Tag: Freedom

Freedom is God: Wear a Mask

June 27, 2020 / Trent / 21 Comments

A friend of mine sent me a video in which Dennis Pranger of Prager U, addresses the graduating class of 2020 on what the Covid-19 pandemic has taught them about life.

The address is called Graduation 2020: The COVID Class

Early on in the address, he characterizes our unique times, not with reference to the contagious and potentially deadly disease that has swept across the globe, but as a time when “healthy people, and people living in free societies, have been confined to their homes.”

This take on our current situation is central to Pranger’s message which is taken up in his third point. His first two points are spot on and part of my motivation to write this post is to pass on these astute observations and wise words.

Pranger U is a conservative American organization that creates videos on various political, economic, and philosophical topics. There are a lot of Christians who like what Pranger has to say but being conservative and being Christian are not the same thing. This is born out in Pranger’s third lesson to the COVID Class.

Lesson 1: Life is Hard, Unfair, and Unpredictable.

Your life is very easy. In the developed West, all our lives are easy compared to those in other parts of the world. We have easy access to food. Clothing and shelter are not much of a problem for the vast majority of North Americans. We are healthy and have a lot of leisure time and a plethora of entertainment options. We can easily get the idea that this is normal. It’s not.

Covid-19 and its effects begin to help us to sense how hard life is, “and that understanding equips you to deal much better with life’s challenges, which are inevitable.”

Pranger’s right. To walk into life from high school expecting the world to be easy, fair, and predictable will lead to disappointment and bitterness. This is a valuable lesson.

Lesson 2: Always be Grateful

Pranger says that “gratitude is probably the most important trait you can have because it is the source of both happiness and goodness.”

I don’t necessarily agree that gratitude is the source of goodness, but I agree with his premise and that grateful people are happier than resentful people. We have so much to be grateful for but, ironically, we tend to be ungrateful in our culture. This may be because we are continuously barraged with advertising and social media that teaches us we don’t have enough or are not good enough.

If Covid-19 has helped you to appreciate what you have both materially and relationally, then allow that lesson to colour and shape your life. This is an incredibly valuable lesson.

Lesson 3: Freedom is Fragile–Very Fragile

Lesson 3 is the main point of Pranger’s video. And, from a biblical perspective, I think he’s way off here. Pranger tells graduates:

The ease with which most Americans acquiesced to the removal of many of their most basic rights . . . should take your breath away. At the very least it should make you realize how easily any government can take away people’s most elementary freedoms.

Pranger is critical of the extent to which some jurisdictions restricted contact in their reaction to the virus. In some states where there was very little infection people were told to stay home anyway. I am not going to argue with Pranger on these particulars–he may be right. Some governments may have overreacted–we won’t really know what the correct degree of response should have been until all this is over. (Since this video was released, numbers suggest that the response of many American states did not go far enough.)

Judging from the graphics in the video, America’s most basic rights are freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to wear a hardhat. These are the rights that he claims we have been so breathtakingly surrendered to governments.

In reality, the only fundamental right that we surrendered, temporarily, was freedom of assembly. This has some immediate effect on freedom of religion and the economic (hardhat) freedoms of many citizens.

But wasn’t it a good idea to suspend the freedom to assemble in large groups? Are Americans supposed to hold onto these rights under any and all circumstances? Is not a highly contagious, potentially fatal virus, not the exact circumstance in which this right ought to be quickly surrendered? I can’t even come up with an analogy to drive this point home. No analogy is clearer than the circumstances we find ourselves in.

[click_to_tweet tweet=”Isn’t it a good idea to suspend the #freedom to assemble? Are we to demand this right under all circumstances? Is not a highly contagious, fatal virus, the exact circumstance in which to surrender this right? Isn’t this biblical?” quote=”Isn’t it a good idea to suspend our freedom to assemble? Are we to demand these rights under all circumstances? Is not a highly contagious, fatal virus, the exact circumstance in which to surrender this right? Isn’t this biblical? “]

Would Pranger have us ignore the quarantine and gather anyway? Take guns into government buildings and demand our rights to assemble? To defiantly not wear a mask as the new symbol of personal freedom?

The Statue of Responsibility

France gave the United States of America the Statue of Liberty, says Pranger, “because America, more than any other country, symbolized Liberty.”

The problem is, the American emphasis on Liberty has become unbalanced. Someone forgot to give America the necessary and complementary statue–The Statue of Responsibility.

The Statue of Responsibility was the vision of psychiatrist, philosopher, and Holocaust survivor, Viktor Frankl.

Frankl is right when he says:

“Freedom is only part of the story and half of the truth. Freedom is but the negative aspect of the whole phenomenon whose positive aspect is responsibleness. In fact, freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness.

Man’s Search for Meaning

Viktor Frankl is saying that without responsibility, freedom will degenerate into mere license–doing whatever you want.

