J. E. GOUGH, is a West Australian and graduated from the College of the Bible, Glen Iris, in 1952. He has served the Church at Claremont (W.A.) in a full-time capacity and while pursuing further studies has undertaken part-time ministries at a number of West Australian churches.

      There is an old fable, usually considered Indian in origin, which tells of the dilemma of a group of blind men exposed to the enormity of an elephant. Forced to use only the sense of touch, the first man finds the trunk and delivers himself of the opinion that an elephant is unmistakably related to the snake family. The second sightless person bumps into the animal's leg and chooses to describe the elephant as first cousin to a tree. The third man grasps the tail and likens the elephant to a rope. As might be expected a fierce argument ensues.¹ It is somewhat like that with the great doctrines of the Bible.

      Our understanding of them so often depends on the point at which we "bump into them." Our beliefs and prejudices and the use we want to make of the doctrine conspire together to narrow and distort our view. This is especially true of the doctrine of liberty. So we find Christians who will demand liberty for themselves and yet deny liberty to Christians who differ from them. Such is their incredible blindness that they will use all manner of evil to accomplish their purposes without being aware that any thing is amiss.

      If we would understand the Bible aright then we must understand what it teaches. The Bible is a saga of liberty and liberation. It begins with man as a free being created in the image of God. It witnesses to the fall of man from this lofty estate and the consequent enslavement of his spirit. It concludes with the coming of the Liberator who was anointed "to preach the gospel to the poor . . . to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord" (Lk. 4:18. 19). If we would understand what God is about in His dealings with men we must understand the doctrine of liberty.

      To emphasise this point Suzanne de Dietrich, in her little book "Free Men", reminds us that the great stories of the Bible are the stories of free men. It is the man who is free who is used by God. So we have Nathan before David, the king who was enslaved by his own lust and treachery. Thus Elijah stood before Ahab who was the prisoner of his own greed and weakness. But Nathan and Elijah were free and because they were free they were able to speak for God. Liberty--the liberty of the spirit--should be our most cherished possession. But now we must ask what is liberty?

      Liberty is often mistaken for license--the right to do as on pleases. This is not liberty. Liberty is the right to be yourself. In fact, there are two kinds of liberty.

      (a) There is the liberty with which man starts out. This is the liberty that allows him to choose for himself the direction his life shall take. He can choose

good or evil. This is his right. It was the exercise of this liberty that brought about the Fall. Man chose to disobey God. It is the exercise of this liberty that makes possible our redemption in Christ. Man may choose to return to God by way of the Cross. This liberty is a means to an end,

      (b) The second kind of liberty arises as a consequence of man having made the right choice. When a man exercises his liberty to choose and chooses goodness and God, then he is liberated from the bondage of his lower nature. The forces of evil no longer enslave him. It may well be illustrated by the man who builds his life upon a network of intrigue and lies. Then suddenly he breaks from his past, acknowledges his error and makes a new beginning--such a man knows a liberty he scarcely dreamed could exist. The forces of evil no longer enslave him. The ultimate of this liberty is when we reach out for God and enter into liberty as a child of God. Such liberty is not a means to an end but and end in itself.

      It is this second kind of liberty that is our most precious possession, for it allows us to achieve our highest destiny. Through this liberty and in this liberty man is able to realise the potential for goodness and nobility that lies within him. The important thing is that both kinds of liberty are necessary--the liberty to choose and the liberty that comes from choosing aright. But what of the source of liberty?

      The source of liberty is God, and realisation of this fact leads Paul to speak of "the glorious liberty of God's children" (Rom. 8:21 ). It is not difficult to understand why this is so. God is at once the sum and the source of all virtue. The nearer we approach to God the less are we dominated by the demands of our sinful nature. Not only so, but, because God is perfect liberty, that liberty is communicated to those who enter into fellowship with Him. As well as being the source of liberty so God is the source of all other virtues, and these are woven together into a complete fabric. Thus liberty is bound up with truth and cannot, exist apart from truth, indeed it is the truth that makes us free. So, too, liberty is built upon justice, that every man should be dealt with according to his need. Likewise it is both founded upon and expressed by love (Gal. 5:13). But if the ultimate source of liberty is God it is appropriated through Jesus Christ. Paul speaks of "the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free" (Gal. 5:1). As Christ in New Testament days released men and women from the bondage of sin and oppression and liberated them into a wider and more meaningful existence so, today, liberty becomes ours through Christ. But lest it be thought that liberty is only a matter of receiving, let us examine the cost of liberty.

