freedom – Christ the Truth

We are not the choices we have made [repost] 1

glenscrivSeptember 27, 20121 Comment

Look at this guy, solitary, upright, clear view to the horizon. In fact he seems to stand between heaven and earth. He is the Man, surveying all before him, standing on top of the world.

And which way will he go? It's his call.

He is the captain of his soul. This is man at his most liberated and flourishing isn't it? Free to do what he wants any old time.

He's living the dream. Which is why the whole scene is shot through with romance - the sun setting idyllically on his sovereign Decision.

But this very modern view of our choices is a ridiculous idyll. It crumbles under almost any scrutiny and yet it captures the hearts of the whole world - and so many in the church too.

I reckon this false belief in our identity as sovereign choosers is mistake number one when it comes to the issue of guidance. The whole world seems to believe that what we choose leads to who we are. And while-ever we believe that then our decisions will be invested with an existential importance they were never meant to carry.

Modern Christians are obsessed with the issue of guidance in a way our forebears just weren't. To a certain degree you can explain that as a function of the greater opportunities we have today to shape our lives. In years gone past a baker's son was a baker and that was that. Today he might become a she and move to Thailand. It's his/her call!

The options have certainly expanded, but it's the underlying false belief which invests those options with such weight that they become a burden. We really think that our choices make us who we are. We believe we have the power (in ourselves, in our choices) to be self-made men and women - rather than to receive our life and being as a gift.

But a moment's thought shows how ridiculous the sovereign chooser myth is.

I could tell you some of the story of my life by telling you the choices I’ve made. I decided to take this job and not this job. To move to this city at this stage. But that tells you only a very small amount about me (but, usually, the only part of me that the world is interested in - because we're all playing the same game).

But what about the bits I didn’t decide. For instance, my parents never decided to have me – I was an accident, as my sisters would constantly remind me. I never decided to be born in the 20^th century in the West. I never decided to grow up in Canberra. Would you have chosen your home town if you had the choice?? I never decided all sorts of things that have made me who I am.

And this is not to mention all the hundreds of decisions I’ve tried to make happen but they never came off. Those failures have made me who I am too.

Didn’t John Lennon say ‘Life’s what happens to you while you’re busy making plans’? That's a good observation. Life is not found in our choices and plans and strategising. It happens to us. We receive it. And if we simply learnt that lesson, the weight of the guidance issue would lessen significantly.

But what we really need to do is attack the problem at its source. We need to go to the Scriptures and learn again that what we choose does not make us who we are. Rather who we are flows out in what we choose.

Take the book of Proverbs for instance. You might read it and get the impression it's supporting the world's wisdom. It seems to say "Wise people act like this and it's good. Fools act like that and it's bad." But on closer inspection you see that the actions flow from being wise or being foolish. There's only actually one wise Person - Wisdom. And one foolish person - Folly. They both consider humanity to be simple and lacking in judgement (Prov 9:4,16) yet they vie for the hearts of the masses (see Prov 1:20ff; 8:1ff; 9:1ff). They are portrayed as women - Wisdom like the good wife, Folly like the deceitful adulteress. And belonging to their respective houses - that's what constitutes a person wise or foolish.

Then from within those houses the wise and the foolish live out their being. In the house of the wise you walk with the wise and feast with Wisdom. You learn her teachings and right choices follow.

So first it's an affair of the heart as Wisdom woos you. This constitutes a change of being and then we see a change in will, in choosing, in action.

All of which is just to stress what Luther saw as absolutely critical in his debate with Erasmus. The moment you make the will the centre of gravity, you lose the gospel. Our wills are bound. We do what we want, but we can't want the right thing until the LORD sweeps us off our feet. When He changes our hearts, then the will is liberated to act in line with our new hearts. But to make our very identity depend on our choices is to commit a fundamental theological error.

I'll write some more on guidance, but for now let's just emphasize this basic point: we are NOT the choices we have made. We are who we are in Christ who has wooed and won us and freed us to live in a new way. In that new way there will be decisions to be made. But relax. Your life and identity is not found in those plans, it's found and it's secure in Christ.

