A Dance For Moral Relativism

In a recent USA Today article (A dance for chastity), Mary Zeiss Stange criticized evangelical Christians for promoting sexual purity. Ms. Stange is a professor of religion and women's studies at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York. Encouraging children to save sex for marriage, she believes, is both dangerous and intolerant. She decries what she perceives as the patriarchal domination of women (Never mind that these same Christians encourage their sons to remain chaste as well.) and the theft of "sexual self-agency."

Now, of course, Ms. Stange has every political right to disparage Christians. But does she have the moral and/or intellectual right to do so? Her opinion columns have a definite ring of ethical relativism. Ethical relativism (moral relativism) is defined in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy as, "...the theory that there are no universally valid moral principles: all moral principles are valid relative to culture or individual choice."

Assuming Stange is an ethical relativist, what objections could she possibly raise against patriarchal forms of domination that could not be defeated by the reply, "Well, that's your version of morality, not mine." She might appeal to convention, but conventions change as often as individuals and societies desire. Laws favoring and opposing slavery and abortion serve as historical examples.

Francis Beckwith (Associate Professor of Philosophy at Baylor University) has written a helpful primer on moral relativism called Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted In Mid-Air. In it he lists the seven fatal flaws of relativism. Among them is the flaw that relativists can't criticize others for their moral choices. To remain consistent with their own relativism, they have to allow for the different moralities of others.

Ironically, many relativists make a living criticizing the moral choices of others. Ms. Stange, (and other relativists like her) want us to agree that certain behaviors (e.g. patriarchal domination) are morally wrong, not just for a few, but for everyone. Yet her ethic cannot rationally ground such an assertion. She needs an objective moral code from which to criticize and correct others.

Relativists don't really tell us anything about slavery, abortion, patriarchy, or abstinence. Their diatribes are merely an exercise in psychological autobiography. We are given access to their opinions, but not to any objective truth regarding the subjects they address.

Ms. Stange's ethical relativism insulates her readers from taking her seriously. So why should her opinions have any moral traction in persuading others? She will have to hope that her readers are not ethical relativists.

Are You Open Minded?

Open-mindedness is a cardinal virtue of an “enlightened” culture. The assumption, of course, is that a closed mind is unable to discover any truth that it doesn’t already possess. Education implies that we need to learn. Close-minded people would forever shut themselves off from any chance of learning.

As a Christian I certainly understand the value of an open mind. Jesus Christ left us with a mandate to persuade others that He is the Savior. If people were always close-minded, no one would ever convert to faith in Christ. It takes an open mind to seriously consider the claims of Christ. Only someone who is close-minded would refuse to consider the veracity of the Christian message. In fact, if you’re a Christian, you were converted through an open mind. You were willing to put aside your pre-conceived notions about Christ and Christianity long enough to reconsider your own spiritual condition.

It isn’t only non-Christians, however, who need to have an open mind. Christians can be just as close-minded as anyone else. We are sometimes close-minded about other cultures, races, or anything that breaks with our traditions. Open-mindedness is a good thing.

Yet, I’m a bit confused by the veneration of open-mindedness in our day. We practically worship the idea of an open mind. It seems that the current expectation is to have minds that are perpetually open. We aren’t supposed to close it on anything. We are told that one person’s opinion is just as good as the next so we ought to keep an open mind. Open-mindedness is important because it is impossible to gain knowledge without it. Yet, most intellectuals these days are very cynical about the possibility of true knowledge. If true knowledge is not possible, why keep an open mind?

In his Life’s Ultimate Questions, philosopher Ronald Nash paraphrases a part of Socrates’ discussion with Protagoras as it appears in Plato’s Theatetus. Protagoras thinks that everyone’s opinions or beliefs are equally valid.

Socrates: "So you believe that each man's opinion is as good as anyone else’s."

Protagoras: "That's correct."

Socrates: "How do you make a living?

Protagoras: "I am a teacher."

Socrates: "I find this very puzzling. You admit you earn money teaching, but I cannot imagine what you could possibly teach anyone. After all, you admit that each person's opinion is as good as anyone else's. This means that what your students believe is as good as anything you could possibly teach them.”

Notice that Socrates points out that if every man’s opinion is as good as anyone else’s then the whole point of education is meaningless. And yet an open mind is only beneficial if there is something to learn. But if what I believe is as valid as the beliefs of my high school teacher or college professor, why have an open mind, let alone keep it open.

We live in a Protagorean culture. On the one hand we are told that everyone’s beliefs and opinions are equal. Yet, on the other hand we are told that we should always keep an open mind. Like Socrates, I think these two notions are incompatible. In his Socrates Meets Jesus, philosopher Peter Kreeft imagines a dialogue between Socrates and Bertha Broadmind. Broadmind, as the name implies, takes great pride in her open mind.

Socrates: "Then the only thing you want to know is truth: the truth about truth and the truth about falsehood, but not the falsehood about either. Isn’t that right?"

Bertha: "Yes."

Socrates: "Then we have the same definition of open-mindedness and its purpose. Just as an open mouth is a means to the end of closing it on good food, but not poison, and an open door is a means to enable a desired guest to enter, but not a robber, so an open mind is a means to the end of learning the truth about everything, not falsehoods.

Bertha: "I can’t refute you, Socrates."

Socrates: "Say rather that you can’t refute the truth. Socrates you can refute, and should, whenever I do not speak the truth.”

Open-mindedness is only useful if there is truth. An open door is only useful if there are friends who want to enter and not criminals. An open mouth is only useful if there is healthy food available and not poison. But these are distinctions between good and bad. Our culture doesn't like to make such delineations. Bad ideas? Wrong beliefs? Such ideas are anathema in a politically correct climate that worships diversity.

The Protagoreans of our culture must change their view that all beliefs and opinions are equally valid or give up their idolatrous and ignorant commitment to open-mindedness. If Protagorean relativism is true, each person already has all the truth he/she needs. Protagorean or Berthean relativism ought to result in CLOSE-MINDEDNESS since the relativist already possesses truth and he believes that your truth is only true for you! What could you possibly contribute to his knowledge?

Don’t be misled. An open mind IS a virtue because not everyone’s opinion is equally valid. Some ideas and beliefs are just plain false. There is truth outside us yet to be learned; real truth. Jesus said, “I am the way, the Truth, and the life. (John 14:6 NASB) So have an open mind! And when you find the truth, close your mind on it... or your brains may fall out.

The viability of Christianity is that it concurs with our human experience that an open mind is a virtue. It has a transcendent, non-arbitrary foundation that serves as the source of real truth and knowledge: the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Real knowledge is possible. We are finite and God is infinite, therefore, there is far more knowledge to gain than we currently possess. Yet, it also recognizes the value and necessity of a closed mind. If real truth is out there, when we find it, we must close our mind around it.

The bankruptcy of Secularism is that it cannot provide an objective standard from which to expect objective truth. It has an arbitrary, subjective standard rooted in the capricious speculations of society; the likes of which gave us the naturalism and materialism that leads to epistemological determinism and skepticism. Secularism insists open-mindedness is important, yet espouses an antithetical epistemological relativism. If knowledge is relative, then open-mindedness is naive.

Judge Not!

Is it wrong to judge? Be careful in your answer. Any response is a judgment. It tickles me when I hear someone rebuke another with the quip, “Don’t judge!” Most people don’t realize that such a scolding is a judgment in itself. I recently had a friend say that my Christianity ought to be more tolerant. Of course it never occurred to him that he was being intolerant of my expression of Christianity.

So what did Jesus mean when He said not to judge? The average person on the street is sure he knows. Jesus must have meant that we are never to make a moral evaluation of another person. Right? Not quite! Everyone makes moral value judgments. You’re making one at this moment. You already have an opinion about judging. You think it's right or wrong. The rub is not whether we make judgments, but rather how we make them.

When Jesus said, “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.”(Matthew 7:1-2), he did not mean that we are forbidden from making moral judgments. Most people forget to put this in the context of the following verses that say, “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:3-5)

Notice the last part of Jesus’ comment. We must first take the log out of our eye before we attempt to remove the splinter in another’s eye. Jesus is against hypocritical judging. Jesus is saying that we must first take care of our own sin before we dare try to fix someone else. But then he goes on to say that after we have taken the log out of our eye we can see clearly to take the splinter from our brother’s eye. The splinters must be removed, but with humility and gentleness (Galatians 6:1).