      Because restraint and necessity are irksome it is thought that the life of liberty is the easy life. This is far from the truth. In fact it is liberty that tinges life with tragedy. If what happens does so because of circumstances beyond our control, we may rail against those circumstances and yet be comforted by the thought that if it had been in our power things would have been different.

      But when tragedy is the result of our own choosing we are robbed of even that comfort. This is just the situation that is faced by the free man, for he must often choose between two values--a lesser and a greater--and having chosen must bear responsibility for the consequences of his choice. This is what God did when He chose to save mankind rather than spare His son the agony of the Cross.

      Let it be said here that man fears liberty and would escape from it. Erich Fromm in his book, "Fear of Freedom", has an interesting discussion of the ways in which modern man has tried to escape freedom. It is often easier to avoid the pain of making a decision and surrender yourself to an external authority. Yet when we do this the price we pay ultimately is even greater, for we lose our integrity--we lose ourselves. Man would avoid liberty but God cannot, for He requires man's free response to Himself--if we would serve God we must bear the cost of liberty. But as well as cost there is also danger.

      Christians are warned not to presume upon their liberty (Gal. 5:13). Liberty implies danger--many dangers, but chief among them is the danger that we shall lose our liberty. Not that it shall be taken from us--for liberty of the spirit cannot really be taken from us, but rather that it shall degenerate into its opposite and be manifested in tyranny and oppression. History is filled with examples of the liberator who, having lifted the yoke of oppression, replaces it with an oppression of his own, and that more grievous. So within our own lives we may be liberated from one evil and yet fall under the sway of another. It is a strange and sad fact that when goodness strives against evil it may produce fresh evil as a consequence. Good men who seek to further their cause will use the forces of evil to accomplish their ends. In fact the effort after goodness may so dominate a man that he becomes oblivious of the rights of others and may trample them underfoot

      This has been the tragedy of the Christian church when, in the name of Christ, she has perpetrated those horrors that have stained her name for all time.

      Bernard Shaw, in his play Saint Joan, describes our Joan as she kneels before the Archbishop of Rheims to seek his blessing upon her venture. As the Archbishop looks at her face radiant with expectancy he exclaims wonderingly, "My child, you are in love with religion." Joan replies, "Am I? I had never thought of it that way. Is there any harm in it?" And the Archbishop replies, "No harm, my child, but great danger." The danger of being in love with religion is that we shall be blind to the forces of evil which would take virtue and use it for their own ends. So, likewise, in the joy of our liberation we must take care that we do not become enslaved by evil in the guise of goodness. Now we may ask what are the consequences of liberty?

      When Paul wrote to the Corinthian church he had a number of problems to meet. One such problem was the eating of meat that had been offered to idols (1 Cor. 8). Some said Christians may eat this meat. Others said it is not right for Christians to eat. Paul said our liberty to eat or otherwise depends on our knowledge. If we know that as an idol has no real life, so offering meat to that idol can have no effect, then we are at liberty to

eat. Knowledge brings liberty. Paul does not stop there however. He goes on to demonstrate that, as knowledge brings liberty, so liberty brings responsibility. This responsibility, says Paul, is towards our brother in Christ, and in this particular instance may be discharged by refraining from eating meat if in so doing we should destroy his faith. But there is more than specific ruling involved here for, in general terms, the chief responsibility entailed by liberty is that we will preserve the liberty of our brother in Christ. Thus we shall accord to him the right to develop his own religious faith and convictions. As God will be his judge and ours we have no right to jeopardise his relationship with God by forcing upon him convictions that are alien to him. Too often a second-hand religious experience is forced upon others until, when they rebel, they throw religion overboard completely. If only they had been allowed the liberty to develop a faith in accord with their innermost convictions, they would probably still be in the church today. The consequence of our liberty in Christ is that we must respect the liberty of others. But now one may ask what of authority?