A sermon on guidance in Proverbs.

Freedom and the Problem of Evil 4

glenscrivFebruary 17, 20124 Comments

In The Good God, Mike Reeves writes briefly on the problem of evil. A unitarian God would either be threatened by evil or the author of it, but...

The triune God... is the sort of God who will make room for another to have real existence. The Father, who delights to have a Son, chooses to create many children who will have real lives of their own, to share the love and freedom he has always enjoyed. The creatures of the triune God are not mere extensions of him; he gives them life and personal being. Allowing them that, though, means allowing them to turn away from himself – and that is the origin of evil. By graciously giving his creatures the room to exist, the triune God allows them the freedom to turn away without himself being the author of evil. The Good God, p39-40

This is so helpful in placing "evil" in the context of trinitarian thought. Let's take this thought a step further and consider freedom also in triune terms.

Because actually the Christian does not think of "freedom" the same way as the unitarian. Or at least we shouldn't!

Often, however, we do conceive of "divine sovereignty" in unitarian terms. At that point "human freedom" is considered as, ultimately, a fiction or as an escape from God's all-determining supremacy. If we imagine God's sovereignty as uni-directional then it can only bear down on that which is other than God. In this case God is always determining. That which is other than God is always being determined.

But what if the Lord has existed in I-Thou relations in eternity? What if there's been reciprocity and mutual-determination within God's being? And what if, in the determination of this God, the Son becomes Man to draw the creature into these mutual relations?

Well you start to see give-and-take, offer-and-response as something that doesn't threaten God's divine nature, but that actually constitutes it!

Freedom, then, is not something opposed to divine sovereignty. Freedom is finding your place as your distinct self in these relationships.

It's our distinctness that Mike is highlighting in the quote above. We do not originate as growths within the divine being. We are given a concrete and particular existence outside of God. Our freedom therefore speaks of our genuine other-ness to God. But we must always say that this otherness is intended as an otherness-in-relation.

Think about it like this: the Son is definitionally free (since He is "the Son" and not "A Slave"). But "Son" also speaks of "Obedience" "Likeness" "Sent-ness". His freedom is found in relationship with His Father - He is who He is in that union.

The same will be true for our freedom. We are set free by the Son (John 8:36) - liberated into His Sonship (Galatians 4:4-7). Therefore it is very much a freedom found in the triune relationships - united to the Son, filled with the Spirit of Adoption, calling on our Abba, Father. To be outside these relationships is not freedom, it's slavery.

Therefore we mustn't define things in such a way that sinning is considered an expression of freedom. Choosing to reject God is not the exercise of freedom but its opposite. Rejecting this God means embracing slavery.

Therefore freedom is not centred on the garden of Eden. It's bed-rock definition is not 'our ability to choose evil.' For a start, that places our freedom above God, and above the freedom of the new creation! No, as Mike well knows, the freedom he mentions in this quote - i.e. the freedom of "allowance" and "distinctness" - is not the whole story. We need to go to another garden to find a true definition of freedom.

In Gethsemane the Son submits His will to His Abba, Father to save us slaves who chose the darkness. And in this submission He expresses His nature as "Son" more clearly than ever. Here is freedom - here is Man living responsibly before His God and expressing His true identity. But it's dripping in the blood, sweat and tears of submission and sacrifice.

All of this is to say that "freedom" does indeed entail God's allowance of man to turn. But it's in no way exhausted or defined by that possibility. True freedom is upheld by this: when we turned to the darkness, God did not prevent us but pursued us. As the name implies, it's redemption rather than creation that makes us free. It's ultimately in His decision and act that we find freedom.

Biblical Freedom As Depicted By A Real Estate Sign

GlenJuly 27, 2011Leave a comment

Discuss!

Rights language sounds a lot like anorexia 5

GlenJanuary 4, 20115 Comments

Emma blogs about the dilemmas involved in force-feeding an anorexic.

