Relative Humility

We live in a world where relativism is rampant. Well, largely moral relativism. There aren't really too many that believe that all truth is relative. The claim itself is nonsensical. And there are no relativists in engineering, aeronautics, the banking industry, and so on. You don't evaluate the fact that a bus is heading for you based on whether or not it is true for you. At least, not for long.

No, the real relativism today is moral relativism. It is the belief that what is right or wrong for you may or may not be right or wrong for me. You claim that sex outside marriage is a sin and I don't see it that way. It's fine for you, just not for me. It is premised on the idea that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong. Culture and circumstances and societal mores and pragmatic considerations all work into this fluid moral structure, ultimately deciphered by your personal perspective. And it's a good thing. It promotes tolerance, diversity, respect, humility.

That final aspect is found in this quote:

I see postmodern thought as a kind of moral humility, a humility that prevents us from assuming that the world divides neatly into 'us' and 'them' or that 'others' are simply evil while 'we,' by mere opposition, are assured to be in the right.

Humble, see? It doesn't assume that "I'm right!" Instead, it is based on that meek position that says, "Who am I to claim that someone else's opinion is wrong?" Now that's humility.

Or so it would seem. But that only works if the premise is right. If the premise that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong is correct, then frankly you can pretty well choose whatever you wish for your own personal standard and no one else would have the right to say otherwise. Oh, you might have to deal with societal pressures and laws and the like, but if they disagree with you, they're wrong because there is no standard. Pretty arrogant of them, isn't it? On the other hand, if the premise is wrong, then the whole "humility" factor is lost.

As it happens, it is precisely this condition that is in mind for Christians. We believe that there is a God. This God has created all that exists and, as such, has absolute authority over it. As such, He can rightly make demands and His creation must follow those commands or be in violation of His authority. That is, His authority is the absolute standard against which we must compare ourselves. Violating that authority isn't humble; it's arrogant. "I will be like the Most High."

So who, really, is the humble one? Is it the one who says, "Live and let live; I don't have the right to tell others what is right and wrong"? Or is it the one who submits to the commands of God? Is it the one who says, "Sure, God says we must do this or that, but I will not submit nor will I suggest others do", or the one who calls on everyone to do what the Prime Authority commands? I would suggest that moral relativism is not the humble position it claims to be. It takes a pretty big ego to defy God and encourage others to do the same. And agreeing with God isn't arrogant. It's just reasonable.