Value Systems and Justice
Perhaps one of the fundamental challenges of transforming a society toward justice is transforming its system of values from functional to ontological. I think South Korea suffers from a wealth, power, and status oriented value system, coupled with a sense of entitlement rather than responsibility that lets human life be so undervalued in some specific cases but not in others. Justice asks the question why is it this case and not the other case?
In the functional view human beings become part of a cost benefit analysis, and are only valuable if (in the Korean case for example) they can make it through a competitive society to a university and then get a job in accordance with the degree earned. I've noticed sometimes I have bought into this view. Changing this view takes more than simple declaration, but a careful watchfulness of one's own thoughts. I hope people at my church do this.
We as a church not only need to treat people with value but actually think about them with value. That means all people. God is the ultimate ontological value system believer because he is the ontological reason for human value, and he saved what he considered sinful and clearly functionally broken humans.
One might ask why do we give some preference to Christians instead of non-Christians? What makes them ontologically more valuable than non-Christians. I think this is a challenging question that needs an answer. This is actually specifically a question raised by a friend of mine in my men's small group. If we say we will not date non-Christians, doesn't that say we value them less? We base our view on function rather than intrinsic image of the living God.
I might propose that ultimately valuing Christians is valuing a source of ontological value systems which would spread the system bringing about the overall belief which may ultimately benefit all human life however, as the World Vision case too illustrates we have to be more careful.
Are there practical limits to an ontological value system? I think perhaps in one sense we must say no, but the apparent limits to this system are held within truth. Truth seems in a certain sense pragmatic, but actually has an ontological basis. If God's image contains truthfulness we must be at work to help restore a proper concept of truth in others, because this shows we value God's image in them so much we want it to be full and restored. In the case of dating a non-Christian, why might we say that we should not do it? Perhaps we would say it misrepresents God's truth, and character. Dating a non-Christian could lead to a belief that they are fine without God, Jesus or salvation, or that God lovingly embraces rebellion against him when there is no repentance and faith in Christ. There is a difference between a seeking love and an accepting love.
The World Vision case proved this. That case asked the question what do we value more: a professing Christian Organization being close to the truth in a way that causes people to see it and repent of their sin, or directly saving human lives by feeding them giving them a chance to hear the Gospel? The effects of spiritual choices in cases like this one are hard to measure. Perhaps the precedent World Vision sets might lead the children kept alive to have spurious reasons for believing falsely that God endorses homosexuality and that they can live that lifestyle as a Christian meaning their lives are saved but perhaps they may end up going to hell. Perhaps the idea that the best life is the one where people go to heaven is functionalist but a good life lived actually has value that God appreciates aside from explicitly worshipping him balances this out? I don't know.
What I have put here is more of a brief reflection rather than technical treatise, but I think this topic bears more thought. It is not easy to navigate these issues.
In the functional view human beings become part of a cost benefit analysis, and are only valuable if (in the Korean case for example) they can make it through a competitive society to a university and then get a job in accordance with the degree earned. I've noticed sometimes I have bought into this view. Changing this view takes more than simple declaration, but a careful watchfulness of one's own thoughts. I hope people at my church do this.
We as a church not only need to treat people with value but actually think about them with value. That means all people. God is the ultimate ontological value system believer because he is the ontological reason for human value, and he saved what he considered sinful and clearly functionally broken humans.
One might ask why do we give some preference to Christians instead of non-Christians? What makes them ontologically more valuable than non-Christians. I think this is a challenging question that needs an answer. This is actually specifically a question raised by a friend of mine in my men's small group. If we say we will not date non-Christians, doesn't that say we value them less? We base our view on function rather than intrinsic image of the living God.
I might propose that ultimately valuing Christians is valuing a source of ontological value systems which would spread the system bringing about the overall belief which may ultimately benefit all human life however, as the World Vision case too illustrates we have to be more careful.
Are there practical limits to an ontological value system? I think perhaps in one sense we must say no, but the apparent limits to this system are held within truth. Truth seems in a certain sense pragmatic, but actually has an ontological basis. If God's image contains truthfulness we must be at work to help restore a proper concept of truth in others, because this shows we value God's image in them so much we want it to be full and restored. In the case of dating a non-Christian, why might we say that we should not do it? Perhaps we would say it misrepresents God's truth, and character. Dating a non-Christian could lead to a belief that they are fine without God, Jesus or salvation, or that God lovingly embraces rebellion against him when there is no repentance and faith in Christ. There is a difference between a seeking love and an accepting love.
The World Vision case proved this. That case asked the question what do we value more: a professing Christian Organization being close to the truth in a way that causes people to see it and repent of their sin, or directly saving human lives by feeding them giving them a chance to hear the Gospel? The effects of spiritual choices in cases like this one are hard to measure. Perhaps the precedent World Vision sets might lead the children kept alive to have spurious reasons for believing falsely that God endorses homosexuality and that they can live that lifestyle as a Christian meaning their lives are saved but perhaps they may end up going to hell. Perhaps the idea that the best life is the one where people go to heaven is functionalist but a good life lived actually has value that God appreciates aside from explicitly worshipping him balances this out? I don't know.
What I have put here is more of a brief reflection rather than technical treatise, but I think this topic bears more thought. It is not easy to navigate these issues.
Comments