freedom

An Uncertain Freedom

Posted on Updated on

An Uncertain Freedom

What does it mean to be free?  On the Fourth of July, we celebrate 238 years of national independence. Independence Day gives the United States a platform to celebrate and take great pride in the liberty of its citizens.  Every year, it seems that the weeks leading up to this annual commemoration of the signing of the Declaration of Independence make it clear that the freedom we embrace is uncertain at best.  Our liberties are nearly always under attack by forces competing for the right to define what freedom really means.

Staunch advocates of freedom for all people in the world run into equally strong voices for isolationism.  Standing up for “freedom-loving people everywhere” was once a national, patriotic assumption.  The justification for intervention in the affairs of other sovereign states and nations rested on the idea that the citizens of the United States shared a common perspective on the intrinsic value of freedom.  But that has changed.

imagesBack in 1947, President Harry Truman established this principle in what is known as the Truman Doctrine.  In a speech to Congress, he affirmed a nationally embraced passion for freedom that would make it our moral responsibility and national policy “to support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.”  The circumstance prompting the statement was the effort by certain totalitarian communist regimes posing a threat to the liberty of other nations, especially with respect to Soviet interference in Greece and Turkey.  Voices for isolationism spoke against the Truman Doctrine.  Those voices valued their own declared right to accept no responsibility for the affairs of other nations.  In other words, they placed a high value on their freedom to ignore the absence of freedom for others.   A broader pursuit of freedom for all was deemed an inferior value to their own individualized freedoms.  But at the time of the Truman Doctrine, the recent sacrifices made in World War II to restore freedom to Europe and Asia, the majority of our nation embraced a moral resolve to preserve liberty everywhere.

Several generations have passed since those days.  New threats to national freedom continue to appear at an alarming rate all over the world.  Islamic regimes compete for domination over nations and make it their raison d’être to smother any voices for freedom that protest the mandates of sharia law.  The war raging among various Muslim factions in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon right now demonstrates the passionate and crazed zeal to suppress sectarian freedom so that self-styled versions of sharia may be imposed by either Shia or Sunni majorities—or those with the greatest might!  ISIS, or Islamic State of Iran and Syria, are “out-terrorizing” other regional terrorists while outside forces are reluctant to provide support for any side of the conflict.  As history has shown, providing military training and arms for Islamic factions usually ends up placing those same resources in the hands of avowed enemies of freedom at some later date.  Weapons used to overthrow one faction inevitably end up being used to fight against forces for freedom once the upper hand has been gained.

Totalitarian regimes representing a wide range of ideologies persist in their attempts to establish sovereignty over nations and curtail any liberties they perceive as threats to their own autocratic control.  Recent unrest in Ukraine shows how fragile freedom can be.   When a hostile minority with the help of outside nations can foment civil war in a sovereign state, freedoms disappear along political lines.  Pro-Russian citizens of the eastern portion of Ukraine, and particularly Crimea, have effectively revolted against the recognized government of Ukraine with the help of Russia and created a deadly and antagonistic situation.  All sides are crying out for freedom for themselves with no regard to the consequences for others.

As the “land of the free,” the United States has left little doubt that the passion for freedom once held as the majority perspective has diminished, and in some cases even been overcome by enemies of true liberty.  Uneven applications of the Truman Doctrine in US foreign policy have left many disillusioned.  We now look only to national security interests to justify our intervention when freedom is threatened.   But helping to achieve and preserve freedom is no longer recognized as a sound reason to help liberate an oppressed people.  In the recent past, in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, decisions to intervene have raised reasonable questions.  How do are we to understand our justification for US intervention in those situations while doing little or nothing to the relieve the plight of people in places like Bosnia, Somalia, Sudan and Rwanda (and many other such trouble spots that expose the disparity in how we choose to get involved in international disputes for the sake of freedom)?

The way we choose either to get involved or look the other way when the freedom of a people comes under attack raises doubts about our commitment to independence for all as a principle.  Voices for isolationism grow louder and more pronounced as freedom loses its shine, as it is scuffed and marred by revising its meaning, and by reducing its relevance until it is no longer valued as it once was.

So, has freedom lost its appeal?  Not on a privatized basis, no!  Ironically as national commitments to the Truman Doctrine disappear, personal, individualized freedom is presently gaining ground as our highest national value.  The freedoms of other people and nations matter only as long as a case can be made for how the loss of their liberty impacts “my own,” according to the cultural context in which we find ourselves as a nation.  As a result, this self-serving bias embedded in the consciousness of American culture will only lead to a retreat into the kind of self-absorption that ultimately undermines civil society.

