CAN WE BE GOOD WITHOUT GOD?
The Missing Element in Humanism
Paul Wasson
Moral Standards—Who Made the Rules?
Any responsible man or woman would agree that there is a difference
between right and wrong, good and evil, vice and virtue, just as there is a difference
between truth and falsehood, beauty and ugliness. Standards of right and wrong,
like standards of aesthetic beauty, may vary from age to age. from culture to
culture, but every reasonable person would agree that they exist.
Have we ever wondered however, where moral values come from, this
distinction between right and wrong? Who made the rules in the first place? Who
decided that some actions are right and commendable, and others are not? To
this there are, broadly speaking, two answers; one secular, the other
religious. If we were to ask the average man or woman, they would probably
answer that they know instinctively that it is right to give to charity and
wrong to steal. They were brought up to think that way. They live in a society
which has developed laws and conventions to ensure that the law abiding can
live in peace while lawbreakers are restrained.
These laws, conventions and moral standards are like cement which holds
society together. If they were abandoned, then society would fragment into
anarchy. It holds together only if there are generally accepted standards of
right conduct, which require all its members to pay their dues and treat their
fellows with respect. Most people are guided in this by conscience. They are
aware of an obligation to do what is right and feel guilty if they fall short
of the standards they live by.
The other possible answer concerning the origin of moral standards is
that they are determined by the will of God. It goes without saying that the
men who wrote the Bible believed this. They looked up to God not only as the
Creator of heaven and earth, but also as the Author of the moral code. All that
they needed to know about the right conduct of human life had been revealed by
God. They took for granted that His guidance alone gave meaning and direction
to human life.
Now, however, perhaps for the first time in history, morality is
divorced from religious faith. Even a belief in God is viewed as an optional
extra to human life. Just as there is no need to recognise the hand of God in
the natural order, so there is no need, it is assumed, to look up to divine
authority as the source of moral standards.
There are many people in the modern world who do try to live morally
good lives. They devote themselves to serving their fellows. They seek to
cultivate all that is good and noble in human life. Acts of benevolence,
self-sacrifice and heroism have often been performed by people with no
religious faith at all to underpin their actions.
Such people are humanists. They believe in the worth and the dignity of
human life and the brotherhood of man. They emphasise the humane values of
compassion, tolerance and freedom and take a positive view of human potential
and achievements. They reject religious faith with its claim to be based on
divine revelation and authority, putting their trust instead in reason and
scientific enquiry. To them, such values as love and compassion are purely
human values needing no religious support. Some, though not all, are hostile
towards religion and see it as an obstacle to freedom and progress. Its hope of
an afterlife is a disincentive to strive to improve the present world.
It is worth asking, how much of the Christian faith have humanists
really discarded and where have they derived the moral values which are
supposed to have replaced it? It might be said that many humanists and
good-living atheists are far more dependant than they might care to admit on
the Christian tradition which they claim to have rejected. Standards of
kindness, justice, honesty, compassion, respect for truth owe much to that
tradition, to the teachings of the Bible and to past generations who had some
respect for the Bible. Those who have chosen to discard the Christian tradition
yet continue to believe in the worth of human life and the brotherhood of man
are, to a great extent, simply living on Christian capital.
If we have a bank account we can draw money out of it only as long as we
keep putting money back into it. Otherwise we find ourselves bankrupt. The
traditional values on which western civilisation is founded are like this. We
can reasonably draw on that tradition only as long as we continue to believe in
its validity. Otherwise we will gradually find ourselves in a state of moral
bankruptcy. Unfortunately, this seems to be the course which our own society
has chosen. Little by little it is discarding those values which it has
inherited. Therefore it is only with increasing difficulty that its members can
look to traditional morality to find guidance.
Humanists often mistake the influence of that Christian tradition for a
basic goodness in human nature. However, what may appear as self-evident
differences between right and wrong may not be at all self-evident in a society
which does not have that tradition behind it. A totalitarian government, for
example, might govern by the principle that the individual exists only for the
benefit of the state. It is therefore right to eliminate opposition: to
imprison, torture and liquidate those who do not conform. To them this right because
they, the government, make the rules and they are subject to no higher
authority. A humanist would disagree. He would abhor and condemn the use of torture:
simply because his conscience tells him to. A Christian would take a similar
view, bin on the grounds that there is indeed a higher authority than either
governments or individual conscience. It is God who has defined the difference
between right and wrong, who condemns cruelty and commands, respect for our
fellow men.
The view of morality as something dependant on the will of God has often
been criticised by ancient writers. Why do we need God to tell us that some actions
are right and some wrong? — they ask. Do we mean that die difference between
right and wrong depends upon His arbitrary decree—an action is good if God commands
it and bad if He forbids it? Is He so far above all categories of right and wrong
that there is no difference between them until He makes a decree one way or the
other? On this view God could conceivably have created a world in which
truthfulness were a vice and dishonesty a virtue, which would be absurd.
