Changing Culture

By T.M. Moore

Christians are rightly concerned about the state of culture in our day. The fear is that, as the culture continues its decline into mere sensuality and self-indulgence, it will drag our children and us down with it.

Which makes it appropriate to ask, Are you changing culture, or is culture changing you?

For the followers of Christ there is no middle ground. We're either actively engaged in bringing the reality of God's Kingdom to light amid the cultural contexts of our lives, or we're allowing those cultural contexts to dim or obscure the light of Christ. Either the light of Christ in us is shining in the culture, or the bushel basket of the culture is turned upside-down over our heads.

All of us spend our lives in a variety of cultural settings. Our Personal Mission Fields unfold within the various cultural spheres in which we live and work. Every cultural setting is characterized by norms, protocols, and practices which embody the values and priorities of those spheres. What messages do the cultural spheres of our lives proclaim?

The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it. Thus, we who are ambassadors of Christ and His Kingdom have a responsibility to bring the manifestation of that Kingdom to light wherever we occupy space for the Lord. Our Kingdom citizenship should make a difference - in our homes, schools, work places, communities, and the like – showing that we are there, living for Christ and seeking to take every thought captive and make it obedient to Him (Matt. 5:13-16; 2 Cor. 10:3-5).

The way things ought to be

Changing the culture in which we travel is a high calling and ongoing task. Can you envision ways the cultural arenas of your life would be different if they were wholly devoted to Christ and His Kingdom? If things were more the way we think they ought to be, what would that look like?

Cultivating a vision for transforming culture is the starting-place for this work, and Scripture is the place to turn for nurturing such a vision. By learning the Biblical meaning of such concepts as beauty, goodness, and truth, and then by envisioning the outworking of those concepts in our various cultural spheres, we can begin to get an idea of where we might establish goals and objectives for our own work in changing the culture around us.

"Culture" is not some abstract, far-off idea which is only amenable to shaping by academics and "cultural types." We are all involved in culture, all the time - using it, making it, and either shaping or being shaped by it. We can't escape culture, and we must not allow culture to define the values and practices of our lives. Instead, we need to take up the challenge of changing culture, in as many ways as we can to reflect the beauty of Christ, the goodness of God, and the truth of His Word.

If our culture is not the way we think it ought to be, then we can do something about that.

Culture - along with the people in our lives - is where the cutting edge of the Kingdom engages the world, through each of our lives. God is determined to bring His Kingdom to light on earth as it is in heaven, and we are the tools of His Spirit for sculpting, crafting, and creating a new world for the glory of God.

We don’t have to let the culture change us or our children. If we will sharpen our culture-making skills and take up the daily challenge of shaping the world, we might begin to see our culture start to reflect the reality of Christ's rule.

Christians are the salt of the earth and the light of the world. These are transforming attributes which bring wholesomeness and goodness to the world. Believe this, and act on it, and you may be surprised to see what God is able to do through you in bringing the light of Christ to your world.

If we’re not changing the culture in which we participate, shaping it in the ways of beauty, goodness, and truth, then we’re probably being shaped by the culture according to its own vision of the way things ought to be.

Change the culture, or be changed by it. You’re making that choice every day.

Fleeting Sovereignty

By T. M. Moore | Published Date: January 23, 2012

Politics won’t get us all the way to the Kingdom of God.

Fleeting is the sovereignty/of the wretched world in which we are;/the King who rules over the angels/is the Lord of every land.

- Oengus mac Oengobann, Feilire Oengusso (Irish, 9th century)

The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will. - Proverbs 21:1

The political season has begun in earnest. Three Republican primaries are behind us, the President’s media campaign is officially underway, and political posturing is the lead story on every news broadcast.

Frankly, I’m already pretty tired of it already.

Much is at stake this time around, however; that seems clear. Whether the country will continue on its present course of becoming an entitlement state, populated largely by serfs and landowners, or whether we will begin to find our way back to the free and independent republic our Founders envisioned – this question may not be finally determined by the outcome of November’s elections, but they will contribute significantly to moving the nation one direction or the other.

Christians need to approach this election from a Kingdom perspective. Our calling is to seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness (Matt. 6:33). That’s not a mandate directed at some niche in our lives, but at the whole of our lives, including our political obligations. Seeking the Kingdom in the realm of politics means that we will need to discover which candidate’s views are most conducive to the increase of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Spirit, which is the Kingdom of God (Rom. 14:17, 18).

Discerning that will take some serious study and constant monitoring on our parts. Granted, any administration only has, at most, eight years to accomplish its agenda. Political power in America is a fleeting sovereignty, and even that is hedged about by checks and balances to keep parties and presidents at least somewhat restrained.

Still, political power can be wielded in ways that either expedite or impede the progress of Christ’s Kingdom. The question of marriage and how we shall view it in the generations to come is but one example of an area where God’s purposes will either be advanced or scorned. The same is true for other areas of public policy: immigration, the role of government in private life, ensuring the nation’s health, preserving the freedom of speech amid the rising concern about “hate speech,” and so forth. All of these issues, and more, intersect and overlap with God’s agenda for justice, righteousness, and shalom – the concerns of His Kingdom.

But do we even know what the Kingdom questions are? Do we know how to frame them, and how to overlay them onto the political verbiage and platforms which are now taking shape? And are we able to determine which candidates best represent an agenda that turns nicely in the Lord’s hands?

If we haven’t begun looking into such matters yet, now’s the time to get busy.

Believers must seek the Kingdom in their political choices as in everything else. Contrary to what many believe today, everything in this country is not politics; rather, everything is spiritual warfare. You can’t win a spiritual war in the voting booth, but you will have to fight its battles there.

Politics is an unavoidable battlefield and staging-ground for fighting the good fight of faith, and it is possible to make Kingdom gains by rendering to Caesar what we owe him as “we the people.”

