Spinning Dogs: On Understanding Freedom

Spinning Dogs:
On Understanding Freedom

Are you ready for some theological discussion? Do not proceed to read unless you are relaxed and in a mood to put all worldly cares aside.

I’ve been reading again, so I will tip my brimming cup and poor a little theological stew out on the table. I had a sudden insight this morning while tasting from Meister Eckhart. For some time I have been brewing thoughts on the concept of freedom. I have always found it befuddling how we can have individual freedom (God does not pressure us) but are said not to be truly free until we give up our freedom. If we have to give it up to have it, how could we have had it to begin with?

Well, one of Eckhart's themes as a mystic Christian is that we humans are separate from God only in our fallen relationship. That in our creation we are part of, a manifestation of, God. Indeed, Christ sought specifically to bring us back into "union" with God as he was one with God. In other words, we are not only meant to be one with God in spirit, but in our createdness we are one with God. Some express this as, we share in God's divinity. The idea that we are divine, when I first was exposed to it (in Matthew Fox's writing) was rather jarring. It seemed like heresy. But the more I read, and as I understand what the mystics are saying, the more I am attracted to the idea and the more I see of it in the actual texts of the New Testament.

Yet it is at strong odds with the whole theological environment of my upbringing--namely the dualism of God and humans; that God is up there and we are down here; that Jesus bridges the gap but only as our pleader; that we are small and God is big; that we can have eternal solace in God's presence only because He (not she) stooped down and graciously overlooks how weak and fallen we truly are. That I am always to be in utter awe of God in a manner that forever keeps a certain distance between us.

This morning I read where Eckhart brought up the basic freedom problem of how we can be free if freedom is only found in wanting what God wants. And it struck me that the mystics resolve the whole problem by the very fundamental angle of their thought. They say that we are divine and are part of God, just as my children are (bodily) an extension of the real me because they grew from an actual biological part of me (and my wife).

When God created me I was not a separation but an extension. Therefore, my freedom is not a separate freedom that has to be given up--it has no existence of its own--it is none other than God's freedom to begin with, expressed by me. If I try to express it without reference to God, it is a sham expression, a misrepresentation. What I have to give up is not my freedom but my mis-expression of God's freedom found in me. There is no freedom other than God's freedom, so there is nothing to give up. There is only something to realize (though this realization can be spoken of as a giving up, wherein lies the confusion).

A misconstrued view of freedom is like watching a dog forever chasing its tail. You have to give up freedom to gain freedom, but to gain real freedom is to deny you had freedom, and if you didn't have it you couldn't have given it up, and on around you go. In a dualistic theology the dog can not catch its tail. If God had to qualify our freedom in order to retain His/Her freedom, then God's freedom itself is qualified by needing to restrict ours.

Dualism means that our freedom remains outside God's freedom and we aren't free to include it or embrace it or enjoy it without our own freedom being siphoned off. Under dualism we either have our freedom from God, which throws doubt on God's freedom (the freedom to not restrain us), or God has freedom without us, which suggests fraud, arrogance, tyranny and other nasty things.

Some answer this niftily by denying God exists, which uncomplicates the matter quite quickly. In which case we are left with just freedom--our freedom. There is no tail, just a dog; or, if you prefer, no dog, just a tail. But this has its own problems. What kind of freedom is this? A flat-ended dog looks funny and a wagging rump begs for some conclusion. A tail with no head or legs is an even more ridiculous image. A God-truncated freedom is similarly ludicrous, for when divided up among all humans it becomes a wild and ultimately useless thing.

Eckhart's unity theology hit me roundly as an answer to the freedom issue. Instead of denying that God exists, let's say that the division between humans and God is an illusion. This just as quickly dissolves the problem. To want what God wants then is not a betrayal of our own freedom, and God is not irresponsible for letting us sin freely (and we won't if we see ourselves in union with God and in the divine flow of life). If we are part of God our freedom is God's freedom. We don't give anything up and God doesn't withhold anything. The dog does not find the tail curious and the tail fears no chase. This kind of freedom is satisfying--no one loses.