Moral behavior is typically defined not so narrowly as merely being upright or religiously pious. Rather, moral behavior (key word: “behavior”) is more accurately defined as acting in such a way as to benefit one’s own environment. It is not enough to simply live right and mind one’s own business and let things happen as they will because evil is pervasive and is far more powerful than even righteous people are willing to acknowledge. We tend to live according to our own dictates and never mind anyone else. What we fail to acknowledge is that by our immoral silence, we grant implicit approval to all that we see which is evil by failing to stand against it. Just being opposed to such evil is no action at all; it is nothing more than an opinion.
Often, however, we can feel a little overwhelmed by all that surrounds us and come to believe that we are powerless to confront what we know in our own hearts to be just plain wrong. We learn to live within the environment of “wrong” and submit ourselves to a certain reality that we cannot tolerate but also feel powerless to do anything about. It is this very attitude that has allowed such things which we find objectionable to become the norm, the rule rather than the exception.
The late Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority which played a key role in the election of the late President Ronald Reagan attempted to confront what it considered to be a serious “back sliding” of moral life in America by trying to play its hand in the political process. I suppose it was a good idea in its conception, but the movement eventually faded in the American landscape because it became more of an imposition of certain religious values rather than a living example. Abortion and divorce, two social examples (or evidence) of “wrong”, continued unabated even among evangelical Christians. It was not long before the “hypocrite” label was not only attached but was able to stick because such a crowd demanded moral behavior from others but failed to live by its own example, its own values and beliefs. Under such circumstances, it is impossible to convince anyone that such “right” behavior has any value at all. “Do as I say, not as I do” goes about as far in public life as it does with raising our children.
But who gets to say what is right and what is wrong? Christians insists that they have an inherent right to dictate the difference between right and wrong according to their own traditions because this is a “Christian nation”, but they fail to acknowledge that not all who come to this country – or are already here – subscribe to Christian teachings. For that matter, as stated earlier, even Christians fail to live by the teachings of the One whom they call “Savior”. Truly, speaking as a Christian, it is much easier said than done.
As “moral behavior” goes, it might be easier for all of us – regardless of religious background (or lack thereof) – to “first do no harm”. Even Christian teachings insist that if our behavior causes any sort of distress, even as we live in the liberty of Christ and are practicing what we believe to be our religion, that we are to refrain from such behavior out of consideration for others. This sort of concept is pretty far-reaching and encompasses a great deal. Would it suggest that we refrain from practicing our religion altogether if it upsets others? Only insofar as our practice or behavior interferes with others and their right to refrain, in their own pursuit of happiness, from such practices. There is nothing easy about it because there has to be a cut-off point where we can decide that others just need to “get over it”.
It’s not always as easy, as some would insist, to do the right thing because of the differences in opinion and practice and tradition that uniquely exists in America. We Christians would do well, however, to keep an eye out toward others and never mind our own rights or our own happiness. After all, if we really believe in the fundamental tenets of our own faith, we would recognize that the One whom we call “Savior” came not for His own sake but, rather, for the sake of others. It can certainly be said that He lived “right” without interfering with others. The trick is to find and maintain the balance. I’m afraid that I lack the knowledge, insight, or apostolic authority necessary to advise. Suffice it to say that until we can become more like what we are called to be, it might be best that we remain silent.
1 comment:
It's worth noting that Jesus espoused a very moral lifestyle, but never advocated the use of government force to compel people to live that lifestyle.
For example, he said that the rich should give to the poor, but he never mugged rich people and gave their money to the poor.
Let the followers of Christ go and do likewise.
Post a Comment