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.

.

Stephen Prothero starts off his response, contrary to pop culture, with the following headline: “It is misleading–and dangerous–to think that religions are different paths to the same wisdom.” He continues, “No one argues that different economic systems or political regimes are one and the same,” and begins to show us how we’re trying to claim that the fundamentals of all religions are the same, and that the differences don’t really matter, yet in the process we become naive and disrespect each one of them, suddenly finding ourselves with new problems on our hands.

Read the full article here.

It sounds like Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University, goes more in depth on this topic in his new book “God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World–and Why Their Differences Matter.” And yes, by the subtitle of that book, you can guess that he probably doesn’t have a “Coexist” bumper sticker on this car.

Definitely interesting to find this issue showing up on yesterday’s list of “most-read” articles at The Boston Globe website. I think some of Prothero’s assumptions are off because of what separates Christianity from other religions. Specifically when he compares the end goals of each religion, that Christianity’s salvation isn’t something you can reach by personally accomplishing anything, but instead by accepting what’s already been done (justification), and the response to God that follows is one of gratitude, becoming more like Jesus Christ (sanctification). See Ephesians 2:8-10, Galatians 2:22-25, etc. in the Bible. Not to mention that salvation within Christianity isn’t like a personal fire insurance plan before death–genuine belief is not motivated by just the fear that something bad might happen. So what Prothero doesn’t mention is that in other religions you’re trying to get somewhere; but in Biblical Christianity you admit you have no chance of getting there but that it’s still possible because of the central figure, Jesus Christ.

But still, it’s slightly refreshing to see that this article is a starting point for the general public to start asking questions and seek clarity amidst a muddy landscape of personal misconceptions regarding the core beliefs of the world’s religions.

So on Thursday morning, I was thinking about how I could help the situation in Haiti, and came up with the idea of a local benefit concert. Long story short, the first show kicked off Friday night, and we raised over $900 from generous donations. All proceeds went directly to Three Angels Children’s Relief, an organization that I’ve written about before because I sponsor a young girl named Loralie at their orphanage and school. I first checked with Jim and Candy, who are in charge of Antioch, the cafe-style venue in Newhall with a stage, sound system, tables, couches, etc, and they were excited about the idea. They already had Josiah James on tour from NorCal scheduled to play Friday night, and it worked about well because he was fine with turning this into a benefit concert, and pop-artist Jess Penner drove up from LA to join the cause. Friday I had sent out an email to my coworkers at Paul Mitchell’s corporate office here in Santa Clarita, and I also decided to test the power of Twitter. I sent a tweet to the local newspaper’s account, as well as the local radio station KHTS AM-1220. The newspaper responded by reposting my details on when and where the benefit concert would take place, and the radio station announced the show over the air. Brendie Bandara (whose name I recognized from when I worked at the City Hall) also got involved after I emailed Shannon Hoffmann of Three Angels. Facebook came in handy with some promotion on the fan pages.

Although the money we raised in this small way is just one drop of rain into the sea of needs, it was still encouraging to see it come together. As a Christian I had the opportunity to talk to a few people about this event and the bigger issue of serving in general. It’s worth mentioning to my fellow Christians that if you don’t think you can do something for poor and hurting people, I’m not here to give some cheesy “You can do it!” pitch, but I’ll instead say that God can and will give you the motivation, creativity or whatever it is you need in order to serve others instead of yourself, provided that you honestly ask God for that. If you want to make a difference in the world, you first have to actually have a reason to. And making a difference with giving to Haiti doesn’t have to mean you rebuild the country; it could mean that your generosity leads to a changed perception in your neighbor who previously hated you and your Christian religion, and that’s what they call “planting a seed.” I’ve taken shots at different religions (different faiths in general, including atheism; not the individual people who adhere to them) before, because I believe that once honestly and carefully studied, they cannot explain the world we live in with the depth that Christianity can, not to mention that they don’t have the power to change a life from the inside out as what inevitably happens for true followers of Christ. You can show me a kind buddhist, a polite Mormon, a smiling Catholic or any other nice person, but show me a weak and incapable Christian who, in spite of his or her own admittedly selfish pursuits and desires, chooses, only by the unexplainable strength given by God, to turn their focus in life onto others without need for repayment via money, pleasure, or their reputation, and now you’ve got people around them asking serious questions. And in answer to those curious onlookers, this messenger, knowing their own unworthiness in the face of a holy God, cannot help but be all the more excited about this God whom they serve, not some never-ending religious checklist they’re working on for this God.

One final thought to hammer that last point home. “I wish I was there in Haiti” has been the recurring thought running through my mind as I’ve watched the details unfold on the news over the last few days after this tragic earthquake. There’s not nearly enough help with the overwhelming devastation. While I was thinking about why I wasn’t there, I realized that my mindset has changed over the last few years in the way I’m asking the question. ”Why should I go?” has been replaced with ”Why can’t I go?” to which I do have practical answers that are keeping me where I am now, but it’s interesting to note the shift in thought-process. Here’s what I’m saying: genuine Christianity changes lives from the inside out, and if the effect of that comes out in some small way during my life, then trace it back to the One who caused it.

(Note: thoughts expressed here came from myself and aren’t necessarily shared by the people or companies mentioned. I apologize for not going into the depth I would’ve liked to on each separate issue. There’s always more to be said.)

