Commentaries
|
 The Imago Dei and Liberalism One Needs the OtherIs modern liberalism sawing off the branch it’s sitting on? Find out what I mean, next on BreakPoint. Listen Now | Download
You’ve heard me say this before on BreakPoint, and it’s a point I will keep coming back to. The concepts of human rights and liberty as we know them can all be traced back to one history-changing idea; an idea that began with God’s revelation to the Jews and was brought to the world by the Christian Church. And that’s the Imago Dei, the idea that man is made in the image of God. In fact, it was the Christian concept of the Imago Dei that conquered pagan Rome. The Christians said that women, slaves, children, all had eternal value. Talk about revolutionary! This belief in the value of every human eventually gave rise to classic liberalism (which emphasizes individual freedom) and to Western liberal democracy. Even the great classical liberal philosophers, Locke, Kant, Humboldt, all acknowledged the West’s indebtedness to Christianity and its principles. It’s no coincidence that the greatest document of human liberty ever written, the Declaration of Independence, states that it is self-evident that “all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights--among these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” But somewhere along the line, modern liberalism lost its way. Modern liberalism has not only enshrined individual freedom and autonomy as the ultimate good, but it has rejected the Christian foundation on which rights and liberty rest. That is self-defeating. Remember, Christianity, while recognizing the real but limited authority of government, always recognized individual freedom in the context of community; and as community members, individuals had certain responsibilities and live within a defined moral framework. When you remove that Christian moral framework as modern liberalism does, what do you have left? A situation, as theologian Michael Novak recently explained in a brilliant Weekly Standard Article, where “There is no universal moral law of reason or religion and the value choices of individuals trump everything.” That’s exactly the thinking behind Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s absurd statement that “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” That is the natural conclusion of modern liberalism. My choices become my rights. But it is false. And it is dangerous. Because who, in the end, decides between the competing claims of individuals? That’s right, the state. And we see it in the news every day. Religious freedom, just for example, is being trampled under the onslaught of new-found individual “rights.” We see it in the gay “marriage” debate, we see it in the health care debate, where Christian medical professionals are forced to provide services that violate their religious beliefs. Folks, here is the point, one that you have to be able to explain to others. I talk about it more today on my Two Minute Warning at Colson Center.org. By rejecting Christianity and its moral framework, Western liberal democracies are in grave peril of collapsing upon themselves. They will no longer be able to preserve human rights and liberties. What comes next is tyranny. I will be talking a lot about this in the coming months. But today, please go to the Two Minute Warning at ColsonCenter.org for more on this critical topic. Further Reading and Information
Two-Minute Warning: Indebted, Indeed |
Discover more: Search our family of websites.
PRINT
RSS
Comments:
If you prefer not to follow the rules, you're most welcome to start a site of your own where anyone may say what he or she pleases.
Something to ponder.
There is, however, the rather obvious danger of overly zealous and misguided censorship.
A lot of philosophical claims about morality are made here at BreakPoint. It is a legitimate question whether the authors of these claims (including Chuck Colson himself) have sufficient competency for making these claims. For many such authors, we can find plenty of reasons for concluding that there is a lack of competence. A strong argument to this effect might be made.
But are we allowed to hear such arguments? Is this a question we are even allowed to openly consider here? Gina suggests that we are not so allowed. Is this because it is irrelevant whether BreakPoint authors are competent to make sweeping claims about moral philosophy? No, it is apparently rather because it wouldn't be "civil" to investigate this question--just as, I suppose, it wouldn't be "civil" to examine whether or not a group of engineers is competent enough to build a school building.
God help us.
Let me now make a more general observation. If Chuck Colson's ministry faces a danger, it is not a danger of incivility. It is a danger of insufficient accountability for the views being expressed and disseminated. Beware, therefore, of dismissing greater accountability under the guise of maintaining civility.
The fact is, I already know that he can't answer these questions. This is because he's taken an indefensible position.
Please notice: this is not "name-calling". This is calling Philip out for making indefensible claims.
http://www.breakpoint.org/tp-home/comment-policy
Whether a company mistreats its workers or uses child labor or abuses the environment beyond any reasonable standard, some individual or individuals made that happen. Unless you believe that those people are infallible, you can't defend the proposition that they shouldn't be reined in and that they ought to be above criticism.
If we believe in a high standard of individual behavior, why would that not apply to individuals whose bad behavior negatively affects many other people? Why grant immunity to them but not to others?
Obviously, nobody can argue with a call for responsible conduct by individuals. But it's hard not to question the sincerity--or at least consistency--of people who attack individual behavior they don't agree with but say we should be hands off when it comes to corporations. That kind of moral inconsistency is indefensible.