Morality Quest Part 3

We have searched out the source of morality.  We have found it.  We now anxiously wait to learn how we measure up to it.

The answer is, we all fail.

According to Jesus, anyone who is angry at a brother or sister is subject to judgment similar to a murderer.  Anyone who offers a minor insult to a brother or sister is in danger of hell.  Any man who looks at a woman lustfully is guilty of adultery.  If anyone is not better than the spiritual teachers, he will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  (Matthew 5)

None of us measures up to the moral law, and this is why most of us do not like to think about morality.  According to the Bible, we all have sinned and fallen short of God’s standard (Romans 3:23).  The penalty for our sin is death (Romans 6:23).  Why did we ever start down this path in search of morality?  If we are condemned to death, at least let us go through life in the peace of ignorance.

The same God who orchestrated a way for us to know His moral law, is the same God whom we have disobeyed by breaking his moral law.  Yet there is hope.  He has also provided a way for us to be forgiven for our sins.  That is why Jesus came.  He came to forgive us of our sins.

Yet that was not the only reason he came.  John 1:12-13 reads, “Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.  Children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision nor a husband’s will, but born of God.”

Jesus not only grants us forgiveness of sins.  He also grants us adoption as children of God.  If you believe in Jesus, you are a child of God.  Your heavenly Father is King of the Universe.  That makes you a prince or princess.  You are royalty.

If you do not believe, why not?  You have been offered not only redemption, but unlimited access to God (whom you can now call “Father”).  The fear of approaching the Lawgiver is gone.  You have been forgiven and offered more than you ever could have dreamed.  Why would you turn that away?

Morality Quest Part 2

In the last blog I wrote about how morality is not a human construct.  I did so briefly, and in very little detail.  I am going to proceed with the assumption that morality is not a human construct.  If you want to read more on the subject, there are many books on the topic.  I personally recommend The Abolition of Man by C. S. Lewis.

If moral law is not human construct, one would suppose that it came from some entity beyond nature.  Thus we need to look deeper at reality.  We need to go beyond merely the physical world and into the spiritual and philosophical realms.

Millions before me have tried to delve into this topic, and we would be wise to read the thought of those who came before us.  However, this is a blog not a book, so I do not have the space to delve deeply into the thoughts of even a fraction of the sage men and women of times gone by.  Rather let me tell you what criteria I use to determine which teachings have the most authority.  This will narrow down the list and expedite our quest.

I would want teachings that admit that morality does not come from man.  I have already briefly demonstrated how this is a flawed assumption, and smarter men than me have done an even better job arguing this point.  Therefore, I rule out any philosophy that makes humanity the source of morality.  This essentially leaves us with religions.

I would next rule out any religion in which the supernatural entities are dependent on or derived from humanity.  If such forces are dependent on humanity then humanity has a say as to what is moral and what is not because we can manipulate the supernatural to do our bidding.  This would put us back in the realm of humanity being the source of morality.  Thus animistic religions fall short, as do most eastern religions.

I would also rule out religions that claim the source of morality to be a non-personal entity.  If the source was non-personal, the laws of morality would be mere facts of nature produced by random chance.  They would therefore, have neither real power nor a compelling reason to obey them.  This would leave us with a non-morality system which is, in essence, a human morality.

The moral law can find its origin in either one person or more than one person provided that those persons are in such unity that they never differ in their opinions on morality.  A pantheon, like in ancient Greek or Roman religions, would not do because the gods in these stories are often depicted as being at odds with each other, and seem to have no set morality other than their own desires.  A “deist republic” would not suffice to produce a stable moral system.

It appears that we would have to find our moral lawgiver in a monotheistic religion.  This is somewhat problematic because there are several monotheistic religions.  To narrow down the field further, the thing to look for is unity.  Anyone can write a book about God and claim it to be true.  What we need to look for is books that have unity despite being written over a great period of time and in different cultures and languages.  This would demonstrate that the books find their source from something that transcends a specific culture and way of thought.  I find this in the Bible.

