The Freedom Paradigm
What is freedom?
Ask anyone in modern western society, and you will likely be met with a response along the lines of “the right to do what I want when I want how I want.” The American Heritage dictionary defines freedom 3 ways that would likely also be met with a nod by today’s American populace:
The condition of not being in prison or captivity.
The condition of being free of restraints, especially the ability to act without control or interference by another or by circumstance.
The condition of not being controlled by another nation or political power; political independence.
Today, as a nation, we celebrate the declaration of Independence signed by leading British colonists on July 2nd, 1776. Yes, the origins of why we celebrate on the 4th are rooted in more than just the revolution, but that’s a talk for another time.
The idea I would prefer to explore is this:
What does freedom mean for the individual in 21st century America, and does our understanding ultimately harm or help us as we navigate our lives? I would like to work from bottom to top to illustrate why all of these definitions work together to construct how we might, as contemporary Americans, understand freedom.
The condition of not being controlled by another nation or political power; political independence.
In the context of Independence Day, this definition is the most unifying. From scholastic declarations on university websites that nobody reads to meme accounts on Instagram that have thousands of engagements per day, everyone acknowledges the fact that we are no longer under the control of a formal monarchy. This isn’t to say that our governing bodies can’t be subject to influence by outside bodies (that never happens), but we are, for all intents and purposes, a sovereign nation. Moving up the ladder from this ground floor definition is where things start to get a little less clear:
The condition of being free of restraints, especially the ability to act without control or interference by another or by circumstance.
As a quick aside for context: The idea of the idea of subjective morality in the context of our founding can be concretely traced back to the Unions of Arras and Utrecht’s effects in the Netherlands in the late 16th century. After centuries of wars and political upheaval over doctrine resulting from the myriad of Protestant denominations, the Dutch were ready to embrace a system that allowed them to avoid wars and create a society that enjoys economic prosperity. By separating one’s religious practices and convictions in the public square, a new communal consensus emerges: the ability to accumulate of goods and wealth in the public square is more important than how to achieve eternal salvation. This new cultural phenomenon, which was the first of its kind in history, endured criticism from theologians warning of the temptation of worshipping worldly matters over God primarily because, while each Protestant denomination had different understandings of how to interpret scripture, the sacraments, salvation, etc., they generally agreed on matters regarding family, civic duties, and morality all which eventually would be imbued into our country’s founding documents.
While I would argue that Luther never intended to create the secularized individualist society that inevitably resulted from his efforts, it is difficult to look at our current state of affairs and imagine that any other could. Progressively society has allowed for an unlimited number of acceptable views on every subject. Our politicians embody this by claiming religious identities that they act in opposition to, and when asked to explain their contradiction, they state that their private deeply held convictions are not deeply held enough to be expressed publicly because they have the freedom to sit on both sides of the fence. After all, if our representatives do not truly believe that the faith that they profess is the foundation of goodness, why should we? This brings us back to whether or not we can know an objective goodness and where our ideals of freedom stand as a result. I believe looking to the final definition will best illuminate the answer:
The condition of not being in prison or captivity.
The plain reading of this definition is that we are not physically in captivity. I think we can skip the obvious accuracy of this definition, and delve into the esoteric for a moment. We all suffer from vices and with the gift of what we refer to as our conscience, we can generally discern what is a good action or a bad action, even if we aren’t being scolded by our parents or boss. Why is that though? What makes something right and wrong to our conscience which James Madison once called “the most sacred of all property?” Do we feel more or less free when we are stuck in a cycle of behavior that makes us feel good or bad? Do I feel better when I act in my own self interest or when I sacrifice my own wants for the good of another? Is there a moral system that teaches why this is the case, and if so, where can it be found?
Some scholars believe that our conscience is simply a moral indoctrination based on our upbringing while others believe that we are wired to recognize objective good. Without delving into the science behind cognitive development, we can look at two belief systems to see what the effect on the consciousness is.
Belief A): I have unlimited individual freedom, morality is subjective, and by creating my own moral code based on my understanding of the world, I will be happy and the world will be a better place for all
Belief B): I have unlimited individual freedom, morality is objective, and by conforming myself to the moral code given to me by God, I will be happy and the world will be a better place for all
In both belief systems, free will are a given to be exercised as the believer sees fit with the primary difference being what standard the will is being conformed to. Friedrich Nietzsche famously popularized the concept of will to power or self determination to become your own God (or Übermensch) which can be seen on both sides of the isle of American political thought and even adopted by some who would consider themselves in the “B” category. This is not necessarily because it aligns with teachings found in scripture or sacred tradition but because our society has bestowed moral dualism as a virtue. What we must determine for ourselves is whether we believe that our gift of freedom is to be used as a way to conform ourselves to our own whims (which inevitably are those of whichever society we belong to) or to the will of a creator who’s moral commands are clear, unchanging, and universal.
Christianity is still the most persecuted religion on planet earth, and I am blessed to have born as a citizen of the United States because as a result, I have the opportunity to conform my life to God’s will in ways that are much more comfortable than those living under persecution. This Independence Day, I invite you to reflect on not just what you have the freedom to do with the life you have been gifted but what you have been given the freedom from as a result of the sacrifice Jesus made for us nearly 2,000 years ago.
