On Personal Liberty
The most basic right that persons possess is the right to personal liberty. This simply means that people are able to accomplish that which they will, without undue hindrance or obstacle. Yet through the course of history, persons through government have attempted to usurp this right. As a result, the United States of America has sought to protect it since her inception. And although America’s protection of this right is important, it is not its origin, but merely a means to secure it. Rather, the origin of personal liberty is found in Christianity.
Christian Origins: Freedom of Choice & Personal Liberty
The foundation for the person’s right to personal liberty is the image of God. According to Genesis 1:27, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him.” The imago Dei doctrine is complex. Yet contained within it is the notion of freedom and liberty. In creation God wove freedom of choice into the very fabric of our being. On the eve of His crucifixion, Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will” (Mt. 26:39, NASB). By so praying, Jesus demonstrated a very real aspect of genuine humanity—free choice. By His own voluntary consent, Christ willed as the Father willed. Similarly, God enables us to make free choices concerning our will. Though He is sovereign, He has created us with this unique capacity.
Freedom of choice proceeds from the imago Dei. Believers of the Christian tradition have affirmed this principle through the ages. John of Damascus (676-749) explains that human actions are “self-determined [or: free] and sovereign” [1]. Interpreting this statement, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) writes that the image of God “implies an intelligent being endowed with free-will and self-movement” [2]. Similarly, Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) writes that all persons have freedom of choice (which he defines as the absence of necessity) and upon this freedom is “imprinted some substantial image of the eternal and immutable deity” [3]. Other believers too have attested to similar explanations.
Since all persons are made in God’s image, all persons ontologically possess this freedom. By implication, all persons have a right to personal liberty. This right manifests itself in a myriad of ways: from the cereal we eat to the vocations we pursue, from the words we say to the books we write, and from the religion we practice to the causes we choose to support. Again, freedom of choice and personal liberty are not synonymous; rather personal liberty flows from freedom of choice [4].
American Constitutionalism: Personal Liberty & the First Amendment
Although personal liberty is a God-given right, some have attempted, in some cases successfully, to usurp it through the course of history. Such oppression has occurred most often in publication, religion, and speech—historically and in the present day. In the face of religious persecution, Thomas Helwys (1575-1616) argued for religious liberty: “[L]et not our lord King give his power to be exercised over the spirits of his people … For men’s religion to God, is betwixt God and themselves; the king shall not answer for it, neither may the king be judged between God and man” [5]. Similarly, the English Parliament attempted to censor publications in 1643. Most famous for Paradise Lost (1667), John Milton (1608-1674) responded: “[W]ho[ever] kills a Man kills a reasonable creature, God’s Image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the Image of God” [6].
In light of developments such as these, the Englishmen who migrated to the New Word throughout the 1600-1700s embodied this spirit of personal liberty and ensured its protection in the Constitution. Instead of personal liberty though, they referred to it as freedom of expression [7]. Therefore, the framers enacted the Bill of Rights (1791) to protect these rights. The Bill of Rights is a document that expands the Declaration of Independence (1776), another document in which Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) incited a revolution by drawing on the doctrines of natural law and social contract [8]. It was in the Declaration that Jefferson referred to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The First Amendment seeks particularly to secure those freedoms embodied in personal liberty: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Significantly, no other Amendment has yielded the degree of case law, constitutional scholarship, and general debate as has the First Amendment [9]. Practically, this means that when someone attends church on Sunday, authors a novel, writes a song, pens a controversial text, joins a protest, or becomes an activist, they are exercising their God-given right of personal liberty secured in the Constitution. Therefore, as Christians and as Americans, we should champion personal liberty, despite the frustration often accompanied with the diversity of political and religious opinion [10].
