“What is Free Religion?” (1963) by Imaoka Shin’ichirō (1881-1988)

“What is Free Religion?” by Imaoka Shin’ichirō (1881-1988)
(Dated December of Showa 38 [1963], from “Religion and the Modern World”)

Free Religion in Modern Times 

Free religion emerged as a resistance movement against established religious institutions, doctrines, traditions, and rituals. In the history of modern religions, Unitarianism, Universalism, and Baha’ism are the most notable examples of free religion. The first two were religious reforms in the Christian world that occurred from the 18th to the 19th century. However, initially, they were reforms within Christianity and did not seek to go beyond Christianity itself. In this regard, the Bahá'í Faith, which emerged in the mid-19th century in Persia, stood out as a movement that not only transcended Islam in Persia but also all specific religions worldwide, making it the most thoroughgoing example of free religion.

Last summer [1961], after attending the World Congress of the International Association for Liberal Christianity and Religious Freedom (IALCRF) held in Switzerland [now called the International Association for Religious Freedom], I visited Israel, and one of the main purposes of my visit was to tour the headquarters of the aforementioned Bahá'í Faith in Haifa, a city located in the north of Israel. However, my travel schedule meant that the day of my visit happened to be a Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. While I was aware that Saturdays were considered a holy day in Israel, I did not expect that all transportation would be suspended. As a result I had no choice but to give up on my trip to Haifa which was a great disappointment to me.

However, at that time, my friend from East Jerusalem asserted, “There is no need to go out of our way to visit insignificant sects like the Bahá'í Faith,” and he displayed an attitude that seemed to mock my disappointment. I was surprised because my friend was not the type to make irresponsible remarks, and it made me seriously ponder. Even now, I continue to contemplate this matter. Has the Bahá'í Faith, which was established as a non-specific religion or even a super-specific religion, now solidified into a new specific religion or an unfree religion just in order to have its own organization? Moreover, it seems that both Unitarianism and Universalism are no longer free religions as of today, and it is because of this that they themselves are trying to transcend Unitarianism and Universalism. In fact, both denominations merged last May and declared that they are no longer strictly Christian. They are currently referred to as the Unitarian Universalist Association, but it is likely that they will eventually abandon such old-fashioned names.

Characteristics of Free Religion

Indeed, Free Religion may not involve fixed organizations or forms. So, then, does Free Religion exist separately from organizations or forms like some kind of ghost?  The answer is no. Religion itself and the organization of religion can certainly be distinguished in our minds and, although such a distinction may sometimes be necessary, in reality, the two are inseparable. Any religion without some form of organization or structure remains a mere idea and cannot truly save and guide people. While it cannot be said that an organization or form immediately constitutes religion, it is also impossible for religion to exist without any form of organization or structure. Both disregarding and excessively emphasizing organization or form are mistakes.

Religion can be likened to life. Life is a continuously unfolding process that always takes on some form or shape. There is no life without some kind of form. Moreover, these forms are subject to change, shedding, and constant renewal, and they are by no means permanently unchanging. It is said that the human body completely changes every seven years. Forms are, so to speak, temporary. However, just because something is temporary or transient, we must not undervalue its importance. Regardless of its temporary nature, it remains a necessary and vital aspect at that particular moment.

Therefore, the concept of freedom of religion I am discussing in this essay is more vital, dynamic, creative, autonomous, and continuously renewing and metamorphosing than biological life. It infinitely grows and evolves, much like what is known as the eternal life of Christ. Originally, all religions are of such nature, and Free Religion is, in fact, the true religion. However, due to the prevalence of conservatives and traditionalists who turn dynamic religions into static ones, and fix the temporary and relative forms that should undergo change and renewal as permanent and absolute, we are compelled to raise the banner of Free Religion.

Advocates of Free Religion in World Religious History

As mentioned earlier, Unitarians and Universalists have already shed their old identities and continue to display the authority as pioneers of the Free Religious movement in the contemporary era, especially in America (or the world). However, the Free Religious movement is not solely monopolized by Unitarians and Universalists. Before them, and beyond the Western world, there have been numerous movements advocating freedom of religion, which still persist today.

We must not ignore the fact that there have been remarkable advocates of freedom of religion throughout world religious history. For instance, George Fox, the founder of Quakerism, was a distinguished advocate of Free Religion in 17th-century England. Martin Luther was a great advocate of freedom of religion in 16th-century Germany. Even within medieval Catholicism, groups of mystics were outstanding advocates of Free Religion.

