Our theme for the year is "Soldiers of Christ, Arise." We must, as God’s army, arise and go forth into battle. But on what front should the battle be waged? Should we be waging war on the political front? Every Christian has an opportunity to participate in the political process and should, but this is not the area that will bring the victory. The outcome of political races may help or hinder our efforts in the war; but that is not the front we need to concentrate on.
Our efforts are needed in the "cultural wars" being fought every day in our country. This "war" is fought on many fronts throughout our land, some of which involve the Lord’s church. Today begins an examination of the first of several fronts we must engage the enemy in the war for our culture: morality. By morality we mean, "right moral conduct" (The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus page 970). Moral means "accepted rules and standards of human conduct" (Oxford, page 969). Closely related to morals is the word ethics, sometimes used interchangeably for morals. Ethic is defined as "a set of moral principles" (Oxford, page 494). The subject for this first battle front in our "cultural wars" is morality; or, the battle over accepted rules or standards, the set of moral principles used for human conduct.
Everyone agrees there are standards of conduct. Phrases such as "That is not right..." or "it is not fair to ..." or "you ought to ..." or "you should not ..." These, and many others, indicate the speaker believes there is a standard of right and wrong. But what is the standard? Who decides what it is: Some suggest conscience as the ultimate standard. Others have suggested that the society determine standards democratically. Yet others nominate politicians or philosophers as the final voice in such matters. Will these work? All might be useful to a certain extent, but all are flawed. The conscience is useful in personal conduct only in so far as it is trained.
The conscience interprets conduct based on the moral standard one already holds to. The military officers responsible for the extermination of ten to twelve million people during World War II were acting in good conscience. The apostle Paul said he had lived in all good conscience throughout his adult life, yet he was responsible for the imprisonment and death of many Christians before his conversion.
Should moral standards be left up to the majority? We do after all, some claim, live in a democracy. The majority are not necessarily good judges of moral conduct. Suppose the majority decide some members of a minority should not live. Think this could not happen? We have heard of "ethnic cleansing" in the former Yugoslavia. If the majority of people living in a given area are the final authority for moral behavior, then why condemn their actions? If the majority is the final decision, we cannot condemn their decisions.
What about politicians? The politician serves as a representative of government. The role of government is service to, and protection of, the people of the country. Government should support the moral standard, not create them.
What about the philosopher? His standards will grow out of his world view. The philosopher who views the world from the humanist perspective will use some variation of the views discussed above. The pragmatic worldview says one establishes moral standards on what "works". This means the standard changes with the definition of what works. Philosophers will not, because of their differing views, be able to arrive at a consensus for moral standards.
So where do we turn for our moral standard? The next article in this series will examine this question.
Denny