Liberty is the fourth of “the 4-Ls,” and this post is the last of the five-part series that I started on March 9—and it is not completely coincidental that I have written this article in Liberty (Mo.) where my wife and I have lived since 2005.**
The
school song of Seinan Gakuin, the large school system in Fukuoka City, Japan,
where I served for 36 years (1968~2004) as
a university professor and the last eight of those years as Chancellor,
contains the Japanese words for Life, Love, and Light, the
first three of the 4-Ls.
But I thought/think Liberty needed/needs to be emphasized also.
In
my May 10 post on Light, I linked light to truth—and then truth is linked
to Jesus’ words about freedom/liberty in John 8:32: “You will know the truth, and the truth
will set you free” (CEV). And there
are other important words about freedom/liberty in the New Testament.
According
to Luke 4:18, in the synagogue of Nazareth, Jesus read these words from Isaiah:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me…To proclaim liberty
to the captives…To set at liberty those who are oppressed.” Then
Galatians 5:1 says, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has
made us free” (NKJV).
Since I
was emphasizing the 4-Ls at Seinan Gakuin where about 98% of the students and
more than half of the faculty and staff were not Christians, I didn’t
talk/write a lot about these Bible verses. But I did regularly emphasize the
close connection of liberty to the light of truth.
Also, I
always talked about liberty being accompanied by responsibility, emphasizing
that true liberty doesn’t mean freedom to do as one pleases; it is not a
license for self-centeredness. Liberty means we are not enslaved by another
person or by the power of any ideology (“ism”).
There is
both negative and positive liberty, and both are important. Negative liberty
means freedom from, but positive liberty means freedom for—and
emphasis on the former should include stress on the importance of the latter.
Serious
problems arise when only negative liberty is emphasized and liberty is used
in inappropriate ways. For example, liberty is misused when it means “free
speech for me but not for thee.”*1 In this connection,
consider these limited and inferior uses of liberty/freedom in the U.S. now.
◈
The “Freedom Caucus” in the U.S. Congress. According to Wikipedia,
this U.S. House caucus was formed by Republican Representatives in January 2015
and “is generally considered to be the most conservative and
furthest-right Congressional bloc.”
◈ “Freedom Summer” in Florida. As part of what Florida
Governor DeSantis calls by that name, his Transportation Department has
declared that only the colors red, white and blue can be used to light up
bridges across the state. (For what that implies, see this
May 23 Washington Post article.)
◈
Liberty University in Virginia. Jerry Falwell’s university changed its name to
Liberty Baptist College in 1976 and to Liberty University in 1985. A Washington
Post March
2015 article was titled, “Virginia’s Liberty
University: A mega-college and Republican presidential stage.”
Liberty,
nonetheless, is an important traditional value of the USA. The
Declaration of Independence speaks of the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.” And since 1831 Americans have sung about their nation
being the “sweet land of liberty.”
Even
though the scope of those thought to have the unalienable right of liberty in
1776 or 1831—or even in 1942 when the Pledge of Allegiance was officially adopted—was
much too narrow, it has increasingly been recognized as meaning liberty and
justice for all.*2
On
January 6, 1941, President Roosevelt delivered what is known as the Four
Freedoms speech, declaring that people "everywhere in the world" ought to have freedom
of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom
from fear.
These are
freedoms that we all should be able to enjoy and seek to expand. And the
liberty expressed in those four freedoms is still badly needed in the world
today.
Further, we citizens of the USA must work
energetically to preserve those (and other) freedoms in the light of the
Christian nationalists who are seeking theocracy and of the Republican
candidate for President, whose speeches (past and present) evidence racism, xenophobia,
and a trend toward authoritarianism (fascism?).
_____
*1 My wife and I moved to Liberty
about three months after our marriage in 1957 and enrolled as students in
William Jewell College, from which we graduated 65 years ago this month. We
lived in Liberty again during the 1976-77 academic year. Then we bought our
retirement home in Liberty and have never regretted our choice in the least.
Somewhat tongue in cheek, I have sometimes said, slightly altering Paul
Revere’s famous words, Give me Liberty until my death.
*2 These words, harking back to 1798,
are the title of the editorial in the March/April 2022
issue of Liberty
magazine, a Seventh-day Adventist publication established in 1906. Please take
a look at this article if you want to learn more about the context and meaning
of those words.
