What docs it mean to be Free?

II Corinthians 3:1-6; 12-18
Rev. Jolm i. Buchanan
January 19, 1969

What does it mean to be free? There is no more important question
than that today, or in any age; and the answer depends entirely on who it is
who is doing the answering.

A young Marxist might say that to be free means to be rid of capi-
talism and the whole free-enterprise system. An African might define frecdon
in terms of the absence of the white man's presence,his institutions and his
money. ‘The American ghetto dweller might talk about freedom from the police
or slum lords. ‘The middle class merchant might define it as freedom to iale
a profit: a real estate man — to sell or not to sell to whom he pleasos.
Certainly the Trustees of Purdue University and the Purdue Peace Union differ
when it comes to articulating what it means to be free. So would a plant
Manager and union steward. So would we all because to this question , as to
all others, each of us brings his own personal freight, vested interestz,
commitments and operating assumptions.

ind yet, you and I, ought to be able to express some fundamental
unaninity, no matter who we are, or what our vested interests happen to be.
Because you and I have voluntarily chosen to place ourselves under’ the dis—’
cipline of discipleship to Jesus Christ, and that discipleship may, in fact,
be understood almost entirely in terms of freedom.

The question of what it means to be free might be merely philo~
sophical, just an entertaining round of intellectual gymnastics, except for
the fact that it is being asked today by all sorts of people and groups
of people. The Black Power advocate as well aS ‘the member of the John Dirch
Socicty; the student revolutionary and young republican: the devout Christian
who throws over the Church and his brother who stays in the church — all are
asking - "What does it really mean to be free?"

The disturbing thing is that we don't really seem to know, anc.
that fact makes the quest doubly important. We are inclined sometimes to
look comm our social noses at those involved in the quest. Too often we ~
dismiss on individual and the question he is asking because of his attire,
or hig beard or the length of his hair. And to the degree we do this, uc
exhibit our of lack of freedom - our own captivity to certain styles and
forms. The quest is on — and we need to be part of it.

What does it mean to be free? One thing it doesn't mean is tho
complete absence of responsibility in the form of basic rules and regulations.
It does not mean to do whatever you feel like doing whenever you feel like
doing it. Absolute, philosophic freedom is called anarchy - which in Pact
has proven to be synonymous with chaos.

It is interesting that there are those who seriously propose’ ‘dita
as a worldng definition of freedom. To effectively espouse their cause, toy
have on international organization of anarchists, which of course can havcnno
ruleg or regulations. They met last year in Rome and spent three days arguing
and fighting among themeslves ebout who would be the leader. Anarchy just
doesn't work. The assumption that men live in some predictable relationship
with cach other rules out totally any form of absolute freedom. Walter Lipp—
man said it well in his little book, Preface to Morals - "We have come to see
that Iuxley was right when he said that a man's worst difficultires begin
when he is able to do as he likes."

=x

St. Paul said it another way: "For you were called to freedon
brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh."
(Galatians 5:13) You see the Christian's crow with the anarchist goes far
deeper ‘than the mere matter of social efficiency. In anarchy we sco
an incredibly naive doctrine of man; i.e. that man, if given complete freedom,
will on his own account choose to act responsibly. History proves othozrise.
Man is a sinner. He doesn't choose to act responsibly. Even when he wants
to he docsn't make the grade. Freedom does not mean unbridled behavior.
Freedom docs not, in any context, mean the right to do whatever you want.

What does the Bible say? About freedom the Bible says quite a bit,
and no one says it more eloquently than St. Paul. In the New Testamen%
lesson this morning we heard him responding to the repeated charge that the
Gospel he proclaimed was invalid because it was not based on the religious
law. Uverywhere he went he was followed by zealous Jewish Christians fron
Jerusalem who taught that to be a true Christian a man must first submit to
the moral and relgious code of the Old Testament. Paul had proclaimed a
message of freedom. God in Christ had reconciled all men to himself. Ilon
were free - free from the ancient effort to win reconciliation; free from the
fear of divine punishment; free from anxiety about death; free to devote all
their cnergies to being the kind of men God wanted them to be. His protagonists,
however, took the position that obedience to the law was still necessary -
even if it meant less freedom for the individual.

Paul punctuated his argument with the strongest words possible:

", . . tue written code kills, but the Spirit gives life." And again — "Ilow
the Lord is the Spirit, and when the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freodon.*
(II Corinthians 3)

It is a battle that rages throughout the New Testament, down through
the years of Church history, right into the present. Just like those carly
Christians in Corinth, men have always shown a preference for a religion of
restriction rather than freedom. Freedom demands personal initiative, personal
integrity, personal decision-making. A religion that finds its essence in
a written code demands none of this. It does provide security and safety ~ but
not freedom. And Paul was convinced that — "Where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is freedom."

