“There is nothing more difficult to outgrow than anxieties that have become useful to us, whether as explanations for a life that never quite finds its true force or direction, or as fuel for ambition, or as a kind of reflexive secular religion that, paradoxically, unites us with others in a shared sense of complete isolation: you feel at home in the world only by never feeling at home in the world. ”
Freedom is rarely a talking point, in my experience, where there is much division. In an American context, freedom is the bedrock for our nation and an honorable one at that. I believe freedom to be a noble pursuit, but it has devolved into a sinister sense of selfishness in its current state. When freedom becomes more about me and my ability to exert my will upon daily life, rather than choosing to promote the common good and serving God and neighbor, Christians lose the plot on multiple levels.
I think that our idea of freedom, one of personal autonomy and “what is best for me,” could be opposed to our commitment to faith in Christ, as it very often leads us toward selfishness and away from vulnerable and hurting communities and individuals. This idea of personal autonomy becomes a crutch that we use to soothe our fears, whether warranted or outlandish, in an attempt to control the uncontrollable circumstances in our lives. Since said freedom seeks to relieve, the tension between our convictions of liberty and personal sovereignty becomes helpful to us and a tool of combatting those we disagree with on various topics, thus sowing division and leading us away from one another.
In many ways, this piece is my pursuit of understanding freedom in our modern context. As a believer, I hope you join me in attempting to understand. Before we dive into the levels of tension between our ideas of freedom and practical application, let us take a look at what Christian freedom means compared to American freedom. It is essential to outline their value and costs associated with successful application in our daily lives. I believe American Freedom fails to holistically address our humanity in its application, whereas Christian Freedom seeks to sit with all of our human frailty. There is grace in recognizing these weak areas in our lives. There is also a significant risk to our Americanness as we shed the pieces of ourselves that keep us from experiencing the fullness of Christ.
American Freedom
Let us begin with American Freedom, as I believe we are much more familiar with it than Christian Freedom, even as believers. In its most basic form, even American Freedom has checks and balances. David French writes:
American Freedom provides a level of autonomy, unlike really anything the world has seen in a sociopolitical realm, though as mentioned, we are still catching up with creating an environment that welcomes all people to this rich tradition of possibility. I believe this statement from our Declaration of Independence encapsulates quite a bit of truth concerning our freedom as people. However, what is the end of this freedom? Or maybe more clearly, in what direction does this freedom seek to lead us? In a society like ours, I believe it leads us toward short-sighted solutions that promise wholeness but leave us searching for the next tier of personal freedom through money, product, and isolation.
Enlightenment ideas such as Descartes’s “I think; therefore I am” shape our view of self and freedom more than we’d like to admit. This philosophical statement offers a level of autonomy, showing that we define our being and our independence according to our ability to think. By subtly dehumanizing our nature, we reduce ourselves from “human beings” to “human thinkings” in mere seconds. These philosophical ideas that shape our nations and communities shape us, whether we are aware of them or not.
When the mind becomes the primary tool for action, we sideline the rest of ourselves. It also eases our ability to cut people off and dehumanize them. When the way you think is all that matters, differences of thought become a death sentence. In 1944, Jean-Paul Sartre wrote the following concerning German occupied Paris:
“Never were we freer than under the German occupation. We had lost all our rights, and “first of all our right to speak. They insulted us to our faces every day—and we had to hold our tongues. They deported us en masse—as workers, as Jews, and political prisoners. Everywhere,—upon the walls, in the press, on the screen—we found that filthy and insipid image of ourselves which the oppressor wished to present to us. And because of all this we were free.”
Peter T. Coleman adds further context to Sartre, stating:
We encounter this sort of line drawing daily. However, rarely is it centered on such clear distinctions of good and evil. It leans more heavily on personal preference, political convictions, or simply where the wind is blowing on a particular afternoon. When the bedrock of freedom is thought and not wholeness, it shapes us to judge others solely by how they think, and it becomes frighteningly easy to deconstruct them into the evil beings we perceive them to be.
