This post is number 5 in a series examining the book, Surviving Religion 101; Letters to a Christian Student on Keeping the Faith in College by Michael J. Kruger.
Our culture increasingly recognizes Christian morality as intolerant and hateful (p. 65). This is perhaps most clearly seen when it comes to the topic of sexuality. While a Biblical ethic teaches that sexual expression is limited to a husband-and-wife relationship, the broader culture embraces sexual expression in all forms between anyone and everyone. This shift is likely exasperated by the epidemic of pornography that our culture has become so saturated in, ultimately normalizing a casual attitude towards sex and an embrace of hook-up culture and sexual experimentation (p. 66).
Even more significant, in our culture, sex is no longer
merely something someone does, sex defines who a person is; their
identity tied to their sexual preference and activity (p. 66). The result of this is that to proclaim a
Biblical view of sexuality is perceived not merely as an attack on a particular
behavior, but as an attack on the people who have defined their lives through
that behavior. For instance, the Bible
teaches that sex is reserved for a committed heterosexual husband and wife
relationship, so that Christians who teach this Biblical view are perceived as
discriminatory and hateful against those who center their identity on their
same-sex attraction and activity (p. 66).
While it is the Bible that defines morality, not everyone
agrees to its standards, and many outright reject its standards as immoral (p.
67). This really shouldn’t surprise
us—Christ crucified is a stumbling block to the Jew and foolishness to the
Greek (1 Cor. 1:23); the Gospel message is contrary to the messages the world
proclaims and the standards it calls us to.
But here is the danger: as Christians, we might begin to
question the goodness of the Bible’s standards as well. We might begin to feel that holding to
the Bible’s teachings is hateful and discriminatory and that ignoring the
Biblical standards would be a more tolerant, loving approach (p. 67).
last month, I preached on Acts 19:21-41. Paul had been preaching in Ephesus for over 2
years, and many people were turning to the Lord. The culture was being transformed! Unfortunately, not everyone wanted a
transformed culture. As people turned to
the Lord, they turned away from idolatry, and Demetrius, a silversmith, along
with the craftsmen of Ephesus foresaw the logical conclusion—their business
would ultimately dry up. Their anger led
to a riot that stirred the entire city; all of this because Paul simply said
gods made by human hands aren’t real gods.
People quickly get upset when Christianity rubs up against their
worldview and upsets their desires.
Paul did not claim that gods made by human hands were not
gods to him. He claimed that they
are not gods, period. Christians claim
the moral commands of the Bible are absolute—for all people (p. 67).
Is that fair?
Could morality be relative?
We already considered truth—that ultimately a belief based on historical
claims must either be true or false; it cannot be true for one person and not
another? But what about morality? Is morality based in preference; is it more
like choosing the best ice cream flavor than stating the total of 2+2? Is adultery sinful because I prefer to see it
that way or because there is an absolute, universal moral standard that states
its sinful?
Many claim morality is relative. But Michael Kruger asks an important
question. How do they know? While they
claim moral relativism is true, ultimately, they have no grounding reason for
such a claim. They aren’t all-knowing
(p. 68). Wishing something is true
does not make it so (p.
69).
Beyond that, moral
relativism is incredibly inconsistent.
Many who claim morality is relative are the very ones who condemn
behaviors they disagree with. They often
condemn Christians for imposing a moral code on others, but become enraged when
their moral code is denied (69). We can
think of contemporary examples with abortion and homosexuality/transgenderism,
but Ephesus faced it 2000 years ago with Paul, Demetrius and idolatry.
If morality truly
is relative, then it would be impossible to label anything as evil—the
holocaust, murder, rape, slavery, sex trafficking; but we all recognize evils in this world.
This is why, in a world of moral relativism, we also have cancel
culture. Kruger says, “the fact of the
matter is that most of your friends are both moral relativists and moral absolutists at the
same time. For some behaviors, they are one; for other behaviors, they are the
other.” They want to have their cake and
eat it too! (p. 70).
Taken to its
logical conclusion, a world with no moral absolutes would be a truly
terrifying, chaotic place. But, if we
acknowledge that there must be moral absolutes, then where do they come
from (p. 71)? Christians have an answer
to that.
When we say that an
action is evil, we are saying that it didn’t measure up to the standard of
righteousness. But what is that
standard, and who defines it? To define
a moral absolute—a clear “this is right and this is
wrong”—there likewise must be an absolute standard; an ultimate standard of what is
good. It must be stronger than mere
opinion. Opinions change. This standard must stand above human opinion
(p. 72).
Beyond that, moral
absolutes must come from a personal being.
Rocks can’t tell you what is right or wrong (sorry Demetrius…they are
not gods) and neither can an impersonal universe (p. 72). That’s as ludicrous as seeking moral counsel
from a dinner fork.
What does this all
mean? Morality must be defined by a
perfect and sinless God (p. 72).
Christians worship a perfect God who has told us what is right and what
is wrong.
Does this mean that
those who do not believe in God are incapable of doing good things? No.
Atheists, though they deny God, can still practice moral good because
God has given them a conscience. Romans 2:15 says, "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them." The challenge for the atheist
is giving a reason for why an action is good or bad (p. 73).
So, what does this
all mean for us in those moments when we are labeled as haters for the moral
views we cling to. Ultimately, remember
that when you cling to God’s truth, those who criticize you and label you hateful
are truly putting that label on God whom you serve. We can strive to help them see God’s love and
that his moral laws are for our benefit in the same way a parent has rules to
protect their children (p. 74).
If you are labeled
hateful, just remember that apart from God, no one has any grounds for making a
claim on morality. What standard are
they evaluating you by (p. 75)?
In contrast, as
Christians, we turn to the God who is supreme over all...and is supremely
good. He has revealed what is good
through his word.
How would you respond to a friend who says morality is relative?
What grounding do Christians have for moral claims? What grounding do none Christians have?
Why is it shaky ground to anchor morality in human opinion?
No comments:
Post a Comment