In a practical sense, we practice freedom in balance with responsibility all the time. We have the freedom to drive, but this is balanced with the responsibility to adhere to traffic laws. We have freedom of speech, but we balance this with the responsibility to not yell “fire” in a crowded theatre.

But now, during the COVID-19 pandemic, some people adamantly resist the curbing of dangerous behavior for the public good. And the more we see this resistance, the higher climb the numbers of cases and deaths from COVID-19.

What is going on here?

The Idolatry of Freedom

Tim Keller describes idolatry as making a good thing into an ultimate thing. Freedom is a good thing. But when it takes the place of God as the ultimate thing, it becomes a cruel deity that demands sacrifice–human sacrifice.

[click_to_tweet tweet=”Both #liberalsandconservatives have a problem with #idolatry. They both worship #Freedom and are willing to make human sacrifices to this cruel deity. The only difference is the particular victims they place on Freedom’s firey altars. ” quote=”Both liberals and conservatives have a problem with idolatry. They both worship Freedom and are willing to make human sacrifices to this cruel deity. The only difference is the particular victims they respectively place on Freedom’s firey altars.”]

Both the Old and New Testaments are consistent in saying that God is God, and he created all good things. The Bible tells us not to worship these good things. He also created human beings in his image, making human beings are more valuable than any good thing–more valuable than money, beauty, fame, power, America, the flag, or freedom.

The Bible teaches that we obey governments unless their laws come into conflict with God’s law. Quarantines and social distancing are not contrary to God’s law, they are merely contrary to the law of our false god.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, face masks, quarantines, and social distancing save lives–this becomes more and more clear every passing day. To refuse to wear facemasks, and defy quarantines and social distancing mandates, is to choose freedom and the economy over human life. It’s to choose a good thing (freedom) over the image (humanity) of the ultimate thing (God).

If we don’t worship God, we will worship something else. In America, we worship Freedom and the Economy. In America, it is your right to do so, but it is not biblical.

[click_to_tweet tweet=”If we don’t worship God, we will worship something else. In America, we worship #Freedom and the Economy. In America, it is your right to do so, but it is not biblical. #conservative #Christian #Covid” quote=”If we don’t worship God, we will worship something else. In America, we worship Freedom and the Economy. In America, it is your right to do so, but it is not biblical.”]

Ironically, the numbers seem to indicate that those jurisdictions that most faithfully complied with quarantines and social distancing regulations, will be the jurisdictions that most quickly restore freedoms of assembly and recover economically.

But this is not why I reject Denis Pranger’s third lesson. I reject it because it is unbiblical.

I’d like to replace it with my own.

My Lesson #3: It’s Not Just About You

The global pandemic and the quarantine reminded you that it’s not all about you. Lots of people will tell you that there is nothing more important than your individual freedom. This is a tenet of our society. It’s the only thing that liberals and conservatives agree on, albeit in different directions.

You hear it from the college kids on the Florida beaches and the conservative radio hosts and bloggers: “If I’m willing to risk catching Covid-19, I can do what I want. It’s my life.”

A friend of mine has a university-aged daughter who works at Starbucks and lives in their home. He also has several sets of older parents who he is taking care of, since they are vulnerable and, consequently, are taking the quarantine seriously. The daughter’s co-workers ignore social distancing protocols. They like to party with friends. Because they are not worried about catching the virus, they believe they can ignore the protocols. They are free to choose risky behaviour if willing to take the consequences.

They are not vulnerable. They correctly assess the risk to be minimal. Why should they give up their freedom?

The answer is, they have a responsibility to others. They have to protect themselves from the virus so that they don’t pass it onto my friend’s daughter, so she doesn’t pass it onto her parents, and her grandparents.

Freedom is a good thing. But it’s not the ultimate thing. Your life is interconnected with those of many others. You can’t always do whatever you want because you are responsible for other lives.

My objection to Pranger’s third lesson is rooted in my faith. Christians are to love God and love our neighbour. In our current context, we love our neighbour by limiting movement, social distancing, wearing a mask in public. It is not possible to love both Jesus and Freedom as ultimate things. One must give way. One results in human flourishing, the other results in human sacrifice.

What We Can Learn from the Dress Code

May 18, 2018 / Trent / 2 Comments

Photo by Rhii Photography on Unsplash

As the weather turns warmer, I again hear of some student displeasure with the dress code–this sentiment is as cyclical as the seasons. Because it is ridiculous that a school should have no dress code at all, I am tempted to tease that we should just adopt school uniforms? I’d not be serious with this suggestion; I oppose this move because dress codes teach us some very important things.

Advantages of School Uniforms

I will concede that school uniforms have some advantages:

Uniforms instill a sense of professionalism, imitating the business-dress of their possible futures.
They eliminate the hassle of trying to find outfits that meet the dress code and are also in style.
They are cheaper in the long run.
They act as a socioeconomic equalizer.
They eliminate dress codes, that can, given the sexualization of women in our culture, unfairly target girls.

The main reason I am against school uniforms is that, although some learning may improve, a lot of other important things are not learned by the uniformed scholar–things pertaining to Freedom.

Let Freedom Reign

Our culture is obsessed with Freedom.

We celebrate it at our sporting events.
Our television shows explore themes surrounding freedom, often presenting negative caricatures of traditional authorities, limiters of freedom.
Most television talk shows take every possible freedom as an absolute good.
The TV news is full of stories about conflicts about freedom, and it is obvious that if you are not on the side of freedom, you are going to lose the argument.
In popular movies, one of the defining qualities of the bad guy is often that he/she is a suppressor of freedom.
Politicians can win majorities to their positions if they can ground them in Freedom.
Remembrance Day used to commemorate the Armistice that brought WWI to a close, but now it seems it is all about the Freedom that was won in that war.
Originally established to remember those who died while serving in the U.S. military, the language of Freedom dominates Memorial Day celebrations.
The internet, in its very form, perpetuates the values of unrestricted freedom.

It should come as no surprise that some students bristle at the idea of restricting their choice in school attire. They have been raised in this freedom obsessed culture, bombarded with the idea that Freedom is The Ultimate. Freedom is the standard by which we judge between good and evil. Furthermore, starting sometime in adolescence, human beings begin the natural process of moving out from under the authority of parents. This can lead to the natural assertion of personal freedoms against any form of authority– including that of their school. Combine this natural adolescent impulse toward freedom with our particular cultural obsession and you ought not to be surprised when the cry “Freedom!” erupts from some junior William Wallace, especially in the spring.

I oppose school uniforms because, in order to learn how to navigate the world dominated by Freedom worship, our children need to be given freedom. They need to have freedom to make decisions about what they wear so they can come up against the limits of freedom, for freedom can only be good if it is limited. Without limits, it becomes a terrible and demanding deity.

[click_to_tweet tweet=”Students need the freedom to make decisions about what they wear so they can come up against the limits of freedom, for freedom is only good when limited. Without limits, it becomes a terrible and demanding deity. #schooluniforms #hatsinschool” quote=”Students need the freedom to make decisions about what they wear so they can come up against the limits of freedom, for freedom is only good when limited. Without limits, it becomes a terrible and demanding deity. “]

What’s Wrong With Wearing A Hat?

Some students want to wear a hat to school. We happen to be in a time where hats are an important accessory in youth culture, but hats break the dress code. When asked to remove the hat, some ask, “What’s wrong with wearing a hat?” There is nothing wrong with wearing a hat, but it is, sometimes, improper to wear a hat. The reason we don’t wear hats indoors in some public places like churches, restaurants, and schools has to do with propriety. Propriety is the quality of conforming to conventionally accepted standards of behavior or morals. It has long been the case in our culture that hats are to be worn only outside.

Standards of propriety are relative. They change according to place or time. In some cultures, propriety dictates that head coverings must be worn indoors. Ours just happens to be one in which it is traditionally expected that one removes one’s hat when entering a building. Students naturally counter this argument by saying that times have changed, and I am holding on to an outdated convention–propriety has moved on.

I respond by saying that this convention is certainly no longer part of teen sub-culture, but propriety is not dictated by teen sub-culture, but culture as a whole. Even here it might be fading, but it is not yet gone.

[click_to_tweet tweet=”Removing hats indoors is no longer part of teen sub-culture, but propriety is not dictated by teen sub-culture, but culture as a whole. Even here it might be fading, but it is not yet gone. #dresscode #hatsinschool” quote=”Removing hats indoors is no longer part of teen sub-culture, but propriety is not dictated by teen sub-culture, but culture as a whole. Even here it might be fading, but it is not yet gone.”]

Why we need a dress code

or Why you can’t wear a hat in school

There is something much more important at play within the dress code’s prohibition on hats. It is that we are holding ourselves to an external standard. The specific standard is not as important as the idea that such communal standards exist. They exist, and they put limits on some personal freedoms, (a heretical move in our cultural context).

The “no-hat rule” is particularly effective in teaching middle and lower high school students the vital lesson that some personal freedoms are subordinate to community standards. This norm runs contrary to the teen sub-culture. Propriety cannot be meaningfully taught where there is no tension between student sub-culture and the culture at large. If we were to restrict only coon-skin caps and platform shoes, the important lessons of propriety would remain unlearned.

Propriety is about submission to something bigger than oneself. This is difficult for some adolescents who can’t conceive of anything more important than themselves. The cultural worship of Freedom exacerbates this attitude. Conveniently, those that most need to learn the principles of propriety identify themselves by bucking most violently against the conventions of propriety.

[click_to_tweet tweet=”The ‘no-hat rule’ is particularly effective in teaching middle and lower high school students the vital lesson that some personal freedoms are subordinate to community standards. #dresscode #nohatsinschool” quote=”The ‘no-hat rule’ is particularly effective in teaching middle and lower high school students the vital lesson that some personal freedoms are subordinate to community standards.”]

Students who desperately want to wear their hats in class point out that some adults, too, wear hats indoors. Yes, there are some adults who, working outside all day, neglect to take their hat off when they come indoors. This is not the same thing as donning a hat for a day which will be spent entirely indoors. Other adults wear hats because they have not outgrown adolescent rebellion and/or believe that personal Freedom is ultimate. These are not a justification for students wearing hats; they are, rather, representative of the very idea we are trying to counter.

In the case of adults sporting caps indoors, it is appropriate to be gracious, but this is not a luxury we can extend to our students. We cannot turn a blind eye, for we bear the responsibility to move our students through adolescence and to challenge the supremacy of personal freedom.

Rituals of Submission

You can tell students things, and they might learn a little. You can show them something, and they will learn a little better. Students learn even better when they teach something. And better still if they do something. But they will learn best of all if they do something with regularity. In the morning ritual of getting dressed for school, students practice the idea that there are some things that are more important than personal freedom. They practice submitting to an authority external to the self.

We want students to grow into adults who understand that personal freedom is a good thing, but not The Ultimate Thing. Without a dress code, students are in danger of graduating with the idea that freedom is God. The lessons inherent in the dress code, not just the no-hat-rule, if learned well will lead to their flourishing, and that of society as well. A school with uniforms does not have the opportunity to teach this important lesson.

Most students have no problem with the dress code, and for those who do, the disagreement is usually the typical adolescent desire for personal freedom. By the time most students reach their last year of high school, they have little issue with the school’s limits on clothing freedoms. Perhaps this is because they have grown up a little, and no longer need to define themselves against authority figures, but it might also be a result of daily practice making decisions that balance personal freedom and social responsibility.

Radical Individualism–The End of Our Quest for Freedom

March 28, 2016 / Trent / 1 Comment

nastya_gepp / Pixabay

Where do we find Truth and Meaning?

Truth and Meaning reside in the individual mind. It wasn’t always so.

The idea that meaning resides in the individual human mind, has been a long time in development. 500 years ago, meaning was external–context mattered.

In the Medieval world and before, the human self was understood in terms of three key relationships. That between God, other people, and the world. These relationships were understood in terms of hierarchies. The most spiritual things were on the top and the most physical things were on the bottom. Angels were at the top, with humans just underneath, then animals, birds, plants, planets, and the purely physical elements.

Each of these categories were ordered in their own hierarchies–the animal hierarchy was headed by a lion with the oyster at the bottom. The elements were framed by gold and lead. The planets from sun, to moon, to the other “spheres” to lowly earth. And every human lived between the king at the top and the insane beggar at the bottom.

One’s identity, and the meaning of all things, had everything to do with where it fit within all these hierarchies. Meaning and truth were external, sought and discovered in their context.

Freedom From Hierarchies

Then came a series of events that would free the individual from all these hierarchies.

Religious Freedom came about with the Protestant Reformation which began in 1517 with Martin Luther nailing his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of All Saints’ Church in Wittenberg. This event was the catalyst to a movement that would allow individuals to read a the Holy Scriptures in their own language and interpret the content for themselves.
Political Freedom came in a series of revolutions. The English Revolution in 1649, the American Revolution in 1776 and the French Revolution 1789 seriously limited or eliminated the hereditary position of king.
Freedom from the Transcendent/Divine. When did we stop believing in God? Some of us haven’t, but let’s just say that it was in 1882 with Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Gay Science. In it we find those famous lines, “God is dead. . . . And we have killed him.”
Racial Freedom continues to be clarified, but two significant events are worth mentioning: the Abolition of slavery and America’s Civil War in the 1860 and the Civil Rights Movements of the 1960s.
Freedom for Women – In the first have of the 1900s women won the right to vote in many Western countries. Countries. Progress in even more equality were won in the 1960s.
Sexual Freedom was also a part of the 1960s.
Freedoms related to Sexual Orientation have been won in many jurisdictions in the last decade.
Freedom from Biology – 2015? The latest emancipation seems to be from our biology. Caitlyn Jenner and Rachel Dolezal are representative of this new-found freedom against biological gender and race respectively.

Total Freedom, Increasing Isolation

This is where we are now. For the modern self, context doesn’t matter–meaning is internal, within the individual human mind. There is no authority higher than the self. The modern human is an autonomous human, not to be ruled by God, pope, king, or biology.

There are some consequences to this shift from external to internal meaning. Just one effect is our isolation from other people and things.

We aren’t as engaged in our world as we once were: In his book, Bowling Alone Robert Putnam points out that civic engagement has been in steady decline in the last third of the century. What is the evidence? We don’t do a bunch of things as much as we used to, things that Putnam suggests are indicators of civic engagement.

newspaper reading;
TV news watching;
attending political meetings;
petition signing;
running for public office;
attending public meetings;
serving as an officer or committee member in any local clubs or organizations;
writing letters to the editor;
participating in local meetings of national organizations;
attending religious services;
socializing informally with friends, relatives or neighbors;
attending club meetings;
joining unions;
entertaining friends at home;
participating in picnics;
eating the super with the whole family;
going out to bars, nightclubs or taverns;
playing cards;
sending greeting cards;
attending parties;
playing sports;
donating money as a percentage of income;
working on community projects;
giving blood.

As far as I know, there is no proof that civic disengagement is a result of the radical individualism I have described, but it seems to follow.

Freedom and Individuality are good things, but they are not ultimate things. We’ve made them ultimate things–we judge everything based on the degree to which it aligns with the worship Individual Freedom. But good things cannot fulfill the demands made of them when we put them into the place of God. They will become very cruel gods before too long, but before that, they will move us away from the other. That they move us away from relationships, suggests their inadequacy as gods, for we find we are most fully human within our relationships–the purpose for which we were made.

Can a school discipline a student for behaviour outside of school?

March 28, 2014 / Trent / 0 Comments

Wokandapix / Pixabay

Apparently not.

Riley Stratton from Minnesota won her lawsuit against her school claiming that they violated her constitutional rights of free speech and privacy.

She had been forced to reveal her Facebook password to her school.

When she was 12 she typed some things on Facebook expressing her dislike/hatred for a hall monitor named Kathy. A few days later the school received a complaint that she was talking about sex with a boy. Consequently, she was asked by the school for her password, which she surrendered because she feared detention. Apparently, the school officials searched her Facebook account. Importantly, she did not use a school computer. Her parents weren’t consulted.

She sued the school and won a $70,000 settlement.

Does the School have the Right?

It boils down to the question: Does the school have any right to discipline a student for something they do outside of school?

On the one hand, students ought to enjoy the freedom of speech and privacy that we enjoy as adults.

Schools are tasked to “educate” whole persons.

Although we talk about various aspects of the students, schools must deal with and educate whole persons.

Some schools have breakfast programs because students can’t learn when they are hungry.
Schools have counselors to help students deal with a wide variety of issues. Everything from the loss of a loved one the death of a family pet, from relationships with friends to bullying.

Schools are very concerned, not just with a student bringing drugs to school, but in using drugs at all.

Some schools exist just because they recognize the importance of spirituality in the life of all people.

Family income, cultural or religious heritage, level of parents education, etc. are all part of who the student is as a whole person.

Is there a distinction between life-at-shool and life-at-home?

In some sense there is a difference between life-at-school and life-not-at-school, so we often make that distinction, but the distinction isn’t always realistic.

The school has to nurture, educate, stimulate, and, yes, discipline, whole persons. Parents, school, church (if applicable), community, etc. are all interested in the flourishing of each individual student. Each deals with the individual as a whole entity, albeit with different aspects.

Therefore, it is conceivable that the school would, for her sake, be interested in the ways that Riley is using her Facebook account. The integrated whole, that is Riley, might have been best served by being forced her to surrender her password and helped, with the involvement of her parents, to understand her responsibilities to others and appropriate boundaries regarding talking with boys about sex online.

Riley says she no longer trusts adults.

I’m sure she no longer trusts them, but this is not necessarily the bad thing she thinks it is. She does not trust them to not invade her privacy, but this is not the same thing as not trusting them to look out for her best interests?

Riley has learned a lot through this experience, I am sure, but I worry that with this precedent students will learn a lot more about their personal rights and freedoms, and very little about their responsibility for how they treat others and how they use the powerful tools of social media.

It’s not a simple issue. What do you think?

Doing the Dishes and the Gnashing of Teeth

October 21, 2013 / Trent / 3 Comments

chefkeem / Pixabay

When my kids were younger they had chores—one of which was doing the dishes.

It should have been as simple as everyone taking a turn on a rotating basis, but was never that simple.

Lacrosse games or ballet practices meant that somebody would miss their turn. To ask another child to take care of it resulted in anguished lamentations. These were even louder if the prospective dishwasher could conjure up a scenario where this debt might not be repaid. Then there was the was wailing and gnashing of teeth over the unfairness of having to do dishes on a night when we had a roast, as opposed the other night when a sibling had only to contend with the remains of a meal of bread and soup. Sometimes I got so sick of it that I just did them myself.

Grudging Obedience

I wouldn’t have been any happier if I had their silent obedience either. It certainly would have been quieter, and possibly less frustrating, but it wouldn’t have lead to their happiness, and in my better moments what I wish most for my children is fulfillment regardless of the circumstances.

The problem in both of these responses, wailing lamentations or grudging obedience, is that doing the dishes is seen as a duty. The idea of duty or obligation or requirement is set in opposition to happiness and joy. For my young children, happiness and joy could only be achieved by doing what they wanted as opposed to what they had to do. My kids put freedom first.

All this was a long time ago. My children have all grown up. The great thing now is that when they come over for a meal, they joyfully do the dishes. It’s the same activity, but their attitude is completely different.

What accounts for this difference? Surely, it’s maturity. They’ve lived away from home and know how much money and work it takes to put a delicious meal onto the table.

But it’s more than maturity; the most important thing for them is no longer freedom from duties and obligations, but a relationship with me, their parent. I cook for them a delicious meal because I love them and they wash the dishes because they love me.

If we think that Freedom is more important than anything else in order to live the good life (read more here), our focus will usually be hostilely directed toward those things which limit one’s freedom, and those who seemingly impose duties, obligations, responsibilities.

This creates resentful people.

If relationship is more important than freedom, our focus will be lovingly directed toward other persons who we love.

It’s obvious which leads to greater joy and happiness–fulfillment.

Biblical Basis of Fulfillment

It’s all there in Deteronomy 10. The writer implores God’s people to

¹² . . .walk in obedience to him, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, ¹³and to observe the Lord’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good.

Obedience certainly restricts our freedom, but washing the dishes after a good meal is a loving and joyful response to a great meal prepared for you in joy and love, and it’s all for our own good anyway.

My kids were miserable when they were focused on the duty and they are happy now that they are focused on the relationship. God wants what’s best for his people, and it turns out that is obedience.

Not Simply Obedience

But it’s not simply obedience.

Simple obedience is for the simply religious, and they are miserable. It’s joyful obedience that God is after and that will be a blessing to us. In verse 16 of the Deuteronomy 10, it says

Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer.

Circumcision was a duty for the people of God and if they understood it only as an obligation, they’d be stiff-necked. God certainly didn’t want disobedience, but silent and grudging obedience wasn’t any better; he wanted their hearts so that we can flourish.

Human flourishing is not about freedom, nor is it about fulfilling religious obligations, it’s about relationship.

Made for Freedom?

October 12, 2013 / Trent / 2 Comments

Free-Photos / Pixabay

When I got married, I was no longer free. I couldn’t play League of Legends whenever I wanted. I couldn’t eat chicken wings in bed. I had to tell my wife that I was going down to the store to get a jug of milk.

But I don’t mind. Not at all.

I’m not sure why exactly. It’s not because I’ve somehow gained more than I’ve lost–it’s more like I’ve gained what I lost as well as gained what I’ve gained. It doesn’t really make sense but that’s the way it is.

I don’t think I’m alone in this. I think that this sort of counterintuitive accounting occurs when anyone is in a good relationship.

A. C. Grayling recently presented the first of eight “Fragile Freedoms” lectures on CBC’s Ideas. In it he said that there is no possibility of “living the good life” if one is not free.

Grayling, along with most other modernists, would be right if human beings were made for autonomy. But what if we weren’t primarily made to be free? What if we were made first for something else?

Made for Relationship?

What if we were made for relationship? Not just in marriage, but in friendship and family, and not just with people but with animals and even the physical world.

The Biblical story suggests human beings are made to be in relationship, first with their Creator and, after, with everything else. We were made to be the objects of God’s love. He says through Jeremiah, “I have loved you with an everlasting love” (31:3). Suppose we were made to receive and the to return his love and to spread it out to the rest of the creation?

If this is the purpose for which we were made, freedom is still a very important part of who we are. Love is impossible without freedom. There is no possibility to love someone if there is no freedom to reject their love. It’s all there in Genesis 1-3. Humanity was created for relationship with God (and with each other and with the world). We had a choice and chose to reject God’s love. This didn’t change our purpose, just our ability to fulfill it.

So who is right about human nature? The modernists like Grayling or those who adhere to the Biblical view of man?

There is a simple test: Who experiences more fulfillment in life? The person whose freedom is expressed through relationships or the one whose relationship is subordinate to his freedom.

[click_to_tweet tweet=”Who is more fulfilled? The person whose freedom is expressed through relationships or the one whose relationship is subordinate to his freedom.” quote=”Who is more fulfilled? The person whose freedom is expressed through relationships or the one whose relationship is subordinate to his freedom.”]

In my experience, freedom is best enjoyed in the context of relationships, even though you surrender it most of the time. I think this is a universal experience when we are talking about “good” relationships. Those who insist on freedom first will be able to eat chicken wings in bed, but they won’t have anyone who cares that they stepped out for a jug of milk.

The Story of Human Rights

October 2, 2013 / Trent / 0 Comments

dimitrisvetsikas1969 / Pixabay

While driving to one lecture, I was listening to another. The one I was listening to was delivered by A. C. Grayling on CBC’s Ideas. This was the first of eight “Fragile Freedoms” lectures held at the not yet officially opened Canadian Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg (listen here).

This is an excellent lecture. It’s clear, unified, thorough and entertaining, but in his historical survey of the development of the idea of rights, Grayling begins in the wrong place.

The Modern Story of Autonomy–Human Rights and Freedoms

His story beings in the 16th century. It goes like this:

In the Reformation, humanity took its first step toward the freedoms that culminated in the Enlightenment and were embodied in the documents of the French and American Revolutions. Martin Luther and the other reformers freed people from the hegemony of the church by giving them direct and individual access to God without the mediation of the church. This freedom Grayling calls “liberty of conscience” and it began an “inevitable “process leading to “liberty of thought” and then “liberty of action.” These liberties led to the freedom to ask all sort of questions, first, of the natural world, which led to the scientific revolution and then, of the social and political systems, which resulted in the revolutions in France and America.

Grayling is telling the Modern Story, the dominant story in our culture. It is a story of, among other things, the quest for individual human autonomy. This story begins in 1517.

The Ancient Origin of Human Rights and Freedoms

It is generally agreed upon that human freedoms and rights are a good thing. And we all like to take credit for good things. The Soviets claimed credit for the invention of the telephone, the Dutch for the sinking of the Spanish Armada and the Americans for the invention of basketball. So too, the Moderns claim credit for human rights and freedoms, and they do this by linking human rights to the modern quest for autonomy.

But the idea of human rights is not, in the first place, rooted in autonomy but rather in the idea of human worth. And this idea has a much more ancient origin.

[click_to_tweet tweet=”Are human rights and freedoms rooted in autonomy or human value? #freedom #rightsandfreedoms ” quote=”Are human rights and freedoms rooted in autonomy or human value?”]

Genesis 1:27 says, “God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” The Biblical story says that human beings–male and female–were created with inherent value.

It is likely we are not all that impressed at such a declaration. We have heard these words, literally, for millennia. (And this is sort of my point; we’ve heard them so long, we were bound to listen to them at some point.) But how would these words have sounded in the ancient world–ridiculous, preposterous?

Human Value? Absurd!

The cultures that dominated the ancient near east, Early Babylonian and Egyptian, revolved around a priest-king, who represented the gods and as such, needed to be treated like one.

This idea was reinforced in the creation myths where humanity was created for the soul purpose of serving the Gods. The myth upheld the socio-political reality of the culture–inferior people are meant to serve the superior representative of the divine.

Imagine the how scandalous the idea that mankind–both male AND FEMALE–itself was the image, read “replacement for the idol.” This idea was immediately reinforced in the next chapter (2:20) when we see Adam naming things, an activity carried out by the gods in the stories of other cultures.

The idea that human beings were not existentially equivalent to the muck on the god’s celestial shoes would have been unthinkable, yet it is this radical idea of human value that undergirds the entire Bible.

[click_to_tweet tweet=”The idea that human beings were not existentially equivalent to the muck on the god’s celestial shoes would have been unthinkable, yet it is this radical idea of human value that undergirds the entire Bible. #rightsandfreedoms, #freedom #humanvalue” quote=”The idea that human beings were not existentially equivalent to the muck on the god’s celestial shoes would have been unthinkable, yet it is this radical idea of human value that undergirds the entire Bible. “]

Jesus summarizes the law and the prophets, which amounts to pretty much the entire Old Testament, saying love God more than anything and “your neighbour as yourself.” Further, the central event in the Bible, Christians would say in human history, is the son of God giving up his life for the world and its people. And the reason consistently given for this sacrifice is God’s love for people.

Christians believe that a human being is the Lord of the entire universe.

This is a very high view of humanity, indeed.

And it is this understanding of humanity, which comes directly out of our Judeo-Christian heritage, which is the foundation of human rights. The events of the 16th century and following amount to a discovery of what faithful readers of scripture had been saying all along.

A. C. Grayling is telling the Modern Story, a story which is based and draws upon the Judeo-Christian worldview.

I hope that the new Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg will give more credit to the ultimate source of human rights as it strives to fulfill its worthy task “to explore the subject of human rights in order to enhance the publics understanding of human rights, and encourage reflection and dialogue.”

A Christian Worldview?

September 14, 2013 / Trent / 0 Comments

msandersmusic / Pixabay

The term “Christian worldview” is often used, but not always understood.

Too often, people think that if you simply believe the Bible, oppose abortion and avoid R-rated movies you have a Christian worldview.

OK, this is a bit of a caricature, but my point is, Christians often have a far too superficial understanding of worldview.

