Liberty risks security and certainty. Liberty grants responsibility to the individual. There are two major goals for personal liberty that I have observed recently. One is the goal of “whatever feels good to me.” This personal liberty is not so much coerced by anyone, but will coerce others to bow to one’s selfish whims no matter how outlandish they may be. The other personal liberty’s goal is God’s glory. This is a freedom to act according to one’s conscience that is based in real reality. These two versions of personal liberty are often at war.

Kulturkampf is a German term referring literally to “culture war”. Historically this term was used in whether Prussia would be Catholic or Protestant in the nineteenth century. This term could also appropriately describe the increasingly polarizing climate in American politics. Similarly this can be applied to the battle between certain political ideologies and historic orthodox Christian teaching. This war is waxing, and everyday Christians remain rather ambivalent, or perhaps just uncertain how to proceed.

The political right often opines on the danger of gun restrictions and lessoning Second Amendment rights. Regardless of the reality or truthfulness of these restrictions, it serves as a strong illustration. The right to bear arms grants a grave responsibility to the individual (grave because a misuse of this responsibility could certainly lead someone there). The upside, of course, being safety and security. Those threatening to take away the arms from the individual do not want to take away safety and security, but rather place that responsibility in the hands of the government. This philosophy works well unless tyranny reigns (which some would argue the very removal of the Second Amendment is tyranny).

The battle Christians face is not with physical weapons. The common pastor has been disarming their congregants for decades. As a youth, my feet were not shod with the gospel message, but rather, “you’re invited to my church!” where the ‘professionals’ could handle the evangelism. A lot of pastors are so concerned with money and their likeability that they’ve disarmed their sheep. In the battle for personal liberty in their own soul, they have let “whatever feels right” win. Not preaching the whole council of God removes the only offensive weapon: the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God. The current battle in our cosmic kulturkampf is seemingly in the hand Satan. Don’t hear me wrong, certainly Christ is the victor over all, including the whole war.

Christ’s victory is not presently seen in its fullness (Heb 2:8). Christians should work to build God’s kingdom here (e.g. Matt. 6:10). Neither humanity’s fall into sin nor Christ’s New Covenant has dismissed the creation mandate (Gen. 1:28, fill and subdue). Thus, history is a series of battles between the forces of Satan and the church. Jesus says, to Peter, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). Although “prevail” may tend to throw some people off, “gates” are defensive structures. This assumes the church is on the offensive.

I’m not advocating for a Neo-Christendom Theocratic society which forces everyone to be baptized. I’m personally a strong advocate for religious liberty. Nonetheless, Christian law, thought, and philosophy, have a directly proportional positive impact on society as a whole. In other words, societies and disciplines established in Christian philosophy flourish because they are established in truth as opposed to a lie. For an example, science flourished under Christian thinkers who believed in a real world established by a good God. This is an extremely strong thesis for this paragraph and I can easily imagine the incredulous reader balking at my naivety. But consider some counter examples: throw a scientific query at someone who believes that a rather large and unplanned bang created a human accident whose most intellectually honest answer would be “who cares?” And even if one is entertained by a Dadaist’s art, this does not provide the Dadaist any qualifications to design a foundation and proper structural support for a house. In other words, postmodern relative truth schemes may seem entertaining to the modern, but when they form the foundation, the entire worldview falls apart.

We have been fighting kulturkampf for centuries. In the previous century, this battle seemed to be fought more in the theoretical realm. Theologians were denying the validity of scripture, the reality of Jesus, and undermining the morality of both. The fight seemed relegated to the theologians and the “professionals”. But we can see today by looking at our popular culture which side won out. Now, this battle is effecting each of us more acutely. Perhaps your son comes out as gay. Or your friend’s daughter has an abortion and your friend looks for affirmation in you. Maybe you’ve been asked to identify as either “oppressed” or “oppressor” based on the color of your skin. Or perhaps your church is asked by the government to stop meeting, or singing, etc. Christians have relegated the fight to the “professional” and are now ill-equipped to join the fight effecting them personally. Even worse, hardly any pastor is working to equip them! The megachurch pastor concerned with budget and likeability rarely preaches on controversial topics. The very church commanded to be on the offensive becomes disarmed.

When Martin Luther untethered the individual conscience from the authoritative and aberrant Roman Church, he did not leave it without the ability to moor as detractors may suggest. Rather, his conscience is moored to the Word of God. Thus the Scripture forms both the only offensive weapon of choice and the very thing that forms our foundation for thinking and operating in society at large. Yet by contrast, the average Western churchgoer’s internal destiny is controlled by something so insignificant and fragile as “this feels good.”

Individual liberty is a style of life where identities are accepted, rejected, or chosen and prioritized by the individual without coercion or unwanted influence from the culture, state, or religious institutions within the cultural framework. Identity is how individuals actualize themselves into reality. As argued previously, individuals have multiple identities. Identity can be granted to them by cultural construct, parents, childhood, God, vocation, region, economic status, etc. . . The infinite possibilities of identities make it nearly impossible to enumerate.

As identities are given to an individual, due to individual liberty, the individual can decide whether to accept the identity or reject it. For example, take the God-given identity of being made “in the image of God” (Gen 1:26-27). Although theologians disagree about the exact nature of what this entails, all agree that this identity gives humanity an innate worth and grants humanity its ultimate purpose: glorifying God. Individuals are free to reject this identity and embrace an identity of “worthless” to the extent of committing suicide.

