Ben, thanks for the piece. I offer some critiques not to “engage in a toxic Twitter spat” but in a spirit of goodwill to spur further debate.
There is a first-order disagreement about your definition of “freedom” between you and the post-liberals. You say that “freedom isn’t libertinism” but closely relate the idea to “choice.” “Citizens in a free society can choose to give their lives over to porn and drugs.” A post-liberal takes issue with this definition because when a person engages in immoral or anti-social behavior, they are not exercising their “freedom”. What they are doing is enslaving themselves. If there is an understanding of human dignity, that the person is aimed at a higher good, then no one can say that “cocoons of digital comfort” portend to this higher aim.
Your definition of freedom fits nicely with progressive ideas of “self-actualization” severed from any notion of “virtue.” The issue for post-liberals is not what the state should do but what the state inevitably does, namely form public virtue, or the in words of George Will, “statecraft is soulcraft.” The problem is that society and the state have been formed by progressive ideas that you decry.
I’m not sure where exactly your disagreement lies because passing laws does not mean that the behavior will be eliminated, see marijuana, but simply that the state does not condone the behavior. This doesn’t mean, as you imply a violation of “freedom.” Here you seem to veer into libertarian anarchy if any push to curb “unvirtuous” behavior is autocracy.
Rather than asking what freedom is for, we should ask what the state is for since that seems to be your biggest gripe. The Constitution tells us that it was in order to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare…” that list of common goods comes before securing the “Blessing of Liberty.”
Great comment. Thanks for your engagement. You ask the right questions!
“ A post-liberal takes issue with this definition because when a person engages in immoral or anti-social behavior, they are not exercising their “freedom”. What they are doing is enslaving themselves. If there is an understanding of human dignity, that the person is aimed at a higher good, then no one can say that “cocoons of digital comfort” portend to this higher aim.”
I agree with that. My answer is that I don’t see coercion as the proper way to ensure people set their aim on higher goods. I’m not sure that virtue that isn’t freely chosen is virtue. In order for there to be good, people have to have the ability not to choose the good. And in order for their to be freedom, people are necessarily going to have the ability to give up their freedom, for instance to alcohol. I don’t think they should, but I don’t think the state should force them (a la Prohibition).
“ Your definition of freedom fits nicely with progressive ideas of “self-actualization” severed from any notion of “virtue.””
I can see why it looks like that. Perhaps I should have been more clear in distinguishing my conception of liberty from Rawlsian autonomy. I suppose, though, that while I ultimately reject the Rawlsian view as being a misguided use of liberty, I’m not sure the government should play a role in determining whether or not people can embrace “self-actualization.”
“ The issue for post-liberals is not what the state should do but what the state inevitably does, namely form public virtue, or the in words of George Will, “statecraft is soulcraft.””
Fair point. Of course, Will comes to a decidedly different conclusion than the post-liberals do about how the state should go about that.
“ The problem is that society and the state have been formed by progressive ideas that you decry.”
Hmm. To some extent that’s true. On my more pessimistic days I’m more convinced of that. On my more hopeful days I think that other ideas have also played key roles in informing the American state and society.
“ Here you seem to veer into libertarian anarchy if any push to curb “unvirtuous” behavior is autocracy.”
I could have been more clear that not all attempts by the state to curb unvirtuous behavior are autocracy. I’d also note though, that there is a distinction between libertarianism and anarchism.
“ Rather than asking what freedom is for, we should ask what the state is for since that seems to be your biggest gripe.”
That is a very good point. I would argue that what the state is for is preserving natural rights, and that the common good shouldn’t be seen as competing with that aim.
Specific to the question of Christian theology, I've never fully understood the flirtation with theocracy given the ramifications of the atonement. Yes, we're fallen creatures and yes, the natural man is an enemy to God. But Christ's sacrifice unlocked our potential. The atonement was an act that granted agency, that punctuated freedom as the core gift given to us by God. We were set at liberty to choose, and the very fact that God Himself believes it's so important for us to choose righteousness that He allows all manner of evil to exist in our world suggests that we should very cautious of asserting a power of coercion that God Himself refuses to wield. A full and clear understanding of Christian theology points pretty convincingly to the reality that the spirit of freedom is the spirit of God.