To understand my reasoning, it is important to realize that the Bible is not just one book.  It is 66 books.  These 66 books were written by about 40 different authors.  These 40 different authors did not all live at the same time either.  The 66 books of the Bible were written over about 1600 years.  They were also not all written in the same language.  The Bible was written in three different languages (Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic).  It was also written on three different continents.

So to sum up, the Bible is a collection of 66 books written by about 40 different authors over the course of 1600 years in three different languages on three different continents.  Yet despite this great diversity in time, geography, authorship, cultures, and languages, these 66 books are unified in their overall teachings and story-line.

Such unity through diversity leads me to believe that these books were divinely inspired.  Should anyone disagree I challenge them to duplicate this feat using any other books written throughout history, but remember the conditions: at least 66 books, at least 40 authors, at least 3 languages, at least 3 continents, and unity in content.

To further state my point, let’s look at a section of the Bible:

“He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.  He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.  He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.  Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.  Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.  But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.  We all like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

If you know anything about Jesus, you probably recognize that this passage is about Him.  You would be correct.  This passage is about the Messiah.  Yet it was written hundreds of years before Jesus was born.

One might object at this point and say, “Sure, you claim that the books are diverse in origin yet unified in content, but how do we know that they were not doctored after the fact.  How do we know that the prophecy about Christ you just presented was not written centuries after Christ to improve the legitimacy of Christianity and then falsely ascribed to an ancient prophet?”

This is a fair objection.  None of the original manuscripts of the Bible exist as far as we know.  Yet there are manuscripts that date to before the time of Christ.  In the case of the passage above, the oldest existing manuscript (that I am aware of) dates to about 100 years before the birth of Christ.  There may be debate as to when the above passage was written, but no scholar would date its writing after Christ’s birth.

Reflect again on the passage above.  It was written hundreds of years before Christ was born.  Can you think of anyone else it could possibly describe?  If not, then we have a legitimate prophecy clearly pointing to Jesus as the Messiah.  What does this tell us about the authority of the Bible, and the person of Jesus?  I believe it demonstrates that they are both divine in their origin.

If the Bible provides us with God’s moral law, the next question is how we measure up to it.  This is the question we all fear.  I will answer it next time.

Morality Quest Part 1

In my last blog, I wrote about how throughout human history we have attempted to redefine good and evil along lines that make our actions seem good.  I proposed that we do so because we are afraid to compare ourselves to the true moral standard of the real moral law as given by the real moral Lawgiver.  We are afraid to do so because we all fear that we do not measure up.  Over the next few blogs, I am going to lead a quest to find the moral law and the moral Lawgiver.  In the end, we will see how we all measure up.

Where to Look?

The first question we must consider is where to find the supreme moral law.  To figure that out, we must determine where morality comes from.  If it comes from mankind then our quest is nearly done.  If people made the supreme moral law, then people can change it.

This also would mean that morality is as real as governing laws.  Every governing law was made by people and can be changed by people when it is convenient or necessary to do so.  That which humanity makes, it may alter.

However this also would mean that morality is not universal.  It is relative to the people in power at any given time.  In fact, the ultimate moral lawgiver would be the person or group of people with the most power at any given moment.

Let’s think about what this would look like for a bit.  In Asia, for most of the 20^th century, the Soviet Union was the major power.  Millions were killed in the name of the state for purely political reasons.  In the 18^th and 19^th century in the United States it was legal for black people to be kept as slaves.  In ancient Rome, men were pitted against each other in battles to the death for the entertainment of the masses.  If good and evil are mere human constructs, then there was nothing wrong with any of these things.  We may look back on these horrific events and condemn them, but there is nothing to prevent others from looking back on us and denouncing, say, our love of personal freedom or the practice of recycling as evil.