So let’s look to the Lord, study diligently, listen carefully, and engage the political process with a view to advancing the Kingdom agenda of our sovereign King.

Politics won’t get us all the way to the Kingdom of God. However, we won’t get very far along the way there unless we participate wisely and winsomely in this and every other political season.

Next steps
Make a list of the issues you believe are most important for the upcoming political campaigns. Make a first pass at summarizing how, from a Kingdom perspective, a believer ought to view such matters. Then invite some friends over for coffee and share the results of this exercise. Invite their response. Challenge them to join you in studying and attending to these matters carefully over the coming months. Agree to do some reading and study, to meet together, and to use every opportunity available to you to influence political decision-making in the direction of the Kingdom of God.

Education Reform: The Larger Question

By T. M. Moore | Published Date: January 17, 2012
The schools in America are a reflection of the surrounding culture. Whatever the culture values will be reflected in the education we give our children. For example, in colonial New York, a public school teacher had to be able to lead children in worship and explain the Gospel, or he could not expect to be hired by the local school board.

In America prior to the Civil War, the education of children was purely a local matter. Schools boards abounded – one for every political precinct. Parents were responsible to oversee the work of the school board and to fund the local program of education. Naturally, the education they sanctioned reflected their values, experience, and aspirations for their children.

As the program of public education became more centralized throughout the 19^th and 20^th centuries, local school boards were merged and state and federal funding began flowing toward local education. The creation of teachers’ unions created a new vested interest that did not exist in earlier American education.

Between school boards, now beholden to states and federal governments, and teachers’ unions whose interest is first in their members and then in the education of children, the earlier model of local, community-based education began to be replaced by a model focused more on creating informed producers and consumers.

All over the country the process of transforming the schools was as gradual as the emerging nation’s increasing commitment to secularism and material prosperity. Hardly anyone noticed the change that was taking place in the education of our children, because the schools were merely reflecting our changing national agenda. Almost without noticing, America had gone from a nation that firmly believed in God and the values of a Christian worldview to one almost wholly consumed with getting-and-spending as the highest value in life (see James Turner’s, Without God, Without Creed).

And this is where the schools are today. To talk about reforming education, therefore, we need to think more broadly about the culture – the paideia – which supports that education. Unless the values of the culture change, the values of the schools will not. No amount of short-term tweaking the educational program of the land will have any lasting effects unless something happens to reform the larger culture.

Educational reform is thus connected with moral reform, and the moral reform we as Christians desire requires revival in the churches. In short, if we would reform our schools, we must begin by reforming ourselves, renewing our spirits before the Lord and exchanging our materialistic values for those of the Kingdom of God.

Resources for this topic

Charles Colson, “Grassroots Revival”
Charles Colson, “Revival at Home”
David R. Mains, “Praying Boldly”
T. M. Moore, “Jonathan Edwards’ Praying Together for True Revival”
T. M. Moore, “The Religion of Education”
T. M. Moore, “The Tipping Point for Revival” (ViewPoint series)
T. M. Moore, “What We Seek”
Jennifer Roback Morse, “There has to be a Better Way”
Edward Tingley, “True Knowledge is Made Possible by True Religion”
Education necessarily involves matters of ethics. A good place to begin in helping your friends and fellow Christians to get involved in changing the schools is by alerting them to the ethical crisis in the nation. Order your copy of our new DVD series, Doing the Right Thing. Here’s a resource you can share even with your non-Christian friends, to help them think about the ethical crisis which has settled on our nation, and what we can do about it.

Next steps:

1. Is your church seeking the Lord for revival? Do the following: First, interview some of your church leaders to find out if the leadership team talks about revival, seeks it for your church, or even thinks it is necessary. Then copy some of the resources listed above and give them to some of your church leaders. Ask them to read them and then get back with them to talk further about how your church might begin seeking the Lord for revival.
2. Show this week’s Two-minute Warning to your pastor. Does he seem to think that Christians can do anything to help improve the education of American children? Offer yourself to help in your church’s education program in any way you can.
3. Email today’s Talking Points column to several Christian friends. Challenge them to read some of the resources, watch the Two-Minute Warning, and take on one of the activities.

A conversation starter

Here’s a conversation starter you should try with several of your Christian friends: “Everyone’s talking about education reform these days. But I don’t think we’ll ever have real, lasting education reform until we experience revival in the churches of the land. What do you think?”

The Lie, Now and Then

Nothing Left to Say
By T. M. Moore | Published Date: December 06, 2011

“And the LORD said to Satan, 'The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you!'”  - Zechariah 3:2

We have seen that both David and Paul acknowledged a day when lies would be widespread among the human community. They also saw the reign of the Lie to be a short-lived phenomenon. David insisted that all those who speak lies will be stopped (Ps. 63:11), and Paul, echoing that, promised that those who reject the Truth of God will not continue to make progress (2 Tim. 3:9).

We should take great comfort in these words, because the epidemic of lies with which our world is presently infected is wreaking havoc in the affairs of people and nations.

We need to ask ourselves whether we actually believe this. The Word of God says it – and not just in these two passages. In various places the Scriptures indicate that those who traffic in lies will not be able to stand against the Truth as it marches on through the ministries of the Church. Here is just a sample: God promises to bring the plans and schemes of the nations to naught (Ps. 33:10). His glory and the testimony of His children will still His enemies (Ps. 8:2). God will shut the mouths of all wicked people (Ps. 107:42) and all who practice injustice (Job 5:16). He puts to silence every sinful mouth before the testimony of His Law (Rom. 3:19). He raises up church leaders to stop the mouths of those who traffic in lies (Titus 1:7, 8).

