Freedom is not Free

Philosopher that I am...
I’ve been reflecting on this phrase:
“Freedom is not free.”

So many times in the life of the believer, we focus heavily on the sacrifice Christ made for us. I have no intention of diminishing that sacrifice, so please understand I grasp the necessity and sufficiency of that sacrifice. Paul tells us though (Romans 6) that we are to be actively participating in rejecting slavery to sin and actively living in freedom. Could it be that we focus too much on the one-time sacrifice that afforded us eternal life that we fail to strive to live the abundant life?

Is this also one of the causes of our division in America today? Have we read this phrase in the preterit: ‘Freedom was not free’, as if it were purchased for us by a one-time payment made by many soldiers of various racial backgrounds?

At the very least, we can see that one’s choices today affect his/her future freedoms.
Do my choices today affect other people’s liberty? Do our collective choices as a community affect present or future liberties?

Paul’s answer to living in freedom was spiritual discipline. Am I disciplining my life to live in the freedom Christ bought for me?

In America, I absolutely believe that Christ is the essential key to reconciliation. However, we as Christians (of every race and color) must discipline ourselves to both 1) live in the freedoms purchased by those who went before us and 2) ensure that others are granted those same freedoms. Until we do so, how are we being Christians? I’m not suggesting that America will ever solve its racial problems because America is a secular nation, but we as Christians can live Christ-like lives embracing all of humanity as it is.

“For the death he died, he died to sin once for all time; but the life he lives, he lives to God. So, you too consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭6:10-11‬ ‭CSB‬‬

Señor, ¿hasta cuándo? (Salmo 13 adaptado)

Señor, ¿hasta cuándo nos deja sin hablar?

Señor, ¿hasta cuándo nos va a olvidar?
¿Por qué esconderás tu rostro?
Ve nuestros corazones rotos.
Respóndeme Dios, o Jehová
Alúmbrame los ojos para verte ya

Señor, ¿hasta cuándo quedamos a velar?

Señor, ¿hasta cuándo podémonos aguantar?
Mas en tu misericordia
Ha confiado mi alma
Sé que tú me has hecho bien
Tu salvación es mi sostén

A-le-lu-ya

A-le-lu-ya

Sé que tú me has hecho bien

Tu salvación es mi sostén

Who is responsible for this?

That is the question we should be hearing in these uncertain economic times, but instead we are hearing, “_______ is to blame.”  Fill in the blank (the President, Congress, the Red, the Blue, the Star-Bellied Sneetches, etc.).  Right now there is a cry to hold the businesses accountable for their actions.  They extended risky loans, so it is their fault.  Let me remind us, “It takes two to tango,” or in this case, the dance requires many individuals to accept loans that they cannot possibly repay from institutions who were encouraged to make the loans.  Who is better qualified to assess one’s personal financial situation, a business that makes loans to hundreds of thousands or the controller of one’s own checkbook?  Don’t get me wrong, loaning money to someone without evaluating and considering the risk involved makes for poor business, but accepting such a loan is no better.

John Leo said, “You can’t run a society or cope with its problems, if people are not held accountable for what they do.”  George Pataki said, “When government accepts responsibility for people, then people no longer take responsibility for themselves.” 

Until an individual is held accountable for his own actions by other individuals, why would we ever presume to hold an organization accountable for its actions?  Ultimately, someone must pay the price.  The piper will not go unpaid, and I assure you, he is coming back for our children.

If we don’t hold an individual responsible for committing perjury, how can we hold Enron accountable for its lies?

If we don’t hold individuals responsible for their own credit card debt, how can we hold Fannie Mae accountable for making bad loans.

If we don’t hold young people accountable for their decisions to have sex, how can we hold O.J. Simpson accountable for killing his wife?

How can we exit this current situation?

Say what you want about the government’s contribution, the US exited the Great Depression by taking personal responsibility.  In my high school American history class, I clearly remember the text describing the mindset of the day, “Americans believed that they could improve their standard of living by working hard and practicing thrift.”  Today’s circumstances call for no government policy or program; it calls for personal responsibility.  The government may have contributed to our current dilemma, but at the grass roots of this problem is many individuals making bad and selfish decisions and refusing to take responsibility for them.  Instead we are blaming someone else.
It didn’t work out so well for Adam to blame someone else.  Yes, Jesus Christ ultimately took responsibility and paid for Adam’s sin, but Adam still suffered some of the consequences.  Now, we are asking the government to be crucified for our sins.  Remember that government is not God, and I guarantee that it will not be as gracious a Redeemer as our God.

Psalm of my Soul

Once I have spoken, twice blundered my words

Yeah thrice I have foolishly uttered my request


Now I say, ‘hold thy tongue, my soul.’

