This oversimplifies, however. Freedom cannot be defined in strictly negative terms, as the absence of confinement and constraint. In fact, in many cases, confinement and constraint is actually a means to liberation.

If you have musical aptitude, you may give yourself to practice, practice, practice the piano for years. This is a restriction, a limit on your freedom. There are many other things you won’t be able to do with the time you invest in practicing. If you have the talent, however, the discipline and limitation will unleash your ability that would otherwise go untapped. What have you done? You’ve deliberately lost your freedom to engage in somethings in order to release yourself to a richer kind of freedom to accomplish other things.

This does not mean that restriction, discipline, and constraint are intrisically, automatically liberating. For example, a five-foot-four, 125-pound young adult male should not set his heart on becoming an NFL lineman. All the discipline and effort in the world will only frustrate and crush him (literally). He is banging his head against a physical reality–he simply does not have the potential. In our society many people have worked extremely hard to pursue careers that pay well rather than fit their talents and interests. Such careers are straitjackets that in the long run stifle and dehumanize us.

Disciplines and constraints, then, liberate us only when they fit with the reality of our nature and capacities. A fish, because it absorbs oxygen from water rather than air, is only free if it is restricted and limited to water. If we put it out on the grass, its freedom to move and even live is not enhanced, but destroyed. The fish dies if we do not honor the reality of its nature.

In many areas of life, freedom is not so much the absence of restrictions as finding the right ones, the liberating restrictions. Those that fit with the reality of our nature and the world produce greater power and scope for our abilities and a deeper joy and fulfillment. Experimentation, risk, and making mistakes bring growth only if, over time, they show us our limits as well as our abilities. If we only grow intellectually, vocationally, and physically through judicious constraints–why would it not also be true for spiritual and moral growth? Instead of insisting on freedom to create spiritual reality, shouldn’t we be seeking to discover it and disciplining ourselves to live according to it?

The popular concept–that we should each determine our own morality–is based on the belief that the spiritual realm is nothing at all like the rest of the world. Does anyone really believe that? For many years after each of the morning and evening Sunday services I remained in the auditorium for another hour to field questions. Hundreds of people stayed for the give-and-take discussions. One of the most frequent statements I heard was that “Every person has to define right and wrong for him- or herself.” I always responded to the speakers by asking, “Is there anyone in the world right now doing things you believe they should stop doing no matter what they personally believe about the correctness of their behavior?” They would invariable say, “Yes, of course.” Then I would ask, “Doesn’t that mean that you do believe there is some kind of moral reality that is ‘there’ that is not defined by us, that must be abided by regardless of what a person feels or thinks?” Almost always, the response to that question was silence, either a thoughtful or a grumpy one.”

—

- The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, by Timothy Keller. This quote is found in the chapter “Christianity Is a Straitjacket,” where Keller goes more in depth on this issue. More resources for this book available at www.TheReasonForGod.com

Read the rest of the book to hear Keller’s additional responses to the following commonly-held reservations people have against Biblical Christianity:

1. There can’t be just one religion.
2. How dould a good God allow suffering?
3. The church is responsible for so much injustice.
4. How can a loving God send people to hell?
5. You can’t take the Bible literally.

…along with serious reasons in favor of faith in God.

.

“Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.” (1 Peter 3:13-16, from the ESV)

I’ve heard it put this way: the true Gospel message is already offensive, so why let your personality add to it? Don’t get in the way of the message itself so that they’re up against what the Bible is saying instead of the way I’m coming across. That’s right on, and who wouldn’t be offended when shown what the Bible says about you and I constantly living in rebellion against a perfectly Holy God who would be justified to kill us off in an instant–but only for his mercy gives us repeated opportunities to return to him through wholehearted faith in Jesus Christ? Note: for those unsure about where the Bible talks about this, start with the book of Romans; focusing on Romans 3:23, 6:23, and 10:9-13. And for a much bigger view of what God’s character is like, read through the Old Testament while keeping in mind that his character has never changed since then, as verses like James 1:17, Numbers 23:19, or Malachi 3:6 say “For I the LORD do not change.”

By the way, here’s a quick side note that was shown to me years ago. For Peter to tell his readers that they should be prepared to give a reason for the hope inside (and hope in the biblical expression here means something you’re completely sure of), the apostle is assuming that people are going to ask his readers why they’re different! If they blended right in with those around them in the lifestyle they chose, there would be no reason for people to ask what they’re living for, because who would bother to notice?

But what I want to do here is go directly to a book called “Tactics” by Gregory Koukl that has seriously impacted my thinking on all of this, and for that I HIGHLY recommend picking up this book. It’s written to help Christians know how to talk about their convictions, knowing that we already have volumes of material written in defense of the actual claims of the Christian faith, leaving people like myself needing help with maneuvering comfortably and kindly through beneficial conversations. The author also reminds his readers that it should give them confidence when they realize how compared with all the worldviews out there, Christianity is the one that best explains who we are and how we got here. The book cover mentions that Koukl has Masters Degrees in philosophy and in apologetics, he’s spoken at 50+ university campuses, he hosted a radio talk show for 18 years, and founded Stand to Reason (www.str.org).

Here’s an excerpt from what Koukl says when addressing just one of the reservations that Christians have when they try to shy away from these issues:

When people say you can’t argue anyone into the kingdom, they usually have an alternative approach in mind. They might be thinking that a genuine expression of love, kindness, and acceptance, coupled with a simple presentation of the gospel, is a more biblical approach.

If you are tempted to think this way, let me say something that may shock you: You cannot love someone into the kingdom. It can’t be done. In fact, the simple gospel itself is not even adequate to do that job.

How do I know? Because many people who were treated with sacrificial love and kindness by Christians never surrendered to the Savior. Many who have heard a clear explanation of God’s gift in Christ never put their trust in him.

In each case something was missing that, when present, always results in conversion. What’s missing is that special work of the Father that Jesus referred do, drawing a lost soul into his arms (John 6:44). Of this work Jesus also said, “Of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day” (John 6:39).

According to Jesus, then, two things are true. First, there is a particular work of God that is necessary to bring someone into the kingdom. Second, when present, this work cannot fail to accomplish its goal. Without the work of the Spirit, no argument—no matter how persuasive—will be effective. But neither will any act of love nor any simple presentation of the gospel. Add the Spirit, though, and the equation changes dramatically.

Here’s the key principle: Without God’s work, nothing else works, but with God’s work, many things work. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit, love persuades. But the power of God, the gospel transforms. And with Jesus at work, arguments convince. God is happy to use each of these methods. Why do you think God is just as pleased to use a good argument as a warm expression of love? Because both love and reason are consistent with God’s own character. The same God who is the essence of love also gave the invitation, “Come now, and let us reason together.” Therefore, both approaches honor him.

- from “Tactics: A game plan for discussing your Christian convictions” by Greg Koukl, page 36. Foreword by Lee Strobel, endorsed by JP Moreland, Sean McDowell, William Lane Craig, and Norm Geisler.

.