The Difference Between Might-Makes-Right and the Right Being Mighty

“Your claim is without God might makes right, then what's the difference? God says follow me or die. Worship me or burn.”

(A response to a friend)

There is a big difference between might making right and the standard of right being mighty. The difference is this; the atheistic worldview has no ground to claim that the mighty are right or wrong other than a subjective opinion, and the fact that the Christian worldview’s standard for ethics is mighty in no way disqualifies it from being a standard for ethics. In other words, anytime an atheist argues that something is not the way it “ought” to be, they contradict their worldview, because it cannot provide a solid base for what ought to be. Whereas the Christian, no matter how mighty their standard is, is not contradicting their worldview. This type of question tends to be a red herring since it neither alleviates the atheist from their conundrum, nor does it prove that God is not the standard for ethics.

God Bless,

Doug

Charles Finney and the Heresy of American Pelagianism (White Horse Inn)

Florida Abortion Clinic Throws Live Baby in the Trash

Here is an appaling story posted at the Christian Theology blog.

Florida Abortion Clinic Throws Live Baby in Trash

Doug

Gay Marriage: The Self-Refuting Appeal to Secularism

Another of the most common arguments for gay marriage deals with religious grounding on the part of many people who hold to the current definition of marriage being between one man and one woman. It is argued that because of its religious nature, the definition of marriage needs to be revised. It needs to be more secular in order to not force religion on anyone.

The main problem with this argument, besides misunderstanding the nature of the separation of church and state, is that if you remove a religious basis for ethics and replace it with a secular one, you end up with a relativistic ethic. In a secular ethic there is no place to ground morality. Whether you ground them in the individual, a community, or some pragmatic end to which the ethic should be a means, individuals and communities tend to disagree. They also disagree with which pragmatic ends should be sought. In the end a secular ethic becomes self-refuting leaving no actual grounds to say that the current definition of marriage is wrong. This type of ethic always boils down to power because there is no real right and wrong. If the group who wants to promote gay marriage has more power they will win, or vise versa. But if this is the case, it would be illogical to say that it is unethical to not allow homosexuals to marry. Instead the argument should be, “there is no real right and wrong, and we desire gay marriage and we are tying to see if we have more power than those who don’t.” All appeals to equality, or separation would be mere smokescreens masking a play for power.

Finally, if someone does want to appeal to a universal transcendent objective ethic, there is no way to escape its religious nature, and in the end this would refute the separation of church and state argument stated at the outset.

Doug Eaton

Gay Marriage: The Myth of Governmental Neutrality

Often, when the topic of homosexual marriage comes up, there is an argument raised that suggests that even if we think marriage is between one man and one woman, we should not force our morality on others who disagree. The government, it is declared, should be neutral.

Now if we really spell this out, it quickly becomes apparent that governmental neutrality on this issue is impossible. The argument is essentially saying that since the government should be neutral, it should recognize, validate, and honor marriages between same-sex couples. But is a government that recognizes, validates, and honors same-sex marriages really neutral? Of course not, it is saying that same-sex marriages are valid, and if anyone refuses to recognize them the courts will step in to make sure that they do. In reality, the moral acceptance of gay marriage will be forced on people with differing moral views; the very thing that those who make this argument say the government should not do.

The crux of the argument is that the government should be neutral on controversial moral issues, but the absurdity of this becomes clear when we understand that the idea that “the state should be neutral on controversial moral issues,” is itself a controversial moral issue. Not everyone agrees with this. This would mean that the government should be neutral on whether it should be neutral or not, which is an absurd impossibility. Just like the idea that the government should be neutral on homosexual marriage.

Doug Eaton

Moral Relativism is Not Progressive

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress.

Calvin Coolidge, "The Inspiration of the Declaration"

Don't Be Held Back From Serving the Lord Because of A False Understanding of Hypocrisy

This is a short video that deals with the fact that we should not be afraid to proclaim God's moral standards; even the ones we are guilty of having violated in the past.