What the Scriptures promise throughout is symbolized in Zechariah’s vision in chapter 3 of his book. The prophet saw the High Priest and Ruler of God’s people – named, “Joshua” or “Jesus” – being condemned by Satan because He was dressed in filthy garments in the presence of the Holy God. Here is the tale of the ages: the father of lies railing against the very embodiment of Truth. This is the very essence of the Lie – the denial of validity to the Truth of God.

But those filthy garments which Zechariah saw are our sins. Jesus bore them in His own body before the Father. His sacrifice accepted, He was clothed in proper garments of righteousness, and Satan was commanded to shut up and was sent packing.

The righteousness of Jesus Christ is the ammunition we need to stop the mouths of liars. As we read in Matthew 22:46, once Jesus established His deity, sovereignty, and coming Kingdom, on the authority of God’s Word, all those who had to that point opposed him publicly and outspokenly were no longer able to answer Him and had nothing left to say. From that point on they would turn to violence rather than words.

It was the testimony of Jesus and His power to make all things new that Peter and John proclaimed before the religious leaders of their day, leaving those enemies of Christ with nothing left to say (Acts 4). The salvation of Jesus Christ – His forgiveness, holiness, transforming grace and power – lived out and declared by His people, is the power of God for salvation, the power to stop the Lie and lead men into the light of Truth. And while we do not expect a complete vanquishing of the Lie here and now, we do expect to see real progress of the Truth; moreover, we know that a day is coming, then and there, when all lies and liars will be eternally banished from the presence of God.

It is toward that far horizon that we are called to strive against the Lie in all our daily activities.

Download the series "Nothing Left to Say." Click here:  Nothing Left to Say

Explaining Altruism

By T. M. Moore
Researchers are trying to explain the source of altruistic behavior. Why do human beings do good to one another?

Evolutionary thinkers all the way back to Darwin have struggled to account for this very un-evolutionary behavior. Why should we care when people suffer and die? What causes us to rush all kinds of aid and assistance to people in need? Isn’t survival of the fittest supposed to be our watchword and rallying cry?

As Alice G. Walton explained, writing at The Atlantic website, altruism “doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since we’re all out to preserve ourselves – and our genes. There must be something else going on.”

Something else, indeed, but something which, thus far has defied scientific explanations.
Evolutionists used to believe there was something communal about altruism, that people cared for one another, and even strangers, because it helped ensure the viability of the local gene pool. This theory, pioneered by E. O. Wilson almost a generation ago, had become accepted as a “good enough” explanation for altruism.

Until, that is, Dr. Wilson repudiated his own theory last summer, only to be vilified by many of his peers.

Ms. Walton reports on research with children which demonstrates that altruism may be something inherently human. Children, it seems, are capable of altruistic behavior before they’ve ever even learned the word or have an opportunity to think about what it means or requires of them. “Researchers,” she explains, “have recently demonstrated that altruism and fairness appear to develop, perhaps simultaneously, from an incredibly early age.”

But they still don’t know where the behavior comes from, whether it’s innate – which seems likely, but why? – or learned. Many kids just seem to show generosity and even sacrifice because, well, it’s the thing to do, I guess.

The Biblical view of humankind explains this. We are made in the image of God, and we have the works of His Law written on our hearts. The Law of God instructs us to love our neighbors as ourselves. We are our brother’s keeper, and we know thus just because of the kind of beings we are.
Now evolutionary researchers aren’t likely to accept that opinion. They will continue looking for other explanations for altruistic behavior, but it doesn’t matter. Even if they find a particular altruism gene which incites this kind of behavior, they will still have to explain how such a development fits within an evolutionary life framework.

And that will just require a lot more research.

Sooner or later, as the evidence continues to build across a wide range of disciplines and topics, advocates of an evolutionary worldview are going to have to explain why their view of life explains so little and the Biblical view explains so much.

And that’ll take some serious ‘splainin.

Make Your Case!

By T. M. Moore|Published Date: November 11, 2011

“Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.”
Deuteronomy 4:6

The day of salvation has come! Now is the favorable time for making known the Good News of God’s Kingdom and the righteousness, peace, and joy it brings to everyone who enters it. God calls all those who believe in Jesus Christ to take up the challenge of breaking the “spiral of silence” and making the case for the Christian worldview. As we have seen, this must begin in our everyday conversations at home, in the community, at work, and wherever we gather with others.

A second means by which we must make our case for the Kingdom is by publishing the Christian worldview through every available means. This does not require that we all become authors of best-selling books. That’s simply not going to happen. But never before has so much opportunity been available to affect the thinking of so many people by sharing the written word. Through local media, the Internet, and social networking we may expect to influence many for the Kingdom of God whom we will never be able to talk with face to face.

Here is a second area where every Christian can play an active role in making the case for the Christian worldview. In our day there is no shortage of media through which we can employ the written word to challenge the secular mindset and propose our Christian alternative. Local newspapers still receive occasional op/ed pieces as well as letters to the editor. Even national journals of opinion will publish letters that are concise, considerate, and well-written. There is plenty of help to be found on the Internet concerning how to craft an effective op/ed piece or letter to the editor. By engaging local papers and other journals and periodicals, we can help to make the case for a Christian worldview, if only with those who screen such missives.

But by far the greatest medium through which believers can make the case for the Kingdom of God is the Internet. Websites abound where Kingdom citizens can comment on contemporary issues, moral concerns, matters of belief, and ethics. Opportunities can be easily found for becoming involved in blogging conversations in which we may set forth our Scriptural views.

Moreover, many websites exist in which questions of public policy and similar concerns are given thoughtful consideration by Christian thinkers. Articles from these websites relating to public policy matters can be downloaded and copied or simply emailed to friends. We should always make sure to follow-up on any emailed articles, or articles copied and distributed, with a view to engaging in conversation over the issue examined.
Believers should not be reluctant to post their own thoughts about worldview issues – on their own websites, through email, or for discussion in small groups – and thus to encourage conversation that can affect what people believe and how they live.

