144 Sermon Illustrations on Morality

“Man is the measure of all things.” Or, so claimed the ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras. By this, he meant that in all matters, human standards and human decisions determine what is true, good, and beautiful. Humans, he argued, are the ultimate measurers of things, of life, of this world.

Are you a Protagorean? Try a simple test to see: recall what you did yesterday. Was it a good day? In your day, by your choices, by your actions, did you realize goodness? Ponder this.

Regardless of your answer, consider what standard you use to answer the question: by what standard did you judge yesterday to be good or bad? Or maybe more correctly, by whose standard did you judge yesterday to be good or bad? By the standards of public morality? By some standard of productivity? By your personal standards? If your standard is human in origin, then you are Protagorean, for you are measuring your day by a human standard.

Now, don't think yourself a pariah if you turned out to be Protagorean - his ideas are quite in vogue these days. Professors, politicians, and priests walk about knowingly and unknowingly echoing him. But esteemed company by no means assures truth, goodness, or beauty.

To the Protagorean, I have something to say, not philosophical critique, though there is ample material for one. I'd rather awake your imagination and your heart than, beat your brow with arguments.

And it is this: If man is the measure of your world, how impoverished your world must be. Consider your best thought, your deepest emotion, your highest moral excellence, or your greatest experience of beauty. Examine them. Are these the things by which we could properly measure the height and the depth, the goodness and the evil, the beauty and the grotesqueness, of reality? If the world were restricted to your ability to love, your ability to know truth, your ability to hate evil and love goodness, would that not be an impoverished world? Put another way: would that not be a small world? If you are like me, you have small thoughts, small emotions, small moral sentiments, and small visions of the beautiful. We need something larger than we, more loving than we, more wise than we, and more good than we, to sustain the richness and the wonder that our world contains. This is God, and incredibly He has enriched, enlarged, and en-beautied this world.

Thankfully, we are not the measure of yesterday. God is.

____________

Copyright © 2002 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a dupicate of HolwickID #4962]

There's a high fence around my friend Mel's garden. And he's got the most incredible fruit and vegetable garden I've ever seen. When Mel or his wife are at the grocery store, they can pretty much sail right past the produce department - they own a produce department. Their garden produces bumper crops of fresh tomatoes, corn, berries - you name it. I always enjoy taking a walk with Mel through what really feels like "God's little acre." But you don't just stroll from the yard right into the soil of the garden. You see, you have to open a gate and then go in. Every inch of that garden is surrounded by this sturdy fence. Now, why does Mel have that big old fence around his garden? I suppose someone might say, "Oh, he just doesn't want anyone in there enjoying it." No, he has a fence there, not to limit your enjoyment of the garden, but to protect your enjoyment of the garden. It's not about keeping people from the beauty. It's about protecting the beauty from the things that could destroy it.

Well, I'm Ron Hutchcraft and I want to have A WORD WITH YOU today about "Happy Fences."

Part of raising children is putting up some fences ... fences they won't always like. But it's important for a child to hear from a parent, not just where the fences are, but why there is a fence. For the same reason my friend has a fence around his garden - not to keep you from something good, but to keep something good. We need to raise our sons and daughters, not just with rules to keep, but with treasures to keep.

That's exactly the approach God takes with His children when He's telling them to stay away from what's wrong. It's "thou shalt not" in the context of not spoiling something very valuable.

Our word for today from the Word of God begins in 2 Corinthians 6:14. In this situation, God is telling His children not to be involved in life partnerships with unbelievers ... something that may have sounded like just another Christian rule, one more thing you can't do because you're a Christian.

But listen to God's logic, the reason behind the rule. He says, "For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said, 'I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be My people.'" God says, do you know who you are? You're the temple God lives in. You're the people of God. You belong to the King. You're treasure - too valuable to compromise or throw away. So, God concludes, "Therefore come out from them and be separate. Touch no unclean thing."

Then He says, "... You will be My sons and daughters." He's the King. You're His child. That makes you a prince or a princess. So live like one! See, it's not just some "no-no's." It's not just fences. It's something too valuable to ruin.

We need to raise our children with that kind of positive morality, not just a list of things they can't do. They need a list of treasures that are too valuable to ruin. They're the reason for the rules. Like their virginity, for example ... that unique love gift that they have to give to their lifetime love. Yes, there's a fence around sex called marriage - not to keep us from enjoying it, but to make sure we enjoy it as only those can who have kept it for what - and who - it was made for.

We need to let our kids know their body is a treasure from God, too valuable to be devalued with garbage. Your mind is a treasure too important to be poisoned with polluted input. Your reputation is a treasure, too valuable to be compromised. People's trust is a treasure, so we're against anything that would cost you people's trust.

Let's be sure we aren't just giving our children rules to keep. They need to have treasures to keep. Yes, there are fences - not to keep you out of life's beautiful gardens, but to keep those gardens beautiful!

*

"The things that will destroy us are: politics without principle; pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice."

Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948)

Indian leader

Cited in BITS & PIECES

*

When Dan Quayle said that Murphy Brown’s giving birth to an illegitimate child wasn’t a good role model for America’s youth, he was ridiculed, called “judgmental,” and labeled arrogant. Who was he to pontificate about “family values”? Quayle wasn’t hit with the criticism rightly leveled against some — that they are hypocrites. He was accused of doing what no one has the right to do: telling others how to live.

It’s been said that the most frequently quoted Bible verse is no longer John 3:16 but Matthew 7:1: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” We cannot glibly quote this, though, without understanding what Jesus meant. When Jesus condemned judging, he wasn’t at all implying we should never make judgments about anyone. After all, a few verses later, Jesus himself calls certain people “pigs” and “dogs” (Matt. 7:6) and “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (7:15)! Any act of church discipline (1 Cor. 5:5) and rebuking false prophets (1 John 4:1) requires judgment. What Jesus condemns is a critical and judgmental spirit, an unholy sense of moral superiority. Jesus commanded us to examine ourselves first for the problems we so easily see in others. Only then can we help remove the speck in another’s eye — which, incidentally, assumes that a problem exists and must be confronted.[1] But let’s take a closer look at this charge that Christians are judgmental when we speak out on moral issues.

ARE WE JUDGMENTAL?

What is interesting in these charges of arrogance and judgmentalism is this: Besides FAILING TO DEFINE what is meant by “judgmentalism,” the accusers often act JUST AS “ARROGANTLY” and “judgmentally” as the “judgmental” ones. If the Christian (or any exclusivist) is denounced for judgmentalism, he can respond that his accuser is judging him for being judgmental!

To be consistent, judgmentalism CANNOT mean “being in disagreement with someone” or “considering someone to be wrong.” It is undeniable that THE RELATIVIST DISAGREES WITH THE ABSOLUTIST, which makes the relativist just as “judgmental” as the absolutist. If judgmentalism is to be understood correctly (in keeping with the context of Matthew 7:1), it should be defined as AN INAPPROPRIATE SENSE OF MORAL SUPERIORITY OVER ANOTHER BECAUSE OF THAT PERSON’S MORAL FAILURES.[2] Judgmentalism, then, is that ugly refusal to acknowledge that “there but for the grace of God go I.”

Furthermore, it is an act of theological blindness to cite the “judge not” passage while utterly ignoring Jesus’ charge to make PROPER judgments: “Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment” (John 7:24).

The accusation is unwarranted that those who hold to absolute truth are absolutely arrogant. Think of Mother Teresa’s speech at a Washington prayer breakfast in the winter of 1994, when she boldly spoke against abortion before the pro-abortion president and vice-president of the United States and their spouses. Although she spoke respectfully, she made powerful statements in defense of unborn human lives: “And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” and “Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.”[3] One could hardly accuse this nun of arrogance.

There simply is no automatic contradiction between holding firmly to one’s convictions and treating with dignity and respect those who disagree. Living harmoniously with people who hold radically different views is a hallmark of maturity.[4] Our society would benefit from the courageous words of qualified people who display both FIRMNESS OF CONVICTION and CIVILITY or respect,[5] which is what Ephesians 4:15 refers to — ”speaking the truth in love.” Martin Marty, the noted observer of religion in America, states that the problem of modernity is that the people “who are good at being civil often lack the strong convictions and the people who have strong convictions often lack civility.”[6]

Christians often seem to believe that firmness of conviction entitles them to belligerence, hostility, and closed-mindedness — not to mention a lack of intellectual responsibility. To the contrary, Paul exhorts Christians, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Rom. 12:18). They should live “peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (1 Tim. 2:2). On the other hand, behind the mask of an apparently sensitive and compassionate “open-mindedness,” there often exists a moral gutlessness. Civility, then, is the remedy for arrogance, and conviction the corrective for spinelessness. But to achieve this uncommon balance, someone has suggested our interactions with others should concentrate on OUR OWN SINFULNESS and on THE OTHER’S HUMANNESS — rather than the other way around.[7] Moreover, the relativist, for all his bluster about his own “tolerance” and the exclusivist’s arrogance, will still believe things that others don’t believe or agree with — namely, HE WILL NOT ACCEPT THE VIEWS OF THE EXCLUSIVIST. If the relativist is to remain consistent, he can’t legitimately criticize another’s point of view. Furthermore, the relativist is guilty of the morally superior attitude that signals judgmentalism. He really thinks that HE possesses a virtue that others don’t.[8]

The Hindu philosopher Swami Vivekananda came to Chicago in 1893 to address the World’s Parliament of Religions. He told the delegates, “We [Hindus] accept all religions to be true,” and “[it] is sin to call a man [a sinner].”[9]

The problem here is that the swami himself calls someone a sinner — because that person has called another a sinner. If the exclusivist is a sinner for calling all people sinners, then the Hindu is just as much a sinner for calling the exclusivist a sinner. Isn’t the relativist being “arrogant” for disagreeing with the exclusivist?