God Bless,

Doug

Human Rights and the Real Life Results of Bad Bioethics

This is a clip from a lecture given by Wesley Smith at Trinity Law School. In it he discusses the results we are already living with because of bad bioethical theories.

The entire lecture can be viewed on Godtube

Doug

God and Governing Conference this Week

This is the week of the God and Governing Conference hosted by Trinity Law School and we are busy putting together all the final pieces in preparation for a great conference. We are still taking last minute registration if you are able to attend. Contact Chris at 800-922-4748 for more info. With all the work to be done, this will most likely be my last post until next week.

God Bless,

Doug



Here is more info on the conference if you are interested...

God and Governing Conference:

A Conference on Ethics, Virtue, and Statesmanship

February 1-2, 2008Westin South Coast PlazaCosta Mesa, California

Featured Speakers:
Os Guinness Distinguished writer and speaker,Cofounder of The Trinity Forum

Dallas Willard Professor of Philosophy,University of Southern California

David Wells Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology,Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

Paul Marshall Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom

Stephen Kennedy Associate Professor, Trinity Graduate School and Trinity Law School

Donald McConnell Academic Dean, Trinity Law School

Vishal Mangalwadi International Lecturer, Social Reformer, Political Columnist Author of Thirteen Books

Pat Nolan President, Justice Fellowship, Prison Fellowship Ministries

Sponsored by: Trinity Law School and Trinity Graduate School.

Are You Judging My Judging?

Do not Judge. Matt 7:1

It is difficult to think of verse that is more misused than this one. How many times it has been used to censor Godly reproofs would be impossible to number. If you are in the habit of reading the Word of God and upholding Godly standards on moral conduct, then you have most likely had this verse thrown your way while commenting on some behavior or trend of which God does not approve. This verse, to many people, means that no one is ever allowed reprove or correct someone’s behavior. If you are to speak, even in love, against homosexual activity or drunkenness, then according to these people, you have become a judgmental Pharisee. Now, of course, this is a judgment which they are making upon another person, which means, if their interpretation of this verse is correct, then what they are doing is wrong. After all, they are saying that telling people they are wrong is wrong, so they should stop telling judgmental people it is wrong to judge.

With only a small amount of studying the context of these passages we will see that Christ is not saying that it is never appropriate to reprove someone with the word of God. In fact, this is something we are commanded to do, and is something for which the Word of God is intended. 2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” So what then is Christ telling us? He is telling us of a difference between those who think they are somehow above the standard of morality and those who see themselves under the same standard of morality as the one they are correcting. What this passage is illuminating is that we must never correct someone as if we are somehow above the standard of conduct with which we correct someone else. This is seen in the following verses when Christ tells us to make sure that we check the plank in our own eye before looking at someone else’s speck.

There are a few different ways we can approach someone who is in sin. First we could act like we don’t know if anything is wrong, and not correct anyone except those who correct people. Second, we can act as if the moral law does not apply to us but condemn anyone who violates it. Or finally, we could look at our own short comings under the moral law and approach the one who is erring by saying, there is a standard by which God wants us to follow because of His love for us, and neither of us are above that standard. Along with both of us being under this standard together, we both fall short so let’s work on our shortcomings together. After all His standards are an expression of His love.

This is also why when we think of a judgmental person we think of their attitude as much as we think of their actions. The first person, the one who thinks that it is always wrong to reprove, usually ends up with a judgmental attitude, because as they reprove they are acting as if they are allowed to reprove when the person they are reproving is not. The second person also tends to succumb to a judgmental attitude because they too think they have no guilt of their own in these matters, and both will have tendencies toward harshness. Only the third person, the one who believes in God’s moral standards, that they can be known, that they to are not above the struggles with sin themselves, and believes that we should correct each other in love, will be able to avoid the judging that Christ is speaking of in this passage.

And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. 2 Tim. 2:24 - 26

Doug Eaton

God and Governing Conference

I thought a few of you might be interested in this...

