What is it about the security of bondage that causes a freed person to long to return to his cell rather than continue in his newly discovered freedom?
I realize the thought behind my initial question may seem somewhat strange, but the reality of which I speak is unavoidably frightening to me.
Is the answer to my question discovered in the following quote from The Shawshank Redemption – All I want is to be back where things make sense? Is that the basic message learned from the Israelites who desired to return to Egyptian bondage, that over time even the walls that confine us can begin to feel safe and secure because those walls make sense to us?
Such seems to be the case with me as I continue to read, review and be confronted by the lessons discovered in this book. To be honest, it would be much easier to simply accept the boundaries that I am accustomed to and have grown comfortable with rather than continually challenge those boundaries and experience the fullness of freedom offered in Christ. Yet, having said that, I realize that settling for less than, or not experiencing the fullness of, the freedom offered in Christ will only leave my soul unsatisfied and longing for more. So, onward I press as I seek to know truth and through truth be made free.
In the sixth chapter, Hook informs us that our purity or defilement is not determined by what we see, hear, taste or touch, but by our motive for seeing, hearing, tasting and touching. He continues by stating that defilement is not in certain actions and things, but in improper use of and attitude toward those actions and things. He, then, reminds us that sin is not in things, but in people – in the heart.
To illustrate the truthfulness of these statements he addresses seven different situations, the following is but two of those seven:
o The taking of life is judged by the purity or defilement of heart. The person who kills accidentally or defensively, having no impure heart in it, remains pure in the act. It is not so with the man who kills with hatred or anger although he performs the identical act of the first man.
o Two men may look upon a woman with strong desire toward her, one being pure, the other guilty of sin. One desires to have her as his wife; the other desires to satisfy his lusts.
His point in these illustrations is that an act in itself is not amoral, but that its merit or demerit is determined by the heart. Which, in my opinion, certainly addresses the truthfulness of the phrase to the pure all things are pure, but to them that are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure.
With these thoughts in mind, he addresses the following thoughts: [1] Our liberty is limited by self-control, [2] Liberty is limited by charitable regard for others, and [3] Liberty of others must be respected.
If time permits, I will try to address these thoughts during the week. But, for now, I want to know if I am the only one who is struggling or has struggled with leaving the comforts of bondage behind him as he seeks to experience freedom in Christ?
Interested in sharing your story?
