A Terrible Freedom

A Terrible Freedom

One cannot blame even one’s own empirical character, because one is always free to do anything differently than one has done it in the past.  

Lossky claimed that this was proven just by experience.

Let us take, as a counter-example, someone who has been what we would call a righteous person. This person who has done everything that seems correct or morally laudable up until the present. Then, suddenly that same man who has been completely faithful to his family, to his wife, to his children, who had been a good member of his church and society, etc., for egotistical reasons leaves his wife, neglects his family, chases another woman, and ruins his career.[62] Lossky said that such a case is proof that one always has formal freedom. Formal freedom means that one can always theoretically make a complete about-face morally despite one’s past, empirical character, etc. Lossky held that the individual always possesses absolute freedom to choose on the theoretical level. This possibility was witnessed to by such sudden changes of moral character.[63]

On the other hand, it is true that if one is a drug addict, for instance, one does not have as much positive material freedom. Positive material freedom means that one has the actual possibility or capability to change. When one abuses one’s body with drugs, for instance, one numbs one's mind, ruins one’s body, and then is not able to do the morally good things one would like to do. Still Lossky felt that despite the limitations of positive material freedom due to such choices a substantival agent could at any time, with great effort and no doubt with the cooperation of divine grace in the positive case of going from morally culpable behavior to morally laudable behavior, make such an about-face (and if he could not his previous choices in previous incarnations or metamorphoses were to blame!).[64] A rehabilitated drug addict would be a case in point. Even as a human person, not merely a potential person like an inanimate object, but even as a sentient person, one can still reduce one’s own positive material freedom by poor moral choices.  If one chooses to abuse alcohol, for instance, one will dull one’s intelligence, etc. and that will limit one’s positive material freedom. One will still retain one’s formal freedom, one could still say, "No, I will turn away from the bottle." However, previous choices do still limit one’s positive material freedom. 

Between Fideism and Dogmatic Rationalism: The place of Nicholas O. Lossky in the legacy of Silver Age Russian religious philosophy. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute of Philosophy, Catholic University of Leuven (Louvain), Belgium), 188, 189.

As I studied the philosophy of Nicholas Onufrievich Lossky while I was preparing my doctoral dissertation, I came across an idea which frightens me deep into the core of my being even to this day.

I doubt Lossky would have seen it the same way, but his idea of “formal freedom” has always frightened me.  As the leading quote, taken from my dissertation shows, any man can at any time make a complete moral about-face.

Perhaps this still seem banal.  However, imagine that you do a complete moral about-face. What would that look like?

Lossky gives the example of the “righteous” man, perhaps morally virtuous would be a better moniker, but he has in mind a good Christian gentleman, perhaps even a scholar.  That first instance for me is chilling. “I could be that man!” is one possible, reasonable thought.  Another is: “Except for the grace of God, there go I!” It might be instructive to know that Lossky spent most of his career teaching in a Women’s College.

We would like to think that our good habits (works?) are enough to keep us safe from such a moral about-face.  “I read my Bible every day. I pray. I go to church.  I’m in an accountability group.”  All of these things are good.  All of these things can strengthen one’s moral resolve, but none are sufficient to stop the possible moral about-face.  No, not one.

“Why not?”, you might reasonably object. Because we never lose our ability as free moral agents to choose evil.  It might be less likely, but it’s not impossible.  Any person at any time can do a complete moral about-face.

Lossky demonstrates the inability of a person like a drug addict to make a positive moral about-face.  Years of abuse dull the ability of the body and mind to make this choice.  However, if such a person takes a small step in the right direction, it’s possible to make a moral about-face, with the help of many people.

Bad habits limit positive material freedom, as Lossky calls it.  Positive material freedom means the ability one has practically in this world in this life right now to effect a moral change.  The limits of positive material freedom seem obvious to us.

However, we’re tempted to try to deduce a logical contra:

If bad choices and bad living lead to less positive material freedom, then surely good living and consistent good choices will lead to more positive material freedom AND to being free from the possibility of (or reasonably free from) making a negative moral about-face.

This, though, is a fallacious conclusion.  While making good moral choices and living a good moral life (keeping one’s word, honouring one’s vows, being a good parent, being a good spouse, being faithful…) does lead to more positive material freedom than if one were leading a dissolute life, it is no guarantee that one will not make the sudden, seemingly inexplicable negative moral about-face.

Ultimately, this is because we are free.  We will always remain free moral agents.  God will not force us to do good. Surely doing your moral “push-ups” will make you strong, but they are no guarantee. 

