In many moral debates, the idea that often comes to the surface is "If it doesn't hurt someone or deprive someone else of a right then we should back off." You'll see this in the "gay marriage" debate. You'll see it in the premarital sex debate (which, unfortunately, is all but over in this country). You'll see it in the debate over the legalization of prostitution or drugs. Many are considered "victimless crimes" and the suggestion is that if there is no victim, why is there a law? Why should we outlaw two people who love each other from marrying just because they're the same gender? Why should we prevent prostitutes from making a living just because of some religious perspective that it's wrong? That, you see, is often the core of the argument: "Why do we allow religion to dictate our societal morals? If it's not hurting anyone, let them do what they want!"
This, of course, is the standard problem. And, of course, the standard person doesn't see the standard problem. The standard problem is "I will be the final arbiter of what is good and bad, what 'hurts someone' and what doesn't, what is right and wrong." Here, let's see if I can put it in a way that will help you to see why it's the "standard problem": "I will be like the Most High." Sound familiar?
Our society has gotten itself turned around. God is bad because He exercises judgment (e.g., the Flood, clearing Canaan, etc.). We are good because we know better than Him about what is good (e.g., homosexual behaviors, when to have sex, what harms or doesn't harm the human being, etc.). We are so turned around that smoking is evil, but free sex is good. We are convinced that free needles to drug users is good, but allowing Christians to believe that they have the truth is evil. We are confident that gay marriage is perfectly acceptable, but polygamy, incest, and other perversions of marriage are not, and we don't even try to explain why. And even though science keeps changing its mind about what is harmful or helpful to the human body, we're quite certain that we know what is harmful and helpful to humans, their lives, and their society ... and it's not religion. Our society, as a whole, has brazenly lifted its clinched fist to the sky and shouted, "I will be like the Most High."
I am convinced that the Maker of the Human Being is the best arbiter of what works for the Human Being. Some people think that God is a cosmic killjoy, passing rules just to make us unhappy. I don't think so. I am quite sure that He made laws based on what was best for our existence. "Do you want to avoid sexually-transmitted disease? Then only engage in sex with one person for life." Now -- and this is important -- that's way too simplified. I don't think that God's rules limiting sexual relations to marriage were merely about sexually-transmitted diseases. In 1 Cor. 6:16, for instance, Paul suggests that the act of sex produces a union -- "one body" -- that exceeds our standard typical understanding. In Eph. 5:22 he speaks of the oneness of a married couple as a great mystery. So I'm suggesting that God, as the Maker of the Human Being, knows far better than we do what makes the Human Being tick, how it operates, and what will cause it not to operate correctly.
Given this premise, it would make more sense to suggest that the laws of God would be the best arbiter of what hurts someone or not. We know that we are often unaware of damage to our lives brought on by events in our lives. We see this in the medical world, where people ingest things over years and suffer horrible consequences, never knowing that it was something they were doing that didn't seem to harm them. What makes us think that we are best suited for knowing what harms people or not? Why should religion dictate our societal morals? I would say it is because God knows best what we need and wants our best. Why would He not be the best source?
But, then, what is the likelihood that my world is going to come knocking at my door? "Oh, thank you, Stan! We see it now!" That doesn't stop me from suggesting that sin, in any form, is harmful to people, and it would be unkind of me to fail to point it out.
1 comment:
This is a superlative piece. The only thing one could add would be that at least it should be clear when so-called Christians reject God by uncritically embracing these feel-good laws.
Post a Comment