|
While
in the east I met a reader of PLAIN TALK who said he thought of me
as a "free thinker." Does one ignore, thank, or shoot
the person who says such a thing?
To
some, "free thinker,” means one who submits to no standard
of truth. Sometimes this attitude has a "heady" effect,
and the "free" individual may cultivate odd behavior and
proclaim bizarre "positions" to call attention to
himself and his freedom. He rejects and seems almost to despise
any widely received concept. Standing alone becomes an end in
itself, his proof (?) of superiority. I hope the P.T. readers
didn't mean that.
Some
equate the iconoclast with "free thinking": one who
attacks the "sacred cows" — breaks down icons of
tradition — lives in the objective case and kickative mood.
Traditions have a way of becoming authority, and we believe all
are subject to objective examination in the light of the word of
God. But when the realm is one of human judgment the traditional
way may be far superior to a hurriedly cooked up replacement. It
has been tested by time, and often has hidden qualities that are
realized only after the free thinker discards them. In my
estimation, commendable "free thinking" in such matters
means only that we are capable of being objective, and not bound
| |
to traditions.
But
the "free" man in the highest and best sense is the
slave of God (1 Cor. 7:22-23). "Ye are bought with a price;
be not ye the servants of men." He is a "free
thinker" in that he recognizes no ultimate Master save the
Lord, no truth that does not conform to the Word of Truth. He
keeps himself "free" to continue his search for God's
ultimate will, and cannot be bound by creeds or parties which are
less or other than the ultimate. He answers to conscience, his
honest sincere understanding of what God has declared right. Here,
alone, he truly relates to God: a direct relation between citizen
and King which must obtain, and remain. He recognizes his
obligation to brethren, but he will not allow man in any form
(domestic, civil, or religious) to come between him and his God.
Conscience tells me this is a mountain yet to be climbed.
Then
there is the so-called "free thinker" who is simply too
lazy or egotistic to consider the learning of others. History? He
doesn't like to read. Commentaries? Doesn't believe in any, except
his own. He just makes up his "private interpretation"
as he goes along — "free" in his monumental ignorance.
Oh I do hope my P.T. reading friend didn't mean that.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|