A rights-based culture finds these issues almost impossible. Can we really violate a person's sovereign sphere and force them to eat against their own free will!?

It made me think of John Stuart Mill's account of freedom in On Liberty:

In the part [of the conduct of an individual] which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of course, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

How on earth could Mill ever get a girl to eat? In fact his words sound exactly like the motto of a pro-ana website!

And people wonder why anorexia is such a western phenomenon!

The Problem of Freedom [repost] 7

GlenSeptember 30, 20107 Comments

Freedom

An evocative word.

What does it mean to us?

Usually it means a freedom from some kind of power so that we can realize our true potential. 'I'm free to do what I want any old time.' That kind of thing.

The question of 'Who is this "I" who can do these things?' is usually considered to be a restatement of the freedom mantra: I am the one who can do what I want. "I am who I am / I will be who I will be", as Someone famously once said.

The link between such an account of freedom and the divinisation of the self becomes obvious in a thinker like John Stuart Mill. He said this in On Liberty:

In the part [of the conduct of an individual] which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of course, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

Now notice that Mill is concerned here with conduct that 'merely concerns ourselves'. He's well aware that the independent exercise of our wills can harm others and diminish their freedom. He's no dummy. He has a whole apparatus of 'rights' with which to negotiate the competing claims of our own absolute freedoms.

When Christians argue against Mill, the argument should not be: "Hey, if everyone thinks they're sovereign they'll ride rough-shod over everyone else." That would be a very pragmatic objection and one to which Mill has a whole raft of pragmatic solutions.

No, the problem is not what humanity does with their self-rule (they could be thoroughly virtuous with it). The problem is self-rule. Mill effectively poses the question, Who has the absolute claim over my life? He answers: I do. Mill's philosophy here (which is the air we breathe in the West) is nothing less than the enthronement of man upon Christ's throne.

But in critiquing such 'freedom' we can do more than simply denounce it as blasphemous. We would do well also to expose it as the worst kind of bondage. Why bondage?

Well let's ask the question, Who is this self who is exalted to the throne? Who is the "I" that can do whatever "I" want?

Tellingly, this 'freedom' cannot positively give you an identity. In fact, to be true to itself, this kind of 'freedom' must refuse to tell you who you are. All that such 'freedom' can offer is the protection of a sphere in which you can pursue your desires. It gives you a kingdom (of one!) and a throne and it operates a strict immigration policy. Yet this border-patrol must not only exclude impediments to your desires, it must also exclude forces that would seek to direct those desires. It must repel all foreign claims upon you and leave you with an absolute and unquestioned independence.

You have your kingdom and your throne, but who are you? Well, You will be who you will be. And so, left to rule your own kingdom, you are a prisoner of your independence.

Consider this piece of advice being given to millions of men and women around the world right now:

"Don't let anyone tell you what to do. You're your own man / your own woman."

Now aside from the inherent contradiction on show here, notice how you are to be directed in your sovereign rule. You must direct yourself. And the reason? You belong to yourself. This is the infuriating circularity

I direct myself.

Who is the I who directs?

The one with power to direct.

I belong to me.

Who is the one who belongs to me?

The one belonging to me.

What's missing in all this is an environment in which to exercise our freedom. We have been treated as though the choices we make in expression of our self-hood are grounded only in ourselves as individuals. Yet we are who we are in a network of dependent relationships. The expression of our identity through responsible living and choosing necessarily occurs within an environment. Divorced from this environment, any experience of 'freedom' will actually take us away from our true selves.

This is the experience of the ant-farm in this famous Simpson's clip...

[youtube=http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qnPGDWD_oLE]

The ants may have longed to be free from their glass case, but 'freedom' from the ant-farm proves to be "horrible" indeed. It destroys their very selves to be 'free' from the environment supportive of their own life and being.

We are the same. We don't exist as free floating individuals to whom the greatest gift would be independence. We are truly free when properly related to the environment in which our personhood flourishes.

