Skip to main content

Freedom And Its Friends

‘I believe in freedom.’

‘Do you mean freedom of speech?’

‘That and everything.’

‘I don’t.  How could you allow hate speech?’

‘I don’t like it, but who am I to shut someone else up?  And if I do, then someone else might just as well shut me up.  That trail quickly leads to tyranny: the person with power gets to say what hate speech is and shut everyone he wants down.’

‘Bah!  There is virtue and vice, good and evil, right and wrong.  It is not about power but about the good controlling the bad.’

‘And what is bad, in your view?’

‘People who oppose the right of mothers to kill their unborn children, for instance, and people who pray near the clinics that take their lives.  They must be silenced!’

‘Do you hate them?’

‘Of course, I do!’

‘So, you define prayer as hate speech, and you take away the freedom to pray.  You oppose hate speech unless it is your own.’

‘Very clever.  But I have you in a trap, too.  Your freedom allows people who don’t believe in freedom to take away your freedom.  You always have to fight for freedom against those who will take it away.  First, you take away their freedom to oppose your freedom, and once you win, you give them the freedom to take yours again.  That is quite the merry-go-round you are on!’

‘Perhaps we are both wrong.’

‘What?’

‘Perhaps freedom is not a standalone virtue, not an absolute.’

‘Now you are talking.’

‘Oh, I’m not contradicting my love of freedom, only recognizing that it needs some friends, so to speak.'

‘Like who—or what?’

‘How about the responsible use of freedom?’

‘Sure—that was what I was saying.’

‘Alright.  But we have to say more or else we are back to who gets to define things and rule over others.  Freedom is not at the top of the hill.  The responsible use of freedom would be to love others and serve them rather than serve one’s own desires.[1]  Love and service would be up on top.'

‘I’m not so sure about this.  Go on.’

‘OK.  Your earlier idea of taking freedom away from people because you think that they are freely acting in or speaking with hate is a half-truth.  But you end up hating what you claimed to be hate speech.  Even more confusing, you claimed just enough freedom for mothers to kill their prenatal boys and girls—to take away their freedom to live.  So, what if, instead of chasing the rabbit of hate down the hill you used your freedom to get to the top?’

‘You’ll have to spell that out a bit more.’

‘What if you pursued love and service—I’ll go even further, pursued love even of enemies?’[2]

‘No, I want to cancel them.  Shut them down.’

‘Well, what if those babies you let be killed should be loved instead?  What if you serve the weak and vulnerable rather than champion the rights of women to kill them?  What if you did not grant freedom  to mothers to kill their unborn but gave freedom to babies to live?  What if you let people pray for others’ good instead of silence their speech?  I’ll grant you, people should not have the freedom to do whatever they want, and perhaps they should not have the freedom to say whatever they want.  But nor should one group be allowed freedom only to take away the freedom of the most vulnerable who need our love.  One of freedom’s siblings needs to be love, and service another.  And freedom to pursue my own lusts and pleasures is a kind of bondage to my own drives and desires, not a true freedom.’

‘I want to be able to cancel what I believe is wrong.’

‘I understand.  I really do.  Who with a sense of right and wrong could disagree?  However, what you define as wrong and what I define as right might be the same thing.  Love can help, here, too.  If all you have is cancelling people, their speech, and other things, you live in a world where there is no mercy and no forgiveness.  If all I have is freedom, I have no right or wrong.’

‘So, you want us to be free to love others, to serve them, and to forgive?’

‘And I want us to be able to say that there is, indeed, right and wrong in the world.  Even pray about it.  I think we are invited to that kind of freedom?’

‘Invited?  By whom?’

‘By the One who loved the world by giving His own Son, that whoever believes on Him might not perish but have eternal life.  You see, God did not send His Son into the world, evil and wayward as it is, to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him.[3]  That is exercising freedom to love and serve others.’

‘Run up the hill, you say?’

‘Forget chasing the bad bunny.’

‘Let’s go.’


[1] ‘For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another’ (Galatians 5.13, ESV and throughout).

[2] ‘But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust’ (Matthew 5.44-45).

[3] ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him’ (John 3.16-17).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

‘For freedom Christ has set us free’: The Gospel of Paul versus the Custodial Oversight of the Law and Human Philosophies

  Introduction The culmination of Paul’s argument in Galatians, and particularly from 3.1-4.31, is: ‘ For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery’ (Galatians 5.1). This essay seeks to understand Paul’s opposition to a continuing custodial role for the Law and a use of human philosophies to deal with sinful passions and desires.   His arguments against these are found in Galatians and Colossians.   By focussing on the problem of the Law and of philosophy, we can better understand Paul’s theology.   He believed that the Gospel was the only way to deal with sin not simply in terms of our actions but more basically in terms of our sinful desires and passions of the flesh. The task ahead is to understand several large-scale matters in Paul’s theology, those having to do with a right understanding of the human plight and a right understanding of God’s solution.   So much Protestant theology has articulated...
Post a Comment
Read more

Alasdair MacIntyre and Tradition Enquiry

Alasdair MacIntyre's subject is philosophical ethics, and he is best known for his critique of ethics understood as the application of general, universal principles.  He has reintroduced the importance of virtue ethics, along with the role of narrative and community in defining the virtues.  His focus on these things—narrative, community, virtue—combine to form an approach to enquiry which he calls ‘tradition enquiry.’ [1] MacIntyre characterises ethical thinking in the West in our day as ethics that has lost an understanding of the virtues, even if virtues like ‘justice’ are often under discussion.  Greek philosophical ethics, and ethics through to the Enlightenment, focussed ethics on virtue and began with questions of character: 'Who should we be?', rather than questions of action, 'What shall we do?'  Contemporary ethics has focused on the latter question alone, with the magisterial traditions of deontological ('What rules govern our actions?') and tel...
Post a Comment
Read more

The New Virtues of a Failing Culture

  An insanity has fallen upon the West, like a witch’s spell.   We have lived with it long enough to know it, understand it, but not long enough to resist it, to undo it.   The very stewards of the truth that would remove it have left their posts.   They have succumbed to its whispers, become its servants.   It has infected the very air and crept along the ground like a mist until it is within us and all about us.   We utter its precepts like schoolchildren taught their lines. Its power lies in its claims of virtuosity, distorted goodness.   If presented as the vices that they are, they would be rejected.   These virtues are proclaimed from the pulpits and painted on banners or made into flags.   They are established in our schools, colleges, universities, and seminaries.   They are the hallucinogen making our own cultural suicide bearable, even desirable.   They are virtues, but disordered, or they are the excess or deficiency of...
Post a Comment
Read more