Redefining "Freedom" in the Land of the Free

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.

Responding to Ferguson: A New Perspective on a Contemporary Debate

When we consider the racial, ethnic, socioeconomic conflicts of our day (and throughout time) a number of questions arise for us. How can these conflicts be conquered? Which side should we join? Are any of the sides even right?

Someone very wise once told me that the proper role of an intellectual, when in the midst of factions, is that of neutral mediator. Rather than arguing for this or that side, the intellectual should make an effort to educate people on all sides of a conflict, making all parties aware of what truly hangs in the balance. The intellectual should also strive to offer a new way of perceiving and approaching the issue at hand. While two conflicting groups may have an unwillingness to consider their opponent's perspective, both sides may willingly consider a third perspective, provided this third perspective is presented in a non-combative way. It is my intent to apply this method to the issue of racism currently gripping places such as Ferguson, MO.

We may broadly say that two factions exist in the Ferguson conflict: 1) those who argue that America's justice system is inherently racist in that it profiles against minorities; 2) those who argue that the justice system works perfectly fine.

Despite what many think, this conflict has nothing to do with the shooting of Michael Brown, nor the court case that followed wherein officer Wilson, Brown's shooter, was acquitted of murder charges. The events that transpired in Ferguson, tragic though they were, escalated as they did, much in part, as a result of the high level of media coverage. What would have otherwise gone unnoticed turned into a sideshow with a national audience. This is not to say, however, that the anger and hostility witnessed in Ferguson has no founded legitimacy. To the contrary, this uproar is the result of a more pressing issue.

Regardless of this issue's legitimacy, the claim that racism is the causal foundation of the riots and looting in Ferguson invariably serves as a distraction. How? It does so by proffering racism as the root of the problem, as the disease that under-girds our "broken" justice system. As a result, many have been distracted from recognizing that at the root of racism lies a more pronounced and fundamental ailment. And if we ignore the true disease, then we ultimately ignore the true cure.  Moreover, if we focus on the wrong disease, we inevitably will apply the wrong cure.

At the moment, the media, and many other talking heads, have diagnosed the nation as suffering from a broken, racially discriminatory justice system. The cure they prescribe is sweeping reforms, and protests in the meantime to raise awareness and bend public opinion to the demands of those seeking reform.

Without denying the need for reform, I would suggest that the diagnosis presented above is mistaken, in that what has been called a disease is in reality only one symptom of a deeper and more destructive disease. At the moment, it's as if the media and other outspoken voices have diagnosed a headache and prescribed aspirin when the source of the headache is in fact a brain tumor. The aspirin will only suffice to alleviate pain for a short while, but it will fail to end the headaches from recurring. In the same way, reforms will only make things aright for a short while, but they will fail to bring true healing or prevent the recurrence of racial mistrust.

If we ignore the true disease, then we will ignore the true cure. But, if we recognize the true disease, we will recognize the true cure. And if we recognize the true cure, we can apply it. So what is the true disease? The true disease is sin. More specifically, it is slavery to sin, which prevents us from freely behaving as God intended. Sin prevents us from being reflections of God's image. Sin prevents us from being holy as God is holy. Sin prevents us from loving God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. Sin prevents us from loving our neighbors as we should.

Sin not only results in racial profiling, it results in looting and violent riots. Sin creates division by ripping people apart based on race, money, accent, and political affiliation. Sin turns neighbors into illegal and legal residents, blacks and whites, Republicans and Democrats, Catholics and Baptists.

And what is the cure for sin? It is Christ crucified and resurrected. In Christ, humanity is freed from that which impedes humanity from acting as God intended. Through Christ, we can be free to reflect the image of God, to be holy as God is holy, to love God with our whole being, and to love our neighbors as we ought. Any other cure will not do.

The problem at hand is not a broken justice system. The problem is that people, no matter their color or station in life, fail to recognize that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Until people recognize the real problem, the effects of sin will continue to pervade the world. Another Ferguson will arise, more violent riots will follow, and all parties involved will only harden their hearts. No side is innocent. No matter who is the "victim," no matter who is the "transgressor," all are slaves to sin who fail to hear the truth.

And so let us, who know the truth, proclaim it!

The Other Side of the Pacifism Debate

By Miles Williams

In my last post, I played pacifist; not because I'm absolutely certain that I hold such a position, but rather to give voice to the position. Not to be biased, and to further give equal voice to an alternative position, the essay which follows is a critique, more or less, of John Howard Yoder's brand of pacifism. Once again, I don't hold a sure position on this issue, so take the sincerity of this post for whatever you think it's worth.