God and Governing Conference:

A Conference on Ethics, Virtue, and Statesmanship

For teachers, professors, students, pastors, church leaders, journalists, attorneys, chaplains, those working at any level of government, or anyone who believes that morality has a place in American politics.

February 1-2, 2008Westin South Coast PlazaCosta Mesa, California

Featured Speakers:
Os Guinness
Distinguished writer and speaker,Cofounder of The Trinity Forum

Dallas Willard
Professor of Philosophy,University of Southern California

David Wells
Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology,Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

Paul Marshall
Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom

Stephen Kennedy
Associate Professor, Trinity Graduate School and Trinity Law School

Donald McConnell
Academic Dean, Trinity Law School

Vishal Mangalwadi
International Lecturer, Social Reformer, Political ColumnistAuthor of Thirteen Books

Pat Nolan
President, Justice Fellowship, Prison Fellowship Ministries

Sponsored by: Trinity Law School and Trinity Graduate School.

On Dawinism's Attempt to Preserve What it Destroys

"Similar self-contradictions are endemic in the literature on evolutionary psychology. A prime example is The Moral Animal, where Robert Wright spends hundreds of pages describing human beings as “robots,” “puppets,” “machines,” and “Swiss Watches” programmed by natural selection. He insists that “biochemistry governs all” and that free will is sheer illusion. He unmasks our noblest moral impulses as survival “stratagems of the genes,” as mere devices “switched on and off in keeping with self—interest.” But then, in a grand leap of faith, Wright insists that we are now free to choose our moral ideals, and he urges us to practice “brotherly love” and “boundless empathy.”

This persistent inner contradiction stems from the fact that evolutionary psychology is essentially a search for a secular morality. Darwinism cut the modern world loose from religious traditions and systems of meaning; the result is a culture adrift in a sea of relativism. Now Darwinism is itself being plumbed as a source of meaning, a cosmic guide for the problems of living. Yet the Darwinist view of human nature is so negative, so counter to traditional notions of humanity dignity, morality, and reason (not to mention common sense), that there is an almost irresistible impulse to take a leap of faith back to those traditional notions, no matter how unsupported by the theory. For who can live with a theory that tells us that “ethics is illusory,” and the ‘morality is merely and adaption put in place to further our reproductive ends,’ in the words of Michael Ruse and E.O Wilson? Who can live with a theory that tells us that if ‘natural selection is both sufficient and true, it is impossible for a genuinely disinterested or “altruistic behoviour pattern to evolve,” in the words of M.T. Ghiselin?"

Nancy Pearcey, “Singer in the Rain,” First Things vol. 106

Sin is the Problem - Ravi Zacharias

I remember one occasion when a businessman, looking back on his life, shared with me his memories of a life morally mangled. He said, "It started with my imagination that reinforced certain wrong desires. Then, having made repeated choices that were clearly wrong, in betrayal after betrayal I convinced myself that what I had indulged in I needed. The more I convinced myself that I needed it, I soon redefined who I was as a person. Now, as I look at what I have become, I can no longer Live with myself. I hate who I am. I am emotionally running, but I do not know where to go."

Knowing who we are and what we need is the starting point of what we will become. Until we understand what the Bible means by sin, our moral definitions will never find solutions. Words and platitudes in themselves have no power to change. Let us never forget that the men who sat enthralled before the strains of Wagner’s music were the same men who built the death camps of Auschwitz and Birkenau. The problem is not the absence of education or culture; it is the presence of sin.

Ravi Zacharias – The Real Face of Atheism

If Knowledge, Then God

Here is a link to a great article on the transcendental argument for the existence of God.

The Futility of Non-Christian Thought

Here is one of the opening statements to whet your appetite...

"Epistemological autonomy is the view that the human mind is the final criterion of knowledge. According to this view, common to non-Christian thinkers from Thales to Derrida, the Christian God has to be either non-existent or irrelevant to epistemological concerns. Human categories alone are necessary to determine modality, truth, and value. From a Christian perspective, autonomy is a rebellious attempt to deify human categories or some aspect of creation by attempting to usurp the Creator's functions -- i.e. replacing the Creator with the creature (Rom. 1:25). Nevertheless, the result of this attempt to be epistemologically independent of the Christian God is epistemological futility."

God Bless,

Doug

A Christian View of Human Law

If you are looking for and interesting lecture on human law and how it is viewed from within the Christian Worldview, Dean McConnell from Trinity Law School gives a great explanation along with comparing and contrasting it to other views of law. You can download the mp3 for free at the link below.

A Christian View of Human Law

God Bless,

Doug

Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson Debate

Here is a link to an outstanding example of apologetics. It is a six part interchange between a theologian, Douglas Wilson, and an atheist, Christopher Hitchens.

Is Christianity Good For the World?

I need to thank the Pyromaniacs for bringing this to my attention.

God Bless,

Doug

Moral Absolutism 4: Graded Absolutism

Graded Absolutism (GA)

The final way to address moral dilemmas is to argue that there is a hierarchy built into God’s law, and at times some laws supersede other laws which is meant to handle these conflicts. This is graded absolutism. This view is held by such theologians as Norman Geisler, Stephen Mott, and Millard Erickson.

The graded absolutist starts out with the explanation that some laws are weightier than others (Matt 5:19) and some commands are greater than others (Matt. 22:36). This position can be explained quite simply when we think of civil disobedience. According to scripture, we are to obey the civil government, but what if that civil government commands us to worship a false god. Built into God’s absolute moral law of obeying government is the idea that we should do it only if it does not contradict God’s law. This is because obeying God is much greater command than obeying government.

In the case of the Midwives that lied in Egypt or Rahab who lied to hide the spies. The proponent of GA actually says that God commends them for their lying. Because in this situation the greater command to which lying must yield, is the protection of human life. GA differs from the conflicting absolutist in two ways. First, the conflicting absolutist says you must choose between the lesser of two evils, and second, when you do it you have actually sinned. The graded absolutist says, you must choose between the greater of two goods and when you do it you have done something good. The proponent of GA does not say that lying has been justified in the sense that to do it is to be held innocent. They actually go further and say that the lie is actually virtuous in this situation and to not do it would be wrong.

In the case of the mother with the tumor (see previous two posts), they would say that to try and save the mother is the greatest good, because you are actually trying to save both in spite of the minimal percentage of success in saving the child. To attempt to save both lives even at the cost of losing one is the greater good than letting one die without any attempt to save them both.

Strengths of this position

1) It has quite a bit of scriptural support for its graded view.
2) It sees God’s moral law in its entirety as absolute without waiver or conflict. The conflict only happens between specific commands.
3) It can answer many difficult passages in the Bible with ease, such as David eating the “bread of the presence” (see Mark 2:26)

Weakness

1) It wavers on the absolute nature of specific commands.
2) It can appear to be a lesser version of situational ethics.

God Bless,

Doug

P.S. These have been simple presentations of these three positions and all of them deserve deeper consideration to really work out the details. So where do you fit? Do you lean more heavily to a certain view, or do you reject them all and have a different theory?

Moral Absolutism 3: Conflicting Absolutism

Conflicting Absolutism (CA)

Another way to deal with moral dilemmas is to admit that they really do exist, and try to deal with them head on. This is the position of the conflicting absolutist. This position is held by theologians such as, Helmut Thielicke, John Warwick Montgomery, J.I. Packer, and E.J. Carnell. This position is also known as ideal absolutism, as it believes that ideally God’s laws do not conflict, but in this fallen world there are times when they do. Some of the conflict is due to a lack of clarity on our part.

This position is probably the easiest to explain. When confronted with a moral dilemma, such as the midwives lying to protect the children or Rahab lying to protect the spies (see Joshua 2:1), what we must do is simply choose the lesser of two evils. In these two instances lying is the lesser sin than failing to protect the life of your neighbor. In these situations what we must do is admit that we had done wrong, repent, and ask God for forgiveness. In both of these situations God praised the women, not for their lying, but for their faith and doing the best they could in such a tough situation.

In the case of the mother with a tumor (see previous posts), it would be a greater sin to simply let the mother die without any attempt to save them both, since we never know for certain if the child will die. Though the chance of losing the child may be 99.9%, to not make any attempt would be the greater sin. If the child dies we must then ask for forgiveness.

Strengths of this position,

1) This position makes another strong attempt to stick to absolutes.
2) It’s not afraid to face moral dilemmas head on.

Weakness

1) It begins to weaken those absolutes by stating that they are a bit ambiguous in this fallen world.
2) What do we do with the scripture that says Jesus was tempted in every way as we are? Does this mean that Jesus was tempted in a way that He had to choose between two sins, thus making him a sinner? Or was he not tempted in this way thus making the “tempted” verse untrue.
3) This verse also seems to go against the idea of repentance. To repent is to ask God for forgiveness with the idea that we will do our best to not do it again. But in this case we would have every intention of doing it again if faced with the same situation, because it’s the best decision we can make.

It seems to me this is the weakest of all three positions, but I do not consider J.I. Packer a light weight, in fact I enjoy most of what he has to say. I have not read him on this particular issue which makes me wonder if I’ve missed something in my understanding. But after reading Thielicke, this is the understanding that is presented by this position.

Next we will deal with the most controversial but probably the most logically consistent position; graded absolutism.

As you think through this, how do you handle the moral dilemmas presented in these posts?

God Bless,

Doug

Moral Absolutism 2: Non-conflicting Absolutism

Non-Conflicting Absolutism (NCA)

One way to deal with moral dilemmas is to argue that they are only apparent conflicts but not real conflicts, hence the term Non-Conflicting Absolutism. This is one of the most popular positions. It is held by many great theologians such as, John Murray, Walter Kaiser, and John Frame. This view holds that God has given us absolute norms that cannot be altered. Any apparent conflict is due to a lack of knowledge rather than a real conflict in the commands.

Whenever there seems to be a conflict, such as in the case of the Midwives in Exodus 1, where a person must choose between loving her neighbor and lying, the reason the conflict seems to exist is because of a lack of knowledge in how to handle the situation. Whatever the person must do to love her neighbor she must do it without lying. A lie is always a lie and can never be justified by a non-conflicting absolutist. In this case the fact that God honored the midwives was not because of their lying but because of their faith. But had they chose not to lie, they would not have been held responsible for the deaths of the children, because they were not the one that would have killed them. That sin would rest upon the Egyptians.

The proponent of NCA is not ignorant of the effects of the decisions they make. Like the utilitarian, they try to look at the results of their actions, even if their actions are ethical. In the case of the Nazi’s at the door, it would not be unethical to tell them where the Jews are hiding if there is no other alternative. This is because the conflict is only apparent and not actual. Though it is not actually what they want to happen.

But what about the scenario of a pregnant mother who has a tumor that will kill her if not removed before the child is born, but to remove it would kill the child. In this type of situation they would bring into play, what is called the theory of double effect. What do we do in this situation? Whatever we do will have two effects, one positive and the other negative. In a case like this, an NCA proponent would say it is alright to try to save the mother because the death of the child is not intended. The action that they are taking is ethical. They are trying to save the mother not kill the child. And since there is no real ethical conflict the death of the child is a negative result of a positive action.

Strengths of This Position

1) It has a strong understanding of absolutes. There is never a time where lying becomes justified. In holding this position they seem to be very serious about the nature of absolutes.
2) They do everything they can to protect the nature of God. Since all of God’s moral laws stem from His nature, they argue that to believe in a conflict of moral laws is to believe in the possibility of conflict in God’s nature.
3) It can also be argue quite forcibly from scripture, though many Bible scholars would disagree.

Weaknesses

1) In the case of the mother and the child, they seem to neglect the fact that their actions are really causing the death of the child. The argument of “we didn’t intend to” seems a bit of a weak one.
2) What do we do about David eating the “bread of the presence” which was not lawful for anyone to do, but is justified by Jesus (See Mark 2:26)? This is a clear violation of an absolute of the old covenant. Does this mean that David simply avoided the sin by not intending to eat the bread, but intended to feed the starving people and himself? This seems to redefine certain sins in order to justify others. It is a bit shaky but with some argument it may hold up.

Next we will look at the conflicting absolutist.

God Bless,

Doug

P.S. I do not consider myself an expert on these topic so if I misrepresented the position on a certain point, please feel free to point it out.

God's Moral Law and Absolutism: Introduction

What do you do when it seems you have to choose between two sins? For instance the midwives in the old testament, do they lie and say the that Jewish women have their babies to quickly to kill them, or do they tell them the truth and put both themselves and the babies in danger (see Exodus chapter 1)? In this case they lied and God commends them for it. With my next few posts I hope to do my best to discuss some ethical theory surrounding God's moral law and absolutism. The book covers you will see in these posts are books I've read that have helped me come to the limited understanding that I have of this topic.

When studying ethics we encounter many different theories. Such as utilitarian ethics, virtue based ethics, and deontological ethics. Utilitarian ethics bases its ethical system on some non-moral outcome such as happiness or pleasure. For instance, the way we decide on what is right and wrong could be based on what will produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. A couple of the proponents of this view would be David Hume and John Stuart Mill. This is the view that seems to be the most popular in today’s secular society. Virtue based ethics looks to character to decide what is right and wrong. In other words we do not look to follow rules blindly, but we look to virtues that we wish to cultivate such as courage, prudence and temperance then we look to how we should live out our lives. As Leslie Stephens says, “The moral law…Has to be expressed in the form “be this” not in the form “do this.” Proponents of this view have been Alasdair MacIntyre, Stanley Hauerwas, and of course Aristotle (though it is debated whether his teaching was as extreme as modern day virtue ethicists). This view has gained momentum in today’s church, and has also gained acceptance by many in the Emergent Church. It is also held by many in the catholic church.

Both views have their flaws, for instance utilitarian ethics would have to say that committing adultery is a good thing to do if it will lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. As we know this is contrary to scripture. Virtue based ethics has serious trouble in explaining how good character leads to doing the right thing. For example, if courage is a virtue we are trying to cultivate, how do we apply this to doing the right thing? A woman who abstains from an abortion could be said to be courageous, but so could the woman who was brave enough to have one. Which one is right? I realize if you hold to one of these view these simple arguments will not convince you but my point here is not to refute these system, but to look at absolutism.

The first two views we looked at say that there is no intrinsic value in any action. The value is in either in the outcome of the action (utilitarian) or in the character of the person doing the act (Virtue). Deontological ethics on the other hand is a duty or obligation driven system. Deontological ethics says there is some intrinsic value in certain actions, such as not killing, or truth telling, that requires us to do them. The prima fascia understanding of scripture and I believe the correct understanding seems to show this view as the most correct. There are certain actions that we are to do in order to be ethical. This flows from God’s moral law which is summarized in the Ten Commandments and further summarized when Jesus said the two greatest commandments were to love God and love our neighbor. The Christian understanding of this view does not neglect the character of the person doing the act. For an act to truly be Godly it must stem from the right attitude or character. But there is value in certain acts and not only in the heart.

A person who holds this view is usually known as a Moral Absolutist. This means that the moral laws are absolute in that they are binding on all men, at all times and in all situations. Which most Christians hold to regarding the Ten Commandments and other moral principles found in scripture. But in this view there are what we call moral dilemmas. To use the old cliché, what do you do when the Nazi’s are at you door looking for Jews which you are hiding. You are under two different principles which seem to be in conflict. First, you are morally obligated not to lie, and second you are morally obligated to love your neighbor and protect them. Looking at this dilemma, there are three different categories of moral absolutists. There is the non-conflicting absolutist, the conflicting absolutist, and the graded or hierarchical absolutist. In three future posts I will be looking at each one of these to see how they answer the question. Due to time, I cannot promise that they will be my next three posts but I will do my best.

God Bless,

Doug