It is imperative, however, that we understand that Paul was no
anarchist. He did not equate the Gospel with license to do whatever you want.
As a matter of fact, Paul was very realistic about man's ability to cope tith
frecdom. In the text I cited before from his letter to the Galatians, he wared
against the abuse of Christian freedom. He knew that men would move ovt from
under slavery to the law - and in the rarified air of freedom, quickly become
slaves to something else. Paul called it - “the flesh". We can understand
it as simply - the self - the human ego with its incessant demand for atten-
tion and gratification. Freedom can become that. Freedom can become ‘the
environnent for the vilest form of selfishness. Paul knew it and he warmed
against it.

Vor the Christian, however, Jesus Christ took the place of the law.
Instead of obeying a written code the believer was called to follow Christ,
to do his will, to become as much like him as possible. Is that absolute
freedom? It depends. It is not the right to do anything, It is, for the
Christian, the act of liberation that finally and only allows him to becore
what he was created to be - a loving, serving, caring brother to all men.

———————

-3-

that, very briefly, is theNew Testament on Freedom. And fron that
point we can begin to answer, from a Christian vantage, the question ‘“jIhat
does it mean to be free?"

I would begin with the church itself. When I say the Church, I
mean, of course, the universal Christian Church in all its expressions. Dut
let us not be guilty of excluding from that mystical universal body the
Church as we know it best - here in the life of this congregation. If the
gospel is a word of freedom, then the church ought to be supremely the
one institution in society where men are free. Collectively free — the
Church jtself ought to be free withinsociety to be itself. But it igs
not, and if you think it is, you're not thinking very well.

On the contrary, the Church has allowed itself to become captive
to the culture in which it find itself: that culture being overwhelmingly
white and middle class. In his excellent book the Suburban Captivity of
the Churches; Gibson Winter discusses the exodus of main-line Protestantisn
from the Ghettoes, and then issues a very ominous warning. The Church in
North Africa, he points out, lived for several hundred years. And thon it
disappeared without a trace. "This collapse can certainly be attributed
in part to the expansion of Islam; however, the core of the problem was
the identification of North African Christianity with the upper social
Classes. The Churches became centers of upper—class culture; consequently
they lacked widespread support among the people. When Islam swept across
North Africa it erased Christianity. Where Christianity has become identified
with upper class elites, it has lacked a substantial base in the workin; F
population and has been unable to weather social change." »;(p.50)

It happened a thousand year ago, because Christianity in the
Church was captive to one class. It happened in Cuba, and today is
heppening all over Latin America. ‘The Church is go completely identified
with and dependent upon the wealthy land-owning class that it has become
almost totally estranged from the great mass of people.

Can it happen here? I would suggest that it already . has. ‘the
Church is not free to be itself - conssequently it has very little to say to
anyone but white, middle class people. The ghettoes just. aren't listening
any more.

Where, .or instance, did we ever get the idea that the success of
@ church could be measured in terms of its statistical and financial
size? Ue got the idea, of course, from American middle class culture, which
puts @ great premium on statistical and financial strength. That cultural
value — has become an ecclesiastical goal, and to the degree the Church
reaches for it, it is just as much a captive as it would be if the govern—
ment forcibly closed all its doors.

In Jesus Christ the church is free. I+ is free to be the kind
of institution he called it to be - loving, serving, helping, healing.

It doesn't have to worry about survival ~ God will take care of that. 14
has to worry only about being what Christ called it to bee» If only we

could understand that about ourselves: if only we could see that we are
callec together not to be successful ~ but to be faithful - if only we could
exercise the freedom God gives us.

Uhat does it mean to be free? We began with that question, and
now I would pose it personally. What does it (or could it) mean to you and
me to be free? ‘

You know, I think somewhere in the back of our minds we know, or
at least we have some image - some hint. I think our over-reaction to <tc

-d-

hippies is germinated by our knowledge of the fact that we are not free.

I think the image of aman acting completely freely irritates us because

we know we are not free. Don't misunderstand. This is not to condone tlie
excesses of the hippie movement; it is not to suggest that we drop out of
socicty and use four letter words because that seems to be freedom. I+ is not.
But I still contend that our anger is fuelled by the fact that we are not frée —
not free to do what we want — what we ought — what we know we should do.

What prisons have we chosen? Some choose alcohol or drugs. Some
choose sexual promiscuity. Some see the whole world through the spectacles
of the middle class. Some see men of another skin as their inferiors. Sone
see through Catholic, or Protestant or Presbyterian glasses. They are all
prisons.

Some choose the prison of financial security. Others choose
vocational success, and are willing to sacrifice anything to secure it.

How many homes are destroyed because of that prison? How often has love dicd.
because someone was in bonded servitude to the company? There are others -
I could go on. .

But in the final analysis we choose. We choose our prison. Or
we may choose to be free. The decision is ours. One philosopher said it
this way: "We are finally free only to choose our master."

Christian faith suggests that the choice is all important. 54.
Paul suggests that if Jesus Christ is master - freedom is born. We are free
to choose him, and the promise is that in choosing him, we are free in a
way impossible without him. :

What does it mean to be free? Why not be free and find out?

Tor "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."

Amen.