Those of us who are citizens of Canada or the United States declare that we are people of freedom. The national anthems of both nations reflect this freedom.

- “Thou land of hope for all who toil! Thou True North, strong and free!”
- “The land of the free and the home of the brave.”
In his book On Freedom, Timothy Snyder holds there are two ways to look at freedom from a government/society perspective – negative freedom and positive freedom.

Negative freedom seeks to get rid of obstacles. We deregulate, privatize, and reform to eliminate any barriers or impediments in the system. We hope that when we let the free market do its thing, we will all have unfettered or nearly unfettered freedom and a healthy democracy.
Positive freedom, on the other hand, is based on ideals, and on living out those ideals in ways that may make you less free, according to Snyder — for instance, Volodymyr Zelens’kyi choosing to stay in Ukraine when Russia invaded. He could have fled, decamped, as many expected he would, and lived free from constraints and danger (negative freedom). Instead, he stayed. Positive freedom works to create something. It aims to build a society where all flourish.
When I asked Zelens’kyi why he had remained in Kyiv, he said that he “could not have done otherwise.” We talked about how, over time, beginning in youth, an accumulation of decisions makes us who we are. Then a moment comes when we do what we must because of what we have chosen to become. An unfree person can always try to run. But sometimes a free person has to stay. Free will is character. (On Freedom Snyder p. 37)
In the West, we live in an era of negative freedom. Rather than trying to create a system of flourishing, we believe that removing obstacles will make things go well.
No doubt, certain obstacles need to be removed. Think about the Civil Rights era and the removal of barriers in transportation, schooling, etc. But negative freedom is not enough. We must work towards a positive freedom to create a flourishing society.

We see the need for positive freedom in the lives of children. Simply removing obstacles that might prevent an infant from getting food, for example, the food being on a high shelf or the floor cluttered with obstacles, does not mean an infant who cannot yet crawl will flourish. We cannot merely set up possibilities. We have to actively work to ensure the child receives the food, and that we clean up the messy diaper afterward. In this case, simply removing obstacles would be nothing but a death sentence.
In the Bible, I see a wonderful and creative concern to create positive freedom. Central to the biblical vision of the good life is the creation of a flourishing society. This vision is not merely about removing obstacles but about creating a world of justice, mercy, care, love, and shalom.
In broad strokes, in the Old Testament, God creates an entire system of laws that impact every part of society with the goal of a whole and healthy society. Moses says to the people,
“See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?” (Deuteronomy 4:5-8 NIV11)
Likewise in the New Testament — from the Sermon on the Mount, to the vision of the sheep in Matthew 25, to Jesus’ inaugural address in Nazareth, to the admonitions to live as people of the light and do good to all — we find a call to live in ways that stand before the world as a wise and understanding people.

For me, the biblical idea of shalom gives a picture of the flourishing God longs for. Shalom is often translated as “peace,” but it means much more than the absence of conflict or individual inner calm. It is a restored relationship with God, human flourishing, and the flourishing of creation. It is healing the rifts in families and relationships, but also between nations, races, and genders. It lifts up the poor. And shalom is unmistakably beautiful
This is where we find the wonderful creativity of biblical freedom, positive freedom, the place where we imagine, engage, and pursue a world of shalom. To do this means examining not only our theology, but our understanding of how the world works and how shalom is genuinely enacted.
Of course, this world will never be exactly how it is supposed to be, but as we work for God’s shalom, this positive freedom, we aim for at least three things.
- Bright moments of shalom are when we truly see a moment when the ways of shalom are happening. Those ways may be gone tomorrow, but for this moment, we celebrate.
- Proximate shalom: We often get part of the way to shalom when we have to make a bit of compromise, but we aim even for these blurry moments.
- A Church that pursues shalom: Sacred families of faith that are a picture, foretaste, scout, and ambassador of shalom.
Our Western world is ever more obsessed with negative freedom. Let the Church of Jesus Chris paint a different picture of positive freedom rooted in shalom.
Header photo by Vonecia Carswell on Unsplash
Baby eating photo by Toa Heftiba on Unsplash
3 Responses
Larry,
Thanks for this reflection. I have found Snyder’s book uncomfortably apt for this season of life. It seems to me that, in addition to your reflections on shalom, the political theory categories of positive and negative freedom align helpfully with a rather dusty Dutch argument (with real-time implications) over whether government is a postlapsarian requirement to restrain evil (a negative freedom) or whether it is possible that government is a pre-fall, creational good. I find there is so much “scope for the imagination” that comes along with leaning into the latter and I heard some of that reflected here. Thanks for sharpening my thinking on this point!
Oh what a helpful distinction, with applications at the personal, social, ecclesiastical, and political levels of life.
My dad used to ask if we wanted “freedom from” or “freedom for”, because to simply say we wanted freedom, or were given freedom, didn’t clarify much. This was true whether the context was Paul letters to the Romans or managing teenagers.