We Christians largely dislike the notion of "relativism." We much prefer absolutes. Here's the problem. There are things that are relative. Here's one: "good." "Oh, no," some will say, "There is absolute good and bad." True ... except ... the fact of the matter is "good" and "bad" are relative. To what they are relative is a key question.
Consider ... there is a good pizza, a good dog, and a good man. They are ... not the same. A man is not "good" because of his sauces and toppings. And a dog is not good as long as he treats his wife well. In fact, a man is a bad pizza by pizza standards. You get the idea. The issue of "good" is determined by the standard to which it is compared.
So, if "good" is relative, how do we avoid moral relativism? You have an absolute standard. So "good" is not determined by your standard versus my standard. It is determined by God. Scripture says, "God is love." That doesn't mean that love is God (as some have erroneously supposed). It means that God defines love. In the same sense, God is good (James 1:17; Mark 10:18). He is the standard (Matt 5:48). So "good" is defined by God and not by our meager ideas or preferences. We don't get to evaluate God on what is or isn't good. If we do, we make ourselves the standards ... and "good" becomes random.
7 comments:
I've been having this conversation for a while, and it seems incredibly simple to me. There is nothing wrong with identifying or labeling something or some one as good in the relative sense of the word. To evaluate based on a subjective, relative standard of good is fine for many things. The problem comes when trying to equate relative good with objectively good.
Another thing to point out is that God's goodness doesn't change. He won't say something is good and a thousand years later change that, unlike Allah, who simply deems something good, but that can't change later.
This was a good post, relatively speaking, and you make a good point. :) When God is the standard, virtually everything else pales in comparison. Indeed, God’s perfection is what has deemed human beings as “depraved”--our degree of “goodness” is so far from God’s true goodness that we are actually wicked in comparison to Him. For people who know God and what true goodness looks like, it is impossible to deem any human being as good. (Perfect illustration: for a lot of people, “Mother Teresa” is the standard for a “good person.” When one learns more about her life, though, she turns out to be just a regular person after all.) We need to keep that higher standard in mind. Only God is good.
If good is relative, and there is no objective moral standard (standard of good) then what is the value of referring to something as good? Doesn't it merely become one more term that means everything or anything so that it really means nothing?
If I was to say "Stan is a good person.", I'm left with two options. Stan is good based on X standard. Stan is good relative to other people. Compared to Hitler, he's really good but compared to Mother Theresa, he's not that good. In short it's a meaningless, useless adjective absent some standard.
When I consider whether someone is a “good person,” I ask myself, “is he/she a godly person?” This keeps my focus on important truths: Only God is good, while all people are radically corrupt; humans are truly “good” (or do truly “good” things) only as they reflect God’s nature, serve His purposes, advance His kingdom, and bring Him glory. Therefore, I don’t concur with others who consider Hitler and “Mother Teresa” as the standards for judging evil/goodness in people; rather, I look for fruit of the Spirit and Christlikeness. (For me, that would be the “X standard” Craig mentioned.)
Lorna, that is an excellent question. I agree that godly should be a better measuring stick. Yet, there is a sense in which that just moves the target. As we've seen there are people who'll insist that it's "godly" too encourage certain sins, or to engage in vitriolic attacks of others.
I think that your comment makes the larger point well. We have "good" as it applies to YHWH, which I think we could agree is an objective/perfect standard of good. We also have good as compared to other people and things, which I think we can agree is a subjective/relative standard.
The problem comes, for me, when people try to use the subjective/relative measure of good to claim that things/people meet the objective standard of good. Or, another way, when people try to opine on how much of the subjective/relative good is enough to get over the objective/perfect standard.
Craig, You too make a very good point. It seems to me that many will deem someone/something “good” simply because it is less evil than someone/something else (when it is still so far from God’s standard). That leaves room for all kinds of justification and rationalization, which just serves as a distraction to subjecting one’s thinking to a higher authority, i.e. God. It is rebellion, afterall, and the original temptation in the Garden--a desire to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, rather than submit to God’s authority. Those who claim to be Christians but deny scripture’s teaching that we will not think rightly by default will be fighting God all the way to the end, it seems.
Post a Comment