No one is going to publish our Christian worldview for us. But with email, blogging, social networking media, and other outlets ready to hand, it would be irresponsible for us not to employ every means for making our case on behalf of the Kingdom of God. When believers are not present in those settings, the spiral of silence rules. So let us determine that here, too, we will challenge the existing worldviews of the day and make our case for the Good News of the Kingdom of God.

Next steps: Ask some friends about good websites to visit where you can get involved in blogging about the Kingdom of God. Make a list of two or three points about the Kingdom you’d most like to share. Then visit those websites and join a conversation. Stay at it for a while until it’s clear you have begun to engage some readers. Let the Lord lead you from there.

Alternative Lifestyles

What role for feelings?
By T.M. Moore | October 13, 2011

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” Jeremiah 17:9

In the debate about alternative lifestyles Christians are often labeled as “hateful.” That is, because we take our stand on Scripture, and insist that, the “needs” of people or the findings of social science or the changing temper of the times notwithstanding, we must not overthrow the sexual, moral, and familial practices and institutions which have promoted Western freedom and flourishing for two thousand years – because we insist on this we are charged with trampling the feelings of others, and with being hateful and uncaring.

To be fair, this is in fact the posture we often strike in this debate. We seem always to be angry, storming around and heaping scorn on those who disagree with us. There is very little of the kind of soft and gentle answer or gracious and reverent speech that ought to characterize our participation in this public debate (Prov. 15:1; 2 Tim. 2:24-26; Col. 4:6; 1 Pet. 3:15). We demonize those who disagree with us rather than invite them into a thoughtful and reasoned discussion of the questions in this debate. And so, because we seem to be hateful, we set ourselves up for being labeled as such, and, in the process, effectively disqualify ourselves from a place at the table over this and many other matters of social policy and practice.

The moment feelings enter the debate, pretty much all bets are off. Human beings are not very good at keeping our feelings in check. On the Christian side we become defensive and self-righteous, and we denounce all those who disagree with our view or threaten the settled order. On the alternative lifestyles side, feelings are used either to create sympathy or to intimidate. The many media shots of smiling, caring, homosexual couples plays the feeling card in a way intended to say, “See this? Isn’t this what you’d want for any marriage relationship?” And in the public debate, feelings of outrage, anger, and resolution are intended to intimidate would-be opponents into silence. Such tactics have had remarkable success.

Certainly there is a place for feelings in this debate – feelings of deep conviction, moral certainty, compassionate understanding, love, forbearance, and urgency. But shall such feelings become yet another plank in the shaky foundation of public policy decision-making? The media, which largely supports the alternative lifestyles agenda, plays the feelings card continuously – in news reports, on the talk shows, and in prime time programming. As Neil Postman and others have argued, the media offer a powerful conduit into human emotion, bypassing reason and sound judgment to encourage actions based primarily on feelings. The experience of other societies in the previous century should warn us against yielding judgment to the power of emotion, whether fueled by high-powered rhetoric and spectacular public displays, lofty but false ideals, or an evening’s news or entertainment.

The Christian insists that we cannot trust mere feelings; their tendency is to deceive and mislead us. Instead, feelings must be made subject to right thinking, grounded in convictions that are true and reliable. If what we are feeling strays from the foundation of unchanging moral truth, then we must not alter the truth, but, instead, reconsider and reconstruct the feelings. No, our opponents in this debate won’t want to hear this, and probably won’t agree. But we must press the point all the more fervently and consistently, that, while feelings matter, and must be considered, they must not be the determining factor in matters of public policy.

We do not have to come across as hateful as we invite people to reflect on the reliability of feelings, or when we ask them to consider whether what they are feeling about this issue should be accepted as a sure foundation for promoting social change. And we should not hesitate to explain the sound teaching and common sense of Scripture with respect to the role of emotions in human life.

Download the series "Alternative Lifestyles." Click here: Alternative Lifestyles

For more insight to this topic, get the book, How Now Shall We Live?, by Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey. Or read the article, “Family Values vs. Family Values,” by Charles Colson.

Abolish Morality?

Moral Relativism (3)
By T.M. Moore | Published Date: September 12, 2011

No morals, only feelings
Can we depend on a view of ethics based solely on passion and the will to compromise?

This is the view of Dr. Richard Garner, emeritus professor of philosophy at Ohio State University. Dr. Garner adds his contribution to the symposium on moral relativism which appeared in the January 9, 2011, issue of Philosophy Now("Morality: The Final Delusion?").

Of the various perspectives on moral relativism presented thus far in this series, Dr. Garner's is at least the most consistent. His view is based on "moral error theory", which insists that it is a mistake to believe than anything like morality actually exists. Morality, he explains, is not something out there for us to discover - whether through our feelings, communities, or imaginations. Rather, morality simply doesn't exist; it's something we've made up in an effort to bring order to our relationships and responsibilities.

Dr. Garner proposes that we abolish all language and thinking that contains a moral component - anything "that implies objective values or objective moral rules that are independent of human decisions, desires, agreements, or demands."

There is no such thing as morality, no right and wrong. There are only our desires and what we have to do, in relationships with others, to realize as many of those desires as we can.

How’s that work?
In order to make this work, first, we have to suspend all negative moral judgments. We have to stop thinking in terms of right and wrong. Instead, we need to examine our own responses to people and situations and be willing to identify and evaluate our feelings about this, that, or the other. Then we can consider how to move in the direction of what we would like to see happen. Instead of judging people, no matter what they've done, we need to face the real possibility that our view of the situation might be wrong or misinformed.

If we can avoid all moral judgments in such situations, and learn to do the hard work of introspection, what we'll be left with is the "ability to express and communicate our attitudes, feelings, and requirements."

But how does this help us in situations where something looking like a moral choice between two options - and especially, two people - might otherwise seem to be in order? Dr. Garner explains, "Instead of telling others about their moral obligations, we can tell them what we want them to do, and then we can explain why." He continues, "We can express annoyance, anger, and enthusiasm, each of which has an effect on what people do, and none of which requires language that presupposes objective values or obligations."

That done, we can then "start looking for compromise." Because it’s a good bet no one’s going to give in to what we want just like that. We’ll need to dicker a bit here.

So there is no such thing as morality. All we have are situations and opportunities, before which we feel a certain way and identify certain outcomes we would like to realize, and the people to whom we must express our feelings and desires, in the hope that we can achieve some compromise in which all parties get something they want.

Is that realistic?
Dr. Garner evidences an unrealistically high view of human beings - that they can be honest about their feelings, suspend judgment against those with whom they disagree, achieve compromises agreeable to all, and so personalize this process that it becomes a substitute for learning and practicing moral norms. Dr. Garner does not offer any instances where this has worked, only hypothetical situations where it might be worth a try.

The idea that human beings will defer to others, suspend judgment, engage in meaningful dialog, and agree to compromise sounds really good on paper. But I can think of nowhere such an approach to ethical living has ever been tried and succeeded on a society-wide basis. People who have strong feelings and the power to realize those feelings - whether intellectual, social, or political power - are going to wield that power to their own advantage, while those who dither and defer seeking compromise are going to be left in the dust. Look at the morass which is the American political system today. How’s that compromise bit working out in DC?

Morals and the language of morality
It is idealistic in the extreme to envision abolishing all moral language and judgments. People are moral beings. God has written the works of the Law on the hearts of all people, and even if their bottom line is only self-expression and compromise, those are moral oughts they - including Dr. Garner - cannot do without.

People are also sinners, and are reluctant to act in the interest of people other than themselves and their closest associates. Offers to compromise in many ethical situations are going to be received as towels tossed into the ring.

We cannot do away with the language of morality, and we cannot find within our own desires and best thoughts about others the keys to a truly moral society. This way may seem right to some people, but in the end, it is but another way to death.

How dangerous is moral relativism? Order your copy of our new DVD series,Doing the Right Thing, and lead a group of your friends in understanding our present crisis of ethics. You should also read the article, “‘Society Says’ Relativism,” by Greg Koukl.

Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Moral Relativism (2)
By T.M. Moore|Published Date: August 29, 2011

Who’s to say?
In a famous scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the lord of a castle seeks to bring peace to warring opponents by saying, “Now, now, let’s not fight and squabble about who killed who.”

His point is that a little mayhem and death are inevitable, but enough’s enough when he’s had enough. And who was to say he was wrong? He was the ruler. 

Moral relativism is a bit like that. Some moral relativists, such as Dr. Jesse Prinz, believe that morals are a function of emotions. How we feel, and how we learn to feel, about certain actions, will determine our choice of actions in the days to come. Early emotional responses build into a repertoire of choices and behaviors which function as our ethical framework.

Yet while a certain amount of emotion is necessary, and gives rise to our sense of moral “oughtness,” too much emotion can be dangerous and, thus, needs to be controlled.

But who is to decide on such meanings as “dangerous” and “controlled”? Usually it will be those who have the power – persuasive, political, or otherwise – to make their preferences stick.

Moral relativists like Dr. Prinz show that they understand the role of affections in life – a very important role, according to the Scriptures. But they leave as many questions unanswered as answered, including the most basic question of all, “Why should we care about the way anyone feels?”

Morality and culture
Morality as grounded in emotions, however, is but one of several paths of ethical theory which moral relativists tread.

In the same issue of Philosophy Now in which Dr. Prinz’s article appeared, Dr. David Wong, another moral relativist, takes a different tack in trying to justify his relativist approach to moral behavior (“Making An Effort to Understand,” January 9, 2011). As we continue our brief analysis of the symposium on moral relativism presented in that issue, we’ll look next at Dr. Wong’s view of the sources of morality.

Dr. Wong explains his view that morality arises not as a function of mere emotions, but as a product of culture. People cannot not live together; therefore, they must learn to cooperate and get along. As they do, systems of cooperation emerge which solidify, over time, into moral codes prescribing proper ethical conduct. Social pressure thus becomes the guiding norm in moral decision-making.

Dr. Wong writes, “Because moral norms have functions, the content of moral norms can be assessed on the basis of their effectiveness in enabling the fulfillment of those functions.” And the functions Dr. Wong has in mind are those that maximize interpersonal cooperation.

But why “interpersonal cooperation” should be a guiding norm – other than that makes sense – is not examined.

In any given culture, the norms and functions contributing to interpersonal cooperation might be different, depending on whatever secondary matters that culture values the most – as, for example, human independency and privacy versus human interdependency and community. But in every culture, “Curbing the unrestrained pursuit of self-interest is obviously something that moral norms have to do.”

But why should that be obvious? And why is “cooperation” a higher value for ethical norms than emotions? Where does the notion of cooperation come from anyway? And why is that a norm to be preferred over, say, competition? Or oppression?

Dr. Wong doesn’t bother to explain such matters. He merely assumes we all agree that you can’t have people running around and doing whatever they feel like doing without regard for others; therefore, society must have some norms, culturally defined, which channel emotions and morals toward maximizing cooperation to the benefit of each and all.

Let me sum up...
We must resist the temptation here to try to explain in detail why Dr. Wong believes that cooperation is a higher moral norm than competition or oppression. Instead, as Inigo Montoya might have said, “Let me sum up.”

The Christian worldview can account for the human preference for cooperation, and it comes down, once again, to the fact that human beings are made in the image of God.

