Tag: morality

Who says evil is good?

We all know there is a difference between good and evil; the problem is that while there is a general consensus as to what is good and evil, there are some things that are considered good by some people, whereas others see those things as evil. Hence the question: who can tell what good really is? Who can define those things that are evil?

Let’s imagine a person who holds that burglary is actually a good thing to do; logically, therefore, everyone should do it – since if it is good, it should apply to all. If that person’s moral philosophy was held universally, burglaries would not only be commonplace they would incur no arrest or imprisonment. But everyone would be up in arms when someone stole something from them! Such a moral philosophy that flies in the face of human normality has to be wrong.

What about the person who believes it is good for people to sleep around with various sexual partners? If this is universalised as a wise moral philosophy, shared by all, you can imagine the kind of social chaos that would result. Is there someone who could impose wisdom in place of such a disaster?

These scenarios concern people who think they have the ability to define good and evil. While many make their own choices in moral questions, few would want their particular preference to be made into a universal law. Humans cannot impose their invented moral absolutes universally. People wouldn’t stand for it – though in some totalitarian states such abominable practices have occurred; and good people shudder.

While we all have a sense of right and wrong, we must acknowledge the limits of our wisdom when it comes to specifying what is good and what is evil for everyone. The prophet Isaiah calls out a certain perversity: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5.20). Woe upon such, indeed, for if that moral philosophy were to obtain, all hell would be let loose!

Friederich Nietzsche falls under that “woe”. He discarded God and any divine moral code and wiped out the moral order that obtained under Christianity; but he fully realised the desperate damage that would result – and which indeed has brought about the moral confusion of our secular society.

The fact is that while we have moral sensitivity and conscience, we do not have totally right views of good and evil. We need the light that comes from an absolutely good source. This is a service that our Creator has done for us: he alone is “holy, holy, holy”; his wisdom alone is able to provide true goodness to enlighten the conscience with which he has endowed us. All other potential helpers are poisoned with evil in our hearts, so unaided, we can never get it right. The Ten Commandments are God’s basic ground-rules, but there is a lot more we need to know. So God sent his holy Son to teach us the subtleties of true good living, and to call us to it. He it is whose call comes to us to “repent” – to rethink our ways and to alter our behaviour in the light of His will that defines good for us. Ultimately only God can provide the moral absolutes we need.

The wondrous thing about the Christian revelation is not only that in it God provides those truly good moral absolutes, but also, by God’s loving grace, it introduces us to a heavenly Father who forgives our many misdeeds and makes us anew as we are “born again”.

Clive Every-Clayton

0

The thoughts of Blaise Pascal

The published thoughts of this French scientist, mathematician, wise Christian thinker, make for fascinating reading. Born 402 years ago he had a habit of noting down his thoughts with a view to writing a book in defence of the Christian faith, but his death came too early. However, his notes were considered so special that they have been published as his “Pensées” (thoughts). Even atheists like Friederich Nietzsche and André Comte-Sponville have expressed their appreciation of the profound wisdom of these Pensées and they have been translated into many languages and are still in print today.

Here is an example: “Man’s true nature, his true good and true virtue, and true religion are things which cannot be known separately”. Today we are perplexed about man’s “true nature”, or identity. We long to understand what is man’s “true good”, or human flourishing. Our secular society has no grounding for man’s true virtue, unable to provide absolute guidance about right and wrong. And the reason for our post-modern confusion on these issues may well be due to not having taken wise consideration of “true religion”, which for Pascal meant biblical Christianity. 

Once we come to terms with the fact that our Creator God has revealed the “true religion”, we have the key to understanding all the rest. What is “man’s true nature”? He is a reflection of the pure righteousness and goodness of God, having been at the beginning “created in the image of God”. But he no longer fulfils that high and holy calling. Rather the Bible tells us that bad human choice has corrupted our nature, so our lives no longer appropriately display the holiness of God. That is why our purpose eludes us: we have lost our true good: tainted by sin, we no longer live in unspoilt virtue. Hence we misunderstand our true nature.

What will enable us to find true human fulfilment? A return to the true religion of the Bible where our Creator reveals his plan for human life and conduct. As we revisit that divine guidance, we need also to readjust our life-style in consequence. The Bible calls us all to this conversion – turning away from all sin and committing to live according to God’s revealed wisdom. This, as Pascal saw, is the key to experiencing true human fulfilment.

