Freedom is Not a Biblical Virtue

When we speak of freedom these days in the United States, one would think we are quoting a code of moral ethics that spans the pages of our world religions and is so robust in its conceptual underpinnings that to deny anyone their “human dignity” comes at the price of heresy.

The problem is of course that while every American President talks about freedom, and today, especially within the Republican party which uses it as a battle cry against left-leaning big government politicians, the concept has emerged as a vacuous hole, devoid of any unambiguous meaningful content.  We fight for the cause of freedom, but cannot define it. We call ourselves a nation where freedom reigns, but refuse to talk about its application except where it promotes our politics. The freedom we like is an American form. It is idealistic, but little do the ones who champion it the most know that it derives from the Enlightenment form of humanism than from a supposed divine origin.  

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, talk of freedom in the Bible does not exist. The freedom we speak of in our country is most often regarded as a civil and civic freedom, dare I say, a secular one that has been co-opted by politicians as spiritual rights. Freedom of religion is not the same as a theology of freedom in religion. And therefore, where both Democrats and Republicans remain true to this ideal of freedom they remain true to the ideals that launched in Europe hundreds of years ago in the renaissance of humanism that itself underpinned the founders’ framing of our own country.

The Bible discourages freedom. It does not opine about what a man can be in society (never mind a woman), but rather gives practical advice about minding and remembering one’s place. These references are scattered throughout the scriptures, whether it is the advice to slaves to obey their masters or mitzvot concerning the practical duties of the Levitical order, the subjugation of lepers and women. In fact, just about everywhere you look there is an underlying message of anti-individuality whether it is in rank and file order of custom, ritual, society, even lineages. Paul himself tells us that any man who thinks himself something must remember that he is nothing. Was this simply the call to avoid pride, while a thin thread of positive self-image writhed underneath the surface? Or was this the order of the day. The humble man, the one who denies himself the freedoms of self-expression, but who lives in obedience is the man who is truly free. This was the thinking of many a theologian in Germany in the last century. But it is so counter-intuitive to our American political theology that we would thumb our noses at such theological advice today.

Certainly, there are exceptions. We see David being promoted. Saul is promoted. But where those exceptions exist they are not given for the general advancement and welfare of the individuals making up the culture. Instead, they are often contextualized to fulfill God’s purpose, a purpose that time and again diminishes man to “drop in the bucket status.” Yes, David is in awe that God is mindful of him. But the question we must ask ourselves is why? Is it for our benefit or his glory? If it is for his glory, then we again run into an important theme in the scriptures.