Freedom in liberal democracies is firstly and fundamentally manifested in the right to vote. With very few exceptions, in a democracy all citizens beyond a defined age have the right to freely elect the leaders of their community, state, and nation. Theoretically, electoral systems are designed to give every voter an equal voice in the election of a government, and thus, an opportunity to influence government policy and law.
Alongside the right to vote, in Western democratic values, sits freedom of speech. Again, with few exceptions, citizens in a liberal democracy have the right to speak openly and freely on almost any issue, including religion, without fear of political persecution.
These freedoms are largely designed to respect and protect the individual. Invariably, however, the rights of the individual conflict with the rights of a community. At the points of tension between society and individuals, the elected government sets an adjudicating policy which is enforced by law. The rights of the individual are weighed against the potential disadvantages to the wider community, and an acceptable balance is sought.
Within theology, 'freedom' has a somewhat different connotation. In particular it refers to the ability of an individual to choose, of his or her own volition, between good and evil. Christian faith is exercised through a life of obedience, and some theologians would claim that this obedience to God is true freedom. John Macquarrie contends:
"The strange paradox is that the man(sic) who asserts his freedom and autonomy loses it through his self-idolatry; while the man who lives in obedience and dependence toward God is set free from the very things that are most oppressive and distorting, and becomes most responsibly his true self. God's service is found to be the perfect freedom."
The concept of freedom to choose good or evil, or live a life of obedience to God is not only a matter for individuals. Choice and obedience can also apply to communities. John Milbank insists Augustine's most "real and astounding point" is that:
"virtue cannot properly operate except when collectively possessed, when all are virtuous and all concur in the sequence of their differences; hence the actual, 'possessed', realised virtues which we lay claim to, least of all resemble true, heavenly virtues. On the contrary, the only thing really like heavenly virtue is our constant attempt to compensate for, substitute for, even shot-cut this total absence of virtue, by not taking offence, assuming the guilt of others, doing what they should have done, beyond the bounds of any given 'responsibility'. Paradoxically. it is only in this exchange and sharing that any truly actual virtue is really present."
Despite Augustine's great influence, however, several contemporary theologians criticise the Western Christian tradition for its tendency to emphasise the individual above community.
Contextual theology calls us to interpret theological concepts in the light of our own social context. If we consider freedom in the theological sense within the context of the socio-political freedom of western democracies, we are led to ask how the tradition of freedom in liberal, democratic cultures may open the way for a new understanding of the theology of grace.
In some theological traditions, particularly those strongly influenced by Augustine, humans are regarded as not being truly free to choose between good and evil without the gift of God's grace. According to these traditions, it is grace that creates the potential for human persons to choose good, thereby offering us true freedom. At its extreme, however, Augustine's theology of grace has led some to argue that those who do not choose the Good fail to do so because they have not been gifted with God's enabling grace. Within the theory of Predestinarianism, such persons have no freedom to choose the Good, therefore they cannot be held accountable for their sin. A tension arises from the theological concern to accredit God with the source of all good, and the desire to hold humans responsible for those choices deemed not to be directed towards the Good. Thus, the notion of freedom in theological thought is somewhat ambivalent and has been a point of contention within the development of theologies of grace throughout Christian history. Whilst God is said to deal with humans according to their free and conscious nature, it is also claimed that God's grace precedes, accompanies and follows human choice.
In 1547, within the Decree on Justification, the council of Trent asserted:
"In spite of sin the free will of a person is not destroyed. In the adult, the process of justification is a conscious and voluntary reception of grace. Thus when grace moves a person, he or she cooperates by a free assent."
Here, the balance has been struck by an understanding that depicts human beings as actively cooperating with grace. It is a balance that Paul alludes to when he exhorts the Christians in Philippi to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and work for his good pleasure." (Phil 2:12b-13)
Within contemporary theology, definitions of grace vary widely. Roger Haight places his emphasis on the divine initiative and the gratuitous nature of grace. He describes grace coming "as a healing and sanative power enabling freedom to open up toward the good, to open up beyond selfishness toward Love." This concurs with the Augustinian notion that without grace, freedom is incomplete; without God’s grace, humans are unable to choose the Good.
Leonardo Boff, however, envisions grace as the means of a dynamic relationship between God and humans. Thus, he avers,
"Grace implies the alteration of both God and humans. It establishes an encounter and dialogue, and a flow of mutual love. Both [God and humans]are vulnerable because grace operates in the framework of freedom, where there can be a flowering of the unexpected or degeneration on the part of human beings."