When Pascal died, what was called his “memorial” was found, handwritten on paper sewn into his clothes. It was the brusque report of a powerful experience of God that he had at the age of 31. It begins, “FIRE! God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and scholars”. In other words, Pascal had met with the God revealed in the Bible, not with some mere philosophical supposition. He continues: “Certainty, certainty, heartfelt joy, peace. God of Jesus Christ”. This encounter overpowered him and convinced him that he was actually meeting with God. He adds, “He can only be found by the ways taught in the Gospels”, and quotes the words of Jesus’ prayer: “This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17.3). The “memorial” ends with a note of “Sweet and total renunciation. Total submission to Jesus Christ… Everlasting joy”.

This was such a transforming experience that he longed to teach the way of the “true religion” that he had not only studied, but experienced in this extraordinary meeting with the living God, through Christ. The “Pensées” that he wrote were the outworking of this powerful meeting with the living God.

Clive Every-Clayton

0

Morality – the puzzle

People raise complaints against the “old morality” (where, for example, homosexual acts were considered a sexual perversion, abortion was a crime associated with murder, and kids born out of wedlock were “illegitimate children”).

They consider that what is wrong with this old morality is that it is “out of date”, as is indicated by their use of the expression “on the wrong side of history”, to depict those who still hold to them.

Does morality then change with the times? Does morality differ according to when and where you live? The moral relativist would say so – there is no objective morality that we can turn to with confidence. After all, who is to say what the right morality is? Will it be different tomorrow? It could well be. 

This reflection is not miles away from our daily lives, because we all make judgments about good and evil. These judgments differ from person to person, and from age to age: so there seems to be no objective standard to guide us as we face issues requiring some kind of moral judgment.

C.S. Lewis refers to this as “the poison of subjectivism”. “Until modern times,” he writes, no thinker of the first rank ever doubted that our judgments of value were rational judgments, or that what they discovered was objective”. What Lewis saw coming is the slough in which we are plunged today: the old morality is condemned by those who seem to have invented a new morality, with new sins like “homophobia” and “intolerance”.

It is well worth listening to the deep wisdom of this Oxford don and ethics specialist. C.S. Lewis insists it is a “fatal superstition that men can create values.” There needs to be “some objective standard of good”, he asserts, for any moral judgments to have meaning. He shows how it is impossible to condemn the moral values of others as evil without using an objective overarching standard. Otherwise such condemnation merely expresses the subjective opinion of one or more people. “Unless the measuring rod is independent of the things measured, we can do no measuring” (Christian Reflections, p99-100).

The person who wants to relax the old-time morality and impose something “better”, does so only because he judges the old values by a standard: but the standard he uses is mere variable personal preference. Thus subjectivism poisons all such judgments and undermines the very heart of morality.

Consider this further deep wisdom from Professor Lewis: “The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of planting a new sun in the sky. Every attempt to do so consists in arbitrarily selecting some maxim of traditional morality, isolating it from the rest, and erecting it into an unum necessarium” (the one supreme moral trump-card).

He recognises that our ideas of the good may change. However, “they cannot change either for the better or for the worse if there is no absolute and immutable good to which they can approximate or from which they can recede”. 

The necessary requirement for all and any morality is such an absolute and immutable good as that which resides only in the eternal God, who is “holy, holy, holy, the Lord God almighty”. He alone is, and always has been, (despite being neglected) the objective source of moral truth. And he has communicated to us, his moral creatures, in words we can understand, how he defines good, and what human acts he condemns as evil. “To sin is to transgress God’s law” (1 John 3.4). Wisdom and moral righteousness consist in obeying it.

Clive Every-Clayton

0

The “endarkenment”

In the Middle Ages, proud intellectual philosophers dared to think that they could find the answers to questions about the meaning of life, the universe, and everything while rejecting the prevailing biblical consensus of the time. That period was called the “Enlightenment”.

After several centuries of intellectual effort the result is one of confusion, humiliation, and the recognition of failure. Having abandoned the wisdom of Jesus who declared that he was “the Light of the world”, philosophers who hoped for enlightenment by their own rational powers ended up plunging the world into hopeless darkness; I call this the “endarkenment”.

The truth is that only the Creator of the whole universe who placed on earth human beings made in his image – only he can enlighten our darkness. “God says: It is I who have made you and I alone can teach you what you are” (Pascal). 

The true enlightenment came when God sent into the world his Son, who proclaimed: “I am the light of the world; whoever follows me shall not walk in darkness but shall have the light of life” (John 8.12). What a claim! The Gospels tell us that he was “the true light which enlightens everyone” (John 1.9). Jesus’ light “shines in the darkness” (John 1.5); but Jesus lamented that “people loved the darkness rather than the light”. Why? Jesus tells us: “because their deeds were evil; for everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed” (John 3.19-20). In other words, Jesus’ light includes moral absolutes; these condemn our sins, and we don’t like that, so we “switch off” the light. That’s why Jesus was rejected and crucified by evil men.

