One often hears that if God is love, God can never violate our right to choose, especially when it comes to our faith orientation and commitment. God will not force us to choose a path of love, truth, compassion, and righteousness. I Corinthians 13 defines the nature of God’s love and the love which we are invited to embrace. Among the qualities of that love is the refusal to “insist on its own way.” God respects our freedom to make choices in life because such freedom is part of being made “in the image of our Creator.”
However, one of the greatest insights of Scripture (and especially Paul) is that sin enslaves its victims. Humans are slaves to sin and therefore are not free. The very theological term “redemption” means “liberation.” How can God violate the freedom of those who are not free? How can God violate their freedom to choose when they don’t even know the possibilities and consequences (good and bad) of those choices? [Here are a few of the passages which see sin as enslaving and salvation as liberation from such slavery: John 8:34-36; Romans 6:1-23 (especially verses 15-23); II Peter 2:19; Colossians 1:13; Galatians 5:1.]
If people actually knew and experienced the goodness, love, and joy of God, would they still choose the evil paths they pursue– paths which eventually lead to misery, pain, and isolation? I have met so many people who haven’t a clue that their ultimate fulfillment and happiness can only be found in their loving Creator. And sadly, I have known people whose backgrounds provided no basis for such an experience. Psychologists tell us that if a child doesn’t learn to trust in very early childhood, it’s virtually impossible for that child ever to trust or love as they grow older. Are these people “broken” by circumstances they cannot overcome? And is it possible for God to love these humans into their healing? And if such healing is not possible in this life, can love in the next dimension, which promises to heal and free all the injustices and tragedies of this life, become good news for those who now seem so hopelessly lost and broken? It’s the height of arrogance for those of us who were born into loving homes and environments to make final judgments about those whose journeys in life have been so desolate and difficult. I suggest that God is far more compassionate than any of us will ever understand. (The next article in this series will pursue the question of our “freedom” when we are enslaved/addicted to sin.)
We moderns and postmoderns define freedom as the right and ability of the individual to choose in life. This understanding of freedom is largely the product of the Enlightenment with its focus on the rights of the individual. The motto of French revolutionaries at the end of the 18th century CE was “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” With that revolution, partially inspired by the American revolution, the Bourbon dynasty fell, the king and queen, along with many of their aristocratic cronies, were executed, and the French celebrated their newfound freedom.
Equality and the common good require restraints, justice, fairness, the experience of authentic community, and basic human decency to survive and thrive.
However, that hope of liberty, equality, and fraternity for all quickly devolved into the Reign of Terror and subsequently into the authoritarian regime of Emperor Napoleon. I want to focus on one reason for that tragic and deadly eventuality. The French wisely chose their motto of “liberty, equality, and fraternity,” but were unable to control the “freedom” of the greedy, ambitious, and powerful of their society. Equality and fraternity (the common good) have never enjoyed the same emphasis and evolution as liberty (defined as the right and ability of individuals to do whatever they choose.) Equality and the common good require restraints, justice, fairness, the experience of authentic community, and basic human decency to survive and thrive.
With our American culture’s obsession with the economic freedom to choose, we have created a society where 1-2% of the population owns almost 40% of the wealth. Such a disparity does not bode well for equality and fraternity (the common good). We all know that in our nation there are two types of people: a minority who enjoy wealth, privileges, prerogatives, and latitudes that the rest of us will never possess. One might recall Leona Helmsley’s cynical but truthful comment to her servant, “We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.” The “we” in that quote refers to the wealthy who assume the rest of us do not deserve to have the prerogatives they enjoy.
The primary aim of one of our political parties is to maintain and expand the economic, social, and political advantages enjoyed by obscenely rich individuals and corporations—those who can afford to “buy” politicians willing to sell their souls for status and power. Freedom defined primarily as the ability to choose is limited in ways which affect all aspects of life for most citizens who lack the power and wealth to thrive or even survive in such a competitive society. Freedom which sacrifices the common good results in a culture where “might makes right.” The biblical concept and goal of shalom includes freedom, but always in the context of justice, compassion, and community. Our society’s obsession with individual freedom as the right to do whatever we choose without considering its effects on others is an immature and narcissistic approach in a nation promising “liberty and justice for all.”