ARE WE INTOLERANT?

Intolerance has been commonly associated with religion — and not without basis. For example, the passage “compel them to come in [COMPELLE INTRARE]” in Luke 14:23 (KJV) was used by religious authorities to justify a “conquest theology” during and after the Middle Ages.[10]

The Crusades, the Inquisition, and other abuses of religion are certainly a blot on Christendom’s history. However, what our society usually overlooks is both that a religious culture CAN foster genuine tolerance and that secularism — a “non-religious”[11] outlook on life — may pose a far greater threat to tolerance.

Closely tied to the notion of “judgment” is “tolerance.” Although many accuse absolutists of intolerance, these accusers most likely have an unclear and distorted notion of what tolerance really is. They often are unaware that the concept of tolerance implies a close relationship to truth. Contrary to popular definitions, true tolerance means “putting up with error” — not “being accepting of all views.” We don’t tolerate what we enjoy or approve of — like chocolate or Bach’s music. By definition, what we tolerate is what we disapprove of or what we believe to be false and erroneous.[12] Furthermore, tolerance presupposes an adequate grasp of what another person believes — as well as a knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of such belief. Actually, if disagreement didn’t exist, then tolerance would be unnecessary. It is because real differences exist between people that tolerance becomes necessary and virtuous.

The contemporary definition of tolerance as acceptance is simply wrong-headed. It lands a person in massive inconsistencies. Take the matter of “comparative religions.” The leveling approach of comparative religions (“when we talk with people from other religious groups, we should consider all religions equal”) arbitrarily asserts without qualification the equal validity or relative nature of all religions. Dialogue, however, shouldn’t begin by assuming the EQUALITY OF ALL RELIGIONS OR TRUTH CLAIMS (the erroneous definition of tolerance), but with regard for the EQUALITY OF PERSONS. Dialogue implies respect, not agreement.

A Christian can interact with and respect a Buddhist while still believing on rational grounds that he is mistaken. In fact, the belief that both views cannot be right is an IMPETUS to engage in meaningful dialogue. Dialogue thus becomes an opportunity for both sides to reexamine their presuppositions and clarify their positions.[13] True tolerance grants people the right to dissent.

It is VERY important that a Christian criticized for intolerance asks his accuser what he MEANS by “intolerance.” The accuser will probably say something like “not being accepting of another’s beliefs.” To this the Christian can gently respond, “But YOU are not being accepting of MY position. You think I am wrong.” The relativist simply cannot be accepting of all positions as true without falling into severe contradictions.

The reality of God actually makes tolerance intelligible, because God is the source of truth and because God has made human beings in his likeness. Naturalistic secularism has no such foundation for tolerance. If tolerance is a value, it isn’t obvious from nature; so if there is no God and we are just hulks of protoplasmic guck, how could tolerance be an objective value at all? Instead, if objective truth exists, as religion maintains, then we musk seek and seriously discuss it despite our differing worldviews. But if objective truth doesn’t exist, as secularism generally maintains, then relativism obliterates genuine differences of perspective.

RIGHT FOR YOU, BUT NOT FOR ME?

Philosopher of science Michael Ruse claims that morality is just like hands, feet, and teeth — the “ephemeral product of the evolutionary process.”[14] Morality, according to Ruse, isn’t objective: “Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, and has no being beyond this.”[15] Ruse brings up the once-acceptable Indian practice of SUTTEE — widows being burned alive on the funeral pyre of their deceased husbands. From our perspective, this is wrong: “Obviously, such a practice is totally alien to Western customs and morality. In fact, we think that widow sacrifice is totally immoral.”[16] Ruse’s evolutionary naturalism leads to the belief that one culture’s virtue is another culture’s vice. But he finds no OBJECTIVE grounds to condemn a “vice” like widow-burning.

Is morality relative, as Ruse seems to think? Is it nothing more than the by-product of evolutionary and social development? Is one culture’s virtue really another culture’s vice? While morality is considered relative by many in our culture, this view CANNOT be sustained — not only because it is illogical but also because it is simply unlivable.

When someone told the great British essayist Dr. Samuel Johnson that one of his dinner guests believed that morality was a sham, Dr. Johnson replied, “Why, sir, if he really believes there is no distinction between virtue and vice, let us count our spoons before he leaves.” In other words, how can the moral relativist really be trusted? Moral relativism leads to an inevitable breakdown of relationships and of society. It is EXISTENTIALLY (or practically) unworkable. We simply can’t live without a belief — explicit or assumed — that moral standards exist. One Christian philosophy professor, for example, had an outspoken moral relativist in his ethics class. All semester the student contested the professor’s absolutist views about ethics. When the time came for the course final, the student, who had prepared well, took the exam and assumed that he had passed without a problem. He was shocked and infuriated to find an F instead of an A at the top of his paper — and without any explanation. The relativist stormed into the professor’s office demanding an explanation at this unfairness. The professor asked, “Did you say ‘unfairness’? So you do believe in moral absolutes after all!” With that, the professor took the exam out of the student’s hand, crossed out the F and put an A at the top of it. The student silently walked out of the office, realizing his inconsistency.[17]

The person who is, say, the victim of torture, slave labor, child abuse, rape, or apartheid intuitively knows that justice is being violated. Are we really willing to concede that there is ultimately no significant moral difference between Hitler and Mother Teresa? Are we really willing to believe that genocide, rape, and murder are just “cultural” behaviors? The person who embraces moral relativism needs to be pressed: What if he were arrested and tortured for no reason? Why should he protest if you took a sledgehammer to his BMW? If he were a Jew in Nazi Germany, where the culture was horrifyingly anti-Semitic, why should his disagreement with the standards of the surrounding culture carry any weight at all? Why should his wishes be respected? After all, for someone who says, “Your values are true for you, but not for me,” there can be no objectively morally degrading actions. Moral relativism is utterly unlivable.[18]

WHY SHOULD I BE MORAL?

Atheists CAN be morally upright. People DO construct fine ethical systems without God. Even so, we can point out, questions linger: “Why OUGHT I to be moral at all?” “Why SHOULD I do the right thing if it doesn’t pay off?” “Why do human beings have dignity and value?” At this point, we can argue that the God of theism offers solid grounding for moral obligation, accounting for a number of facts that naturalism can’t explain.

We start by saying: THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO DENY THE GENERAL RELIABILITY OF OUR MOST BASIC MORAL INSTINCTS.[19] Humans intuitively know that certain objective moral values exist. For example, we know that kindness is a virtue and not a vice, that torturing babies is immoral, that child abuse is wrong, that a person like Hitler or Stalin is morally repugnant. We know these things virtually without reflection, without thinking them through.[20] While reason CONFIRMS the basic rightness of these intuitions, we don’t seem to know this by means of reason.[21] And we regularly rely on these intuitions to make practical, everyday moral judgments.[22] To deny such beliefs flies in the face of basic human knowledge and instincts.

If someone doubts these moral basics — someone, for example, who sees no ultimate distinction between a Hitler and a Mother Teresa — we can’t really carry on a decent conversation about morality. Instead of trying to prove the evilness of evildoers, we should call into question that person’s mental health. Denying the objectivity of our moral intuitions is denying a deep part of our humanity. We can press the moral skeptic by making our point another way. We could say, “Most people would find themselves in confident DISAGREEMENT with your attitude. Now, why is this? How would you explain it?”[23]

Second, GOD’S CHARACTER EXPLAINS THE OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES THAT LOGICALLY PRECEDE OUR HAVING A MORAL SENSE. Although the non-theist may believe that objective moral values exist without reference to God, there is an ultimate question: What UNDERLIES those objective moral values?

Let’s hear the opposing point made by atheist Kai Nielsen. He admits that objective moral obligation exists. Though he maintains that naturalism can’t account for this, he won’t concede that theism offers a better solution to the problem. He presents the following interesting argument.[24] Suppose a parent who believes in God “abandons” or “loses” his faith in God. Is that parent going to love his child less — or not at all — because his supposed “basis or objective morality” is apparently lost? Of course not, Nielsen asserts. A parent would still maintain that it is objectively right to love his child even if God doesn’t exist.

Nielsen offers other evidence to deny that God is necessary to explain the existence of objective morality. He says that when Christians, for example, make moral judgments about God’s acts and commands or about the super ethic of Jesus Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, that implies a standard of goodness INDEPENDENT of whether God exists. To make moral assessments about God’s actions or Jesus’ teachings PRESUPPOSES the existence of an objective morality.

This apparently persuasive argument, however, is flawed. It rests on a confusion of BEING and KNOWING. The normal sane person certainly KNOWS — or at least acts as though he knows — that objective morality exists. But here is the crucial question: How did we get to BE that way — moral beings who recognize right and wrong? We have to BE moral beings before we can KNOW what is moral. An atheist might suggest that if all humans — both those who believe in God and those who don’t — have correct, objective moral sensibilities, that fact implies moral intuition isn’t somehow rooted in God.