And this is why Mill's definition of freedom does not help the exercise of responsible choice, it radically undermines it. Because I have been stripped of all claims upon me, all direction from outside, all sense of a context wider than me, I am left with a self that can only be defined in reference to itself and its own decision-making capacity. I have a naked self exercising a naked power, cut free from all that's actually constitutive of my identity.

Therefore, necessarily, I'm going to have to go outside myself in order to live out my irreducibly relational existence. I need, so to speak, to make an alliance with a foreign kingdom.

Now our experience of this will feel like it falls into one of two categories:

Either A) I embark on an alliance as a dispensible means towards my self-determined end. In this case I'll drop it as soon as it's inconvenient -- I'm in charge using you.

Or B) I genuinely give myself over to the foreign power and am determined by it -- You're in charge using me.

But the bible says, in practice A) is our sinful intention but it always collapses into B).

Let's think about Ephesians 2:1-3:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind.

Just as we think we are exercising our self-rule, in that act we are being ruled by Satan. We imagine we're strong enough to pull off A), in reality we have no bargaining power with the world, the flesh and the devil - they're in charge using us.

The similarity between Mill's quotation on freedom and Ephesians 2:3 is chilling. To exercise 'sovereignty' over our 'body and mind' is not freedom at all. According to the bible that is slavery.

If we're going to find a true freedom it will have to be on an entirely different footing.

We are NOT the choices we have made

GlenJuly 26, 2010Leave a comment

Look at this guy, solitary, upright, clear view to the horizon. In fact he seems to stand between heaven and earth. He is the Man, surveying all before him, standing on top of the world.

And which way will he go? It's his call.

He is the captain of his soul. This is man at his most liberated and flourishing isn't it? Free to do what he wants any old time.

He's living the dream. Which is why the whole scene is shot through with romance - the sun setting idyllically on his sovereign Decision.

But this very modern view of our choices is a ridiculous idyll. It crumbles under almost any scrutiny and yet it captures the hearts of the whole world - and so many in the church too.

The options have certainly expanded, but actually it's the underlying false belief which invests those options with such weight that they become a burden. We really think that our choices makes us who we are. We believe we have the power (in ourselves, in our choices) to be self-made men and women - rather than to receive our life and being as a gift.

But a moment's thought shows how ridiculous the sovereign chooser myth is.

And this is not to mention all the hundreds of decisions I’ve tried to make happen but they never came off. Those failures have made me who I am too.

Take the book of Proverbs for instance. You might read it and get the impression it's supporting the world's wisdom. It seems to say "Wise people act like this and it's good. Fools act like that and it's bad." But on closer inspection you see that the actions flow from the being wise or being foolish. There's only actually one wise Person - Wisdom. And one foolish person - Folly. They both consider humanity to be simple and lacking in judgement (Prov 9:4,16) yet they vie for the hearts of the masses (see Prov 1:20ff; 8:1ff; 9:1ff). They are portrayed as women - Wisdom like the good wife, Folly like the deceitful adulteress. And belonging to their respective houses - that's what constitutes a person wise or foolish.

Then from within those houses the wise and the foolish live out their being. In the house of the wise you walk with the wise and feast with Wisdom and learn her teachings and right choices follow.

So first it's an affair of the heart as Wisdom woos you. This constitutes a change of being and then we see a change in will, in choosing, in action.

Election results – latest 3

GlenNovember 5, 20083 Comments

Ok so the title's a lame attempt to get Google hits. But really this post is about the results of our election.

In the first post on freedom we thought about the blasphemy and bondage of modern, individualistic accounts of freedom.

Next we considered Jesus - especially Jesus in Gethsemane - as the proper starting point for thinking about freedom.

Last time we examined our natural state - we are not born free, we become free by the redemption that is in Jesus.

In this post we'll think about how we live out our freedom day by day in the Christian walk.

Throughout our discussion, we've never been far from the paradox of freedom - i.e. Freedom to pursue the desires of my flesh is bondage, obedience to the will of the Father is freedom. Martin Luther put it like this in The Freedom of a Christian.

A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none,

A Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one.