Additionally, this theory does not conform to reality.  Those in power do not set morality.  Rather, morality tends to check power.  In fact, morality is a weakness from a purely secular perspective.  This is why so many governments try to redefine morality to their advantage.  The fact that such governments are seen as corrupt when they try to do so is evidence that morality does not find its origins in human power.

Morality must be something larger than a mere human construct.  We need to look beyond ourselves to find the true moral law.

Thus, the quest continues.

A Brief History of Morality

The concept of good and evil is one that has undergone quite a few changes over the past couple centuries.  I have recently been reflecting on how it has changed over my lifetime.  I wonder where it is going, but before we can learn that, we must look at where it has been.

Modernism

For the majority of the 20^th century, good and evil were subject to a way of thinking called modernism.  Modernism, briefly described, is the idea that there are absolute truths, and that these truths can be determined by reason.  There were certain advantages to modernism.  Scientific thought flourished as people looked to break down everything into rational concepts.

Yet there were also great disadvantages.  For one thing, not every concept can be rationally proven, including the very concept of rationality itself.  One cannot, using just reason, come up with an argument why reason is sound.  One cannot use physics to determine how the laws of physics came into being.  There are limits to a purely scientific world.

Yet despite these flaws, modern thought controlled much of the last century.  Nearly everything came under rational evaluation.  The concept of good and evil was also rationally scrutinized, and there were dire consequences.  The Theory of Evolution was used to justify racism and the Nazi holocaust.  The good of the state was used to justify the murder of millions in the Soviet Union.  National security was given as a reason to suspend the liberties of Japanese-Americans during the Second World War.  When pure reason was made the ultimate determiner of right and wrong, we found all kinds of ways to reason our way into doing evil.

Postmodernism

As the flaws of the modern world became more evident, Western Civilization turned to a new paradigm.  It was called “postmodernism.”  In this era, existentialism and the idea that there is no absolute truth ruled.  Thoughts like, “It’s not about the destination.  It’s about the journey,” and “What is right for you may not be right for me,” became popular.

There were some great advantages in this philosophy.  Legalistic thinking was discouraged.  People tended to be slower to judge others.  It just felt good.  In fact, it was during this era that the term “I feel . . .” replaced “I think . . .”  For example, one might say today, “I feel that Johnston would be a better president than Smith.”  Where as in times gone by one would say, “I think that Johnston would be a better president than Smith.”  The nice thing about feelings is that they are all equally valid.  One cannot argue that your feelings are incorrect in the way one can argue that your thoughts are incorrect.

However, there were some serious problems with postmodernism.  For one thing, one cannot hold that there are no absolute truths, because the statement “There are no absolute truths,” is an absolute statement.  If absolutely true, than it is an absolute truth and disproves itself.

For another thing, the destination does matter more than the journey.  No one cares if they are flying first class if they are flying to the wrong city.  We all knew this, but we tended to ignore it during the postmodern era because it was too worrisome to really think about where we were going.

The concept of good and evil had a rough time during the postmodern era.  In the modern era people disagreed on right and wrong and had wars about it.  This was not good, but at least they agreed that good and evil existed.  In the postmodern era, there was no concept of good and evil.  Or at least that is what people said.  The philosophy broke down when something evil was done to you.

One of the greatest defeats of postmodern thought on good and evil came on September 11, 2001 when 19 men hijacked airplanes and flew them into three buildings and one field, killing thousands of people.  They all thought they were doing something good.  Americans (for the most part) thought they did evil.  On that day, no one said, “good and evil don’t really exist.”  Everyone had an opinion.  Either they rejoiced with shouts of “praise Allah,” or the decried the actions of these men as evil.  On that day, the postmodern view of good and evil was mortally wounded.

So where is the concept of good and evil today?  Where is it going?  Modernism did not work because of vast disagreements on what is good and what is evil.  Postmodernism did not work because it denied the existence of good and evil and that denial does not conform to reality.