We saw that Dr. Prinz was borrowing on the Biblical teaching about the centrality of affections in human life. Now Dr. Wong is borrowing on the Biblical teaching that man is made for community and mutual respect and love. Evolution teaches that we are our brother’s meal; Scripture teaches that we are our brother’s keeper. This preference for community is a reflection of humans being made in the image of God, Who is a Trinity of Persons in one divine Godhead.

It is important for Christians to understand that, try though they may to get away from unchanging and objective norms and values, moral relativists cannot fully escape the reality and inevitability of their own humanness. They are image-bearers of God, and in order to make any sense at all – and they do offer some good things to ponder – they must borrow on the truth of God, whether or not they understand or acknowledge that this is what they’re doing. In so doing they lend more credence to a Biblical system of ethics and morality than one based on moral relativism in any of its manifestations.

Christians will make their ethical arguments into this conversation by identifying points of intersection between their Biblical view of moral norms and the views of other contributors, and then by showing – through argument and by gracious and hope-filled lives – the reality of the Biblical and Christian understanding of how we ought to live.

But we must be willing to engage the conversation, and we must make certain that, as we engage it, we understand and are living according to a system of moral behavior that is grounded squarely in the revealed truth of Scripture.

How dangerous is moral relativism? Order your copy of our new DVD series,Doing the Right Thing, and lead a group of your friends in understanding our present crisis of ethics. You should also read the article, “‘Society Says’ Relativism,” by Greg Koukl.

Morals and Emotions: Discovering the Enemy of Biblical Ethics

Moral Relativism (1)
By T.M. Moore | Published Date: August 15, 2011

The human claim to fame?
Robert Wright once argued that the human being is a “moral animal.” That is, what sets us apart from other animals is a sophisticated sense of “oughtness” – of right and wrong. Human beings, alone among all other creatures, construct systems of morality to guide the choices and actions of their daily lives.

Ethics, in other words, sets us apart. Human beings do not respond to situations or contrive actions merely out of a sense of habit or intuition. We plan, play, plot, and practice what we do because of what believe about basic questions of right and wrong. Human beings are moral creatures, and moral creatures create ethical systems to guide their conduct.

But what is the source of this moral sense? Where does the human need for ethics originate?

Moral relativism
The January 9, 2011, issue of Philosophy Now magazine featured a symposium of ethicists discussing this subject. Together, they provide an overview of current thinking about the ethics of moral relativism. Moral relativism is that system of ethical thought which acknowledges the human need for ethics and endorses a wide variety of approaches to ethics, deriving from one or another aspect of the human condition.

Since moral relativism, in one form or another, is perhaps the dominant ethical view of our day, it’s a good idea that Christians try to understand it and know how to respond. So I intend to devote five installments of this space to considering the various perspectives on moral relativism set forth in this symposium, and to recommend some aspects of a Christian response to the crisis of ethics in which humanity is presently ensnared.

Nurture more than nature
Dr. Jesse Prinz, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the City University of New York, led off the discussion. He insisted that morality is conditioned by the culture in which we are nurtured, as that culture shapes our emotions to respond one way or another (“Morality is a Culturally Conditioned Response”). Nurture, in other words, is more important than nature in shaping the ways we think and act.

Because of this, and because cultures are so different, Dr. Prinz explained that all morals are relative. Who is to say that one culture’s morals should be preferred over those of any other culture, except, perhaps, within that particular culture and society? Dr. Prinz concluded that, at a certain level, conflicting moral beliefs can be true because of the “different moral worldviews” existing from culture to culture.

Dr. Prinz writes, “With morals, unlike science, there is no well-recognized standard that can be used to test, confirm, or correct when disagreements arise.” This is a crucial point for all moral relativists. He’s undoubtedly correct about that, that there is no “well-recognized” standard – at least, not currently on the moral radar screen of most ethicists or even most people.

But does that mean that no such standard exists? Until the discovery – or rather, rediscovery – of the Rosetta Stone, archaeologists had pretty much concluded that there was no way of interpreting Egyptian hieroglyphics. All that, as we know, changed very suddenly.

Dr. Prinz points to the role of emotions in moral formation, in particular, the use of negative emotions to shape our sense of right and wrong. If something we do causes us to feel guilt or shame, we learn that this is an action to avoid. When what others do causes us anger or disgust, we learn not to do that ourselves. Thus, “we decide something is wrong by instrospecting our feelings.”

As our cultural environment affirms certain kinds of actions and discourages others, we learn what to feel good about doing and what not to feel good about doing. In the process, an emotional foundation for morality is established that can then function to guide reasoned thinking about larger moral issues.

The role of affections
Dr. Prinz is certainly correct concerning the powerful role of emotions in shaping human life. The Christian will agree, as Jonathan Edwards explained, that affections exert a very powerful effect on our thinking and actions. The heart, as Scripture has it, plays a central role in determining the kind of people we become. Solomon wrote that all the great issues of life flow from the heart (Prov. 4:23). Thus, it is important, for moral formation and much more, that we understand the nature of affections and how they work to make us one kind of person or another.

But are affections – in particular, the affections generated within any particular culture – a given of the human condition, simply to be accepted because they are what they are? Just because people of one culture feel good enslaving people from another culture – even though those enslaved may have a different code of ethics – does that mean we must endorse such a practice, or, at least, make room for it as an acceptable behavior within the family of humankind?

But Dr. Prinz’s argument sounds at times as though he believes that whatever the existing morality may be in any culture, it must be what’s right for that culture. He can’t go quite that far, however, and is led to fall back on certain moral verities which, he assumes, everyone accepts – such as that we ought not do things which are deliberately pernicious or harmful to defenseless others.

