In the many discussions with me and around me regarding sin and biblical morality, I find an underlying perspective that seems to me to be a problem. Most people today will tell me that it's perfectly okay for me to have my own private view of morality, but don't try to foist that on anyone else because it's not right. This is considered "the rule of the day", the right way to think, "tolerant". And it comes from this underlying perspective that seems to me to be ... well, I think I said that ... that seems to me to be a problem.
The problematic perspective is that morality in general and biblical morality in particular is, well, somewhat arbitrary. "Right and wrong," we tend to think, "is primarily a thrill-kill, a necessary 'evil' (Catch the irony?) that we need in place to just get along." So we tend to think that we have to have a common idea of what is moral so we can avoid harming one another, protect those who need protecting, and that sort of thing. You can see, then, how this "don't try to foist it off on anyone else" kind of thinking would come from there. We need common morality, a shared view of what is harmful or not, right or not, not some arbitrary "biblical morality" or some such.
So we'll allow those biblical morals that coincide with the current common morality and relegate those other less appealing ones to the "private morality" bin. We'll agree to consider murder and stealing (especially if it's my stuff that's stolen) to be wrong, but not all that ... oh, I don't know ... that stuff we like so much. So we will disagree that abortion is wrong and keep our mouths shut or that sex outside of marriage is immoral and remain silent on it. That whole "submit to the government" thing went out in America a long time ago, so that kind of "biblical morality" would fall in the "private morality" category and you had better not bring that up in public. And so it goes.
For me, of course, this is all quite confusing. You see, I start with a couple of premises. First, I believe that God is good. Odd, I know, but it's my starting point. Second, I believe that the Bible is an accurate representation of God's Word. Even more bizarre, I know. But with those two points, I can only come to one conclusion regarding biblical morality: It's good. I don't mean merely that it's moral (which would be vain repetition -- "biblical morality is moral"). I mean that it's good for us. For me, then, those things that God says are "immoral" are not so because He's intent on destroying our fun or choosing arbitrarily to restrict our freedoms. Instead, as Creator of the human being, He is telling us what works best for the creature. "Do this and it will be good for you; do that and it will harm you. Oh, by the way, you may not recognize that it will harm you, but, trust Me, it will." Given a good God and a reliable Bible, that's the only conclusion I can come to.
With that perspective, then, you can only imagine how strange it is to me to have this oh-so-common notion that morality is private and don't try to foist it off on anyone else. To me you're saying, "Just because you know this is acid I'm drinking is no reason to tell me not to drink it. Keep your opinions to yourself and let me destroy my internal organs." It's not a matter of "moral outrage" or "righteous indignation" for me. It's a matter of compassion. "Don't do it!" I might cry out, "It will hurt you!" But what seems to be heard is some weak moral gibbering about how naughty it is for you to do bad things. "Really, Stan, you ought to keep my silly, narrow-minded, backward opinions to yourself."
So, I see the problem with sin as one of doing harm to people. I see it as real harm, as ongoing harm, as serious harm. I don't suggest I've got some "moral high ground". Simply based on a good God and reliable Scripture and my firm belief that sin hurts people, I think I need, out of genuine compassion for people, to say something. So how am I to deal with this? There are many who would prefer me to keep silent. There are many who don't see it as love. How is that to be handled? How is that to be expressed? How can I be a loving person and keep quiet? And why would anyone demand that I do?
8 comments:
Stan...
"Do this and it will be good for you; do that and it will harm you. Oh, by the way, you may not recognize that it will harm you, but, trust Me, it will." Given a good God and a reliable Bible, that's the only conclusion I can come to.
Me, too. I agree. The only caveat is that there is a third component to be reckoned with here:
1. Good God. Check!
2. Reliable Bible. (with some caveats...) Check!
3. A FALLIBLE Humanity (prone to misunderstanding God's "clear" Word... Not checked (Thus, the caveat).
Does God want only what's best for us? Certainly so, that's my solid belief. God's will, rightly understood, then is always going to be for our good.
The problem with placing a fallen gov't composed of fallen humanity in charge of legislating the "rightly understood" morality of God is self-evident, I believe. Thus we limit laws to only that which reasonably can be expected to cause harm and don't go into dipping into trying to legislate ALL morality. That would tend to lead to no good, seems to me.
Now, outside of legislation, ought we speak up for that which we believe is moral and, thus, good for our beloved brothers and sisters in the world? In the right context and with the copious amounts of humility, grace and love, certainly so.
Does that mean it's a good idea for me to march into some right wing church on a Sunday morning and "testify" to them about their poor understanding of God's morality, lecturing them (even in love) about the evils of warring Christians, for instance?