Do we mean then, that goodness is somehow independent of God, like the
laws of arithmetic and logic, part of the fabric of reality? Actions are
inherently either right or wrong, even if no one were to believe it. An atheist
would then argue that that is even less reason to invoke God as the source of
moral standards. He would say that the ethical section of the Ten Commandments
simply codifies what to any reasonable person is already obvious. We hardly
need God to tell us that it is right to seek the welfare of our fellows and
wrong to seek their injury. To put the question in its simplest form: Is an
action good because God has commanded it – which makes Him appear arbitrary? Or
has God commanded it because it is good – which makes Him appear superfluous? This
dilemma is held to prove the independence of morality from religion.
In fact both horns of the dilemma are false. For a start, God is not
subject to a law higher than and separate from Himself. Everything He does and
everything He commands His people to do is an expression of His own nature and
God cannot do that which is contrary to His own nature. As Creator He cannot be
malevolently disposed toward His own creatures. Whatever He does must lead to
their ultimate good. Everything that promotes His own purpose and conforms to
His will must therefore in itself be good. There is nothing arbitrary about the
commands of God. He is not like a tyrant handing down edicts which His subjects
must obey without question. He is best compared to a father who offers advice
and instruction to his children for their welfare, even though his children
might not see it like that at the time.
A code of morality must have an objective scale of reference to measure
good and evil and to determine the boundary between them, in the same way that
we need a thermometer to measure temperature. Otherwise, terms such as
"good" and "evil" are no more than words. By what yardstick
do we measure them if we do not believe in God? Public opinion is fickle,
individual conscience is subjective, the laws of nature say nothing about moral
issues. The only reliable yardstick is found in the Bible which reveals the
character and will of God. That provides a reference point which alone is
perfect, unchanging, and transcendent. That is the reality by which all other
views of reality must be measured.
What then does the Bible say about the morality which comes from God?
The first great summary of moral law is recorded in Exodus chapter 20. This is
the legislation called the Ten Commandments, which God gave to Moses. Moses did
not invent these commandments, a committee did not compile them; they were
engraved on tables of stone by the finger of God.
The first four concern people's duty to God and the remaining six
concern their duty to others and to society at large. In a sense they all
concern duty to God simply because respect for parents, prohibitions against
murder, adultery, theft, false witness and covetousness are God's laws, to
break them is not only an offence against society, they are sins against God
the source of all morality.
1. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol.
3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
5. Honour your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbour.
10. You shall not covet.
Compared to the law-codes of the other nations in the ancient world, the
laws which God gave to Israel were remarkably humanitarian and enlightened.
Other nations treated foreigners, slaves and peasants as inferiors. The class-divisions
of society were seen as part of the divine order. By contrast, the laws of the
Israelites emphasised the humanity which all men have in common. Those laws
applied equally to kings, aristocrats and peasants. It was the Word of a moral
God who was concerned for social justice, for the plight of the weaker members
of society, the orphan, the widow and the immigrant (Deuteronomy 10:17-19). On
His behalf the prophets rebuked the rulers who hoarded wealth and oppressed the
poor. They denounced hypocrisy, complacency and greed. Many of the higher
ideals of the modern world are foreshadowed in the Law of Moses, such as its
imperative to look after the less fortunate members of society, its concern for
racial minorities and its belief that the individual possesses dignity and
worth.
Not only this legislation, but everything else in the Bible, has had an
enduring influence upon Western culture over the last two thousand years. The
Christian faith became woven into the very fabric of that culture, influencing
its art, music, philosophy and its moral and ethical values. Our ancestors took
for granted that there was a God, that human life was part of a wider spiritual
order and that present conduct would have a bearing upon the destiny of the
individual when he left this world for the next.
Are we suggesting then, that if God had not made His will known, then
humanity would live on the moral level of savages? No, the Bible tells us that,
even without God's revelation, human nature retains a capacity at least to
recognise the difference between right and wrong. Jesus implied as much when he
urged his followers: ''Let your light shine before men that they may see your
good deeds, and praise your Father in heaven" (Matthew 5:16). Clearly he
expected people to recognise good behaviour when they see it.
The book of Genesis tells us that man was made in the "image and
likeness of God". That being so all men must reflect. however dimly,
something of the nature of God. Human reason, which is itself a God-given gift,
can develop a love for truth, virtue and beauty, for the humane values which
give richness to human life and transform barbarism into civilisation. This is
sometimes called 'Natural Law". In Romans 2:14 we find the clearest
statement of 'natural law' in the New Testament:
“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things
required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not
have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law arc written on
their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now
accusing, now even defending them. This will take place on the day when God
will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.” (Romans
2:14-16).
What is the Apostle saying? He is describing two kinds of divine law.
One which God had made known through Moses and which Israel alone had received.
The other a law "written on the hearts", and which all mankind is endowed
with. So even the "Gentiles', that is people who had not heard of the law of
Moses, still possessed a knowledge of right and wrong. They had a conscience,
they were aware of moral values. This is sometimes called "general
revelation'. The Apostle does not say that the Gentiles lived up to that
knowledge, in the previous chapter he describes how far they fell short. But
they knew enough, he says, to be held accountable by God for their actions.
