Any discussion about freedom should specify what the freedom is from. The personal freedom to do something is omnipresent; the more relevant issue is the action's consequences.
I have the freedom to cross between states of my nation. Even if there were prohibitions and patrols, I'd nevertheless still have the freedom to cross between states. I'd be detained and/or charged, but my personal freedom to provoke those reactions (or not) is never in question. In this case, the actual freedom described is freedom from government interference of my state-crossings. Put another way, each person is free in his or her own soul. We possess the human dignity of decision-making at all times. In that sense, no one is ever "granted freedoms" that he or she didn't have already.
When a believer or an unbeliever says or sings "I am free", the statement ascribes no additional attributes to "I". "I" wouldn't be "I", if "I" wasn't free. The immediate question to "I am free" shouldn't be "Free to do what?" but "Free from what?"
Without this context, Christianity's concept of freedom can befuddle. For some people, freedom implies being able to do whatever is in one's power. Whereas for the Christian, that freedom is assumed for everybody in any case. Christianity's freedom then must be "freedom froms", not "freedom tos". Christianity's freedom is freedom from Hell, from selfishness, from fear, from despair. Some unbelievers see Christianity and freedom as opposites because God's demands of holiness draw firm bounds around a number of "freedom tos". They don't see that coupled with this list of behavioral limits is a long list of "freedom froms". In alternative words whose coarseness approaches rank inaccuracy, the Christian "trades" lordship over his own life--a lordship that might not be going at all well--for freedom from sinful bondage now and freedom from eternal punishment later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment