In America, with all our focus on freedom and personal liberties, discussions often center on where reasonable limits to such liberties should be placed. The old example speaks of us having freedom of speech yet not permitted to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. And since 9-11, there have been frequent discussions about whether to give up freedoms in order to gain security. But regardless of where people come down in such discussions, there is a basic agreement that we should be as free as possible.
The Apostle Paul speaks of Jesus freeing us from the Law, and so he might seem to be our kindred spirit with regards to personal liberty. But Paul never worships freedom for freedom's sake. In fact he speaks of becoming a slave to righteousness, and he insists that we cannot exercise our freedom if it causes the slightest difficulty for someone else in regards to her faith.
The same Paul who trashes Peter for bowing to Jewish pressure regarding dietary laws, says in today's passage from Romans that freedom from dietary restrictions cannot be exercised if they cause a fellow believer to stumble. For Paul, freedom takes a back seat to community, for living in ways that " pursue what makes for
peace and for mutual upbuilding." And when Paul writes to his congregation at Corinth, a group that seems particularly enamored by their new freedom in Christ, he chastises them for not considering their brothers and sisters.
A key issue is the eating of meat because meat had generally been offered as a sacrifice before ending up at the butcher shop. Paul is very clear that Jesus has freed him from the Law and that because idols are really only human-made objects, eating such meat is no problem. And yet he tells the Corinthians, "If food is a cause of a brother or sisters falling, I will never eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them to fall."
In our culture, the other is often seen as a potential barrier to our freedoms and liberties and something we must guard against. Paul sees the other as a barrier to personal freedom and liberty as well, but in a completely different sense. They are opportunities for us to exercise what we have truly been freed to do in Christ: to love.
Most all of us are bound to some degree by fears: fear that we won't have enough, fear that we aren't safe, fear that others won't like us, fear that we will fail, fear that we won't find love, etc. But "in Christ," we are freed from such fears and therefore freed to live more fully in the image of God, in the manner of Jesus, giving ourselves to others in love. And for Jesus, loving freed him even from the need to save his own life.
At the beginning of the American experiment, our freedoms were always understood to exist within a "social contract." Our freedoms and liberties were for the good of society, not simply for our own use. That's not quite Paul, but it is a bit closer to him than the increasingly individualistic notions of personal liberty in our day.
It strikes me that conversations on "gun control," which have flared up again in light of the Colorado theater shooting, are often argued almost entirely along individualist notions of freedom. I'm not suggesting any particular stance with regards to gun ownership. But I do not think I have ever heard anyone speak along the lines of Paul and say, "I believe in the right bear arms, but if it would make for a safer world, I would happily refuse to exercise that right."
The same critique could surely be leveled at stances of all political persuasions. And that raises the question. What rights, freedoms, or liberties that I cherish have become something from which I need to be freed in order to fully love my neighbor?
Click to learn more about the Daily Lectionary.
No comments:
Post a Comment