A No Fine Print, Freethinking Christian.
For all you heresy hunters out there. What does my tagline actually mean?
Anicet Lemonnier, “In the Salon of Madame Geoffrin in 1755” (c.1812). Oil on canvas.
It has come to my attention that the tagline, here, for Meet Me at the Oak – A no fine print, freethinking Christian journal – has sent unsuspecting pedestrians hog wild. I am guilty, you see, of sending mixed signals to poor, innocent rightwing wikilogians. ‘The Pelagian! How could he!’ Yes, indeed, how could I, a self-professing Christian, say that I am a “freethinker”. The two are clearly incompatible. Granted, it did cross my mind just how progressive and controversial that phrase might sound to some folk. But before you cock your proverbial guns and mount my face above your mantel, which would, I humbly admit, give a certain allure to your study space, perhaps you ought to consider my intentions first. A heresy hunter needs to have his wits about him lest he become the hunted.
Let me—ahem—enlighten you.
Too on the nose?
Probably so.
The notion of ‘free thought’ has long been free to think about. It belongs to no one in particular. There is no master puppeteer behind our grand metanarrative stringing the meaning of words together, nor is there a referee presiding over the great language games of our time, neither is there a global police force arresting people for what they think or say—well, not yet anyway.
Words have a way of meaning one thing and then, as time runs its course, meaning another. Free speech will do that. So, in what sense do I employ it? And in what sense is ‘free thought’ even viable?
What is the meaning of this?
Well, first, to clear up any confusion, take into consideration what Christian liberty actually means. It is not a political freedom that governs our words, to be sure, but the renewing of our mind given by the spiritual liberation from sin and death. (Romans 8:2, 12:2) Free thought begins with Christ. And if you are free in Christ, you are free indeed. (John 8:36) My position is as simple as that.
In contrast to Christian thought, however, the purpose of secular thought seems to be a rational ascent to belief. Free thought, in particular, has come to reflect a certain lifestyle of thinking in any such you wish, but historically, such as it was in the age of enlightenment, free thought was more analytical in measure and meant, more or less, that critical thinking ought to lead to proper belief as opposed brash, unbridled dogmatism or the blind, unthoughtful embrace of experts. In other words, you reason out the truth, and then you believe in said conclusions as though it were true as truth can be. You think freely to obtain a truth. Not without pernicious effects, no doubt. It left little room for truth at all. In secularism, free thought is both the means and the end, yet this truth supposedly obtained can never truly be known 100%—it is necessarily a shade of probabilism—there will, or at least should, in principle, always be an inkling of doubt. So to refocus it a bit here, there is no end, it is just a means gone wild. It is reason with no direction, no aim, no purpose, just one moment and then another. You can try to reach for the truth, but to grasp it cannot be done. It is ineffectual. That is the truth, you see—however these experts grasped this secret knowledge I know not (and I suppose neither do they). Hence, the inevitable conclusion that postmodernism presumes and society has now succumb to—there is no actual truth. Truth is a free game.
In Christian thought, however, this is not so. While you certainly can reason out the truth by weeding out falsehoods—and there are plenty of weeds to go about—and then believe in conclusions thereafter, there are still deeper, fundamental truths that are much more significant, if not, invaluable than the beliefs you reason out yourself. Actual truths, incontrovertible and absolute by nature—God is good, Christ is saviour, salvation by Spirit, et cetera. The primary purpose of Christian thought, then, is not a rational ascent to belief, it is to use reason to guard, strengthen, and deepen understanding of that foundational belief, which is grounded in the trust that comes from our relationship in the living God.
A key difference, here, is that belief in God is trusting in a person, not some unresponsive cosmic force or plight of the imagination, and neither is it trusting in our own rituals or incantations or ideas. There is no need to create our deepest convictions or whittle our own truths. Belief comes with trust in the truth, and that truth is obtainable. In other words, belief grasps the truth. But we ourselves on not the truth, of course, which is yet another key difference between, say, secular truth and the truth of Christianity. In secularism, truth is inherently human. It is ever within us, yet we can never know it—a terrible tragedy, if you ask me. Without Christ, then, thought has no end to aim for besides self-interest. You cannot trust in truth unless it is graspable; otherwise you are just paying respects. With Christ, on the other hand, you can truly think freely. I can attest to that with confidence, having not only the bondages of evil dislodged, but its consequences, too; the heavy burden of my self pressing ever so hard against myself to be right all the time, defending my own integrity above the truth. Similarly, having not created my deepest beliefs, I am not the ultimate authority to sustain its veracity. There is a tremendous amount of weightlessness that comes with Christ that, I think, we too often take for granted.
The truth of the matter.