These decisions are made without coercion or unwanted external influence to an extent of cultural allowance. This portion of the definition has its limitation of “within the cultural framework”. If an individual chooses an identity “murderer” and prioritizes that identity over other human life, the state will step in and imprison him regardless of his freedoms. Since he picked prioritized an identity outside the cultural framework, state coercion stepped in, justly. If an individual prioritizes an identity “flower”, she may suffer ridicule from her peers for standing in the same place 24/7 with petals attached to her head. Since she picked an identity outside the cultural framework, cultural coercion rammed her in the form of belittlement.

Identities and how they are prioritized are very fluid, and that fluidity is also set by cultural framework. As you can imagine, the cultural framework itself is a torrent in modernity. If you were born Anglo and decided to identify as black and oppressed by American systemic racist institutions, Black Lives Matters would be the first to condemn you for not acknowledging your white guilt. However, if you were born with XY chromosomes and decided at the age of 10 you were a girl, droves of people may come out and applaud you. The second example is more of a battleground area as well.

Of course, a more sophisticated person than I could potentially go into the influence of sub-cultures and beyond; however, for the sake of simplicity, I will discuss three major external influences on the individual: state, culture, and religious institutions. In Medieval Europe, the state, culture, and Roman Church were wedded into one. Individual liberty was not a reality, people’s identities were granted to them by the combination of the external influences. To reject any of these identities risked you being ostracized or perhaps burned at the stake.  

Martin Luther revolutionized history when he made the case for individual liberty. When Martin Luther stood before the Diet of Worms he proclaimed, “My conscience is captive to the Word of God.” Some argue this is the first time that individuality expressed itself against a controlling form of group think. And while there may be some truth to this, Eric Metaxas brings out some key ideas (in his book Martin Luther pgs. 219-221). Luther was not asserting the individual can do whatever he pleases (the type of autonomy argued for today). Rather, his conscious was captive to the Word of God. Luther was arguing that councils and popes had erred and the only think trustworthy for life and practice was scripture. Metaxas argues:

Luther was asserting the modern ideas of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience for the first time in history. These things point not to man as a new free agent but to God himself. That it would be possible for someone to abuse these ideas to do what God did not want him to do was always the risk, so to the extent that Luther made that risk and error possible, he may be held responsible. But the alternative to opening things up to this risk is to accept the sheer authority of the church or state, and that was far worse. . . Just as Jesus called upon the Pharisees to stop their outward obedience to God and go far deeper, to inward obedience, do Luther called upon every Christian to cease the petty obedience to church that was nothing when compared to the freedom and joy of actually obeying God.

Eric Metaxas, Martin Luther, Viking: New York, NY. 2017. 221.

This event took the power of identification priority away from the external and granted it to the internal. The individual gained the freedom to choose for himself what identities to accept, reject, and prioritize. Luther’s authority for this identity and prioritization was the Word of God. This should be the authority for all believers. In fact, the only way to truly obey God is internalized obedience (Dt. 6) rather than externalized coercion. Thus, the implications for the Christian lifestyle are huge, but consequences for the unbeliever have occurred as well.

An imperial goon in the Mandalorian insisted, “people think they want liberty, but what they really want is order” (paraphrased from Valin Hess in Chapter 15: The Believer). This quote captures the tug-of-war in the personal identity game. When the state coerces identities, liberty wains, but society order increases (in the shape of the one ordering it). When the individual controls their liberty, a certain risk ensues. Liberty grants responsibility to the individual. Liberty risks safety and certainty.

Who or what will the individual utilize to choose, reject, and prioritize identities? Freed from state and religious institutions, philosophical developments in epistemology provided a basis for the unbeliever. First, rationalism provided a framework for identity in human reasoning. When that was rejected, empiricism was gave unbelievers a framework for identity in human experience. Sigmund Freud and other psychologists provided frameworks. Sociology has provided other frameworks. In a powerful scene in Francis Schaeffer’s How Then Shall We Live? Schaeffer draws several circles in the sand then crosses them out. This has been modern man’s current experience. Someone offers a framework in which to operate, another person comes along and points out its flaws. Then another framework is proposed until it is shown to be flawed.

This endless cycle of framework creation and rejection resulted from a rejection of the Christian worldview. Luther’s identity was moored to the Word of God. The unbeliever certainly wanted the power and liberty to control their own identities outside from state and church coercion; however, they also rejected the tiedown of scripture. In the face of no other reliable authority, modern mankind turned to their own feelings to determine their identities. Whatever feels right is who they become. A person’s entire internal destiny, that is their personality, their actions, their very lives is controlled by something so insignificant and fragile as “this feels good.”

This is the enemy we face. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against Satan himself. His twisted philosophies have been the same since Eden: “You will not surely die; you will become like God.”  The authority believers must use to learn what identities to accept or reject and how to prioritize them is the Word of God. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Personal liberty is extremely important and good. People should have the freedom to act according to their conscience. But it also involves risk and lack of certainty. The society at large has opted in for “whatever feels right” as the guide for their liberty. This falls short and will never provide meaning, purpose and value. For the believer, personal liberty is tied to making much of God. Jesus exemplifies this truth when faced with the “whatever feels right” impetus to save his life. He said, “Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name.” (John 12:27-28).

The battle of personal liberty is not just external in culture, but also internal in individuals’ souls. This battle cannot be relegated to the professional class. Every Christian must be equipped to discern the goal for their personal liberty: is it to “feel right” or glorify God? And of course the true question for sanctification is how can one make what glorifies God “feel right?” And in this every believer should, “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).