*3 The U.S. Pledge of Allegiance was
written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. The original version was later expanded,
but from the beginning, it ended with the words “with Liberty and Justice for all.” For more about this, see
my August 30, 2021, blog post about Bellamy (here).
Note: It is also problematic when liberty
is conflated with libertarianism. That political philosophy, which
over-emphasizes negative liberty, strongly values individual freedom and is
skeptical about the justified scope of government, especially the federal
government.
.jpg)
Before 7:00 this morning, I received the following email from Thinking Friend Milton Horne, and now have his permission to post his significant comments:
ReplyDelete"I still read your blog, though I don't respond much anymore. Many of my adult SS class members at 2BC (now meeting on Zoom) do, too. Thanks for your continued leadership in this way.
"I was especially interested in this morning's blog on liberty in view, especially, of Senator Josh Hawley's recent publication in First Things (conservative and Roman Catholic journal) on the necessity of America being a "Christian Nation." I'm formulating a response to that article for Mr. Hawley, mostly around the two points of J.S. Mill's notion of Tyranny of the Majority (as opposed to tyranny of government) and of governments' history of utilizing various religions' (not excluding Christianity's) establishment of respective notions of orthodoxy, heresy, and proselytization by force and for political gain.
"But I was taken with your reference to Seinan Gakuin University having a faculty and staff of 98% non-Christian persons (if I understood you correctly), and observant of your "de-christianizing" (my words, not yours) your assertions about truth and light, etc. in such a context. And it made me wonder whether you think as you reflect upon those 36 years of service that Christianity and Christians themselves are at their best spiritually and morally, individually and communally, when they are in the minority rather than the majority. This is a view I've thought about even as early as my days as a young pastor. Now it seems as relevant as ever."
Thanks, Milton, for reading this blog post and for your comments. It has been quite a long time since I heard from you, and I was happy to hear from you again.
DeleteI have been aware of First Things magazine, which they claim is "America's Most Influential Journal of Religion," but I didn't know that Sen. Hawley had a major article in the Feb. 2024 edition. (Here is the URL address for those who might want to take a look at it: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2024/02/our-christian-nation.)
I am glad you are preparing a response to Hawley, and please share that when you have it finished. I am working, of course, for Hawley's defeat in his re-election bid this November, but I'm afraid his cleverly written piece will have considerable appeal to most rural Missouri voters.
Regarding Seinan Gakuin, you will note that I said that "about 98% of the students and more than half of the faculty and staff were not Christians." The percentage of Christians among the student body never varied much through all the years I taught there according to the questionnaires I had students fill out at the beginning of each course, but through the years the percentage of Christian faculty and staff members continued to drop, and by the time I was elected Chancellor in 1996 there was a fairly sizeable majority who were not Christians.
I don't think, though, that I "de-christianized" my assertions about truth and light, etc. I think the 4-Ls are all central concepts of the Good News by and about Jesus Christ, especially in the Gospel of John, but I deliberately tried not to use religious "jargon" in talking about those key terms but to use those concepts in ways that would be meaningful (and attractive) to those who were not confessing Christians. (And there were always quite a sizeable number of faculty members who were not baptized Christians but who had a rather significant understanding of the teachings of Jesus and appreciation for the Christian stance of Seinan Gakuin.)
With regard to the last part of your third paragraph, I do think that the Christians in Japan, which are indeed a small minority, tend to be better than so many Christians in this country. At least in the past, here in the U.S. there have often been social, economic, and even political benefits from being identified as a Christian, but that is not true in a society where Christians are a small minority and sometimes considered societal deviants. There is almost no external reason to become a Christian in Japan; the main societal pressure is not to become a Christian--at least, not to be baptized. (I knew many individuals who perhaps were Christians in terms of what they believed but who for family reasons and other considerations would not commit to public baptism.)
Here now are thoughtful comments received this morning from thinking friend Eric Dollard in Chicago:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy, as always, for your thought-provoking comments about liberty.