Everyone every day every time they are faced with poor choices must decide freely to choose the wise and good choice.

This is a terrible freedom.

---

[62] Cf. Воспоминания (Vospominaniia [Memoirs]), passim and Lossky, N.O., “Can a Religious Philosophy be Scientific?”, Hibbert Journal Vol. LI, Oct. 1952- July 1953, pp. 213 ff.

[63] See the article Философия Н. О. Лосского и квантовая механика (Filosofiia N.O. Losskogo i kvantovaia mehanika [The philosophy of N.O. Lossky and quantum mechanics]) <http://exciton.narod.ru/losskii.htm> (16 February 2004) by Nenashev for an example of how one modern Russian physicist attempts to show how Lossky’s views of positive material freedom can resolve dilemmas of quantum mechanics.

[64] See Lossky, N.O. Freedom of the Will Trans. By Natalie Duddington. London: Williams & Norgate Ltd., 1932, esp. “The Slavery of Man”, pp. 136 ff.


A Terrible Freedom

A Terrible Freedom

One cannot blame even one’s own empirical character, because one is always free to do anything differently than one has done it in the past.  

Lossky claimed that this was proven just by experience.

Let us take, as a counter-example, someone who has been what we would call a righteous person. This person who has done everything that seems correct or morally laudable up until the present. Then, suddenly that same man who has been completely faithful to his family, to his wife, to his children, who had been a good member of his church and society, etc., for egotistical reasons leaves his wife, neglects his family, chases another woman, and ruins his career.[62] Lossky said that such a case is proof that one always has formal freedom. Formal freedom means that one can always theoretically make a complete about-face morally despite one’s past, empirical character, etc. Lossky held that the individual always possesses absolute freedom to choose on the theoretical level. This possibility was witnessed to by such sudden changes of moral character.[63]

On the other hand, it is true that if one is a drug addict, for instance, one does not have as much positive material freedom. Positive material freedom means that one has the actual possibility or capability to change. When one abuses one’s body with drugs, for instance, one numbs one's mind, ruins one’s body, and then is not able to do the morally good things one would like to do. Still Lossky felt that despite the limitations of positive material freedom due to such choices a substantival agent could at any time, with great effort and no doubt with the cooperation of divine grace in the positive case of going from morally culpable behavior to morally laudable behavior, make such an about-face (and if he could not his previous choices in previous incarnations or metamorphoses were to blame!).[64] A rehabilitated drug addict would be a case in point. Even as a human person, not merely a potential person like an inanimate object, but even as a sentient person, one can still reduce one’s own positive material freedom by poor moral choices.  If one chooses to abuse alcohol, for instance, one will dull one’s intelligence, etc. and that will limit one’s positive material freedom. One will still retain one’s formal freedom, one could still say, "No, I will turn away from the bottle." However, previous choices do still limit one’s positive material freedom. 

Between Fideism and Dogmatic Rationalism: The place of Nicholas O. Lossky in the legacy of Silver Age Russian religious philosophy. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute of Philosophy, Catholic University of Leuven (Louvain), Belgium), 188, 189.

As I studied the philosophy of Nicholas Onufrievich Lossky while I was preparing my doctoral dissertation, I came across an idea which frightens me deep into the core of my being even to this day.

I doubt Lossky would have seen it the same way, but his idea of “formal freedom” has always frightened me.  As the leading quote, taken from my dissertation shows, any man can at any time make a complete moral about-face.

Perhaps this still seem banal.  However, imagine that you do a complete moral about-face. What would that look like?

Lossky gives the example of the “righteous” man, perhaps morally virtuous would be a better moniker, but he has in mind a good Christian gentleman, perhaps even a scholar.  That first instance for me is chilling. “I could be that man!” is one possible, reasonable thought.  Another is: “Except for the grace of God, there go I!” It might be instructive to know that Lossky spent most of his career teaching in a Woman’s College.

We would like to think that our good habits (works?) are enough to keep us safe from such a moral about-face.  “I read my Bible every day. I pray. I go to church.  I’m in an accountability group.”  All of these things are good.  All of these things can strengthen one’s moral resolve, but none are sufficient to stop the possible moral about-face.  No, not one.

“Why not?”, you might reasonably object. Because we never lose our ability as free moral agents to choose evil.  It might be less likely, but it’s not impossible.  Any person at any time can do a complete moral about-face.

Lossky demonstrates the inability of a person like a drug addict to make a positive moral about-face.  Years of abuse dull the ability of the body and mind to make this choice.  However, if such a person takes a small step in the right direction, it’s possible to make a moral about-face, with the help of many people.