Assigning Value
Jesus made a direct correlation between truth and freedom when He said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).  Since then, instead of viewing these two as complementary, many have pitted one against the other.  Truth often limits the freedom to do whatever you want, while freedom becomes a license to act as if truth does not matter.

Which do you value more—freedom or truth?  The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Based on those “self-evident truths,” the signers of the document declared that “these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States….”  Now 238 years later, these United States of America find that we do not agree on the value of what it means to value what is true and right, but affirm with certainty that liberty always has value.  How did that happen?

Independence, by its nature, can never be an absolute value.  Therefore the pursuit of freedom always runs the risk of imposing one person’s freedom upon others.  Yet the almost idolatrous position personal liberty holds in human society suggests that everyone has the right to be free, and be free on his or her own terms.  Truth, on the other hand, is held loosely.  The same culture that practically worships freedom views truth as a noble-minded pursuit but one that inevitably leads to a narrow-minded perspective if one claims to have found it.  Truth, by its very nature, has to be an absolute value.  So, freedom is relative but truth is absolute, a concept foreign to the current thinking of modern society.  Public discussion on these issues usually focuses on how either is defined, and who gets to define them.

Independence always depends on something else.  It never exists in a vacuum for those who live in a civilized society.  A culture, therefore, has to define its values before it can agree on its freedoms.  What we value most gets the greatest freedomliberty.

Unfortunately, when we try to avoid the intrusion of values while trying to demand freedom, we find ourselves in a cultural mess.  For those of us whose values are biblically defined, the field of play has been slanted against us.  Citing the enigmatic and arbitrarily imposed idea usually called “separation of church and state,” we live in a society that tries to embrace values without allowing the voice of truth to speak at the table.  Christian principles and ethics, biblical truths and morals, are ruled out of order.  The debate over values must be conducted without the intrusion of “religious influences” in shaping those values.

Of course the foolishness of such a premise is immediately apparent.  Every attempt to address values must necessarily involve what people believe.  Why, then, are the beliefs of everyone but followers of Jesus Christ allowed in the establishment of the very values upon which freedom is founded?  Secular humanists, atheists, social architects, psychologists, academics, government officials, and yes, even the entertainment and media industries all declare themselves “value free” and hence, they alone, not religious people, are qualified to determine our nation’s foundations for freedom.

So what if in a pluralistic culture, we actually give everyone a voice?  What if Christian values based on biblical principles and truths be given the same serious consideration all the other veiled belief systems get in defining cultural values?

Freedom as presently defined and protected and sought after is such a vague concept, applied so capriciously, that we as a nation have actually stalled out in trying to figure out what true freedom looks like.  On July 4th, we celebrate our freedom—even if we are not sure what that means any more!

As you consider the problem and think about absolute values built on irrevocable truths, think of them as the essential foundation for freedom that is truly free for all.  Toward that end, remember Paul’s pleas for a life of freedom based on the freedom found in Christ alone:

 Galatians 5:1—It was for freedom that Christ set us free

 2 Corinthians 3:17—Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

No nation, and no people within a nation, can be free until their liberty has been secured by the eternal, unchanging truth of Jesus Christ.  Every other form of freedom will eventually degenerate into self-serving, self-seeking versions of privatized liberty.  The freedom of others will matter only insofar as it does not cost anything to the individual.  The noble effort of the Truman Doctrine at least made an effort to establish that freedom should be available for all.  The Declaration of Independence and the Pledge of Allegiance affirm that freedom is to be valued highly for all.  This kind of freedom can only be found in Christ, but it lasts forever and is to be proclaimed by His free agents to all who will listen.  Therefore, let freedom ring as the cry of those who love the liberty of soul that comes from the truth that will set you free.  Let the nations be glad…let the soul delight…let the earth rejoice when freedom reigns under the King of kings!

 

A Nation in a State of Flux: Part Three, A Confused Nation

Posted on Updated on

A Confused Nation

Most people in our nation cannot identify their philosophical perspective by name and would be hard-pressed to articulate any consistent, reasonable, thoughtful process by which they arrive at their conclusions and determine their points of view.  The irrational nature of most dialogue on almost any controversial subject reveals an appalling lack of awareness of how confused people really are.  Incoherent thinking leads to illogical conclusions resulting in ill-formed opinions.

This is not an issue of intelligence.  Even the most brilliant people plod along with no definition to the basic reasons or supportive evidences to support their convictions because they have been led to believe that such things are not important.  Mutually contradictory positions do not seem to bother people and conflicting statements about what is valuable are the norm, not the exception.

