Who Says

"Who says you can’t get stoned?" What an iconic question from John Mayer. I admire his boldness, yet it is a slippery slope of an inquiry. Mayer's lyric sums up the mainstream thought of many in this culture: "Who says we can't do this or be that?" Modern minds are trained to be triggered by any sniff of authority claiming they should follow a prescribed direction or authoritative command. To impose commands or beliefs on an individual is to infringe upon being themselves.

Yet those same minds have hearts that demand justice be served, oppression be obliterated, and compassion be spread. This generation is consumed with changing social inequalities, challenging governmental systems, and bringing down abusive predators. Cries for vindication and marches for certain human rights crowd Twitter and fill the streets. Everyone has a cause or movement they objectively fight for, and this requires imposing the need for that cause or movement on others.

How can those two streams be merged? There is a lack of consistency to inwardly reject infringing claims of truth but outwardly insist that justice must be forced upon the oppressors and love extended to the oppressed. "Who says I have to be loving?" "Who says I can’t be a racist?" "Who says I cannot exploit others?" In the reigning logic of our culture there is no clear answer here except to ignore the foundation of why people can and cannot "be" or "do" while demanding that people can or cannot "be" or "do."

This kind of worldview leads to a theoretical ambiguity that sharply contradicts how life is lived. The vast majority in our society affirm that ideas and actions such as murder, child abuse,  racism, etc. are morally wrong; it is agreed upon that heinous crimes like these are assaults on human rights, but what constitutes morality and where do human rights originate? Unfortunately, this cultural generation must rely upon how they feel, what the latest media outrage is, and the sway of society’s emotional needle to justify their activism against real problems, real tragedy, and real evil. 

Think about the hypocrisy within colleges and universities which require most students to complete hard and soft (social) science courses. In an 8 AM biology class, professors explain the universe and its inhabitants are nothing more than random chemical reactions resulting in the guideless splattering of evolving matter. No ultimate difference is given between the human and the centipede; we are simply just a species among the species. After this fifty minute lecture, students wander across the hall to a 9 AM U.S. History class; Here, accounts such as the trail of tears, racial injustice, and American involvement in armed conflicts are discussed and critiqued. Professors and pupils declare some of the acts of humans in these accounts are wrong, oppressive, and unjust. Is there any consistency here?

Why should one species (humans) who are just a species among species be concerned with how the species weed each other out? Is this not the same as a pride of lions or silverback gorillas playing survival of the fittest? If the predominant worldview states that people are nothing but mutated matter and just a species among others then yes, there is no distinction between animals ripping each other apart and humans oppressing each other. Though many believe and teach this worldview, practically nobody lives it. People groan and weep over hurt and tragedy. There is something that connects in the mind and rises up in the heart to react against humanity’s mistreatment. Just like the American history professor, our society points out the abuse and harm in the coexisting of people across history, but what in the world is this claim of wrongdoing grounded in? “Who says?”

Friend, there must be a clear answer to the foundation of human justice, dignity, and worth, or there is no reason to hold humans to those “rights.” This generation is outspoken about wrong, but what claim do they have on what they call right? The question is essential to have a meaningful stance against anything or to claim to have a stance at all. C.S Lewis, a 20th century christian scholar, while wrestling with these concepts and the existence of God wrote this: 

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.”

If these questions have intrigued you, read on to the next article in this series on apologetics. My hope is to offer an answer to this question, and explore the straight line that exposes this world’s crookedness.