One of the key takeaways from Dr. Charlton's post is the understanding that freedom is a means and not an end.
The observation should strike everyone obvious, yet over the past two or three centuries, freedom has morphed from being an unambiguous means toward something into an ambiguous end that is essentially a nebulous nothing.
The distinction between negative freedom (freedom from) and positive freedom (freedom for) is crucial, particularly regarding the understanding of freedom as a means to an end, but this does not negate the primary importance of freedom.
The problem with freedom is its seeming nebulousness -- as a means, it can be shaped or warped to meet practically any end. The "proper" use of freedom entails a clear understanding of a "proper" end.
Despite being a religion of freedom, Christianity has struggled with freedom since its beginnings. Traditional doctrines have always been suspicious of freedom and tend to blame Christianity's ills on the liberties people sought and continue to seek outside churches and doctrines. At the same time, freedom from strict adherence to traditional doctrine is crucial to the continued development of Christian consciousness.
Perhaps it would be helpful to classify negative freedom as "liberty" and positive freedom as "spiritual freedom" (the reality of Creation). In this sense, liberty is clearly separated as a rejecting sort of freedom exemplified by Enlightenment principles, the Statue of Liberty, liberalism, etc. This negative freedom is anchored in the external world and is pitted primarily against external forces. Conversely, spiritual freedom is more of an internal accepting and embracing spiritual force based on the underlying reality of Creation.
The "for" and "from" aspects of liberty are both rooted in the external. This was the inherent tragedy of the liberation from church consciousness (and liberalism in general). The rejection was solid, but liberty provided no spiritual end for consciousness to grasp onto beyond the external world. Thus, human consciousness found no end beyond the external and sank into materialism and the eventual rejection of God.
On the other hand, spiritual freedom -- the kind Jesus demonstrated -- does not rely or depend on externals at all. This is evident in Jesus' lack of interest in fulfilling his prophesied role as messiah. He did not aim to "liberate" people from the Roman empire or from the external pressures and forces of necessity using purely external "liberation" means.
Jesus' aim (or end) was not human liberty but human freedom. More specifically, the alignment of human freedom with divine freedom.
This alignment differs from the traditional understanding of lesser "created" human freedom submitting to the infinitely greater "uncreated" divine freedom of the Creator.
I imagine the alignment more as harmony between the divine in man and God, which can only be established when freedom is employed as a "medium" for higher spiritual purposes. Moreover, I don't believe God has much control over this freedom because I suspect it does not emanate from his being.
The freedom Jesus espoused was a big part of the cosmological change He initiated. In my humble opinion, this is the kind of freedom Christians need to rediscover, and the time to rediscover it has never been better.
The means are within us -- it's the end we need to rediscover -- and this end is spiritual. If we fail to clearly define this end, we'll know only negative freedom, which is, at best, a very limited form of freedom, the kind we see motivating the various birdemic protests around the world.