Therefore, when a tough and complicated issue reaches the public and opinions are polled, it is frankly embarrassing to hear the naïve and underdeveloped conclusions stated with no idea how illogical and inconsistent their opinions are.  Consider how that confusion shapes the nature of the discussion of…

…freedom and rights.  The conversation does not have to go very far before you realize that there is fundamental conflict between the two in many circumstances.  One of the most volatile controversies that divides the nation has to do with how people understand and approach the discussion about abortion.  Many see it as an issue of rights…the woman has the right to reproductive freedom and that takes precedence over every other consideration on their minds.  Now that most of the debate has been settled about the human-ness of the unborn child (because technology has made it clear that the baby in the womb is indeed a living human being), the conversation has shifted to reproductive rights of the mother being more important than the right to life of the unborn child.
But if the question is asked how that determination was reached, the glassy-eyed stare you get in response lets you know that it is a completely arbitrary assessment.  Moral arguments are not allowed, legal and ethical ramifications are pushed aside, and the improbable idea that this is purely a biological decision rules the day.  That should trouble thinking people that the rights of one are preferred over the rights of another without any substantive explanation why.
With no basis upon which to sort out such a dilemma, the general response of the culture is to ignore the support of freedom for one and deny the freedom for another on the grounds that…oh wait, on no grounds whatsoever!  The confusion results in silence and deference to the loudest voices in the debate.

 …truth and tolerance.  The big ticket item in public debate right now is tolerance versus intolerance…the rejection of absolute truth and the insistence on the rightness of diametrically opposite positions.  No one wants to risk being painted as intolerant so we find a confused nation trying to keep from saying ridiculous and absurd things—“truth is true, and so is untruth!”  Haven’t heard that one yet?  Well, not in those words, but move into the realm of faith conversations and we would be informed that all religions are essentially the same.  For example, we are told that Christians and Muslims believe in the same Deity.  In a recent conversation with a young Muslim man, he actually repeated the cultural mantra—“It seems to me that we believe mostly the same things.”  Intrigued by this catering to the cultural insistence on tolerance, I ask him to explain further.  He then replied, “Well, except for the Christian belief that Jesus is God, we share the same values.”  I then had to explain that whether Jesus is God or not does make a dramatic difference in what we believe—and both things cannot be accepted as valid affirmations.  We cannot truthfully have it both ways and say “He is God” and “He is not God” and expect to be taken seriously!  A less politically correct Muslim man seated beside me on flight in Africa made a point to say before I was even in my seat that we do not believe in the same God at all, insisting that logical inconsistency would not confuse him into saying something he believed not to be true.
Truth by its very nature is exclusive of anything that is not true.  But in a culture which values tolerance more than truth, we confuse people by telling them that everyone can and should believe whatever they want because no one has the right to declare one thing true at the cost of declaring its opposite untrue.  So a confused population tries to live by that illogical and irrational point of view and often does not recognize the absurdity of that proposition.

…values and faith.  Virtually everyone can tell you that the practical policies of the United States demand that there be a separation of church and state, that personal religious beliefs have no place in the shaping of public law and policy.  The confusion arises when it become necessary to acknowledge that all public law and policy are based on values and values arise from some standard of measurement as to what is right and what is wrong.
So when voices from the faith community speak up, they are confused when they are told that there is no place for beliefs and faith in determining values.  Well, what, we must ask in the confusion is the basis for making value judgments if not personal beliefs?  At issue, of course, is not whether values are the result of beliefs.  At issue in the current cultural climate is whether the beliefs arise from religious sources, or are the product of “secular beliefs” derived from philosophical premises of people without faith instead of doctrinal presuppositions of people of faith.  Both have strong belief systems but one is ruled out of order because the object of its faith is divine revelation and the other is ruled appropriate because the object of its worship is human reason.  Who gets to make that call?  Is it any wonder why people get confused when such ideas appear on the scene in an arbitrary manner and are fashioned into absolutes by a culture which denies that there are any absolutes?

People try to make sense of the senseless and end up confused.  Or they give up trying to make sense of anything and just follow along blindly whichever way the wind of public opinion is blowing at any given time.  Apart from the acknowledgement that there is such a thing as truth and that it is knowable, we cannot expect any relief from the confusion that holds our nation hostage to whatever whims and changes are proposed as answers to all that ails us.  Confusion and ignorance of what is true confines us, holding us captive to what we are told to believe by any new idea that proceeds from the heart and mind of other confused folks.  Jesus made it fairly simple when He said, “You shall know the truth and the truth will make you free” (John 8:32).  Until then, get used to the confusion!

Will the majority always win?

