There are plenty of times that I've been told, "Keep your Christian morality to yourself." I've even heard it from "Christians". (The quotes there are my way of being generous. They may or may not be Christian ... I'm just not calling it into question right now.) Somehow there is an underlying conviction that morality is negative. It is a thrill-kill, a sad thing. It is a limitation, a mean streak, an overbearing belief. And it is, of course, individualistic. There is "your morality" and "my morality" and these are both equal in value and validity. So keep "your morality" out of my face.
I would guess that this belief is rather prevalent. Sometimes we see studies aimed at showing that God's version of the best family (mother, father, children) is wrong or that sexual purity is pointless. But most of the time we're just told, "Believe what you want; just don't force it on me." The term "force", explicit or implicit, suggests something "wrong". So encouraging moral behavior ... is wrong.
So I have to ask, why be moral? Why would I bother saying out loud that homosexual behavior is wrong? That's just my belief, right? I'm just being intolerant, right? Why would I hold in public that abortion is murder and murder is wrong? Why can't I let those others who believe that "it's a woman's choice" do what they believe is right? Why would I be so judgmental? And the Christians who say it are urging me away from these things because "it will push people away from the Gospel" or some such. So ... why be moral?
I believe that there is more to "moral" than rules. It's not simply "right or wrong". It's not simply "be good or not". It is much, much more. I am convinced that being moral is best. Now, let me say here clearly and quickly that being moral doesn't give you heaven. But what it does do is to make the "machinery" work best. What do I mean?
I believe that the man who is faithful to his wife is much happier than the man who is not. There may be some temporary pleasure, some immediate gratification, but in the end, recognized or not, the faithful husband is happier than the cheat. I believe that a person of integrity is better off than a liar, a cheat, a thief. I believe that those who give are more blessed than those who receive, that those who love are more fulfilled than those who demand love, that those who seek the welfare of others are more satisfied than those who seek their own personal pleasure. In other words, while being moral may not get you to heaven (because the demand of heaven is perfect morality), it will certainly make your life much better.
So I ask myself, "Why are they telling me to keep it to myself? Why is it judgmental or intolerant to want what's best for others? How is it more caring to keep the truth from others?" I imagine a fellow picking up a bottle of poison. Maybe it's a slow poison, taking years, prossibly, to end his life. But it is poison. He tells me, "Mmmm, I just love this stuff." And the people around me, seeing I'm about to say something, shoosh me. "Don't say anything," someone near me whispers. "Keep your opinion to yourself. He likes it. There's no need for you to foist your views on him. If you do, he may not even listen to you anymore. Don't be so judgmental and intolerant." Seriously, people, would I be more kind, loving, caring if I kept my mouth shut while this fellow poisoned himself? I don't think so.
7 comments:
The question, of course, is "Who gets to determine what is moral?" I'm not asking that question. I'm assuming a few things.
1) I believe X to be immoral and you (fictitious "you") don't.
2) You are committing or considering X.
3) I care about you.
Using the analogy of the poison, I consider it poison and you don't. I care about you. You want to drink it. Would it be loving of me to say, "Well, you don't believe that it's poison, so I should keep my mouth shut", or would it be loving of me to say, "That's poison!" even if there is a possibility that it's not?
I think we SHOULD say it's poison, if that's what we believe, "even if there is the possibility that it's not", BECAUSE the person taking it may not have considered the potential consequences or just assumes whatever "horror stories" he may have heard about it will likely never happen to him!
This reminds me of something we are currently going through with a teenager we love. We can either "back off" and keep our opinions about what we think would ultimately be BEST (AKA our "morals") for this young person's life TO OURSELVES, or not.
It can be like walking a tight rope. If you say TOO much, the poison taker may remove himself from you and then no more communication can go on between you at all! So... I guess we have to pray that The Holy Spirit will give us just the right words to speak at just the right time(s), and then hope that they might get through their ears, past their thick skulls, and into their brains where they might actually STICK and be there as something for them to ponder that same night alone in the dark or someday.
Sometimes SOMEBODY has to say SOMETHING! If everyone's afraid of stepping on each other's toes and possibly offending them, changes for the better are far less apt to happen. We can ALWAYS add that we are only saying this because we CARE about the listener and that it's just something they might want to consider COULD BE true. And then they can believe that, or not!
Regardless of the question of WHO gets to decide what's moral and what isn't for everyone on this planet, we ought to at least make effort to "put out there" what we think will bring about the best results for people so that they can hear it and have opportunity to make more informed choices.
I agree, that IS "more kind, loving, caring" than maybe leaving them in the dark, possibly thinking they have only one way out of their circumstance(s).
The trick, I think, is the initial motivation, and there are two primary problems. One is that too often too many people don't operate from the initial motivation of love. They operate from "righteous indignation" or "moral superiority" or just plain pride. These people, even if their position of what is right and wrong is correct, are wrong themselves. The other is that too many people hearing people who say, "This is right" or "That is sin" have been too tainted by that first group of people I just mentioned to hear "I love you" in the statement. They assume "judgmental, Pharisaical, self-righteous".
The trick, then, is to actually say "This is right or wrong" from the position of love. It has to be intended that way. It would help if love was already demonstrated. Even then we have to leave it in the Spirit's capable hands, don't we?
Do no harm. See a need and fill it.
No ulterior motives of getting the self ahead in some way (right).
I guess this is why the Bible tells us that all our righteous deeds are as filthy rags.
But hey, our neighbor could still use the help, even if our motives are not the purest.
I guess doing good is acting morally.
It's late. I should attempt to comment when I'm tired. I don't do so well when I'm alert!
Sure, doing good is acting morally. But the question is "Why do it?" ;)
Why do it? That's a good question. I guess the "right" answer is out of obediance. The real motivations however can vary, but in my case they generally have something to do with self interest; like a good feeling when helping someone, or in hopes of avoiding disater that often accompanies immoralilty. I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning as to why.
Why? I see it like raising kids. The first answer is, "Because I told you so." The first answer for us is "Because God said so." 'Nough said. The second answer is, "Because it's good for you." (Funny thing. We somehow think "If I do something because it benefits me, it's not a good reason." God, on the other hand, promised rewards for obedience and punishment for disobedience ... as if that was a good reason to do what we ought.)
Post a Comment