Without this knowledge of right and wrong "written on their
hearts", there could be no ordered society, no civilisation, no cultural
achievements. The Apostle Paul lived in the Roman empire, an empire renowned
for its civilisation, its legal system and its achievements. He was doubtless
familiar with the ideas of its great philosophers many of whom lived by a moral
code outwardly very close to the Christian ethic. There were plenty of
contrasts with Christianity, but at its best it rose far above the popular
paganism of the ancient world.
People like that can be found within every culture. People who try to
live by a high moral standard despite the low standards around them. They know
that there is a difference between right and wrong. That much at least seems to
be ingrained in human nature. Even among those who do not acknowledge the
authority or even the existence of God there can be morality and a love for
truth and goodness.
The Apostle Paul tells us that governments, in their task of maintaining
law and order in society, are given their authority by God. Those who rule, do
so on behalf of God, even if they do not know this:
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is
no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that
exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the
authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so
will bring judgement on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do
right, but for those who do wrong. Do von want to be fire from fear of the one
in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend von. For he is God’s
servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he docs not bear
the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring
punishment on the wrongdoer (Romans 13:1-4).
The Apostle is referring to the Roman government and by implication, all
human governments. Insofar as they restrain evil and uphold social order, the
civil authorities of this world are the instruments of God, even those
governments which do not acknowledge His authority. Such a role however, is
essentially a negative one. There is little that governments can do to instil
positive virtue in their subjects. Faced with rising crime figures the answer of
politicians is to recruit more police, hand out longer prison sentences and
install more CCTV cameras in the streets. It is like a doctor treating the
symptoms of an illness instead of its cause.
Every aspect of modern life is governed by laws, from traffic control to
drug control, from industrial relations to the protection of property.
Countless thousands of laws, by-laws and regulations all designed to protect
the law-abiding and restrain the lawbreaker. Yet few would deny that society is
less law-abiding than it was a generation ago. There is an obvious link between
these two social trends. It is simply because so many conduct themselves in a
way that is antisocial or selfish that the government has to bring in more and
more legislation in order to restrain the prevailing anarchy and close the
loopholes which the unscrupulous are willing to exploit. It is a paradoxical
position. The more anarchic a society becomes and the more contemptuous of
authority, the more laws have to be handed down to hold the fabric of society
together.
The maintenance of social order is not the same thing as instilling a
high moral tone in its subjects. A government can pass any number of laws, but
that does not make its citizens any more
pure in heart or compassionate towards their fellows. The highest form
of morality is found only when people do the right thing because they want to
and because right behaviour is ingrained in their nature.
The main limitation of any legal system is not so much that people will
break the law, but that they will simply go through the motions of obedience.
They will make their behaviour conform without putting their heart into it. A
man who obeys the law only so as to stay out of prison can hardly be said to
live by a very high moral standard. It can hardly be called morality at all, it
is simply enlightened self-interest.
Even the Ten Commandments shave this limitation. They were not the
highest form of morality as long as they legislated only on outward behaviour,
and as long as they were imposed on subjects who had no real inclination to
obey them. For example, the sixth commandment states 'You shall not murder\ A
devout Israelite could claim to have obeyed this simply by not murdering
anyone, even though he might heartily have wished his enemies dead. Which is
not the kind of morality that God wants. He does not want an adjustment of
behaviour, but a change of heart. One of the Old Testament prophets Jeremiah,
mindful of this problem, looked forward to a future time when the law which
came from God would no longer be imposed from above upon reluctant subjects:
“I will put my law in their minds, and write it on their hearts, and I will
be their God, and they will be my people (Jeremiah 31:33).
The prophet Jeremiah recognised that the drawback to any legal code is
that it is external to ourselves, imposed from above. The law of Moses was
mostly concerned with outward behaviour, with visible actions. It had to be.
because its original function was to provide magistrates with a means of
assessing guilt. A human magistrate cannot see the state of a man's heart, he
can judge only on the basis of outward appearances. Jeremiah predicted a future
age when morality will be more than outwardly good behaviour, but something
ingrained in people's hearts. How can this be achieved? It is no use offering
rewards for obedience or punishments for disobedience, because morality then
becomes self-centred; its aim is to gain the reward and avoid the punishment.
One of the aims of Jesus was to solve this problem. Therefore he did not
simply provide his followers with a list of do's and don'ts. In fact he was
sharply critical of a morality founded on a rule-book mentality, which seeks to
modify behaviour according to a written code. He knew that the morality which
really mattered was achieved by transforming people's hearts, changing their
underlying motives.
In the Sermon on the Mount, the great manifesto of his teaching, (see
Matthew chapters 5-7) he deliberately contrasts the legislation of Moses with
its emphasis on the outward act with a moral code that emphasised inward purity
of motive. This was the theme of his own teaching: "You have heard that it
was said to the people long ago ..., but I tell you ...". For example, where
the old Law legislated against murder (Matthew 5:21), adultery (5:27) and false
witness (v.33). Jesus goes further. He forbids the hatred which animates
murder, the lust from which all adultery springs and the spirit of deceit which
stands behind all false witness. His teaching therefore does not simply add a
bit more to the old law: it has a different character from the old, it governs
not just behaviour, but the motives behind behaviour.