"There is a distinction between 'liberty' on the one hand, and 'rights' on the other. Simply defined, absolute liberty means a person can do whatever he or she wants to do. Rights, however, put restraints on liberty and define what liberties are legitimate and what ones are not. Liberty without defined limits, or rights, leads to abuses and chaos. Rights also come with obligations so that legitimate liberties are not abused. There is also a distinction between natural rights and prescriptive rights. The Bill of Rights includes most natural rights, although not necessarily all of them—that is why we have the Ninth Amendment—and at least one prescriptive right (in the Second Amendment) as there is no natural right to possess a firearm.
"Of the Four Freedoms listed by FDR, freedom of speech and religion are clearly natural rights. Freedom from want and fear may be more debatable as natural rights.
"As an egregious example, slavery and Jim Crow laws provided prescriptive rights to whites to oppress people of color, but there is no natural right for exercising oppression; instead, the natural rights of people of color were suppressed. Christian nationalists want to suppress religious freedom—in the name of religious freedom!—namely, their own religious freedom.
"In my opinion, the 'Freedom Caucus' would be more accurately called the 'Tyranny Caucus' as it often supports the 'rights' of the powerful and the privileged to suppress the rights of others. It wants a smaller government so that the powerful and privileged can exercise their 'right' to oppress others without government interference.
"The relationship between ‘truth and ‘freedom’ is a complicated, but fascinating, topic for another time."
Eric, I appreciate your comments that have caused me to think more about the relationship of rights and liberty, and I am not sure I yet have a good grasp of that relationship.
ReplyDeleteThe second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thus, Liberty is considered to be one of the unalienable rights of human beings (and although "men" is the term used here—and indeed the rights of females were considered less than that of males—I think all people, at least all White people, were meant here).
But it is only Judaism, Christianity, and Islam that have a strong belief in the creation of humans by (a monotheistic) God. What about people in the polytheistic religions who do not worship a Creator God? And what about the growing number of people in the U.S. now who do not (or no longer) profess a religious faith and the many secularists who do not think of the world as being created by a Divine Being? Where do their rights come from? (There is much more I would like to think about and write about in this regard.)
Thanks, too, for your comments about the Freedom Caucus. What you said reminded me of what Facebook friend Jarrett Banks (a Disciples of Christ pastor in Virginia) posted on FB the other day (which I took as an implied reference to MAGA Republicans), “‘Liberty,’ ‘Religious Freedom,’ ‘Family’ and ‘Life’ are code words for the words’ exact opposite.” Then, the other day I saw another interesting meme on Facebook: George Orwell was reading a book titled 2024—with his mouth open in amazement!
Liberty took on a bit of nuance this afternoon, as Donald Trump was convicted on all 34 felony charges in New York. He will, no doubt, have a special interest in liberty at his July 11 sentencing. I wonder if there is any chance he will miss the RNC convention the next week because of jail? Definitions seem so complicated these days!
ReplyDeleteYou recently introduced us to "The View from Rural Missouri" by Jess Piper. Her May 24 post is titled "Losing My Religion." She no longer feels at liberty to call herself a "Christian." As I read her essay, I was reminded of a quote I recently saw, attributed Lutheran pastor Nadia Bolz-Weber, "People don't leave Christianity because they stop believing in the teachings of Jesus. People leave Christianity because they believe in the teachings of Jesus so much, they can't stomach being part of an institution that claims to be about that and clearly isn't." God calls people out into the wilderness, and when they come back breathing holy fire, we sometimes forget they are now prophets. Like Peter learning to eat pork, we sometimes need to find the liberty to listen when holy fire speaks. As 1 John 4:7 tells us, "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God." We have the liberty to love.
Thanks for your comments, Craig. Your comments about Trump are pertinent, as he certainly has concern about what liberty he will have, or lose, after July 11.
DeleteI was happy to see your reference to Jess Piper, and as I now read most of what she posts now, I think Pastor Bolz-Weber's comments are probably a fairly accurate description of Jess's position now.
Your last sentence summarizes well the emphasis on positive (rather than negative) freedom. Positive freedom is, indeed, "the liberty to love," and how badly that freedom needs to be strengthened in our country, and the world, today!
