By J. Jeff Toler for Shenandoah Christian Alliance j.toler@sca4christ.org
Examining right from wrong should be easy, at least it was when I was young. I recall this idea was among the first things I was taught growing up. Now, if anyone were to ask, “What is freedom?” My answer would be explained this way: Freedom should be commonly understood as the absence of restraint. It is defined less by what one is obligated to do than by what one is not prevented from doing. In this sense, freedom emphasizes choice, permission, and the removal of external constraints. It answers a simple but often significant question: Am I allowed?
When we are talking about freedom, we might say we have freedom of something. For example: freedom of speech, freedom of expression, or freedom of choice. In modern social parlance, we might be concerned with freedom from something: freedom from obligation, freedom from authority, or freedom from limits or restraints.
There is a difference between freedom and liberty, although in everyday speech they’re often used interchangeably. Historically and philosophically, however, they point to two distinct ideas, and the difference does matter very much. Left alone, freedom can drift toward license, or doing whatever one wants, whenever one wants, regardless of consequences.
Now, liberty, a word often considered interchangeable with freedom, is definitionally different. Liberty is a richer and older concept. Liberty means freedom, but with freedom under law. It assumes moral order, responsibility, and self-restraint. It answers an important question that is rarely asked anymore: “Am I free to do what is right?”
Classical thinkers, like Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and John Locke, understood liberty as the ability to act according to reason and virtue, not merely impulse. Liberty is not opposed to law; it requires law to exist. Without law, the strong dominate the weak, and liberty collapses.
Freedom asks the question, “What may I do?” Liberty will always ask, “What is the right thing to do?”
The difference urgently matters today because Modern societies tend to maximize freedom while quietly, and purposefully, neglecting liberty. We are adept at removing restraints but far less concerned with cultivating virtues. Rights are expanded and celebrated, while duties are minimized or ignored. Autonomy is praised as the highest good, even as the habits of self-governance—discipline, restraint, and moral responsibility—are steadily eroded.
The consequence is social fragmentation. People increasingly depend on external systems to manage what they once governed internally. As self-restraint diminishes, rules will multiply. As moral formation weakens, regulation expands. The promise of freedom gives way to dependency, and dependency invites control.
Here lies the paradox of modern freedom: when people cannot, or will not govern themselves, they submit themselves to be governed by others. A society that abandons the internal disciplines necessary for liberty will inevitably require stronger external authority to maintain order. Ironically, what begins as liberation inevitably results in subjugation.
The Biblical Perspective
Scripture makes a clear distinction between freedom and license. Biblical liberty is never lawless. Jesus declares, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32), grounding freedom not in autonomy but in truth. Likewise, the Apostle Paul warns, “For you were called to freedom… only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh” (Galatians 5:13). Freedom, in the biblical sense, is not permission to indulge every desire, but the ability to live in alignment with what is good and true.
Biblical liberty is freedom ordered toward righteousness. It is never freedom from moral obligation, instead, it is freedom for faithful living.
- Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. —John 8:34-36
The Bottom Line
Freedom desires the absence of chains. Liberty is the capacity to live without them. This difference is not a matter of semantics. A society obsessed with freedom alone will eventually lose both its freedom and its liberty.
Renee Good in her last moments
Renee Good genuinely believed she had the freedom to run over a law enforcement agent, because she likely (who can say for certain?) thought she was not wrong to do that. Her confusion over right and wrong was deeply flawed, and she lost her life because of that. But why was her worldview flawed? What caused her confusion?
Good died at age 36. She was a liberal white woman. She was a divorced mother of three from a previous marriage, who then remarried a woman. Her youngest was age 6. While her family claims she wasn’t politically motivated—including her former husband—her friends and colleagues say she was. Among the political demographics of the white women in America, 36% identify as conservative, while 33% identify as moderate. The remaining 31% are liberal. These statistics do have a bearing on her actions.
Social media accounts show Good was very much active in liberal political activism. These are emerging facts. Further evidence of her participation in the civil disobedience that day in Minneapolis is yet to emerge. But these things still don’t answer the question of why. Why did Renee Good intentionally ram her car into ICE agent Jonathon Ross?
In discussing the shooting on her Monday podcast, Allie Beth Stuckey shared her theories of what was behind Good’s motivation:
Allie Beth Stuckey
“The idea is that instead of pouring your heart, your energy, and your natural nurturing and protective instincts into children—whether they are your own biological children, adopted children, or children you are caring for, serving, or mentoring—you instead pour those mothering instincts, which are born in you and never really go away, into pets, plants, politics, or your profession. This kind of disordered channeling of the nurturing, beautifying, cultivating, mothering instinct creates an inner discord and disorder. It lends itself to bitterness, can lead to instability, and often results in outsized passion when it comes to social justice projects and social causes.” [https://youtu.be/1_Obhs0insM?t=2124] (paraphrased for clarity, grammar, and punctuation)
Misplaced mothering. Does it really boil down to that? Stuckey is not a forensic psychologist, but her analysis of why Good was behind the wheel of her car, intending to kill, maim, or hurt someone intentionally can be explained this way.
Stuckey continues by saying, “This instability lends itself to outsized passion when it comes to social justice projects and social causes. The illegal alien becomes your child. The gang member becomes your child. The man who believes he is trapped in the wrong body and wants access to a girls’ locker room becomes your child. These causes become your children. The perceived victims within these movements become your children.”
All of this, she argues, is triggered by what she calls “toxic empathy.”
Renee Good, like millions of millennial women, battled for a world without borders. She, like many others, saw anyone other than white, heterosexual, cis-gendered men as oppressors. But she lost her life over open borders.
Without borders, a nation is not sovereign. Without sovereignty there is no legitimacy. Without legitimacy, there is no authority. Without authority there are no laws. Without laws there is no protection from rape, murder, and theft. This would be chaos.
In this instance, it is not so much about who is right and who is wrong. It is about what is right and what is wrong.
Photo by Randy Laybourne on Unsplash
