What is freedom? If we allow mainstream society to answer this question, we would likely receive a response to the following effect: Freedom is the freedom of choice. Many of us in the church might likewise respond that freedom represents the ability to choose between this or that thing. But does such a definition accurately or comprehensively convey the true meaning of freedom?
If we take a moment to consider, for example, the definition of freedom held by the authors of the Declaration of Independence, the above understanding of freedom's meaning seems notably capricious, fluttery, and superficially transient. Did our nation's forebears sacrifice their lives so we could behave as consumers of a commercialized market that offers the "freedom" to choose which cell phone provider to use, which car to buy, which home to live in, or what TV show to watch? Obviously no. Of course, the Founders knew nothing about the sorts of amenities and technologies we have today; but, to focus on this fact is to miss the point. The Founders did not sacrifice for the freedom to choose but for the freedom to pursue. The Founders rightly understood that freedom implies the ability to behave according to one's fundamental nature. The authors of our Constitution believed that the fundamental nature of humanity is to have life, liberty, and to pursue happiness.
Now, we should take pause to note that liberty is above implied to represent something that we ought to be free to have. Thus, freedom does not equate to liberty, or to libertas, which implies the ability to act as one wills or pleases. Rather, the Founders believed that the will to act as one so chooses represents a fundamental component of one's identity as a human being, whereas freedom, then, represents the freeing of one to behave according to one's fundamental nature to will.
The Founders likewise regarded life and the pursuit of happiness as fundamental to humanity’s nature. Life, that which humanity has long regarded as universally and divinely sacred, ought to have the freedom to persist, grow, and thrive, for all such qualities identify the elements of life. The pursuit of happiness, too, is fundamental to humanity. Though none can be guaranteed happiness, for one must find cause to be happy in one's own way, all ought to have the freedom to pursue happiness, because such is what drives life forward by serving as the goal of the will.
All that I have said hereto I have not said to imply that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness truly comprise humanity’s fundamental nature. I only have desired to show that freedom, which is so valued in American society, has very little to do with what we today have called our "freedoms." What we call freedoms, we should call rights, for the term rights I think is more apt to convey our meaning, since by the use of this term we refer to limits on the group with regard to its potential to act upon the individual. When we say rights, we refer to the group's responsibility to the individual, thus, the term rights, which is implied when we say freedoms, does not fully and completely describe freedom because the term necessitates that the group is bound by the rights of the individual. In any event, my point is that freedom means and only ever does mean the freeing, or the unbinding of a person, creature, or object to act according to its fundamental nature.
With freedom properly defined, let us move on to consider humanity’s fundamental nature. Let us first begin by assuming that the Founders were incorrect to define humanity’s fundamental nature as they did. Though life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness seem all well and good, we must consider the Founders' frame of reference for identifying these three things as fundamental to humanity’s nature. We often assume a Biblical foundation supported the the Founders' reasoning, but we mistakenly ignore the powerful, and arguably more pronounced influence of the Enlightenment on their perception of the world, history, God, and humanity. An important element of Enlightenment ideals that we should consider is the belief that Reason is the fundamental metaphysic that upholds all reality.
One of the more shocking characteristics of this belief was that it entailed that God was subservient to Reason. As it was, and still is today, commonly said, "God cannot contradict Reason." The fact that such a phrase is heretical does not seem overt at first glance because it is so easy to assume that God, more than anyone, would be the most rational of all beings. However, some commonly overlook the fact that by qualifying God as one who cannot contradict Reason, we offer cause to think that God is beholden to a fundamental truth that supersedes Him. Reason, not God, becomes the standard by which all human thoughts, actions, and values are measured. To discover truth, one need not appeal to Scripture, one need only appeal to Reason. Reason, not Revelation, informed the Founders' belief that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were fundamental to humanity’s nature.
This is not to say, however, that the Founders' reason was not colored by Scripture. Indeed, we may rightly argue that no one can engage in rational thought without reference to one's subjective circumstances, and the Founders' circumstances most certainly were filled with references to Scripture. Nevertheless, the Founders, under the influence of the humanistic tendencies of Enlightenment ideals, believed they had arrived at their understanding of humanity’s fundamental nature by the power of Reason, separate from the word of God.
What, then, is humanity’s fundamental nature? I can you that we will certainly fail to answer this question correctly if we make an appeal to reason alone. Our subjective circumstances will most certainly influence the outcome of our logic. Where then should we turn? Let us turn to God, who, as the creator of humanity, knows best what constitutes humanity’s fundamental nature.
From Scripture, God's written revelation to humanity, we know that God has created us with the following characteristic: We have been created in God's image. Though the meaning of this revelation has been hotly debated, we may broadly consider that humanity's fundamental nature is to reflect the image of God. To reflect the image of something, that which reflects must be fundamentally oriented toward that which is being reflected. A mirror cannot reflect light if the mirror is turned away from the source light. Likewise, a human being cannot reflect the light of God if s/he is turned away from God. Thus, if humanity's fundamental nature is to be a reflection of God, humanity must always be oriented toward God.
Freedom for humanity, therefore, is to be freed from that which prevents humanity from reflecting God. Since to reflect God one must be oriented toward God, that which binds a human being is that which turns one away from God. Thus, if we desire freedom, we must avoid being enslaved by whatever may turn us away from God.
And what are the sources of our enslavement? According to Scripture: Any manner of idolatry, wickedness, sexual immorality, hate, despair, conflict, impatience, malice, infidelity, lack of self-control, and anything else that contradicts the Fruit of the Spirit, love for God and neighbor, and God's command to be holy as He is holy. Such forms of slavery as these represent the only true forms of slavery, for no other slavery exists than that which turns one from God. Moreover, no other freedom exists than that of being loosed from those things that prevent humanity from being oriented toward God.
From Scripture we know that slavery to sin can only be broken by Christ. Thus, no other source of freedom exists than Christ. Nothing else, no law, no human provision can offer freedom. Even the Constitution fails to offer freedom, because the Constitution cannot free anyone from sin or fundamentally orient anyone toward God, and its provision of rights does not lead to much more than a preoccupation with capriciousness rather than freedom. I of course do not mean to state that rights do not or cannot serve as a means to achieving good ends. We must be careful, though, to ensure that the provision of rights does not serve to enslave us from acting according to our fundamental nature. Since rights relate to the responsibility of the group to respect the will of the individual, a preoccupation with rights runs the risk of enslaving human beings by orienting them toward their own wills, rather than the will of God.
So, let us who have received the word of God not mistakenly praise our ability to say whatever we want on Facebook, our ability to eat whatever we want, or our ability to read and digest whatever media we want as if such things are the fruits of freedom. We may regard such things as gifts, provided they do not enslave us, but we should never go so far as to call the ability to do such things the freedom to act according to our fundamental nature as human beings. The moment we confuse capricious choice with the freedom to reflect the image of God, we demonstrate how truly enslaved we are.
No comments:
Post a Comment