But why we should accept these guidelines – other than simply because people do – is not explained. Scripture explains it, though, by insisting that our sense of moral oughtness is divinely inculcated. The works of God's Law are written on the hearts of all people (Rom. 2:14, 15). But this need not cause us to fear that there is no room for human freedom, or for applying divine law to particular circumstances in ways that might, at times, appear to be contradictory. For example, when the Law of God instructs that runaway slaves should not be returned, yet Paul sends Onesimus back to Philemon, is Paul violating the Law of God (Deut. 23:15, 16; Philem. 12)? The answer, of course, is “No,” but the reason why is complex and would require us to divert from our present path.

The enemy of Biblical ethics?
There is a ground for dialog with the moral relativist when it comes to debating the great moral issues of the day. Dr. Prinz wants us to consider the affections as central to moral reasoning, and this is not disagreeable to a Biblical worldview.

However, we shall want to press the good doctor a bit further concerning those non-negotiable ethical convictions which must, in the end, guide the emotions we adopt and the morality these emotions suggest.

The Scriptures and the Christian worldview can account for these non-negotiables; moral relativism, on the other hand, cannot. It simply has to hope that they exist, and that everyone can agree on what they are.

Yet a standard for all ethical thinking and living exists, a moral Rosetta Stone to help us interpret what it means to do the right thing in an situation: the Law of God. The Law of God is holy and righteous and good, and it reflects the very character and lifestyle of our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 7:12; Matt. 5:17-19). The fact that this standard is not “well recognized” is the fault neither of the Law of God nor the moral relativist. It is the fault of those who are instructed to meditate in that Law day and night (Ps. 1), walk in those commandments as Jesus did (1 Jn. 2:1-6), and build communities of love for God and neighbor with that Law as their foundation (Matt. 22:34-40), but who, instead, have failed to embrace the Law as they should, and who practice, in its place, a kind of “spiritual moral relativism” in the name of sentimental love and sanctimonious “tolerance.”

We have met the enemy of biblical ethics, in other words, and we are it.

We will not be able to appreciate the contribution of moral relativists, nor to help them discover the error in their thinking, until we rediscover the power of God’s holy and righteous and good Law to train our hearts and lives for loving God and neighbor in ways that reflect the ethics of Jesus Christ.

How dangerous is moral relativism? Order your copy of our new DVD series,Doing the Right Thing, and lead a group of your friends in understanding our present crisis of ethics. You should also read the article, “‘Society Says’ Relativism,” by Greg Koukl.

Every Thought, Every Word

Only the truth can set us free.
By T.M. Moore | Published Date: September 05, 2011

He accepted neither indifference nor heresy.
Dallán Forgaill, Amra Choluimb Chille (Irish, 7th century)

We destroy arguments and every loft opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ... 2 Corinthians 10:5

Zealous for truth
Colum Cille, the great 6th century Irish missionary/scholar, was known by all to be zealous for truth. By some accounts, it was his love for the Gospel that got him exiled from Ireland. As an aspiring monk he made a copy of a gospel book and refused to give it up when he was discovered. The local magistrate got involved, and Colum was required to forfeit his treasure (since it was not lawful for monks-in-training to own property). The subsequent melee which Colum initiated left him humiliated and disciplined – sent packing from Ireland.

He sailed to Iona and climbed the highest hill to make sure he could no longer see Ireland. Then he wept. But then he got busy. He studied the Word of God exhaustively. He learned the great works of His Christian forebears. He mastered the Law of God. He became the greatest missionary trainer of his generation.

But he was not zealous merely to know the truth. He lived it, and he taught it, and he caused everyone who came into his presence to deal with the truth, for many of them, as they’d never had to before. In Colum’s company no one was allowed either to misrepresent the truth or to ignore it, as Dallán makes clear in his lamentation.

Colum would not abide heresy. He would challenge it, expose its falsehoods, and assert the truth of God against it. Neither could he abide indifference – not when truth could be known. He made people make up their minds about the truth. In Column’s presence, amid a discussion of just about anything, one could not simply plead, “No opinion.” He made you think. He led you to reason. He insisted that people confront and respond to the truth.

Colum was a very serious Christian. He understood that only the truth can set us free, and he worked in all his ministry to ensure that those in his charge dealt with the truth, understood the truth, taught and proclaimed the truth, and lived in the truth every day of their lives.

And us?

What about us? Are we serious about the truth? Or do we simply stand by as people rattle off the most ridiculous, absurd, or inane positions about this, that, or the other? The Word of God speaks to every area of human life and interest. Nothing can come up in any conversation concerning which God does not have a Word of truth to offer.

And He has commissioned us to set forth His truth in every situation.

The extent to which our society is awash in lies, deceit, and half-truths is becoming clearer each day. Where are the bearers of truth in this thicket of lies? Who will challenge the heresies – every false worldview – and who will confront the indifferent, so that they at least have the opportunity to hear the truth? Who, like Colum, will cherish the truth so much that he is willing to risk his personal wellbeing to own and establish it?

This is our calling, friends, just as it was Colum Cille’s. The people to whom God sends us each day need to hear His truth. If we’re serious about the truth, we will press it upon them with grace, but also with urgency.

Only the truth can set people free from sin and the Lie. Christ would have all men be taken captive by His grace, for His truth, and unto His glory. And He has sent us, as He was sent, and as He commissioned Colum Cille, to pursue this mission day by day.

You and I bear God’s truth in earthen vessels. But, earthen vessels though we be, let us bear and distribute the truth with confidence, challenging the heretic and the indifferent alike, to consider the truth that is in Jesus.

Because only the truth can set us free.

Join the conversation as Chuck Colson and Gabe Lyons discuss the truth that is in Jesus in The Faith DVD. You can also purchase student guides for group discussion. You should also read the article, “Truth in Love,” by T. M. Moore.

Common Ground

Standing for Christ before a Hostile Age (4)
By T. M. Moore

“Brothers and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran...” --Acts 7:2

It can be difficult at times to remember that people who are outspoken in their opposition to God and the Gospel, who have nothing kind to say about anything Christian, and who seem so angry whenever anything related to religion comes up – these people actually have a good deal in common with those of us who believe.

