I'm sure you've heard the term, or, rather, the warning. "If you hold your position, you'll find yourself on the wrong side of history." Or something like it. The idea is that things change in history and these changes are always for the better, so if you don't change with them, history will show that you're a loser. It's the idea that "newer is better," that "progressive" is enlightened and improvement. Now, certainly things change with history, but I question the second premise. Always for the better? But if that's not the case, the whole thing comes apart. And, in fact, the whole thing is problematic. The phrase suggests that history will judge you. Very odd. The notion is that history -- time itself -- leads to ever increasing morality on its own.
Of course, there are all sorts of problems here. History is not a being, but we're suggesting here that it gets to judge you and me. Clearly not the case. So who does? To be on a "right side" or a "wrong side" of history requires a judgment -- a moral judgment. Whose judgment will be used? The very concept of the "wrong side of history" implies a force, a source, an author, as it were, that is pushing history along from bad to better. What source? What makes us think it is true? Historically, can we claim, "Every course change we've made is always for the better, always for the right"? I think that would be a phenomenal kind of nonsense since we all know better. "The wrong side of history" is an entirely problematic position when its removed from any viable source or moral absolutes.
History, on the other hand, is not random. Biblically, God says, "I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all My purpose.'" (Isa 46:9-10) Now that's a view of history with a source and with absolutes. From this perspective, then, it is possible to be on the "wrong side of history." If history is actually "His story" -- the story that God has written and is maintaining for eternity -- then the "wrong side of history" is the wrong side of God and the "right side of history" is cooperating with His plans, values, and directions. Of course, that won't win us approval of those who are claiming we're on the wrong side of history for approving of that which God approves, but is it really their approval we're seeking?
19 comments:
I completely agree that the very notion of the right side of history is absurd. I suspect that folks like Hitler, Marx, Mao, Castro, etc all would have proclaimed that they were on the right side of history.
To even make the claim requires a ridiculous amount of hubris, and an acknowledgement that objective morality exists.
Yes, but what does Groucho have to do with it? Oh, sorry, not that Marx. Got it.
Are you being purposefully obtuse? Do you really think they're thinking that history is an entity or source? We all know that the history most people think of is not the His-story you do. History is that story we are told by the victor. It is twisted and skewed by those in power. I agree that ultimately God is the victor and history will prove right all those that agreed with Him, but that's certainly not the history they're talking about. They believe in a history in a vacuum, one that humanity gets to write. I bet you that if Hitler or Marx or Mao or Castro or any other ruthless dictator won, their history would show they are in the right. Just look at North Korea or China. Their "history" looks very different from ours.
If you were trying to be sarcastic, I apologise, it didn't come across that way.
Me? Purposefully stupid? Not at all. But thanks for asking. I'm accidentally stupid. (Or naturally.) Sarcastic? No, I don't think so. Perhaps you haven't heard them talk. (I know you haven't read the comments from those who tell me I'm stupid for thinking we're not on the wrong side of history.)
They DO believe that history is an entity or source. Well, to be most precise, they do believe that they are the entity or source that reliable evaluates history and concludes that if we don't come over to their side, we're going to be "on the wrong side of history." And so is our Bible. And so is our God.
Craig understood me, I think. He agreed (as did I) that those others all thought they were on the right side of history. Hitler believed he was ushering a new historic empire -- the Third Reich -- and it would be glorious.
Now, the question to me is do we evaluate Hitler (or Mao or ...) on whether or not they won? Surely not. But that's the current measure of "wrong side of history" today. "We've won, so you're on the wrong side of history."
Sorry for being stupid. It wasn't intentional.
Hasn't that historically been the measure of "history"? The victor deciding what is true has been going on for as long as I can tell. Whenever I've read someone say that I'll be on the wrong side of history, I didn't take it that history itself would be my judge, but that in the court of public opinion I'd be judged. We do it all the time. "God commanded the death of every man, woman, child, and animal in that city? That's wrong because I said it is." Clearly, humans have a skewed perception of their place in the universe. And I agree with you that we as believers should concern ourselves more with being judged by the Judge, not the people.
"Well, to be most precise, they do believe that they are the entity or source that reliable evaluates history..."
So, you were obfuscating your understanding of what they mean. You were being purposefully obtuse. I would never accuse you if being stupid, and I apologise if it came across as that. But the way you originally wrote that, it seemed like you were throwing up this straw man and shooting down this "history entity", not arguing against their abuse of their perceived position as the arbiters of history. In your post you even argued that very point, "history isn't an entity".
Okay, so if I understand you correctly, I am stupid at best and more likely deceitful ("obfuscating"). At the very least illogical ("strawman").
They seem to treat history as a viable means of identifying "right side" and "wrong side" based primarily on "who won." They seem to believe that "progress" means "good" and what was before was, at best, inferior if not actually bad.
But I think it's a good thing that I've written my last blog entry (late this week) because some of my friendly readers don't seem to understand me. And I don't blame them. What we have here is a failure to communicate, and given the frequency at which people don't understand me, I'm pretty sure it's mine.
Good communication doesn't always include perfect understand of all parties communicating. It does, however, require clarification before all can walk away believing communications were understood. I'm willing to suffer a few slings and arrows to get to that point of understanding.
As to the post, I've been on the "wrong side" of history on more than one occasion if my ideological opponents are to be believed. To them I've always responded, "I prefer to be on the right side of morality". Now a certain mutual "friend" has come to include that in his attacks. So now, according to him, I'm on the wrong side of both history AND morality. I just can't win.
Essentially what these folks are doing is declaring victory regarding moral issues, based on their assumptions about what people will feel in the future. It’s assuming that they’ll be the victors and writing the history before the battle is over. It’s much less about history and much more about using a perceived future majority to impose their will on the present majority.
I think Stan would argue that the morality of behavior is decided by God, and that it’s unchanging. The RSOH folks, would argue that morality is decided by majority consensus. They’re saying that we should give up, arguing that X is immoral, because eventually we’ll get outvoted and that we should give up and join them.
Hope this helps.
In case anyone was unclear (and I can certainly imagine why that might be), when I said, "I think it's a good thing that I've written my last blog entry," I was being humorous, not complaining. One of the things I dislike the most about this particular medium is the inability to see facial expressions, body language ... people. If you had, you would have known.
I assumed you were. I know I’d miss your posts, whether or not they were on the right side of history.
Well, I HAVE actually written my last blog. They changed over yesterday. All that's left are the ones I wrote and posted in advance and the last one on Friday. I'm not happy about it. I've really made it part of my life, looking and listening and thinking, "How could this edify others?" But just creating that last farewell on Friday took some time because I couldn't figure out the interface.
Yes, I've written the last one. No, I'm not happy about it.
That stinks.
Well, write the last one, but don't post it for several years. Just a suggestion by one who isn't looking forward to it.
If you're only changing because of the interface, I'd hope that you'd find another outlet for your work. I know that both Art and I will happily post anything you'd like anytime you'd like.
Thanks, guys. Having written that final post for the end of the week and having it sink in, I'm not really satisfied to fade away. I'm looking at other venues. Maybe Wordpress. If I do, I'll link from the original to that new one.
I really hope that you continue to write, I know I appreciate what you are doing.
And I'm sure you have many lurkers that would miss your writing to, right along with the rest of us.
Ditto.
Post a Comment