In Chris Anderson’s new book Free: The Future of a Radical Price, he looks into the meaning of the word free. The word has two meanings: free as in “freedom” and free as in “price.” Most of the romance languages divide these meanings into two different words, derived from liber and gratiis. Our double-duty English word comes from Old English freon or freogan, meaning “to free, love.” In addition to free, this word also gave us our word friend. Anderson quotes etymologist Douglas Harper:
The primary sense seems to have been “beloved, friend”; which in some languages (notably Germanic and Celtic) developed a sense of “free,” perhaps from the terms “beloved” or “friend” being applied to the free members of one’s clan (as opposed to slaves). (P. 18)
This double-meaning of beloved and free made friend the perfect word for the early translators of the English bible when they got to John 15, where Jesus says:
Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what
his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I
have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. Ye have not
chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go
and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain: that
whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. These things I command you, that ye love one another.
This was a favorite verse of a bunch of spiritual trouble-makers in England in mid-1600s, who liked it so much they started calling one another Friends. They were a new brother- and sister-hood of beloveds, newly freed of the tyrants of their age by their personal experience of Christ as friend, spreading the good news that we were all free and all commanded to love one another.
The word in John 15 is philoi: “friend” in the sense of “beloved”, rather than in the sense of “free”. A slave or servant (doulos) in Greek culture might easily also be a beloved friend, and there were many recorded instances of such. Slavery in those days did not have the overtones of reduction-to-the-status-of-object-or-beast that it later came to have in the U.S.. Indeed, the status of a household slave was nearer that of a “captive” of a native American tribe: it meant being forcibly adopted as a member of the clan and so being under the clan’s protection (and sharing in the clan’s collective privileges) as well as being under its orders.
Paul testified that those in Christ were neither slave nor free. (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11) He sent at least one slave who had become Christian and run away from captivity, back to his master who also a Christian, with an eloquent plea that the master — no, not liberate the slave — but treat the slave as if he were Paul himself. (Philemon)
I have personally found the idea that we who are Christ’s friends are not free, any more than we are slaves, to be a powerful teaching; it has altered my attitude in ways that have opened the door to wonderful interactions with others.
Marshall: thanks for the deeper explanation of friend/free/beloved. Yes, I wasn’t expecting that Chris Anderson was going very deep into BIblical criticism. That kind of in-between both/neither of free and slave to Christ that I think you’re describing is also my experience with the Light. I wonder if our adoption of the word “Friend” has led many of us to minimize the obligation/servitude side of the equation.
@Marshall: thanks for the deeper explanation. Yes, I wasn’t expecting that
Chris Anderson was going very deep into BIblical criticism. That kind of
in-between both/neither of free and slave to Christ that I think you’re
describing is also my experience with the Light. I wonder if our adoption of
the word “Friend” has led many of us to minimize the obligation/servitude
side of the equation.
I appreciate your kind response!
Not about your point, but a caution. Small portions of Chris Anderson’s book were plagiarized. Which makes me concerned about his and his editor’s attitudes toward information. Free, yes, but also be responsible. Especially since one reason given was that they couldn’t figure out how to credit. Really? Meg http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/06/24/the-chris-anderson-plagiarism-controversy/
@Meg: A sentence half way down the article you link to starts off “Without
actually looking at the work…” I don’t put much stock in a critique
written by someone who hasn’t even bothered to read the book.
Chris Anderson has apologized for missing some Wikipedia, etc., attributions
and said it was a mix-up of notes. I can see how that could happen. The most
famous copied passage is about the term “Free Lunch.” He decided when
writing that he wanted to have a digression about this concept, cut and
pasted notes from various sources and then forgot which parts he had written
and which were copied. Honest mistake of a few pages in a 257 page book. But
because the topic is disruptive business models, he’s under suspicion of
intentional piracy and disregard for copyright.
But step back for the context. Chris Andeson isn’t some pimply-faced
teenager sitting in a basement downloading the latest U2 album off Pirate
Bay. He’s editor in chief of a flagship Conde Nast publication. The book is
published and edited by an imprint of Disney, the largest media company in
the world (and arguably the architect of copyright as we know it, as
extensions of copyright law are passed every few years just as Mickey Mouse
is about to fall into public domain). High profile executives of Conde Nast
and the Walt Disney Company aren’t the ones who are going to lead attacks on
intellectual property and copyright.
BTW, it’s definitely a good book. Easy to read, thoughtful. I would imagine
it would be important for librarians, since we’re talking about models of
content consumption. My copy comes from the Atlantic County Library System,
who will probably not be getting back quite on the due date (shhh!).