Bad habits limit positive material freedom, as Lossky calls it.  Positive material freedom means the ability one has practically in this world in this life right now to effect a moral change.  The limits of positive material freedom seem obvious to us.

However, we’re tempted to try to deduce a logical contra:

If bad choices and bad living lead to less positive material freedom, then surely good living and consistent good choices will lead to more positive material freedom AND to being free from the possibility of (or reasonably free from) making a negative moral about-face.

This, though, is a fallacious conclusion.  While making good moral choices and living a good moral life (keeping one’s word, honouring one’s vows, being a good parent, being a good spouse, being faithful…) does lead to more positive material freedom than if one were leading a dissolute life, it is no guarantee that one will not make the sudden, seemingly inexplicable negative moral about-face.

Ultimately, this is because we are free.  We will always remain free moral agents.  God will not force us to do good. Surely doing your moral “push-ups” will make you strong, but they are no guarantee. 

Everyone every day every time they are faced with poor choices must decide freely to choose the wise and good choice.

This is a terrible freedom.

---

[62] Cf. Воспоминания (Vospominaniia [Memoirs]), passim and Lossky, N.O., “Can a Religious Philosophy be Scientific?”, Hibbert Journal Vol. LI, Oct. 1952- July 1953, pp. 213 ff.

[63] See the article Философия Н. О. Лосского и квантовая механика (Filosofiia N.O. Losskogo i kvantovaia mehanika [The philosophy of N.O. Lossky and quantum mechanics]) <http://exciton.narod.ru/losskii.htm> (16 February 2004) by Nenashev for an example of how one modern Russian physicist attempts to show how Lossky’s views of positive material freedom can resolve dilemmas of quantum mechanics.

[64] See Lossky, N.O. Freedom of the Will Trans. By Natalie Duddington. London: Williams & Norgate Ltd., 1932, esp. “The Slavery of Man”, pp. 136 ff.


Confirmationism Then and Now

Confirmationism – In theology this mean seeking texts in the Bible, which support your view, rather than to study the texts in the context of the biblical books and culture, in which they were delivered.  It means trying to prove your point, rather than find out what the Bible really says.

A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.

When we wish to prove a point that we hold we are often tempted to find a few “key” texts, which prove our point of view.  Often we rip these verses completely out of their context.  We, in effect, make them say what we want them to say, rather than allowing them to say what they have to say.

The danger is that texts, which were supposed to transform our lives and hearts, are neutralized or worse are made to serve our purpose and support our unbiblical views.

This sort of proof texting was done in Communist times in Russia using texts of Marx and Lenin.  I recall reading an article on Soviet historiography, where about a page or so was devoted to showing that Marx and Lenin agreed with the author of the article.  It seemed patently absurd to me that Marx and Lenin meant to say any such things from the quotes given, due to my overall knowledge of their works.  After that page or so the author went on to say what he really wanted to say.  This is called esoteric writing.

When people (like this Soviet historiographer or Spinoza, who feared being persecuted for his views,) are afraid, sometimes they use this sort of method to show that they are in line with accepted “truth”.

The sadder use of this approach is to simply use the Bible or a theological text as a grab bag for quotes, which will (out of context), support your argument.  Often texts, which in effect have no context, e.g. Proverbs, can be easily put to this purpose.

For this reason, there is a Reformation principle of biblical interpretation, which states that we must interpret the unclear by the clear.  If we latch onto an unclear passage to prove our point, we must be corrected by the clearer passages.

There is also a sort of confirmationism, which is used in political arguments. When a person wants to show that his viewpoint is correct, he or she goes to the internet and finds an article that agrees with his or her position, and then pastes this link into his or her Facebook page.  By so doing the person has “proven” that their position is correct.

All that that person has shown is that at least one other source which agrees with him or her.  It does not show that the source is trustworthy or correct.

We all know this in theory.  If I post a Fox News piece, I will demonstrate what Fox News says about something, and it may happen to agree with what I think (or feel).  However, it doesn’t mean that Fox News is the ultimate source of truth or is necessarily even trustworthy.

I don’t trust Fox News or CNN or BBC or VOA or many other news sources.  All news media has an editorial stance, a position towards political and other issues.  We all know that CNN is very liberal.  During the War in Yugoslavia we used to call it the Clinton New Network.  We may have a redivus now.

Fox News was started to counter CNN and other more liberal news media, offering more politically conservative views.  However, it would be foolish to assume that Fox News has no editorial policy.