That might surprise some of us. After all, what can we have in common with people who seem to hate us so much that, given half an opportunity, they would figure out some way to silence us once and for all? But Stephen understood this, and he knew that it was important to stand for Christ on whatever patch of common ground he might share with his accusers.

Notice how he began his defense: He referred to those who would murder him before the end of the day as “brothers.” He spoke about their common ancestry in Abraham, even when Abraham was still living as a pagan in Mesopotamia. And he went to considerable lengths to identify with them in their national story: the promises to Abraham, the patriarchs, captivity in Egypt, deliverance through Moses, the giving of the Law, and so forth.

Stephen understood the importance of seeking a positive connection with people, even though he seemed to understand that they weren’t interested in connecting with him and that, no matter what he said or did, this situation was not going to turn out well. Nevertheless, he made the effort. He tried to affirm their story and his own connection to it, if, by any means, doing so might assuage their anger and create a context in which reason and cooler heads could prevail.

Because all people are made in the image of God, we can always find something about their lives which can serve as a kind of common ground for talking with them about the things of the Lord. Whether it’s their work, interests and avocations, views on this or that, or sense of purpose and morality, we can always discover something at work in them, the fruit of their being God’s image-bearers, to which we can establish a connection and begin a conversation about the Lord.

Regardless do the degree of hostility this world may display toward us and the Gospel, we must always do our best to remain respectful, to speak gently and reasonably, and to engage those who oppose us on their turf, seeking to understand their story, their worldview, and their concerns about the Gospel we proclaim. Some people, we know, will respond favorably to such efforts, and civil and ongoing conversation may be the result.

Others will see in our effort a kind of condescending and judgmental attitude, which, combined with what they already regard as naiveté, if not idiocy on our parts, will only serve to make them angrier and more determined to put us in our place. There have been times in history when whole societies were like this, and sincere believers, no matter how gracious and reasonable, have encountered the same response Stephen did, if not always quite so violent and final. We could be heading that way in our day.

But we must not abandon the effort to connect with those we are trying to reach for Christ, even though we may suspect that nothing we might do or say is going to change their minds or reduce their wrath.

We have to proceed anyway, even if the consequences should be dire, for there always young zealots hanging in the background, watching as older heads hammer us and our worldview, who may already be starting to wonder whether perhaps they may have gotten the story wrong.

Download the series, "Standing for Christ in a Hostile Age." Click here: VP Hostile Age.

In Their Face

Standing for Christ before a Hostile Age (3)
T.M. Moore

“Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says, ‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool…” --Acts 7:48, 49

One of those angry young men present at the trial and murder of Stephen was a young zealot from Tarsus, an up-and-comer in Jewish religious and intellectual ranks. His name was Saul. When we first meet him, holding the coats of Stephen’s murderers, he seems to be still an apprentice – not ready to get his hands dirty, but available to assist those who were. He was of the same mind as those who tore at Stephen. He was just as hostile to the Gospel as they (Acts 8:1), and he was eager to prove his commitment to root out the Christian menace.

We recall that Stephen was charged with sinning against the temple of the Lord, by explaining that God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the outpouring of His Spirit, was now building a new temple, the Church. Stephen’s defense against his prosecutors focused on that charge; he was determined to demonstrate that the charge was baseless and, even more, that his accusers were completely mistaken concerning God’s intentions with respect to His dwelling among men.

Having laid a foundation for his main point, by agreeing with the idea that God is determined to dwell among men, Stephen pointed first to the tabernacle in the wilderness (Acts 7:44-46). Undoubtedly those generations served by the tabernacle were of the mindset that this was God’s permanent dwelling-place among His people.

But, Stephen continued, we know that was not the case. For Solomon built a house for God (v. 47), which had subsequently been destroyed and replaced by the present house, against which Stephen was accused of making threats. But, Stephen continued, God Himself had made it known through the prophet Isaiah that this earthly temple was not to be His true or final dwelling. “What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest?

Did not my hands make all these things?” (vv. 49, 50; cf. Is. 66:1, 2). Stephen’s point was a subtle one: Had his accusers failed to understand their own prophet? Had they failed to look beyond the temple to a greater and more permanent dwelling-place for God? Had they, in fact, made an idol of the temple, just, as he explained earlier, the people had made an idol in the wilderness (vv.38-42)?

And just so they didn’t miss the point, Stephen put the cards face-up on the table: “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you” (v. 51). It’s as if Stephen had said, “You self-deceived, power-hungry fools, who think you can control us all by making the temple and traditions of God your own special order of operations! You read your traditions selectively, or not at all, so it’s no wonder you’re so blind to the truth about God.”

You don’t get much more in-your-face than that. But the Jews had heard enough, and their fury could not be contained. Nothing would keep them from silencing such impertinence. Except one thing: It is very interesting to note, in Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill, that he takes off on the Greek philosophers from the same place Stephen had taken off on him and his cronies, so many years earlier (Acts 17:24). Had Stephen’s bold and daring witness made a lasting impression?

Was his suffering and death worth it? Paul never got over the shame and sorrow he felt over his role in Stephen’s murder, as we see in Acts 22:20. Stephen’s confrontational manner before those who presumed to try him may have infuriated them all, including Saul, to the point of murder. But the long-term value of his sacrifice cannot be measured, given the role the Apostle Paul fulfilled in the wide-spread establishment of the Christian faith throughout the world of his day.

Is God preparing you for such a role? You can’t know, but you must be ready. A hostile age, after all, can only destroy our bodies. But who knows what power may be unleashed by our in-your-face witness before a hostile age?

Download the series, "Standing for Christ in a Hostile Age." Click here: VP Hostile Age.