Principle.
“Question:
A woman who is divorced, has 5 children by different fathers, drains everyone around her financially and physically, finds herself pregnant again. The baby is born, and the doctor asks…’Do you want to get your tubes tied?” How many of you would scream “YES!–Given this circumstance, that’s the best thing.’ “
Or is it? It’s not about birth control…it’s about a principle of allowing immorality.
Principle. A generally regarded truth or law from which comes the basis of our reasoning. (Doing the right thing, regardless of circumstances.)
We used to be a people, a nation of principle. Even those who did not proclaim the Lord lived by a certain order of principle.
I’m not talking about opinions, or personal convictions…I’m talking about a recognition that there is, within the universe, a law of truth and right. And holding to that truth even when the circumstances aren’t convenient.
Yes, we used to be a nation of principle. But we are fast becoming a nation of relativism. And let me tell you, THIS MATTERS.
People of principle know how to do the hard thing. Relativism gives me an “out” in just about every situation. But relativism destroys the very foundations of truth…and when truth is destroyed, we become a people of anarchy.
Making personal decisions based on one’s circumstances is fine and necessary, but it has boundaries of right and wrong.
Remove the boundaries, and we have a society full of people who make the rules up as they go–usually to their own beneift–which is a simple definition of relativism. There is no longer an undergirding principle, a standard of right and wrong against which we can hold up our actions and measure them.
You can see this phenomenon especially in the homosexual movement. When society held the principle (based on Scripture, as any true principle is) that homosexuality violates the basic structure of marriage and is a harmful institution, then to practice homosexuality was sodomy, just as the Bible declares it.
But along comes “freedom”…and the distorted definitions of freedom said “to each his own”.
Little by little, when principle is removed, it erodes every security, every foundation, and every brace that holds up a people.
When we make decisions based on only what seems to best fit a circumstance, regardless of the violation of a basic principle, we unleash a tidal wave of disaster.
On a large scale, we see things like a whole society accepting abortion as a viable means to end a life. Next, we end up discussing whether euthansia is acceptable. (Killing people who are either sick, maimed, or debilitated in some way.) What happens after that? Who decides how “valuable” a person is to society? At what point will we order the execution of a person if he can no longer contribute to the state’s economy? Don’t think it too far-fetched. Would our fore-fathers ever have imagined Roe vs. Wade?
But on a smaller scale…this is what sends me over the top. We (Christians, generally speaking) want to see the above mentioned things dissappear, not realizing that we could be guilty of contributing to the slippery slope that got us there.
Question:
A woman who is divorced, has 5 children by different fathers, drains everyone around her financially and physically, finds herself pregnant again.
The baby is born, and the doctor asks…”Do you want to get your tubes tied?”
How many of you would scream “YES!–Given this circumstance, that’s the best thing.”
That’s an example of relativism. See, the issue is not getting her tubes tied. The issue is that we are really saying she should be allowed to live immorally without any consequences. Is that OK? In any situation?
Oh it’s the easiest thing, it’s even the logical thing. But is it the right thing?
Let’s apply the same reasoning to another situation.
A man is behind on his bills and can’t keep a job. His family needs food, so he decides to break into your house, steal your money and buy food for his family. So, since this is a special circumstance (his family is hungry, after all), everyone agrees that you should turn off your burglar alarm to allow him access without getting caught.
Well? Why not?
Because we still hold to a princple that stealing is wrong–no matter what.
But in the earlier scenario, we can see that people no longer really hold a strict view of immorality. They are willing to turn their head to her “personal decision”. It’s only when it affects me that I become more concerned with principle.
This is a deep one. But I keep running into these situations where I hear Christians falling into “spiritual relativism”, and it is disturbing.
What do you think?