Nielsen, as an atheist and materialist, seems hard-pressed to show how randomness and chance can make sense out of moral obligation or human dignity. Getting back to the parent-child relationship, we have to ask how we could show love and sacrifice when it conflicts with our natural self-interest. Why resist selfish interests for the sake of the children? As the philosopher George Mavrodes has argued, a solely materialistic universe MIGHT produce in us FEELINGS and BELIEFS of obligation — like the protection of our children or survival of our species or subculture — but that’s a different matter from actually HAVING such obligations we ought to carry out. It truly seems odd that objective moral obligation could arise in such a world.[25]

In the third place, THE CONNECTION BETWEEN OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES AND GOD HAS TO DO WITH GOD’S PERSONHOOD AND OURS. Christians see an unbreakable connection between objective morality and God. If objective moral values exist, as even atheists like Kai Nielsen believe, it seems plausible to argue that a personal, transcendent, perfect God is the source of and ground for morality. We resemble God — created as valuable persons by a personal Being, divinely endowed with conscience, with a capacity for morally significant relationships, and with certain objectively correct moral intuitions. We are moral beings because we have been created in the image of a moral God. Even those who don’t believe in God possess an ingrained moral sense that corresponds in some measure to God’s moral sense.

This explains how an atheist can KNOW the content of morality WITHOUT acknowledging God’s existence. For instance, we read in Amos 1 and 2 that God threatens judgment upon the neighbors of Judah and Israel. Why? Because they have flagrantly violated an objective moral law that they knew and should have obeyed. Syria treated its enemies barbarously (1:3); Philistia, with utter inhumanity, sold whole communities into slavery (1:6); Tyre broke a pact and treated Edom treacherously (1:9). The citizens of such nations should have known better.

In Romans 2:14-15, we read,

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law [of Moses], do by nature

things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though

they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the

law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness,

and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.

Scripture assumes that God has written this binding law on the hearts of people. Although the awareness of these objective standards is clouded by the Fall, a seared conscience, and social decline, this doesn’t mean people can’t form moral beliefs or act virtuously through God’s common grace to all.[26]

Another indication that God is the basis for morality is THE PROBLEM OF EVIL. One of the most common objections to a theist’s belief in God is that evil exists — and that it exists in such vast measure. Why does God allow Bangladesh to get hit again and again with disastrous tropical storms? Why does he let child molesters carry on their vile activities? Why would he permit large-scale inhumanities to take place in an Auschwitz — or through the brutality of Soviet communism?[27] Although those who raise this objection seldom realize it, the existence of evil and our grasp of the awfulness of evil cries out for an explanation. Even in a relativistic world, people are STILL struck with horror at human atrocities like genocide or gang rape. They get the distinct impression that evil REALLY exists. Although the problems raised by evil are frequently marshaled against belief in God, an often-overlooked presupposition in the discussion of evil is GOD’S VERY EXISTENCE.

What is evil? It isn’t simply chaos or pain or feeling bad. Real, objective evil is the lack or absence of goodness. That is, the presence of evil presupposes the existence of an objective moral standard that is being violated. If real evil exists, then an objective standard of GOODNESS by which something is deemed evil must also exist. It is hard to see, given a naturalistic view of things, where this standard of goodness could come from if we are simply cosmic accidents produced by purely physical forces.

Theism answers questions that are problems for the naturalist: Why should we deem human beings to be intrinsically valuable? Why should I sacrifice my brief life for another human being? Why should we take the moral point of view when it seriously conflicts with our own self-interest or does not satisfy us? Appealing to a social contract or pragmatic basis for acting morally doesn’t work. It tells us only that doing the right thing is, practically speaking, A GOOD IDEA, but this hardly shows why we’re dutifully OBLIGATED to be moral.[28] Rather, we act morally for MORAL REASONS, because it is morally right to do so — just as we should believe the true thing because it is true. No further reason is needed. Non-theists can agree about such basic moral truths, but what are the grounds for these truths and human dignity?

Theism provides adequate answers to the questions just raised. We ought to be moral because we have been MADE AS MORAL BEINGS IN THE LIKENESS OF GOD, to whom we are also personally responsible as his creatures. Furthermore, knowing this God personally is the highest end of humans. When we are in right relationship with God, all other goods — which have also been created by God — find their proper place.[29]

When we carry out our moral duties we approximate the character of the Creator, the ultimate Good, and FUNCTION ACCORDING TO GOD’S DESIGN FOR US. We carry out the purposes for which we were made. We find self-sacrifice praiseworthy because it fits these purposes and assumes the intrinsic dignity of others. We experience guilt not simply because we have violated laws of society or of the universe but because we have violated the ultimate Source of moral values — a personal God. And just as human relationships serve as a motivation and basis for loyalty and obligation, so our having been created by God — and our relationship with him — serves as the source of ultimate obligation and the one real basis for a moral understanding of human relationships.[30]

________

Published in the AREOPAGUS JOURNAL 1/3 (July 2001): 30-35. Posted by permission (http://www.apologeticsresctr.org/).

Paul Copan (Ph.D., Marquette University) is a Ministry Associate with Ravi Zacharias International Ministries. This article is compiled from chapters 4, 5, 7, & 11 of his book “TRUE FOR YOU, BUT NOT FOR ME”: DEFLATING THE SLOGANS THAT LEAVE CHRISTIANS SPEECHLESS (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998).

NOTES

1. For a popular exposition of this passage, see D.A. Carson, THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 97ff.

2. See Caroline J. Simon, “Judgmentalism,” FAITH AND PHILOSOPHY 6 (July 1989): 275-287.

3. Mother Teresa, “We must Give Until It Hurts,” WORLD (12 February, 1994): 22,24. See also her amicus brief concerning abortion (“Recalling America”) in FIRST THINGS (May 1994): 9-10.

4. Harold Netland, “Professor Hick on Religious Pluralism,” RELIGIOUS STUDIES 22 (1986): 76.

5. Richard Mouw, UNCOMMON DECENCY: CHRISTIAN CIVILITY IN AN UNCIVILIZED WORLD (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 1992).

6. Ibid., cited on 12.

7. Ibid., 55.

8. See Alvin Plantinga, “Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism.” Paper given at the American Philosophical Association meeting in Portland, Oregon, 26 March 1992. Later published in Thomas D. Senor, ed. THE RATIONALITY OF BELIEF & THE PLURALITY OF FAITH (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1995). I refer to the former.

9. Taken from Swami Vivekananda booklet CHICAGO ADDRESSES (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1980).

10. Klaas Runia, “The Gospel and Religious Pluralism,” EVANGELICAL REVIEW OF THEOLOGY 14 (October 1990): 344.

11. Although I am aware of the slippery concept of “religion,” I am here assuming that religion primarily refers to theistic belief systems — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

12. Maurice Cranston, “Toleration,” in Paul Edwards, ed., ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY, vol. 8 (New York: Macmillan/Free Press, 1967), 143. Cranston maintains that toleration “implies the existence of something believed to be disagreeable”; it “has an element of condemnation built into its meaning.”

13. Alister McGrath, “The Christian Church’s Response to Pluralism,” JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 35 (December 1992): 490.

14. Michael Ruse, THE DARWINIAN PARADIGM (London: Routledge, 1989), 268.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid., 232.

17. I came across a similar story in Mark Ashton’s booklet, ABSOLUTE TRUTH? (Downer’s Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 1996), 9-10. In this account, Robert Wengert, a philosophy professor at the University of Illinois, would ask his ethics class if his students thought truth was relative. The majority of students typically raise their hands. Then he tells them that short students get A’s while tall students fail. When his students protest that his grading system is not fair and that he ought not or should not grade in that fashion, Wengert points out to his class that when they use words like OUGHT or SHOULD, they betray a belief in an objective moral standard; they really DON’T believe that morality is relative.

18. As we saw above, moral relativists reveal their inconsistency when they ask, “Who are YOU to judge?” This question itself is a judgment about the person who is being judged. When we are accused of allegedly “playing God” for making a moral judgment about a person’s wrong actions, our accusers are themselves “playing God” by making a moral judgment about us---which is either self-defeating or special pleading. Anyone who accuses another of making moral judgments is playing the part of an absolutist. For further discussion on judgmentalism, see Thomas L. Carson, “Who Are We to Judge?” TEACHING PHILOSOPHY 11 (March 1988): 3-14. The glibly used paraphrase of Jesus’ words “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” (John 8:7), is often used to support the idea that morally imperfect people are not allowed to point out sin in others. Of course, Jesus had no intention of prohibiting all moral judgments, but merely HYPOCRITICAL judgment. The Jews trying to frame Jesus were hardly interested in justice. Jesus refers to Deuteronomy 13:9 and 17:7, where those who are the first to throw stones must be witnesses of the crime and NOT PARTICIPANTS IN THAT CRIME ITSELF (in this case, adultery)---even if they are not morally perfect (see D.A. Carson discussion, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN [Leicester, England/Grand Rapids: InterVarsity/Eerdmans, 1991], 333-337).

19. See William Sorley, MORAL VALUES AND THE IDEA OF GOD (Cambridge University Press, 1918).

20. See Eleonore Stump, “The Mirror of Evil,” in Thomas V. Morris, ed., GOD AND THE PHILOSOPHERS (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 238. Some of the above thoughts on moral intuitions are taken from Stump’s essay.

21. Arguing for the objectivity and correctness of our basic moral intuitions is NOT committing the naturalistic (or the is/ought) fallacy (which pertains to deriving obligation from NATURAL states of affairs such as biological impusles or social contracts). Rather, these intuitions are EVIDENCE that objective, transcendentally given moral duties exist.

22. As James Q. Wilson writes in THE MORAL SENSE, “When we think about it, we realize that the aversion we feel to baby torturing for fun not only springs from deeply held sentiments whose truth we find self-evident, it also has important practical value” (New York: Free Press, 1993), 240. Wilson discusses these sentiments in detail.