Sound crazy? Put it this way. Ask yourself, ‘Am I free?' One answer: ‘Absolutely, "Free indeed!" Christians are released from slavery to sin, set on our feet by Jesus, brought to the Father in righteousness, equipped by the Spirit to move forwards in sanctification.'

Now ask the question again, ‘Am I free?' Another answer: ‘Absolutely not! I am ransomed, claimed, bought, owned, enslaved by Christ. I am entirely His possession - entirely at His disposal.'

And yet His service is perfect freedom. How can this be?

Well we'll have to jettison the popular notion of freedom - doing what I want to do, any old time. Freedom is worked out in the relational matrices that constitute my identity. I'm not free by liberating myself from the claims of others upon me - those claims make me who I am. Instead I am free when I responsibly use my will in expression of my relational, grace-given identity.

Freedom means finding ouselves in obedience to God, in union with Christ, in being led by the Spirit, in serving the body. Walking in line with this truth means abandoning ourselves to these absolute claims upon us which, whether we acknowledge it or not, are the very atmosphere of our being.

We are like fish and we ought never to think we'll be more free if only we escape the tank. We are free precisely in that environment. To walk out of step with these realities is to renounce the responsible moral agency Jesus purchased with His own blood and to become a slave to the world, the flesh and the devil. Anyone who calls such a choice 'freedom' hasn't yet grasped who they really are.

Now what does this truth do to our hearts if we let it settle down deep? Well here are two lies that are unmasked which, if left unchallenged, can be so damaging.

The first lie is this: The devil always appears to us as our slave. Temptation always offers to serve us. We buy into it thinking 'I am the master of this sin. This sin is getting me what I want. I am in charge.' Of course Jesus says the opposite. "Whoever sins is a slave to sin." (John 8:34) Right when we congratulate ourselves on mastering our own fate and negotiating a win-win for our flesh the shackles go on and we're bound.

Here's the other lie and, for me, this one goes much deeper: Your 'freedom' guarantees an unimpeachable core within you. You are a choosing individual - you may choose to honour those claims upon you from without or you may choose not to. Either way, there is a protected sphere deep down that is you - and it is beyond the claims of others.

No, no, no! Our Christ-shaped doctrine of freedom completely obliterates the notion of secret basements within myself. There simply do not exist within me little safe-havens for self. There's no such thing as me-time or me-space. The real me, down to the very depths, is found in going outside myself. I am in Christ - hidden in Him. And He is in me - in all of me. Your Father sees what is done in secret. Where can we go from His Spirit? We may descend into some imagined basement of ourselves, but we'll find Jesus right there. And if we are in our right minds we'll rejoice, because who wants a Christless basement?

CS Lewis, looking back on his non-Christian days, said the word he hated more than all others was "interference". And this is completely in line with the most cherished notions of our day - i.e. within myself, down beneath the claims of others, lies the real me. Untouchable, independent, proud, responsible. And we erect barriers to guard this precious sphere.

And of course whenever the lie is believed that we have such spheres it cultivates sin like nothing else. Pride, lust, gossip, self-righteousness, entitlement, anger, self-serving - you name it, these sins thrive on the notion that there is a 'me' down here who then has the choice of how to use my will.

We must hear the gospel again. I am already and down to the very depths of me claimed, purchased, ransomed, possessed by Christ. It's not a case of the real me now deciding to walk with Christ - as though I have some 'freedom' to follow or not. Disobedience is not an option. It happens to be sure. But in another sense 'how can you live in sin any more.' (Rom 6:2).

There is an impossibility to sin that we mustn't minimize just because we manage to do the impossible all the time. To act out of step with my redeemed identity is not the rational choice of a free self for whom righteousness and wickedness lie open as equally valid options. Read Romans 6 and 7 again to see Paul wrestling out loud with the impossibility and yet the absurd and horrific presence of sin in the Christian life. Sin is not an option. And though it happens it happens only in contradiction to our true selves and our true freedom.

