Abstract
Right here in the reading from Galatians we find Paul speaking directly to the concerns of many in the church today. We also find him in the middle of the secular society’s critique of the church today. And yet he is speaking to some worrying concerns of two thousand years ago.
What is in Paul’s mind? We find him having to contend with a society that had a set of moral values which conflicted with what he felt the Christian church should be about. And he found, in those to whom he wrote this letter, a group of Christians not seeing the full message for themselves.
I’ll tackle these in reverse order. Paul gets to work on those who practise something that approximates to unrestrained liberty and unchecked liberal activity. What does this mean?
I once heard it said of someone that he [let us say] could justify any position and practice even if it was patently wrong or false on either ground! The trouble is that this sort of position can be alluringly presented as a generous form of freedom. It often goes with the statement ‘it is one’s right to do …’ Or, from another perspective the argument is often given, ‘Free speech is a human right therefore …’ and so on. The flawed justification is given that you can do what you want and you can say what you want, and it would seem, can do so without regard to the consequences.
Almost a year ago a nasty little amateur video was released on the web vilifying the Prophet, Mohammed. It was made in the USA. In the USA freedom of speech is valued and prized very greatly. It is enshrined in the nation’s constitution. At one level this is good and proper. But it is a right which must be tempered with due responsibility.
What happened is that that film went global and wildly volatile riots were sparked across the Muslim Arab world. The producers of that film failed to balance the privilege they had of free speech and free expression with the duty to exercise that privilege with responsibility and respect. They may even have done so wilfully. Had they behaved with proper respect the film would (and should) never have seen the light of day.
In the scripture passage before us, Paul is recognising that we do have genuine freedom. But he is saying also that our freedom to do ‘this’ or ‘that’ is tempered by the requirement to do what we do through service to one another. This is an easy thing to say. It isn’t always easy to carry out. One can always say of something that, eg, ‘I did it for [her] benefit’. All too easily that is a smokescreen for one’s own preferences. So a further control, and regulation, is needed on our freedom.
This comes through what Paul calls, ‘living in the Spirit’. Living in the Spirit is something that is easier to recognise than it is to describe. So let’s try a few examples. It might be that I would like to follow this particular tax dodge and avoid paying my dues to the exchequer; or it might be that I could choose to go to this bar rather than another one around the corner for the particular ‘delights’ that this nearer bar has to offer. Living in the Spirit means that I have a course of action opened to me in which my freedom of action is tempered by a life in the Spirit which dictates that I must act as though I were Jesus himself and take the narrow course he spoke about.
In my days as a University Chaplain at Dundee the story was told of the Metropolitan Anthony who was visiting the university as a guest lecturer. Walking along Dundee’s Perth Road to the University with the then professor of philosophy Metropolitan Anthony was confronted by a woman who had crossed the road deliberately to address him.
Bending low on the pavement she grasped the hem of his long black cassock and said, ‘Father is it true that the world is going to end next Wednesday?’ The professor of philosophy, who told me this story, waited with interest for the answer.
Slowly and deliberately Anthony helped the woman to her feet and then gently said, ‘No I don’t think it is true, but it is best to be ready – just in case’.
This lovely little story wonderfully portrays what it means to ‘live in the Spirit’. Living in the spirit means recognising that we are not free to do as we want, but that everything we might choose to do is regulated not only by our need to serve the other person with respect and care, but also by the need to live as though Jesus were here now amongst us once more.
In the gospel reading, Jesus is clearly agitated. Things aren’t going well for him. People are being critical. The disciples want to teach others a lesson for the discourtesy they are showing. Jesus rebukes the disciples for thinking this way. The reason for this is that Jesus has his mind set on where the Father needs him to go, and where he knows he must go for the sake of (in service to) the world, and in living out the spirit of God.
It isn’t easy and he is tense. All his actions are being determined and tempered by the need to go to Jerusalem. This is the fulfilment of all he was sent to do and to teach. He must go to Jerusalem. The forward direction set by this is his guiding norm. The freedom he might have and claim is restricted by where his call must take him, and by what he must do when he gets there.
