In Chapter 3 of Christian Handbook of Reason and Insight for Scientists and Technologists, the existence and possible origins of the ‘moral law’ are discussed. But what about the option of just ignoring the moral law and substituting the power of the human mind? Let us first review the moral law and some possible implications.
What is the origin of the moral law written on each of our hearts? This question presupposes that you and I have identical codes of conduct embedded deep in our subconscious minds; we can try to suppress or ignore this code but it is there nonetheless. This deeply embedded code of conduct is the little voice inside which, for example, tells you not to:
- steal from, double-cross or murder persons who treat you with kindness
- abuse children, elderly, sick or disabled
- admire selfishness
If you question the existence of this code of conduct or "moral law," try to locate a stable society, anywhere in recorded history, which espoused the three items listed above. The origin of the moral law cannot be determined with certainty; but, once again, the evidence points strongly in a particular direction. Three origins have been suggested:
- The words "moral law" encompass certain types of behavior which have developed in us by the process of biological evolution. The details of this development process are covered by such theories as "kinship" and "reciprocation" and may even employ the principles of game theory. The types of behavior, classified as "moral law," accomplish no purpose other than to enhance the survivability of the human race.
- The "moral law" is learned social behavior passed from adults to children; collective human experience has recognized that certain restrictions on social behavior result in a more pleasant society for all.
- The "moral law" is really God's commandment to love your neighbor as yourself (Mat 22:36-40). This commandment embodies the sum total of the Law given to us by God (Rom 13:8-10, Gal 5:14). To make sure no one missed the instructions, he wrote His Law on everyone's heart (Rom 1:18-20; 2:14,15).
As shown in Chapter 3 of Christian Handbook of Reason and Insight for Scientists and Technologists, God’s commandment to love your neighbor describes the most likely source of the moral law. But many today believe we should move away from the Bible and its antiquated teaching. Even some clergy have become too sophisticated to seek answers in the Bible. Here is an excerpt from Beliefs of a United Methodist Christian, published by the UMC in 1987 and written by a UMC Bishop.
This is an age, however, that raises questions, not only about the authority of the Bible but about the value of all authority. What is the point of teaching or studying the classical disciplines, including the Bible when the bases for our action are given with sufficient clarity by contemporary ethics and the adjunct studies of sociology and psychology? I suspect many of us, if our back were against the wall, would honestly have to answer, “Very little indeed.” There is probably a widespread intuitive acceptance of two affirmations: (1) The New Testament and the creeds are no longer in any way authoritative or canonical for us; (2) Christians today can find sufficient guidelines for their faith and action in contemporary statements and solutions. (Colaw, p. 49)
Unfortunately, for the legacy of such progressive thinkers, a true flame of integrity, righteousness, morality, ethics and character will not spontaneously ignite in the human soul. Here are some thoughts of Richard Watson on why attempts to teach morals independent of God, and Christianity in particular, always fail:
“Because they silently convey the impression, that human reason, without assistance, is sufficient to discover the full duty of man toward God and toward his fellow creatures.
Because they imply a deficiency in the moral code of our religion, which does not exist; the fact being that, although these systems borrow much from Christianity, they do not take in the whole of its moral principles, and, therefore, so far as they are accepted, as substitutes, displace what is perfect for what is imperfect.
Because they turn the attention from what is fact, the revealed LAW of God, with its appropriate sanctions, and place the obligation to obedience either on fitness, beauty, general interest, or the natural authority of truth, which are all matters of opinion; or if they ultimately refer it to the will of God, yet they infer that will through various reasonings and speculations, which in themselves are still matters of opinion and as to which men will feel themselves to be in some degree free.
Because the duties they enjoin are either merely outward in the act, and so they disconnect them from internal principles and habits, without which they are not acceptable to God, and but the shadows of real virtue, however beneficial they may be to men; or else they assume that human nature is able to engraft those principles and habits upon itself, and to practice them without abatement and interruption; a notion which is contradicted by those very Scriptures they hold to be of Divine authority.
Because their separation of the doctrines of religion from its morals, leads to an entirely different process of promoting morality among men to that which the infinite wisdom and goodness of God has established in the Gospel. They lay down the rule of conduct, and recommend it from its excellence per se, or its influence upon individuals and upon society, or perhaps because it is manifested to be the will of the Supreme Being, indicated from the constitution of human nature, and the relations of men. But Christianity rigidly connects its doctrines with its morals. Its doctrine of man’s moral weakness is made use of to lead him to distrust his own sufficiency. Its doctrine of the atonement shows at once the infinite evil of sin and encourages men to seek deliverance from its power. Its doctrine of regeneration by the influence of the Holy Spirit, implies the entire destruction of the love of evil, and the direction of the whole affection of the soul to universal virtue. Its doctrine of prayer opens to man a fellowship with God, invigorating to every virtue. The example of Christ, the imitation of which is made obligatory upon us, is in itself a moral system in action, and in principle; and the revelation of a future judgement brings the whole weight of the control of future rewards and punishments to bear upon the motives and actions of men, and is the source of that fear of offending God which is the constant guard of virtue, when human motives would in a multitude of cases avail nothing.” (Watson, v2, p 473-474)
(See also Sections 4.1, 4.11, 4.14 and 4.15 of Theology Corner)