From the wordly view, it might seem that the strictures of disciplined religious observation might limit personal freedom and liberty, but the Christian view that understands sin and sinfulness as prison bars for our soul recognizes that following God's word is what maintains the liberty we have been gifted by Christ. Clinging to the word of God as our compass in a fallen world maintains our freedom and a righteous soul always maintains the agency to continue choosing the right or to stumble and fall into sin. Falling away from the word of God is not freeing but suspends liberty. The more and more people fall into sin, the less of an ability they have to choose righteousness. Sin is a surrender of God's gift of liberty.
So, there is a necessity for religious fellowships to lay out their views on God's word and to encourage each other to hold to the values and principles around which they are organized. But in order to be true to Christ's mission of liberation, their efforts should be an open invitation to CHOOSE the gospel path. Any Christian effort that falls into the temptation to force or coerce people onto the gospel path is a corruption of Christ's mission, because it perversely mimics the strategies of Satan and the path of sin. It falsely equates Christian living with loss of liberty, and twists the gospel into a prison. It rejects the true magnitude of what the atonement wrought, it denies that liberty is the core aspect of Christ's mission and eschews the gospel message of human dignity, human agency, and the individual worth of every soul.
A Christian church, then, should never have the power to levy consequences for wrongdoing beyond disfellowship and excommunication. Coercion should never be a tool of the Christian mission. The government should govern, and the Christian mission should always remain a humble invitation to voluntarily take up the cross. Christ's kingdom is not of this world. Our efforts should be in pointing people towards the path they can choose to take to reach Christ's kingdom in the hereafter, rather than twisting and perverting the Christian message by trying to build Christ's kingdom on earth as the zealots who rejected Christ had designs to do. We must be wary of crying "Bar Abbas" and crucifying Christ anew.
So I think the answer depends on who you’re asking. From my perspective, so long as a person voluntarily chooses the church and has the right of exit, of course not. A community or an institution has the freedom to create constraints for its members, and so long as those members freely choose to associate with the church (or other institution or community) and aren’t coerced, it’s not a violation of freedom for them to give up some of their autonomy or rights in exchange for membership.
Ben, thanks for the piece. I offer some critiques not to “engage in a toxic Twitter spat” but in a spirit of goodwill to spur further debate.
There is a first-order disagreement about your definition of “freedom” between you and the post-liberals. You say that “freedom isn’t libertinism” but closely relate the idea to “choice.” “Citizens in a free society can choose to give their lives over to porn and drugs.” A post-liberal takes issue with this definition because when a person engages in immoral or anti-social behavior, they are not exercising their “freedom”. What they are doing is enslaving themselves. If there is an understanding of human dignity, that the person is aimed at a higher good, then no one can say that “cocoons of digital comfort” portend to this higher aim.
Your definition of freedom fits nicely with progressive ideas of “self-actualization” severed from any notion of “virtue.” The issue for post-liberals is not what the state should do but what the state inevitably does, namely form public virtue, or the in words of George Will, “statecraft is soulcraft.” The problem is that society and the state have been formed by progressive ideas that you decry.
I’m not sure where exactly your disagreement lies because passing laws does not mean that the behavior will be eliminated, see marijuana, but simply that the state does not condone the behavior. This doesn’t mean, as you imply a violation of “freedom.” Here you seem to veer into libertarian anarchy if any push to curb “unvirtuous” behavior is autocracy.
Rather than asking what freedom is for, we should ask what the state is for since that seems to be your biggest gripe. The Constitution tells us that it was in order to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare…” that list of common goods comes before securing the “Blessing of Liberty.”
Great comment. Thanks for your engagement. You ask the right questions!
“ A post-liberal takes issue with this definition because when a person engages in immoral or anti-social behavior, they are not exercising their “freedom”. What they are doing is enslaving themselves. If there is an understanding of human dignity, that the person is aimed at a higher good, then no one can say that “cocoons of digital comfort” portend to this higher aim.”
I agree with that. My answer is that I don’t see coercion as the proper way to ensure people set their aim on higher goods. I’m not sure that virtue that isn’t freely chosen is virtue. In order for there to be good, people have to have the ability not to choose the good. And in order for their to be freedom, people are necessarily going to have the ability to give up their freedom, for instance to alcohol. I don’t think they should, but I don’t think the state should force them (a la Prohibition).
