The current "high moral ground" taken by the Progressives turns out to be based on personal preference. Is that accurate? Sure it is. You can tell because they keep changing their own "high moral ground". "Gay? Bad. Okay, now good. Gay marriage? Bad. Oh, now it's good. Transgender? Mental illness. Oh, no, now we'll say it's not only perfectly normal; it's to be celebrated. Religious freedom? Good! Until it violates whatever else we've deemed as better. Denying service based on principle? Bad. Oh, no, not always. If we agree with the principle, then it's good." And so it goes.
Christians who still believe the Bible are being told we're on "the wrong side of history". That seems odd. We were on the "wrong side of history" when they were executing us for our beliefs. We were on the "right side of history" when our beliefs brought about greater peace and prosperity. And now we're on the "wrong side of history" again. They tell us that like it's a bad thing. You have to ask yourself, "Is it?" When we live in an age that is demonstrating Jesus's own words, "If the world hates you, know that it has hated Me before it hated you." (John 15:18), you might ask yourself if being opposed to the world's values in favor of God's values is truly wrong. Christianity isn't right because it's in power or favor. God's Word isn't true because lots of people believe it or admire it. In this instance, numbers don't matter.
So we'll need to stand. In some places we'll need to die for doing so. In our culture it will only be a metaphorical death. Perhaps a social death or an economic death or the like. None of this means that we shouldn't stand. If America has lost her roots in the Christian faith and is dying because of it, we need to be sure to firmly establish our roots there. God doesn't change. Morality doesn't change. And "winning" in the Christian life is not about "standing on top of the heap". Sometimes it requires time in a lions' den (Dan 6:16-17), a walk through the fire (Dan 3:17), the gift of persecution (Phil 1:29).
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. (Eph 6:12-13)Stand firm.
9 comments:
So much of the “wrong side of history” talk is based on the results of opinion polls, which doesn’t seem to be the most firm foundation. Citing polls is also an appeal to numbers, a logical fallacy, (except when it isn’t).
It also strikes me as an outpouring of the desire to be first. Yet, we know what Jesus said about what happens to those who want to be first.
The “wrong side of history” tactic is all about coercion, not persuasion. It’s schoolyard peer pressure writ large.
It also presumed that history is right. That all movements of this sort are objectively good.
As with so much, it’s simply hubris.
Finally, it denies a sovereign God who has a plan.
I'm also baffled by the "harm" argument. I would think it is abundantly clear, for instance, that "will not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10) would constitute great harm.
I agree. But to go further, if one looks at the statistics regarding the health of those who identify as gay and the significant level of mental health problems in the transgender community, it seems like encouraging those behaviors is encouraging harm.
Of course, if someone chooses something harmful, is it really harm?
Harm, to me, seems subjective. Is my wife harmed or helped by losing her job? Is my youngest going to ultimately be a better healthier person as a result of his suicide attempt? The answer is, that we don’t know. The reality of basing things on harm, is that it’s too transitory and it doesn’t take into account the fact that “what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger”, or they whole “refined in the fire” thing scripture talks about.
If your entire purpose in life is to avoid harm; what a boring, sterile, unsatisfying, life would you have. If one follows the example of many Christians, following Christ leads to harm. Christ tells us to expect harm.
I’m not suggesting that we should be harming others, just that avoidance of harm isn’t the best principle for life.
I absolutely agree. Humans aren't very good (for perfectly good and horribly bad reasons) at identifying actual harm. That's why the "harm principle" doesn't work very well as a basis for morality.
Unless you embrace a subjective morality. One where morality is a social/societal construct. Of course, that means that harm can be moral, if a given group or society decides it to be.
Which defeats the purpose of calling anything moral.
And, of course, rewrites the meaning of "harm" so that it means "whatever we deem it to mean."
But, of course, they have embraced a subjective morality that operates on "whatever we deem it to mean at the moment." For instance, harm (the dictionary defines it as "injury, physical or mental") doesn't count if it is between two consenting adults.
Which circles back to the often mentioned fact, that so much of this discussion revolves around definitions. It’s amusing that even when Dan does go to the actual definition, he’s likely to pick the second, third, or fourth definition as if it’s the primary. As long as he thinks it’ll help.
Survival of the fittest is supposed to be what got us to this uppity place where we can now wonder about what is right and wrong. Survival of the fittest also constitutes harm; it actually uses it as a foundation. My question is, why, after it has brought us to our now awesome selves, do we want' to stop evolution by stopping harm? Isn't that anti-progress? Again, on what basis, especially given the awesome work that evolution has done so far, do they want to now stop it? Would not that very thing be, in itself, harm?
Post a Comment