The point of all this is that the Christian is not (in Barth's phrase) Hercules at the crossroads. We're not the captains of our souls or masters of our fates. No, Jesus has lifted us out of that position (which we called freedom and He called slavery) and united us to Himself. The real me has been completely re-constituted by Christ and already claimed by Him. We are already on the path. There's nothing left for me to do except joyfully participate in this new humanity. To keep in step with this reality is to find my true self and experience the freedom that is already mine in my Redeemer.

1 O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. 2 You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. 3 You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. 4 Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD. 5 You hem me in--behind and before; you have laid your hand upon me. 6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain. 7 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? 8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. 9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, 10 even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. 11 If I say, "Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me," 12 even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you. (Psalm 139:1-12)

I was crucified with Christ and I no longer live but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)

Freed will

GlenOctober 30, 2008Leave a comment

Previously on Christ the Truth...

We discussed the impossiblility of a humanistic account of freedom. To say 'I am who I am / I will be who I will be' is both idolatrous and, ironically, makes us slaves of our own desires. Such "freedom" enthrones the self and simultaneously locks the self off from the claims of others in whom I find my true self. Satan rules us precisely where we seek to rule ourselves.

So then, rather than begin with Adam in the garden exercising his will to disobey, we decided to think freedom from the perspective of Jesus - the Other Adam in the other garden. As the Son He is beloved, obedient and free. And yet in Gethsemane He definitively proved that these things are not competing realities but perfectly expressed in Him. The One who calls God 'Abba', submits Himself entirely to the unbound will of the Father and in so doing expresses supremely His identity as the Son. The Son was never more gloriously Son-like than in this act of supreme obedience. To have chosen disobedience would not have been the exercise of freedom but the abandonment of His own Self. The decision for obedience was simultaneously the decision for freedom.

From this way of thinking we have a quite different definition of freedom. Perhaps something like: "The responsible use of the will in expression of ones true self." Or perhaps "Keeping in step with your grace-given, relational identity."

When we have this kind of definition then the capacity for evil cannot create or increase freedom but only thwarts the responsible use of the will. We realize that freedom is not expressed but forfeited in the choice of evil. It is only mantained in obedience to God.

So then, "Am I free to sin?" By no means! Free to sin?? Such a statement should strike us as completely confused and confusing. I'm free to be His slave, and in this way only is my freedom upheld! (cf Romans 6!)

Once this understanding of freedom is in place then we can side-step a lot of unfruitful theological discussions. We don't have to argue about the when, the how and the how much of our supposed 'freedom' to rebel against God. How could we recognize disobedience as freedom or freedom in disobedience? It can only ever be slavery.

And yet what does Ephesians 2 call us in our natural state? 'Sons of disobedience' (Eph 2:2). By nature our identity is given to us through our fallen head Adam. We cannot please God (Rom 8:8) but can only live out our rebellious desires.

Into this situation Jesus comes as Redeemer. And He purchases us for Himself. More on that next time.

But here's the point for now: The Christian does not believe in free will. Not in the abstract and certainly not by nature. We believe in freed will. (I got this phrase from Casey.) We are not free to choose or not to choose Christ. We are liberated by Christ now to be free in Him. To walk in freedom we must begin from our redemption in Christ. We simply cannot work towards this freedom but receive it from the outset. Whatever else the doctrine of election is trying to uphold, this must be central - we do not choose ourselves into Christ but rather find ourselves chosen in Him. We have not exercised our freedom to make Christ ours, He has accomplished our liberation to make us His.

So then Rousseau's famous statement, 'Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains' is exactly wrong. Man is born a slave but everywhere he walks free since Jesus has loosed our chains.

Next time we'll consider what freedom means for the Christian. How does this account of freedom help me to live out my discipleship day to day?

Freedom – where to begin?

GlenOctober 23, 2008Leave a comment

Seriously, Happy Creation Day everybody. Hope you've been enjoying the festivities.

The other day I started talking about freedom: Beginning with ourselves will never get us to a sustainable or satisfying account of freedom.