ALL news sources “spin” their stories, i.e. all have an editorial policy, which favors candidates or movements, which support their stated public positions.  We MUST be aware of the biases of ALL news media.

A friend of mine posted an article (from a reputable source – the Washington Post), in which former Democratic Senator Henry Reid admitted that he had stood up on the Senate floor and challenged a fact which was true – whether Mitt Romney, a candidate for president, had paid his taxes, merely because it would derail Romney’s chance of election – and it did. 

Politicians and news pundits, spin doctors and campaign managers KNOW that we like to have our suspicions, predilections, hunches confirmed.  They know that we will be moved by rhetoric, which inflames our sense of injustice or agrees with our biases, and so they feed us exactly what they think we want, which will get us to vote for their candidate.

When we read ONLY the same news source or news sources from the same perspective, we do not reach truth.  We reach the “spin” of that particularly news agency or lobby.  We must read several, unrelated sources with as little bias as possible.

This is why previously I urged people to read Deutsche Welle or the Christian Science Monitor.  Not because they have no bias, but because they have less bias or at least a different bias than the nightly news or Fox.

If you want to know what’s true, the news media is a poor place to find it.  This is also generally true of trolling the internet.  Internet sources (encyclopedias, professional forums, etc.) are getting better, even Wikipedia is getting better.  But the basic rule of the “Black Box”: “Junk in! Junk out!”, still holds.

We must analyze all sources of knowledge (newspapers, news feeds, videos, radio, TV, etc.).  We cannot simply accept a news article, which says what we like.

I am very tired of reading articles about American politics taken from British news media.  Conservatives in the US like the sound of articles posted in the UK and so post them to Facebook.  In one such case a person in the US posted an article from the Daily Mail (dailymail.co.uk) as if it proved a point about a conservative American policy (I think it was immigration).  The Daily Mail is a right wing, conservative tabloid, which supports UKIP, the anti-immigration, anti-EU party in Britain. It is in no way unbiased.  It is extremely conservative.

If the person posting that article had known the editorial position of the Daily Mail, I wouldn’t be so upset.  The fact was that that person had read the post on someone else’s FB page and simply shared it, because they “liked” it.  They were not aware of the editorial bias of the Daily Mail.

Most of us are savvy enough to know that just because something is posted on Facebook doesn’t mean it’s true.  However, when we follow our news feed (which is linked to what we have recently viewed) we will always find like, similar sources.

Before you post find out what the editorial position of the news source you are using is.  Be sure that the source you are citing is a reputable, reasonable source, i.e. one which is better than Harry Reid, at stating truth.  Don’t simply “like” something because it suits you. 

Check it out.  You may be being played.  Some writers and editors don’t care whether you choose the “right” person or position.  They only want you to choose their person or position, and they will do anything to get you to do so, even lie.

Don’t get played!

My sheep hear my voice... Part II

 Part II of my testimony of how I came to Christ and how He called me to mission.

After my conversion in July of 1976 my life didn't change dramatically, though I started reading the Bible often, as I never had before and had a thirst for it. About a month later my family went to a Christian revival, camping event called Jesus '76 in the middle of August 1976. I wasn't able to go for the whole week since I had band camp. However, I got permission to skip one day to go to hear Andre Crouch, a well-known Gospel singer and musician. Since Andre Crouch was playing in the evening and I arrived in the morning with friends of our family, I went to hear a young Australian man, Winkey Pratney, who was a youth evangelist.

In the picture above: Winkey Pratney @1981 was well known as a youth evangelist and a teacher. He was associated with Keith Green's ministry, Last Days Ministry, for many years.

As he said that it seemed to me as if everyone else was frozen in suspended animation and I heard the same voice I had heard the day I gave my heart to Christ, call me to work with Russian speaking young people. That was all, then life went on. However, that brief encounter changed my entire life. I thought that I would go to the Soviet Union as a physicist, since that was the only way I knew to get into the Soviet Union. I started as a physics major at Penn State. However, I did not have the mathematical aptitude for physics.

I struggled, but decided to major in Russian Language, which I had started to learn my first year at Penn State. I also took a Certificate in Russian Area Studies: Soviet Economics, Soviet Geography, Soviet History, Eastern European History, Russian Foreign Policy, Russian Domestic policy, ... Once my mother asked, "Do you take anything that doesn't have Russian or Soviet in the title?!" Not really.