      Liberty and authority involve tension. Liberty is often assumed to be subject to and derived from authority. This is not so. It is authority that is derived from liberty. Our mistake in this matter is due to the notion that we have of authority residing in the external object. Authority does not reside in the external object, but rather in the subject, in the person or perceiver. It is the subject who accepts or rejects authority and what is authoritative for him is so only because he freely accepts it. To illustrate this let me remind you of the story of Nebuchadnezzar and his fiery furnace. The law said that everyone should fall down and worship the idol constructed by Nebuchadnezzar's command. The three friends of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, refused to obey--they refused to accept the authority of this law--for them it was not authoritative. The authority they accepted was the law of God. As a result of their disobedience Daniel's friends were cast into the fiery furnace. After all, what else could be done with them--if they would not accept the authority of the law then it had no authority as far as they were concerned. It is true that the threat of punishment is designed to make people accept authority, but the final choice is still theirs. There are men in our own brotherhood who know what it is to be punished because they refuse to obey the law of the state when they believed it to contravene the law of Christ.

      It is plain that the authority of an external object can only be forced upon an individual by a denial of liberty. If authority is based on liberty it allows our free acceptance of whatever principle may be involved. If it denies liberty it means enslavement. This is the authority of the totalitarian state. It is the authority that leads to the inquisition and the concentration camp. It is not the authority that the Bible knows--an authority rooted and grounded in liberty as witnessed by the fact that God, in the person of the Son, presents Himself that men may freely choose. This is liberty indeed--the liberty of the spirit. What then is the place of tolerance?

      Tolerance is not to be misinterpreted as approval. Because you are tolerant does not mean to say that you approve of what is being done. Neither is tolerance

weakness and apathy. If you have no convictions about a matter--no knowledge of what should be done--then you are not exercising tolerance by accepting what others do. Tolerance is a virtue of the strong man. Tolerance is exercised by the man of strong conviction. Tolerance is the ability to hold firmly to your own convictions and yet allow others to hold convictions that may be diametrically opposed because you recognise their liberty to do so. The New Testament presents a compelling picture of the tolerance of Christ thrown into relief against the intolerance of those around him--even his disciples. There were times when he rebuked them for their intolerance. It is true that there were times when Christ did not show tolerance, but I believe that in each of these occasions you can see that he reacted against those persons who brought evil and suffering to the innocent. Christianity is the religion of liberty and liberty demands that we should recognise the inner experience of others even though it may differ from our own. God Himself is infinitely tolerant towards the evil of the world--tolerant in the sense of allowing liberty to, although not approving of. God puts up with even the chief of sinners for the sake of liberty and God calls us to a life of liberty in Jesus Christ. The liberty that can be ours in Christ has been sealed with his blood. Faith in the Cross of Christ is faith in liberty.

      If anyone has been patient enough to follow the argument this far, then he is entitled to ask so much for the theory, what does it mean in practice? That is a fair question. It is not enough to deal with an issue like this at a theoretical or doctrinal level, it must be translated into terms which are relevant to the daily life of the church and the Christian. The difficulties we encounter are all too real, and it is a solution to them that we want. If theory or doctrine has nothing to say about these matters, then it has nothing to say. What are the implications of the doctrine of liberty for us as a brotherhood?

      Let me sketch three as I see them.

      A man must earn his right occupy the pulpit by the diligence of his study and the degree to which he demonstrates that his preaching enlivens the faith and enlarges the vision of his hearers.

      The church should be jealous of the pulpit, and only those who may use it effectively for the cause of Christ should be entrusted with the responsibility of preaching. Once this provision is met, what I would now say applies to all who use the pulpit, but I am thinking especially of those men who occupy the pulpit as a full time servant of the Word.

      The minister should be at liberty to preach according to his convictions. This is not easy to say and it is far less easy to carry out. The minister is so "visible" that his beliefs obtrude themselves and draw attention to themselves. The man in the pew can and does hold many "heretical" doctrines--beliefs which, in an earlier, and less kindly age, would have earned him martyrdom, but which pass unnoticed because he has no occasion to voice them. This is further complicated by the fact that the minister is a central figure and the energies of the congregation are focused on and through him. An ordinary member of the congregation may hold and propagate peculiar doctrines and, because his influence is limited, may do the congregation little harm because the congregation is able to accept his right to hold his own convictions.

      But when the minister is the one who holds beliefs which are strange to the congregation he divides the membership into those who are for him and those who are against him. The division may become so acute as to destroy his work.

