From Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

"After the Western ideal of unlimited freedom, after the Marxist concept of freedom as acceptance of the yoke of necessity—here is the true Christian definition of freedom. Freedom is self-restriction! Restriction of the self for the sake of others!"

I remembered that quote this morning as I continue to process through the passage of Scripture from Luke's gospel that informed our worship yesterday, Luke 3:7-14.

7 John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 9The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire."
10"What should we do then?" the crowd asked.
11John answered, "The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same."
12Tax collectors also came to be baptized. "Teacher," they asked, "what should we do?"
13"Don't collect any more than you are required to," he told
14them. Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?"
He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely--be content with your pay."

It is so easy to read that passage and be tripped up with guilt, but I really see it as an invitation into freedom. But it does involve a different kind of repenting, and I think this is what Solzhenitsyn is getting at in the aforementioned quote. Solzhenitsyn is inviting us to see that love is the willing restriction of ourselves for the sake of love, specifically the love of others, which is akin to our love for God. I believe repentance is not simply an invitation to move away from personal sin, but a wake-up call to resist the flow of the dominant life of the culture away from the life of God. What might it be like to repent of our rights? What am I talking about? Read this warning Solzhenitsyn has for the West.

In Western civilizations - which used to be called Western-Christian but now might better be called Western-Pagan - along with the development of intellectual life and science, there has been a loss of the serious moral basis of society. During these 300 years of Western civilization, there has been a sweeping away of duties and expansion of rights. But we have two lungs. You can't breathe with just one lung and not the other. We must avail ourselves of rights and duties in equal measure. And if this is not established by the law, if the law does not oblige us to do that, then we have to control ourselves.

When Western society was established, it was based on the idea that each individual limited his own behavior. Everyone understood what he could do and could not do. The law itself did not restrain people. Since then, the only thing we have been developing is rights, rights, rights, at the expense of duty.

You can read the whole thing here.

Comments

[Paul]

Tim-
Great quote! I've been thinking about this alot lately. It seems to me the only thing that can truly destroy a democracy is the blatant loss of self-control. People realize that they can vote themselves 'rights' and benefits but they don't realize that in doing that they are jeopardizing the system itself. It's unsustainable to keep putting requirements on what the government must provide. I contend it will lead to the bankruptcy of this society and it's ultimate demise.

[Tim]

Yeah Paul, I'm a Solzhenitsyn fan...his words (and life) are amazing. Also, I think this is what has been so disheartening about the rhetoric during the election, whether it is on a local or national scale: all politicians do anymore is pander and try to balance the "promises" that are made between battling constituencies. There is no higher language or invitation to think beyond self. Ah, the politics of entitlement. How depressing.

[Doug]

Tim: Thanks for a very important reminder. And one that is totally at odds with popular culture. To suggest any balance or caution concerning "rights" is the secular definition of heresy.

I think the redundant phrase "right to choose" illustrates the point. Taken literally, it means the right to have rights. But to argue that something is right because it is "a" right seems circular. Solzhenitsyn pointed out the missing piece. The right to "not be pregnant" must be weighed against the duty to protect human life.

[Tim Keel]

Some great stuff, Doug. I also think about how the discussion about morality has been restricted and moved away from issues of economy, so that somehow my "right" to my money, via the issue of taxes, becomes more important than our obligation to care for our neighbor. Certainly there are significant discussions to be had over how we best use money as it relates to poverty and entitlement, etc. But I also am finding it more and more distressing that somehow for many of us the issue of morality doesn't involve our relationship to money. Isn't there an attendant restriction of ourselves economically for the sake of others? I wonder what Solzhenitsyn would have made of the apparent dichotomy that seems to be inherent in all our discussions of morality these days?

[Katy Raymond]

Doug and I discuss our "rights" as it involves our money a lot. Yesterday we talked about insurance of all kinds, from the exhorbitant premiums we pay for health insurance as small business owners to whether or not we should really insure our lives for "ten times our annual pay," as is the common advice.

I said (and I really meant this at the time!), "Maybe we shouldn't spend so much on life insurance. Maybe I should sacrifice the idea of having a lot of money if you die, so that I can give more money away now."

In other words, sacrifice some future potential gain so that we can sacrifice certainly in the present tense!

I know you probably don't want to get too politcal here, so I'll try to hold back...but one of the things that frustrates us personally with the concept of "soaking the rich" through higher tax rates is that it limits our ability to give freely as we are led by God.

By the way, I believe how a person handles money tells way more about him than he'd probably want to share! It's a lifelong challenge to be always recalibrating our financial life, so that it lines up with God's priorities.

Thanks for a good discussion, as always! Blessings...

