What Is The Difference?

“The word of the LORD came to me: ‘What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge?” As I live, declares the Lord GOD, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.” [1]

The Christian Faith demands that individuals be held accountable for their own actions rather than being held to account for the actions or the attitudes of others. The Word of God teaches personal accountability for mankind, and that is especially true for us as Christians. This becomes evident when we hear God, speaking through His prophet, informing us, “The soul who sins shall die.” The principle is iterated and emphasised when Ezekiel states soon after announcing the principle, “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” [EZEKIEL 18:20].

A folksy way of stating this truth is to declare, “Every tub sits on its own bottom.” Each person who now hears me stands accountable for his or her own actions. Each of us is free to make our own choices, but each of us must bear responsibility for the choices that we make. We can neither excuse ourselves nor accuse others on the basis of identity as part of some group. Just because our parents, or our grandparents, are members of a religion, we cannot excuse our own actions on the basis of family association.

The Judeo-Christian view is unique in the pantheon of the major religions of the world. For example, the Muslim religion, in keeping with almost all other false religions, teaches class responsibility. One who holds individuals personally responsible for their acts may murder. For example, he may kill the landlord or an employer, but he bears responsibility for his action. However, an individual who believes in class guilt will kill any and all landlords or any and all employers—even ones the individual has never met. And in this instance, the one who murders would receive a commendation from others within his particular class being people who believe as he does. The “idealist” may therefore kill absolutely blameless people who happen to belong to a “guilty” class.

What does “class guilt” mean? A class is nothing more than an arbitrary grouping of people that serves the agenda of the person doing the analysis. The last few decades have seen a surge in the political division of people according to classes in order to ascribe collective guilt or collective victimhood. Men subjugate women, whites exploit minorities, Americans oppress the world—at least that is the prevailing concept in much of society. The relevant political factor has become: what class do you belong to? The concept of class guilt appears to be growing in prominence when we hear the demands for reparations from various classes.

What isn’t always recognised in this trend is that the concept of “class guilt” is a Marxist ideal. Adopting this concept of class guilt is a godless act, an act exalting man and attempting to dethrone God the Creator. In fact, this means that Islam shares much in common with Communism, which may account for the tendency of Muslim states to gravitate to Russia and/or China. In great measure this accounts for the disparity witnessed in the Iranian regime to execute disproportionate numbers of Balochistan youth or explains why the Erdogan regime seeks to exterminate Kurds and Armenians.

Opposed to this Marxist concept is the position characterised by the Christian view of morality, which is that each individual is responsible for his or her own actions. The political systems of the world mirror the religious systems of the world. Non-Christian religions eagerly adopt the Marxist ideal, assigning class guilt to groups that are out of favour or groups that disagree with the view of that particular religion. The Judeo-Christian view of accountability may accept that some from within a given group are disadvantaged, they are nevertheless responsible for their own choices.

One’s world view dictates how they will interact with society. In short, what one believes concerning God dictates how they view others. The point is so critical that we dare not pass over it too quickly. Underscore in your mind this essential truth that must be stressed: what one believes concerning God dictates how they view others. If our perception of God is flawed, it will become apparent in our relationship with other people. If we view God as distant and uninvolved in running the universe, we will place ourselves at the centre of our world. Consequently, we will be inclined to treat people in an unequal fashion, seeking closeness with some and ignoring others. If we see God as tyrannical, as oppressive, and capricious, we will tend to treat people in an analogous manner, raising ourselves above others until we can advance no farther. Then, we will exert ourselves in making those we think to be our betters accept us into their group. If we see God as gracious and generous, though understanding that He is holy, we will live to honour Him, treating others with grace and mercy.