      This problem is not strange to us. Illustrations of it abound. Every minister who preaches in the prophetic tradition understands the problem. Our people know that it occurs. What is the solution? The solution adopted at the moment is not a happy one. Generally those that oppose the minister's point of view consider that they have every right to engage in criticism and censure that may range from mild derision to savage and bitter recrimination. They seem to be unaware of the harm they do the cause of Christ whilst so engaged. Those who agree more or less with what the minister says and who know that his opponents are sadly lacking in knowledge and understanding usually feel that peace must be kept at any price and, therefore, they prefer that their minister avoid topics that are contentious. Such a solution usually stultifies a minister's enthusiasm and efficiency and heightens the tendency of the critics to find fault. In the light of what has been said about liberty, what can be done in such circumstances?

      Would it be unreasonable to suggest that, as members of the congregation, we recognise that our minister has probably given far more time and effort to the study of this problem than we have. Could we adopt the attitude of mind that characterises the learner--and be eager to search out new truth or verify the truth we possess? If your minister preaches and you don't agree, could you not go to him and say, "Look, I'm interested in what you said. I've never thought of it that way.

      In fact I've always believed something quite different. I'd like to know more about the way in which you arrive at that position and how you would meet one or two problems that I can see." Don't think your minister would begrudge the time to speak to you--but, of course, be reasonable and recognise that he has heavy demands on his time. One of the most satisfying things about preaching a sermon is to know that you have set someone thinking, and if you approach your differences in this way only good can come from it. This is not to say that you will agree in the end. But if your minister has thought out his position, you will be helped to understand it so much better and perhaps will be able to stimulate his thinking further. It is probable that you will each leave the other having learned something and having moved a little closer to each other. But if you don't agree you must exercise liberty and each allow the other to follow his own convictions. In this way the harm that is done by careless and unkindly criticism could be replaced by a strengthening of the body of Christ.

      What has so far been said about the way in which members should respond to a minister can now be turned around and a minister must remember that he will not be able to command full agreement with everything he says. Despite the fact that he may be better trained and may feel that his position qualifies him as an authority, he must recognise that his members have the right to think for themselves. If he is wise, he will use independence of mind where he finds it and will be able to stimulate thinking persons into a more intensive search for truth. But it is equally true that individual members in their

dealings with one another muss allow this same liberty to their fellows. It is interesting to ponder what it is that makes people intolerant of one another. Basically the intolerant person is insecure. Because he is so afraid of insecurity and uncertainty he cannot endure the tension of doubt and lack of certainty. He is protected from this by holding very firmly to his convictions in an inflexible and unbending fashion, but what of the convictions of others? When their convictions agree with his he is secure, but when there is disagreement he perceives it as a threat. Unless he fights a contrary point of view his peace of mind is undermined, for to acknowledge liberty in this matter is to acknowledge that he might be wrong, and this he cannot do. He has neither the mental nor spiritual stamina to endure doubt, hence intolerance is his only protection.

      It is quite the opposite with the man who holds strong convictions and yet can allow liberty to others to disagree with him. He does not need the support of others--his convictions are too real to depend on others. The fact that others disagree with him is no threat to his security--he is a free man. This is the lesson we have to learn as far as liberty and the pew are concerned. There will be many other factors that enter into each situation and these will need to be taken into account also--but, unless we learn this primary lesson, we shall not be able to exercise liberty towards our fellow Christians.

      What has been said so far about practical applications concerns the relation of individual with individual--what about the individual and the group? In order for a group to operate effectively there must be agreement on some issues. It is possible to agree to differ on many issues but often action is required and a decision must be taken. What of those who dissent? They should be heard and considered. There are times when time proves a dissenting minority to be right. They must be given liberty to disagree and to state their case. But when the decision is taken they must recognise the right of the majority to follow their convictions and must yield to the decision of the group. This is not a denial of liberty. It is to exercise liberty. It is to be bound by the common decision for the common good. Happy the man who can be outvoted but whose loyalty remains undiminished. He knows liberty.

      To conclude may I say that what I have had to say I have said firmly, but not without the knowledge that this is not a complete statement. Such a statement will emerge as many minds grapple with the question of liberty and each makes its contribution to a greater whole.