There is another difference. The old Law had represented strict justice:
"You have heard that it was said, Eye for eye and tooth for tooth"
(Matthew 5:38). That is natural justice, to give enemies exactly what they
deserve. But Jesus replaces justice with a dignified submission to injustice.
He urges his followers to meet hostility with kindness. "But I tell you,
Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right check, turn
to him the other also " (verse 39). And so he continues—if someone demands
your coat then give him your overcoat as well. Go the second mile with the
exploiter: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute yon"
(verse 44). The purpose behind all these sayings is that the followers of Jesus
should take whatever course of action will turn their enemies into their friends
and neutralise their animosity. They must never allow the spirit of revenge to
motivate their dealings with others.
But why should the followers of Jesus obey such an exacting standard of
morality, a morality which penetrates so deep into their very nature? Why
should they go out of their way to turn enemies into friends? The answer of
Jesus is simple—because God is like that—His love, compassion and benevolence
is extended to friend and foe alike:
... that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to
shine on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the
unrighteous (Matthew 5:45).
Jesus urged his disciples to show benevolence to others and to turn
their enemies into friends because that is how God deals with people. God comes
in at every point in the Sermon on the Mount — His reality, His love for us.
His claim upon us. All these things form the basis of Jesus' ethic. A God who
is ever present, though unseen, and before whom all of us must one day give
account.
Moreover, the message of Jesus was more than words. He himself practised
what he preached. It is often said that Jesus led a life that was 'sinless'. So
it was. But that is far too negative a description. His was more than an
absence of sin. but rather a dynamic, moral goodness, a radiant warmth of
character. This flowed out of him spontaneously and continually, filling every
aspect of his life, so that those who came in contact with him felt
strengthened, cleansed and forgiven.
His compassion for suffering humanity prompted him to identify himself
with their hardship and afflictions. When he submitted to the unjust and
violent death which his enemies inflicted upon him he demonstrated that his
love was stronger than their hatred, and his power to forgive greater than
their evil. In all this he provided an example for his followers and a vision
for them to live by. That was the extra dimension which Jesus introduced into
morality. A new understanding of God's love, with self-giving and self-sacrifice
at its very heart:
My command is this: Lore each other as I have loved yon. Greater love
has no-one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends (John
15:12,13).
In this way Jesus revealed to us what the character of God is like. It
could be said that a man's character is shaped by what he worships. If he has a
view of God that He is cruel, vengeful and intolerant, then these qualities of
character will reveal themselves in his own dealings with his fellows. If he
worships a God of love and compassion then he is more likely to be loving and
compassionate himself.
Jesus took the Ten Commandments and made each one a matter of the heart,
not of outward behaviour. In fact he went further than this. He reduced the Ten
Commandments to two, and did so in answer to the question "Teacher, which
is the greatest commandment in the Law'? (Matthew 22:36). There were ten to
choose from, but Jesus did not pick out one from the ten and elevate it over
the other nine. His answer was:
“Love the Lord your God with all vow heart and with all your soul mid
with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second
is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.” (Matthew 22:37, quoting
Leviticus 19:18 and Deuteronomy 6:5).
In this answer of Jesus we see his remarkable facility for reducing
religion to its essence. These two commandments summarise the Ten Commandments:
Love God and Love man. We can understand why. If we truly loved God, then it
would not occur to us to take His name in vain. If we truly loved our fellow
men, then it would not occur to us to steal from them, kill them or bear false
witness against them.
How simple his two commandments sound: 'Love God' and "Love
man'—that's all there is to it, everything else will fall into place. Yet how
much more difficult to obey. It is far easier to obey a list of do's and
don'ts, no matter how long the list. Yet these two commandments to love cannot
be imposed upon us from above, they cannot be coerced. We must want to love.
Suppose that our own government tried to introduce a law stating that
every individual in society must love his neighbour as himself. Such a law
would make most other legislation superfluous. There would be no need to make
murder and theft illegal, simply because no one would ever think of committing
them. If every member of society placed the common good before his own. then
there would be no need for legislation to protect property, no need for laws
against burglary or violence against the person. If everyone were honest, there
would be no need for surveillance systems and security guards. Of course, no
government could hope to make such a law work. The most they can do is to
prohibit wrongdoing and punish wrongdoers; which is far different from instilling
positive goodness in their citizens.
A man can be compelled by legislation not to harm his fellows, even to
act benevolently, but he cannot be compelled to love them. Christ, on the other
hand, expects those who follow him to love both him and one another, not
because he compels or induces them or because they are afraid of the
consequences of disobedience: but because he has demonstrated the depth of his
own love for them. This has given him an authority over them that no government
has ever had over its subjects.