Both theologians claim a direct link between grace and freedom. For Haight, grace enables freedom in the theological sense, creating the possibility of obedience to God; for Boff, grace "operates in the framework of freedom". Here, the freedom is a socio-political freedom that is equated with Christian obedience.
As an advocate of Liberation Theology, however, Boff does not seek to reformulate the doctrine of grace on the basis of western democratic concepts of freedom; rather he founds his criticisms of the classical doctrines of grace along Marxist lines. His criticism of classical reflections on grace is that they "did not discuss justification in social and structural terms. [Rather, they] discussed justification in terms of the private individual and the inner life, thus serving as an ideological support for those in power and those responsible for oppression."
Boff regards social and structural realities to be the most appropriate starting point for any theology of grace. He challenges traditional theology on the basis that "social, political, and economic structure is not external to human beings;" instead "it pervades them to the very core, generating a situation of dependence... in which the vast majority of our fellow human beings are oppressed and held in bondage."
It would appear that the socio-political freedom called for by the proponents of liberation theology wears a different guise to the socio-political freedoms associated with liberal democracies. What is thought to liberate us in one context, may well be regarded as our oppressor in another. Thus, to discuss Freedom as an existential state without context is meaningless. One must be freed from something (eg: oppression, poverty, disease), or freed to do something (eg: to act) for freedom to hold meaning, hence our understanding of freedom must be regarded as largely cultural.
Within western democracies many claim freedom to be an ability to choose; they contend without choice there is no freedom. This allows a framework by which we may understand Augustine's notion that without grace, and its opening up of the potential to choose good, we are not truly free. However, others argue that consumer-driven societies are so cluttered with superficial choices that the populace is ensnared by consumerism. Our freedom is manipulated by a compulsion to choose.
This leads us to question the very freedom of culture. Brian McDermott argues,
"Culture and grace, though not simply identical, are ineluctably intertwined. Culture, as the glory, sin and terrifying ambiguity of the human project, is the most public way in which the human creature responds to, rejects, toys with or flees from the divine offer of conversion and completion."
In Future of an Illusion, Sigmund Freud's attention is concentrated upon culture. Freud understands culture to be a structure of knowledge and power, devised to conquer nature and sustain human life, by demanding instinctual renunciations and internalising, under the jurisdiction of the superego, various external compulsions. He contends that culture is a necessary framework for human relationships and the distribution of resources, however, he argues, any culture is inevitably imposed on a resisting majority by a minority using power and coercion. In fact, Freud strongly believes that most people do not internalise all the prohibitions of culture and obey them only under the pressure of external force, thus the majority of a population is hostile to its culture.
Freud's arguments on cultural imposition apply as much to western liberal democracies as they do to Communist regimes or dictatorships. If our culture is imposed upon as us Freud suggests, what is this freedom that we value so greatly in our democratic societies?
Not all see culture in such light. Karl Rahner prefers to define culture as "an element of tradition which helps to determine a man's (sic) surroundings and which man himself not only receives and accepts, but also develops through his free creative work as something that is specifically human." Similarly, McDermott regards culture as "the effort of human beings, socially and personally, to organise the chaos of stimuli which bombard human organisms in a way that will allow them to function in this world productively and healthily"
Both theologians stress the human creation of culture. As an ever-developing matrix of human construction, it is within our culture that we define freedom. And it is this culturally-defined freedom that finds expression in the 'free creative work' that Rahner credits with cultural development, presenting us with a degree of circularity.
Boff, however, would concur with Freud. He claims societies create an economically based ideological structure which
"lays down the hierarchy of values designed to legitimate the existing socioeconomic relationships and to reinforce continually the consensus that is ever threatened by those who feel maltreated and alienated. These values are inculcated socially by the schools, communications media, and other channels."
Further, he suggests that "when a critical spirit and discernment are lacking, human persons may be so transfixed by the prevailing ideology that they erroneously feel free when in fact the values of the ruling class hold sway over them."
It has been argued that a "certain degree of political and social freedom is necessary to create a climate favourable to grace. And that is why the Church has always actively promoted a civilising uplift whenever her missionary work lay among primitive races." This "civilising uplift" is a process of westernization wherein the "task of civilising and mastering the universe" is considered to be the fulfilment of a life of grace and obedience to God.
Historically, the western world has demonstrated considerable arrogance through its tendency to assume cultural superiority. The "civilising uplift" that has been imposed on “primitive races" in the name of Christian mission, actually denies these non-western cultures their own cultural freedom while purporting to offer "a climate favourable to grace". Herein lies the danger of confusing freedom in its theological sense with socio-political freedom as defined by one’s own culture.
