Victim-Based Morality
I had an interesting concept come up in conversation a few weeks ago. I was talking with a fellow youth minister about the "bullying" situation in our schools and the "knee-jerk" reaction that seems to have followed it. Before I continue, make no mistake, in no way do I ever condone bullying. Bullying in any form is clearly against the love that Christ calls us to show to our fellow man. Period.
But, as a society, have we reacted appropriately? Have we really responded to this problem correctly? By one set of standards, probably yes, we have. But by another, most likely no, we have not.
A teenage boy struggling with homosexual feelings and with the bigger issue of gender/sexual identity is made fun of, persecuted, and perhaps even physically abused at school. What do we do?
A teenage boy struggling with homosexual feelings and with the bigger issue of gender/sexual identity is made fun of, persecuted, and perhaps even physically abused at school. What do we do?
We educate our children on the values of tolerance, expand our textbooks and sex education to include the merits and "normalcy" of homosexual behavior, and, in general, mainstream the "two moms" and "two dads" family situation into our classrooms.
We claim we are responding on behalf of the "victims" each time.
But I see us, as a society, letting victims determine our morality. When we allow victims' rights to dictate the moral statutes of society we are, in essence, letting the tail wag the dog.
Make no mistake- victims of any type of violence should be defended and their persecutors punished justly. But there is a difference between defense of a person (as created in the image of and loved by God) and defense of a person's actions (which may or may not be in image of God and approved by him). We can, and should, punish the actions of the persecutors without necessarily approving of and even pushing the moral agenda of the victim.
And that's the kicker. It's one thing to say, "You should not persecute someone because they are a homosexual." You are protecting the right of the individual to make their own decisions regarding their sexuality (which is possible to do even while disagreeing with them). But it's another thing entirely to say, "You must accept homosexuality as natural and morally acceptable." Now you are taking away from me the very right you are defending for the homosexual- the right to hold personal beliefs and convictions. And this has been the hypocrisy from those pushing the homosexual agenda from the very beginning: they claim to fight in the name of tolerance, but they are only tolerant toward those who agree with them.
The way back to moral wholeness in this country does not begin by allowing whatever action or lifestyle is currently "being bullied" to determine what is "right" and what is "wrong." Even more dangerous, we risk moving the role of the one "wagging the dog" from the victim to the bully! If persecuting someone can bring about a swift change in morality, then we have handed the persecutors all the power and allowed their choice of victim to dictate moral policy.
What is needed is not subjective moral code based on societal trends, but an objective one based on an unchanging moral standard...seems like I have read of one somewhere. Good moral doctrine will always begin the same way...
Make no mistake- victims of any type of violence should be defended and their persecutors punished justly. But there is a difference between defense of a person (as created in the image of and loved by God) and defense of a person's actions (which may or may not be in image of God and approved by him). We can, and should, punish the actions of the persecutors without necessarily approving of and even pushing the moral agenda of the victim.
And that's the kicker. It's one thing to say, "You should not persecute someone because they are a homosexual." You are protecting the right of the individual to make their own decisions regarding their sexuality (which is possible to do even while disagreeing with them). But it's another thing entirely to say, "You must accept homosexuality as natural and morally acceptable." Now you are taking away from me the very right you are defending for the homosexual- the right to hold personal beliefs and convictions. And this has been the hypocrisy from those pushing the homosexual agenda from the very beginning: they claim to fight in the name of tolerance, but they are only tolerant toward those who agree with them.
The way back to moral wholeness in this country does not begin by allowing whatever action or lifestyle is currently "being bullied" to determine what is "right" and what is "wrong." Even more dangerous, we risk moving the role of the one "wagging the dog" from the victim to the bully! If persecuting someone can bring about a swift change in morality, then we have handed the persecutors all the power and allowed their choice of victim to dictate moral policy.
What is needed is not subjective moral code based on societal trends, but an objective one based on an unchanging moral standard...seems like I have read of one somewhere. Good moral doctrine will always begin the same way...
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom...
Proverbs 1:7
Comments