Moral Certainty

 

There is such thing as Christian morality, and it is easily identifiable. For the last two thousand years, the historic Christian church has clearly identified what is moral and what is immoral. There is no ambiguity. Since the advent of sectarianism amongst those who call themselves Christians, these moral standards have been maligned and questioned, usually based on the premise of personal interpretation and feelings.

While there are no grounds for condemnation or judgment of someone, there is two thousand years of historical precedent for us to align with. Just because someone feels a certain way or feels inclined to certain behaviors, does not mean that this is suddenly acceptable. Recognizing sinful inclinations and approving these behaviors is two very different things. We should acknowledge that people sin, but we must never normalize those sins or define them in a way that makes them socially acceptable. Regardless of how one feels about it, sin is always damaging. It may not be immediately damaging and sometimes we cannot see the damage that takes place to a person’s mental state/heart/soul.

We need to return to the moral standards that have always been the position of the Christian faith and we must never retreat or move beyond these lines.

Truth or Passion?

 

If people don’t like you because of things you believe or things you practice, there is nothing you can do about it. Arguing with them is usually pointless, for most people simply believe, don’t question what they believe, and don’t work through their worldview. They simply live it because that is what they grew up with. The best response is to give them no reason to not like you. Kindness in the face of petty ignorance will always win.

At the same time, some may choose to disdain you simply because you are you. Doing right and living according to truth will always come at a price, for there are those who want to live according to passion and not truth.

Maturity

    Are you, as a parent, an abusive and controlling monster for not letting your two-year-old drive the car by himself? Are you being unreasonable and oppressive for imposing this limitation on his freewill? 

    Of course not. A child that small, aside from it being illegal, is not capable of that sort of responsibility. He cannot do what needs to be done, he does not have the experience or the knowledge to do this. This approach is in the same category as having child proof lids on medicine. A child does not have the wisdom or experience to decide for themselves to take or not take medicine. This is also why we do not leave loaded guns lying around our house. 

    These are metaphors for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden being forbidden from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. At creation, man was brand new, he had no experience, he had no wisdom, and he had no ability to handle such an incredible tool. Had Adam and Eve simply obeyed and followed God’s lead in this, God would have brought them along and raised them up to maturity so that at some point they could appropriately handle this knowledge.

Definitions and Private Interpretation

    If a small group of people began labeling themselves in a certain way and began promoting and behaving in a way contrary to that label, and eventually took over the name so that anyone in common parlance associated the label with this group, would it not be right to call this out as a lie? To classify someone by the behavior of one group who have dishonestly appropriated a label is unacceptable. This has been taking place throughout the last two thousand years. Early in history, the church gathered and addressed these situations, making official declarations about what the church has always taught and believed. The church would then call these deviant groups to repentance and in the case when that repentance did not take place, the church would identify this group as outside of communion.

    But since the 16^th century with the invention of the world of Protestantism, this all changed. In common public thought, when people think of a “Christian” they think of American evangelicals, which is an unassociated, disconnected mass of splinter groups who all take the same name but differ radically in belief and practice.

    Ultimately this comes down to how the label “Christian” is defined. Is it really an amorphous blob that can be shaped anyway desired? Or does the label Christian have an actual historical foundation that can be compared against? Jesus taught the disciples, and these disciples became apostles and faithfully passed this teaching down to the churches they started around the known world. This has been taking place since the first century. Technically speaking, any group that takes the name “Christian” yet does not belief and practice that which was handed down from Jesus to the apostles is one of two things. They are either not Christian or they are unfaithful and to be considered outside of the boundaries of communion in the case of unrepentance. There are no other options. 

    This would be akin to two men playing ping-pong but calling it football because they want to define it that way. Anyone looking in from the outside, with a knowledge of the game, would know that what is taking place there is not true.

Interaction

 

You’ve heard the expression, “Falling on deaf ears.” The idea is that some people do not want to hear anything contrary to their worldview. There is no level of logic, reason, or facts that will change their opinions or ideas. What responsibility does this leave with us then? None. 

If someone else is not interested in what you have to say, don’t bother. There is no need to force a conversation, to prove yourself, or to prove them wrong. “Making” someone understand is not our responsibility. All we can do is love them despite everything negative involved in the situation.

You aren’t even responsible for making them love you in return. The only thing you are responsible for is to love them and give them no reason to hate you. Just remember, Jesus did everything exactly right and he was still hated by those who should have known better.

A Moral Foundation

    The odd thing about morals is that so many people seem perfectly fine with arbitrariness. “I’ll just make up my own version of right and wrong.” But the question remains, if you can arbitrarily make it up, you can arbitrarily change it on a whim and anyone else can do the same with their system of morals. Are you going to say that they’re “wrong” for doing so? Unless one has a standard outside of themselves upon which to base a set of morals, any moral stance taken is by definition, arbitrary and therefore without authority.

Giving Advice

How do we respond when someone holds a belief that is contrary to our own or simply is wrong? First, it depends upon the person. If we are talking about a complete stranger who has posted a thought on a social media account, there is no need to respond unless they are specifically asking us for input or direction. If this person is someone under our authority, we should direct them towards the truth. If this is someone who is an equal and with whom we are in a relationship, it can be brought up as a discussion point if they are interested in dialog. If they are not, we need to let it go. If this is a spouse and the point needs to be resolved, it can only be resolved if both people are interested in resolving it. In short, unrequested advice is nothing but imposition.