The consequence of this dehumanizing effect correlates with the ways we choose to pursue Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness in word and deed. At the moment, problems arise when separate people or groups believe their freedom requires something of others. Crises tend to show the limitations of our individualist frame. When our actions begin to make tangible negative impacts on others, this space becomes more complicated.
Truthfully, the ways freedom operates in our American context depends upon a level of shared morality and the pursuit of an overall collective good that allows for freedom so that individuals may pursue that which is best for themselves in ways that conform to social codes, a shared moral foundation. As David French says, “I have liberty, yes, but my liberty does not extend to taking or endangering your life.”
Historically Christian ideas of freedom influence America’s values and morality. It paved the way for views on equality but corrupted our institutions when wrongly applied by slaveholders and segregationists. How have these concepts trickled down to us today? Do they impact our views of freedom by creating strife? Are our theological traditions influenced by leaders who held dehumanizing ideas of separation and division? These are all questions we, as believers, must be willing to confront when evaluating our beliefs regarding both American and Christian freedom.
Let’s put these influences to the side for a moment though to dive into some important distinctions when we look at liberty in its positive and negative forms. Aaron Ross Powell elaborates on this idea by writing:
I wanted to provide this context as an illustration of freedom in the real world. It helps us to see the different utilities of independence and its limitations at times. This example is simplistic, but it allows us to recognize terms and how they impact our decision-making, especially as we look at some examples later on. These thoughts are not a deep dive approach, but I wanted to get a light framework in place as we turn to Christian freedom notions.
Christian Freedom
“... observe how the kindness of Christians to strangers, their care for the burial of their dead, and the sobriety of their lifestyle has done the most to advance their cause? Each of these things, I think, ought really to be practiced by us.”
Christian Freedom must always begin with love, and fruit spreads from that point. This distinction is one way that contrasts it from America’s three pillars of freedom: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. These three touchstones are not inherently wrong and can align with the ways of God, but it is dangerous to state they are the same as our commands from God. For instance, happiness may not always be virtuous. Happiness when withholding truth or in a context of mourning is not an outcome we should pursue above love and lament.
David French recently wrote concerning vaccine denial for believers stating:
For the Christian believer, the pursuit of freedom is inseparable from the pursuit of virtue. We do not seek liberty simply to satisfy our desires or to appease our fears. In fact, when we pursue the freedom to make our neighbors sick, we violate the social compact and undermine our moral standing in politics, law, and culture.
The intention of this post is not about vaccine refusal, masks, or other facets of our continually toxic culture. Still, it touches on these areas (those were specific aspects David French addresses in his use of this quote). Despite my exhaustion at their proliferation, they are part of our reality and revealed to me amid growing unrest with these circumstances. In short, while our American constitutional values of freedom relate to the three pillars mentioned above, our Christian framework for liberty boils down to two constants that must hold greater weight in our lives. These two actions are loving God and loving our neighbor.
Therefore, there are levels to Christian Freedom based on maturity and love. In some ways, similar to our national justice system, there are measures to keep us from breaking the law repeatedly. However, our justice system does not offer the level of grace afforded to us in the life and person of Jesus.
However, the main question is not one of will America adopt the freedom that the Christian faith requires, but instead, will Christians find themselves shaped more by freedom in Christ or enlightenment, individualized thinking that undergirds American culture? We should influence our communities, but the expectations that we have with our faith do not correlate with the expectations we should have for nations, people groups, or individuals who have not been rapt by God’s love.
Can freedom be a sin?
Freedom itself is a good thing, and it is a promise made to us through Christ, but sometimes I think we confuse freedom from sin through Jesus with personal autonomy. The use of freedom as a blanket statement for all levels of life is a naive representation of its meaning in faith. One of the reasons that freedom has piqued my interest lately is that much of our faith relies on restrictions that bring heightened understanding and personal freedom from sin. When we exalt our thoughts and actions, we fall into a deep level of pride.
