Way back in the '70's they came out with the concept of "values clarification". There was a famous exercise called "Lifeboat" designed to teach kids how this works. "You're a survivor of a ship that just sank. There are fifteen people who want to get in the lifeboat, but it only holds ten people. You have to decide who to keep and who to let go." The exercise goes on to give particulars about the people in question and you have to use that information to decide who lives and who dies, essentially. It was intended to help you clarify what your values are. Nice.
Today the accusation is often tossed around (largely by conservatives against liberals) that "They have no values!" The suggestion is that they have no sense of ethics, no sense of right or wrong, no idea of what's good or bad to do. There is even a (tongue in cheek, I hope) group called "No values voters" who hope for the worst candidates ever.
It's not true, of course. There is no one who has no values. Everyone values something, even if that "something" is nihilism -- nothingness. And while it seems quite obvious from the accusation that "the left has no values", the thing we often miss is the connection between values and morality. In fact, it is possible to determine what someone values by their sense of morals.
Here, let's look at some examples. Why is it that we (Christians) say that murder is bad? Well, first we can say, "Because God said so" and we, by definition, value what God says. From that angle anything God commands is "moral" because He commands it and we value what God says. But let's stick to murder for a moment. Why did God command us not to murder? (Hint: He tells us why in the Bible.) In Genesis 9:6 we read, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image." Thus, because of God's image imprinted on Man, human beings are valued by God (and, subsequently, by Man) and, therefore, because of that value it's wrong to commit murder. You see, that which is valued determines that which is right.
Or take lying. We would say that it's immoral to lie. That's because we value truth and integrity. "Now, wait," someone might object, "what about the Christians in World War II Germany who lied to the Nazis to protect the Jews?" Now, I know that there may be some debate over that (some of you may not know that), but since the point I'm addressing is the relationship of values to morals, you can see how that works, right? We would value honesty ... unless honesty entails murder, in which case we would more highly value human life. So in these cases one might argue that lying is not immoral, but telling the truth would be.
The point here is not to offer "good" values or bad. The point is to show the connection between values and morals. Remember that "morality" by definition is "conformity to the rules of right conduct", and morality is defined by the customs of the group. Morals differ from ethics. Ethics are, essentially, the underlying science of morality, the first principles of a moral system. Morals, on the other hand, are driven more by the herd mentality. If the herd is Christian, you get a biblical morality. If it is not, you get a worldly morality. The two are not the same. The reason the two are not the same is this whole "values" thing.
This, then, is how an atheist can be moral. If an atheist values, as an example, human life, even though there is no rationale for such a thing, the atheist will be against murder -- a shared moral belief with Christians, and even on the same basis -- human life is valuable. Of course, trying to ascertain why this atheist values human life may be difficult, but the fact that he or she does would make it immoral to murder. By the same token, if a person values pleasure, then what pleases him or her becomes "moral". Or, here, let's state that a different way and I think you'll see it. If a person values pleasure, then what pleases him or her is good. You see? And that is why Christians standing on the Word of God (because we value what God says) will say that homosexual behavior is immoral while homosexuals standing on their value of passion will say it is not. But no one actually has no values.
7 comments:
If I had to throw someone from the boat, I'd start with P-BO voters... :)
Oh, I can see that now. "You! Out of the boat! Yes ... all of you!"
Stan,
It's a start. I know that this is a little bit of a haven for Calvinist thought, but any PCUSA connection?
While I do know of the PCUSA, I have zero affiliation and less admiration. I have been to PCA churches and know and respect many associated with that arm of the Presbyterian Church. I also know that there are still respectable folk lurking about in the PCUSA, their voices almost entirely obscured by the "progressives" in that body. So, no, no connection to the PCUSA.
Wasn't sure, but there was a court ruling that whacked the property trust clause pretty hard the other day. Which is good news for those churches that would like to move on.
Your blog on Pastor Shuck has tapered off, but it did make me wonder if you had any association with the PCUSA. All I've read from you seems to be coherent, rational, even biblical, so I was guessing that you had not. If you did, I'd guess that you'd be among those "respectable folk" I mentioned.
Yes the Shuck blog has suffered, I actually spend more time on my Habitat blog.
Yes, I'm at a large PCUSA church that is still hanging with Biblical integrity.
Shuck is so far off the reservation I don't understand his fascination with remaining in the PCUSA. I've pretty much ceased commenting there as it can get pretty hostile. Actually I'm trying to avoid commenting much on any lefty blogs as the personal shots start early and often so it seems pointless.
thanks for offering at least one spot where we Calvinists can get a little respect out here. I appreciate what you are doing.
Post a Comment