Much that reflects a high moral tone in the secular world is due to the
influence of the Christian Gospel. Many people, even those who do not believe
in God, have expressed an admiration for the teaching of Jesus about how people
should live and deal with one another. There is, however, a limit to how much
atheists can borrow from the teaching of Jesus. This is because his ethical
teaching was only one element in his Gospel. To take the Sermon on the Mount
out of its context and treat it as no more than a set of moral maxims is to
misunderstand its meaning. For it is part and parcel of his teaching about God
and our position before him. We cannot separate theory and practice. His Gospel
also affirms the sovereignty of God, His desire to rescue us from the plight
into which our selfishness has led us and our need for His forgiveness and
grace to restore us to spiritual health. It affirms that man is made in the
image of God and is destined for eternal fellowship with Him.
If we do not accept these truths, then the morality which Jesus taught
will not last long as the basis of our conduct. Once we begin to question the
truth of one part of his teaching, then it is only a matter of time before we
start to question every part. As the generations pass, the Christian element in
morality will grow thinner and thinner. What survives will be an empty husk, a
pale shadow, having ever less authority or force.
On a superficial level there are some aspects of humanist morality which
resembles Christian ethics. For example, the Christian Gospel has always
emphasised the control of human appetites and passions. Such things as
gluttony, drunkenness and promiscuity were once as signs of bad character, in
religious terms as sin. a barrier between an individual and God. In the modern
secular society these things are still considered wrong, but only in so far as
they are detrimental to health. Sexual promiscuity is considered unacceptable
unless it can be practised 'safely'. So called 'safe sex' harms no-one,
therefore it is all right. In other words, personal morality is founded on
pragmatism, not on the authority of God. It is the baneful effects of
overindulgence upon the body which determine whether an activity is wrong, not
their spiritual effects.
The morality of the humanist exists solely on what we might call a
'horizontal' level, that is, it is concerned only with relationships between
people or issues which concern human welfare. The Christian Gospel on the other
hand, emphasises a 'vertical' dimension. It is concerned firstly with the
relationship between man and God, our understanding of His character, will and
purpose, our standing before Him. It is our knowledge of these things which
inform us in our understanding of right and wrong and guides us in our dealings
with our fellow men.
There is a world of difference between a religious ethic founded on the
will and authority of God, and a system of right and wrong in which human need
and welfare is the sovereign principle.
Humanist morality is incomplete Christianity. It takes seriously what
Jesus called the second commandment, to love one's neighbour as oneself, but it
ignores the "first and greatest commandment", to love God with all
the heart, soul and mind. Jesus taught his followers to address God as 'our
Father', and it is only when we acknowledge the reality of one Father in heaven
that we can legitimately speak of the 'Brotherhood of man'. That lofty ideal
has no real meaning, nor any power to unite men without the conviction that they
shave the same Father in heaven.
The humanist has too facile a view of the moral depths to which human
nature will sink. He is over-optimistic about its capacity for
self-improvement. He imagines that people can be improved by education, by
legislation or by a better social environment. In matters of personal morality
the humanist can look to no higher authority than his own conscience or the
shifting sands of public opinion. He lives by a moral code which can offer no
hope to those who fall short, except an exhortation to try harder next time.
His most lofty ideals and aspirations are powerless to save him from the
certainty of death. He has no hope of any life beyond the end of this one.
In contrast the Gospel directs us to a power which lies outside human
life—a power that can forgive, transform and raise the dead. That power is God
Himself, without whom there can be no true goodness. He promises what the
humanist cannot:
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled" (Matthew 5:6).
“So I find this law at work: when I want to do good, evil is right there
with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law but I see another law at
work in the members of my body, wages war against the law of my mind and making
me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man
I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death. Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! (Romans
7:21-25).
A tree needs roots to nourish and support it. If the roots are damaged
or detached then the tree gradually withers and dies. Western society is like
this. It has become detached from its roots, disconnected from those
traditions, shared values and impulses which gave birth to civilisation and sustained
it for centuries. Since the 1960's there has been a change in western society,
a cultural revolution. Like all revolutions it began with a questioning of
long-standing assumptions, a challenging of authority and a discarding of
traditional restraints. This included those shared values which had held
society together for centuries but were now to be dismissed as repressive,
outmoded and irrelevant. In their place was supposed to emerge a new moral code
based on freedom of individual expression, the pursuit of pleasure and a
relaxing of the rules governing sexual conduct.
It may have seemed to the liberals who initiated this revolution that
less restraint in these areas would lead to greater happiness, freedom and a
more fulfilled existence. Now we see the dire effects of this 'liberation', the
dark side to the permissive society. The restraints on selfishness, greed and
promiscuity have also been removed—things which were once held in check by
former generations who drew on the Christian tradition for guidance. Now we are
living in what one writer has described as 'the faint afterglow of
Christianity'.
