One of the central words in our cultural vocabulary is ‘freedom’. It is regarded as a positive word and it seems as if we all desire to achieve it. When I contemplate the sense of this word it strikes me that there is a significant difference between the freedom I believe the Church is called to preach and the freedom the world proclaims. For the world, freedom means something like ‘possibilities for the individual’ and the aim of this freedom is ‘personal happiness and fulfilment’. The irony of this cultural quest for freedom is that no one ever seems to find it. Few ever reach a state of personal fulfilment and for those who do, it does not appear as if it last for very long. Consequently the small part of the world’s population that actually are free to pursue their own happiness search for something that no one has ever truly acquired. The search for personal happiness could therefore be described as a leap of faith and my claim is that it is a futile one.
The truth is, I believe, that individuals can never be free alone; rather freedom can only be found when our subjective identities are expanded into non-existence as they are incorporated into a greater communal life – the Sanctorum Communio. The central problem of the modern search for individual freedom is not simply that it is ultimately unattainable but that the search for it always takes place at the expense of ‘the other’. This is most likely more true today than ever before but the strong economic growth in the ‘Western’ parts of the world the past centuries has pushed the negative consequences of our individual search for freedom out of sight. There are of course poor and suffering people in our ‘Western’ countries as well but you need different measurement when you deal with the issue of financial injustice on a global scale. My point is that the negative effects of the search for freedom is not particularly visible to us and the consequence is that we feel pity when we see the starving children in Africa rather than experiencing guilt. We do not see the connection between them and us. Our pity then leads us to donate a small portion of our income to charity, and we then walk away feeling good about ourselves while our ignorant attitude keeps the status quo in place.
My biggest frustration in regards to the ‘Western’ search for individual freedom is that the Church seldom appears as a radical alternative to the world. It seems as if we have accepted the notion that religion should be a private matter and my claim is that we are in need of some fresh prophetic voices and an Exodus from this idolatrous and self-serving culture. ‘I’ can only be free insofar as ‘you’ are free and ‘we’ can only be free insofar as ‘they’ are free. The word ‘freedom’ should mean something to us but it is a communal word based on loving relationships, not selfish desires.
A quest for happiness is indeed futile. The reason being that happiness happens to be a byproduct of living in the name of Goodness.
As a Christian, I willingly submit to the Author of Goodness. I am free insofar as I act according to the will of the Author. Yet the world is free to do foolish and (sometimes) evil deeds. Let them be fools; only vanquish the wicked.
Thanks for dropping by my blog. Your post is so well written. I agree. The freedom Christ proclaims is so different from the world’s definition of freedom. And the Gospel was never meant to be a “private matter”. Thank you for posting!
Great post man! I can only say that you have articulated my unsorted thoughts into a beautiful piece of challanging poetry for both my mind and my life.
we may never attain freedom, but we must pursue it.
As I say in the last paragraph, the word ‘freedom’ should mean something to us but it is a communal word based on loving relationships, not selfish desires. Hence my argument is not that we should avoid pursuing freedom, rather that we need to re-think our understanding of what freedom means. I will attempt to spell out some more thoughts in the near future on why this is important i regards to our eschatology, soteriology, ethics, politics and so on.
May I share this following from the writings of Baha’u'llah c 1870′s: “If the learned and worldly-wise men of this age were to allow mankind to inhale the fragrance of fellowship and love, every understanding heart would apprehend the meaning of true liberty, and discover the secret of undisturbed peace and absolute composure. Were the earth to attain this station and be illumined with its light it could then be truly said of it: “Thou shall see in it no hollows or rising hills.” So here there is an idea of liberty or freedom that has an authenticity, and the reference of ‘no hollows and rising hills is cognizant with the idea of the economic boom and bust, in otherwords deriving an equity and economic justice for all humanity.
Beautiful words. Thanks for sharing!
Something really irked me today as my ears caught the sound of a World Vision commercials playing on the television. Now I know what it was. Thank you.
I will not oppose anything particularly said above. My own search has led me to a more individual faith in God and it serves both myself and the world well. I don’t keep my beliefs to myself, but rather try to help others with the beliefs they are searching for. Each to their own and if proclaiming to all is what feels correct to you then I am fine with that. My only restriction is on those whose beliefs are repressing and/or physically harmful to others.
Scott
Thanks. I would like to point out that this post was not about beliefs but about freedom, and the two should not be confused. With that said, my point is not that our particular beliefs should be ignored, quite the opposite. I usually think of these things in terms of stories. We all have our own stories and from a Western perspective God is part of some people’s individual stories. The biblical perspective is different. Rather than reading God into our own stories the Bible invites us to understand ourselves as a part of God’s story. That doesn’t mean that our particular readings must necessarily amount to some kind of uniform understanding but it does mean that we as individuals are not the centre of the world. It is in that sense a copernican revolution. I don’t think we disagree with each other, just wanted to make clear my position.
understood and well stated!