23. A surprising number of people deny the existence of any objective evil in the world. For example, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins asserts, “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.” For a metaphysical naturalist like Dawkins, there can be “no evil and no good” in this universe — nothing but “blind, pitiless indifference.” RIVER OUT OF EDEN: A DARWINIAN VIEW OF LIFE (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 133. Although we can’t respond to the views of naturalism here, it can probably be safely said that most people (even self-pronounced moral relativists) DO believe that evil exists. For a fine THEOLOGICAL defense of the problem of evil, see D.A. Carson, HOW LONG O LORD? REFLECTIONS ON SUFFERING AND EVIL (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991). For a more PHILOSOPHICAL defense of the problem of evil, see William Lane Craig’s popular-level discussion on “Suffering and Evil” and “Hell” in NO EASY ANSWERS (Chicago: Moody Press, 1990), 73-116. For a more advanced-level exploration of the topic, see Peter Van Inwagen, “The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil: A Theodicy,” PHILOSOPHICAL TOPICS 16/2 (1988): 161-87.

24. Kai Nielsen in a debate with William Craig, 6 February 1991, at the University of Western Ontario.

25. George Mavrodes, “Religion and the Queerness of Morality,” in Robert Audi and William Wainwright, eds., RATIONALITY, RELIGIOUS BELIEF, AND MORAL COMMITMENT (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986), 219.

26. It would be an error, however, to state — as Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) did — that natural law is independent of God, that it would be valid and binding even if God did not exist. Rather, if God didn’t exist, there would simply be no standard of goodness by which actions should be judged. The origin of morality, as we have already argued, is SUPERNATURAL. Carl Henry, “Natural Law in a Nihilistic Culture,” FIRST THINGS 49 (January 1995): 54-60.

27. A well-documented example of the evils of Soviet collectivization is Roberts Conquest’s HARVEST OF SORROW: SOVIET COLLECTIVIZATION AND THE TERROR-FAMINE (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).

28. Nicholas Rescher, MORAL ABSOLUTES: AN ESSAYON THE NATURE AND RATIONALE OF MORALITY, (New York: Peter Lang, 1989), 84-89.

29. Philip E. Devine, RELATIVISM, NIHILISM, AND GOD (Notre Dame: University Press, 1989), 78.

30. Incidentally (though not unimportantly), we are not obligated to act morally simply because God COMMANDS certain things and not others (what is called the divine-command theory of ethics) -- a view that notables like Martin Luther and René Descartes maintained (Robert M. Adams would be the noted contemporary proponent of this view). If this were the case, God could have commanded the exact OPPOSITE of what he does, and it would still be right because he commanded it. (In an episode of M.A.S.H., Father Mulcahy was horrified to find that the new Bibles given to the M.A.S.H. unit contained a significant typographical error in Exodus 20:14: “Thou SHALT commit adultery.” But under the divine command theory, this command could have been permissible.) SUCH A VIEW, HOWEVER, LEAVES US WITH NO WAY OF DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN GOD AND SATAN. The source of goodness, rather, springs from the very CHARACTER OF GOD; moral principles and commands are rooted in his nature.

God does not comply with or obey some independently existing moral law. God neither OBEYS nor CREATES the moral law, as C.S. Lewis said. He merely ACTS and it is good. And since we are created in God’s image, God’s will can never be in conflict with our best moral intuitions. For further reading on this subject, see Mark D. Linville, “On Goodness: Human and Divine,” AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY 27 (April 1990):1430-52; Thomas V. Morris, “Duty and Divine Goodness,” in ANSELMIAN EXPLORATIONS (Notre Dame: University Press, 1987); William Alston, “Some Suggestions for Divine Command Theorists,” in Michael D. Beaty, ed., CHRISTIAN THEISM AND THE PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY (Notre Dame: University Press, 1990), 304-320.

________

© 2007 RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #4414]

Business has its cycles. There is the market cycle with its ups and downs. But there is also another cycle: the business scandal cycle. Every number of years there is a major scandal in the business world. Either it's cooking the books, or insider trading, or out and out fraud. On the heels of the revelations comes the public outcry to try to fix the situation. Solutions proffered abound — from increased government regulation, to better business law, to new economic policies. Invariably one of the solutions discussed is the need for better ethics courses in college business schools. The rationale goes like this: if business students are taught ethics in college then when they enter the workforce they will be ethical.

This track, at best, is supremely naive, and at worst, parasitic upon the path to goodness. It is naïve in that it overlooks the current state of ethics courses in academia. Many such courses leave students more prepared to be skeptical about notions of right and wrong than to actually live rightly. And it is parasitic on ethical living because it casts living rightly as a matter of education. One course in business ethics, and voila, the student is ready to overcome all the challenges and temptations that a career in business presents.

But education is not the problem. People do not cheat on their taxes, or steal from their investors, because they are ignorant that it is wrong to do so. Such people can be unethical for the same reason that all of us can be unethical: we are a sinful lot. Apologies if the introduction of a theological category offends, but only sinfulness adequately describes human nature's constant proclivity to wrongdoing.

Crises in business ethics are not due to ignorance. They are due to a willful rejection of what is right and just. That is sin. And since this is a theological problem, it requires a theological solution.

Consider the words of the famed historian W.E.H. Lecky as a first estimate of that solution:

The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of

virtue, but the strongest incentive in its practice, and has

exerted so deep an influence, that it may truly be said that the

simple record of three years of active life has done more to

regenerate and to soften mankind than all the disquisitions of

philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists.

Lecky's right; Christ's character and not ethics courses is the best starting point for any crisis in ethics. May we turn to him to know ourselves most accurately, to know Truth most perfectly.

____________

Copyright © 2003 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

Edited comments from an address at the National Conversation on Renewal and Outreach by Rev. Tim Keller.

__________

How do we, as a denomination, do renewal and outreach in the emerging post-everything United States culture? “Post-everything” people are those who are now in their teens and twenties – and they are our future.

These persons are increasingly post-secular. They are much more open to the supernatural, to spirituality, and to religion but not necessarily to Christianity. They are also post-ideological. On the one hand, they are perhaps too concerned about issues of social justice to be labeled ‘conservative.’ On the other hand, they are also post-liberal. Not only is the old Liberalism too self-righteous for contemporary tastes, it is also cracking up due to 9/11, the demise of socialism, and war. The emerging culture is also post-modern. Our society increasingly is increasingly opposed to purely rationalistic explanations for experience, and does not accept the hard-nosed, scientific secularism of the past.

In general the Presbyterian Church of America knows how to thrive in the shrinking enclaves of traditional people, but does not know how to thrive in this increasing post-everything culture. Michael Wolfe, in New York Magazine said we are fundamentally two nations. “There is the quicker-growing, economically vibrant, morally relativist, urban-oriented, culturally adventurous, sexually polymorphist and ethnically diverse nation. Then there is also the smaller-town, suburban, nuclear-family, religiously oriented, traditional values, white-centric other America with its diminished political and economic force.”

America still has enough places dominated by this latter “nation” that the Presbyterian Church of America can continue to grow among already-conservative people. However, our usual methods of ministry do not work effectively in the parts of the country and the sectors of society that have the greatest power in our culture. Our ineffectiveness as a denomination in working with post-everything America is a failure across party lines. Whether we identify ourselves as “Evangelically Reformed,” “Confessionally Reformed” or “Old-school” we face similar failures. All our parties tend to limit their evangelism and discipleship to people who are basically traditional in their mindset.

For instance, our typical evangelistic presentations are effective with persons who assume they should be good. Then the gospel-presenter tries to show them than they are not good enough — they fall short of God’s perfect standards — and therefore they need Jesus to forgive sin and help them do the right thing. This presentation was quite appropriate for almost everyone in my parents’ generation. My parents, who are evangelical Christians, and my in-laws, who are not at all, had basically the same social and moral values. If you asked them the questions such as, “What do you think about pre-marital sex, or homosexuality, or pornography?” both sets of parents would have answered the same. They were part of a world in which Christianity was the folk-religion even if it was not the heart-religion of most people. They believed that the purpose of life was to be a good person. This world no longer exists everywhere.

On the other hand, if you say to those in my kids’ generation, “You know you have to be good,” they will say, “Who’s to say what good is?” So what are we to do with these post-everything persons who are increasingly dominating our society? The traditional gospel presentations will not make much sense to many of them.

I think that a) if we have the humility to admit that we are not doing the job, but b) at the same time (in a non-triumphalistic way) advance the answers Reformed theology especially provides, then there is great hope for our church. We must first give high priority to finding ways to minister in three areas: universities, big cities, and ethnically diverse situations. University towns are incubators where we can learn how to address the ideas of the rising culture. The new world usually emerges in the big cities and if we learn to face it and engage it there, we will be able to do the same in the rest of the country. In short, we must go to the ‘leading edges’ of our society and learn how to preach, model, and sing the gospel in ways that both challenge and attract (rather than merely confusing) people.

People may respond, “Well I’m not in a university town or a big city. I’m in a suburban or rural community, so such persons are not my concern.” The fact is there are already many kinds of post-everythings in your town. Because of technology, mobility, and myriad other influences, post-everything people are everywhere. We may not see them in our churches because we minister in ways that exclude post-everythings – they are either offended or confused immediately after walking in the door. Further, we are not presently forced to think about the post-everythings because there are so many traditional people that our churches can still grow and, thus, we feel that we are doing a fine job. Still, we must go to the university towns, big cities, and the ethnically diverse places because there we will learn to understand and reach America’s future.

