Moral Definitions: Apples & Oranges are not the same

F.H. Bradley interpreted Hegel's philosophical method as ‘dialectical', and that as the method of Bradley's Ethical Studies, defined the human individual as essentially a social being. [1] The relevance of this statement has implications regarding the individual as fulfilling his highest goal for himself and society by being self-realized. Can it be that in fulfilling individual desires that an individual finds coherence and identity? Let us investigate this idea more closely.

In a way, Hegelian ethics supports the biblical notion that people are created for a purpose. Look at the worldwide interest in Rick Warren’s A Purpose-Driven Life to find agreement. Where Darwinism and Nihilism have defined people as a cosmic accident, things that offer purpose and order trigger a positive response.

Where Hegelian ethics misses the mark is the indiscriminate agreement that all individual desires are positive to the individual and to society. This leans toward the absurd in that we would have to give credence to every mass-murdering tyrant whose only sin was that he was expressing himself. Ridiculous!


The 60s and 70s in America was a period of social tension because you had a relatively large number of Baby Boomers rejecting their parent’s norms, and tossing out the baby with the bathwater, as it were, looking to reinvent society. Their desire was to change society by “finding themselves” and practicing “free love” through sexual promiscuity. Was the result the fulfillment that Hegel predicted? No. The result was that a lot of people became lost instead of “finding themselves.”

In the area of homosexuality, the same appears to be true. They have found methods to redefine words, like their use of the highjacked term “Gay,” to make themselves look like they have a positive societal role. In finding ways to politically protect what was, until very recently, considered deviant behavior that was physical and mental health threats to society, the homosexual community has created another large cross-section of lost people.
John Davis claims:

Foundational for any Christian understanding of human sexuality is the creation account in Genesis 1-2. God's original creative intent is manifested in the creation of male and female in his own image and likeness (Gen. 1:27). Human sexuality is reflected in the differentiation of two, not three or four, sexual genders, or some androgynous combination of the two. [2]

What, then, should Christians do? We must be discerning.  We must not be taken in by rhetorical gibberish and redefinitions of terms that are meant to spawn an emotional reaction rather than a response based on the foundation of love and logic. In other words, we must distinguish between apples and oranges. I have heard that they are not really the same thing.


There was a prominent news story about a "pregnant man." This was designed to redefine and reorient, but all it does is deceive. This is not a pregnant man, this is a woman who decided to be surgically altered to look like a man, who was artificially inseminated, while she lived with her lesbian lover. Let us call things as they are.


If we are indeed people of God, we are people who love; but in our love we must not cast aside the truth. God’s word is truth and what it says about homosexuality stands no matter what judge or government lobby says. Make no mistake, the Lord himself will have the final word on this matter.

AL

1 Richard Norman. The Moral Philosophers; An Introduction to Ethics. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 112.
2 John J. Davis. Evangelical Ethics; Issues Facing the Church Today, 3rd ed. (New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2004), 121.

What is a Christian’s responsibility to the state?

One of the greatest differences between the two major American parties, as I see it, is their understanding of the role and powers of the state. One party has a broad, liberal view of the powers of the state, and the other party views the state with lesser, more conservative powers.

What then is the state? It is “a body politic… a whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of the government.”[1] Webster also defined the role of the state in his 1828 definition of politics. He said it is “…[for the] protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals.”[1] Politics as a part of ethics! Who knew?

In addition, Jesus indicates that the state’s power comes ultimately from God and that there is a limit to the state’s authority. During the famous confrontation between the divine and the secular representatives, Pilate said, "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?" Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. (Jn 19:10-11)

What is a Christian’s responsibility to the state? The implication to this question is that Christians should be the best of citizens as a witness to the peace and charity God has showered on us through His Son, Jesus. We ought to obey all the laws and be truthful on our tax returns.

Is it, then, ever permissible to violate established law to advance a theological or ethical point of view? Yes. John Davis states, “The Scriptures clearly recognize that not all human laws are just. Psalm 94 speaks of "wicked rulers ... who frame mischief by statute" and who "condemn the innocent to death".”[2]

The Declaration of Independence is a document that was written based on the biblical worldview and speaks of self-evident truths and the unalienable rights of “one people” endowed by their creator. It further states: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…” but “…whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it…”[3] The government of the United States is one of the people and, therefore it is incumbent upon the citizenry to ensure the powers of the state do not usurp the liberties and right to life of the people.

