However, the concept of dignity should be near the heart
of every believer. Whether we talk about it in terms of “sanctity of life,”
“human rights,” or “basic dignity,” there is nearly universal consensus that
human life is worth something. For those of us that believe that humanity is
designed in the image of loving, just, Creator God, we should hold to this
conviction even more seriously. However, these brief paragraphs are not
intended to determine whether or not human life is valuable, instead it is to
ask the question of “How do we value human life?”
Clearly we respect human life at its most basic level by
preventing human death. This can be achieved through life-saving medical
interventions, automotive safety technology, laws that prevent the taking of
life, decisive action in dangerous situations, or, some would even argue, by
even the taking of life itself as preventative or defensive measure in the
cases of war, lethal self-defense (or defense of other) and capital punishment
(however, we will not debate this point here). This most basic level of respect
for life forms the foundation of the laws of many free nations and the personal
ethics of the majority of our world’s citizens. Among believers, we extend this
principle to our eternal lives. We believe that in addition to protecting this
physical life here on earth, we must also engage in the prevention of eternal
spiritual death. We believe that we have the responsibility to protect a
person’s eternal life just as much as we have the obligation to protect a
physical one (although it would appear that very few view these
responsibilities with the same level of urgency). Beyond this, I would argue
that the majority of us do not believe that respect for life ends at this most
primitive stage.
Our nation’s (and many other nations’) laws also
recognize that freedom of a life to make consequential decisions is a critical
and undeniable form of respect for human life. Many a poet, artist, songwriter,
filmmaker, legislator, and online forum commentator has declared passionately
and repeatedly that he/she would rather die than forsake freedom. Few would
argue that any person or group of people has the right to freely oppress
another without due process of a law that reflects the decisions of the
majority. Constitutions and laws are written with the very purpose of
protecting this natural and nearly-unanimous consensus that we value human life
by valuing its freedom to decision, always within the boundaries established by
the majority.*
However, it seems that for the most part, that the
shouting hallelujah stops at this level of respect for life among Christians.
From my experience, it would appear that once we have protected life from death
and that we have allowed a life to experience liberty and make choices, we have
afforded it all of the value that we could possibly provide it. I would argue
that this is not the point at which our respect for life ends. When we fail to
treat one another with dignity and respect, we have failed to respect life.
I am not the first person to feel this way. I am
certainly not even among the first million or ten million people to feel this
way. This thought is not a unique thought to a twenty-something, Caucasian
male. However, I do feel that even though many of us may feel this way, very
few invest the time in thought about how this belief might translate into
action. Even fewer bother with the actual work of translation.
Why am I spending time on this topic? Why am I all of
sudden writing like some young, entitled, self-empowered blogger? I write this
way because I am often deeply bothered by the lack of respect and dignity that
I see expressed from my North American brothers to our Central American family
of believers. For some reason, all of the condescending thoughts and comments
that we have spent the past 50 years erasing, suppressing, and preventing from
the racial conversation in the United States seem too often to find an outlet
in the way we think and respond to our Central American brothers. The very same
people that one minute rail against the US welfare system, racial injustice, or
the importance of equality seem to have those feelings and convictions slip
from their brains, out their ears, and into the dirt at their feet once they
are in the context of material poverty. People that would never in a million
years say or think that somebody could not achieve incredible things despite
the incredible difficulty of their present circumstance are suddenly thinking
things like….
“But it is just so extreme. I can’t imagine that they
could ever get out of this situation without someone (like me) giving them a
hand.”
When we find ourselves thinking in this way. Let us
please stop and ask ourselves what is really going on. Let us really stop and
ask ourselves if we are valuing that person’s life and their potential. Let us
evaluate whether we believe that Christ and the hope in Him that we carry
within us is enough to help us achieve unity, love, grace, and peace in this
world. Let us be honest with ourselves and recognize that our pride has wormed
us once again into the place of Savior, and then let us be honest with
ourselves and humbly recognize that we are not that Savior.
I do not advocate for an end to love for the materially
poor, down-and-out, and broken of heart and wallet (as some might feel). To the
contrary, I would ask that we love them more than we do now. I would ask that
we spend lavishly on them with our time and respect, not just our material
resources. We have to learn to focus on not just raising walls, but raising
self-esteem, dignity, and the value of each human life. Infrastructure
projects, training, and example are all pieces of the puzzle, but they are not
the whole picture. The whole picture is that of the healthy church. The body
that grows and is edified. That reaches out a hand to the broken and sees that
person with respect. Eyes that not only look upon with compassion and charity,
but with hope and the belief of the capacity of that individual in Christ.
*(I would here add
that we as believers must be incredibly careful with this particular
philosophy, recognizing that the political ability to choose does not
inherently mean that we have the right to expand our faith or moral boundaries
to represent the common consensus. We must always submit ourselves first to the
Word of God, then to our government. Just because a law allows for a certain
behavior does not mean we automatically have the right or obligation to engage in
or condone it).
I'm sorry to say that I do not understand the point of this post. It's writing style is so diffused that, unless I already know your mind, I cannot follow your points. Perhaps some EXAMPLES of what exactly you're criticizing would be in order. I can make no sense of this word salad. Sorry.
ReplyDelete