MORAL TENSION AND MORAL SUCCESS FOR THE BELIEVER Part One

Skeptics and atheists have scorned the morality of the Bible for centuries. Biblical (Christian) morality is positively under siege and attack in contemporary American culture, even more so now almost three decades into this century. The main argument against self-control is that it is not realistic for human beings to live a "monastic" life in the 21st century, and for hormonal reasons, young people are not likely to be able to rein themselves in. It is the same argument that arose in the 1960's when the government started to hand out contraception to very young teens, saying they couldn't help themselves; they were bound to have sex, and the best we could do was to limited unwanted pregnancy and the spread of STD's. What we did, however, was to deliberately step back from teaching moral or self-control, and self-consciously (as a society with an emphasis on pushing this ideology in our educational systems) marginalized the importance of traditional morality, developing good character, and a seeking to establish a reputation for personal integrity.

Fast forward 60 years from the beginning of the sexual revolution, as it was called, "woke" culture has piled on a whole edifice of regulatory requirements that it expects everyone in our society to adhere to, from kindergarten students to fully mature adults, along with threats of dire sanction for anyone who breaks the code ! These rules govern what you can say, how you act in the work place, what you are allowed to post on social media, the use of pronouns, your views on same sex relationships, what is and is not racist, and the list goes on. All of this impacts everyday conversation, human interactions, and has had a chilling effect on humor, and natural spontaneity between people who are afraid of being called out for the most innocent of remarks. Those on the wrong-side of the moral debate are outed, cancelled, or doxed. The utmost personal control must be exercised, and every thought reined in to satisfy the new morality, its enforcers, and its supreme deity, "Tolerance." The argument has come to be, ironically, people must exercise personal restraint in how they related to others, what they say, and how they conducted themselves in every and all complex circumstances, and in each relationship with other people in contemporary American society.

At the same time, in yet another equally obvious irony, a considerable amount of energy is expended in still supporting and shoring up the old mantra that as far as sexuality is concerned, we are all basically victims of desire, and we cannot help ourselves. With new definitions of morality now entrenched in the public sphere, a neo-moral code has been evolving with boundaries no one is supposed to cross. Everyone is required recognize and adhere to it.

The supreme governing rule or principle, after tolerance, in modern western society is nothing is wrong or off limits so long as we don't hurt anyone else. But surely that mantra presupposes self-restraint, and the ability to exercise personal control over one's conduct and emotions. Leaving aside the opaque articulation of neo-moral rationale, what does "not hurting someone" mean, the underlying assumption of is surprising to say the least. After all of this time, the expenditure of vast amounts of energy to remove every personal restraint on freedom, and every effort to deconstruct biblical morality, human beings are in fact now EXPECTED - it is demanded of them - to an extreme level of personal restraint, with an exercise self control that amounts to a far greater burden that before when we were following biblical moral principles. It is a far more constricting system than Christian morality, and is fraught with inconsistency, incoherence, and unpredictability. At least when we followed biblical morality, the principles of right and wrong were largely settled, unchangeable, knowable, and predictable in almost every circumstance.

It seems to me that the bone of contention is really what and whose morality we are talking about being bound to? Whose moral agenda it is that sets the standards of what is morally right or wrong for the rest of us to live by? This is not an inconsequential question. More importantly, which is it? Can we exercise restraint or not, when it comes down to self-control over our conduct emotions, desires, bodily appetites, and the rest? Are we simply victims of our humanity, to our nature, to our desire. to our chemical-biological processes? The neo-moral system with its high-minded demands and intolerance of deviation from its code suggests not... ironically!

Are we in fact capable of placing limits on our conduct or ameliorating our desires? Contemporary society not only expects that we do, but demands that we do. What is of the greatest importance, then, in the debate over moral codes and self-control (which we all assume are critical to peace for society), is what underlying assumptions do we adopt for determining by which moral code we all must live? How do we determine the relative value or superiority of one moral code over and against another? And if, as we have reasoned above that in today's world moral values have changed, why must we discard the biblical model? By whose authority must it be abandoned? By what objective measurement has it been ruled inferior or obsolete, when compared to the neo-moral code of the 21st century?

Paul said it best, in Romans 7, when he described his personal moral dilemma and struggle. His life, before he came to know Christ, was one of a desire to be a better person (he called it righteousness, the good he wanted to do but couldn't). He suffered emotional and mental anguish over his desire to be a better person and an intractable inability in his nature and mind to follow through to become that person in reality - it was just not in his nature, and not in his conduct to become that person. He describes his experience of moral powerlessness as being chained to as dead and rotting corpse, whose stink and contagion was ruining his life (Rom. 7:24).

What he discovered in his nature was a resistance to the rule of God, and an absence any real moral capacity, power, or ability to overcome a core problem which he found to be at work in his nature, and that made him act badly and behave utterly selfishly (Rom. 7:7-14). In a sense, he discovered what in the 1960's was articulated, that in fact there is a certain moral powerlessness in our human nature. Nevertheless, Paul sought to restrain his moral disinclination through adherence to the code of rules, called the law, part of his Jewish religious system. What he realized was that the moral powerlessness in his nature was far greater and more powerful to lead him into wrong conduct, and to follow the appetites and desires of his body, than the rules possessed to restrain them. Indeed, the law had no power to restrain them at all. The same thing is true of the neo-m oral code of today. It lacks power to produce what it demands, and, like the law of God, can only heap condemnation on those who cross its lines.

The moral uprightness God demanded from his people was out of his reach so long as Paul remained in this condition. Even though he was guided by the law of God, a list of rules to go by ( (cf. Lev. 11;44-45), he complained that in the core of his nature was a flaw complicit in undermining any good he wanted to do, and any integrity he was seeking to develop (Rom. 7:21-25). The discovery of this moral flaw in his nature, and his later experience of the power of God to morally transform his life, led Paul to realize that what he had been looking for with respect to integrity, moral satisfaction and success could only be achieved by an intervention by God from outside of his own personality and life. In order for him to be changed by God, he needed to be prepared to surrender to God for the pardon of his sins, and the transformation of his life that God offered through faith in Jesus Christ, where justification and reconciliation to God are made possible (Rom. 5:1-2, 10; 7:25-8:4).

The problem of morality is not the absence of rules, moral codes. There are literally thousands of them out there. Nor is it lack of conscience, or of the knowledge of right and wrong. The moral problem is that human beings are incapable of acting consistently right ! There is a flaw in our nature that inevitably, and even self-consciously seeks to push the envelop to see how far we can push out the moral boundaries between what we know is right and wrong. If you want to proof of this just follow a 4 year old around for half a day! The moral tension between what we ought to do and actually do is in need of a solution, and it is absolutely true that the New Testament proposes an effective answer to our moral dilemma and for achieving moral success.

Join us in our next blog to consider what Paul finally concluded about moral tension, and how those who come to know Christ can, in fact, expect moral progress and success.