[Tim Keel]

Thanks be to God for the blogging Raymonds! Thanks for the input, Katy. I think you have some great things to say. Here's one observation (and that is all it is). Someone once told me (I haven't done the research) that this notion of tithe, for instance, isn't really inherently biblical. Particularly when one adds up the different ways that Israelites gave to God - again, I was told that the total amount ended up being in the vicinity of 30-35% of their income. Now, we are talking theocracy, so there's no differentiation between church and state. Included in that offereing was a whole host of "taxes," some of which were institutionalized means of caring for the poor and the alien in their midst, as well as temple maintenance, etc. If that is true, then my 10% tithe and my 15% to the government still falls under what the average Israelite gave to God/the nation, etc. The other thing I sometimes struggle with is how giving can become about the things that I want to support. Part of the reason I don't mind paying taxes is that my money goes towards things/people/programs I might never want to support or know that I need to support. That can be both positive and negative. I just don't know that financial indepedence from the federal government, more money in my hands, always translates into greater generosity to the truly needy. I know for someone like and Doug you have the discipline to act on your convictions and truly use your money in a God and human honoring way. Unfortunately most of the discussion I hear/overhear about money involves our right to have more for ourselves, mostly to stimulate the economy. I know this is insanely complex.

[Tim Keel]

And I don't mind bringing politics into it. :)

[Paul]

Tim-
Can you explain the difference between a tithe and an offering? I've heard all my life that an offering is something extra above obligation but mostly it is explained as a way for pastors (not you, of course) to say, "I don't mind if you give to missionaries and relief funds, but we DO have an electrical bill to pay". I guess sometimes I just think maybe our money is not used efficiently towards the greatest need. Could it actually be that the Amnesty Internationals and UNICEF's of the world are doing more to advance the kingdom than our churches? (This of course all said in the broadest context and not directed specifically.)

[doug]

If there was a bulls-eye around my heart, this topic is pretty darn close to the center. I get so confused (and pissed off to be honest) when I hear Christians talk about doing God's will, following after God, finding God's purpose, wanting to “do” better, etc . . . (insert clich). Yet, espouse to greedy and selfrighteous socio-political views. The all to common "Christian" view that saddens my heart and blows steam out of my ears the most often, is the one Tim touched on with the statement:

"I just don't know that financial independence from the federal government, more money in my hands, always translates into greater generosity to the truly needy"

AMEN ! ! !

How can a lover and disciple of Jesus Christ justify excessive tax relief for themselves while the number of our brothers and sisters in Christ (saved or unsaved, makes NO difference) who are homeless, fatally ill, malnourished, and un(der)educated are at record numbers in our neighborhoods and world-wide?

It is nice to think that Christians would use the excessive tax relief they crave to benefit those in need personally, instead of allowing the “dishonest” and “corrupt” government to do it for them. Unfortunately, the irrefutable and harsh reality is, they / we are NOT doing so and cannot come close to match the wide reaching arm of our federal, state, and local social service systems. Far more, millions more, can be served through a few tax dollars, than the giving’s of even several million Christians. The work I do and the work of many, many, many other compassionate organizations is only possible through the few dollars we give through taxes. To be painfully honest, “the church” and “Christians” in particular have a demonstrated hypocritical and judgmental reputation among the social service system in America and Internationally when it comes to putting our lives and resources where Christ asked us to. That saddens me.

I can't begin to scratch the surface of the deep emotions and convictions I have in regards to the obligation we have as followers of Christ to restrict and save our lives for those around us in need. We most pour out our lives, loose them, in order too truly experience life in its original and fullest intent.

I could type and dialogue about this for hours and days on end. However, I digress. I loose effectiveness in my communication abilities the more I type and less I speak. I better stop know before I loose all semblance of making sense.

Thank you all for your edifying responses, just opening this stuff up for discussion makes me want to praise ! ! ! May Christ continue to guide our hearts and minds for the sake of our community and for those that do not yet know His revolutionary love.

Be Well,
Doug

[doug]

I hesitate to post back-to-back messages; it's poor blog etiquette.

However (ironically?), a daily e-newsletter I subscribe to featured an article today on our current discussion of Christian altruism and Social Gospel (check out works by Walter Rauschenbusch).

Here is the link and an excerpt, enjoy :

Charity is Not Enough

By Sean Gonsalves, AlterNet. December 7, 2004.

Committed Christians must move beyond personal charity to address economic and social conditions

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/20687/

. . . Martin Luther King Jr. articulates it better than I can. "A religion true to its nature must also be concerned about man's social condition... It seeks to not only integrate men with God but to integrate men with men and each man with himself."

"Any religion that professes to be concerned with the souls of men and is not concerned with the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them, is a dry-as-dust religion."

[Tim Keel]

Hey Paul - I'm not blowing you off...I'm thinking...I'll be back with some thoughts soon.

Thanks for the posts Doug. Good stuff.