The Bible invites us to …..part of God’s story. Powerful words. As God has granted me understanding through faith my personnal freedom has grown, adding a greater peace and love. I can not sit in a corner and enjoy this self freedom for with it comes a passion to share it, a longing for everyone to know the feeling. I am saddened when I hear the American Dream put into terms of houses, cars,etc. That is all just “stuff” and has no value toward true freedom…will poverty, injustice, and evil always be with us? yes but we must keep striving to the good. I just discovered your blog yesterday, thank you for giving to the world. I have little formal education but am always seeking to learn…so am adding you to my teachers list.
Thanks
I don`t have a website so I just try if it work without.
Then I can write more. I wonder whether you have read Hauerwas. He is an interesting voice on this issue. Christianity is an alternative to liberal society. The freedom of choice is an illusion. The autonomous individual is a ghost. As he says: “Each member of the moral community called the church is internally related to others. Each person is a part of the living grammar of the whole.” And further: “For the truth is that since we are God`s good creation we are not free to choose our own stories. Freedom lies not in creating our lives, but in recognizing our lives as a gift.”
I’m familiar with Hauerwas but I’m somewhat hesitant when speaking about him since there is much of his writings that I have yet to read. Anyway, I think my latest post ‘God is the Crucified One’ relates to what you are saying and you can probably see traces of it in most of my writings. What I find troubling with Hauerwas is his tendency to withdraw from society. I agree with him that there is much in the radical reformation that we can appreciate. The kingdom of God is different than the kingdoms of this world, so in terms of ecclesiology I totally agree that we should strive to define ourselves in accordance with our own grammar, and I don’t think we should strive for privileged positions in our pluralistic societies. However, I believe that there is more to being church than to simply ‘doing the same thing Sunday after Sunday’. I’m not sure how far Hauerwas takes this but I believe that I want more social engagement by the church than he does.
Your writings are wonderful, including your post God is the Crucified One. I haven`t read that much of Hauerwas either, but from what I have read, I don`t understand the common accusations of Hauerwas being a secterian, a fideist and whatever. To the contrary. He is fighting against liberalism and modernity. I have no place found a theologian with such a profound engagement for Christianity as an alternativ polis, to liberal society.
Thanks for the kind words. As I said, I’m not really sure what to respond to this but my somewhat uninformed understanding is that he and I differ in that I want more social engagement by the Church than him. However, as I have started to spell out on the blog lately, I believe that the church needs to embrace a narrative hermeneutics and that our ecclesiology, missiology, politics, etc. must be defined within our own framework of thought and thus within our own categories. Hence, I’m not too impressed by the Christian theologians and apologists who attempts to demonstrate the relevancy and truthfulness of the Christian gospel by (consciously or unconsciously) using the categories, distinctions and so on of the Enlightenment tradition as if it was given. In that regard I believe that Hauerwas might be useful to some extent as a critique but I don’t think that neo-thomism is the answer for us. Essentially I would say that the categories of the Enlightenment tradition are to narrow to apprehend the Christian faith but simultaneously this tradition has much good in it which I believe that we should embrace into our reasoning.
I agree with you. It`s important to define Christianity on it`s own conceptual framework, and not let anyone else, let it be enlightement or whatsoever set the stage. I think Hauerwas is very important in this matter. I came to Hauerwas through Wittgenstein. Reading Wittgenstein I realised his importance for revaluing religious language, and Hauerwas have read and is influenced by Wittgenstein. If you are interested I would recommend a book by Brad Kallenberg dealing with both Wittgenstein and Hauerwas. This book titled Ethics as grammar is fantastic. If you are interested I could send you a summary of the last chapter in that book pr. e-mail.
But now I am curious about where you suggest to find the answer.
I guess that is what I’m trying to work out while writing this blog. Sometimes I wish I could just find some theologian and feel totally at home in what he/she is writing and then just read everything through that lens. But that has not happened and I’m reluctant to think that it ever will. Since truth is more holistic than one persons perspective I guess that is a good thing. It’s a struggle but I believe that its a sacred one. To wrestle with Scripture and tradition is a major part of what it means to be a Christian, which is nice. I don’t think that we will ever reach a complete understanding of anything. There is always more. New questions, new ideas, new circumstances and so on.
Please send the summary to josefgustafsson@me.com