ADBC: 05 – Cry Sweet Freedom

This is part of an ongoing blog conversation with my brother, David. Here’s the premise.

Previously in the conversation: David looked at the UK government and it’s fair to say he had one or two concerns about it, maybe three. Once he finished with his reserved consideration of those issues, he also shared his take on the pastime he enjoys. It’s well worth your while reading those responses, they are nothing short of outstanding.

As is the nature of this conversation, David asked me a couple of questions:

Q: Does freedom exist? If so, how are you defining freedom? If not, why not?

Thinking about this question and how I answer it has consumed a large part of my week.

It consumes me because this question is pertinent to how I live, the nature of my marriage and family life and how I engage with everything beyond that. The key issue here is a definition of freedom.

The first place I go running to is what Jesus says about freedom when He says you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. The context of that was about what it was to know Him and acknowledge Him as the truth and how doing that would set the believer free. There are various scopes in which freedom can be spoken about, but all of those don’t make any sense to me unless it’s considered in the sphere of our relationship with God. Until there is a recognition of who He is and who we are in the light of who He is then there can never be true freedom.

That might help with some sort of definition of freedom in terms of it is the state that we exist in active recognition of who we are in the revered knowledge of who God is.

Some define freedom in terms of the absence of hindrance or restraint. I’m not satisfied with that definition only because of what I believe has to be a target to which freedom liberates towards. In political philosophy, there’s a geezer called Isaiah Berlin who talked about two types of freedom – positive and negative. Negative freedom refers to that desire to have no restraints or hindrances. Yet when I think about how God took Israel out of slavery, the point of taking them out of slavery was not just for them to live without the oppressive restraints of life in Egypt. The deal was for Israel to be taken into a right relationship with their liberator who could define for them what life in freedom really looks like – that’s as much prescriptive as it is about taking shackles. That element of free to become or freedom towards is what Berlin referred to as positive freedom. I think those elements are crucial to an energising and holistic approach to freedom. 

From the Christian foundation of freedom, I think you can tell that I believe freedom exists. I think once that freedom is genuinely experienced then everything else makes a lot more sense by which I mean it’s easier to navigate the issues of the world still in great chains of the slavery of sin. Hence for me, the cries for the various types of freedom are at best partial in their capacity to genuinely experience true freedom. It’s why a lot of the political initiatives for years have not really improved the human condition, it’s only highlighted just how tough the human condition is without reference to God.

That’s as neat a summary of the matter that I can give at this time, I’m sure it’s open to inquisition, but it’s where I stand at the moment. I’ve blogged quite a bit on the theme of freedom and if you’re interested you can have a look at some of the stuff by exploring the category itself on this blog.

Q: What do you think the purpose of publicised sports are, such as Premier League football or televised baseball, basketball, American Football, hockey, cricket, etc?

Before answering this question, it’s worth saying that there’s a question in life that I’m challenged to live by and should be the guide for every decision I make in life. That question is: how does this glorify God?

Why I mention that is that the question you ask is intriguing when I think about it. The purpose of publicised sports. On a basic level, I could answer and say that the purpose is to extend the reach and spectator engagement with the sport. On a basic level, that’s all there is to it, right? But let’s scratch the surface to wonder, why do those sports need to be publicised? Why would they require greater reach and spectator engagement? Aren’t they satisfied with what they have with those that attend the event in the stadia at the time?

Again it can come across as a perfectly reasonable business decision for the sake of those who enjoy the sport to make it available to as many people who can watch it as possible. Nothing wrong with that, right? They make some money from it – nothing wrong with that, right? They discover that there’s a market for their product and want to maximise that however they can and all power to them – nothing wrong with that, right? I mean, what’s the problem with that?

I can certainly ask the question what’s the problem with that as someone who has for over 30 years been a keen follower of football including the entirety of the Premier League era. I shouldn’t have a problem with that at all. Yet, there’s something nagging about what the drive is about televised sport – even with something as seemingly innocuous as the Olympics. That’s the feeling that not only is there a business mentality of maximising profit as much as it can, but also something that promotes the worship of the sport.

I think the question is linked to something I read that endeavoured to present a biblical justification for sport and competition. By all means, check the article for yourself because it’s a fascinating effort. Yet at the end of it, there are links to play and fun that apparently is close to the heart of God because of the joy thing and pictures of children playing depicted as positive in scripture as the basis to suggest that there are redeeming qualities to fun, to play, to games and thus to sport.

I am certain that there are plenty of gospel connections in sport. Indeed my enjoyment of football can only take place really as a connection with others and as wholesomely as I can take any redeeming factors I can take from it. I do that, however, in the knowledge that professional sport – especially as it’s mass-marketed through its televisual coverage – is there to grab and keep attention, and to a large degree take up interest and consume passions that make it difficult to correlate with what glorifies God. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it’s a sin to watch Premier League football – even Burnley … maybe. I am saying that it’s worth scratching the surface to see what the point really is.

---

So, brother, that’s my response to what you asked. You might want to engage with it and if so I will get ready for that. Whilst you do that, however, answer me this, David:

Q – The human condition is fundamentally corrupt and cannot be redeemed. Do you agree or disagree? Explain the reason(s) for your response.

Q – What is your definition of beauty and what do you consider fits that definition?

In the meantime, thanks for this opportunity dear brother, thanks

For His Name’s Sake

Shalom

C. L. J. Dryden