The effects of all this can be seen throughout western society, a
society which has effectively cut its moorings from the true source of moral
goodness. Now it is reaping a harvest of materialism, violence, promiscuity,
drugs and a general breakdown of law and order. It is no coincidence that all
this has gone hand in hand with a decline in religious belief and practice. The
influence of the Christian faith has been weakened, sometimes even by the
efforts of theologians and clergymen. They have tried to divest the Gospel of
anything supernatural or miraculous and have openly questioned the validity of
its central truths. It is no wonder then that churches are empty and that those
who would once have gone to church now go to the supermarket on Sunday morning
instead.
This is not to suggest that everyone who lives without religion abandons
themselves to pleasure and immorality. There are many exceptions in our own
society, as there were in the first century—people who have no faith in God,
nor any hope of life beyond this one and yet still try to live by high
standards and devote themselves to the pursuit of truth, to serving their
fellows, to helping refugees and the victims of war, tyranny and famine. There
is something both noble and tragic about this. After all, why should truth and
compassion be of value if all human endeavour ends in oblivion? Why attach
dignity and worth to human life if it is no more than an accident of nature?
The great civilisations of the world do not produce the great religions
as a kind of cultural by-product; in a very real sense the great religions are
the foundations on which the great civilisations rest. A society which has lost
its religion becomes sooner or later a society which has lost its culture
(Progress and Religion, Christopher Dawson, p.245).
Humanists adhere to ethical values which belong to a tradition which
they claim to have discarded. A good example of this is the modern notion that
all ethnic groups are 'equal', therefore it is wrong to discriminate against
members of racial minorities, to denigrate or abuse them verbally. Most
reasonable people would agree with this principle. Even so it is worth asking
exactly on what basis racial discrimination is morally wrong — who laid down
this principle? To this, the Bible gives a clear and unambiguous answer. From
earliest times God's people were commanded to show compassion for the 'alien'
(i.e. the immigrant) who, with the orphan and the widow, was to be protected
from exploitation:
He (the Lord) defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and
loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. And you are to love those who are
aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt (Deuteronomy 10:18,19).
God had shown compassion towards His people when they were strangers in
another land, therefore they must show the same compassion towards members of
other races who lived among them. As always, it is the character of God which
determines human conduct. The Bible proclaims a vision of human unity based
upon the fact that all nations and races are the creation of a God who has a
purpose for mankind:
"From one man He (God) made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth, and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live" (Acts 17:26).
Therefore, for members of one racial or cultural group to despise
members of another group is contrary to the will of God.
The Apostle Paul describes the Christian ideal of a community of men and
women sharing a unity in Christ and a status before God in which all
distinctions of race and gender are transcended. He writes:
"There is neither few nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female,
for van arc all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).
This is surely the ideal after which humanists are striving, but which
they can never attain despite all their talk of equality. freedom and rights.
The Apostle Paul does not predict that these ideals can be attained through
parliamentary legislation, or social reform. They can be attained only by those
who are united under the fatherhood of God and the lordship of Jesus Christ.
It was in part this biblical view that all men have value in the sight
of God that inspired the great reformers of the past to abolish slavery and
serfdom and improve the conditions in factories and prisons. It inspired them
to denounce as immoral anything which violated the dignity which Christianity
attributed to mankind. While rejecting this Christian vision, liberal humanism
still affirms the wrongness of discrimination, and often pursues the crusade
against it with great dogmatism. Yet in the absence of the original Christian
ideal, the justification for this goal is no longer clear.
If we are not in fact the creation of a wise and loving God, then we are
left with a purely naturalistic explanation for our existence. A Darwinian
account of human origins sees life as a struggle, in which we have evolved
according to the principle of the survival of the fittest and strongest. The
strong must eliminate the weak in order to survive. It was an interpretation of
Darwinism which gave us racism in the original sense of the term, i.e. the
belief that some races of mankind are further up the evolutionary scale than
others, and are therefore have a greater capacity for civilisation. The study
of nature does not teach the equality of the races nor do the laws of nature
teach us that conflict and exploitation are immoral. On its own nature is
neither good nor evil. Humanism, however, does not always take its own beliefs
to their logical conclusion.
As in so many issues, liberal humanism has borrowed certain ideas,
principles and phrases from Christianity —human dignity, brotherhood of man.
tolerance, freedom, equality — setting them up as though they were basic laws
of our being. But detached from the context which once gave them meaning, they
appear increasingly arbitrary and lacking any real authority.
“Humanism as a doctrine tends to be somewhat vague, powerless and
lacking in the power to stir the imagination. Like streams which flow into the
desert and disappear in the sand, it tends to ebb away and leave a religions
vacuum.” (Lloyd
Geering, Faith's New Age, p.165).
Our answer to such questions as—Where have we come from?—and—What is the
purpose of our existence?—will inevitably influence the way we conduct
ourselves. If we believe that the world was created by a wise and loving God,
who desires our eternal welfare, then we will tend to conduct ourself in a way
that is consistent with that interpretation of human life. If we believe that
our existence is no more than an accident of nature, then we will tend towards
attitudes and behaviour quite different. It is a bit like children who
inevitably develop in different ways depending on whether or not they were
brought up by parents who love and trust them.