As Christians, our minds rest in sacred fire, a kind of judicious refinement that liberates and sanctifies and transforms, if indeed, Christ lives within you. Freethinking, in this context, is not a rational ascent to belief independent of God, rather it is as it is supposed to be: a means of critical introspection to purify and refine the inner self, which fosters a genuine directional meekness in self-reflection toward accurate self-realization—because of God. Free thought is accurate when it is submissive to truth, not determining its own truths or declaring truth insufficient (a truth claim, no less). Free thought, then, is fuelled by true belief, not at odds with it.
Dare I say it? The ends justify the means! How evil. How conservative. But that is the fact to be had: the truth justifies the reason. Without truth, whether it be objective or absolute, freedom knows no bounds. It is pure lawlessness. Freely floating about outer space with no ground, no gravity, no goal and, therefore, no ends to fasten it to something stable or substantial. In motion for no reason whatsoever, wherever. The only way a thought can find direction is if something else bumps into it; like a pinball in a pinball machine, it needs to be moved to move, to have aim and purpose. That is, free thought either depends on truth or else the external (and rather sudden) whims of others. There is a good reason why it is not intuitive anymore for thought to move on its own; it is hardly free, being enslaved by popular opinions, biological clocks and appetites, career and financial gain, or what have you. Yet, consider our fellow plebeians today, whose truth is self-presiding; if there is no true law, no gravity, no friction, no external forces to move them in a direction, and therefore nothing to keep thought relatively grounded, to be grasped, then even if thought is freely floating about it is still motionless. The difference is imperceptible. Consumed by outer darkness with no substance to change direction or reference point to aim for, it floats about totally isolated, useless, and incapable of ambition and purpose. It is utter meaninglessness. Freethinking of this variety is truly a pinball in outer space; it must be moved by external forces to move. Without laws of distinction, the difference between bondage and freedom collapses into itself, and free thought becomes just that—wasted head space.
It is extremely apparent that these folk are not in complete control of themselves. What usually proves someone a hypocrite is when they are oblivious to the irony that encompasses them. There is a truth that enables us to think freely. It is natural law such that governs our (un)conscious minds and enables free thought (i.e. laws of logic, contradiction, etc.), so that even floating rocks are gravitationally bound by an asteroid belt—whether they know it or not is up to them.
Fine print theology
This is also why my tagline says a no fine print, freethinking Christian. And I suppose those who question my freethinking may also question my fine print. So, what does it mean to be a no fine print Christian?
I would think this point is much clearer: I am against a pharisaical approach to true religion, as James puts it, which is completely opposed to spiritual liberty and, thus, free thought. We often call this legalism today, the blind, hallow, and rigid compliance to rules, at the expense of moral truth or conscience (before it is completely seared), as a justifying means of moral living before man or salvation before God. It is following rules for the sake of rules without any actual inward faith, scruples, self-reflection, or transformation required—moral responsibility be damned. It is that self-justifying woke mob that bedevils society as much as it is that pharisee on the pulpit or the soldier who opens fire on innocent children because he is ‘just following orders’. Such are the seeds of legalism that foster trivial and often silly technicalities separating Christians sects, heresy hunters always looking for loopholes and subsequently those ‘gotcha’ moments, twisting grammar to trump the weight of narrative, systematic theology determining Scriptural interpretation, blind dogmatic adherence to false doctrine, popular opinion determining the value of life, and I could go on. It is obedience at the cost of your soul.
Salvation is in a person, not in the mechanistic compliance to a legal system bemusing ascetic rituals with carnal appetites. A person corrects and disciplines those he loves. A system does not. It is an on-and-off switch—you either comply or be shut down. Freedom is the antithesis of such a so-called moral theory in so much that legalism seems to violate our innermost sense of moral responsibility, having gutted freewill from identity, much like how determinism renders our thoughts Gods thoughts and vice versa, and manufactures automatons made in the likeness of man. Free thought keeps us distinct from God, not only as image bearers but as flesh and blood. Idolatry clothed in self-justification, however, has many wardrobes.
Actually, I am convinced that legalism is a normative moral alternative in a world where Christ does not exist or prevail, considering how widespread it is (i.e., antitheistic regimes, Hindu caste system, wokeness and systemic racism, etc.); it is almost too human, especially when the path of least resistance is idolatrized, but I digress. Another article for another time.
Anyway, I hope the point I’m trying to make, here, is abundantly clear. Without God, there is no reason for reason. With God, there is a reason for reason.
We are free to think, yet firm in belief.
So next time you heresy hunt, aim for the head. Because that’s all that counts.
Matlock Bobechko | January 11, 2023 – 9:00 AM EST
I like the pinball analogy.
Really well said. We’re called to love God with our our heart, soul, MIND, and strength.