Cultural Engagement: Government, the Church, & Relationship
While the principle of personal liberty has many applications in the Christian life, the question of cultural engagement particularly is an important one. Many Christians believe that they are called to change the culture. Yet they often attempt this at the expense of their primary calling, which is to bear Christ. To the extent Christians are faithful in this calling, change may indeed occur (though complete change shall not occur until Christ returns). The question remains exactly how Christians should accomplish this. How are we to faithfully bear Christ in culture? Is it through government, the church, or something else? In short, Christians shall faithfully bear Christ in whatever context God has called them. At its most basic, this occurs through relationships.
The proper role of government is a hotly contested issue among Christians. Some Christians even believe that government is the answer to cultural problems. Government is not the answer to cultural problems. Culture is not automatically changed because like-minded persons vote their candidate into office or because a particular bill is passed into law. Rather, government and law are a reflection of the culture. After all, America’s form of government guarantees this. As a federal constitutional republic (which is a form of constitutional/liberal democracy), American law and policy is by definition a reflection of the majority [11].
Government is also not a tool for the powerful to wield as they see fit. When government is used for this purpose, it is an infringement upon the prerogative of persons to exercise their personal liberty. However, the kneejerk reaction that views any political involvement or government answer with suspicion is similarly problematic. Some persons may be called to politics, while not using government in this fashion. The question then remains: If government is not the answer, what is?
Proper cultural engagement occurs through the church. Collectively and individually, its members bear Christ to the fallen world. The problems of culture are addressed in the most basic elements of society, namely, human relationships—in the home, at church, and at work. True change does not result overnight, i.e., the government solution. It does not follow from the imposition of an iron fist. There is no quick fix, easy-to-follow instruction manual, or one-size-fits-all approach.
True change is a process that takes place over a long period of time. It takes place in the ordinariness of everyday life—the grassroots. Thus, the way in which we interact with other persons is of the utmost importance, especially those with whom we disagree. When we dialogue with persons about culture, politics, theology, anything, we must be ever conscious to engage them as Christ would, truth in love tempered with compassion. And when dialogue breaks down, we must recognize that all persons are created in God’s image. As a result, all persons possess freedom of choice and, by implication, personal liberty. Thus, frustration and impatience is not the answer. Love and respect is the answer.
Conclusion
Humankind is made in the image of God. Entailed within this are human dignity, free choice, and personal liberty. Christian Scripture and tradition affirm these principles. America has even sought to safeguard them. Yet to the extent that persons through government seek to limit this liberty, they commit a crime against humanity and henceforth against themselves. By implication, change of culture does not follow from the usurpation of this liberty, but from the protection of it coupled with the radical love of Christ embodied in believers. May we as Christians faithfully bear the name of Christ, speaking the truth in love, and respecting others’ right to personal liberty.
_______________________________________
[1] John of Damascus, Andrew Louth, trans., Three Treatises on the Divine Images (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003), 98.
[2] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Prelude. The Summa is available online at the following address: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/index.html.
He writes further, “Choice is an act of a rationale creature … Man does not choose of necessity … [f]or man can will and not will, act and not act” [Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Question 13, Article 6].
[3] Bernard of Clairvaux, On Grace and Free Choice (Cistercian Publications Inc., 1977), 84.
[4] Throughout the Christian Scriptures, the image of enslavement is used to describe the human experience—the non-Christian and the Christian journey. As a result, some may wonder how this discussion of free choice and personal liberty holds up against such scrutiny. On the one hand, it is true that the image of slavery is used in Scripture to describe the human experience: “But thanks be to God that though you were slaves to sin … and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness” (Rom. 6:17-18, NASB). On the other hand, it is true that persons choose by their freedom of choice whether to be enslaved to sin or to righteousness. In part, this is what the doctrine of Christian liberty is about: “For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another” (Gal. 5:13, NASB). Thus, although Scripture presents a unique picture of enslavement, this picutre is not mutually exclusive to the notion of free choice and personal liberty.
[5] Thomas Helwys, A SHORT DECLARATION of the Mystery of Iniquity (1612).
[6] John Milton, Areopagitica (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886), 6.
