It is said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This phrase is recalled in political discussions, usually used to indicate that government officials can not be trusted, because they are in a position of power and therefore, they must have been corrupted.
However, I think this phrase is wrong. The basic meaning may be correct: as people gain more power, their actions often becomes more corrupt. However, to say that power corrupts means that good people will become corrupted by power: that power is the actual agent of corruption.
Natual man is already corrupt, there is nothing needed to make man corrupt. So power does not cause corruption, but power can expose corruption. As a person gains more power, he find himself less and less under authority (at least, less under human authority) or capable of evading authority (at least, temporarily). With no checks on his behavior, his corruption can reign free with no one able to stop him.
The difference between power corrupting and power allowing corruption is important. If a man is not corrupt (in other words, if he is a Christian and therefore has a new nature), then there is no corruption to be exposed. There might be a temptation to misuse the power, but a Christian has the power, from God, to resist that temptation.
So, in terms of politics, government officials are not necessarily corrupt. Like the rest of us, whether or not they are corrupt depends on their relationship with God.
Monday, February 14, 2011
The Sactity of Life
The headline of a recent article read “Pharmacy Mistakenly Gives Pregnant Woman Abortion Pill” (article found at http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/26761744/detail.html). Most of the story is in the headline, but the details are: a woman who was six-weeks pregnant picked up what were supposed to be antibiotics but turned out to be a drug used for inducing abortions. The mix-up occurred because the abortion pills were intended for another patient with a similar name. Now, the woman is struggling to save her baby.
The story is a tragedy, but it highlights an irony. The woman is trying to save her unborn child from a drug that can function to kill an unborn child. The life of her unborn child is precious to this mother, but in a different circumstance, a mother may take the same pill with the intention of killing her unborn child. For those who may say, “That’s harsh, characterizing a woman taking a pill as a mother attempting to kill her baby,” let me ask, what should it be called? A woman is trying to save the life of her baby from the drug, so a woman taking the drug intentionally is trying to end the life of (in other words, kill) her baby.
But probing deeper, what makes the difference between taking the pill by mistake and taking it intentionally? Why is the life of one child worth struggling to save while the life of another is intentionally discarded? Strangely, the answer is, because of a high regard for life. Not a regard for the life of the child, but a regard for the life of the mother. If the child fits into the mother’s life, the child is precious. If the child does not fit into the mother’s life, it is discarded. This thinking is consistent with humanist thinking: humanists argue that an individual human life should be protected because that life can benefit the progress of the society or the human species. There is no love for the life itself, only for what the life can do for a collective group. It is only a step to take that thinking to, “How can this life benefit me personally?” which leads to mothers killing their unborn children.
I don’t know what the motives of the woman in the article are. Maybe she just wants the child for her own benefit, maybe she genuinely regards the life of the child as sacred. But regardless, secular society views life in terms of utility. This utilitarian view of life stands in stark contrast to the Christian view of life. As the Creator of life, of every human life, God alone can determine when a life should end. God has given instructions for people to bring death to another human being, such as in capital punishment, self-defense, or war, but even in these circumstances, it is not human desire that determines when a life ends, it is human judgment in accordance with God’s will.
While the utilitarian view of life leads to an irony, the Christian view leads to a paradox. If life is sacred to God, why are Christians taught that “whosoever shall lose his life for [Christ’s] sake and the Gospel’s, the same shall save it” (Mark 8:35)? The answer to this paradox is simple: just as life is sacred because it is sacred to God, the life of a saint is only worthwhile if it is lived for God. If a saint dies for God, if a Christian is martyred, God is glorified. That is why Christians view life as sacred to God and yet we are willing to give our lives away for God, because it is all for God’s glory. Secular man lives for the benefit of themselves and that drives their morality. Christians live for the glory of God and that drives our morality.
The story is a tragedy, but it highlights an irony. The woman is trying to save her unborn child from a drug that can function to kill an unborn child. The life of her unborn child is precious to this mother, but in a different circumstance, a mother may take the same pill with the intention of killing her unborn child. For those who may say, “That’s harsh, characterizing a woman taking a pill as a mother attempting to kill her baby,” let me ask, what should it be called? A woman is trying to save the life of her baby from the drug, so a woman taking the drug intentionally is trying to end the life of (in other words, kill) her baby.
But probing deeper, what makes the difference between taking the pill by mistake and taking it intentionally? Why is the life of one child worth struggling to save while the life of another is intentionally discarded? Strangely, the answer is, because of a high regard for life. Not a regard for the life of the child, but a regard for the life of the mother. If the child fits into the mother’s life, the child is precious. If the child does not fit into the mother’s life, it is discarded. This thinking is consistent with humanist thinking: humanists argue that an individual human life should be protected because that life can benefit the progress of the society or the human species. There is no love for the life itself, only for what the life can do for a collective group. It is only a step to take that thinking to, “How can this life benefit me personally?” which leads to mothers killing their unborn children.
I don’t know what the motives of the woman in the article are. Maybe she just wants the child for her own benefit, maybe she genuinely regards the life of the child as sacred. But regardless, secular society views life in terms of utility. This utilitarian view of life stands in stark contrast to the Christian view of life. As the Creator of life, of every human life, God alone can determine when a life should end. God has given instructions for people to bring death to another human being, such as in capital punishment, self-defense, or war, but even in these circumstances, it is not human desire that determines when a life ends, it is human judgment in accordance with God’s will.
While the utilitarian view of life leads to an irony, the Christian view leads to a paradox. If life is sacred to God, why are Christians taught that “whosoever shall lose his life for [Christ’s] sake and the Gospel’s, the same shall save it” (Mark 8:35)? The answer to this paradox is simple: just as life is sacred because it is sacred to God, the life of a saint is only worthwhile if it is lived for God. If a saint dies for God, if a Christian is martyred, God is glorified. That is why Christians view life as sacred to God and yet we are willing to give our lives away for God, because it is all for God’s glory. Secular man lives for the benefit of themselves and that drives their morality. Christians live for the glory of God and that drives our morality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
