Worldview Fragment: restriction is freedom

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

All of the worldview fragments covered up until this one enjoy current (really perennial) popularity, but are also misleading or unbalanced in sometimes-subtle ways. Each fragment is commonly accepted by people who have nothing to do with Christianity. However, these fragments can sometimes confuse Christians who have heedlessly picked them up...or who simply haven't heard counterbalancing truths.

The worldview fragment "restriction is freedom" is different. It isn't popular, and least of all among the anti-religious. Its downfall isn't in being enticing yet somewhat false, but in being disconcerting yet somewhat true. Some practices and branches of Christianity have deeply embraced this fragment, while others "theoretically" agree with it but typically ignore it. Like the other fragments, it has been mixed with many compatible worldviews beside Christianity. And people and cultures have discovered it more or less independently of Christianity.

"Restriction is freedom" is a short name for the tricky belief that behavioral restrictions can lead to freedom from a detrimental influence. What makes it tricky is the juxtaposition of opposite concepts. On first hearing, it sounds nonsensical, like stating greater heat will cool someone off. How can someone claim to gain freedom by allowing less?

The solution to the contradiction is apparent after admitting the ultimate freedom of all people, free will to make significant decisions, is afflicted by a multitude of bondage-inducing interferences. Personal freedom is simultaneously inviolate and continually buffeted. The most extreme case is addiction, in which someone faces pains of withdrawal that would stoop just short of making the decision for him or her. The least extreme case is a whim or hunch, which vanish when brushed aside or not acted upon.

It's singularly foolish (or, if you prefer, supremely bold) to try to live consistently without recognizing and manipulating the extent of the opposing forces. The person who seriously wants to pursue a goal should observe the interconnectedness of decisions. One shaky, not even arguably evil, decision can lead to a situation that presents a genuine good-and-evil dilemma. Christianity admonishes people to flee temptation. Some of the "hard", "unreasonable" stances some Christians assume on certain activities may be due to the attempt to preemptively avoid opportunities to sin. Naturally, those Christians who can honestly, before God and self, claim total mastery/freedom over the related temptation(s), don't need to do so. To put this into non-Christian terms, a dieter shouldn't be surrounded by no-no foods, and a recovering alcoholic shouldn't be surrounded by problem drinkers. Willpower, especially supplemented by the Holy Spirit, is great, but hardly infallible. When it's weak from lack of practice or has a dismal record in one specific area, it shouldn't be counted on.

Freedom through restriction is beneficial for preventing tough settings, but it is a still more important weapon for breaking shackles that can't be outran: the inner life, with its lusts and compulsions. Many of these desires and drives are natural, and when exercised in the proper outlets could be considered neutral or holy. Once redirected into perversions or overindulged, however, the quality of innocence is gone: all that's left is a clinging urge to do wrong. At that point, someone is at civil war within him- or herself. The situation is serious. For Christians, who believe entanglement in sin produces spiritual death, the situation is literally deadly. Seeking out God, support of others, a renewed commitment to directing the impulse properly, and thoughtful contemplation/refocusing in the midst of the struggle will all be helpful.

Freedom through restriction is a more drastic technique. It entails foregoing not only unlawful gratification, but also lawful gratification, within well-defined limits. By doing this, greater control and strength are asserted. Power is restored to the person's soul, as the very fuel and habit of the specific lust is denied. Failure in carrying out the rule of restriction is treated similar to an actual sin, though not bearing the same weight of guilt: confession, pondering on the failure's root, and repentance. The goal is to train oneself to rely more fully on God during the time of restriction, and to put the problem into adjusted perspective. Interestingly, restricting the action of one inner weakness can lead to increased freedom from other inner weaknesses too. This is one explanation for the importance many Christians have placed on fasting, whether during Lent or in more frequent intervals.

As mentioned earlier, Christianity is not alone in its use of the "restriction is freedom" worldview fragment. Self-denial as a means to self-control is widely applicable. Although it may seem ridiculous in a culture whose attention is riveted on pursuit of pleasure (no matter the time or place of that culture), it in fact makes a lot of good sense.