[7] While we as Christians should not equate our American citizenship with our heavenly citizenship, there are instances in which earthly institutions uphold biblical principles. To the extent that this is true, therefore, we should be familiar with and support such notions.
[8] For more information on this proposition, or generally on what and who influenced the American framers, see John Locke [1632-1704, see Two Treatises of Government (1689)], Montesquieu [1689-1775, see On the Spirit of the Laws (1748)], and Sir William Blackstone [1723-1780, see Commentaries on the Laws of England (1766)].
However, as it relates to natural law, several examples shall be noted: While Locke and Montesquieu wrote about natural law and natural rights, Blackstone gave blood and flesh to these concepts. For example, whereas Locke wrote about life, liberty, and property, Jefferson wrote about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Montesquieu described the laws of nature as that which the Creator uses to preserve all things and that these laws are fixed [Baron de Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, Bk. I, Chapter 1 (Birmingham, Alabama: The Legal Classics Library, 1984), 4].
Significantly, Blackstone has had a great influence upon this notion of rights. Some of the rights he wrote about include, but are not limited to, the following: the right to personal security, the right against defamation (slander or libel), the right to personal liberty, the right to trial, the right of property, the right to appeal to the courts, the right of habeas corpus, and the right to bear arms [Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Clark, New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2007), 1:129, p. 117; 1:134, p. 122; 1:36, p. 124; 1:138, p. 126; 1:141, p. 130; 1:143-44, p. 131-32. He sums up this up by stating, “And we have seen that these rights consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty, and of private property” [Blackstone, 1:44, p. 132].
Now, note the similarities in the Bill of Rights: the right against an establishment religion, the right of free exercise, the right of speech, the right of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to petition the government, the right to bear arms, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a jury by trial, the right against self-incrimination (See Constitution, Amendments 1-2, 4-5, 7). Throughout America’s history these rights have continued to be expanded: the right for the black man to vote, the right of women to vote, and the right of eighteen year olds to vote—to name a few (See Ibid., Amendments 13-15, 19, 26).
[9] When the Constitution was enacted in the late 1700s, this provision (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) only applied to the federal government. However, through the doctrine of incorporation, most of its provisions now apply to the states too. Black’s Law Dictionary defines incorporation as the “process of applying the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states by interpreting the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause as encompassing those provisions.”
Legally, this means that federal governments and state governments must protect the individual’s right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceable assembly, and freedom of petition.
[10] The notion of “human dignity” is also very important in modern discussions of personal liberty. Many intellectuals and scholars, Christian and non-Christian alike, have linked the notion of “rights” to human dignity. Christians contend that this dignity is derived from the imago Dei. Catholic scholar Michael Novak, for example, argues that “human liberty,” which he describes is based on God’s image, is “an absolutely fundamental datum of God’s revelation to humanity.” See Michael Novak, “The Judeo-Christian Foundation of Human Dignity, Personal Liberty, and the Concept of the Person,” Journal of Markets & Morality, no. 2 (Oct. 1998), 111. Other secular scholars have linked the rise in emphasis in human rights to the rise in emphasis of human dignity during the Enlightenment era. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), for example, is credited with having stated that persons should not be treated as an end to themselves.
The modern emphasis on human rights has produced a whole host of political documents that seek to secure them. For example, besides the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Bill of Rights (1791), mentioned supra, the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) stated, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Thus, whether one believes that human dignity is the result of Enlightenment thinking or the result of being made in God’s image, the modern emphasis on human dignity is important in the protection of human rights and therefore personal liberty – and should be noted.
[11] It should be noted that, theoretically, the prevalence of the majority does not mean the persecution of the minority. Unfortunately, there have been instances in American history where persons have faltered in this. Nevertheless, this tension that inevitably exists in this form of government between the majority and minority is referred to as the “counter-majoritarian” difficulty or the “Madisonian” dilemma.
Recent Comments