Thoughts on freedom

The concept of freedom has been the focus of much discussion recently, particularly around 'freedom of expression’.

This follows the tragic incident a few weeks ago in Paris where some humans violently ended the lives of some other humans because they fundamentally disagreed with what the other humans said.

I have a few random thoughts on this, which are still being formed, but I wanted to express them here (thankful that I enjoy the freedom to do so). And before I say anything else, I need to clarify that I do not condone the use of violence for any reason, and I grieve for the loss of human lives, whatever their religion.

The assumption in 'the West' is that people (should) have the freedom to express their opinion. Okay. But what does this mean? (See David Ould’s blog about this.) But what is freedom? Is it really the ultimate value that people are making it out to be?

From what I understand, the perpetrators of violence in this case may not have disagreed with the right to freedom of expression per se. But in their view they did not have the freedom according to the Q'ran to ignore what they perceived as dishonour to the Prophet Mohammed. It was their duty to uphold his honour.

But according to the laws of most countries, ordinary citizens generally do not have the freedom to end the lives of other people for any reason, even if the other people do things you find offensive.

This is a right view of the value of human life, although it gets a bit blurry when authorities such as police end the lives of people without opportunity for trial (as in Belgium, Paris, even Groningen) - but that’s another matter.

Every action has consequences. When we exercise our freedom, we must also be aware of what the consequences of our actions might be, not just to ourselves but to others also. 

A person might deliberately aggravate a crocodile, and claim that it was their ‘right' to do so. But would anyone commend them for it? On the contrary, onlookers would advise them against it and say they were acting foolishly and would reap the consequences. 

The magazine employees were exercising their right to freedom of expression. But in doing so, I believe they lost sight of the wisdom and love that are needed to enjoy freedom responsibly.

Am I offended by the magazine’s (and many others’) portrayals of Jesus - whom I hold not just to be a prophet but God himself? Of course. But I am not free to turn to violence or slander in return. This is not just because of the laws of the country where I live, but also because of the directives of Jesus himself, who teaches his disciples to ‘turn the other cheek’ and trust God, who will bring perfect justice at the appointed time.

So freedom according to what? The law? Popular opinion? Common sense? The Quran? The Bible? An individual's own preference? Some appeal to the ‘harm principle’ as a principle to guide the minimal limiting of freedom; i.e. that freedom should only be limited in order to prevent harming others. But the definition of what constitutes harm can be slippery.

A wise and righteous man once pointed out that there is no law against the virtues of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Let these positive virtues - things we can seek to show towards others rather than try to avoid - be our guides so that we can enjoy our freedom responsibly.

Is the family history?

I recently read an article that made me quite sad about the explicit untruths and inaccuracies that are allowed to be published in reputable publications. It was an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald written by Guardian columnist George Monbiot, in which he claimed that those who advocate heterosexual marriage have fabricated a history of the family as a heterosexual institution.

Rather than go on for ages about all the things that bothered me about the article, I’ll just focus on one, the following paragraph:

The unbiblical and ahistorical nature of the modern Christian cult of the nuclear family is a marvel to behold. Its promoters are followers of a man born out of wedlock and allegedly sired by someone other than his mother's partner. Jesus insisted that ''if any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters … he cannot be my disciple''. He issued no such injunction against homosexuality: the threat he perceived was heterosexual and familial love, which competed with the love of God.

There are some truths in this passage that mask the untruths and inaccuracies of his interpretation of the Bible. I think it’s true that the modern 'nuclear family’ (mother, father and biological children living together) is not itself a Biblically mandated institution. Rather, it is a cultural manifestation of the Biblical principles of lifelong monogamy (Gen 2:23-24, Ex 19:14, Mt 5:31-32), multiplication (Gen 1:26-28), and passing on the knowledge of God and His promises and commands to the next generation (Gen 12:1-3, 17:7, Deut 6:1-9). We must be careful to separate out what is merely cultural from what is necessarily Christian. Sometimes they work together, but often they do not. In the case of the nuclear family, it’s a cultural phenomenon that seems compatible with the Biblical principles. Living in community with other families or generations of an extended family could also work, and in fact the descriptions of the early church in Acts suggest this kind of arrangement (e.g. Acts 2:42-47).

