| February 4, 2001 |
Vol. III, No. 40
|
FREEDOM... Say it again... FREEDOM... There have been times when the word was almost sacred to the American people. And over the world today it still stirs hope and aspiration. Our Declaration of independence calls it an “inalienable” right and a truth “self-evident.” Whence cometh this freedom, and what does it mean to us?
Basically, our free agency, the right to choose, is a gift from God. The heavenly Father controlled His creation with absoluteness, as a potter wields clay, (Rom. 9). Yet God saw fit to elevate man above the beasts of the field. He made man in His image, (Gen. 1:26): the Eternal Intellect sharing with His creatures the POWER OF CHOICE.
Man need not be slave to instinct or norm. He may rise above self, enlarge his sphere, pursue ideals. He may seek truth, and embrace it.
THE PRICE OF FREEDOM
But with power, there is also responsibility. The ability to choose the right exposes us to the danger of choosing the wrong. The same justice that rewards the righteous, must also condemn the wicked.
FREEDOM, then, CAN NOT BE FREE. Even in the moral realm it imposes obligations; and there are none more bound than they who foolishly demand unbridled liberty, and become slaves of their own folly.
In government, a free man may vote as he chooses. This does not mean he will vote correctly. He may, by neglect or “party politics” fail the responsibilities of this trust.
In business, true free-enterprise allows a man to invest as he sees fit. This does not guarantee profit. He may invest unwisely and “lose his shirt,” but this is the price he pays for untrammeled opportunity.
In fact, an objective study of FREEDOM in every facet of life will but emphasize the obligations of those who enjoy it. And, conversely, man’s history shows that freedom is lost when its obligations are ignored.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Freedom in religion is perhaps as widely acclaimed, and as poorly understood, as all other freedoms. Some will quote the constitution as though its guarantee of religious freedom was an assurance that whatever one chooses to believe becomes acceptable with God. NOTHING COULD BE FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH. Our government simply extends the same freedom of choice which God originally granted -- a right inherent in the nature of man. This is the meaning of “inalienable.”
Man may choose the wrong religion, or no religion. Our government recognizes the existence of God (In God We Trust?) but leaves legislative, judicial, and executive authority of divine matters where it belongs -- in the hands of God.
The need to serve God according to His law is not diminished by our freedom of choice. In fact, responsibility is intensified. We are the more accountable before God for the way we exercise our free agency.
CHURCH HISTORY
In very early times the “priest-hood” of all believers was overcast by a rising clergy system. (1 Pet. 2:5 ff.; Acts 20:28 ff.) The individual’s obligation to study God’s word for himself (2 Tim. 2:15) was forgotten as party ties grew, and people became more accustomed to accepting the word of the clergy. Soon individual liberty was replaced by the usurped authority of the church. It is the old story of our subject: WHEN THE OBLIGATIONS OF LIBERTY ARE SLIGHTED, LIBERTY ITSELF IS LOST.
Individual liberty was not wrested from the church, but dismissed -- lost by default. It is still available to each individual, and His invitation to study is open; but “churchanity” dulls the will and stifles initiative. In religion, as in business and government, the socialized slave is tranquilized by his lot, and loses his taste for the rigorous life of true freedom.
TO BE SPECIFIC...
Dear reader, how much of your own religion have you proven by God’s word? You were “sprinkled” (baptized (?) by effusion) but have you ever read New Testament authority for such an act? You are a member of some denomination -- but does the word of God authorize its doctrine and practice? Do you accept a thing as right or wrong simply because the preacher declares it? Do such questions irritate you? We hope not! They are asked to help you see how easily we may forfeit our individual freedoms in favor of unproven traditions and mass movements. Of what value is our religious freedom if you do not exercise its privileges and accept its obligations?
THE CHOICE OF MASTERS
Fundamentally, religion is a choice of masters: God or Satan. Religious freedom becomes the right to make this choice. LIBERTY UNDER GOD IS NOT THE SAME AS BECOMING YOUR OWN GOD. On the contrary, our recognition of the Supreme Being makes us at once either obedient or disobedient subjects.
But someone asks, “should we not be more tolerant?” Certainly, there is a need for toleration in its proper sphere, i.e., in matters of indifference and opinion. But where God declares a truth, toleration of anything else is rejection of God.
Jesus said, “No man can serve two masters” (Matt. 6:24). Joshua said, “Choose you this day whom ye will serve...” but added that a decision for God imposes obligations. (Josh. 24).
THE BONDAGE OF BLINDNESS
Finally, the most pitiful of all slaves are the blind. THINKING they serve God, these allow the winds of the day to make their decisions for them, and thus relinquish the only real freedom man possesses. They know not that they are blind. (Rev. 3:17).
CONCLUSIONS...
Freedom under God is, therefore individual responsibility unto God. The right to think for ourselves, to study God’s word (the standard of truth, John 17:17) and act accordingly.
Such freedom severs the shackles of man-pleasing, sectarian practices but obligates us to prove all things by God’s word. We exchange unrewarding man-service for soul-saving God-service.
We are warned that if we fail to exercise our freedom -- religion, as in government and business -- we shall be bound, and finally perish.
--Robert F. Turner
Matthew tells us in Matt. 19:13-15 that little children were brought to Jesus “that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven’ And He laid His hands on them and departed from there.”
The parallel accounts in Mark 10:13-16 and Luke 18:15-17 give additional information helpful in understanding this passage of Scripture. Mark makes it clear that it was not the young children themselves who were rebuked by Jesus’ disciples, but “those who brought them.” From Luke we learn that the children who were brought to Jesus were infants, too young to have come on their own initiative.
It is understandable that parents who had seen Jesus healing effect on the blind, the lame, and the sick, would want Him to notice, touch, and pray for their children. Such a desire was quite natural.
We are not told why Jesus’ disciples rebuked those who brought their infants to Jesus. Of course, they knew the infants would not understand what was going on. Perhaps they thought that Jesus’ time would be better spent in other matters. At any rate, Jesus in turn mildly rebuked His disciples and encouraged those who were bringing their children to Him that He might touch them and pray for them. This, of course, in no way detracted from the parents’ need to bring their children up in the training and admonition of the Lord, Eph. 6:4.
Jesus did offer one significant comment as He blessed the small children and prayed for them. He used them to illustrate the humility and purity that would be required of all those who would be subjects in His kingdom. In doing so, Jesus also further underscored the truth revealed in such passages as Ezek. 18:20, that little children do not appear before God as guilty sinners. If children were already depraved we would need to become different from them in order to be in Christ’s kingdom -- but He said we must become like them.
Along this same line, we might also notice that these children were not brought to Jesus for baptism. And they did not receive baptism. Baptism is for sinners who have come to believe Jesus’ gospel and have repented of their sins, Mark 16:16; Acts 2:36-38; Acts 8:36-37. Small children are not sinners, and they have not the ability to believe and repent. Those of us who have reached a state of responsibility for our words and deeds have sinned, and we need to believe Christ’s gospel, repent of our sins, and be baptized into Christ for the remission of sins.
–CRJ
Don Boys, former Indiana legislator, director of Common Sense for Today, writes: “Can you believe it? The same public schools that produced a ‘nation at risk’ through indulgence, incompetence and ineptness have volunteered to fight the AIDS virus? Let’s see; they can’t teach kids to read, compute, and find Miami on a map, but they can teach AIDS education... Of course the missionaries of AIDS education will tell us that the teaching will be value-neutral. But fools know that no education is neutral. Perverts are telling kids it’s wrong to be homophobic but not wrong to be homosexual... ‘Ah, you Christians want Bible values taught to little children,’ say the fanatics of the ACLU and People for the American Way.
“Right, pilgrim: We want all children taught kindness, honesty, love, purity, gentleness and principled living... One thing is sure: Someone’s values will be taught. And if I’m paying the bill, I don’t want my values denied, denigrated, or denounced. AIDS education will teach school children the depraved, depressing, dangerous and deadly “joys” of sodomy (in fact, it’s already being done.) All such preachers of perversion and permissiveness should be fired and an attempt made to restore the shame, humiliation and social ostracism that follows all sexual immorality. (However, I’m not demanding a scarlet letter).”
--Dos Plumas, Lord’s Day Reminder, South Houston, Texas