Two Conceptions of Freedom
Christ's resurrection shows us that we can be free from the slavery of sin.
Image Credit: The Imaginative Conservative
For quite a long time, I understood “freedom” as being about me. Consider the following statements that I would have agreed with only a few years ago:
“I am truly free when I express myself and who I am.”
“Every time the government passes a law, that is an infringement on my freedom because then I am no longer free to make my own choices in that regulated sphere.”
“My parents imposing their will on me is an imposition of my freedom, because then that means I cannot do what I want.”
The above examples point to an idea of freedom defined as making choices that express personal preferences. Coercion from an outside authority (like a parent or a government) fails to be conducive to freedom in this sense because the authority’s preferences are expressed rather than the individual’s. This is a definition of freedom that is negative in some respects (because it needs the absence of an external authority), but is also positive in other respects (because it needs the individual to express something). This definition is not only a rebellion against external authority—although a lack of external authority is necessary for this idea of freedom to work1—but also a promotion of focusing on the self.
There is certainly some truth to this idea of freedom despite the horde of problems that go along with such a definition. The truth lies in the fact that choices are indeed a part of what it means to be free. Freedom is not imposed; it really is chosen.
But freedom is not merely a choice. There is more to freedom than making choices that express our own preferences. So, what else is it?
The missing “something else” is actually a “someone else.” The missing piece of the puzzle is God. To see this, we need to go back to the Garden of Eden. God gave Adam and Eve abundant goodness; the two of them were in Paradise, having everything (and everyone) they could possibly want. And everything that they had, God saw that it was “very good” (Gen. 1:31). But with such great goodness comes responsibility as well, and God issued to them a single commandment: “You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden, except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it, you shall die” (Gen. 2:16-17).
What the divine author is hinting at is that Adam and Eve were free in the Garden so long as they were choosing to partake in God’s goodness for them. True freedom is only found in right relationship with God. When they deviated from that relationship, they deviated from their life of freedom, too. A Christian definition of freedom, therefore, is making choices that align with God’s will. As long as Adam and Eve chose to follow God’s will (that is, when they were not eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil), they were free. But when they disobeyed God’s will by eating the forbidden fruit, their freedom immediately ceased.
Notice that Adam and Eve choosing to eat of the fruit does conform with the first definition of freedom we examined (making choices that express personal preferences). They desired the fruit and so they chose to eat it. Eve, for example, “saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes…and desirable for gaining wisdom” (Gen. 2:6). She wanted these things despite God telling her that she could not have them. Choosing to eat the fruit expressed these personal preferences she had.
But we can see that this decision was not conducive to human freedom by examining the results that followed. In fact, through their disobedience, Adam and Eve became burdened with sin and its effects. Their disobedience, although a choice that expressed their personal preferences, led to more burdens, not fewer. Consider three examples. First, Adam blamed Eve and the serpent for his own shortcoming of disobeying God. “She gave me the fruit, so I ate it” (Gen. 3:12). “The snake tricked me, so I ate it” (Gen. 3:13). Adam puts himself in conflict and in discord with his wife Eve rather than in harmony with her—he becomes opposed to the good person God gave him. Another effect is that fear and deception also enter into the picture. Adam fears the God who gave him life, trying to hide the fact that he even disobeyed God at all (Gen. 3:10). Finally, because this choice cut themselves off from God, who is the source of life, the burden of sin came with the burden of death. “For the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). This is why God says to Adam “For you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19). Death is antithetical to true human freedom because in death, no choices can be made whatsoever. It is worth remembering that all of these consequences came because one commandment could not be followed.
Adam and Eve responded to the infinite goodness of God by rejecting that goodness and choosing sin. How can we, who have inherited this sinful legacy, repair our relationship with God and overcome death?
The answer is that we cannot do either on our own. But Jesus Christ can and has done both for us.
Christ alone is the one who repairs our relationship with God and breaks open the gates to eternal life. He gives us this ability to live in right relationship with God, to choose the good. In other words, Christ gives us freedom: “For freedom, Christ set us free; so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1). We cannot be free without Jesus. Sin leads to death and every human being is subject to death. And if death is all that there is, then that means we are slaves to death. But through Christ’s death and resurrection, the weight and slavery of death was conquered once and for all. Christ showed us the gates to eternal life by rising from the dead. He has done everything for us. It seems impossible to repay him. And it is impossible for us who are mere creatures to repay what the Creator has done for us.
But we can still say yes to the good gift being offered to us. And it is important that we do so.
This is why St. Paul implored the early Christians to choose God (“stand firm”) and reject sin (“do not submit again to the yoke of slavery”). Christ does not just repair our broken relationship with God; he allows us to become partakers of “the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4). He elevates us into the divine life of God! It is through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross that he gives us the ability to drink deeply of the divine wellspring which sprouts forth eternal life. Christ gives us the ability to choose God, and therefore, choose eternal life.
But we still have to make that choice. And we do not just make that choice once. We have to make it again and again and again. Because if we do not choose Christ, “the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn. 14:6), then we are choosing death. “Whoever is not with me is against me” (Mt. 12:30). Christ has come knocking at our front doors with the greatest gift one could ever receive, “the gift of God [which] is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). It is truly the gift of freedom that he offers us. Christ conquered that which we all fear and dread: death. But now, the Resurrection shows us that we have no need to be afraid of the one burden that seems inescapable. Christ shattered that burden, and now all we need to do is turn to his loving arms: “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light” (Mt. 11:28-30). Let us embrace this gift daily with open arms rather than shutting the door on the Divine gift-giver. Only then will we have our chains to the slavery of sin shattered and the freedom for which our hearts yearn.
Even though this idea of freedom is prevalent in our culture today, I am skeptical that it can ever work in reality. For one, there is no getting rid of external authority, which is necessary to preserve order and promote the common good. For another, this definition of freedom is defined in opposition to authority, but it just makes the self the authority. Therefore, it is a contradiction in terms. In neither case is authority removed from the picture. I may discuss this more in a future post.