No, wrong time, wrong context.
But privately, tenderly sharing my concern for a gay brother living a lascivious lifestyle? Sure, done in love and with grace and humility, that could be called for.
There's a time and place and approach for everything. Them's my thoughts.
Stan,
Keep on telling the truth, brother. The enemy (satan) isn't pleased...must mean you're doing something right!
It's true. We do have a fallen gov't composed of fallen humanity. This is proven by the fact that many in our gov't support such corrupt ideas like civil unions/homosex marriages, progressive taxation, risking the death of unknown numbers of civilians rather than forcing information from known scumbags, citizenship for invaders who ignore our laws, and of course the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn as well as a host of other laws and proposals that distort or ignore both Constitutional as well as Biblical precepts and principles.
But that's not what the post is about, if I'm not mistaken. Nor is it about the fact that some don't misunderstand God's clear and perfect Word regarding behavior and morality, but willfully subvert and pervert His Word under the guise of misunderstanding, misinterpretation or difference of opinion.
No. It seems to me to be about the last few lines of the post. Assuming whatever any of us believes, should we believe it sincerely, do we clam up in the face of immorality and bad behaviors or speak out and defend, encourage and support that which we believe? I say the latter is our path and at least in the blogosphere and in general in the day-to-day, I do what I can, where I can as situations arise or as situations allow, and sometimes despite the situation.
Biblical morality is good for all. That is clear. It is proven constantly. Imagine if all the world abode God's Will regarding human sexuality. There'd be no rapes, no abortions (except to save a mother's life if the pregnancy threatened it), no STD's, particularly AIDS as no one would engage in homosexual behavior. There'd be no adulterous affairs and all the hurt and divorce and expense and suffering children that go along with it. Health care costs would be lower, as would legal costs. Now add in lying, stealing and all levels of assault and think how lovely a world we'd inhabit.
God's morality is not difficult to discern when one studies honestly and without agenda except to honor Him. It serves non-believers equally well apart from personal difficulties in abiding laws one might not understand or in which one might see no need. (Some of His laws make no sense to the non-believer and thus adherence is more difficult.)
In whatever way we can, we must boldly, but graciously (though Dan doesn't agree I'm always such) defend righteousness and encourage Godly behavior.
As to those who insist we're "forcing our morality down their throats", it's a two-way street. If we shut up as they'd like, they've just forced us to accept THEIR morality, or lack thereof.
It is indeed about standing up for what we believe, but it's more about the motivation and the opposition. On the motivation side, if I believe that X is sin and that sin is harmful, what kind of loving neighbor (remember, "love thy neighbor") would I be to keep silent about it. On the opposition side, why do they want me to keep quiet? I mean, I'm not forcing anyone to stop doing what they're doing. I am motivated by genuine concern for others. So ... the reasonable thing would be to either stop me from believing what I believe or stop me from caring about others, right? Of course not! Exactly right. In the cry to "stop forcing that stuff down our throats!", they force us to stop believing what we believe and caring.
Great post, though I think you already put this one up or at least very very similar.
Marshal, just one thing, AIDS wouldn't be completely gone, since it doesn't only spread from gay sex, but it would be severely less prevalent. Just to be a little more accurate :)
Yes, David, likely something similar, as I've seen it this way for a long time. Sometimes it bears repeating. Sometimes I hear things that seem to make it need to be said.
Not to get off the subject, but
"Most HIV/AIDS researchers believe that the virus that causes AIDS originated in chimpanzees and made the jump to humans in the 1930s on exposure to primate blood through hunting and preparing meat."
From this article.
So David, with all due respect, if we assume that those who were exposed through either hunting or preparing meat only engaged in sexual relations according to Biblical teaching, could the current situation, or anything approaching it, have ever come to pass? I think not. Consider it in that light and then respond.
That certain STDs may still exist, it would never spread beyond a man and his wife if spread sexually. It would have to spread in some other manner that would be far easier to control.
Stan,
You suggest a great point, that if we are forced into silence, either overtly or by intimidation, then some other idea of morality is forced upon US, even if we don't personally partake or live according to that morality. And really, if the alternate version of reality is more appealing to the most people, there is little effect our standing up for true Biblical morality will have. The culture will reflect the majority belief and we'll be considered fringe.
So to seek ways to silence us, as in saying we are bigots, fundies, fascist or any number of other words meant to demonize that which fills them with guilt feelings, or worse methods than that, such as "hate crimes" legislation, means they don't have to face the truth of what they are doing or supporting. Our silence makes it easier for them to pretend all is well with their chosen morality.
Post a Comment