Initially, the class discussion yesterday surprised me. I thought, "How on earth could these kids, who are just like me, think that we have right to happiness?" Oh boy, I exposed two major flaws in my thought process. The first one is a no-brainer, none of these students are exactly like me. Yes, by and large we will have many similarities, but who am I to say, “He must think like me”? And, for that I apologize. Next, my faulty assumption on this matter reflected a more general observation that intrigued me: Should we focus our attentions on the right of happiness, or should we focus on the right of righteousness. Through the course of the discussion, happiness became defined as a consequence of joy. I argue that joy is a consequence of righteousness and thus righteousness (godly living) should be our focal point. In fact, Paul spends the majority of his letters speaking on righteousness, not happiness!
If righteousness is our focal point, then the discussion forgoes the “human right to happiness”—which for all intensive purposes doesn’t really matter much (to me)—and dives into Mr. A and Mrs. B’s lack of righteousness. C. S. Lewis expresses this point when he said, “It is an offense against honesty…against good faith…against gratitude…and against common humanity.” Now, God designed righteousness to bring happiness, but we are not guaranteed either. We are not guaranteed these because we chose, everyday, to resist what we know to be good and true, which brings a natural consequence of unhappiness.
I think you have a point in focusing on righteousness. But I also understand the inherent flaw in the statement of "right" in application to happiness. What I found most disturbing was Mr. A's lack of remorse over the suicide his selfish divorce caused Mrs. A to commit. The lack of shame, however, on the part of Mr. A and Mrs. B left me floored, and so I feel that righteousness is indeed the key to solving the underlying cause.
ReplyDelete