Posted on

Life in a democracy provides great freedom, but also carries great responsibility.  The idea that any whim or experiment can be turned into law by a majority vote is chilling on the one hand, but the prospect of a majority vote protecting the population from eccentric autocrats brings comfort.  As long as there is a shared worldview, democracy works very well.  But when the values and beliefs of the nation become divided along ideological lines, life becomes difficult as competing voices strive for dominance.

Since most law is based on what is right and what is wrong, any people who lose their ability to agree on those basic issues are in trouble and the peace and well-being of that nation is threatened.  This is not a new phenomenon.  The Founding Fathers anticipating the potential disintegration of the nation if the foundations eroded tried to establish safeguards to protect freedom while also maintaining the integrity of accepted values and codes of what is true, what is right and what is prudent.  But there were inherent flaws in the system as has been apparent throughout the history of our republic.

In 1881, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., was Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court.  He noted then that most statutes were obsolete by the time they made their way into print and became official laws of the land.  The reason for this he said was that, “The life of the law has not been logic:  it has been experience….At any given time [it] pretty nearly corresponds…with what is then understood to be convenient.”   The frightening reality of that observation has been experienced in full measure in the past several decades of our nation’s history.  Edmund Morris, in quoting Holmes in the second volume of his biography of Theodore Roosevelt, went on to explain further the implications of an experiential instead of a logical base for governing the land when he wrote, “In his world there was neither absolute good nor absolute evil—only shifting standards of positive and negative behavior, determined by the majority and subject to constant change.  Morality was not defined by God; it was the code a given generation of men wanted to live by.  Truth was ‘what I can’t help believing.’  Yesterday’s absolutes must give way to ‘the felt necessities of the time.’”

Two striking examples of what happens when democracies attempt to govern themselves without any sure foundation are presently dividing the nation—the nature of marriage (can the state dictate and legislate that it be restricted?) and the legality of abortion (can the state dictate and legislate what a woman is allowed to do concerning her own body?).  Elected leaders, chosen by the people, have reflected in practice what Holmes observed in theory.  By testing to see which way the winds of public opinion are blowing, many governmental leaders operate by political expediency more often than by principled convictions.  In other words, they are influenced more by current trends of thought rather than grounded in sound, consistent reasoning and foundational values.

So the battle is on.  Advocates for each side of the debate typically avoid the merits of their points of view in the discussion.  Rather than weigh the respective points of view from a reasonable reliance on wise thinking and established principles, the conversations degenerate into ad hominem abusive arguments designed to demean their opponents and in the process negate their perspective.

For example, any discussion on the merits of opening the door for homosexual couples to marry legally seldom addresses the real issue—can the state legislate who gets to marry?  Those who insist that the state can and must do that face a smear campaign in which they are accused of “hate language” and painted as narrow-minded bigots.  Why?  Because the question cannot fail to see that the state has always defined and legislated who gets to marry, and advocates for opening the door to homosexual marriages already affirm the right of the state to prevent marital unions for a wide range of people—those under age, those too closely related, those already married to another and so on.  So the question cannot be argued logically and reasonably on the basis of whose values will be respected and whose will be trampled.  So the abuse goes back and forth as people attack other people instead of people presenting a sound case for their positions.

If that can be recognized, then decisions in a democracy can begin to be made on the basis of what the majority of the people believe to be right and wrong.  The values and beliefs can then be discussed and reasons given to support one position or another.  In the current climate that has proved to be impossible due to the vitriol poured out on both sides of the question.

But does it bother you that Holmes and Morris describe democracy as a somewhat arbitrary enterprise, dependent upon the whims and preferences of “the code any given generation of men want to live by…only shifting standards of positive and negative behavior?”  That means that those who have the most influence on the thinking of the people will eventually succeed in imposing their will on all the people.  Therefore, the question behind the questions is this—who has the authority to shape the thinking of the people and who gets to call the shots about what is acceptable and tolerated by all?

The answer to that covers a lot of ground but in broad strokes, let me suggest five influences, or authorities, that usually compete for the minds and hearts of the people.

 The State – Governing laws reflect the values and beliefs of those seated as our representatives in places of civic authority.  So elected officials put laws in place that address what is legal and acceptable to do and conversely what is and is not.  They exercise control over our behavior which often shapes our perspectives on what is right and wrong.  The general opinion then is that if it is legal it must not be wrong.

The Academy – Educators have been granted enormous powers of influence as they shape the thinking of one generation after another by what they present in the classrooms of the land—from pre-school through the university ideologies are presented as factually unimpeachable and the younger generation has to have a backbone of steel to stand up against the authority of those they are told to respect and obey.  Teachers and professors log in more hours with our children than anyone else in their world and make it difficult to present contrasting points of view with the same degree of saturation.