However, there are many voices in the modern world who assure us that
God has no part at all in our origin or in our ultimate destiny. He makes no
moral demands upon us. He does not even exist. We are nothing more than an
accidental offshoot of the processes of nature, an intelligent species of
animal which, by a caprice of the evolutionary process has developed a larger
brain than the other.
If such an atheistic explanation for our origins is true however, then
we are no longer potential children of our heavenly Father, made for eternal
fellowship with Him. Therefore we have no destiny. The individual will die and
that is the end of him forever. Eventually the whole human race will become
extinct. Human life is a "tale told by an idiot". Much of modern
culture, its art, films and literature reflects this moral and spiritual emptiness—reflects
it and influences it: life without the hope and the vision which faith in God
once provided.
“That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end
they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his
loves and his beliefs arc but the outcome of the accidental collocations of
atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can
preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labour of the ages,
all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human
genius, arc destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and
that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath
the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond
dispute, arc yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can
hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm
foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be
safely built (Bertrand Russell, Mysticism and Logic, p.47).
"Not by Bread alone ..."
Modern society has many benefits, technology has provided the means to
travel, to communicate, to cure disease. As a result people enjoy better
health, they live longer, they have more money and time, they can fill their
houses with electronic gadgets. At the same time many feel that there is
something profoundly wrong at the very heart of modern society and that for all
the technical progress around us, we have lost something and that our humanity
is debased when we live without that spiritual dimension.
"Man shall not live by bread alone", said Jesus, "but by
every word which comes from God" (Matthew 4:4). He meant that people
cannot live only on a material level. They need a spiritual dimension also. It
is surely this need which has inspired a reaction against what many see as the
dehumanising influence of science and its purely materialistic explanation for
human life. Many have turned to alternative forms of spirituality offered by a
proliferation of cults and pseudo-religions: astrology, the worship of Gaia,
New Age philosophy, the occult, witchcraft. All these are surely expressions of
a deep-rooted desire to believe in something. They are a reminder also that
human nature needs a hope, a vision to live by. G. K. Chesterton is reported to
have remarked: "When men cease to believe in God they do not then believe
in nothing, they believe in anything'". It could be said that there is a
'god-shaped hole" in the human heart. If traditional forms of religion are
seen as inadequate and the Biblical God is denied, then people will find a new
object of worship, a new vision and a new hope.
“If redemption is to come, it has to come from outside the things that
science and contemporary politics have to offer. It has to come from outside us
altogether, from a recognition that our efforts on their own arc not enough. We
have to see ourselves as part of a larger process, whose end is not just that
human beings should breed and swarm, but that is addressed to higher ends. We
exist neither to serve nature's blind reproductive ends, nor to manipulate
nature for our own purposes.” (After Progress - Finding the Old Way Forward,
Anthony O’Hear, p.248).
There have been many attempts to bring about a new social order by
revolution, by legislation, by economic means. They have all failed simply
because it is impossible to impose the high ideals of humanism on a population
by force or legislation. The ideals of Marxism were not evil. A society where each
individual works for the common good was a noble ideal. But how can people be
persuaded to treat their neighbours as brothers, to seek the interests of
others before their own, to make selfless contributions to the common good? It
simply does not work. Every attempt to impose moral improvement on people by
government decree has failed, because government decrees are external to human
nature.
Throughout the twentieth century the optimism about human capacity for
self-improvement was repeatedly exposed as hollow. When the thin veneer of
civilisation was removed and darker forces came to the surface, then the world
was shown the barbarism of which human nature is still capable. War against
civilians, tyranny, genocide and ethnic cleansing have repeatedly given the lie
to the prophecies of unending progress so common at the turn of the 20th
century.
The reason why man cannot achieve a perfect society is that the root
cause of wars, injustice and tyranny are due to dark forces deep within the
human psyche. Tanks and guns do not cause wars, secret police and prison camps
do not erect tyrannies. Greed, pride, mistrust, folly, lust for power do. If
the earth is polluted by the effluent of civilisation it is because the heart
of man is polluted by greed. And the solution is not ideology, legislation or
technology but a radical change of heart.
"What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from
your desires that battle within you" (James 4:1).
The words of James describe the root cause of all conflict, whether it
be on a personal level or between nations.
For much of his life H.G. Wells proclaimed a Gospel of progress by technology and optimism. In time man could transform the world and inaugurate a new order based upon rational principles. By the end of his life, however, and during the Second World War, he wrote his final book, appropriately entitled Mind at the End of its Tether, in which he acknowledges that technical progress had not led to greater wisdom or maturity:
“The writer sees the world as a jaded world devoid of recuperative power. In the past he has liked to think that Man will pull out of his entanglements and start a new creative phase of human living. In the face of our universal inadequacy, that optimism has given place to a stoical cynicism. The old men behave for the most part meanly and disgustingly, and the young are spasmodic, foolish and all too easily misled. Man must go steeply up or down and the odds seem to be all in favour of his going down and out. If he goes up, then so great is the adaptation demanded of him that that he must cease to be a man. Ordinary man is at the end of his tether” (H.G. Wells, Mind at the End of its Tether p.30).