We must be abundantly careful not to let freedom descend into selfishness. We see this through the sin in the garden with Adam and Eve. We also see this through the temptation of Jesus. Satan tempts Jesus to exert His will and power above the will of the Father (Luke 4:1-13). It is easy to put the temptation of Jesus into a bucket, categorize it and allow it to become a paranormal story, unlike our experiences. It can sometimes feel like a one-off example of how Jesus’s humanity played out rather than a template for what sin looks like in our day-to-day living, how sin seeks out desires of grandeur and meaning, and the constancy of temptation in specific contexts.
Jesus’s defense against temptation was His love of God. He points to a reality beyond the physical confines and seeks to sustain Himself in ways that we often choose to sideline. Our humanity is more than our internal dialogue or even physical needs; it’s spiritual as well.
But Jesus answered him, “It is written: Man must not live on bread alone.”
And Jesus answered him, “It is written: Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.”
And Jesus answered him, “It is said: Do not test the Lord your God.”
His response points to God, His words, His promises, and He takes the focus off of satisfying His wants and desires. I imagine His hunger was overwhelming, that He was bordering on delirium, but God sustained Him.
Tensions of Freedom
“That I, with body and soul, both in life and in death, am not my own, but belong to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ, who with His precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sins, and redeemed me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head; indeed, that all things must work together for my salvation. Wherefore, by His Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live unto Him.”
The primary tension I see between Christian and American Freedom is the fight between compartmentalization and wholeness. Wholeness is an aspect of faith we often put on the back burner because it is difficult. Compartmentalizing ourselves, our problems, and others makes it easier for us to make decisions in our minds and justify freedom. Compartmentalizing separates us from the fullness of God on earth, and it also prevents us from recognizing our call to follow Him.
Another tension between freedom and a life with Christ aligns with the Heidelberg Catechism's statement that we are not our own, as believers, but belong to our faithful Savior Jesus Christ. It's a sticky predicament. When we elevate our freedom to a top priority, we effectively say that our consciousness rises to the place of a deity, which knocks the place of Christ down a level. We will never make the perfect decision every time in our lives, or even most of the time for that matter. However, suppose our actions are primarily guided by ourselves and not from a tender affection toward our Savior. In that case, we may choose to water areas in our lives that do not foster growth in our relationship with Christ. The Word of God and spending time in prayer are our most substantial comfort in combatting a consciousness-first decision-making process. As God shapes us, this becomes more natural to us.
Another area of tension concerns our formation and thought through our relationship with God. By placing the determination of freedom solely upon human action, autonomy, and defense, we take away our need to rely on God. While most shout that Faith over Fear is how we fight an invisible force like the coronavirus or a perceived, though unlikely, threat of church closure in the United States, this idea reframes action to be dependent on believers rather than trusting and following God. In a way, it repurposes the collective conscience of believers as providential while possibly making the Spirit of God subservient to political, religious, and human leanings. This isn't to say that these actions couldn't be in line with the will of God, but we must be honest about our biases with God. He already knows them and welcomes them, but to get to know Him better, we have to let Him get to know us, as in every relationship.
In my opinion, our greatest tension with freedom is maturity. Timothy Keller outlines 3 checks on freedom as it relates to our own maturity, culture, and relationship to those around us. He states:
First, we must not exercise our cultural freedom if it harms other believers in any way.
Secondly, we must not exercise our cultural freedom if it has a bad effect on non-believers.
Finally, we should not exercise our freedom if it turns out that an allowed practice ends up having a bad effect on our own spiritual growth and health.
The image above provides a visualization of this framework as a step-by-step process for decision-making. Keller goes on to write, "The Bible makes moral issues clear—we must care for the poor, love the immigrant, support healthy families, protect unborn human life, make justice impartial for all races and peoples—but it does not tell us exactly how to do so. Christians have the freedom to work out for themselves how to proceed. But this has and does lead to sharp disagreements between Christians..." As American Christians, we do not like being told what to do; we like having the ability to make decisions for ourselves. I know that I do (see Hofstede Individualism Index).