We still want the freedom to determine good and evil for ourselves like the postmodernist did.  Yet we also want the right to say that something is wrong like the modernist did.  Where are we going from here?

Me-ism

It seems more and more there is a new determining factor of what is good and what is evil.  That factor is what I call Me.  The doctrine of “Me-ism” holds that “I am the decider of good and evil.  What I feel to be good is good.  What I experience to be evil is evil.”  This differs from postmodernism in that postmodernism would not allow us to judge others because there was no standard.  This differs from modernism because modernism required a rational argument to determine what is good and evil.

Me-ism preserves the right to condemn others for evil actions because they do not conform to My idea of good and evil.  It also protects Me ever being condemned for My actions, because you are not Me and cannot tell Me what is right and wrong.  None of your rational arguments can dent the reality of life as experienced by and seen through the leans of Me.

This may sound like a joke, but stop and listen to those around you from time to time.  Judgment of others happens on a regular basis, yet personal responsibility is seldom taken for one’s own actions.  How often do you hear someone say “I’m sorry if you were offended,” or “I’m sorry if you were bothered by this?”  Listen carefully to what is being said.  Such a person is sorry for something that you did, not for something that he did.  It is not an apology.  It is condescension.  Such statements are essentially saying, “You are the one who is flawed.  I am not.  You don’t understand the moral realty set by Me, and that is why you were offended.  I feel pity for your inability to understand moral reality as set by Me.”

The beauty of Me-ism is that anyone can be condemned for anything except Me.  What is most important to a Me-ist is what makes Me comfortable.  This leads to some interesting results when combined with religion.  I heard a story once of Muslim man who slept with anyone he wanted, but insisted that his future wife be a virgin.  I once met a pastor who was generally opposed to gossip, but freely admitted that he used it as a pastoral tool.  I recently had a conversation with a devout Christian woman who fully admitted that she planned to commit adultery and justified it by saying that God just wants her to be happy.  Me-ism makes for very comfortable religious beliefs.  God always accepts the actions of a Me-ist because to a Me-ist, god is Me.

One can recognize a Me-ist by how they talk.  A Me-ist apologizes for your actions.  When a Me-ist wrongs you, you are the one at fault, or you are the one who does not understand true right and wrong.  A Me-ist will use arguments like, “That is not what I experienced,” as if their experience is an ironclad argument that cannot be contradicted.  A Me-ist blames others, but never blames him-self.  A Me-ist has a massive ego, and cannot be convinced that he is wrong.

Modernism, postmodernism, and Me-ism all have one thing in common.  All of them try to avoid holding themselves to a true moral standard.  A modernist justifies his evil actions by reasoning that they are actually good.  A postmodernist justifies his evil actions by stating that evil and good do not exist.  A Me-ist justifies his evil actions by redefining good and evil by his own terms.  There seems to be a common thread throughout human history of mankind making evil acceptable by attempting to redefine good and evil.  The fact that we keep failing to do so seems to indicate that some authority higher than mankind is the true determiner of good and evil.

Why are we not seeking this true moral law?  Why are we not seeking the true moral Lawgiver?  I think we all know the reason why.  We are afraid to learn the true moral law because we know we all fall short.  We are afraid to meet the true moral Lawgiver because we fear what will happen to us when we do.  We fear judgment for our actions, and with good reason.  In our hearts, we all know that we are evil.  How could we possibly stand before He who is really good?

To answer this question, we have to venture outside of our comfort zone.  We have to seek the true moral Lawgiver.  But to do that, we must first seek the true moral law.

The journey is not for the timid, but it is open to all.  If you are a modernist, you will like it because it the road is paved with rational thought.  If you are postmodernist, you will like it because the journey is incredible.  If you are a Me-ist, you will hate it because it will force you to give up yourself.

If you are brave enough to seek that which might destroy you, check out the next blog.

Our Littlest Bulgarian

Yesterday, I was in the bathroom with Alexis, my youngest daughter.  I told her to get her hands wet, and then put some soap on them when she washes them.  In a matter of fact voice she informed me, "In Bulgaria, we put the soap on our hands first and then we get them wet."