When we say: "I am who I am / I will be who I will be", it is both blasphemous (Exodus 3:6) and the very expression of our bondage. We become trapped by an identity that can allow no foreign claims. We simply become identified as one with a capacity to choose. And yet in maintaining that capacity as an absolute sovereignty we are defined in abstraction from the relationships that form and direct us as choosers. I'm a slave to my desires. Ephesians 2:1-3. In the very act of gratifying the cravings of my flesh, right then I am enslaved.

We can't begin our thinking about freedom with ourselves.

So where should we begin it?

Well it's very popular to begin with man choosing in the garden.

Yet if we begin in Eden, what account of freedom results? We effectively define freedom as the ability to choose or not to choose certain paths. The ability to act otherwise is seen as the very 'freedom' which the LORD grants humanity. And so of course the decision to eat the forbidden fruit becomes an expression of free will (defined as a power of self-direction). On this account Adam exercised freedom in disobeying the LORD even though it was a freedom with a cosmically heavy price tag. And so in this very popular telling of the freedom story, "Freedom" (which is now almost by definition the ability to disobey!) is some unquestioned Good that is traded off against the consequences of its exercise - "Heck, the fall was bad, but that's the price of freedom!"

Hmmm.

What kind of "freedom" is this?

Well let's ask - how does it compare to divine freedom? Is the freedom of the Father, Son or Holy Spirit a freedom that would be expressed in choosing evil? Well the Scriptures continually tell us that the Almighty, who can do whatever He pleases (e.g. Psalm 115:3), cannot sin, lie, deny Himself. He who is free does not define His freedom as the ability to do evil. For the divine Persons to choose any course of action contrary to their Personhood would be an expression of slavery not freedom. For the Trinity, freedom is not the ability to do wrong, nor is it enhanced by such opportunities.

This holds also for humanity in the new creation.

In the New Jerusalem the forbidden fruit is gone, the tree of life alone takes centre stage. (Rev 22:1-3). Not only will humanity never fall, there won't even be the option for us to do so. That's a wonderful thought (unless you're eye-ball deep in the humanist version of freedom!). But more than this, the bible calls this new creation state of affairs freedom. Galatians 4:26 says the Jerusalem above is free. The saints in glory now and the redeemed earth then will be characterized by mind-blowing freedom (cf Romans 8:19-21). So for glorified humanity, freedom is not the ability to do wrong, nor is freedom enhanced by such opportunities. Freedom flourishes even (and especially!) when there is no option but to continually serve the Father in the Son and by the Spirit.

So then, we're going to have to get a different definition of freedom. Where from? Well perhaps our initial instinct wasn't so bad after all. Maybe we do need to begin with man choosing in the garden.

Gethsemane is the garden. And Jesus is the Man. He will show us what true freedom looks like.

Think first of who He is - the Son.

This speaks of many things - let's highlight three:

Christ's Sonship means He is loved. He is the eternal Son of His Father's love (Colossians 1:13). He is the Object of the overflowing love of the Father - the Original recipient and goal of all the Father's omnipotent grace.
Christ's Sonship means He is obedient. As Son, Jesus always does His Father's will (John 5:17ff).
Christ's Sonship means He is free. Sonship is consistently contrasted with slavery by Jesus and Paul (e.g. John 8:31-36; Galatians 4). He is the Liberator who is Himself the True Free Man.

These three aspects of His Person are perfectly coordinated in Jesus. We can never play off grace, obedience and freedom. In our thinking we may consider them to be opposed but when we trace these things back to their centre in Jesus we see that they perfectly inform and explain one another.

And so how does this Man in this garden show us true freedom?

Let's consider Mark 14:36:

"Abba, Father," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will."

First He acknowledges His filial relationship with God - 'Abba, Father'. All the shades of sonship we've just discussed should be in the forefront of our minds.

Next He acknowledges 'everything is possible for You.' The Son doesn't go to the cross because the Father is 'all out of options.' No-one is holding a gun to the Father's head - not the Son, not some necessary logic of redemption, nothing. What happens happens in the Father's will - a will unbound by any forces beyond Him. The Father is indeed free from compulsion (though this is not our final definition of freedom).