Thinking Friend Patrick Crews in Arizona shared this post on Facebook and then wrote the following comments there:
ReplyDelete"A large swath of the American electorate doesn't understand what Liberty is as expressed by the Founding Fathers. They mistake a little economic freedom (choice of where and what to shop) for political freedom. They mistake it for a private libertinism of I should be able to do what I please and its consequence on others doesn't matter. The 'Libertarian' Party advocates the liberty of corporations from any government interference that would prevent them from doing as they please to the detriment of consumers, employees, and the environment. The Party of Trump is now the party of criminal liberty where felony is fine as long as it promotes their party.
"And the tap root of all this misunderstanding and perversion is a religion which has lost the Gospel of Spiritual Liberty for obedience to an external Authority (when convenient) that has rotted into a partisan, tribal, mob authority.
"The Gospel of Liberty in part inspired the movement of the Enlightenment to reject the Divine Right of kings and prelates for human rights and the political rights of the people. Alas too many American Christians now want the people to be in thrall to a State of 'Christian' Supremacy.
"Christians, examine your gospel. Is yours about returning to care and Grace; living compassionately for and with others, or is it the tyranny of an external Authority, a 'Law of God' which is a projection of your own ego and libertinism writ large."
Thanks, Patrick, for sharing my blog post with your Facebook friends and for the lucid comments you posted there, which I am happy to share here with other Thinking Friends.
ReplyDeleteAs usual I am late in adding my comments. I much appreciate both your comments and the questions you raise. The comments made by Patrick Crews particularly bring more thought. This comment raised my eyebrows as to its application in today's morally chaotic setting: "They mistake it for a private libertinism of I should be able to do what I please and its consequence on others doesn't matter." We live in a "free" country and therefore should obey the laws we have approved through our legislatures. Yet I see many of our laws supporting a minority's perspective with the result what others think doesn't matter. Trump's use of power is one example. He should be above the law, or only a special set of laws apply to him. In the other direction the gay agenda says you must support what I want regardless of your moral convictions or sense of fairness. Thus trans girls are setting records in girl sports, and we have suits against businesses who fail to cooperate even though options are available to potential customers.
ReplyDeleteAs to the words of our Founding Fathers, I do not see those individuals for the most part as intentional bigots who eagerly sought and cheered for the prejudice and elitism in our country. They spoke out of their own culture. Their words, however, should lead us to see a much broader definition of "all" which does allow us to see freedom of expression and the pursuit of happiness for everyone. The conflict always arises when we have to define the boundary between the interests of your freedom and mine.
Tom, I appreciate you posting thought-provoking comments, and I hope you (and others)will give serious consideration to my response.
DeleteWith regard to the middle of your first paragraph: Many of the laws passed by the dominant culture (think especially of the so-called Jim Crow laws) were detrimental to Black Americans. The civil rights (=freedom) of minorities must be protected, especially when the dominant culture makes laws that are detrimental to them.
I didn't understand what you were trying to say about Trump. Did you mean he shouldn't be above the law? I can understand and agree with that.
And here is my response to what you wrote about the "gay agenda":. I have argued against the use of the concept of there being a “gay agenda.” As I see it, there are many LGBTQ people and there are many differences among them (the same as there are differences in any segment of society). But one thing is true for most: they have had their personal freedoms (=civil rights) criminalized, ridiculed, opposed, and denied in many ways by the dominant society. All most of those people are asking is for freedom to love whom they choose (in keeping with how they are "wired") and to be freed from the negativity that has been so strong in the dominant society for so long. I have serious questions about “moral convictions” that criminalize, ridicule, oppose, or deny the freedom of people as long as they are not doing things that harm others.
David French, an opinion columnist for the New York Times concluded "MAGA Turns Against the Constitution," a piece in his June 6 newsletter, with these words:
ReplyDelete"The topic of disinformation has rightly dominated much of our public discourse, but if anything the focus has been too narrow. Yes, vaccine conspiracy theories are deeply destructive. So are election conspiracies. But when a movement starts to believe that America is in a state of economic crisis, criminal chaos and constitutional collapse, then you can start to see the seeds for revolutionary violence and profound political instability. They believe we live in desperate times, and they turn to desperate measures.
"I’m reminded of one of the most famous admonitions of scripture — 'You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.' So much American angst and anger right now is rooted in falsehoods. But the truth can indeed set us free from the rage that tempts American hearts toward tyranny."