "religion," our connection with one another and God, as the report explains. Report p. 29.

The report goes on to state that religious freedom is "our first freedom," the basis for all other freedoms. Unless there is religious freedom, therefore, there can be no freedom at all. That is why, the report explains, totalitarian regimes cannot allow religious freedom. And every limit on religious freedom brings us one step closer to totalitarianism.

For Luther, by contrast, the conscience's freedom from sin by faith in Christ alone is "the first freedom" that is the spiritual center and source of the entire Christian life, including boldness in confessing this faith before kings (Ps. 119:46). This freedom is rooted in God's grace. This grace exists for the sake of Christ's death on the cross alone.

Luther explained all this in his 1520 treatise on Christian liberty, in his lectures on Paul's letter to the Galatians, and in many other writings, sermons, and letters.

Even though he did not live in a liberal democracy or enjoy religious liberty, Luther had the God-given courage to defend true Christian freedom against all sorts of pious or political encroachments that conditioned "the first freedom" on compliance with various religious or moral duties. Yet he also defended Christian freedom against those who would use it "as an opportunity for the flesh" (Gal. 5:13).

According to Luther, carnal freedom is the freedom to do, speak, and think as one pleases--without regard to the natural law of love (Gal. 5:13-14), without regard for God's self-revelation in his biblical Word. Carnal freedom is also the desire to be free from persecutions for the sake of Christ. Evidently, God is not pleased with carnal freedom.

To be free in Christ by faith, and a servant to all in love, Luther did not invoke "religious liberty." He trusted in the one true God, the Holy Trinity, as he had revealed himself in his biblical Word.

The report goes on to discuss various benefits religion has for a self-governing society. Report p. 30. The first benefit mentioned is holding government accountable by appealing to a higher moral law given by the Creator, invoked for example to abolish slavery, establish women's suffrage, and overcome segregation.

From Luther's perspective, it's important to note that the moral law of God is written in the hearts of all people, whether they are religious or not. Even non-religious people may therefore serve as the "conscience of the state," as they too will have an innate sense of justice, of how the neighbor ought to be treated. At the same time, even "religious" people might lack the Holy Spirit. They might therefore be confused about what the moral law of God actually says. For instance, they might be ignorant of the fact that God's moral law is summarized in the Golden Rule and in loving the neighbor as oneself (Matth. 7:12; Gal. 5:14; Rom. 13:8-10).

Importantly, Luther's distinction of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world is not coextensive with the distinction of "church and state" or, more generic, "belief and unbelief." It is not a constitutional, institutional, or political distinction. Rather, it is a spiritual distinction, i.e., a distinction that is rooted in the reception of the Holy Spirit who is received by hearing the gospel (Gal. 3:2, 5). The first freedom of the conscience is only where the Spirit of the one true God is (2 Cor. 3:17).

The same can essentially be said about the other civic benefits attributed to religion in the report: One need not be religious to be a good citizen, be a dedicated parent or child, and to help out one's neighbor. These principles are written in the heart of all people. And while obscured by sin, there is still enough of those principles visible to make human life together possible to some extent.

At the same time, not all "religious" people will be true Christians, i.e., those who will be truly free because they have received the Holy Spirit by hearing the gospel concerning Christ's death for the sins of the world. The fact that "religious" people may tie the moral imperative within them to some higher power may or may not lead to greater moral probity, because they might be confused about the contents of the moral law. They might also lack the courage to act on their convictions.

As Luther recognized, the mere existence of a commandment does not result in the fulfillment of that commandment. That is due to the pervasive reality and bondage of sin from which only the Holy Spirit can set people free. But, as noted, the Holy Spirit is not some generally available supernatural force into which all "religious" people can tap. The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity who is received only through the gospel.

The report describes "religious liberty" as "bridge between God and government." Report p. 34. This is a strange formulation, as biblically Christ is the one mediator between God and all people (1 Tim. 2:5).

Regardless, here's how the report puts it: "Religious liberty is understood as the proper allocation of authority between religion--both individual beliefs and public, communal religious practices--and government power." Report p. 34.

What's "proper" is not defined based on God's Word. It's defined based on the U.S. Constitution: "The government does not have the authority to interfere with the free exercise of religion." Report p. 34. While the report teaches--based on the Declaration of Independence--that religious liberty is a freedom/right that comes from God (Report p. 38), it appears to suggest that government is a creation of humans that must be so ordered that it does not interfere with God-given freedoms and rights, such as religious liberty.

From Luther's perspective, this shows that this report operates on a humanistic basis because it does not recognize that the government was established by God as his servant to glorify God by serving its people in love (Rom. 13). God is therefore above the government. God, not the U.S. Constitution, determines what the role of government is when it comes to religion, religious liberty, and everything else, for example the economy--which is not addressed in the report at all.

The report cites the allegedly beneficial effects of religious liberty when it came to overcoming Jim Crow (Report p. 34). But some might disagree, especially on this point. Religion--Christianity, in fact--has been invoked to justify racial segregation, such as at Bob Jones University and various segregationist academies in the South. If the government does not have any authority to interfere with the free exercise of religion--and if any interference with the free exercise of religion is tyranny--then it's not clear how "religious liberty" was the trump card in overcoming Jim Crow.

Conclusion

The PRLC report's foundational chapter linking religious duties to religious freedom is based on a mix of human rights, psychology (thanks, Dr. Phil!), and the American constitutional tradition. In other words, this chapter does not lay a genuinely Christian basis for life together in a religiously diverse society that is governed by principles of equity, prudence, and love--understood as tolerance and service--written in the hearts of all people.

That foundation exists in biblical texts such as 1 Cor. 13 and Romans 13. Studying Luther--e.g., by reading my book on God's masks--can help understand this basis.

Christians are free to live a life of tolerance and service in the power of the Holy Spirit to foster peace in society. In peace, the church can then proclaim the gospel that gives true freedom, the first freedom--not to do as one pleases, but to be free before God--which produces love that serves the neighbor in humility.