Two Points of Contention

Though I find many aspects of Yoder’s arguments for pacifism compelling, I cannot yet totally commit to the notion that pacifistic approaches to violence are always required by God.  I specifically would like to push back on two components of Yoder’s case which I think are the greatest shortcomings or weakness with his argument:  (1) Yoder’s pacifism makes sense in the case of self-sacrifice vs self-defense, but not in the case of sacrifice of another vs defense of another; (2) in contrast to what Yoder posits, the fact that “just war” [war done for the sake of justice; not for the sake of interplay between the egoistic desires of states] seems an unlikely occurrence is not solid grounds for casting aside the entire concept.

Regarding 1, my primary qualm with Yoder is more or less a personal misgiving I have for neglecting the use of violence when its use might serve to defend an innocent victim.  Perhaps my concern is a consequence of having watched too many superhero movies, but I feel this concern is the most common objection among many who hesitate to adopt pacifism wholesale.  For instance, what would be the best course of action if a serial rapist/murderer were to break into my home and attempt to assault my wife?  Should I just sit idle, justifying my inaction upon the premise that my wife has been given occasion to “accept innocent suffering without complaint” as Christ did on the cross (Yoder, 124)?  I must say “no”!  Yoder quotes 1 Peter 3:14-18, which states:  “It is better to suffer in well-doing…than for doing wrong.  For Christ also died for our sins…He, the just, suffered for the unjust” (124).  I cannot conceive, though, of what good my wife’s suffering would do in the above scenario.  If anything, I am most inclined to say that I would be the one doing wrong for not acting to defend my wife against the injustice about to be done to her.  I believe the nature of Christ’s suffering was of the sort that served to benefit others; and though we could say that her suffering would benefit the rapist/murderer, the beneficence would not be of a worthy or just nature.  Under such circumstances, even if I would have to kill the man attempting to assault my wife, I would consider inaction the greater sin.

Regarding 2—a point which I think we might appropriately conceive as an extension of point 1—Yoder states the following:  “The doctrine of ‘just war’ is an effort to extend into the realm of war the logic of the limited violence of police authority—but not a very successful one.  There is some logic to the ‘just war’ pattern of thought but very little realism” (204).  Contextually speaking, Yoder is writing in reference to Romans 13:1-7, a passage whereby many Christians have justified their participating in military action and police action for the benefit of the state.  While Yoder believes that this Romans passage may be suggesting that limited police action might be a role to which a Christian could be subject, he believes war does not apply.  However, if, as Yoder himself indicates, “just war” is nothing more than an international form of police action, what is there to distinguish it from police action within national borders?  Moreover, what is there to distinguish “just war” from the sort of defense to which I allude in point 1?  If I am correct that violent defense may be justified under certain interpersonal circumstances, then it may also be the case that such action can be taken in international circumstances as well.  Moreover, though there is a fair amount of reasonableness to Yoder’s assertion that the occurrence of a “just war” is implausible, implausibility is not sufficient grounds for dismissing the entire concept.

Paul says in Romans 12: 18, “If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (NRSV).  This passage is surrounded by admonishments from Paul to the Christians living in Rome to live peaceably and lovingly with one another.  Paul also tells them to bless their persecutors, to not overcome evil with evil, and to let God be the arbiter of vengeance.  Verse 18 stands as the only potential exception to the entirety of Paul’s message; one not mentioned by Yoder and one which, I think, gives leeway to for considering that indiscriminate pacifism may not always be warranted.

Source

• Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus. 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Williams B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994. Print.

Reconciling Pacifism with Old Testament Violence

By Miles Williams

What you see below does not necessarily represent my position on pacifism. I simply don't have a strong position on the issue, because, well, I'm not certain whether or not I agree with all its tenants. I'm more so posting this article to (1) start stirring the pot a bit and (2) to give voice to a position which I think, regardless of my beliefs about it, needs to be wrestled with and thought about by the Christian community. I wrote this essay for one of my classes, where I had to pretend I was responding to a letter from a friend who questioned how I could possibly maintain a pacifist position given the violence found in the Old Testament. Even though this essay may make me sound like a pacifist, I'm only pretending to be one for the sake of doing the assignment (once again, I don't know whether or not I agree with pacifism or not).