The Bible passage Monbiot refers to here is Luke 14:25-26. In the passage immediately before this (Luke 14:15-24), Jesus had been talking to people at a dinner party at the home of the ruler of the Pharisees, telling a parable of a rich man who gave a great banquet and invited all his friends but when the time for the banquet came, they all sent their apologies because they had work to do, or economic concerns to act on, or family to attend to. So the man had to find other guests among the poor and homeless - those whom respectable people wouldn’t normally invite to a banquet - to fill the house for the banquet. There should be nothing to distract them, and even if there was, they would recognise the value of the offer and accept it.

In the passage in question (Luke 14:25-26), the scene changes to Jesus speaking to the enormous crowds that were accompanying him. But I think Luke wants us to make the connection with the previous passage, as the point is the same. Jesus extends an invitation to everyone, including those who have all kinds of potential distractions, and we must count the cost of accepting his generous and valuable offer.

As Jesus says elsewhere (Mt 6:24), you cannot serve two masters - we either serve Jesus as King, or our family, or our job, or whatever. The same underlying principle was inherent in the command given to God’s people at the revelation of his commandments at Mount Sinai (Deut 6:4-5) - "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength". We are to be undivided. But we are also to love our neighbours (including our family as well as complete strangers) as ourselves, and so Jesus’ challenge to ‘hate’ our own parents and siblings does not absolve us of family responsibility. Our family responsibility rather becomes part of the way we love and serve God and obey his commands.

While it’s true that Jesus did not issue any direct injunction against homosexuality, it’s grossly misleading to say that Jesus perceived 'heterosexual love’ as a ‘threat’. In the passage Monbiot quotes, Jesus was merely warning his would-be disciples that following him would mean they could not let their family get in the way of their allegiance to Jesus and obedience to God. On the contrary, Jesus explicitly condoned faithful heterosexual marriage, as on several occasions he spoke strongly against adultery and sexual immorality. He had hard words to say to the Samaritan woman he met at a well (John 4:1-30), who had been married five times and was now sleeping with someone other than her husband. To the woman caught in adultery in John 8, Jesus said ‘from now on sin no more’. He wanted (and still wants) people to live God’s way, the way they were created for, walking in the light rather than in darkness (John 8:12).

Humans and animals

I've been saying in other blog posts that humans are created in God's image (Genesis 1:26-27) and are communicative and relational. But we can also observe communication and relationship in some, if not all, animal species. The Genesis account makes it clear that animals are not created in God's image. So what is the difference between the kind of communication and relationships that humans and animals have? What is it about human communication and relationships that is special and particularly reflects our status as God's image-bearers?

I think it's love. When I think about what we see as relationships between animals, they are really utilitarian, rather than characterised by love. Animals enter into relationships with other animals mainly for procreation (only for very few is this an exclusive relationship) and for cooperation related to food sourcing etc. But the procreating kind of relationship is driven by hormones and instinct rather than love. While hormones and instincts are also involved in human relationships, humans are also able to override their hormones and instincts when necessary for the sake of another person. As far as I know, animals do not have the option of exercising self-control for the sake of another. As far as I know, they do not make choices which sacrifice their own desires for the sake of another, to put the other first. To do that would seem to go against the 'survival of the fittest' principle.

Humans' ability to have loving relationships that display conscious, deliberate self-sacrifice seems to me to be a direct reflection of God's relational character. God's deep love is supremely demonstrated in the way God the Father sent his only Son to die as a sacrifice for the sake of those he loved (see John 3:16 and 1 John 4:9-10), and the way God the Son willingly sacrificed himself for the glory and honour of his Father, because he loved his Father and wanted to obey him (see Luke 22:41-42).