 The Media – Rather than reflecting the culture, media does a thorough job of shaping the culture with what and how it presents worldviews and lifestyles.  Even in the political realm, the news media regularly try to advocate limits on how much candidates can receive in funding from those outside the campaign, but not once have I ever heard them calculate the vast expenses provided for candidates free of charge by keeping their favorites on the front pages at no cost to the candidate.  The entertainment wing of the media presents spiritual and moral and ethical subjects in a pejorative manner in nearly every instance when offering their opinion of historic values and beliefs, and Christian values and beliefs.  Again, if there were a challenger to the amount of influence educators have over their children, it would be the media who shape not only the kids but perhaps even more so their parents.

 The Church – The institutional church has lost its voice over the past fifty years, largely because many main-line denominations have surrendered their authority to the academy.  A new realm of priests has emerged, not with ecclesiastical robes but with academic robes.  Biblical faith has been stripped of its veracity in their minds and in its place has emerged the same “finger-to-the-wind” approach to beliefs and values found among politicians.  Even among churches of an evangelical persuasion there has been little progress in altering the tidal wave of ideological and practical relativism overwhelming their members.  We give up too quickly when told that our perspectives are faith-based and not welcome in the public forum.  In fact, we have every right and responsibility to point out that every value judgment has a faith basis, a belief system, behind it.  Ours in grounded in what we believe and find affirmed in the Scriptures and we own that mantle and wear it boldly.  However, those contending with us seldom admit that they even have values that have not been put to the vote of the majority for validation.  There is no need to surrender our place at the table when we advocate for biblical truth in the public arena.  Our authority to speak is equally as strong as the other side.

 The Home – The authority of the home in shaping values has begun to deteriorate as homes have become less instrumental in what persuades the hearts and minds of the children growing up there.  The reasons are numerous, far too numerous to go into here, but the exponential rise of single parent homes, the disintegration of family conversations and sharing of convictions in the home, the addiction to electronic media of all sorts, the hectic pace of life that leaves little if any time for instilling the values of the parents and many other factors have had a devastating impact on the kind of influence and authority present in the homes of our nation.

      Of these five authority sources, perhaps you can see how the majority opinion of the nation can be turned so quickly toward the prevailing point of view of those who carry the most weight and have the most influence.  So the very idea of allowing the majority to rule is wonderful in a democracy when there is shared view of the world and shared foundation of values.  But once the foundations are gone, any given election day can see an irrational swing from one extreme to the other as people respond to what they think on any given day.   Gone are the days of common ground with a consistent understanding of what is right and what is wrong.  The psalmist sums it up well when he writes, “If the foundations are destroyed,  what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).

Where can we as followers of Christ step up to speak a word for righteousness?  Well, frankly, Christian voices have been largely absent in all five categories and it is clear that until we are willing to take our stand on what is right (and yes, there is indeed something called ‘absolute right and absolute wrong’), other voices will control the day, win the elections and manipulate the majority to reflect their point of view.

Over the next several weeks, you will read and hear much discussion here in North Carolina about an amendment to our state constitution that will state that marriage is for a man and a woman.  Opponents to the amendment will pull out all the stops to put their stamp of approval on homosexual unions and use whatever means at their disposal to denigrate anyone holding a different perspective.  Don’t get pushed out of the debate thinking that you are not allowed to let your point of view be shaped by your biblical convictions.  Their point of view has been shaped just as certainly by their beliefs as your values and beliefs have by yours.  If the majority rules the day, then let’s do our part to inform the majority, influence the majority to stand up for what they believe and not be duped into submission to an agenda formulated to silence our voices and keep the majority from having access to a reasonable perspective based on long-held values (indeed from eternal values).

If you like democracy, make sure that you take your stand so that it will be clear that the majority of our nation still hold on to such things as absolute truth and deep convictions about what is right and what is wrong.  If we do nothing and remain silent, the minority who do something will overcome the majority who do nothing.

“Suitcases” by Dara MacLean

Posted on

Life is intended to be free from the baggage of our past when we experience the sweet forgiveness Jesus Christ gives.  Yet too many followers of Christ continue to try to hold onto their old pain, the deep wounds of shipwrecked relationships, the fears associated with past failures.  In a great line from this song by singer/songwriter Dara Maclean, a liberating truth invites us to lay down the past and move forward in the freedom of Christ:  “You can’t run when you’re holding suitcases!”

Paul said it in a more familiar way, “…but one thing I do:  forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:13-14).

What are you holding onto that is keeping you from running in the joyful freedom of Jesus Christ?  Watch, listen and enjoy a fresh new look at what God makes available to us through Christ!