Dear friend, 

Your question regarding how I could possibly maintain a pacifist position, given the violence in the Old Testament, is understandable.  I hope the following argument will adequately demonstrate the veracity of my position, or at the very least, I hope that the following will clarify the matter for you. 

Many people mistakenly approach the Old Testament as if it held some pertinent answer to the question of “whether the taking of human life is morally permissible or forbidden under all circumstances?”  An ancient Israelite would never have conceived of such a modern question.  As John Howard Yoder indicates in his book The Politics of Jesus, “rather than reading with the modern question in mind, whether it confirms certain moral generalizations or not, the Israelite read it [the Torah] as his or her own story, as the account of his or her own past throwing light on who he or she was” (76).  As modern people, therefore, we ought to not neglect the intended meaning of the Old Testament—that it is narrative.  Though, of course, I do not mean to say that the Old Testament stories fail to convey moral truths.  However, if we want to gain a clearer understanding of what the violent stories in the Old Testament should tell us about morality, and about the nature of God, we need to first consider what the Israelite saw as significant about these stories.

            

According to Yoder, “one of the traits of the Old Testament story, sometimes linked with bloody battles but also sometimes notably free of violence, is the identification of YHWH as the God who saves his people without their needing to act” (76).  The Exodus story, for example, serves as a harrowing tale of God saving his people from captivity, without any need on their part to act.  The Israelites’ only call from YHWH was to believe and obey, while God did the work of defeating the Egyptians. 

            

Further on in Exodus, in chapter 17, we see the Israelites in battle with the Amalekites.  To the Israelite reader, the story is portrayed in such a way as to demonstrate the power of God; not the glorification of violence.  Moses, out of his own frustration with the Israelite people, endeavors to attack the Amalekites.  Yoder indicates, “this time Moses and Joshua respond in their own way to the Amalekites’ attack; they fight their own battle.  Yet the battle goes against them when Moses’ tiring arms lower the symbolic ‘rod of God,’ and they prevail only as the rod is again held aloft” (77; emphasis mine).  God, thus, gets the credit for victory; not the military prowess of Israel.

           

Sometimes, too, we see war portrayed as a negative consequence of Israel, or of its kings, failing to trust in YHWH.  In 2 Chronicles 16, we see King Asa chastised by a prophet for allying with the king of Syria rather than relying on God.  Asa is told by the prophet, “from now on you will have wars” (Yoder, 80).  War, then, can be a potential negative consequence of failing to trust YHWH.

            

While we as modern readers may look at the above stories and say “see, God does condone violence,” such is not what an Israelite would say.  The Israelite, instead, would look at the above stories and say “see, God saves his people when they believe in him and are obedient to his commands.”  These stories are not intended to offer us normative ethics regarding violence.  They rather convey the truth that God saves his people when they believe in him and obey him.  We moreover see, post Babylonian Exile, the emergence of a belief in YHWH as the miraculous preserver of the Israelite people—both in stories wherein military activity is used, and wherein no weapons are required.  “YHWH is an alternative to the self-determining use of Israel’s own military resources in defense of their existence as God’s people” (Yoder, 83).  Pacifism, therefore, is a position whereby I am simply saying that I will trust and obey God, and let him fight my battles for me.  Such was the perspective held by the Israelites who were always outnumbered and outmatched by superior enemies.  If you are still intent on the use of violence, however, there is good Biblical precedent for taking a sling and a stone to a machinegun fight.

Source:

• Yoder, John Howard.  The Politics of Jesus.  2^nd Ed.  Grand Rapids:  William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994.

Jesus & Government: What Is the Christian's Place in 21st Century Politics?

Do Religion and Politics Mesh...?

If you're a follower of Christ (or not), and you happen to have stumbled upon this website, and you happen to live in the 21st century, and you happen to care about national and international political goings-on, then this site is for you! Not necessarily because you'll find definitive answers here regarding how your faith in Christ ought to translate into what you do in the "political sphere." Rather this site is here to equip you to consider a host of questions and issues regarding the church's relation to the "state;" issues which the church has long wrestled with since the advent of Jesus.

....Let's Stir the Pot and See!

Moreover, with this site we'll address possible responses Christians might consider in dealing with numerous hot-button contemporary issues--i.e. immigration, welfare, healthcare, same-sex marriage, the legalization of marijuana, terrorism, foreign affairs, and much more.

While we can't promise you the ultimate answers, we hope to enable you to ask the right questions (whatever those are!).