Today, Jesus’ light remains the only ultimate answer to our human predicament, and our refusal to listen to him damns us to remain in our existential darkness.

A powerful passage in the New Testament unveils the deep darkness of our human condition; sadly, we are too proud to envisage its truth. It speaks of all people as “walking in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity” (Ephesians 4.17-19). It takes serious humility to accept such an accurate assessment of our human condition!

Another penetrating and devastating analysis of our human darkness is to be found in the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans. It describes how people “became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools… They exchanged the truth about God for a lie… and… did not see fit to acknowledge God”. Such behaviour brings down God’s holy wrath against us sinners, and the passage shows that an element in that righteous judgment is that God abandons sinful people to their “dishonourable passions”; specifically “women exchanging natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise giving up natural relations with women and being consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error” (v26-27).

In other words, bad thinking leads to bad living. God’s light not only answers our existential questions: it provides moral truth we need, to deliver us from the hellish slippery path of relativistic moral thinking. 

Jesus, however, offers truth and the promise of eternal life.

Clive Every-Clayton

0

Questions of morality

In his book Morality, Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks quotes sociologist Emile Durkheim who argued that if any society was in a state of anomie – that is, lacking a shared moral code – there would be a rise of suicides. Without a unifying body of ideas, beliefs, and attitudes that shape our world, society would fragment and individuals would not be able to cope. Noting the increase in mental stresses and suicides, the Chief Rabbi affirms that “this aptly describes the state we inhabit today: a world of relativism… subjectivity, autonomy, individual rights, and self-esteem”.

Anomie literally means absence of law, but this translates into autonomy where each person is a law unto themselves. People in our muddled relativistic age believe they have the need and the freedom to choose or make up their own moral code.

Previously in the West, Christendom provided the basis for law which defines good morality, and this performed a vital service for society even though there were (and always will be) law-breakers. Why then has it been contested, overturned, and widely disobeyed?

The root of all turning away from righteous law is the human penchant for disobedience: evil, wickedness, and rebellion dwell deep within the human heart. Unless there is some imperious reason to impose on oneself the necessary moral self-discipline to keep such laws, the tendency is to “enjoy” sin and try to get away with it. But when the reality of an all-seeing righteous divine Judge is generally accepted, society leads a more wholesome life. Turning away from God and his law is simply the outcome of the sin-controlled human heart. If conscience’s light is not upheld by a good religious teaching and by the upright ethics of society, a downgrade is bound to occur.

From the 1960’s these two bulwarks have given way as various movements comprising the sexual revolution overtook the West. But by throwing off God, the absolute holy foundation of all Good, atheistic humanists also wiped away the source of absolute morality such as would be imposed on all humans everywhere.

Without an appeal to Transcendence, every idea about morality becomes relative: I think this is sin, but you think it’s good – who’s to decide? So we each have the burden of deciding our own moral code, since no-one can provide absolutes any more. So the tendency downwards continues uninterrupted, until, like today, people begin to realise that atheism cannot give us the moral guidelines we need, and we return to consider afresh the commandments of God.

When questions of morality are raised, Scripture gives two kinds of answers: first, clear commands, like the Ten Commandments and others which condemn sins categorically. But second, it emphasises the cultivation of virtues like loving care, self-denial, humble service, purity of mind, truthfulness, and faithfulness. Similarly it condemns vices such as hatred, pride, unbridled lust, greed, envy, selfish anger, and covetousness (the tenth commandment). The Bible does not address only deeds, it deals with feelings, thoughts, and motives too.

Christian biblical morality thus balances duty, freedom and responsibility before God. To know the good, we need both the guidance of good law and the discernment of a good conscience. There is no law more perfect than that of Jesus, expressed, for example, in his Sermon on the Mount and his commandments to love God and one’s brother, one’s neighbour, and even one’s enemy.

Do you want to know if some line of action is sinful or permitted? Check the law of God in Scripture. It is there that we may find the absolute light we all need.

Clive Every-Clayton

0

The west is changing

Human beings will never adapt to “post-truth”. Our inbred discernment recognises that Truth must exist. Truth is indispensable in human relationships as well as any serious reflection. No-one can live without the concept and the reality of Truth.

So now the West, at one time so insistent on the search for Truth, is at a crossroads. Having sought by human reason alone to find Truth and build a wise world-view, it has had to admit its failure. It has descended into post-modern hopelessness, unable to find meaning, value, or any balanced wisdom about human identity.