Here’s a book that I heard about a few years back and finally made a priority to read. Let me tell you: it was well worth it. Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (first printed in 1985, updated in 2005) takes the reader through some drastic changes in history that turned America from a culture revolving around typography to one centered on images. He brings up brilliant examples such as the debates Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglass had back in 1858, where it’s not just astonishing how a debate could take up 7 hours of the day, but that the audience intently sat through the entire thing! (And this was merely to secure an Illinois Senate seat; before Lincoln was President!). Postman goes on to compare what the invention of the printing press meant with that of the telegraph and the television, and you’ll find him going much deeper than just whining about our attention spans shortening. A few of the quotes that impacted me the most are included below:

To an extent difficult to imagine today, earlier Americans were familiar not only with the great legal issues of their time but even with the language famous lawyers had used to argue their cases. This was especially true of Daniel Webster, and it was only natural that Stephen Vincent Benet in his famous story would have chosen Daniel Webster to contend with the Devil. -p 57

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, religious thought and institutions in America were dominated by an austere, learned, and intellectual form of discourse that is largely absent from religious life today. No clearer example of the difference between earlier and modern forms of public discourse can be found than in the contrast between the theological arguments of Jonathan Edwards and those of, say, Jerry Falwell, or Billy Graham, or Oral Roberts. The formidable content to Edwards’ theology must inevitably engage the intellect; if there is such a content to the theology of the television evangelicals, they have not yet made it known. -p 56

You may get some sense of how we are separated from this kind of consciousness by thinking about any of our recent presidents; or even preachers, lawyers and scientists who are or who have recently been public figures. Think of Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter or Billy Graham, or even Albert Einstein, and what will come to your mind is an image, a picture of a face, most likely a face on a television screen (in Einstein’s case, a photograph of a face). Of words, almost nothing will come to mind. This is the difference between thinking in a word-centered culture and thinking in an image-centered culture. -p 61

The modern idea of testing a reader’s “comprehension,” as distinct from something else a reader may be doing, would have seemed an absurdity in 1790 or 1830 or 1860. What else was reading but comprehending? -p 61

Almost all of the characteristics we associate with mature discourse were amplified by typography, which has the strongest possible bias toward exposition: a sophisticated ability to think conceptually, deductively and sequentially; a high valuation of reason and order; an abhorrence of contradiction; a large capacity for detachment and objectivity; and a tolerance for delayed response. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, for reasons I am most anxious to explain, the Age of Exposition began to pass, and the early signs of its replacement could be discerned. Its replacement was to be the Age of Show Business.  -p 63

Only four years after Morse opened the nation’s first telegraph line on May 24, 1844, the Associated Press was founded, and news from nowhere, addressed to no one in particular, began to criss-cross the nation. -p 67

As Thoreau implied, telegraphy made relevance irrelevant. -p 67

The telegraph may have made the country into “one neighborhood,” but it was a peculiar one, populated by strangers who knew nothing but the most superficial facts about each other. -p 67

By the end of the nineteenth century, advertisers and newspapermen had discovered that a picture was not only worth a thousand words, but, where sales were concerned, was better. For countless Americans, seeing, not reading, became the basis for believing. -p 74

Of course, like the brain itself, every technology has an inherent bias. It has within its physical form a predisposition toward being used in certain ways and not others. Only those who know nothing of the history of technology believe that a technology is entirely neutral. -p 84

But what I am claiming here is not that television is entertaining but that it has made entertainment itself the natural format for the representation of all experience. … The problem is not that television presents us with entertaining subject matter but that all subject matter is presented as entertaining, which is another issue altogether. -p 87

No matter what is depicted or from what point of view, the overarching presumption is that it is there for our amusement and pleasure. That is why even on news shows which provide us daily with fragments of tragedy and barbarism, we are urged by the newscasters to “join them tomorrow.” What for? One would think that several minutes of murder and mayhem would suffice as material for a month of sleepless nights. We accept the newscasters’ invitation because we know that the “news” is not to be taken seriously, that it is all in fun, so to say. Everything about a news show tells us this–the good looks and amiability of the cast, their pleasant banter, the exciting music that opens and closes the show, the vivid film footage, the attractive commercials–all these and more suggest that what we have just seen is no cause for weeping. -p 87

What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate. In the Huxleyan prophecy, Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours. -p 155

In America, [George] Orwell’s prophecies [in his book, 1984] are of small relevance, but Huxley’s are well under way toward being realized. For America is engaged in the world’s most ambitious experiment to accommodate itself to the technological distractions made possible by the electric plug. -p 156

But it is much later in the game now, and ignorance of the score is inexcusable. To be unaware that a technology comes equipped with a program for social change, to maintain that technology is neutral, to make the assumption that technology is always a friend to culture is, at this late hour, stupidity plain and simple. -p 157

…no medium is excessively dangerous if its users understand what its dangers are. It is not important that those who ask the questions arrive at my answers or Marshall McLuhan’s (quite different answers, by the way). This is an instance in which the asking of the questions is sufficient. To ask is to break the spell. -p 161

What I suggest here as a solution is what Aldous Huxley suggested, as well. And I can do no better than he. He believed with H. G. Wells that we are in a race between education and disaster, and he wrote continuously about the necessity of our understanding the politics and epistemology of media. For in the end, he was trying to tell us that what afflicted the people in Brave New World was not that they were laughing instead of thinking, but that they did not know what they were laughing about and why they had stopped thinking. -p 163