Freedom vs. Independence

 Freedom vs. Independence

I know why we call July 4 Independence Day, and it is accurate. We are no longer under the thumb of a foreign power. But in our present cultural moment, we must see “freedom” and “independence” as opposed to one another.

I am basing my thoughts on a favorite verse from 1 Peter: “Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” (1 Peter 2:16–17 ESV)

There is a phrase being used to describe the current mood among those who are asserting their freedoms: expressive individualism. That is, a person should be “free” to live as they see fit, so long as they do not harm others. But this freedom is a freedom for the individual. Think about this. Every team is now more a collection of individuals that it is a team. Each individual on the team must be free to individually express themselves, so long as other individuals are not harmed. But the good of the team is subordinated to the “good” of the individual. This same principle then applies to communities and churches and the voluntary organizations and even the nation. It’s really all about “me.”

Contrast this with our verse above. The great value of our freedom is not for ourselves, but for how we can serve others. Certainly this can and does apply to team and community, but in the Christian community, it places loving God and serving others above expressing one’s own wants and urges. If you are on a team, then put the team first. If you are part of a community, put the community first. If you are part of a church, put the church first. And if you are part of God’s kingdom, put the glory of God above the glory of self.

Expressive individualism should be called what it is: selfishness. It puts my self and my fame and my image or imagination above everything else. If it conflicts with a centuries-old definition of marriage, then trash the old and bring in the new. And, by the way, if anyone else wants to hold on to the “old” definitions, let the government regulate them. Those who are “out of step" must not be “free” to “express” those “individual” beliefs.

There are two strange things in this individual turn. Both have to do with “expressive individualism” not being so “individual” after all. First, it used to be that if an individual chose to express himself contrary to norms, he would accept the consequences of that viewpoint. John Bunyan in England in the 17th century preached without a license. He was jailed for it, and accepted the consequencebecause of his freely chosen conviction. Today, such consequences are unacceptable to individuals choosing their own course.

Second, the other way in which these “individualists” are not so solitary is that they are desiring to be different just like everybody else. They are following a cultural mood, and in many cases are not so sincere as they are coopted by agendas that use them for malign purposes without concern for their good or their futures - in Peter’s words above, “a cover-up for evil.”

Finally, this turn toward the self is not good for the nation. It is not good for the community. It is not good for the church. It is not good for the self. This freedom that we hold as dear is a freedom to put others first. Not ourselves.