This is a popular new phrase being lobbed at Christians who stand steadfastly on the Word of God when it comes to the twin topics of marriage and homosexual behavior. "The Bible says" followed by a biblical definition of marriage and a biblical denunciation of homosexual behavior will, in this current theme, put you on "the wrong side of history." But I have to ask myself, just what do they mean by "the wrong side of history"?
Here's what they want you to believe. They want you to believe that history will judge you as being on the side of wrong. It is, by definition, a "future guess", so to speak. It must start with the premise "You're wrong and we're right" and simply throw an emotional "just you wait and see" grenade as if it proves something.
Of course, others don't see it that way. Others think "on the right side of history" simply means "where history is headed". Clearly those who hold to a biblical worldview in modern America are headed for the "wrong side of history" in that sense. The world continues to become more hostile toward Christian beliefs; we will end up on the wrong side of the tides of morality there. But, of course, we're promised that, aren't we? In this view, the "wrong side of history" simply means "the side that lost" and ends up as a "might makes right" argument. In this view, then, there is no actual defense of an idea or attack on the opposition. It is a "you don't count because we're stronger than you" argument. And it's often thrown out exactly that way with impunity and a sense of moral superiority.
There are those who (naively) believe that the progression of human events will necessarily go toward something better. This is a mindless notion (because history shows how wrong it is) in that it avoids all arguments and sits squarely on a false assumption. "If it happens, it was good." Nonsense and nothing more. "Progress" is not always "improvement". It is simply movement. At its basic definition, progress is only movement toward an objective. If that objective is, say, the conquering of Europe, Hitler made a lot of "progress". That wasn't a good thing.
As it turns out, then, the phrase we are being offered as a dire warning is ... pretty much pointless. It has no certainty, no defense, no argument behind it. It isn't clear enough to prove anything nor can it be proved itself. And given our serious inability to actually determine what is or isn't harmful, it is always questionable to blindly make such an argument. It only serves to make the speaker feel better, intellectual, morally superior, wiser than you. In the end, it doesn't make any point. It simply, if you're paying attention, reflects badly on the one who uses it, no matter how they intend it. I would much rather be on the "wrong side of history" if that side is on the right side of God.
10 comments:
Exactly. Agreeing with God always puts you on the right side of history.
This phrase makes me sick. It is, as you imply, totally meaningless, except for the implication that they will win, their cause is just, so we are on the wrong side of that and we are wrong in the process. They expect that we will lose, and though that possibility isn't far fetched given current events, having lost puts on the wrong side of history.
Any way it is explained, however, the phrase is still idiotic. This cause is immoral. For them to win does not put them on the "right" side, since their side is not right, but morally wrong. They could win, and I would still be happy having opposed them and would continue to do so. That might make me "on the wrong side of history", but I continue to be on the right side of the issue. The moral side. The logical side. The factual side. I'm good with that.
This slogan has appeal because it is just another emotion-based line. There is no real substance to it and just makes them feel good. They know they will get some to respond their way, because after all, who would want to be on the wrong side of anything? So I respond as I imply above, that I'm happy being on the right side of the issue. The moral side. It's a good counter slogan and I'd love to see it become as common place, at least long enough to compel them to stop saying stupid things like "the wrong side of history".
Neil, I agree ... except that defining "the right side of history" appears to be impossible in today's society.
Marshall Art, you're right. It's clearly an emotional phrase. It is intended to be a sort of "strength in numbers" argument ... without any proof, evidence, or even meaning. What makes me sad is that, as you suggest, too many classify this as a "good argument".
The other subtle meaning of that phrase is from their assertion that anti-homosexuality and racism are the same thing. The racists were on the wrong side of history, so you must be too. The false equation doesn't help the perpetuation of the meaningless phrase.
Yes, and in those terms it is a huge assersion without argument or evidence. But it is laid out there as proof and the public is just supposed to (and likely does) consume it as truth.
I'm really trying to understand how one can be on the right or wrong side of history. History is what is past, and it is just a recording of what is past. How can one be on the wrong or right side of what has passed? How is history right or wrong (unless the recording of it is revised)? It is the actions which took place in history which are right or wrong.
The statement about being on the "wrong side of history" is nothing but another of those "argument without argument" things Thomas Sowell writes about.
Exactly, Glenn. It is a remote argument without correlation to reality. It assumes that "history always progresses to something better" when it doesn't, that what we have today is always better than what we had yesterday, that "progress" always entails "improvement", and that people, being basically good, will always become better. Nonsense. Worse, no one actually states it. An argument without argument.
I'm not sure where the confusion about this concept of the "wrong side of history". My assumption is that the argument stems from the argument that homosexuality and race are the same, and that to look back on those Christians that claimed that the Bible forbade mixed races or the like, those Christians would be said to have been on the wrong side of history. Thus, the claim that we are now on the wrong side of history about homosexuality is to say that in the future, we will be seen in the same light as we see racists now. It is still an empty argument because of its basis, but to say that nobody can be on the right or wrong side of history is taking the phrase a little too literally, in my opinion.
The point is that it makes a conclusion without an argument. Predicated on "Progress is always improvement" so that "In the future we will know that today's morality was wrong", it "proves" without argument that we are wrong for holding the position that the Church has always held in alignment with Scripture. The "wrong side of history" argument assumes "race and sexual orientation are the same" without evidence or even reasonable logic. It is vague, unclear, without basis ... and still offered as "proof".
Post a Comment