The distinction between the two 'freedoms' may be further blurred when we talk of 'theological freedom'. By theological freedom we mean a socio-political freedom within culturally determined limits, to approach theological issues from a variety of perspectives or using various theological methods. The Church, historically, has constrained the theological freedom of its members within tightly patrolled boundaries. The crossing of these bounds has led to charges of heresy, excommunication, and worse.
In Christian anthropology the human person is said to be called to respond to God's gratuitous gift of grace by his or her own free will, yet Augustine and many of his disciples since, have condoned the use of coercion for the advancement of Christianity, asserting:
"the need for some measures of coercion, in some circumstances, because freedom of the will is not the goal, and sometimes people can be temporarily blind and will only be prevented from permanent self-damage when they are forced into some course of action, or prevented from another....Such action may not be 'peaceable', yet may still be redeemed by retrospective acceptance, and so contribute to the final goal of peace."
According to John Milbank, we are to be reassured in the knowledge that Augustine sought confessions "only by beating with rods, not with the torture of fire." Clearly, the coercion endorsed here denies theological freedom and contravenes the socio-political freedom endorsed in liberal democracies. Within this cultural matrix, however, freedom, in its theological sense, is understood to be gained by obedience to God, albeit initially, an unwilling obedience.
In contrast to Milbank, Jurgen Moltmann cautions, "Anyone who uses freedom in order to destroy freedom is not acting in accordance with that freedom." Moltmann describes 'Unity in Freedom' as a mark of the Church and the Church's task in the world. He argues the need for the church to work towards unity through liberation but insists unity is not uniformity.
After considering the different approaches to freedom and the ways in which culture defines our concept of freedom, we might yet ask how the tradition of freedom within liberal democracies can shape our understanding of grace today.
Some would credit modern western culture, in particular its science and technology, with the power to free us from the constraints of nature and offer us a secular salvation. Certainly, advances in biochemistry and medical technology have markedly raised life expectancy in the west. With the aid of modern technology humans may achieve far beyond what nature alone would allow. But are we truly free from the bounds of nature or is this mere allusion? We are now just beginning discovering the price of these advances; hitherto unchecked exploitation of natural resources has sustained irrevocable damage to the planet's fragile ecosystem. Individuals may be doing more and living longer at the eventual cost of the human species.
Similarly there have been those who have considered grace to be external to nature; a 'super-natural' element given to a self-sufficient world to raise us above that world. For Aquinas, grace is an ontological modification that elevates and perfects nature. But this dichotomy between grace and nature is also an illusion. Just as science must be evidenced in nature, so too, we begin to recognise that God's grace is manifest through God's natural creation. For Christians, the primary manifestation of grace is to be seen through the life of Jesus.
"To live in a state of Grace is to live in the real presence of God and to have his presence manifested through our lives, to ourselves and to others. The real presence of God in Jesus was thus the quintessential instance of divine Grace made fully present on earth, for in Jesus that presence was embodied, incarnate."
Freedom of choice, freedom to vote, freedom to speak: these are the fundamental freedoms bestowed by liberal democracies, but they are qualified freedoms set within the bounds of their culture. The Grace of God, however, opens our ears, our eyes and our hearts to the possibility of life and offers us a true choice. Response to the gift of grace becomes manifest through obedience to God and freedom itself is liberated. By comparison, the socio-political freedoms of western culture are narrowly bound and do not accurately reflect the freedom offered by grace. Difficulties arise if we bind the freedom within our theology too tightly to the restrictive freedoms of our society. For when we open ourselves to grace, there is only one choice to be made, and that is to choose the true freedom that is found in the service of Christ.
Bibliography
Boff, Leonardo Liberating Grace Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1981
Freud, Sigmund Future of an Illusion London: Holgarth Press, 1928
Duffy, Stephen The Graced Horizon Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992
Fransen, Peter Divine Grace and Man New York: Desclee, 1962
Haight, Roger The Experience and Language of Grace New York: Paulist Press, 1979
McDermott, Brian What Are They Saying About The Grace of Christ? Ramsey: Paulist Press, 1984
Macquarrie, John Principles in Christian Theology London: SCM Press, 1977
Milbank, John Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990
Moltmann, Jurgen The Church in the Power of the Spirit London: SCM Press, 1977
Rahner, Karl Grace in Freedom London: Burns and Oates, 1969
Click on the GSD to return to the Home page.