‘Hold thy peace until thy God enlighten thee.’


‘Otherwise thy nonsense shall discover thee’

‘And regret shall be thy home and stay.’


‘Let God be thy light and thy salvation.’

‘Let God order thy steps and establish thy days.’


I say to my soul, ‘Wait patiently for the Lord.’

‘God is thy refuge; with thy words give Him praise.’

Immaturity

when we were wet we went wayward
about an apology arranged around
thought that thinking thumps the theory
hypothesizing hypocrites hitting home

En Passant

En passant is a French term used in chess to describe the most obscure special move in chess.  Castling is the only move in chess in which the king can move 2 squares and is the only time 2 pieces of the same color can move in the same turn.  En passant is the only time a pawn can leave its file without occupying the square of an attacker and is the only move in which the opponent's pawn (or piece) is lost even though it is not actually being threatened.  The particulars of the move are not critical for the purpose of this blog.  It is only important to note that the term, while seemingly innocuous (in passing), is actually a special occasion.

Think of the time you spend in traffic, the time you spend between meetings, the time you spend transitioning from one task or phase to another.  These are examples in your life when you are en passant.  Would you classify these as special?  Probably not.

Recently while I was traveling back from vacation with my family, I was mentally processing the transition back to the work world.  As I was thinking this through, I realized that this transition time is of significant import.  What we do in the waiting, how we behave in the transition, the things we choose to think about in passing, all affect how we will approach the new, upcoming tasks we face next.  It is important to close one chapter of our lives before beginning another.

In general, we as humans do not like to wait.  These in-between moments are uncomfortable or boring to us.  We are accustomed to being entertained or being fully engaged in some interesting or otherwise attention-grabbing event.  I'm convinced, though, that God has called us to be faithful even in the waiting.  David had to be faithful between the time he was anointed as the next king of Israel to the time he moved into the palace as an entertainer to the time he actually became king.

Wherever you are today, realize that God knows the plans He has for you.  He will be faithful to you regardless of the stage or phase your life.  It is your responsibility to be faithful between these stages and phases.

More Information <> Better Informed

My son, Jairus, is 12 years old.  I've spent a lot of time with Jairus and invested my life in him while trying to be a good father.  For certain, there are times that I have failed in that endeavor.

In my opinion, a good father doesn't expect anything in return for the investment he makes in his children.  He's devoted to his children in unconditional, Christ-like love just as Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 13.  Being a parent definitely opens one's eyes to God's love for us.

It may come as no surprise to the seasoned parents, however, that not long ago, my son taught me something.  You have to understand that I am philosophical in nearly if not every aspect of my life.  I have told Jairus many times of my tendency to suppress my history or my childhood because all I remember is my mistakes.  This has nothing to do with my parents, my family, or the way I was raised.  It is strictly a mental habit to focus on my failures.

The other day, Jairus instructed me with something like this:
"You know dad, your suppression of your childhood is really caused by the negativity bias.  The human mind naturally gravitates or focuses on negative events and records them.  Then when you think back on your childhood, those events are over represented in your memory creating this negativity bias."

This revelation was profound to the philosopher in me.  Jairus was teaching me to change the way I think.  'Basically, you just need to learn to filter out the over-represented negative events, Dad.  Duh.'  Wow!

So, I began pondering this question of negativity bias.  In which course, I considered the question about real-time access to news and information.  Today, we have instant access to more information than at any time in history.  But does more information really mean that we are more informed?  When I shared this story with a colleague, he challenged me.  Our conversation went something like this:

Me: "We have more information in the news, but regardless of whether you listen to one side or the other or both, the news is heavily biased toward negativity because negative sells and positive not so much.  We hear how many murders took place in X neighborhood.  Even if we receive positive news, it is the extreme positive news.  We don't hear that no murders took place in Y neighborhood unless that is uncommon.  Besides that, many of the original sources of news are the same, so regardless of hearing more information, it is really just repeated over and over again by the same or different anchors.  It is also interpreted and filtered before reaching us, so I think having more information does not make us more informed."

Colleague: "No, having more information even if it is from the same original source or repeated over and over again, does in fact make you more informed because by definition, the information you have now is more than what you had before.  The question you are really asking is whether or not the more information you have received will lead you to make better decisions.  So, while you are absolutely more informed, you are not better informed."

After hearing this superior argument, I have to say I agree.  Perhaps it's a distinction without a difference, but my colleague's choice of words and descriptions are spot on.  And, I am now thinking more freely about my childhood as I wade through my own failures and mistakes.  All of this thanks to my son, Jairus.  The student has become the teacher and the teacher the student.