My eye is twitching again

If I never hear this phrase again it’ll be too soon

I don’t know why I let it bother me so much, but I do.

I’ll tell you what I liken it to. When I was a kid, my parents introduced me to the old Pink Panther movies. No, not the cartoon ones with an actual pink panther. I’m talking about the ones that starred bumbling detective Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau. So many laughs watching scenes from those movies with my mom and dad, Granny and Grandpa, like this one:

Well anyway, there was a character in those films named Chief Inspector Dreyfus. He was so annoyed by Clouseau, so fed up with his antics, so frustrated that he had to work with him, that he developed an aggressive eye twitch that would be triggered by the mere mention of Clouseau’s name.

THAT’S the kind of annoyance I’m talking about. It’s happening to me again, and I’m convinced a few more times of hearing the phrase, “the right side of history,” and it’s going to spread to the other eye too. Even vague, passing references to it get my blood churning. Like this:

Curtis Houck @CurtisHouck

Jen Psaki on if India accepts Russian oil at a reduced costs: "[T]hink about where you want to stand when the history books are written in this moment in time, and support for the Russian leadership is support for an invasion that obviously is having a devastating impact."

“Where you want to stand when the history books are written” is perilously close to the threat so often murmured in our culture that we had all better be on the “right side of history.”

Let’s start with the simple reality that different authors with different perspectives will offer different accounts of various moments and figures in history. Trying to gauge your conduct or your national policy based off some prophetic calculation as to what the majority of those writers will think about an issue in 30 years is a mind-numbing, worthless and fruitless exercise.

How do I know? The United States was once joined at the hip with Stalin’s Soviet Union. With the blood of somewhere around 40-million of his own countrymen on his hands, it’s hard to say that the side with Stalin is ever the “right side” of anything. Of course, in case you don’t remember, what was the alternative at that time? Hitler. Was his the “right side” of history?

Or is it possible that the premise of such a phrase rejects the nuances of life in a fallen world and therefore is just a dumb thing to say?

Appealing to the “right side of history” is tiresome, but it’s also a gimmick and ploy used by far too many people in their vain attempt to exert some kind of moral judgment while simultaneously pretending to reject moral authority. In fact, as my eye twitch grows stronger here thinking about it, the pitiful phrase is actually destructive as it once again teaches us to idolize the mind of man and his latest philosophical fad.

In actuality, contrary to the implications of this sloganeering, history is amoral and has no sides. History is not God. God alone is God. History is merely a record of sides that were taken by fallen humans.

According to Scripture, which provides us the only objective basis upon which to determine right from wrong, good from bad, true from false, yes from no, there are two choices – God’s side and Satan’s side. Therefore the phrase, “the right side of history” is at best meaningless, or at worst idolatrous, as I mentioned earlier.

Concerning oneself with being on history’s right side implies a need for us to consider how we will be regarded by those who come after us. But to a Biblical mind, we know that the days ahead will not be ones marked by universal acceptance of the truth of the Gospel of Christ (2 Timothy 4:4-6). We know that we are not to seek after the applause of man, but that of heaven (John 12:43). We know the ways that seem right to man lead to death (Proverbs 14:12). We know that the heart, above all, is deceitful and will lead us to embrace thoughts, ideas, and movements that feed the cravings of our fallen nature (Jeremiah 17:9). We know that many will fall away from the truth and that only a few find the narrow gate leading to the Father (Matthew 7:14).

So then, why should I or any believer concern ourselves with how fallen men – today or tomorrow – see us or judge our actions? Why wouldn’t our primary concern be figuring out what side of a moral dilemma God is on, so that we can choose that one?

The world (including those who write and interpret history) is filled with those who lack any fixed, grounded moral compass. Why should any Christian, who in Christ has the only reliable, unchanging guidepost for moral behavior and conduct, turn to those literally making it up as they go along to decide if we are headed in the right direction?

I think there’s a better approach, and here it is: cling to what is good, shun what is evil, and distinguish between them by the Word of God alone. Allow history to write itself as we stand unapologetically on the right side of the cross.

---

ICYMI…

It seems like whenever we hear the term “stewardship” in the context of church, it means one thing: “you aren’t tithing enough.” But if we think like Jesus, we know that word means so much more. Here’s a message I just gave on that idea if you’re interested:

I also wrote a couple columns this last week you might appreciate:

• We want inclusion…so get those Indians out of here

• A few thoughts for those angry about Florida’s new classroom law