In Japan, figures like Shinran, Dogen, and Nichiren, who led the so-called Kamakura Buddhism, were each distinctive advocates of Free Religion. In 19th-century India, Ram Mohan Roy, Ramakrishna, and Vivekananda were advocates of Free Religion with an Indian essence yet with modern and universal appeal. Looking further back in history, both Buddha and Christ were, in essence, the greatest advocates of Free Religion. Buddha, in his teachings to his disciples, left a teaching saying, “Be a lamp unto yourselves, be your own refuge; seek no other refuge.” This clearly emphasized that the disciples should focus on unfolding their own subjectivity and creativity, rather than viewing Buddha as the founder and relying solely on him. Similarly, Christ left a teaching to his disciples, “Truly, I tell you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do,” expressing his confidence and expectation that his disciples would surpass him and achieve greater things. Neither Buddha nor Christ had any intention of forming organizations that would be called Buddhism or Christianity and be centred around themselves as religious founders.

Freedom of Religion and the Unity of All Religions

In Japan, the Free Religious movement is sometimes mistaken for the concept of “the unity of all religions” (Wan Kyō Kui Ichi 万教帰一運動). However, this is a misunderstanding. The Free Religious movement has always had an aspect of protest and resistance throughout its historical development. Nevertheless, it is not resistance for resistance’s sake, but rather an expression of universal and creative human nature. That is why it holds meaning. The carp in a basin can’t help but leap out. Once it leaps out, it can swim leisurely in a pond full of water. Therefore, harmony or unity always presupposes opposition or resistance. Even if there is the idea of “the unity of all religions”, it doesn’t mean that conflicts and contradictions between various religions don’t exist. Peace can come through compromise or concession.It is in the act of contention that a higher and truer harmony and universality are manifested. From the standpoint of Free Religion, mere tolerance that accepts and reveres anything and everything in the name of religion may not necessarily be a virtue.

Freedom of Religion and Laypersons

As mentioned earlier, Free Religion is an autonomous and creative eternal life that always involves some form of organization. These organizations and forms are not fixed or immutable; they should change and develop with the times.

However, there is a question as to whether the organization and form of the organization should be restricted only to denominations, doctrines, rituals and other religious activities, i.e. those that are usually regarded as particularly sacred. Generally, political and economic spheres are considered secular and non-religious, but is that really the case? Some so-called religious actions can sometimes be more worldly and base than political actions, while economic activities can sometimes be more earnest than so-called religious practices. When comparing the struggle of politicians and industrialists in the real world with that of professional religious practitioners in temples and churches, one may sense a similar level of seriousness and determination as in a life-or-death Kendo competition. As long as human endeavours are expressions and developments of fundamental human nature, aren’t all human actions sacred and religious in essence? A tranquil mind is the path, and every layperson is a religious person. The existence of professional religious practitioners may be considered secondary. Therefore, when Erich Fromm spoke of the presence of true religious individuals among non-clerics such as Condorcet, Saint-Simon, Comte in France, and Lessing, Goethe, and Schiller in Germany, he may have been pointing to this idea.From the standpoint of Free Religion, it is indeed resonant to mention figures like Fichte, Hegel, and Marx in Germany and Paine, Jefferson, and Franklin in America. However, all this raises the question of whether the distinction between secular and sacred disappears and, if politics and economics are also considered religion, whether it might not be more straightforward and convenient to eliminate the word “religion” altogether? But I firmly believe that politics and economics are not inherently religion in and of themselves and for them to be considered religious, they would need to be fundamentally the manifestation of human nature. So, what exactly would connect mere politics and economics to such fundamental aspects?

Established denominations or religious institutions have a part to play in that regard as they derive their meaningful existence from fulfilling such a role. However, in some cases, politics and economics may delve deep into themselves and eventually extend into the domain of religion without necessarily relying on the guidance of denominations or professional religious leaders. Sometimes, specialized religious practitioners may not be able to understand the reality of ideals, the sacred in the secular, or enlightenment amidst worldly existence. Therefore, we must recognize that there are two meanings of religion: the narrow definition commonly referred to as religion, and the broader sense of religion, which includes what is generally not considered as religion. The latter, the broader sense of religion (strictly speaking, it encompasses the narrow sense of religion as well), is precisely what Free Religion represents and it permeates through all aspects of human endeavour. Consequently, from the standpoint of Free Religion, politics, economics, and culture are not mere applications of religious beliefs but inherently sacred religious acts in themselves. (However, it should be noted that this perspective does not contradict the prevailing notion of the separation of religion and state in modern nations). Ultimately, Free Religion is more about the religion of laypersons and non-specialists than the religion of experts. Isn’t it true that laypersons and non-specialists are often more deeply religious than experts?

(Dated December of Showa 38 [1963], “Religion and the Modern World”)