After Penn State I went to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Illinois to train to be a missionary. I studied New Testament Greek and Old Testament Hebrew. I also studied Church History, Systematic Theology, Apologetics, Philosophy of Religion and Missions. At TEDS I met the Academic Dean of the Eastern European Bible Institute, Gene Whiting, and the Lord called us to go to Yugoslavia to prepare to teach at EEBI. Russia was still not open in 1982.

While we were on furlough, the Berlin Wall fell. The Iron Curtain came down, but we were too embroiled in the Balkans to think of moving to a new field. I had also studied Macedonian and Bulgarian, and done extension teaching in both places.

Eventually the Lord led us to Belgium to Leuven, where I studied in the Institute of Philosophy, of the Catholic University of Leuven. I did an MA and PhD focusing on Russian Religious Studies. When we had wanted to return to Yugoslavia NATO forces were bombing Novi Sad and Belgrade. Our mission at the time, Greater Europe Mission, felt that we should not return.

After much deliberation we decided to go to teach as a part of Tyndale Theological Seminary in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Tyndale had been started by my seminary advisor, Dr. Arthur P. Johnston. As our children had learned Dutch in Belgium, this was a good move for them also.

At Tyndale I have had many Russian students, most from eastern Ukraine. Four years ago I was asked to coordinate a Master of Theology program for the Zaporozhye Bible College & Seminary in Zaporozhye, Ukraine. I was asked by one of my former students, who now serves as the Academic Dean, Vladimir Gorbenko.

It has been my privilege to serve them and to teach all the students I have had at Tyndale, Russian and others. We have had 70 different nations represented in the student body of Tyndale over the years: Russian, Belorussian, Ukrainian, Georgian, Armenian, Serb, Croat, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Hungarian, Italian, Greek, German, Finnish, Ghanaian, Cameroonian, Congolese, Rwandan, Nigerian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Dutch, American, English, New Zealanders, Brazilian, Burmese (Myanmar), Indian, and many others.

What God began so many years ago in 1976 is still bearing fruit in my life. I am thankful that he has helped me to continue these forty years following him and following his call.

We have had 2 Timothy 2:2 as our motto for all these years of our ministry: "And the things you have heard from me the same entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others also." As we look back over our thirty+ year career we can see that the Lord has done this through our meagre efforts. "He who called you is faithful and he will bring it to pass."   

My Sheep hear my voice

Forty years ago I became a Christian and about one month later Jesus called me to work with Russian speaking young people. I was 17 at the time.

Christ called me to himself from within the small "German" Evangelical Lutheran Church, St. Luke, where I grew up. I had been catechized and confirmed, but I had not then come to know Jesus as a living person.

I was forced to read The Plague by Albert Camus as a part of an English literature course. I wrestled deeply with the plot. The Black Death comes to a small town in North Africa. The antagonist, a French Roman Catholic priest says that the Muslims deserve to die, since they have rejected Christ. The protagonist is a French medical doctor, who must decide whether he will stay in this small North African town and fight the plague or whether he will leave Algeria and flee to France to save his own life.
The book is long and has many twists and turns, but the main point is in the form of the classic question of theodicy or the goodness of God in the face of evil. If God loves these people, why does he allow this plague? If God loves these people why is this priest such a miserable person?

The first question is the main point of the book. It is a classic Existentialist question: How can we assert that God exists when the world is a mess? The Existentialists, though, go further and say that, since there is no God, which is their answer to the first question, we must make meaning ourselves in a meaningless, random world. The Existentialists preach altruism.

Altruism, helping others selflessly, I could understand, but I couldn't understand why anyone would help anyone else at risk of their own life, if there was no one to reward them if they did or punish them if they did not. I couldn't make sense of their call to altruism if there was no God. I struggled to see how any small, insignificant human could make any difference in the vast universe, if the universe was a random, chance concatenation of atoms.

With the help of the listening ear of Dave Hrach, our youth sponsor at St. Luke, I finally decided God must exist and there was meaning in the universe. That night after a Bible study in our church I prayed and asked God to take my life. I knew he always existed and I believed as far as I understood that Christ had come and died for my sins.

What I didn't have was power to live life in a holy, God honoring way. I needed strength to overcome my sins and shortcomings. I said, "Lord, if you exist, and I think I have always believed that you do, take my life and make me what you want me to be. I cannot live up to what you ask. But, if you can cure the lame and the blind and raise the dead, take me and make me what you want me to be."

Immediately I experienced a deep peace such as I had never felt before. My soul had been in torment. But when I asked him to take my life, he did and I received peace. I heard God's voice say, "I have heard your prayer and I will answer it." I heard his voice as clearly as I have heard any human voice.

To be continued...