The next thing we must do is use the Reformed resources that God has especially granted this church to minister to the emerging culture in the following ways:

First, remember that post-everything people like narrative and story. They tend not to like the older kind of preaching that simply enunciated doctrinal principles. Neither are they excited about the newer user-friendly sermons of seeker-churches on “How to Handle Fear,” “How to Balance Your Life,” etc. So, do we throw overboard everything we have done? Absolutely not. We turn to Geerhardus Vos who says that every single part of the Bible is really about Jesus. If you know how to do Christ-centered preaching, then you turn every single sermon into a kind of story. The plot of the human dilemma thickens, and the hero that comes to the rescue is Jesus. Christ-centered preaching converts doctrinal lectures or little how-to talks into true sermons. Post-everythings who are interested in narrative are reached by such preaching that is deeply Reformed.

Second, remember that post-everythings are experientially oriented. They do not just want intellectual propositions. For them life’s meaning is grounded in what they experience. Of course, as Reformed Christians we are very word-centered, and we know that eternal truth is not based on our subjective experience of it. But Reformed preachers have a tremendous resource for an experience-oriented generation in Jonathan Edwards. Edwards taught that a sermon should not only make truth clear, but also should make truth real. In Edwards we find ways to preach that are Reformed, committed to objective truth and, at the same time, deeply experiential.

Third, remember that post-everythings are very much against moralism and self-righteousness. But Reformed preachers have Martin Luther to help with this concern. Traditional gospel presentations assume that the people want to be “good.” But our kids’ generation wants to be “free.” Luther said, “Look, you want to be free? Good. It’s good to be free. But you’re not. You are living for something and, whatever that something is, it enslaves you.” If a person lives for reputation, then he is a slave to what people think. If a person lives for achievement, then he will be a workaholic. As did Luther, we should tell such people, “You want to be free? Fine. But you’re not going to be free unless Jesus is your salvation.” When post-everythings rejected Christianity they thought moralism and Christianity were the same thing. But we can show post-everythings that the two are not the same, and that freedom really is in Jesus.

Fourth, take note of post-everythings’ concern for social justice. They innately sense that the church is not credible without care for mercy and justice. We can address these concerns with the wisdom of Hermann Ridderbos and other Reformed theologians who stress the coming of and the presence of the Kingdom. The Reformed understanding of salvation is not simply that God is rescuing individual souls out of the material world, but rather he is also redeeming all of creation. God is going to bring complete healing and shalom to the material world eventually. This makes Christianity (as C.S. Lewis says) “a fighting religion” against poverty, hunger, and illiteracy. We must bring this Kingdom message of Reformed theology to post-everythings.

Fifth, recognize that post-everythings love art because they love the material world. Abraham Kuyper’s understanding of Reformed theology enables us to say to post-everythings, “Christianity is not just a way for you as an individual to get peace, love and groovy vibes in Heaven. Christianity is a comprehensive worldview. You can be a Christian artist, dancer, manager, or minister and these are all ways of living out the gospel.” When post-everythings hear that, they get extremely excited. They have never considered that Christianity embraces the whole of life.

Finally, remember that post-everythings are not strongly swayed by evidences and proofs. If you start to present evidence for the deity of Christ or the proofs of God, post-everything eyes will glaze over. But the presuppositional apologetics of Cornelius Van Til can work with post-everythings. I think Reformed theology provides us with tools for our culture that Josh McDowell’s kind of evidential apologetics does not.

I see people who are desperately trying to reach the post-everythings who in their desperation are trying to throw out essential elements such as the substitutionary atonement, forensic justification, imputed righteousness, the Sovereignty of God, or the inerrancy of Scripture.

Many of them are probably over-adapting to the post-everything situation. But while they do not have our theological resources, often we do not have their level of engagement with the people of the emerging society. To correct this, let us confess that we really have failure across all our parties to reach the coming society, and let us resolve to use the premier resources of Reformed theology. If we can make these changes, then we may really start to see renewal and outreach, and we might actually be a resource for the broader body of Christ in this culture.

*

Last fall, one of the world's most talented movie directors died at the age of 101. According to obituaries, she was “daringly innovative” and a “genius.” Not only that, but she was one of the first women to become famous as a director.

But there were no misty-eyed television tributes to this director and no posthumous film festivals organized to celebrate her career. And it's a safe guess that no one at this year's Academy Awards will share fond memories of the woman whom some have called “the devil's director.”

In her long life, Leni Riefenstahl never lived down her 1934 documentary TRIUMPH OF THE WILL, which presented a glowing vision of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi government. She believed Hitler was the savior of Germany, and she worked closely with him to create what many people have called the greatest propaganda film ever made.

Riefenstahl would spend the rest of her life arguing that she was never actually a member of the Nazi party and claiming that she didn't know Hitler's real agenda. But it didn't matter. Nor did it matter that she was a brilliant filmmaker who invented techniques that are still used today. Riefenstahl's directing career was essentially over. Nobody would work with her or finance her projects. It would be forty-eight years before she was able to release one last film.

What's fascinating about this story is that the artistic community's reaction to Riefenstahl undermines everything many of them say they believe. It's fashionable to claim that art is above all moral considerations and that it justifies itself. So what happens to the director who fled the country to avoid being jailed for statutory rape, or the director who pals around with Communist dictators? What happens to the films that present a deliberately distorted portrayal of religion, or the documentary that shamelessly twists the facts to make a point that Hollywood approves of? They get showered with awards. Anybody who complains is reminded that artistic achievement trumps every other consideration.

But it doesn't, and the case of Leni Riefenstahl shows the lie. What she did is no different than what many others have done since her time — using their talent to serve an immoral cause. It just happened that this one was one Hollywood disagreed with.

Sometimes artists have to be blunt and to open our eyes to truths that we'd rather not see. Some of the greatest Christian artists have done just that. But that's very different from whitewashing evil and lying about the facts. Just like any other discipline, the arts are subject to the moral laws that are written on our hearts. And when we don't realize that, we end up with films like TRIUMPH OF THE WILL.

Because of Riefenstahl's brilliance as a filmmaker some film professors still use TRIUMPH OF THE WILL as a teaching tool. I hope they'll continue to do so, so students can see excellence put to an evil use. We don't need another generation of artists who celebrate all kinds of evil — from gratuitous, sickening violence to pedophilia — all in the name of art. If Leni Riefenstahl's twisted masterpiece can teach people that art is not higher than morality, then “the devil's director” will have unwittingly done more good than most contemporary directors put together.

FOR FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

• Alan Riding, “Leni Riefenstahl, Filmmaker and Nazi Propagandist, Dies at 101,” New York Times, 9 September 2003. (Free registration required.)

• Luke Harding, “Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler's favourite film propagandist, dies at 101,” The Guardian, 10 September 2003.

• “Just What Did Leni Riefenstahl's Lens See?“ New York Times, 13 March 1994, reprinted by the English Department at the University of Pennsylvania.

• Scott McGee, review of Triumph of the Will — Special Edition on DVD, “Movie News,” Turner Classic Movies website.

• Richard Corliss, “That Old Feeling: Leni's Triumph,” Time, 22 August 2002.

• “Duvall rebukes Spielberg for Castro visit,” WorldNetDaily.com, 9 January 2004.

• Beth Gillin, “Polanski has avoided consequences,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 29 March 2003.

• James M. Kushiner, Creed & Culture: A Touchstone Reader (ISI Books, 2003).

• Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey, How Now Shall We Live? (Tyndale, 1999). See especially chapters 41-45.

• The BreakPoint “Christians in the Arts“ kit includes It Was Good: Making Art to the Glory of God by Ed Bustard (editor), William Edgar, Makoto Fujimura, and David Giardinieare (Square Halo Books, 2000), and Imagine: A Vision for Christians in the Arts by Steve Turner (InterVarsity Press, 2001). Both are great resources for Christians involved or interested in the arts.

• Visit BreakPoint's Christians in the Arts page for more resources and links. Also visit the Wilberforce Forum page on the arts.

__________

Copyright (c) 2004 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

A tragic cultural transformation has occurred in recent decades — one that pertains to the ethical, to the moral, and to that which is right and wrong. Yesterday’s outrage has become today’s standard. Today, homosexuality, which at one time was morally unthinkable, is on parade before us as normal, acceptable, and — in order to show its authoritative status — unquestionable. Francis Schaeffer wrote,

There is a “thinkable” and an “unthinkable” in every era. One

era is quite certain intellectually and emotionally about what is

acceptable. Yet another era decides that these “certainties” are

unacceptable and puts another set of values into practice. On a

humanistic base, people drift along from generation to

generation, and the morally unthinkable becomes the thinkable as

the years move on. [1]

Schaeffer, writing in the 1970s, perceptively continued,

The thinkables of the eighties and nineties will certainly

include things which most people today find unthinkable and

immoral, even unimaginable and too extreme to suggest. Yet —

since they do not have some overriding principle that takes them

beyond relativistic thinking — when these become thinkable and

acceptable in the eighties and nineties, most people will not

even remember that they were unthinkable in the seventies. They

will slide into each new thinkable without a jolt. [2]

Schaeffer was not arguing that something is worthy of emulation simply because it was previously done. By itself, Dad and Mom’s conduct, while often qualitatively better and more polite than that of their children observed at the local mall, is not an adequate standard for morality. In fact, the point is that the basis of yesterday’s morality was of such poor quality that it could not prevent its “unthinkables” from becoming “thinkables” in short order. One of yesterday’s unthinkables — the social and moral acceptance of homosexuality in both orientation and act, in both desire and deed — is presented to us today as quite thinkable, and though we are speaking of morality and not the changing tides of fashion, our modern society can seldom tell the difference.

Furthermore, we must recognize with Schaeffer that this is the way things play out when performed upon a humanistic stage that views man (or, more precisely, self) as the lead character — the measure of all things, the center of it all — and casts God (if He even exists) in a subordinate role. In much of this discussion, God has been relegated to the periphery and man has taken His place. This practice is reflected in the quip “God created man in His image, and ever since man has returned the favor.” A humanistic approach to morality suffers from the “immaculate perception” that says, “My ways are always right and everything else must fit.”