The West is confronted with increasing desperation because of this terrible inability of godless Reason to find valid and authentic answers to our fundamental questions about life and everything. But change is in the air: finally, public intellectuals in the West are coming to a surprising conclusion. They are looking again at Christianity and coming to realise that it alone lays the proper basis for any understanding of our human reality, dignity, and value. Only Christianity with its revealed Truth can meet both our intellectual and our heart needs for real meaning. If one leaves God’s revealed wisdom aside, the result can only ultimately be confusion.  Only the Maker’s revelation has the total wisdom to guide our paths into the way of real human fulfilment. Thinkers are now coming to envisage this source of Truth with positive hope.

This renewal in biblical truth is documented by Justin Brierley in his informative book, “The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God”. He says that “the stories we have been telling ourselves in the last several decades have been growing increasingly thin and superficial.” But turning to Christianity, some “have found themselves drawn to a story that made sense of their deepest longings and desires”. This is the “better story” that the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship, led by Jordan Peterson, is opening up to.

One who has discovered that story is Charlotte Gauthier. On reading some theological books from a previous era, she testified, “I found an intellectual Christianity that I could respect. In my arrogant atheist days, I assumed I’d come up with questions that had never satisfactorily been answered before. I was wrong”.

While the West is beginning to reawaken to Christianity’s Truth, the Majority world has been very wise in resisting the sea-change in lax morality that, having invaded the West, would overflow to pervert the rest of the world with its godless permissiveness. The Majority world should continue to reject the bankrupt influence that has only bred hopelessness in the West.

It is not perhaps surprising that missionaries now come from the vibrant communities in the Majority world to bring renewal to the West. They are welcome, for they can contribute to the revival of western church life. Their biblical faithfulness, their passion and enthusiasm, will help overcome the decadent influence that has been infiltrating some churches in recent years. They will help our western churches to return, humbled and contrite, to the former paths of righteousness, once well-trod by those gone before us. They can bring us back to the Biblical faith – which, ironically was brought to them by missionaries from the West when the church was vibrant in its vision for taking the Gospel to the whole world. 

Clive Every-Clayton

0

Good and evil

Everyone agrees that a nurse who kills seven babies under her care in a hospital is guilty of horrible evil. Other examples of evil come readily to mind. Evil is real. But so is good. We all know some really good people, like the kind, reassuring and efficient nurses that have been taking care of me these last few days. 

Everyone knows the difference between good and evil; our conscience gives us this moral intuition. But when we complain about the wrong someone has done to us, they do not necessarily agree that what they did was wrong. They have a moral code different from ours. Indeed, with the rise of moral relativism, many think that what was considered immoral 50 years ago is perfectly okay now. Who is to say what’s right? Do good and evil alter over time? Can the individual just decide for himself? Are there no objective standards? 

The problem with moral relativism is that it tends to favour the easiest, most lax moral code for oneself – though one may have harsher standards when judging others! When a society as a whole has only relative standards to guide it, the tendency is therefore towards greater permissiveness. And if it continues unchecked, moral chaos will result. 

Neither atheism, nor science is able to move in and alter that downward trajectory. Moral reformers are generally religious people. In their efforts to uphold higher moral standards, they invoke God. It takes a prophetic voice to bring spiritual revival and ethical improvement. 

People in our generation in the West who enjoy the liberalising effects on moral values don’t want to listen to the challenge of Christian morality. But that is what is needed to stop the rot of a society where statistics show, in so many areas, the detrimental effects of liberalising moral norms.

We need both moral light and moral authority: God alone provides both. Whether we like it or not, we must face the fact that we are created by a good God to have an inner sense of good and evil. We have a God-given conscience that makes us understand that we ought to do good, and turn away from evil. Wisdom dictates that we listen to what God has to say in the area of good living.

It is a striking fact that Jesus’ first public preaching, recorded in Mark 1.15, is his call to “repent”. To repent means to rethink one’s moral situation, and to turn away from what is wrong. Or as Jesus also said, “Sin no more” (John 5.14). The call of the Christian gospel comes as a challenge to change one’s life-style, to commit to a better, purer, kinder and more righteous way of life, as Jesus defines it. The Gospel is much more than that – it centres on Jesus who, out of loving kindness towards us wayward sinners, came to give his life for us so that we might be forgiven. But the gracious offer of forgiveness is promised to those who repent and believe in Jesus as Saviour and Lord. Maybe that’s something you need to do? Think about it. 

Clive Every-Clayton

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