Even Nancy Pearcy’s book Total Truth, which is a book about worldview, begins with the story of Sarah, a Christian woman who works as a counselor in a Planned Parenthood Clinic. Pearcy explains this incongruity:

Sarah’s story illustrates how even sincere believers may find themselves drawn into a secular worldview–while remaining orthodox in their theological beliefs (32).

Although Sarah’s story may illustrate what Pearcy says it does, it does not help readers to understand the depth at which we hold worldviews–Christian, Secular or whatever.

The Depth of Worldview

Here’s an illustration that I think better illustrates how deeply worldviews are held and the conflict between a Christian and a “Secular” worldview.

I’m teaching Grade 9 Humanities this year so I started reading the textbook. I think it’s a standard textbook for Social Studies across the province. I didn’t get beyond the first page and I knew that this year I would be teaching a lot of worldview in my class. Two sentences in the introduction to the first chapter entitled “The Early Modern Age” grabbed my attention.

They present a worldview that is completely contrary to a Biblical one.

Here’s the first sentence:

Sometime around the year 1500, Europe began to experience profound changes in its political, religious, social, economic and intellectual life. As a result of these changes, European history began to enter a new era–the Early Modern Age.

This is the second:

All civilizations experience a kind of evolutionary change in their histories.

The significant word here is “evolutionary.” The popular use of the term “evolutionary” connotes a positive change. The Free Online Dictionary captures the developmental aspect of the word when it defines evolutionary as “A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.”

Together these sentences suggest that humanity is moving toward a better world and that the Early-Modern Age was a significant step in that direction. Many people in our culture accept this without batting an eye. This is their worldview. And it’s held far more deeply than the idea that reproductive freedom is good or bad or whatever.

It is true that there were a lot of changes going on in Europe around the year 1500. It is also true that some things have improved over the last 500 years–transportation, for example, is much faster than it used to be. But is it true to say that our civilization has improved just because some aspects of it has?

A survey of the last hundred years–with two World Wars, one Great Depression, the nuclear arms race, ecological disasters, new and deadly diseases–provides a lot of evidence to the contradict the idea that things are getting better.

So why does the textbook make this claim?

They make it because it is true within a certain story.

Grand Stories–Metanarratives

No claim (or “fact,” thing, event, person) means anything until we place it into a story. This is why human beings always tell stories — we are always seeking meaning.

All stories, whether myths or movies, share some common elements. They always have a protagonist, a person who strives for some goal. This quest drives the story toward a meaningful end. Stories also have conflict because there are always antagonists, that is, a person (or people or a force) that impedes the protagonist in the fulfillment of his or her purpose.

Two stories concern us here: the so-called “secular” story and the Christian story.

The Secular Story

In the secular story, the dominant myth in our culture, the protagonist, humanity, is on a long quest for autonomy (freedom from authority). The antagonists in the secular story oppose human freedom. These are monarchs, God and the church, communism, fascism, socialism, tradition and social conventions. Many of these villains and monsters have been vanquished and only a few remain.

Because my grade 9 Social Studies textbook has placed the events following 1500 into this Secular story, it can claim that we have experienced evolutionary change in our history.

This is the dominant story in our culture, but it isn’t the only one.

The Christian Story

The Christian story says that humanity will find fulfillment only in the presence of the loving God who made him. Sin and Satan, the antagonists, thwart humanity at every turn, but the hero of the story has come to find us and will bring us home (actually, bring home here). This is the meaningful end of the Christian story.

When you consider civilization from this story, change has not been evolutionary–civilization has not improved because we have come no closer to dealing with our basic problem. Freedom, according to this story, is a good thing, but Sin causes us to make GOOD things into ultimate things. This inversion is, in essence, to make Freedom, into a god, a false god, an idol. Freedom is a good thing, but it is not the ultimate thing.

Textbooks and Stories

The secular story, or worldview, is foundational to my entire grade 9 social studies textbook and most of the other textbooks used in schools all over North America.

And it’s not just textbooks; it’s the worldview upon which the whole curriculum is built. And it’s not just in schools, this story is reinforced by popular culture. We are inundated with this story, and it is a powerful story.

When we consider the people who have fallen away from the church, I don’t doubt that many they left to seek autonomy–they wanted to do what they wanted to do and not have anyone or anything restrict their freedom. This is not necessarily a choice freely made, but one that makes sense because of warming toward the secular story.

One’s position on abortion is not a worldview–worldview runs much deeper–but your position on the issue of abortion is dictated by your worldview. So will be your position on other issues that are, at their core, about human freedom.

I’m still using that textbook though, because discerning worldviews is one of the objectives of this and every other class taught at my school. I worry for the Christian kids who aren’t in a school that is deliberate about exposing the competing stories in our culture. And I also worry about the kids who are, because the secular story seems so true, because we are immersed in it.

I take more than a little comfort in the fact that none of the competing stories ring so true as the one where sin is the antagonist and the end is being reunited with the One who gave us every good thing–including Freedom.