Jesus does not have the freedom of the libertine. Nor does he have the rigid rule bound authoritarianism that another might prescribe for him.
And nor do we. If Christian faith were the deliberate and obedient living of a pre-given set of rules we would not be living in this world. As it is we have a freedom and a facility to make choices and the way we make choices is both a reflection of who we are and it is also that by which others judge our personalities and by which they judge our motivation.
Between verses 19 and 21 of Galatians Chapter Five Paul gives quite a few examples of where we go wrong in our Christian conduct. And we could no doubt add a few more to his list for sake of comprehensiveness. Paul no doubt saw these vices at work amongst the Christians to whom he was writing, and he would also see the destructive effect of them upon those Christians and upon the faith and faithfulness of that church.
However, between verses 22 and 23 of that same chapter he gives a sequence of regulating virtues which mark those who genuinely serve one another and who live by the Spirit. It is worth repeating them: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
If you’re about to fill in your tax return and wondering to yourself what you don’t have to declare, or if you’re jockeying for promotion at work and doing someone else down as you seek to climb the professional ladder, or if you’re forming (or wanting to form) a relationship with someone with whom you shouldn’t be forming a relationship, just read that list of virtues and listen to what the Spirit is saying to you.
Religious Freedom, More or Less
Roger Trigg, Equality, Freedom, and Religion (Oxford: OUP, 2012. £16.99. pp. 208. ISBN: 978-0- 19-967129-8).
Modern democracy claims the primacy of religious freedom, but recent legal decisions grant higher priority to human rights and equality. Trigg examines the ramifications of this trend, and he argues for the reconsideration of the role of religion in the foundation and application of law.
In Chapter 1, Trigg posits that a tendency toward religion is inherent to human nature; as such, religion has and will always fund and pertain to civil life. Chapter 2 proposes that religious freedom, human rights, and equality cannot legally be sustained simultaneously and that the latter two often compromise the first. Chapter 3 considers the defense and inhibition of individual and institutional freedoms, and the role of the law in assessing theological matters. In Chapter 4, Trigg asserts that beliefs – including the belief in equality itself – cannot all be tolerated equally, and he recommends respect for all people instead of the equality for all beliefs. In Chapter 5, he explains that a legal policy of tolerance and neutrality is self-contradictory, because it either allows some beliefs to threaten the democratic state or hides the presuppositions that support some beliefs and dismiss others. Instead, Chapter 6 suggests a basis for considering exemptions to the law based on freedom of conscience, when an individual’s belief-based practice reflects commitment to the same authority ideal that grounds the legal system. He notes, in Chapter 7, that the discernment of what can and cannot be tolerated in a democracy must take into account the religious bases for that democracy. Chapter 8 considers reasonable accommodation when the priorities of equality and freedom threaten historical identity and tradition. Chapter 9 critiques secular equality for replacing religious foundations for law with a false impartiality. In Chapter 10, Trigg gathers his observations and examples to argue that modern democracy must make explicit why freedom is good and why it should be shared with all, or else that freedom will be denied to some in favor of the broad priorities of equality and rights. Trigg is concerned that this denial already occurs, that equality and rights already trump religious freedom. Further, when legal systems turn away from their basis in Christian understandings of human flourishing and law rejects the validity of religious beliefs and practices, democracy may no longer be able to support justice, rights, equality, and freedom.
Throughout the book, Trigg cites pertinent cases from the UK, North America, Norway and the European Convention on Human Rights. This provides readers with a rich and readable resource for reasoned debate about new and ongoing conflicts. Some readers might question Trigg’s claims about human nature, the character of religion/religions, and the interdependency of democracy and Christianity. Trigg’s position might be strengthened with attention to the legal protection of animals, the environment, and those physically and cognitively unable to participate fully in freedoms of democratic consent and conscience. All readers stand to benefit from this thoughtful and detailed presentation of the inconsistencies and potential dangers of current legal approaches to freedom of religion.