We have all heard this banal claim, and dare I guess that many of us have used it ourselves. As Canadians, one of the things we pride ourselves in is our freedom. But what does it mean for us to be free? And, perhaps more importantly, what is the cost of our freedom?
Freedom often is associated with an opportunity or the ability to act: it is because of our freedom that we can live in a certain way. Countries we Canadians would view as "not free" would be those who do not have opportunities to act. One of the most famous documents in Canadian history, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is just that: a document which guides us on how we are to act.
How did we acquire this freedom? Well, traditional answers to this question arise out of an over-exaltation of our military. They "paid the price of freedom" we like to say, for in some way the debt we owe to freedom is only paid by sacrificing our men and women in the horrendous act of war. But is this actually how we have acquired our freedom? Likely not.
On both these questions, German theologian Jürgen Moltmann provides what he believes are appropriate answers. The majority of the rest of this post will be musings from Moltmann as found in his book The Trinity and the Kingdom, with some of my own commentary inserted throughout:
The first definition equates 'freedom' with 'rule'; this is a definition that is familiar to us from political history. Because all previous history can be viewed as a permanent struggle for power and still more power, it is only the person who wins the struggle, and therefore rules, who is called free. The losers are subjected and exploited, and are called 'unfree'.This echoes back to our understanding of the price of freedom. Had we lost either of the world wars, by our logic we would have been "unfree" to use the words of Moltmann. However, in our usurping of the opponent, we are now free.
The linguistic history of the word 'freedom shows that it takes its origin from a slave-owning society. The only person who is free in a society of this kind is the master, the lord. The slaves and the women and children he rules over are not free . . . But the person who interprets freedom as lordship can only be free at the cost of other people. His freedom means oppression for others; his riches make other people poor; his power means the subjugation of his own subjects, and of women and children. The person who interprets freedom as rule is only aware of himself and his own property. he is not aware of other people as persons.
Everyone who bears a human visage has the same right to liberty, say the liberals (Moltmann is here referring to Liberal Christian scholars present in Germany, not the Liberal party of Canada). This liberty of every individual only finds its limits where it infringes the liberty of others. anyone who lays claim to his own freedom must respect the same freedom on the part of the other person. but that means that for this middle-class liberalism too, freedom means lordship. Everyone finds in the other person a competitor in the struggle for power and possession. Everyone is for everyone else merely the limitation of his own freedom. Everyone is free in himself, but no one shares in the other. In its ideal form this is a society of individuals who do not disturb one another but who are themselves solitary. No one determines the other, everyone determines himself. Freedom has then really become general. Everyone has the right to be free. But is this true freedom?Moltmann argues that this understanding is a paradox: either we are ruling over the freedom of others, therefore not guaranteeing freedom for anyone, or we are guaranteeing freedom for all, which only is capable of going as far as the other will let it, which in turn does not actually guarantee absolute freedom. Therefore, if as Canadians we are going to argue that we are all to think freely because we have won our freedom as a victory over others, we are either left oppressing those in positions of vulnerability or we are just as enslaved as we were before any such "victory" occurred.
Fortunately, Moltmann is an optimist and provides an alternative definition of freedom. However, this alternative freedom is won in another way and requires a separate form of actions:
The other definition, which we know from social history, defines freedom not as lordship but as community . . . the truth of freedom is love. It is only in love that human freedom arrives at its truth. I am free and feel myself to be truly free when I am respected and recognized by others and when I for my part respect and recognize them. I become truly free when I open my life for other people and share with them, and when other people open their lives for me and share them with me. Then the other person is no longer the limitation of my freedom; he is an expansion of it. In mutual participation in life, individual people become free beyond the limits of their individuality, and discover the common room for living which their freedom offers. That is the social side of freedom. We call it love and solidarity. In it we experience the uniting of isolated individuals. In it we experience the uniting of things that have been forcibly divided.
Freedom as lordship destroys community. As lordship, freedom is a lie. The truth of human freedom lies in the love that breaks down barriers. It leads to unhindered, open communities in solidarity. It is only this freedom as community that can heal the wounds which freedom as lordship has inflicted, and still inflicts today.Moltmann recognizes that the human desire for freedom stems out of a desire to be loved and respected. As a result, the only way to create a community of freedom is to create a community of love and respect. However, argues Moltmann, this is only possible if we carry with up the eschatological hope of Christ, that one day all will be brought into the glorious kingdom of God and that we truly believe that the world today is capable of more than it currently gives us.
Is Canada truly a free country? I will leave that up to you to decide. However, whatever your answer to that question is, the result must be an increased love and respect for those around us, for if that is absent from our actions, whatever freedom we have will certainly vanish.