I found this funny.  After all, she has lived here just as long as I have.  What does she know that I don't.

But then, she is also far more Bulgarian than I am.  She has spent 60% of her life here.  I've spent less than 9% of my life in Bulgaria.  She actually is a Bulgarian.  I'm just a resident of Bulgaria.

I told the story to Sasha, and she informed me that her whole life she has been a soap first water second gal, and she taught Alexis to do it the same way.  I guess it just goes to show that I have a lot to learn about Bulgarian culture.

Spelling Bee

Yesterday, I had the privilege of being the announcer at our local grade school's spelling bee.  This was the first round in the national spelling bee competition.  There were 32 competitors and the final two advance to the next round.  The students did very well, especially considering that they were all spelling in a second language.

Neither of my two school aged daughters participated.  They are both too young, and even if they were older they would not be allowed to compete because they have a native English speaker as a parent.  Still, I knew several of the students from our time at the school.  It was fun to see how hard they tried and how well they did.

I wish the two finalists success in the future rounds.  I would love to see school 122's top English spellers become Bulgaria's top spellers.

Dave presenting the certificates to the two winners.

What is Katyn?

In the heart of Sofia stands a monument that commemorates the so called Soviet liberation of Bulgaria in 1945.  It depicts the people of Bulgaria welcoming the Red army as they enter Bulgaria and establish a communist utopia that everyone loves.

It is a lie.

It is also one of the most commonly and creatively vandalized monuments in the entire country.

This week several of the statues on the monument found themselves painted yellow and blue, and red and white.  The words “Putin go home,” and “Katyn” were written across a section of the monument.  The yellow and blue portion and the verbal attack on Putin are easily understood.  But what does the white and red mean?  What does Katyn mean?  These colors and this word were also commonly seen held by protesters in Sofia.  They must be significant.

They are, and I will tell you why.

In 1939, World War 2 began when the Nazi army and the Soviet army carried out a plan to divide Poland between the two of them.  After they succeeded, they began an organized process to destroy the Polish people.  The Soviets rounded up every Polish officer they could find as well as many members of the Polish intelligentsia.  They brought them out to the woods in a place called Katyn and had them shot and buried in a mass grave.

What survived of the Polish government escaped to England where they remained a government in exile.  Unlike France, Poland never surrendered; either to Germany or the Soviet Union.  Later on, Germany would betray the Soviets and launch a sneak attack against their allies.  This prompted the Soviets and the western powers to enter into an alliance to defeat Germany.  Churchill and Roosevelt promised control of Poland to the Soviets to appease Stalin (who hated Poland after being personally trounced by them in the Polish-Russian war in the 1920’s).

Germany was defeated.  The Soviets took control of Poland, but Poland never surrendered.  In 1989 they finally ousted their Socialist masters when the workers of Poland rose up.  Thus began the fall of communism in Europe and the eventual end of the Soviet Union.  Thus World War 2 truly ended in Poland.

You see, to me as an American, the Second World War was a conflict that lasted about four years and ended long before I was born.  For my Polish counterparts, it was a reality that they were born into, that lasted 50 years, and that ended 25 years ago.  My grandfather tells me stories about World War 2.  My Polish counterparts never knew their grandfathers.  The words of the Polish national anthem, “Poland has not yet perished,” continue to ring out in defiance against enemies who continually tried to destroy them.  The wounds of days gone by have not yet healed in Europe.

Just as Poland remembers the evils of Katyn and communism, so do other countries.  Bulgaria has not forgotten.  As Bulgarians see Russia once again exerting dominance over her smaller neighbors; as they see a leader who was on the losing side in his younger days looking to regain what was lost; they remember what happened in Poland, and they fly the white and red flag.  They stand with the Ukraine.  They remember Poland.  They do not want to see history repeated.