So writes one of the prophets of humanism. It is significant that Wells
blames the nature of man for his inability to make progress, and that such
progress can come only if man makes an adaptation to his basic nature. It is
precisely this need for a change to man's basic nature that the Christian
Gospel demands of those who accept it.
The Gospel of Jesus is radically different from all the Utopian dreams
which have been promoted as offering the salvation of the world. His followers
did not hear from him the political slogans of the freedom fighter nor the high
ideals of the social reformer. A programme to put the world right or to strive
for a more just society does not enter into his teaching nor did he urge his
followers to undertake such a programme. Instead, he began the work of
transformation where it was most needed —in the hearts of responsive
individuals. His Gospel was given to remove from their hearts those things
which stand as a barrier between them and God.
He looked forward to a future transformation of the whole world, urging
his disciples to pray: "Tour kingdom come, your will be done in earth as
it is in heaven'" (Matthew 6:10). Significantly, he never described the
economic, political or social arrangements of this future new order. He
described only the qualities of character that must be shown by those who hoped
to enter it. The citizens of God's Kingdom he taught, were "the poor in
spirit", "the meek", "those who hunger and thirst for
righteousness"—"Anyone who will not receive the Kingdom of God like a
little child will not enter it" (Mark 10:15).
He taught that one day he will return in glory to judge the world and
gather his disciples to himself. With this in mind, he urged his followers to
view this world as a temporary sojourn; its wealth and pleasures, its loyalties
and power struggles are not worth the allegiance or affection of those who have
embarked upon this pilgrimage towards the Kingdom of God. Neither their
security nor their true wealth are rooted in this passing life.
How then do we qualify for a place in that Kingdom? Jesus gave the
answer: "Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of
God" (John 3:3). To be "born again" means to be baptised, to be
immersed in water. This symbolism of going into water and coming out again is a
very important part of the Christian life. It means symbolically to die with
Christ, that is, to put to death the selfish side of our nature, so that we can
rise with him to newness of life (read Romans 6:1-19). In this way we turn from
the darkness of this life with all its selfishness and futility and set
ourselves instead to face the light of a new life derived from him.
The Apostle Paul provides a good example of this transformation. He
began his career as an implacable enemy of the Christian Gospel, persecuting it
as subversive of everything which he believed. Yet he was not wicked or
irreligious. On the contrary, he strained every nerve to obey the law of Moses,
to irradicate the badness within his heart. Despite this, he found that his
efforts to obey the law were unsuccessful. This was because his own lower
nature, what he called his 'flesh'. prevented him from achieving the moral
perfection which the law demanded. (See Romans 7:7-25). But when he discovered
that Jesus had returned from the dead then Paul found a new way to achieve moral
goodness:
“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ
lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God,
who loved me and gave himself for me (Galatians 2:20).
Notice in these words how closely the Apostle Paul identifies himself
with the life of Christ, All that Paul had once been, the proud, self-righteous
Pharisee, the intolerant persecutor had died in the waters of baptism. In
another sense he lived on, yet not him, but Christ in him, as an influence and
a power which came from beyond himself.
To return then to the question with which we began—can we be good
without God? The answer is Yes, we can—but only up to a point. We can obey the
law, pay our dues and live in peace with our fellow men. Nevertheless, we
cannot achieve the standard of perfection which alone is pleasing to God. Only
in Christ can we, like the Apostle Paul, find a new influence, a new
power whose source lies outside ourselves and which can transform us in
our innermost being and strengthen us to do what is right. In this way Christ's
victory over sin can be a reality and a transforming influence in our lives.
What Christ transforms us into is not something contrary to our nature, but
what God intended all along that we should be. When we put His will before our
own, then we find our true selves.
This is not to suggest that when we are joined to Christ we can expect
to attain moral perfection within this life, or that all trace of sin and
self-will is irradicated. That would be quite unrealistic. One who has been
baptised is still very much subject to the weaknesses of human nature and to
the temptations common to all men. Only on the other side of the resurrection
of the dead will we attain perfection. But until then, we have the assurance that
when we fail God will forgive us, strengthen us against temptation and enable
us to move forward.
Jesus was the perfect man and only by his influence can we grow into
that maturity for which God made us and fulfil the purpose and goal of our
creation. "Then-fore, if anyone is in Christ be is a new creation; the old
has gone, the new has conic!" (2 Corinthians 5:17).
But the fruit of the Spirit is lore, joy, peace, patience, kindness,
goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there
is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature
with its passions and desires. Since we lire by the Spirit, let us keep in step
with the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-25).
PAUL WASSON
ASK FOR THESE: (no charge)
Glad Tidings - a monthly magazine, sent free for six months
Bible Reading Planner - a schedule of daily readings to take you right
through the Bible, with helpful notes
Distance Learning Seminar - learn to read the Bible effectively by a
free postal seminar course