Consistent Thinking, Systems, and Individualism
“Years ago a mentor persuaded me that the best thinking—careful, critical thinking at its most skilled—assumes coherence. Rather than accepting fragmentation as normative, we should do the harder work of discovering and discerning the integral character of life and learning—and integral of course assumes coherence. The task becomes not so much “integrating” this with that, belief with behavior, ideas with life, but rather praying and thinking and working our way toward life as it’s supposed to be, and in a profound way, is.”
One of my greatest struggles with modern society boils down to a lack of consistent thinking. We all have holes in our cognitive abilities and emotion that quickly blind us to certain logical realities. So, I want to explore a few examples in our American culture and ask a question: Are our thoughts incongruent? I believe that value-based decision-making is a crucial way of life. I am concerned by how so many, including myself, become caught up in political movements that co-opt language that fans the flames of our fears to gain our allegiance. Let's look at some of these issues and examine our thinking together.
Vaccine Cards and voter Cards
After our most recent election, I saw many people calling for stricter voter identification standards for the electoral process. Certain groups argue that more stringent voter identification would hinder the ability of minority groups to participate in elections adequately. Other groups assert that stricter voter identification would improve the integrity of the electoral process and keep elections secure. Those fighting for more stringent voter identification tend to lean right on the political spectrum, while those seeking more lenient practices tend to lean left. These are large buckets and do not reflect everyone's exact personal convictions.
In a similar political involvement, as COVID continued to rage and vaccines became widely available to people throughout the United States, many began arguing over vaccine card/passport requirements for citizens to participate in certain events or travel to specific areas. Certain groups argue that vaccine passports are an overstep of freedom and would hinder the ability of people to join in activities freely. Other groups say that strict requirements for vaccine identification would improve the nation's ability to track vaccine efficacy and fight the virus. Those fighting for more lenient vaccine passport applications tend to lean right on the political spectrum, while those seeking a stricter vaccine passport policy tend to lean left. Once again, this is a broad application of beliefs and does not reflect everyone's exact personal convictions.
These issues seek to solve a problem by having leaders step in and offer specific requirements that could hinder our ability to exert our will in daily life freely. I am not asserting that one is right and the other is wrong, and I think it is acceptable to hold different views on the issues. However, is our thinking consistent, or are we more concerned with pleasing our political tribe than hanging on to our convictions?
my body my choice
Other issues that our nation grapples with continually are those of abortion and vaccination. Abortion is not an easy issue to discuss, and I have strong feelings, personally, so I want to make that clear at the beginning. There are more nuanced and specific situations that I cannot fully address in this medium. I am talking about a particular part of this issue as it pertains to our cultural dialogue. However, I am not here to address my convictions at this time; I am simply looking at the moniker utilized by the pro-choice camp and how the anti-vaccination movement co-opted it to advocate a different position.
Certain groups state that abortion is a choice that should be readily available to all women as a form of healthcare. These groups would declare: "My Body, My Choice" as a mantra promoting personal autonomy in decision-making for their own lives. Other groups claim that abortion is taking the life of an unborn human, which is akin to murder. This position would assert that the "My Body, My Choice" terminology does not effectively address their concern, as the choice impacts another human being's wellbeing. There is a difference in terms between a personal decision and a decision that affects someone else. This divide is a particularly contentious issue. Those who promote the "My Body, My Choice" line of thinking tend to lean left on the political spectrum. Those who promote the value of the unborn tend to lean right on the political spectrum. These are large buckets and do not reflect everyone's exact personal convictions.
Once again, COVID became a great disorienting force as the vaccine debate came to a boiling point. Vaccination mandates and anti-vaccination mandates popped up throughout the country. Some groups believe that people should have the right to choose what is best for them and offer the slogan "My Body, My Choice" to state they have the right to make decisions best for themselves. However, there are possible consequences for others by not attempting to take vaccination precautions. The choice may go beyond their judgment as death is possible for those who get the disease and those put on hold, waiting for procedures due to overwhelmed hospitals. Others state that vaccination mandates are critical to promoting the wellbeing of the collective nation, that bending the individual's will to support widespread orders could bring results that hinder the growth of the crisis. This time, those using the "My Body, My Choice" slogan tend to lean right on the political spectrum, while those seeking a widespread application of beliefs tend to lean left. Once again, this is a broad application of views and does not reflect everyone's exact personal convictions.
