The Key to Liberty –
One of the great challenges of democracy is that it depends upon a reasonably informed citizenry. The founders of the American experiment understood this, even if they could not have imagined television, social media, twenty-four-hour news channels, targeted advertising, algorithmic persuasion, and a culture that monetizes attention itself.
The modern citizen swims in propaganda.
I do not mean propaganda in the old sense of government posters and wartime slogans. I mean the endless stream of information designed not merely to inform us, but to capture us. Every voice competes for attention. Every institution learns that survival depends upon visibility. Every cause, every candidate, every product, every outrage discovers that emotional intensity is more profitable than careful thought.
The result is not simply disagreement. Democracies have always disagreed.
The result is radical popularism. The loudest voices become the most influential voices. The most memorable slogan defeats the most thoughtful argument. Immediate feeling overwhelms patient consideration.
The question is not whether people disagree. The question is whether people can remain together while disagreeing.
Oddly enough, I spent thirty years inside an organization that attempted exactly that.
Methodism began with an Anglican priest named John Wesley. His concern was not primarily doctrine. It was people. In particular, people whom polite society called “the lower sort.” Wesley preached in churches until church doors began closing. Then he did something shocking. He went outside.
He preached in fields, on roadsides, and in town squares. He preached wherever people gathered. More importantly, he organized them. Converts were not simply pointed toward heaven and handed a pamphlet. They were placed into small groups where they watched over one another, encouraged one another, challenged one another, and occasionally annoyed one another.
In other words, they became a community.
When Methodism came to America, the challenge was practical. Settlements were scattered. Roads were poor. Clergy were few.
So the Methodists did what Methodists usually do. They organized. Methodically.
A preacher might travel a circuit of a dozen or more congregations. He would arrive on horseback, preach, celebrate communion, perform weddings, conduct memorial services, settle arguments, hold a business meeting, sell a few books, and move on to the next church.
The horse receives most of the historical attention. The books were just as important.
Methodism spread not only by preaching but by creating a network of accountability and learning. The preacher, on horseback, connected the congregations. The books connected the ideas. The structure connected the people.
Eventually there were enough clergy to assign individual pastors to single churches. Yet one feature remained.
The pastors were appointed.
A preacher for every pulpit. A pulpit for every preacher.
To modern ears, this sounds restrictive. Most Americans assume freedom means choosing exactly what they want. Congregations should choose their pastor. Pastors should choose their congregation. Everyone should select the option that best reflects their preferences.
Yet the appointive system produced something surprising. A congregation occasionally received a pastor it would never have chosen.
A story is told that back in the day, the preachers waited for the announcements of their appointments for the next year. Their response was to be, “Thank you, Bishop. God is good.” One fellow heard his name, followed by the name of a church he would never have chosen. He cried out, “Good God, Bishop!!”
And yet, even the starkest mismatches were capable of surprising everyone with grace. No one was entirely satisfied. Everyone survived – and, in the process, learned how to be Christians.
The long-term reason for a church is to learn how to love people you don’t exactly like – and to be loved by people who don’t exactly like you.
Over time, I began to suspect that we often confuse freedom with liberty.
Freedom, as we commonly use the word, means personal choice. I choose. I decide. I get my way.
Liberty is something different. Liberty is what becomes possible when a community creates structures strong enough to keep people together in the midst of their disagreements.
A road limits where a car can drive. Yet the road creates liberty. Language limits the sounds we can make. Yet language creates liberty.
Democracy limits all of us through laws, elections, procedures, courts, constitutions, and customs. Yet those limitations create liberty.
In our governance, liberty is more than just a word at the end of the Pledge of Allegiance. It begins with every citizen having a vote. Taken together through Elections, the people provide Accountability over those who govern.
Accountability creates Trust. The individual may or may not agree with the outcome, but can trust that those receiving authority will not purposely pick their pockets or break their legs.
Trust builds Stability in the government and the nation as a whole. And with Stability, we can have Liberty.
And, to complete the ever-turning circle – Liberty creates Elections.
So the yet-to-be-answered question is how do we move, as a culture with so many streams of particulars, out of the morass of brash attention and into some quiet assurance of liberty?
I am not sure we move there all at once. We stumble. We argue. We overreact. We occasionally lose our way in the woods. Yet generation after generation, ordinary people continue the work of connection. They vote. They serve. They listen. They compromise. They build trust where trust has been damaged and maintain it where it already exists.
Perhaps liberty is less a destination than a practice. Less a possession than a relationship. Less a victory than a covenant continually renewed. These pillars – Election, Accountability, Trust, Stability, Liberty – create something like a stage on the courthouse lawn. Different people will step up and offer their opinions, their insights, their answers. The audience will cheer, boo, laugh, or just go home for lunch.
I do not know what the future platform will hold. I have suspicions, preferences, hopes, and concerns. So does everyone else. But perhaps our first responsibility is not deciding what must stand upon the platform. Perhaps it is maintaining the platform itself.
For if the platform endures, the conversation can continue. And where conversation continues, hope remains. And that is what the Hopeland is about.
Leave a comment