This approach has the effect (whether admitted or not) of viewing God’s standards of morality to be the equivalent of a wax nose — capable of being shaped according to the whim of the shaper. “Wax nose” morality renders God’s moral pronouncements to be temporary and optional. In all of this, God’s authority is questioned, and therefore, what God has declared about righteous behavior may make for nice history (for other people!) and perhaps exhibit keen insights from which we may glean some guidance, but is, according to this new (im-)morality, archaic and repressive. We are witnessing what happens when God’s absolute, authoritative standard is removed or redefined. Sliding into some kind of “new morality,” some kind of the unthinkable, and doing it without a jolt becomes easy.

__________

1. C. Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, revised edition (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1983), 2.

2. Ibid., 3.

*

A strong current in American Evangelicalism is gnosticism - religion is primarily having a personal spiritual experience or enlightenment that is divorced from tradition, Scripture or moral considerations.

Professor Harold Bloom says this American gnosticism carries with it strong antinomian impulses that can effectively set the believer beyond good and evil. Once one has been “alone with Jesus” or “saved,” petty moral considerations can fall away with distressing regularity.

Philip Yancey offered a case study in these pages when he wrote of a friend of his named Susan, a Christian who told Yancey “that her husband did not measure up and she was actively looking for other men to meet her needs for intimacy”:

When Susan mentioned that she rose early each day to “spend an hour with the Father,” I asked, “In your meetings with the Father, do any moral issues come up that might influence this pending decision about leaving your husband?”

Susan bristled: “That sounds like the response of a white Anglo-Saxon male. The Father and I are into relationship, not morality. Relationship means being wholly supportive and standing alongside me, not judging.”[1]

________

1. Philip Yancey, “Nietzsche Was Right,” Books & Culture (January/February 1998), pp. 14–17.

[complete article is at #28052]

*

An item in the British medical journal “Psychiatric Bulletin” argues children's belief in Santa Claus “encourages their moral development as they believe he knows which children are good or bad.” Psychiatrist Lynda Breen says the myth “is a useful ace up a parent's sleeve” and they really don't mind when they find out the truth. “It is actually parents who mourn the loss,” she says.

In the theater, the phrase dramatic irony refers to those situations whose meaning is understood by the audience but not by the characters. In New Testament studies, “Johannine Irony” refers to the moments in the fourth Gospel when the true meaning of a speaker's words is lost on him. For instance, when Caiaphas says that it is better that one man die than the whole nation perish.

We can add another kind of irony to the list: NEW YORK TIMES Irony. That's when the “paper of record” is oblivious to what's happening on its front page.

We saw “TIMES Irony” in action this past Tuesday. One headline read “Colorado Court Bars Execution Because Jurors Consult Bible.” The story was about a decision of the Colorado Supreme Court that overturned a death sentence for a man convicted of raping and murdering a woman. During the deliberations, jurors, who were told to “make an individual moral assessment,” consulted the Bible.

The court concluded that reliance on a “higher authority” like the Bible was incompatible with the “rarified, solemn and sequestered nature of jury deliberations.” It labeled “extraneous texts” like the Bible a “distraction.”

The dissenting justices called the Bible “part of the jurors' moral and religious precepts” and, as such, “relevant to their court-sanctioned moral assessment.”

Now, three inches away from the story about the Colorado decision was another headline, “On Wall Street, a Rise in Dismissals over Ethics.” In the aftermath of the Enron scandal and the ensuing legal backlash, corporations have adopted “zero-tolerance policies” regarding “business and personal behavior.”

The article told the story of the firing of two Bank of America executives. They had heard confidential information that another company was preparing to merge, and they called to see if they could solicit the business. Historically, that would be considered good aggressive sales. Instead, they were called into the boss's office, which was filled with lawyers, read a statement, and told to leave the building immediately. Not surprisingly, they're planning to sue Bank of America for wrongful termination.

The “reach for the moral high ground” resulted recently in Boeing's CEO being forced out over his affair with another executive.

Marjorie Kelly of Business Ethics magazine calls what's happening “a new kind of Puritanism.” I call it “ironic.” A court overturns a death sentence because jurors consulted a “higher authority,” and corporations fire executives for, in essence, not consulting a higher authority.

This isn't “Puritanism,” which the TIMES considers a bad thing. It's a sort of waking up, a realization that regulation and law, however well-intentioned, isn't enough to ensure the kind of conduct that produces confidence in the market. Without the inner restraints created by a belief in some “higher authority,” however it's defined, law can never be enforced. Colorado court, please take notice.

This need for a “higher authority,” which for most people is religiously derived, is lost on the TIMES. In its universe, it's possible to do a “moral assessment” without knowing why we should be moral in the first place. That's more than ironic; it's clueless.

________

Copyright (c) 2005 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

In 1997, Wisconsin officials, acting on reports of an abandoned child, got more than they bargained for: not only did the child show signs of extreme neglect, she turned out to be the product of an incestuous marriage between siblings.

In addition to terminating Allen and Patricia Muth's parental rights, Wisconsin tried and convicted them of criminal incest. Since the Muths didn't challenge the facts of the case, you would think that settled the matter. But it didn't.

Both at trial and on appeal, the Muth's challenged the constitutionality of the Wisconsin law. That's right: they argued that there's a constitutional right to incest. While this may sound shocking, it shouldn't be surprising, not if you take the Supreme Court at its word.

Two years ago, in Lawrence V. Texas, which overturned Texas' law against sodomy, Justice Kennedy didn't say that there was a fundamental right to homosexual sodomy. He did something even worse: he wrote that people are “free as adults to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.”

Kennedy said that these adults “are entitled to respect for their private lives” and that “the State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.”

Justice Scalia warned, in a blistering dissent, that the case language would encompass any consensual sexual practice, including incest or polygamy. And that's exactly what the Muth's lawyers argued — first before the Wisconsin Supreme Court and then before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Earlier this summer, the Seventh Circuit rejected Muth's argument, thankfully, but only because Judge Daniel Manion said that Lawrence didn't apply only because this case “did not [specifically] address the constitutionality of incest statutes.” Legal scholar Matthew Franck wrote that this is “true but trivial.” The issue is whether Lawrence's reasoning should be applied to cases not involving homosexuality.

Given Kennedy's sweeping rhetoric about “private lives” and demeaning someone's existence, the answer would appear to be “yes.” Substitute “incestuous” for “homosexual” in Kennedy's opinion and its meaning remains exactly the same. And, as Kennedy wrote, “profound and deep convictions” about the immorality of a practice isn't a constitutionally-sufficient reason to criminalize that practice.

Some believe that Judge Manion knew this and ruled against the Muths on other grounds because Manion “would rather someone other than himself,” preferably, the Supreme Court, commit such a travesty.

No one is sure what the Supreme Court will actually do with the Muth's case. If it follows Kennedy's logic in Lawrence, however, it will declare incest constitutional — so we may be only one case away from this moral horror.

This is why the upcoming confirmation process is so important. Today, all that stands between us and the logical inevitability of the protection of incest is one more vote in the High Court.

________

Copyright (c) 2005 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

"They took turns confessing their sins and worshipping the Lord their God." (Nehemiah 9:3 NLT)

"The recognition of sin is the beginning of salvation." (Martin Luther)

RECOGNIZING SIN

The year 1983 summoned forth two splendid examples of moral imperfection: Rep. Daniel Crane (R-Ill) and Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass). Both were censured by the House for sexual misconduct with 17-year-old pages.

The nation got a glimmer of their philosophical differences when Crane admitted tearfully that he “broke the laws of God and man.” He cast a vote for his own censure and faced the House as the Speaker announced the tally.

Studds, in contrast, defended the relationship with his page as “mutual and voluntary” and said the relationship didn't warrant the “attention and action” of the House. Studds listened to the verdict from the Speaker with his back to the House.

Do they both deserve equal censure? Of course. But there's one consolation for Crane. His philosophy (of an objective moral order promulgated by God in man's nature) teaches that there is one thing worse than sin. That is denial of sin, which makes forgiveness impossible.

-- Thomas F. Roeser in the CHICAGO SUN-TIMES

The Bible wants nothing to do with moral relativism, and that is why some critics have singled out faithful Christians and Jews for particular scorn. These critics know that the objective moral standards defended by millions of faithful believers stand in the way of uprooting God from our nation. Just as the people of Nehemiah's time confessed their sins and were restored, so we must ask the Lord to forgive us and heal our land.

________

Adapted from MEN OF INTEGRITY DEVOTIONAL BIBLE with devotions from the editors of MEN OF INTEGRITY, a publication of Christianity Today International (Tyndale, 2002), entry for April 17.

*

In his article, “The Future of Tradition,” author Lee Harris suggests that America's current culture war is the result of society's existing customs and traditions being called to the bar of reason and ruthlessly interrogated and cross-examined by an intellectual elite.

Harris is at his best in describing what happens when tradition is dishonored and abandoned. He points to the necessary function of moral tradition in the formation and defense of the family as the civilizational context for nurturing human beings who will defend, rather than destroy, the civilization they have inherited. As he explains, “The ethical, as opposed to the merely biological, family is the site for the making of civilized human beings out of id-governed monsters. It turns man's purely animalist collection of impulses and urges into a vehicle for passing on not merely accidental means, but deliberately engineered transformative customs across generations.”