As we look at these issues, I once again ask, is our thinking coherent? Does the application of our values line up with the way we believe, or is it more important to walk the party line that we might closely associate with our convictions?
I could provide more examples of how different political wings pick and choose the systemic behaviors, sins, or travesties that impact specific groups of people and when they are about personal responsibility. There is an intense cognitive dissonance in our national dialogue, and we must evaluate our insufficiencies. Doubling down and drawing lines in the sand helps no one. Throwing gasoline on the fires of the culture war does not sustain any cause but chaos. It is possible to stand for truth without fighting for or against something. It is possible to love your neighbor, support their best, and not dehumanize them. It may not look the way we want it to look.
Embracing Discomfort
“Every one of us holds views about important matters that others find clearly misguided. There is no way that anyone can embrace all the different and mutually incompatible beliefs. But we can do the hard work of distinguishing people from ideas, of pursuing relationships with people created in God’s image, while recognizing that we will not approve of all their beliefs or actions. Christians can demonstrate tolerance for others because our love of neighbor flows from our love of God, and our love of God is grounded in the truth of the gospel.”
In wrestling with these ideas, I have come to up with a few takeaways:
We should seek to give freedom more than we receive it
There is a reason God calls us to love Him with Heart, Soul, Mind, and Strength
Loving our neighbor is messy
First, freedom found in the Kingdom of God is a gift. This freedom should mold us to seek the good of those around us. However, we cannot construct it in our image. Freedom in Christ has restrictions, and our views should never bar people from finding the love of God or the truth of the gospel.
The American Church essentially seeks to construct a Kingdom bending the will of everyone to the will of God, which could sound good to believers. However, forcing people to follow the ways of God without any semblance of a relationship is cruel. Instead of moving others to walk the path, it is much more fruitful to model the way, to show the world quietly what faithfulness looks like in action. This faithfulness is an attuned spirit to peace, loving our neighbors, and living a sober life that puts the needs of others ahead of our own. It is challenging, and I am reckoning with it daily.
As Christians I believe that we should actively seek the sharing of freedom and that it is a value worth lifting up. However, it should not be an end unto itself, but rather given. It is subservient to other key values of the Christian faith. Liberty should be sought, but only as a way to sacrifice. So long as freedom takes precedent in our lives, it will only glue itself to our will and our ways. If it is given to those around us for their betterment then we find ourselves serving, caring, and loving our neighbors.
Next, we must shape our minds to the things of God, and this means embracing the fullness of our humanity in our relationships. God wants all of us and our loving Him requires all of us. This relationship is more than just our minds, which we tend to rely on more than our body, will, and feelings. It requires our rest, our health, and our time. Continually, the world seeks to worship a God of productivity, or constantly doing, rather than letting the beings that we are rest in Him. This hindrance takes away from our ability to worship Him fully.
Historically, there is a reason that different postures correlate to various acts of worship, whether hands raised, kneeling, or lying face down on the ground. Some traditions do not operate in this manner, but many do. These actions shape our being and teach us to see that we are more than just minds and bodies. Loving God with all of our being includes our bodies. I'm not good at remembering that fact, and it's something I am reminded of as I have gone down this journey.
Lastly, loving our neighbor is messy, and it doesn't always involve what we want to do. Loving the people in our lives requires sacrifice, not of the truth, but standing up for truth doesn't equate to fighting. The culture wars continue to rage in America, but believers should offer another way. Modeling how to handle conflict, disagreement, and caring for people is more important than saying the right things. Sometimes we have to sacrifice our freedom to show the people around us that they matter, in fact we may be called to do so (Matt. 5:39-42). When we get to heaven, based on my understanding of Scripture, I highly doubt that He will ask us about how we held the line in the culture wars of American history. His word says that they will know us by the way that we love. I pray that we do not lose sight of this.