But finally, when Jesus says 'Take this cup from me, yet not what I will but what you will' He confesses a different will to that of the Father. In all of history, in all of theology this is unparalleled. It is stunning, shocking, scandalizing... I could go on. The Son, even if only for a moment, is considering an option other than obedience to His Father's will. Even though He is the obedient Son, even though He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8) and the Son of Man who must die (Mark 8:31), He contemplates another way. It seems like no-one is holding a gun to the Son's head either. He must die, because He will die. And He will die voluntarily. In a reversal of Eden, the last Adam submits His will to the Father's and in this submission expresses true freedom.

It is not rebellion that demonstrates freedom but obedience. This is the great difference between popular notions of freedom and Christ's. Choosing does not make us free - choosing submission (paradoxically!) does. When we view things in the Son we see that obedience and freedom, rebellion and slavery are inextricably linked. The only free choice is the one for obedience.

Ans so where Adam chose self-rule and brought slavery, Christ chose submission and brought redemption. It's at Gethsemane that we see true freedom for there we see the true Son, truly loved by His Abba, Father and truly obedient to His will. "Everything is possible" is not the definition of freedom. It's the use of these possibilities that demonstrates true freedom. And this use is only a liberated use when it is obedient.

From this we get a different defintion of freedom. It's not about options, it's about responsible use of the will in expression of your grace-given, relational identity. The capacity for disobedience is not a criterion for freedom and choosing to disobey can only be slavery. Instead true freedom is found in Christ and by the power of the Spirit, living out your blood-bought sonship (daughtership) in obedience to the Father's will. To choose anything else is the bondage of the will.

In future posts I'll look at the implications of this for the non-Christian and the Christian.

The problem of freedom

GlenOctober 21, 2008Leave a comment

Freedom

An evocative word.

What does it mean to us?

Usually it means a freedom from some kind of power so that we can realize our true potential. 'I'm free to do what I want any old time.' That kind of thing.

The link between such an account of freedom and the divinisation of the self becomes obvious in a thinker like John Stuart Mill. He said this in On Liberty:

In the part [of the conduct of an individual] which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of course, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

But in critiquing such 'freedom' we can do more than simply denounce it as blasphemous. We would do well also to expose it as the worst kind of bondage. Why bondage?

Well let's ask the question, Who is this self who is exalted to the throne? Who is the "I" that can do whatever "I" want?

Consider this piece of advice being given to millions of men and women around the world right now:

"Don't let anyone tell you what to do. You're your own man / your own woman."

I direct myself.

Who is the I who directs?

The one with power to direct.

I belong to me.

Who is the one who belongs to me?

The one belonging to me.

This is the experience of the ant-farm in this famous Simpson's clip...

[youtube=http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qnPGDWD_oLE]

Therefore, necessarily, I'm going to have to go outside myself in order to live out my irreducibly relational existence. I need to, so to speak, make an alliance with a foreign kingdom.

Now our experience of this will feel like it falls into one of two categories:

Either A) I embark on an alliance as a dispensible means towards my self-determined end. In this case I'll drop it as soon as it's inconvenient -- I'm in charge using you.

Or B) I genuinely give myself over to the foreign power and am determined by it -- You're in charge using me.

But the bible says, in practice A) is our sinful intention but it always collapses into B).

Let's think about Ephesians 2:1-3:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind.

In our natural state we 'carry out the desires of the body and mind'. You might think that sitting on the throne of your little kingdom is the definition of freedom. But no, precisely as we 'gratify the cravings' (NIV) of the body and mind we are following the devil. Just as we think we are exercising our self-rule, in that act we are being ruled by Satan. We imagine we're strong enough to pull off A), in reality we have no bargaining power with the world, the flesh and the devil - they're in charge using us.

The similarity between Mill's quotation on freedom and Ephesians 2:3 is chilling. To exercise 'sovereignty' over our 'body and mind' is not freedom at all. According to the bible that is slavery.

If we're going to find a true freedom it will have to be on an entirely different footing.