George and Liam were driving down the 417 on their way to Toronto for a guys only weekend. They got a Toronto Blue Jays game and spent the day at the Toronto Zoo; and if they had the time, they said they would attempt standing on the CN Tower’s glass floor, 1,815.4 feet from street level, without causing any early discharge of bodily fluids. (I'm not sure if they accomplished that daring endeavour!)
For some people a 6 hr. car ride is not the most entertaining part of any trip; however for these two men things were different; although entertaining would not be the best word to use, rather, intense better describes their conversation. There is an old word of wisdom that advises for any conversation to be civil, it is best to leave the topics of religion and politics alone! In other words, when driving down the road at highway speed talk about anything: sports, science, music - heck why not play a rousing game of ‘I Spy’, anything, just don’t talk about religion or politics. Well, what kind of conversation do you think you’ll get when you talk about both religion and politics? ANSWER: An interesting one, hence the intensity on the 417 that day.
Now, George and Liam are both Bible believing, evangelical, Jesus worshiping Christians; at the core of their beliefs there is agreement, however, as the expression goes - The Devil’s in the Details - there is strong disagreement among them. The heat on their conversation was cranked way up when the issue of Christian values being imposed onto a secular society came up. Liam believed that as a Christian values such as sexuality within marriage should be lobbied in the political realm. George however believes “ to make secular society follow Biblical principles” as he would word it, is wrong. He then asks Liam his views on the idea of a Muslim politician lobbing for Sharia Law and winning; this caused Liam to cringe. George then concludes that the Muslim and every non-Christian, and even many Christians would not appreciate being forced to adhere to Christian values. George concluded his point with: “A politician, may they be Christian or Mormon or Muslim or Jew, etc. should leave their views at home and in their places of worship and be secular at the office as they are governing a secular society.”
There are two things that need to be said at this point. First, is it actually possible for someone to leave their worldview at home? No. Everyone’s actions may it be how they treat the cashier at the store, or how they do their job or how they parent their children is affected by their worldview. A politician is going to make advice, advance bills, develop political relationships and so on, and ultimately run their own work ethic in accordance with how their individual worldview requires them to act. A politician for example whose convictions is sex within marriage will propose a bill or at least be in support of one that will legally promote the Christian value; conversely a politician who is not in support of such an action will not support such a bill, but advance a bill that is in contradiction to it.
Political laws and personal convictions are founded on morality and the tenets of one’s morality is founded on a worldview. Societies and people as individuals support, allow or speak out against behaviors based on what their worldview says is right and wrong. As a Christian I am in support of religious freedom and freedom of expression; and if this ever came under attack I would defend it. I support this as not only benefits me as a member of a free society but I believe in the opportunity for everyone to freely worship who and or whatever they believe in. And for the same reason I am against sexual practice outside of marriage; and if I had the chance I would vote against it; however I am in favor of keeping the state out of people’s consensually based sex lives. I will assert that sexual promiscuous behavior is a practice in stupidity and should be discouraged, but I will also support people’s right to be stupid.
Second, based on the fact that societies and individual people run in accordance with morality one has to ask: “What worldview and associated set values should a person and a society run on?” Why not 'love' as most people subscribe to the concept of loving thy neighbour. However as atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett would point out a concept of something is just that - a concept[i].There is a difference between the concept of loving one’s neighbour and actually loving them; the former is love in he abstract, while the latter is actualized love. What is actualized love? Paul alludes to the answer in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8. Even though many people agree in applying love in their lives, it is the application of applying love that many people differ on. Many of the facets of Paul’s description of love, such as patience, meekness, kindness and selflessness (vs. 4-5) are all facets that most people would agree with; however Paul also asserts that love “...does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” (vs. 6) This too everyone will put their name beside in support of however the issue of what is evil and the truth is where dividing lines are drawn.
For the sake of continuity let’s resurrect the example given above: secular values on sexual practice. The Christian view of sexual practice is sexuality within marriage. So the act of “getting laid” would be ‘evil’ according to Scripture. This then means that it would be an act of love to discourage it, which means imposing it on other people who perhaps hold to different views. However the act of imposing one's views onto others is in itself considered by many to be unloving.
What is 'the truth' of sexuality outside of marriage and thus is imposing the Christian value onto unbelievers really unloving? The effects of extra marital sexual practice is potentially harmful both physically, economically and socially. STD's is a significant viability in sexual promiscuity, as is unwanted pregnancies. Even in a sexually active committed dating relationship, between two persons unwanted pregnancies is a viable outcome. Unwanted pregnancies has grave effects on the sociality and financial lives of the ill-prepared parents causing the possibility of irrational decisions being made, such as abortion and keeping the child when simply they are not ready for the responsibility. Of course the unequipped parent can always put their child up for adoption; but that merely transfers the financial burden onto the state for as long as the child is in its care. It would be ill-advised to make a pronouncement on the effect of the adoptee as there are many cases of well adjusted children who were adopted and harmed children who were with their biological birth parents; and visa-versa. So adoption, although a loving act, is generally not the best.
What effect would there be on society if Biblical sexual practice was promoted and encouraged? A significant one! If society discourages extra marital sexual practice, pregnancies will come to pass in a setting that is designed to take care of the child; ergo there will be much less unwanted pregnancies thus much less abortions, children being put into ‘the adoption system’ and children in single parented homes. And regarding the practice of sexual promiscuity such a practice effectively promotes STDs; sexuality within marriage would virtually vito the viability of STDs in someone’s life. So sexual practice within marriage is not just a Biblical concept, its common sense.
What is 'the truth' of sexuality outside of marriage and thus is imposing the Christian value onto unbelievers really unloving? The effects of extra marital sexual practice is potentially harmful both physically, economically and socially. STD's is a significant viability in sexual promiscuity, as is unwanted pregnancies. Even in a sexually active committed dating relationship, between two persons unwanted pregnancies is a viable outcome. Unwanted pregnancies has grave effects on the sociality and financial lives of the ill-prepared parents causing the possibility of irrational decisions being made, such as abortion and keeping the child when simply they are not ready for the responsibility. Of course the unequipped parent can always put their child up for adoption; but that merely transfers the financial burden onto the state for as long as the child is in its care. It would be ill-advised to make a pronouncement on the effect of the adoptee as there are many cases of well adjusted children who were adopted and harmed children who were with their biological birth parents; and visa-versa. So adoption, although a loving act, is generally not the best.
What effect would there be on society if Biblical sexual practice was promoted and encouraged? A significant one! If society discourages extra marital sexual practice, pregnancies will come to pass in a setting that is designed to take care of the child; ergo there will be much less unwanted pregnancies thus much less abortions, children being put into ‘the adoption system’ and children in single parented homes. And regarding the practice of sexual promiscuity such a practice effectively promotes STDs; sexuality within marriage would virtually vito the viability of STDs in someone’s life. So sexual practice within marriage is not just a Biblical concept, its common sense.
So what sort of version of love should be promoted upon society? ANSWER: The truly loving kind - the Christian kind. This should be done irregardless of the many millions of people who hold to non Christian values. Let’s not separate Christ from his creation, but rather reunite it with him.
_____________________
[i] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQGuDZ-dCjQ - accessed February 10, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment