I was reading an article by Star Parker on Townhall.com and got to the last couple of lines where she stated "Let's hope we have the wisdom to choose the real path to freedom, in Illinois and around the nation" She was writing about the differences between the two U.S. Senate candidates Barak Obama and Alan Keyes, who are vying for a seat for the state of Illinois. The part that stood out to me for some reason is "...the real path to freedom". It struck me like a ton of bricks! True freedom doesn't come by means of liberation from... but by declaring allegiance to something or someone. In other words, a person is never truly free from anything.
The Apostle Paul demonstrates this argument when he says that he is a "bondservant of Christ", and in another place he states that he has become a slave to Christ when once he was a slave to sin, a common theme in scripture is bondage and servitude to one thing or another, to the captors of Israel or to God, to God or to Satan. Granted, you may argue that some of the Israelites predicaments were not necessarily by choice, or were they? The main reasons why Israel was constantly attacked and defeated is due to their disobedience to God. When they were obedient God protected them and they were able to defeat all of their enemies, great or small. When the people allowed disobedience to reign, the enemies were ready to pounce, and did so with a vengeance.
This sentiment is a far cry from today's secular-new-age-liberal thinking where one can declare freedom by resisting "traditionalism" and embracing an "open mind". Our society embraces the thinking that whatever a person does is o.k. as long as they do not hurt anyone else by it. You are free to choose whatever you want. Well, this is true, yet disingenuous at the same time, in that, when unclarified, it implies that a person can do whatever they want without consequences, as long as it doesn't effect others, yet, we fail to realize that our behavior does affect others in ways that we may not understand as of yet.
Case in point, the homosexual movement to legitimize, not only homosexuality but same-sex marriage as well, wouldn't be possible if there weren't a significant number of individuals choosing to be Gay. Without each of these people making their individual choices to be a homosexual there would be no Gay movement. Yet, many of these individuals and their sympathizers would argue that they have a right to be whoever they are as long as they do not affect others. Is this True? And again, they contend that two men or women marrying doesn't affect heterosexual marriage nor does it affect the whole of society. Marriage is a private and personal choice to be made by two individuals, right? But wait! If these are true statements then why is there such an uproar in regards to the issue of same-sex marriage, even among liberals? Is it that the far right is simply attempting to strip away certain liberties from the Gay community? Trying to deny their right to choose? Or can it be that maybe the individual, personal choices of these Gay men and women actually does affect society both directly and indirectly.
Another example is abortion. The right to choose to kill your baby is a personal choice that shouldn't be infringed upon by government or anyone else, including the father, right? Well, this is what our society contends as being freedom. A woman can choose to "terminate" her pregnancy and that is her right, her freedom. To deny her that right is to take away her freedoms. This line of reasoning implies that her choice doesn't affect anyone else since she is the one who will carry the baby for 9 months, go through the different stages of pregnancy and post-pregnancy, and most likely, have to raise the child by herself. Yet, it fails to bring one key point into the picture, the right of the baby to live! So does her choice affect others? Well I would contend that they do, and not just that baby but the father of that child as well, and its grandparents. We can even go as far as to say it affects that child's future friends and relationships as they would not have the opportunity to develop. Additionally, a woman's choice to kill her baby affects the whole of society in the form of government subsidized abortions, the behavior of young girls, and their attitudes towards sex.
As Mr. Thomas Sowell often states, there are always unintended consequences or costs that are usually never taken into consideration at the onset of an idea, especially by the liberal left.
What is real freedom then? In scripture Jesus states that the path to righteousness is straight and narrow and the road to destruction is wide. In other words, one road is narrow and doesn't allow for much wandering. The other is wide and gives much room to drift, wander, and even to turn around. Which one offers freedom? Well, both offer it, yet only one is true, and genuine. So freedom is a matter of choice, ultimately between two things, ideals, or entities. I would contend that the narrow path actually offers more freedom than the wide open path, because with it comes peace, joy, love, etc., etc... all of the things that we search for in the wide path we find in the narrow one. You may ask, why is that? A question for another day, another time.
I will end on the same note as Ms. Parker, I hope we will have the wisdom to choose the real path to freedom.