Harris understands that tradition is a “multi-generational project.” Just as he asserts, civilization depends upon one generation's concern for its grandchildren. “Civilization persists when there is a widespread sense of an ethical obligation on the part of the present generation for the well-being of the third generation -- their own grandchildren. A society where this feeling is not widespread may last as a civilization for some time -- indeed, for one or two generations it might thrive spectacularly. But inevitably, a society acknowledging no transgenerational commitment to the future will decay and decline from within.”

Beyond this, the family is the school for the most basic moral learning. In the family context, “no one is an ethical relativist,” Harris observes. “A consistent ethical relativist would refuse to scold her child for doing anything whatsoever. Stab the poodle to death? To each his own. Toss your favorite CDs out the window? Who is to judge? Set the house on fire and gleefully watch it burn down? It all depends on your point of view.” Helpfully, Harris explains that “Members of each generation are committed to making sure that the ethical baseline of their society does not move in a manner that their visceral code instantly tells them is wrong.” Otherwise, the civilization moves towards its own destruction.

Harris understands another truth that he helpfully explains in terms of our current cultural conflict. “In the culture war of today, the representatives of one side have systematically set out to destroy the shining examples of middle America. They seem to be doing so with an unconscious fanaticism that most closely parallels the conscious fanaticism of the various iconoclastic movements in the history of Christianity. They are doing this in a variety of ways -- through the media, of course, and through the educational system. They are very thorough in their work and no less bold in the astonishingly specious pretext upon which they demand the sacrifice of yet another shining example.”

Harris then turns to consider what has happened to marriage. Our moral tradition -- shaped by Christianity -- was based upon the “ethical obviousness” of marriage as a resolutely heterosexual institution. A response of revulsion and rejection in the face of proposals and demands for same-sex marriage were rejected by moral instinct. The very fact that those opposed to same-sex marriage seemed to be without moral arguments against such an idea, Harris asserts, is proof of the ethical obviousness of what marriage is and has always been. “How do you explain what you have against what had never crossed your mind as something anyone on earth would ever think of doing?” Harris asks. He adds: “To ask someone to reason calmly about something that he regards as simply beyond the pale is to ask him to concede precisely what he must not concede -- the mere admissibility of the question.”

Harris' argument concerning marriage is made all the more important by the fact that he identifies himself as a homosexual within the article. That makes the following statement even more remarkable: “The shining example of a happy marriage and its inherent ideality was something that we once could all agree on; but now it is a shining example that has been subjected to the worst fate that can befall one: It has ... become a subject of controversy and has thereby lost its most essential protective quality: its ethical obviousness in the eyes of the community. Once the phrase 'gay marriage' was in the air, marriage was suddenly what it had never thought to be before: a kind of marriage, a type-traditional marriage, or that even worse monstrosity, heterosexual marriage.”

In making this point, Harris is on to something of profound importance. Once marriage had to be defended as “heterosexual marriage,” much of the battle had already been lost. Other forms of marriage had become imaginable, conceivable, and debatable. A moral tradition had been undermined, and civilization's most essential social institution had been successfully redefined.

Furthermore, Harris also understands that the intellectual elite “have no idea of the consequences that would ensue if middle America lost its simple faith in God and its equally simple trust in its fellow men. Their plain virtues and homespun beliefs are the bedrock of decency and integrity in our nation and the world. These are the people who give their sons and daughters to defend the good and to defeat the evil. If in their eyes this clear and simple distinction is blurred through the dissemination of moral relativism and an aesthetic of ethical frivolity, where else will human decency find such willing and able defenders?”

In his conclusion, Harris argues that the sophisticates had better come to terms with the absolute necessity of allowing the moral tradition to do its work. He asserts: “Reject the theology if you wish, but respect the ethical fundamentalism by which these people live: It is not a weakness of intellect, but a strength of character.” That sentence gets right to the heart of the problem with Lee Harris' proposal -- once the theology is rejected, the tradition is inevitably subverted.

In his brilliant essay, Lee Harris eloquently describes the real challenge we now face. Without a transcendent authority and criterion of judgment, his own proposal is inadequate. It's now up to us to provide a more substantial argument -- and to insist that the right theology is absolutely essential, if the right tradition is to survive.

________

The full text of Lee Harris' “The Future of Tradition” can be found at http://www.policyreview.org/jun05/harris.html

In his recently released book THE GOD DELUSION, Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins sets forth the staggering estimation that post-Christian secular societies are far more moral than societies that operate from a religious foundation. He recounts the horrors carried out in the name of God, moving past the monstrosities of the 20th century at the hands of atheist regimes by claiming their atheism had nothing to do with their behavior. “I’m inclined to suspect,” he writes, “that there are very few atheists in prison.”(1) He is insistent that believers are worse than atheists when it comes to behaving ethically.

British statesman Roy Hattersley, himself a fellow atheist, disagrees. In an article published some time after Hurricane Katrina, Hattersley makes some observations about the kind of people doing disaster work long after the disaster has been forgotten. “Notable by their absence are teams from rationalist societies, free thinkers’ clubs and atheists’ associations -- the sort of people who not only scoff at religion’s intellectual absurdity but also regard it as a positive force for evil.”(2) His words are brave, even if strewn with typical condescension. Hattersley continues,

“Civilised people do not believe that drug addiction and male

prostitution offend against divine ordinance. But those who do

are the men and women most willing to change the fetid bandages,

replace the sodden sleeping bags and -- probably most difficult

of all -- argue, without a trace of impatience, that the time has

come for some serious medical treatment.”

Those who confess the truthfulness of Christianity have confounded the world for ages. Throughout the second century there emerged a great number of rumors regarding the curious beliefs and practices of Christians. After all, the leader these people claimed to follow was a criminal executed by Roman authorities. There was thus a great deal of suspicion surrounding the motives and behavior of Christians. Why would anyone follow a man who had been crucified? Why would they choose to die rather than renounce their faith? And why would they treat those who hate them with kindness?

A Greek philosopher and opponent of Christianity named Celsus was particularly convinced that Christians were following a foolish philosophy. The Incarnation, among other things, seemed to him completely irrational. “What could be the purpose of such a visit to earth by God? To find out what is taking place among humans? Does He not know everything? Or is it perhaps that He knows, but is incapable of doing anything about evil unless He does it in person?”(3)

Though buried under insult and ignorance, Celsus has his finger on the very quality of Christianity that makes Christians as curious as the philosophy they profess: Our God came in person. He HAD to come near, as Celsus claims, though not because He couldn’t speak to us otherwise, nor because He was incapable of touching the world from where He stands. As a Father who longs to gather his children together, God came near because each child matters. He came near because one lost or one hurting or one in need was one He would lay down his life to reach.

Christmas is about remembering the one who came in person. It is this God who came near and reordered our world, calling us to see life and each other in a startling new way. It is this God who stepped into a soiled stable to show us our soiled hearts, who touched the unclean and claimed the untouched. Our morality, our countenance, our very lives are wrought by his coming among us. In each forgotten victim and broken soul we see his face because He first saw us.

________

1. Richard Dawkins, THE GOD DELUSION (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 229.

2. Roy Hattersley, “Faith Does Breed Charity,” THE GUARDIAN, September 12, 2005.

3. As quoted by Origen in the apology AGAINST CELSUS.

________

Copyright © 2006 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

We need something more than another moral imperative.

==========

Many years ago, my wife and I were having a marital “moral discourse,” and I was becoming increasingly agitated. In my fury, I yelled at her and aimed my fist at a section of the dining room wall. Unfortunately, the Holy Spirit failed to guide my hand between the studs, as he usually had done, and instead I hit a stud right on. I broke a knuckle.

A deathly silence settled in the room. While I came from a family in which nothing got done until someone yelled, Barb came from a family in which yelling brought things to a standstill. She was not going to speak to me for weeks. As I writhed in physical pain, I also writhed in emotional pain. I was a moral failure of a husband.

***

Recently, the front page of the CHICAGO TRIBUNE showed Al Gore testifying before Congress about global warming. The accompanying article said, “Gore was at his most passionate when he spoke of a ‘moral imperative’ that members of Congress have to act in light of new evidence that global warming is getting worse.”

This strong language was surely chosen deliberately by Gore. A moral imperative is a command from a higher authority — presumably God, the architect of all morality — and leaves little wiggle room. If we fail to obey a moral imperative, then, logically and naturally, we are guilty of immorality, or sin.

There was similar story on that same front page. Gay activists were dismayed by Senator Barak Obama’s initial hesitancy to distance himself from the comments of Gen. Peter Pace, who had said, “Homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral.” In the days following, the general was called everything from “insensitive” to “bigoted.”

One Obama supporter said, “[Obama’s] inability to make strong, declarative sentences in support of our issues is disheartening.... I hope he shows a little bit more moral courage for his friends.” Eventually, Obama announced he found nothing immoral about homosexuals, and thus he was temporarily rehabilitated — redeemed politically by distancing himself from an immoral general.

The ironies — which are legion here — are not my point as much as how we use the word MORAL in the public square. That day, the morality card was mostly played by liberals, but on other days, it’s conservatives who pull it out to intimidate the opposition or to cajole allies into line. It is practiced within parties, across parties, and across nations.

Christian activists, as we might expect, often pull this card out of their tunics, especially when they get in a prophetic mood. They are getting in this mood more and more lately, making everything and anything a great moral issue. The budget has become a “moral document” to some, as the Federal Marriage Amendment is to others. For many Christian activists, Left and Right, moral posturing has become politics as usual.

***

This is surprising considering how biblical teaching runs in precisely the opposite direction. For the Christian, moral discourse begins by focusing not on the sins of the other but on one’s own failures. “O God, be merciful to me, a sinner.” It is the publican’s humble prayer that is accepted by God, and it is the Pharisee — who is confident of his morality AND the other’s immorality — who is condemned. Moral discourse begins, as Jesus said, by taking the log out of our own eye.