Judgment is not only allowed it is commanded. Jesus taught, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” (John 7:24) Sometimes unrighteous judgments are the result of considering only what appears on the outside. We judge a person by the clothes they wear or because they break our traditions. Jesus says our judgments are to be righteous judgments. They are to be according to truth and not misperception. Jesus also said, “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private…” (Matt. 18:15) Of course this wouldn’t be possible if all judgments are forbidden. Make sure your judgments are according to Scripture:

1. Judgments must not be hypocritical (Matthew 7:1-5). Make sure you deal with the log in your eye before attempting to remove a splinter in your brother's eye.
2. Judgments must be righteous (John 7:24). Sometimes we get the facts wrong or base our judgments on hearsay. Make sure you have the truth before proceeding.
3. Judgments must be gentle (Galatians 6:1). Consider how you want to be treated when you've sinned. If you're rough with others you can expect to be treated the same.
4. Judgments must be intended to bring growth to your brother (Matthew 18:15). The purpose of judging is repentance. Repentance is to lead to restoration and Christ-likeness. Remember that your goal is to restore. The context of Matthew 18 makes clear that an unrepentant believer may force excommunication, but that should not be your intent.

The viability of Christianity is that it concurs with our human experience that judgments are necessary and constructive. It has a transcendent, non-arbitrary foundation from which to make these judgments: The Word of God.

The bankruptcy of Secularism is that it cannot provide an objective standard from which to make any judgment. It has an arbitrary, subjective standard rooted in the capricious speculations of society; the likes of which gave us utilitarianism, social contract theory, and the categorical imperative.

Were You Born That Way?

Some people excuse their sin by saying, “I was born this way!” Our culture currently struggles with the subject of gay marriage. One of the sticking points is that some “scientists” have taught us that many people are born with homosexual tendencies. In fact many homosexuals will admit, “I’ve felt this way all my life.”

What if these scientists are right? What if homosexuals are born with an attraction for the same sex? At first most Christians recoil at this notion and declare that it can’t be. We know homosexuality is a sin and thus science must be wrong. I must admit that I believe science is wrong at this point. What if it could be reasonably demonstrated, however, that gayness is innate? Would such a discovery serve to contradict the Bible? Not at all!

Spend just one minute reflecting upon your own sinful tendencies and temptations. You will find that many of them have been with you as far back as you can remember. When did you have your first desire to lie, steal, disobey, lust, dishonor your parents, or mislead? You could say, “I was born this way!” Does that excuse your wrong desires or behavior? Of course not! We are ALL born with sinful inclinations. Theologians call this original sin or inherited sin.
The Bible teaches that we inherit a sinful nature because of Adam’s sin. This inherited sinful nature is sometimes called “original pollution” or “inherited corruption.”

David says, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:5). Some have erroneously thought that the sin of David’s mother is in view here, but the context has nothing to do with David’s mother. David is confessing his own personal sin. He says:

Have mercy on me O God...blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity...I know my transgressions....Against you...have I sinned. (Ps. 51:1–4)

David looks back on his life and realizes that he was sinful from the beginning. As far back as he can think of himself, he realizes that he has had a sinful nature. Psalm 58:3 says, “The wicked go astray from the womb, they err from their birth, speaking lies.” Children do not have to be taught how to do wrong; they discover that by themselves. We have to teach them how to do right, to “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).Are we exempt from God’s moral standards on the grounds that we’re “born this way?” No, God still commands us to tell the truth (Eph. 4:25), steal no more (Eph. 4:28), stop lusting (Eph. 4:22), be angry and sin not (Eph. 4:26), clean up our speech (Eph. 4:29), and get rid of malice (Eph. 4:31). Our particular temptations and struggles may vary, but the standard remains the same: “Be holy.” (1Peter 1:15-16).

The viability of Christianity is that it has an answer for why anything at all is sinful. Humanity is in rebellion to an eternal, righteous, and just God whose standards and nature do not change. Christianity attempts to repair the ruins because something is actually broken.

The bankruptcy of Secularism is that it has no foundation from which to object to anything at all. Yet secularism believes that many things are not what they should(?) be. One wonders why, in a universe of purposelessness and meaninglessness, anyone comes to the conclusion that anything is broken and in need of repair.