“ Your definition of freedom fits nicely with progressive ideas of “self-actualization” severed from any notion of “virtue.””
I can see why it looks like that. Perhaps I should have been more clear in distinguishing my conception of liberty from Rawlsian autonomy. I suppose, though, that while I ultimately reject the Rawlsian view as being a misguided use of liberty, I’m not sure the government should play a role in determining whether or not people can embrace “self-actualization.”
“ The issue for post-liberals is not what the state should do but what the state inevitably does, namely form public virtue, or the in words of George Will, “statecraft is soulcraft.””
Fair point. Of course, Will comes to a decidedly different conclusion than the post-liberals do about how the state should go about that.
“ The problem is that society and the state have been formed by progressive ideas that you decry.”
Hmm. To some extent that’s true. On my more pessimistic days I’m more convinced of that. On my more hopeful days I think that other ideas have also played key roles in informing the American state and society.
“ Here you seem to veer into libertarian anarchy if any push to curb “unvirtuous” behavior is autocracy.”
I could have been more clear that not all attempts by the state to curb unvirtuous behavior are autocracy. I’d also note though, that there is a distinction between libertarianism and anarchism.
“ Rather than asking what freedom is for, we should ask what the state is for since that seems to be your biggest gripe.”
That is a very good point. I would argue that what the state is for is preserving natural rights, and that the common good shouldn’t be seen as competing with that aim.
Specific to the question of Christian theology, I've never fully understood the flirtation with theocracy given the ramifications of the atonement. Yes, we're fallen creatures and yes, the natural man is an enemy to God. But Christ's sacrifice unlocked our potential. The atonement was an act that granted agency, that punctuated freedom as the core gift given to us by God. We were set at liberty to choose, and the very fact that God Himself believes it's so important for us to choose righteousness that He allows all manner of evil to exist in our world suggests that we should very cautious of asserting a power of coercion that God Himself refuses to wield. A full and clear understanding of Christian theology points pretty convincingly to the reality that the spirit of freedom is the spirit of God.
Every church has rules is this a violation of "freedom"?
From the wordly view, it might seem that the strictures of disciplined religious observation might limit personal freedom and liberty, but the Christian view that understands sin and sinfulness as prison bars for our soul recognizes that following God's word is what maintains the liberty we have been gifted by Christ. Clinging to the word of God as our compass in a fallen world maintains our freedom and a righteous soul always maintains the agency to continue choosing the right or to stumble and fall into sin. Falling away from the word of God is not freeing but suspends liberty. The more and more people fall into sin, the less of an ability they have to choose righteousness. Sin is a surrender of God's gift of liberty.
So, there is a necessity for religious fellowships to lay out their views on God's word and to encourage each other to hold to the values and principles around which they are organized. But in order to be true to Christ's mission of liberation, their efforts should be an open invitation to CHOOSE the gospel path. Any Christian effort that falls into the temptation to force or coerce people onto the gospel path is a corruption of Christ's mission, because it perversely mimics the strategies of Satan and the path of sin. It falsely equates Christian living with loss of liberty, and twists the gospel into a prison. It rejects the true magnitude of what the atonement wrought, it denies that liberty is the core aspect of Christ's mission and eschews the gospel message of human dignity, human agency, and the individual worth of every soul.
A Christian church, then, should never have the power to levy consequences for wrongdoing beyond disfellowship and excommunication. Coercion should never be a tool of the Christian mission. The government should govern, and the Christian mission should always remain a humble invitation to voluntarily take up the cross. Christ's kingdom is not of this world. Our efforts should be in pointing people towards the path they can choose to take to reach Christ's kingdom in the hereafter, rather than twisting and perverting the Christian message by trying to build Christ's kingdom on earth as the zealots who rejected Christ had designs to do. We must be wary of crying "Bar Abbas" and crucifying Christ anew.
So I think the answer depends on who you’re asking. From my perspective, so long as a person voluntarily chooses the church and has the right of exit, of course not. A community or an institution has the freedom to create constraints for its members, and so long as those members freely choose to associate with the church (or other institution or community) and aren’t coerced, it’s not a violation of freedom for them to give up some of their autonomy or rights in exchange for membership.