"From the Beginning"

C. S. Lewis writes: "Christian ethics, the system which, whether by exalting Faith above Works, by asserting that love fulfills the law, or by demanding Regeneration, makes duty a self-transcending concept and endeavors to escape from the region of mere morality (Christian Reflections)." To be fair, I must place this quote into the old debate concerning society's need to return to a Christian form of morality to save our culture from its doom. I say this somewhat sarcastically. This debate rages today and I agree with T. S. Eliot and Lewis concerning this matter. A liberal post-modern society will, eventually, decay. Eliot argues that liberalism only seeks to satisfy immediate needs and has no end goal in sight. It is liberalism's short sighted nature which eventually leads the liberal society down a moral cul-de-sac. This means that the lack of truth ultimately results in a lack of any type of observable ethical behavior. Both Eliot and Lewis see a need for absolutes which govern behavior, which produce predictable outcomes and which most of all, are not determined by human thinking. Therefore, I think the Christian ethics which Lewis and Eliot both see as a desperate need is an ethics determined from Biblical standards established in the book of Genesis, or from the beginning.

I think about the issue like this: when God created the heavens and earth, He stood back, took a look, and said that it was "good." At the end of every one of His work days, He stood back and said that it was "good." When He created man, He said "let us him in our image." Then He said we were "good." Good here means more than acceptable to me. I think here "good" means without evil, without the ethical concept of bad. Not only was creation to the standards of God's perfection, able to be in His presence (He walked in the garden in the cool of the morning), but it also means that creation existed, at one time, without sin. Yet, God saw fit to give man the only ethical choice on the planet. Don't eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The only way God could give man the ability to chose between right and wrong is if He had already drawn the metaphorical line in the sand. In essence, ethics and morals are of God's design, His creation.

Now the Romantics have generously villainized one of my favorites, the apple, to represent this knowledge of good and evil. Yet, we find that Adam and Eve were not able to keep to the straight and narrow and as a result bring sin into world. But the infestation of sin does not affect all people. Enoch was taken up by the Lord because of his righteousness and Abraham’s faith was counted to him as righteousness. Some in the midst of the existence of sin were able to maintain a behavior God found acceptable and pleasing. However, I don’t think these individuals found it within themselves. I think they lived by a transcendent morality. A morality they recognized to be governing all they could see. In other words, they realized a God more powerful than they or any other recognized force on the planet existed and was watching, looking for someone to exemplify. I don't think they lived without sin, Moses struck the stone three times and Abraham slept with Hagar. Both are examples of sin or a lack in moral judgment. But they were able to live a life dedicated to living by God's standard. The more vigorously they obeyed the more they transcended human limitations. Thus faith equaled righteousness. More faith, less sin.

In the same way, when we think about our own ideas of right and wrong what do we use as the touchstone, the standard by which we test all things to judge their purity and correctness? For some of us, we turn to scripture and prayer and make few moral or ethical decisions without input from our Creator. For others, they simply think that moral and ethical decisions are a matter of preference and individual choice. This latter form of thinking leads us into dangerous ground. In my study of scripture I have found that many moral and ethical concepts are specifically stated as good or evil; others are encompassed by Biblical principles which translate very directly into all areas of our lives. When we deal with homosexuality the Bible is specifically clear that the behavior is an abomination to God. Yet, we are in no way given the right or privilege to condemn or neglect those who practice homosexuality. Paul established the principle when writing of the Nicolations. They believed something false of Christ yet Paul commanded Christians to speak truth to them in love. The principle translates for us. We are not to condemn those who practice or believe a false teaching, but speak truth into their lives with all the compassion and love of Christ. Thus the ethical choice for us is to love them as Christ loved the church and be willing to give our lives for them. This doesn't mean that we condone, accept or allow sin to carry on. We would hope that through the constant demonstration of love and truth, Christ would affect a change in each life and bring them ever deeper into a life of faith.

Likewise, when I hear statements made those who profess the name of Jesus such as “My body is just a shell; God doesn’t care. It’s what inside that God cares about” I am concerned for the ethical condition of not only our society but our church. We learn from the Romantic aspect of the Bible that God is concerned with every aspect of our lives. When Adam and Eve brought sin into the world, they were punished but God cared for their need, clothing. When God allowed Job to be tested, He restored Job and blessed him beyond his imagination (my conjecture). When Paul was in prison, God was there. When John was boiled in a pot of oil, God was there. All throughout the Bible stories are filled with the presence of God in the midst of suffering. This tells me that God cares for both our spiritual and physical conditions. God cares so greatly for not only our spiritual and emotional conditions but also our physical conditions that He often provides for the betterment of our health through doctors. But I think that he draws the line at the frivolous. Biblically speaking the principle is clear, if we do so that we may be noticed by men, then that is our reward. So the principle states that intent, motive, is at the core of any ethical decision. If we do to honor God, we are right. If we do to impress, we are wrong.

Some are asking at this point, what does any of this have to do with Christian ethics? The answer is simple. Sometimes what we believe to be right and wrong is not always what God has in store for us. Some would think that one who spends time in a smoke shop reading scripture or theological works and talking is engaged in unethical behaviors. Yet, much like Curtis, I have some great opportunities to share the Gospel in those settings. The example has been set. Christ engaged in what would be considered unethical behaviors. He associated with tax collectors and prostitutes and consistently subverted the authority of the priests. Sometimes we may have to go where we are uncomfortable in order to do what God wants of us. Don’t get me wrong, God would never lead us into a place of temptation but He will lead us into some places that we would never expect His presence. Who would think God would be in a smoke shop, or that God would use us while we out to dinner with friends.

The point is that sometimes what we think is right or what we think is wrong we sometimes used to wall off the presence of God. Lewis’s point is that Christian ethics is outside any of our notions of right and wrong. God will use us where He will and do with us as He pleases. I have had conversations about God and witnessed in the most obscure of places and the places I would never expect that God would have me speak. Part of ethics understands that God’s definitions of right and wrong are not ours. He has given us clear examples of what is right and wrong and we know that we must defend the reputation of Christ at all costs. This means to live a life that is above reproach; something that I have never done successfully. But than again, God chose someone like Saul to write the foundations of Christian theology.

R. C. Sproul describes the issue like this: when get into our car, start it up and begin to back down the drive, we don't question if the car coming toward is real. We know it is and would never pull into traffic unless it was absolutely safe. The same is true of truth. Sometimes society tells us truth doesn't exist, truth is what we make it. No right, no wrong. But the simple fact is that truth does exist and the point Lewis is attempting to make is that we don't determine what that truth is. We can no more shape, influence, or create truth than we can change the rotation of the earth. Morality is therefore not a human creation but divine. We can only call something good because God called it good first. We only know right from wrong because God created them. In other words, ethics and morality are transcendent concepts not because they are ethereal in and of themselves but because they come from the mind of God. The one thing I've noticed about this issue is the more my life is governed by God's absolute rights and wrongs the more free I become. My life is not complicated by the "if then" dilemma's of relative truths. And the best part of all is that I always know where I stand with God, my wife, my friends, my family. I can predict how they will respond when I come to them with a problem, a mistake I've made, or some dumb thing I've done and know that I won't be condemned by them or judged. I know they will tease me some, but they will always support, forgive, and encourage not because its situational but because its always the right thing to do. Not because they have had a moral epiphany but because they've encountered a truth that has been from the beginning.

I have no idea if any of this makes sense or if any of this relevant to our faith, but, then again, I'm just sayin' is all.