Rarely do we hear a politician publicly concede wrongdoing. A stunning exception to this was demonstrated to me last year in Vietnam. I was part of a delegation that was pressing the government to grant more religious freedom. One official in the ministry of foreign affairs startled me when he said, “On our part, we’re not saying that we are error- or mistake- free. That is why we very much want to improve things.”

Would that more Christian activists — even behind closed doors — framed their public denunciations by admitting their own political shortcomings first.

A Christian account of the world, though, goes even deeper. For the politician, immorality is “redeemed” by public condemnation and by distancing oneself from the immoral. The disciple of Jesus, however, embraces the immoral and opens the door of redemption by that very embrace.

***

As I tried awkwardly, with one hand, to sweep up the bits of sheetrock strewn on the floor, I felt a hand on my arm. I turned around, and it was Barb. She said something apologetic. I said something apologetic. And then she embraced me for a long time.

She had every right to pronounce a grand moral imperative, condemn my behavior, and distance herself from me. That surely would have taught me a lesson. Instead, she embraced the angry sinner, and rather than teaching me a lesson, she helped heal me.

This Friday [Good Friday] we Christians celebrate a similar event, albeit one of cosmic proportions. In his life, Jesus so identified with the immoral, spent so much time WITH them, that the good people of his day mistook him for a sinner. On Good Friday, Jesus continued the story. He did not distance himself from sin as much as embrace it in himself. And by this embrace, he made redemption possible.

How Christian activists combine public moral pronouncements with personal humility — well, that’s something with which they are called to wrestle. To be sure, some historical moments demand the moral imperative. Martin Luther King Jr. used it magnificently in the civil rights movement. But for him, it wasn’t so much a political tactic as it was the plain truth. Our problem today is that we pull out the moral imperative card so often, we risk taking the Lord’s name in vain.

More to the point for the rest of us: I sometimes wonder if we are starting to let our Republic’s moral political discourse shape our private discourse. We see so much moral posturing in the news, we’re tempted to address disputes in the family, in the neighborhood, and in the church in the same way. You should hear the moral imperatives I pronounce in my mind when I’m angry at another!

But there is another imperative, that transcends morality and has little to do with obeying commands. It is that publican impulse to confess one’s own sin first and the Jesusy desire to embrace the immoral one, even the one who has done us wrong. It is called the Good Friday life.

________

Mark Galli is managing editor of Christianity Today. Copyright © 2007 Christianity Today.

Ten years ago, evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker offered a Darwinian explanation for infanticide. Pinker wrote, “A new mother will first coolly assess the infant and her situation and only in the next few days begin to see it as a unique and wonderful individual.”

This nonsense prompted the late journalist Michael Kelly to reply, “Yes, that was my wife all over: cool as a cucumber as she assessed whether to keep her first-born child or toss him out the window.”

Pinker, the celebrated Harvard professor and science popularizer, is still at it, and the results are no less nonsensical.

In a recent New York Times Magazine article titled, “The Moral Instinct,” he gave a Darwinian account for what Nietzsche called the “genealogy of morals.”

Pinker characterized both the “content” of our “moral judgments” and the “way we arrive at them” as “often questionable.” Far from being the product of reason, much less divine revelation, morality is an “an abstract spec sheet” that has been hardwired into our brains by evolution, as if senses could be hardwired by a random process.

But according to Pinker, this “spec sheet” is the source of such universal human moral concerns as not doing harm, being fair, and altruism. Somewhere in what is called the “environment of original adaptation,” these behaviors gave our ancestors an advantage in the struggle for survival.

This leads Pinker, like other Darwinians, to redefine altruism and fairness as little more than enlightened “self-interest.” We are generous toward others because evolution has “taught” us that this is the best way to ensure their generosity toward us. What we call “fairness” is really an unwritten pact not to cheat each other and, thus, promote social harmony and community.

The problem with these superficially plausible explanations is that real human beings, as opposed to theoretical ones, do not live this way. If altruism is “hardwired,” many people are poorly wired, indeed: They are stingy and cheat their neighbors with regularity.

Other people are profoundly generous, not only to their friends and family, but also to complete strangers. They are willing to make do with less and even go without, to help others in need. And they would much rather suffer an injustice than commit one.

It is not that these people are unaware of the advantages to be gained from being selfish and unfair — it is that their morality is rooted in something that enables them to be good, even when being good comes at a cost.

Because Pinker fails to describe people as they really are, he does not answer the question, “Why be good?” Why be generous or honest when all the incentives point the other way? Why give your life for someone else? His utilitarianism can neither compel nor inspire people to go beyond self-interest.

To do that, you need the Christian account. What Pinker calls “hardwiring” is what we call being created in the image of God. Since we know that this life is not all there is, we can transcend self-interest.

Without these, we have only morality as a “spec sheet” and humans as moral calculators. As Kelly put it, quoting Orwell, “You have to be an intellectual to believe such nonsense. No ordinary man could be such a fool.”

________

Copyright (c) 2008 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

On HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” program on January 18, 2008, Bill Maher hosted a discussion on the Ten Commandments.

BILL MAHER, HOST: As a book of morality, it would be about last on my list. If I had a child, the last book I would ever give to teach morality would be the Bible, especially the Old Testament.

DAN SAVAGE, COLUMNIST: People only pretend to read the Bible. Their eyes glaze over, and they remember a couple of passages that they ignore when they feel like ignoring, like “Turn the other cheek.” And, then they, when they don’t like somebody, they go flipping through this massive book, full of ancient desert prejudices, looking for something to justify it. Just like they justified slavery using the Bible, because there are passages in the Bible that justify slavery, including passages that justify selling your daughters into sex slavery. Right there, that’s Biblical, those are Biblical family values. And so, we have this selective sort of reading problem with the Bible. If we’re going to enforce it all, stone the gay people, but, you know, stoning the adulterers first starting with Newt Gingrich, and Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain [curiously, he omits Bill Clinton] ... by the time it’s my turn, they’ll be out of rocks.

JOHN FUND, WALL STREET JOURNAL: Of course there’s a lot of stuff in the Bible that’s contradictory. But who’s going to argue that the Ten Commandments are a pretty good way to lead your life, and that if more people did do that, it would be a better place?

BILL MAHER: And at least half of the Commandments are stupid...If you were going to make a list of like the ten things you absolutely can’t do, wouldn’t you put on there rape, incest, bestiality, slavery? But, instead, they have things like “Don’t swear,” you know, “Don’t build statues to other Gods,” obviously the ideas of primitive man living in primitive times, and this is what you look up to.

Modern corporations say they take moral character seriously. Here is a statement by a corporate management firm:

“Accenture takes very seriously its business ethics, corporate

governance and transparency of operations. Our board of

directors authorized the creation of our Ethics and Compliance

program. Led by our general counsel, the program is designed to:

• Foster the highest ethical standards amongst Accenture

personnel.

• Be effective in preventing, detecting and appropriately

reporting and addressing any allegation of misconduct and

violations of law by Accenture personnel.”

I doubt any of you have ever used Accenture. But all of you know its chief spokesman - Tiger Woods. They used to pay him $20 million dollars a year. Not any more. They fired him because he violated his contract’s morals clause. Most of his other sponsors did the same thing.

It is hard to feel too sorry for a man who went from making billions to only making millions. But all of us are judged by the moral choices we make in life. Our choices don’t just reflect on us. They also reflect on the organizations we belong to.

The church does it a little differently. When I was hired by Ledgewood Baptist, I remember signing a one-page statement that I would be the pastor. The term of service was open-ended. There was no morals clause. There didn’t need to be one. It’s found in the Bible, in 1 Timothy 3.

Respected leadership is a key to reaching the world. Paul knew it, lived it, and expected it in others. Do we expect what God expects?

________

Adapted from the online blog "Tiger Woods and the Morals Clause," by Alan Caruba, December 14, 2009.

Should we focus our efforts and energies only on the less divisive, more positive aspects of our faith? I’ll defer to Martin Luther, who said:

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefields besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”

A minister was talking with a woman who is a Bible teacher. She has her own class each week. He mentioned capital punishment. “I’m against capital punishment,” she said. “I cannot imagine anyone claiming to be a man of God who believes in capital punishment. Why on earth would you believe in capital punishment?”

“Very simple reason,” he said. The ONLY society that God ever established on earth and ruled directly on earth ... in that society, for the BENEFIT of that society, He established capital punishment. I can give you the verses.”

“I would be very happy to hear the verses,” she said. “But let me say I would first have to go to the Holy Spirit and see how He would lead ME on the subject.”

Do you realize what she was saying? No matter what I HEAR, it’s what I THINK. Even if God in His word did, in fact, establish capital punishment, I would first ask the Holy Spirit for myself whether capital punishment is right, as though the Holy Spirit would contradict God the Father. That’s like everyone being his own president. We hear what we think.

"Are babies born with a sense of right and wrong?" -- Question asked by Luc Wallace of Canterbury, England.

An inner conscience of basic morality is in all people.

Early theorists in psychology mainly took the approach that babies are born without any sense of morality. Morals are something they learn as they grow older. But recent research shows that even babies show signs of a rudimentary moral compass.

A study in 2010 by researchers at Yale University involved babies as young as three months old. They were shown a video of different shaped blocks on a hill. The blocks corresponded to different characters, who either helped or hindered another character who was struggling to get up the hill. The researchers found that the babies preferred looking at the helpful characters. This suggests an early preference for altruistic social behavior.