Menu

107 Sermon Illustrations on Freedom

107 illustrations Page 3 of 3

Freedom in Christian preaching signifies the liberation from spiritual bondage through Christ, granting believers true liberty (John 8:36). Illustrations often contrast earthly and divine freedom, portraying liberty as a precious gift worth sacrificing for and as a divine right that surpasses human claims. They also depict freedom as a prophetic hope leading to universal peace and brotherhood (Galatians 5:1).

Breaking Back In

A young Austrian convict missed prison so much after his release that he tried to break back in.

Detlef Federsohn, 23, was released from the Josefstadt prison in the Austrian capital of Vienna after serving two years for theft.

But he was arrested last week when police were called out to a suspected prison break after he was spotted on the roof of the jail.

Federsohn said: “Life is so much easier on the inside. They feed you, do your washing and let you watch TV, which I can tell you is a lot more than my mum does. So I thought if I could sneak back in I would blend in with the others and the guards wouldn’t notice.”

________

Source: Ananova, 8/17/06, http://www.ananova.com

Conviction Or Compulsion

2 Corinthians 3:17

”Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom [liberty].” — 2 Corinthians 3:17 (NIV)

There’s an old saying that says, “If the devil can’t pull you down into sinful living, he’ll try and push you over the top so you become so heavenly minded, you’re no earthly use.”

In my youthful days, I genuinely wanted to serve God and for a while I went through such an experience. I used to get very confused about this “little voice inside my head.”

This “little voice inside my head” would say something like, “You better DO such and such,” or “You better NOT DO that.” None of these things were wrong in and of themselves, but I found myself under great bondage to “the little voice inside my head” thinking it was God speaking to me.

I remember vividly how, on one occasion, I was having lunch with a group of workers and this little voice inside my head said, “You’ve got to witness to this group.” So, thinking this was God speaking to me, I screwed up my courage (I was scared half to death) and blurted out something about the Lord!

Frankly, I think I did more to drive these people away from the Lord than draw them to him!

Some time later, I went to a minister I trusted for counsel. Fortunately, he was very understanding and told me that he had gone through the same experience when he was younger. I recall him saying, “If the little voice would have told me to stand on my head, I would have done it.”

Now there’s nothing wrong with standing on your head if you are in your living room or your back yard, but if you do it at the wrong time, in the wrong place, with the wrong crowd, and tell them God told you to do it, they will understandably think you are missing a link or two.

What I learned from my pastor/counselor was that there was a world of difference between a conviction and a compulsion. While it can be difficult to discern the difference between the two, simply put, a conviction from God’s Spirit is where you feel drawn and there is always a sense of freedom. But a compulsion is where you are driven and there is no sense of freedom. You feel like you are being pushed, even forced, by a sense of false guilt and/or a legalistic “should.” It’s like you have to do it or God will be very displeased with you or something bad might happen to you.

Not that following a conviction is necessarily easy, but there is always a sense of freedom when the conviction is from God’s Spirit. For, as today’s Scripture says, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom.”

Suggested prayer: “Dear God, please give me an understanding heart and a discerning mind so I will always know the difference between a conviction from your Spirit and a compulsion either from within myself, or from a legalistic teacher, or from the devil or his demons. Gratefully in Jesus’ name. Amen.”

from (unknown) · Anonymous via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Buzzard, Bat and Bee

John 8:36

If you put a buzzard in a pen six or eight feet square and entirely open at the top, the bird, in spite of his ability to fly, will be an absolute prisoner. The reason is that a buzzard always begins a flight from the ground with a run of ten or twelve feet. Without space to run, as is his habit, he will not even attempt to fly, but will remain a prisoner for life in a small jail with no top.

The ordinary bat that flies around at night, a remarkable nimble creature in the air, cannot take off from a level place. If it is placed on the floor or flat ground, all it can do is shuffle about helplessly and, no doubt, painfully, until it reaches some slight elevation from which it can throw itself into the air. Then, at once, it takes off like a flash.

A bumblebee if dropped into an open tumbler will be there until it dies, unless it is taken out. It never sees the means of escape at the top, but persists in trying to find some way out through the sides near the bottom. It will seek a way where none exists, until it completely destroys itself.

In many ways, there are lots of people like the buzzard, the bat and the bee. They are struggling about with all their problems and frustrations, not realizing that the answer is right there “above” them.

from Unknown Devotion · Unknown via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

It Is Not Enough To Bury It

Acts 26:29

In an old Charlie Chaplin film there is a scene in which he is captured in battle and attached to his leg is a ball and chain. The heavy ball keeps him from escaping and it is too securely fastened to be pried off. So he clandestinely digs a hole and buries the ball, covering it up so that it is no longer visible. With the ball completely covered, he turns to leave, only to fall flat on his face.

from Kerux Sermon #6701 · Rev. Chris Vogel via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database freedomaddiction

Sermon: Earn This

Ephesians 6:12

Sermon for Memorial Sunday. Ephesians 6:12-13

EARN THIS

=========

I. What is Memorial Day?

A. The opening of summer.

B. Its somber heritage.

II. Conflict is at the heart.

A. In this fallen world, freedom and goodness have a steep price.

B. Many here have served.

III. Not all conflicts are visible.

A. Paul and the struggle against evil. Eph 6:12

B. Evidence of evil we face in our culture.

C. The greatest struggle may be for spiritual values.

IV. Freedoms, if not defended, are lost.

from Condensed sermon outline (handout) by Rev. David Holwick · Rev. David Holwick, Serm10s.pco via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database sacrifice

How Much Should the Government Know?

Luke 12:3

Angela Merkel, next to the inimitable Margaret Thatcher, is the most consequential elected female leader in European history. Born in Hamburg in 1954, Merkel grew up in East Germany where her father was a Lutheran pastor. Before turning to politics, Merkel was a physicist with a Ph.D. from the University of Leipzig.

Recently, she revealed that as a young woman she was once approached by the infamous and much-feared Stasi (short for Staatssicherheitsdienst), the state security service of East Germany, which tried to recruit her to work for them. She refused but continued to live under the shadow of the world’s most repressive and invasive surveillance police state. By the time the Berlin Wall finally came down in 1989, the Stasi employed 102,000 persons to snoop on a country of only 17 million. This fact prompted Simon Wiesenthal to claim that “the Stasi was much, much worse than the Gestapo, if you consider only the oppression of its own people.” While the Gestapo had 40,000 officials watching a country of 80 million, the Stasi had nearly three times that many in a country one-fourth the size.

When President Obama visited Berlin earlier this month, the Stasi was in the news again. Chancellor Merkel publicly scolded the American president in light of the NSA revelations. To be sure, she did so with tact and moderation, as one might expect from a good politician facing re-election this fall. Merkel said that she recognized the need to gather information but stressed that this must be kept in equitable balance to protect the privacy of citizens. But the NSA revelations point to a system of massive intrusion, with little restraint, lacking proportionality. Some of Merkel’s colleagues were not so tempered in their remarks. The German minister of justice called the unbidden tracking of all communications “deeply disconcerting.” A society that monitors, observes, and controls its people is not free, she said. Markus Ferber, a Merkel ally from Bavaria and a member of the European Parliament, was even more blunt. He accused the Obama administration of using “American-style Stasi methods.” “I thought this era had ended when the DDR fell,” he said, insinuating that the United States has now replaced East Germany as the new Stasiland.

The stunning news that the United States may be the most surveilled society in human history has opened a fierce debate on security, privacy, and accountability. It has also brought about an amazing and unpredicted political realignment, at least on this issue. Rand Paul and Al Gore singing from the same hymnal? Dianne Feinstein and Michele Bachmann in agreement on something?

Clearly not everyone is buying the line that the searches and seizures of the NSA are reasonable and justified. Provisions of the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act are cited to give legal cover to the hyper-collecting of metadata of millions of Americans with no connection to terrorism. But as Professor Laura K. Donohue of Georgetown University Law Center has pointed out, the secret FISA courts have given the surveillance bureaucracy a virtual (meaning also real) carte blanche. Out of some 8,600 invasive search requests, only two have been denied.

In a dangerous world where people of ill will plot to do harm to others, some surveillance capacity must be allowed. But it is by no means clear that the system presided over by the current administration is either effective or morally justified. We know for sure that it did nothing to stop the massacres at Fort Hood and the Boston Marathon.

When potential for the violation of civil rights and the abuse of privacy are mentioned in the debates, the president and other defenders of the status quo say, in effect, “Trust me.” There was a time in American history, not so long ago, when that response might have been sufficient. In the era of Truman and Eisenhower or even Carter and Reagan, American institutions, including government, enjoyed a substantial reservoir of trust and credibility. But the last two decades have witnessed the erosion of such trust. Debates over the non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq during the Bush-Cheney years and the scandal-a-month syndrome under Obama — the killer drones, Benghazi, Pressgate, IRS, NSA, and who knows what next? — have taken their toll. “Trust me” no longer works.

