Bush and Jesus and freedom
By Jonathan - Posted on July 19th, 2007
Interesting blog post from today by David Kuo about George Bush, God, and freedom (link). An excerpt:
God does give us freedom. But that gift of freedom is not a freedom based on a form of government - it is the freedom to live as individuals with total, complete, and utter free will. It is the freedom to choose or to reject God, the freedom to choose or to reject God's gifts. THAT is God's gift of freedom. To confuse that gift with a form of government reflects both theological and political naivety.
Login to post comments
Jon - I am not one of the president's fans, but i disagree wity tyhe blog you're citing. If the freedom god gives us were not to be mirrored by the societies we live in, then totalitarian regimes, depriving the individual of all freedom, are perfectly all right. This is obviously untrue, q.e.d. I believe that the individual has to have the ability to act out its freedom within the limits of god's law, not arbitrary limiting, human law.
Peter,
I would agree that ideally society should mirror "the freedom God gives us", but we live in a fallen world that makes this ideal highly unlikely. The Bible, especially the prophets of the O.T., certainly condemns the injustice and oppression that you would expect from a totalitarian regime. However, I think Kuo's point (one that I would agree with) is that the kingdom of God and the true freedom that God gives are of a different nature. For example, Jesus's apostles made it clear that the proper response of slaves was to submit to their masters (Eph. 6:5-9 , Col. 3:22-24, Titus 2:9-10, 1 Pet. 2:18). Admittedly, the the conditions of slavery in that context was different and perhpas not as heinous as that of more recent times. Not that slavery then or now is a reflection of the freedom God gives, but that to be a follower of Christ is about something different, more fundamental. Jesus disciples were expecting him to provide provide deliverance to the Jews from the Romans and set up an earthly kingdom. They were mistaken. His kingdom is not of this world.
Jonathan - very thought provoking comments. I have thought about this, too. At this point, I think that there are different kinds of freedom to be distinguished.
a) the freedom of will that every human has. it is complete freedom to intend either right or wrong in the face of any given situation. it is complete freedom within my creaturly limits (means: i can't move planets by myself). but i can be evil or good, even if it is only in small ways. that freedom is given to me by god.
b) the freedom that i either have or have not to act out my will in the material world, practical freedom. that is a touchier issue. it governs the practical limits of my free will. can i go shopping without being beaten by a gang of thugs? can my children go to school without being abducted? can my neighbor send his children to school the same way? this is where political "freedom" sloganery may project an illusion of freedom in people's minds: freedom is my unmitigated right to all the world's cheap oil. it is my right to impose my western lifestyle upon cultures so alien that i cannot hope to understand them, even if i were not a hillbilly. it is my right to drive my heavy SUV in the face of those who have no hope of even a riksha.
i propose that there runs a line through b) that delineates good freedom from bad freedom. god gives us certain boundaries of material freedom to act out our decision to be with him or without him. from the fact that the lord healed the sick and lifted up the downtrodden when he was here, i deduce that material freedom is something he cherishes, as long as it is not frivolous freedom (see above). wholesome material freedom enables us to focus on the good in god's creation. for instance, it is good not to have to worry about my next meal, or about my physical safety. it is in accordance with human dignity that we are materially free.
i think the lord's teachings are perfectly in accordance with this: good freedom is the right of a slave to obey his master in good conscience if there is no hope in hell that he'll be able to liberate himself without unjust bloodshed. good freedom is my right to turn the other cheek if i'm insulted and hitting back is to no good purpose. freedom is the right of a spouse to submit to her husband without having to worry about her stature in society being diminished by it.
i think it is very easy to interpret the lord's sayings as: be a wet rag. never hit back. don't defend yourself. i think the reading in context would say: just hitting back isn't going to save either you or the aggressor. do what is right. be humble. don't hate. take a slap in the face if that's what it takes.
but freedom is also the right to fight back against oppression if i have a real hope of changing things for the better without imposing injustice. it is my duty to defend my children against being abducted when they go to school. if hitler wants to turn the world into his private hell, i have a positive duty to hit him on the head.
i agree we live in a fallen world, but this does not mean that we must submit to tyrants like cattle does to the butcher. that is unjust even to the tyrants, who thus have no hope of being shown the error of their ways. i think the lord's "turn the other cheek" is to be interpreted within this context. he never said: if someone tries to genocide your people, lay back and let it happen.
however, i have become very, very cautious about going to war for freedom. in an earlier post i said i don't have the necessary info to decide whether just war is even a possibility, and i stand by that.
do you agree? this is an important topic, and i would like your feedback. thanks
pmm
Yes, I would would say that's a good summary of the views I've long held. Lately I've been listening more to a different perspective that does not rationalize the use of violence. The "myth of redemptive violence" is a popular phrase that is used. This viewpoint holds that the example of Jesus is wholly nonviolent and that we are to follow his example.
At this point, I really haven't come to a satisfactory conclusion. I'm pretty much torn between the two perspectives. I plan to study this much more thoroughly at some point soon.
Can you supply references/links to the viewpoint on a totally nonviolent (not even defensive) gospel? my viewpoint is summarized in the catholic catechism and also in some of Lewis' writings (The weight of glory: Why I am not a pacifist). While Lewis is not a trained theologian, i find his views convincing.
having said this, i hope to benefit from this conversation with regard to the present situation of the world...
thanks
pmm
See the "Thoughts on Non-Violence" series of blog posts (part one through ..."A Manifesto") at scottfreeman.info: link
I can't rememeber which if any books are referenced in the above, but here are some that I think may be relevant (though I haven't read any of them yet):
The Peaceable Kingdom
Jesus and Nonviolence: A Third Way
the blog link you gave sounds very convincing in parts, flaky in others. i need to go back to my own references. i'll be back...
pmm