In his book, Evangelical Ethics, Davis reminds us that Operation Rescue blockaded abortion clinics since 1988 around the country. They argue that Christians are morally justified in breaking trespass laws in order to save the lives of unborn children.[4] And they have the right to practice civil disobedience under the principles of founding principles of this country and of the Bible. But, those practices themselves must be governed by the rules of ethics, which we have discussed.

AL

1 Noah Webster. American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828 (San Francisco: Foundation of American Christian Education, 1967)
2 John Jefferson Davis. Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today. 3rd Ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 224.
3 The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America (1776)
4 John Jefferson Davis, 221.

Thank you Veteran!

Thank you to our veterans - those who sacrificed their relative safety and comfort to fight to protect our nation and, hopefully, to bring freedom to many unnamed people of the world.

This is to a veteran who was in South Korea in 1950 and 1951. The land was decimated with war and many families were killed or separated. Very few buildings remained in the city of Seoul. The stench of death was prevalent everywhere. When a train of American soldiers rolled in, it was immediately surrounded by hordes of starving orphaned children. Some of the soldiers pushed the children away. You see, there was a Longshoremen strike in San Francisco holding up food and other supplies to the troops, and the soldiers had only their limited supply of C-rations to scarcely nourish themselves. But, some of the soldiers reached out to the children and gave them their last cans of food.

When I prepared for a missions trip to South Korea in 1990, I knew that I was going to a place that was now very modern. I went to share my Christian testimony at eight college campuses. There was a great response, with the attendance at the Seoul meeting numbering over 6,000 students. However, in some cities, I was led away from areas where communists had incited campus riots by some of the young people. And I was sad that it took only one or two generations after the war to forget the history of their nation and the sacrifices that were made for them. Later during the trip, an older Korean man ran up to me and frightened me by wrapping his arms around me. He hugged me tightly, wept and cried out, “Thank you, thank you, thank you.” I wondered if, in God’s wonderful providence, this man had been one of those orphaned children, for it seemed that he was showing gratitude to this American in remembrance for another American who unselfishly shared with him the little that he had.

The Bible reflects how forgetful people are. God has loved us by giving us His only Son, Jesus Christ the Lord as sacrifice for our sins. For at the last supper with his disciples, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me" (Lk 22:19). Christ also taught us to honor those deserving honor. As we honor Christ our Savior, let us also remember and honor our veterans with love, respect, and gratitude.

Some call the Korean War “The Forgotten War.” To those who fought for us and showed Christ’s love in the worst of conditions, I write this in remembrance of you and echo the grateful unnamed Korean man. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

-Al-

Webster's Definitive Voter Guide

On October 16, 1758, one of our founding fathers was born. Noah Webster would be made famous, not just in defining words in his dictionary, but in defining a citizen's principles of conduct. See what he says about the public voting responsibility in an excerpt from one of his books below.

"302. Remedy for public evils.—The command of God is, “He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God,” 2 Sam. 23:3. This command prescribes the only effectual remedy for public evils. It is an absurd and impious sentiment, that religious character is not necessary for public officers. So far is this from being true, that it is one of the principal qualifications, for any man making or administering laws.

When the form of government admits men to office by hereditary right, rulers may or may not be good men; the people have no choice, and must submit. But in representative governments, if rulers are bad men, it is generally the fault of the people. The electors may indeed be deceived in regard to the principles of the man they choose; they are sometimes most woefully deceived. But in general, the calamity of having evil counselors, legislators, judges, and ministerial officers, is the fault of the electors. They do not regard the precept, to choose “just men, who will rule in the fear of God.” They choose men, not because they are just men, men of religion and integrity, but soley for the sake of supporting a party. This is a fruitful source of public evils.

But as surely as there is a God in heaven, who exercises a moral government over the affairs of this world, so certainly will the neglect of the divine command, in the choice of rulers, be followed by bad laws and a bad administration; by laws unjust or partial, by corruption, tyranny, impunity of crimes, waste of public money, and a thousand other evils.

Men may devise and adopt new forms of government; they may amend old forms, repair breaches, and punish violators of the constitution; but there is, there can be, no effectual remedy, but obedience to the divine law. "

Noah Webster. Value of the Bible and Excellence of the Christian Religion: For the Use of Families and Schools (1834)

Do the right thing. -AL