Privacy is a porous legal concept with an uneven history ranging from Justice Brandeis’s 1890 definition of “the right to be left alone” to the so-called constitutional right of privacy delineated by William O. Douglas and used by William J. Brennan to support the abortion license in Roe V. Wade. The latter construal was effectively challenged by Robert Bork. The issue of abortion is not about the right of privacy but rather the extent of the human community and whether we will afford legal protection to the most vulnerable members of our society.

Persons of faith should be deeply concerned about the current surveillance flap not because privacy is an absolute end in itself but rather because it points to and safeguards something else even more basic and fundamental, namely, human dignity. According to Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, real dignity requires that human beings “should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by sense of duty.” Such responsible freedom is the basis for both the establishment of friendships and the maintenance of family life. Without the possibility of non-coercive self-disclosure, which is vitiated by unfettered intrusion, such relationships are fatuous.

In the same way, conscientious religious commitment also requires a personal fiducial response to the divine. Thus religious freedom presupposes the recognition of privacy as an expression of human dignity. By no means is this a strictly Catholic or even Christian issue. The Southern Baptist Convention was right to pass a resolution at its annual meeting in Houston this month defining religious liberty as “the freedom of the individual to live in accordance with his or her religiously informed values and beliefs,” and citing in support Article 18 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.”

Only God is omniscient. To God alone are we to be a completely open book. To God, and only to God, should we say — or need to say — ”You know when I leave and when I get back; I am never out of your sight. I look behind me and you are there, then up ahead and you are there, too ... is there any place I can go to be out of your sight? If I climb to the sky, you are there! If I go underground, you are there! If I flew on morning’s wings to the far western horizon, you’d find me in a minute — You are already there waiting!” (Psalm 139:1-10). Only to God. And that is why all persons of faith should be deeply concerned about the hegemonic assumptions of the surveillance state.

________

First published on First Things on July 1, 2013. Dr. George serves as the chairman of the Colson Center’s oversight board and is dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University.

Why We Celebrate the Magna Carta: the Church and Freedom [2 Articles]

Eight hundred years ago, a document was signed that guaranteed the freedoms we still enjoy today. And I’ll tell you about the crucial role the Church played in its creation.

June 15th marks the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta — a document that has been called “the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.”

As you might expect, Great Britain is pulling out all the stops to celebrate the anniversary. And as you might also expect, the celebrations are omitting an important detail: the role of Christianity in “the foundation of freedom.”

The Magna Carta, Latin for “Great Charter,” was a product of one of the most turbulent periods in English history. Forty-five years earlier, King Henry II was implicated in the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket. And now, in 1215, rebellious barons were objecting to what they saw as King John’s infringement on their traditional rights, including unlawful imprisonment and excessive taxation.

With the disagreement threatening to turn into a civil war, the Archbishop of Canterbury, working as an intermediary between the King and the barons, helped to draft a proposed charter that would settle the dispute.

The charter was not limited to the barons’ concerns. As historian David Carpenter has written, what made the Magna Carta beloved by the likes of our Founding Fathers and Nelson Mandela was that the charter “asserted a fundamental principle — the rule of law. The king was beneath the law, the law the charter itself was making. He could no longer treat his subjects in an arbitrary fashion.”

As Carpenter says, “in 1215 itself both John and his enemies would have been astonished had they known that the Charter would live on and be celebrated 800 years hence.” In 1216, they fought the war the charter was intended to avoid. But John’s successors reaffirmed their commitment to the Magna Carta, and in 1289 made it part of the laws of England.

Since then, virtually every opponent of despotism and tyranny in the English-speaking world has drawn inspiration from the Magna Carta, which declared, “To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay, right or justice.” When the Founding Fathers complained about “taxation without representation,” they were appealing to the Magna Carta.

Given the centrality of this document to our way of life, it behooves us to tell its story accurately and completely. Unfortunately, that is not happening. That’s why British churches have started a major campaign that focuses on the Christian influence on the charter.

The Church of England’s Synod of Bishops has stated that “It is important that the Church’s crucial role in Magna Carta and its rights is not air-brushed out in 2015 — as was the role of Christians in the anti-slave trade celebrations.”

As the Bishops remind us, “The Church in England was central to the development of legal and human rights centuries before the French Revolution ... the first parties to the charter were the bishops — led by Stephen Langton of Canterbury, who was a major drafter and mediator between the king and the barons; and its first and last clauses state that ‘the Church in England shall be free.’”

