Carolyn Carney
The Responsibility of Freedom
One day this summer, as I was leaving the home of someone helping me with spiritual matters, her little Chihuahua jumped up and bit me in the back of my leg. Now, this dog was always barking and jumping up. The owner had cautioned me that the dog had “issues” with people coming in and leaving the house. But she continued to let the dog wander around freely, although she took precautions at the front door. Her freedom and, ostensibly, the dog’s freedom, interfered with my freedom and I paid for it with not quite a pound of flesh.
I find it interesting that the most prevalent means of defining free is by using the negative not.Not bound or constrained. Not under obligation. Not dependent on others. Not confined to a particular position or place. It is as if the tag of free gives license to act as if it does not matter that what you choose in your freedom might affect the freedom of another. For many, freedom is the permission for irresponsibility.
Take the examples from recent events in the news. I’ve written in earlier essays about the responsibility of politicians to acknowledge their wrong, but this week Rep. Mark Foley (R) from Florida seemed to take a tip from Mel Gibson and blamed alcohol for his bad boy behavior. Foley, first, resigned and then checked himself into an alcoholic treatment facility after allegedly sending sexually explicit messages to a teenage page. One former aide, reported in the New York Times, says that Foley never exhibited any problems related to alcohol previously. Instant messaging, text messaging and emailing—all of which save us from a face-to-face encounter with our neighbors—can lead us to reckless communication. I can not help but wonder if he had not been caught, would he would have gone to such measures.
Then, in rural Pennsylvania, a heavily armed man stormed into a one-room Amish school, shooting 11; six of whom have died. All were girls; all were tied up and shot execution style. A report in the New York Times says that notes left behind at his home alluded to a 20-year old slight from which he apparently never recovered. It was the third school shooting in a week. The shooter, Charles Roberts, had no criminal record or psychiatric history, so he was free to own a weapon that could take lives.
God instructs the first humans in Genesis 1 that “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” Adam and Eve were free to eat as much as they wanted from a wide variety of trees, but were also given the responsibility to not eat from one tree—a constraint or boundary.
God did not make robots to eat from only certain trees. In his love for his creation he set a boundary. God, in his freedom, freely created humankind to be free. You can not be obliged to love; love is something we choose in our freedom. And Adam and Eve, in their freedom, chose to disregard the voice of love. And we all know the ramifications of their choice. Subsequently, think of how their misunderstanding of freedom influenced their children, Cain and Abel. And we are still producing and reaping their fruit today.
Kathleen Norris writes about the restrictions made on those who live in gated communities in her book, The Cloister Walk. She says that often these private residential groupings are created out of
“fear of crime and urban chaos. Fear is not easily contained, and it is not surprising to find that these developments also manifest a fear of individual differences that might spring up within the enclave itself, requiring a draconian set of rules that attempt to provide for every eventuality. … While strict regulations of such things as the colors of house paint, the height of hedges, the type of gardens or flower beds, and the number and size of hanging planters for the front porch may give the severely anal-retentive a place to call home, I find it a sad commentary on our ability to accept the responsibility of freedom.” (p. 16)
Paul, writing to those “foolish Galatians” says, “For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”(5:1) Christ has set us free so that we would live and operate by the freedom that grace affords. But Paul continues in chapter five by describing the responsibility of freedom: “For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become slaves to one another. For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” (vv. 13,14) So, we do not submit to slavery, but we choose slavery out of love for our neighbor.
Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence. You would think that Paul had foolish 21st century North Americans on his mind rather than the first century Galatians. In light of global implications, their foolishness seems so insignificant as compared to ours.
Think of how our concept of freedom influences the following:
- Our choice of where to live or what house to buy
- Borrowing money
- Playing our music as loud as we like
- Bearing arms
- Buying on credit
- Free trade
- Multi-national corporations
- The poor
- Marginalized populations, including women and children
It’s my money. I can spend it how I like. It’s ok as long as I don’t hurt anyone.
In light of the 6.65 billion other people on the planet am I really free to do whatever I want in this world?
I believe that the love of Christ says no. Paul writing in 2 Corinthians 5:14 uses a curious phrase: “the love of Christ constrains me” (NASB) It seems antithetical for love to result it constraint. But there is an urging, a compulsion to reach out to the other with and because of Christ’s own love for us. To those to whom freedom is given there is much responsibility; and the freedom, as illustrated by God, always includes the other.
(For further study read 2 Corinthians 5:14-20a)
Print
Email
