I need help. I need to find two different words to contrast two different ideas. Both ideas are best described as freedom, however, both are different and, depending on your interpretation, contradictory. For now, I’ll briefly describe the two ideas using modifiers for clarity.
Political freedom means not being coercively subject to the rule of man, nor coercively subjecting others to the rule of man. The zero aggression principle is a good summary of political freedom.
The idea of political freedom excludes behavior which violates others’ freedom, such as stealing or murder. However, it includes, as acceptable, any behavior that does not violate that principle. For example, political freedom allows for the rejection of God and other self-destructive and others-destructive behavior that is consensual (e.g. recreational drug abuse not involving non-consensual violence).
Christian freedom is (probably) a subset of political freedom. It would include freedom from the rule of men, but exclude behavior that would be considered evil, even if it does not involve aggression against other people. Blasphemy and idolatry, for example, would be included in political freedom, but not in Christian freedom.
Fundamentally, both types of freedom are negative in nature. That is to say, both are focused on what you cannot do or what cannot be done to you. I would argue that Christian freedom does not include positive mandates (that is, of course, not all Christianity has to say about behavior).
The primary difference between the two is that political freedom allows evil and/or destructive behavior so long as it is consensual, while Christian freedom does not.
Given those brief and maybe rough descriptions, what words would best describe those concepts?
V-
Liberty and License
Liberty “misused” is known as license. From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/license see:
“3 a : freedom that allows or is used with irresponsibility b : disregard for standards of personal conduct : licentiousness”
Liberty “correctly used” is generally referred to as Liberty. Offhand I do not know of a single word that would make the meaning clearer. I looked for antonyms for license and licentiousness but I did not find anything that would work well. Certainly there are a number of short phrases that would work.
Of course there will be differences of opinion about where the line between the two is. Some things will be clearly on one side or the other but others will be matters open for debate.
What you’re describing is a “subset” of general freedom.
As long as all members of a group freely choose to be members, the rules of that group can be as minimal or total as they like, and it’s still freedom, because of the free choice to be a member.
Freedom, in general, is the ability to exercise one’s rights without being coerced to stop by others. Also known as “libertarianism.”
I think that, as long as you define your term, “Christian freedom” appropriately, it works fine (eg, “the freedom for members of Christianity to do anything not prohibited by that religion’s doctrines”). As long as the definition is clear that this only applies to Christians, most anyone in the liberty spectrum should understand what you’re getting at.
You could also use the morality/ethics must/should dichotomy to help explain. You must not murder some innocent guy walking down the street; that’s morality. You should not kill someone who attacks you, if you can reasonably stop him without killing him and without causing future danger to yourself or others by doing so; that’s a personal ethic that I hold.
Morality can be enforced on others, so it is necessarily minimalist, essentially being a restatement of the principles of self-ownership and non-aggression. Ethics can only be enforced on ourselves, and those who share the same ethic. Christianity says that idolatry is unethical behavior, so one Christian can ‘enforce’ that on another Christian, because they share the same ethic, but would be acting wrongfully if he chopped down a Native American’s totem pole, since Native American’s follow a different ethic in regards to idolatry.
Original sin and being fatally flawed regarding the freedom to succeed
This is the way I see it:
The Christian still has the Freedom to turn away from Christ otherwise he has no Free Will. This is the Freedom that the Elohim gave Adam and Eve even before the fall and man retains today (according to the doctrine I was taught as a young Missouri-synod Lutheran).
Adam & Evetm had the choice to either partake of the tree of knowledge or not. It was an open choice they took upon themselves to exercise and thereby demonstrated their Freedom to do by engaging in that very act. The Elohim did not stop them from this action or in any way bar this Freedom from them other than previously issue a prohibition which they then ignored.
All Freedom always has inherent consequences -as all action does. The consequence of the Christian who turns from Christ endangers his soul if he expires before being redeemed.
But according to mainstream Christianity the one thing a Christian does NOT have is the Freedom NOT to sin. Humans are supposedly incapable, genetically/racially, of totally abstaining from sin so this is not a Freedom that a Christian has if one is to follow the mainstream doctrine.
This is the paradox of Christianity IMHO -the Freedom to Fail -but never to Succeed when it pertains to being good and refraining from sin/evil. The Freedom to perfect one’s self is not an option. That is only the privilege of a God. Man can only be so free as his inherently created (by God) flaws allow him to be. He’s not “Free” to succeed -only through Christ is this possible.
Adjectives?
I should think that using the adjectives “political” and “Christian” would be adequate to alert your audiences that there is, in fact, a difference. Thereafter you could point them to your definition of terms.
My bias is towards calling them “political liberty” vs “Christian liberty”. “Freedom” seems to connote more of a current legal right, while “liberty” seems to connote more the universal principles: libertarianism vs Galatians 5:1— “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.”
That’s a thought—perhaps the Greek word used here for “freedom” (KJV “liberty”) might be useful. Strong’s transliterates it “eleutheria” (G1657). http://u.nu/4upzb “Free” is “eleutheroō” (G1659)
As you alluded to in the OP: freedom from sin and eternal Death; freedom TO obey Christ, forgive the unforgiveable, love the unloveable…
God bless.
j
Freedom v.s. Freedom
Political Freedom vs Christian Freedom.
Here’s an idea from Virgil Swearingen, your own personal Dad. 🙂
I’m not going to address your exact request / question about those two desirable kinds of freedom. Rather, I’m going to offer two phrases that might be helpful as we try to combine Christianity and government. Or, another way to say it, as we try to apply a Christian worldview to the governmental aspect of life.
Desirable: Godly Christian Self-Government.
NOT Desirable: UNgodly NON-Christian Others-Government.