In other words, no human rights without religious freedom.

Perhaps the secular air-brushing isn’t that hard to understand, after all. The very words of the Magna Carta are a stumbling block for a culture that is eager to cast off its Christian heritage.

________

Copyright (c) 2015 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

=======================

"The Magna Carta & the rise of religious liberty," by Stephen Douglas Wilson, Baptist Press, June 15, 2015.

Eight hundred years ago on June 15, 1215, a group of English nobles at Runnymede forced a reluctant King John to endorse a document of grievances against royal authority.

Written by Stephen, the archbishop of Canterbury, the Magna Carta was designed to be a compromise between rebellious nobles and the king. The work contained allusions to protecting religious liberty that, remarkably, would be embraced by England, the United States and much of the West today in subsequent centuries.

Before discussing how the Magna Carta -- “The Great Charter,” now at its 800th anniversary -- started the long journey of governments recognizing the principle of religious freedom, some clarifications are in order.

The Magna Carta itself was not written specifically to address religious freedom and, in fact, the document functioned primarily as a set of grievances on the part of some rebelling nobles against King John and a set of actions and compromises to address those grievances.

Revised time and time again in the centuries that followed, new information impacted the original issues in 1215. Later English rulers signaled their support or opposition to these various revisions. And finally, more significant language in other important documents of later ages enshrined religious liberty on both sides of the Atlantic.

With those clarifications, and with aspects of religious freedom quite different in the 21st century than in 1215, various provisions of the Magna Carta nevertheless shaped the unfolding concept of religious liberty. For instance, Article One stated, “First that we have granted to God, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired.”

While this provision seems incredible for its time and comports well with contemporary Western and Christian thinking, it should be noted that Article One was written in the context of a three-way fight for English church dominance between the papacy, the king and some members of the English nobility. The provision itself seems directed more against royal interference with the church and the fact that many English churchmen had joined in the rebellion against King John.

Furthermore, while declaring that the English church “shall be free,” it was understood in 1215 (300 years before the Reformation) that the church functioned as part of the universal church dominated by the papacy and that it possessed the beliefs and practices set forth by the papacy. As an aside, the pope himself later annulled the document. Although unstated, perhaps he became concerned with how the document might restrict papal influence within the British Isles in the future. Nevertheless, as a principle, Article One established a bold precedent for future religious freedom.

Among other provisions in the document, Article 22 restricted fines on the private property owned by church clerks to only the value of the particular property without reference to the total value of an ecclesiastical holding in the kingdom (that is, the church as a whole would not be assessed for its holdings within the kingdom -- a practice that the English monarchy may have sought to impose in view of its funding shortfall at the time).

Article 27 empowered the church to supervise the liquidation of the property of free men who left no will. This provision probably preserved a practice already in place, but with this provision, the framers formally ensured that that the church, rather than the state, be involved in these personal but important post-mortem decisions.

Article 62 issued pardons for all (including individual clergymen) involved in the dispute between the crown and clergymen who had joined the rebellion against the king. This continued a pattern within the document of also protecting the rights of clergymen apart from the protections on the church itself -- an important aspect of religious liberty.

Finally, Article 63 again confirmed the freedom of the English church with similar language as found in Article One.

Other articles that seemingly expanded the privileges of the nobles apparently referenced the clergy as well. Some of these guarantees included provisions for trials in local courts, protections against unlawful seizures of goods or persons, and respect for property rights. The framers of the document noted that all these customs and liberties applied to “all men of our kingdom, whether clergy or laymen.”

For the next few hundred years, various English political figures invoked the Magna Carta in defense of both political and religious liberty rights. Furthermore, the British and American political bodies, building on the lofty but hazy principles of the Magna Carta, eventually added more substantial protections to religious liberty. The British Act of Toleration of 1689 recognized the rights of all Protestants, including Baptists, to practice their faith without interference. In 1791 and 1829, the British Parliament legalized the status of Catholics by the Roman Catholic Relief Acts.

In the United States, the Constitution of 1787 and the Bill of Rights of 1791 gave specific protections to religious liberty that included the abolition of religious tests for public office and specific guarantees for citizens to practice their faith. Other Western nations, as well as many non-Western nations, offered similar protections in the years after the 1790s.

The struggle for religious liberty has been in progress for 800 years. At a time of escalating religious liberty issues, what started on the fields of Runnymede in 1215 remains relevant to the present day.

________

Stephen Douglas Wilson is an adjunct professor at West Kentucky Community and Technical College and a former member of the SBC Executive Committee.

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate