Cornering the Market on Morality

Introduction

We would like for moral questions to be simple: X is bad, Y is good.

There is something about clear-cut moral statements that is both refreshing and freeing…until it intersects with something that we like to do, then situations tend to get a little sticky.

We don’t necessarily like the fact that there can be an exception to a rule, or that exceptions themselves can have rules. We tend to want to live in an all-or-nothing state: either something is all bad, or all good.

Christians, especially, seem to live in this state of haze between moral poles of rigid objective morality or utter subjectivism. As I’ve written elsewhere, I don’t think that it’s necessarily possible to live a moral life with any consistency without both and to try to force the issue induces something of a fallacious dichotomy.

Probably one of the clearest examples where this dichotomy seems to appear, biblically speaking, can be found in the law, where we have--principly--the apparently strict admonition against murder, yet we find an instance where a man can be killed and there be no repercussions for his death because it’s not murder. The hair is split carefully along certain assumptions, but those assumptions determine whether or not one has acted in an unjustifiable manner.

And, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, the ultimate question of morality is one one of justification, not whether something is or is not moral (ontology) but how we know it (epistemology).

This is often where believers bump heads with unbelievers--even those who label themselves “Christian” --is in matters of distinguishing between those things which are moral and whether or not it can be judged as such.

I recently engaged in such a task (the Twitter thread can be found here) wherein a challenge was issued by my interlocutor, an apostate by the name of Phil Stilwell.

Stilwell runs a site called #STRasked wherein he boasts of “600 unanswered tweets” to the eponymous hashtag that is used by the apologetics ministry Stand to Reason to collect challenging questions. Now, that’s not to say that all of his questions are necessarily worth answering because they simply do not seem to be posed in good faith but intended to be “gotcha” questions.

Which brings us to the questions that Phil directed at me via his challenge.

First, The Differences

It is best to begin by saying that I don’t assume to speak for all Christians. I believe that believers have the freedom to come to conclusions on their own, and I do not require for everyone claiming the name of Christ to think like me or agree with how I arrive at a specific conclusion. However, I have also noted that there are Christians who can come to moral conclusions that ultimately undermine the faith. (Randal Rauser, I’m looking at you.)

Also, I recognize that I can have significant moral agreement with unbelievers on various topics. The reason for this is because--whether they agree with it or not--we are both image bearers of God and, as a result, have God’s law written on our hearts. However, what we do with this innate reality is ultimately determined by our relationship to our common Creator so that while we may have common moral beliefs about matters, they are ultimately justified differently, either in light of revelation or in spite of it. Which brings us to another troubling element: unbelievers who will weaponize their innate moral law against their Creator who has bestowed it upon them against him.

Seeing as their first loyalty is not to their God, they demonstrate their rebellion by assuming that they can judge him for what he has done directly or has allowed to come to pass to bring about his will in the salvation of a particular people. That is, the unbeliever in rebellion will try to cloak themselves in godliness but such has no power.

Which brings us to Phil’s challenge, where he begins,

I do not believe there is to be found a coherent notion of objective morality.

That’s nice, since it doesn’t really matter what he believes if there is no “coherent notion of objective morality”, since moral truths in order to be true are inherently tied to something outside of ourselves (ie objective). Now, Christian moral philosophy is split along lines as to how this works, and I don’t wish to spend an entire post detailing the ins-and-outs of such, so I’ll just say that in order for a statement to be true it necessarily assumes something externally located.

Phil continues, noting that Christians believe in objective morality,

I, therefore, frequently challenge Christians to help me begin a compilation of Christian responses to the following issues they claim are moral issues to see whether there is a clear convergence of opinions among those Christians that might validate an objective moral standard.

Now, by “validate” I take this to mean confirm. Keep in mind this means that he already knows that morality is objective and that any denial of such is just his rebellion against the truth of God displaying itself. He continues,

Once we have assessed any convergence in those opinions, we can then start to query Christians about where they found the standard that allegedly enabled them to provide an objective judgment of the issues.

Now, what is the underlying assumption here? The assumption is that the unbeliever--apart from the revelation of God--has sufficient and necessary grounds from which to proceed to make any judgment about either whether or not something is or is not moral or that such can be justified. To assume that one, a creature of limited knowledge, has grounds to from which to make any judgement about anything apart from the direct input of our Creator is the embodiment of the hubris of our first parents.

But this brings us to the issues that Phil wishes for me to address, issues that Phil claims that “[every] Christian to whom I have presented these 12 issues has refused to respond, much less provide their method of judging how they would arrive at an objective moral conclusion.” 

Issue 1a and 1b

These are essentially different phrasings of the same statement, which is why I am taking them together.

a. It would be immoral not to kill abortion doctors if it protected the unborn.

b. It would be morally permissible to kill abortion doctors if it protected the unborn.

Now, the question I have is what does Phil mean by “kill”? If he means “be subject to capital punishment” then the answer is a resounding yes. If he means that if I knew that a doctor was performing abortions that I should take it upon myself to end his life in some form of vigilante justice, then it would be met with an equally resounding no.

Why is this? If we take the incident of a caused miscarriage, found in Exodus 21, as instructive on this matter, then the principle that underlies such, namely Exodus 21:12, which says “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death (ESV)”, which extends from the Noetic covenant. In fact, I will go one step further and say that the woman herself deserves the death penalty.

Issue 2

It is immoral for divorced individuals to remarry.

This question almost certainly stems from Jesus’ teaching on divorce, where it seems to preclude divorced people remarrying. But even Jesus gives an exception for remarrying: it is permissible if the divorce was obtained on the basis of sexual immorality. Jesus was speaking into a context where divorce was rampant (seems familiar). Paul, likewise, addresses the issue in the Corinthian context, where divorce was discouraged. However, even Paul recognized that there might be some extenuating circumstances wherein a divorce might not only be proper, but necessary.

So the question is wrongly asked, it’s not whether it's immoral for divorced individuals to remarry, but rather what are the reasons for the divorce in the first place? If the reasons are sound, then it is not only moral but necessary, “because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband (1 Corinthians 7:2, ESV).”

Issue 3

It is immoral to have meals with apostates from Christianity.

This is one of those “it depends” questions. Sometimes you can’t help it because either you don’t know if someone is an apostate, or you might not be able help it. Biblically, the issue is not about apostates, but with hypocrites.

Issue 4

It is immoral to knowingly exceed speed limits.

Yes, especially in school zones. It’s also immoral to pass stopped school buses. Why? It’s not neighborly.

Issue 5

It is immoral for married couples to engage in oral or anal sex.

This is where my libertarian leanings come into play, and I defer to consenting adults. There are no specific biblical prohibitions against such, so it is ultimately up to the couple, but such should always be entered into mindfully and carefully, and respectfully. What is immoral, without a doubt, is coercion or force in the marital relationship because our bodies are not our own.

Issue 6

 It is immoral to practice circumcision or clitoridectomies.

These are sometimes treated as if they are the same issue, but they aren’t. That being said, the question of whether something is moral sometimes comes down to whether or not something is actually beneficial. While circumcision may not be medically necessary, its benefits may outweigh any negative perceptions. Similarly, there may be medical reasons for a clitoridectomy. All of that to say it depends.

 

Issue 7

It would be moral for a government to kill homosexuals for being homosexual.

Yes. Just like it would be moral for a government to kill rapists for being rapists, or murderers for being murderers.

Issue 8

It is immoral to intentionally make someone believe you feel the opposite of what you actually feel about something.

Another one of those “it depends” moments because it literally depends on why you're doing it. If I’m doing it to be nice or its over something inconsequential, then no. If I’m doing it in order to take advantage of another person for something else that would also be immoral, then yes. Ultimately, it’s so vague that it’s hard to actually answer.

Issue 9

It is immoral to spend this earthly life enjoying earthly pleasures when unGospelled unbelievers face eternity in Hell when you will have eternity in Heaven to relax.

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that--as a believer in Christ--my first priority is the proclamation of the gospel. No, in the sense that we were created to superintend the world that we live in and--as a result--we are meant to enjoy the world as one of the benefits. It’s a difficult balance, but I believe that its possible.

Issue 10

It is immoral to fight for a country in a war merely for more territory. 

Yes. Now, does that mean that its immoral for countries to gain territory in the course of a war? No. The issue of war, in general, is tricky because wars can seem just at the outset then the real motivations get exposed. Wars should be waged carefully and strategically with definite ends in view. 

Issue 11

It is immoral to divorce over a spouse merely kissing another individual.

Depends on the kiss and depends on the individual.

Issue 12

 It is immoral not to send money to help someone you know is starving to death.

Here again, it depends. Sometimes sending money is the worst thing that you can do for someone. Moreover, it depends on who you’re giving the money to, after all you wouldn’t give money to a fiending meth addict if you knew that rather than go get something to eat that they would just go for more drugs. That would be immoral.

Conclusion

As badly as we might want moral conclusions to be just so, either moral or immoral, sometimes it’s ultimately about some other aspect: motives and intentions. Sometimes moral decisions come down to bad or worse, rather than merely good or bad. What we have to remember is that it’s not just about being moral, since morality is ultimately about how we act upon what we believe.

Our actions, while determinative in certain aspects of all of our final destinies, are not what ultimately determine our fates. That comes from the hand of God alone either in grateful response to his grace fully engaged in a relationship through Christ by the Spirit, or it is delivered from the judgement seat in full condemnation of our sin, and any moral acts being counted against us as evidence of our rebellion against what we know to be true.

The problem that Phil is having is that he is under the false assumption that objective morality has only one possible answer to every moral question, but that’s not how objective morality works. As I have noted here, objective morality is about orientation to a fixed point so that one can navigate through the landscape of moral actions, with our conscience acting as our compass and God’s revealed word in Scripture as our map of the terrain, and God himself as our fixed point of reference.

We want to think that we can navigate the terrain on our own, with just our compass, but a compass needs to be oriented to a map and a fixed reference in order to function and get us to the destination that we seek to go. Sometimes the path is easy, sometimes it's difficult, the map prepares us for what we encounter, but its only in the experience that we can truly navigate.

Will these answers satisfy Phil? Probably not, but then I’m not trying to.