Morality and Religion - Part II

It was discussed in the previous article concerning morality that there is an essential problem for Christians today when it comes to moral integrity and religious devotion. And even though we experience this problem in our modern world, a search through the Biblical text can reveal to us that this is not an exclusive problem.

Even the novice reader of the NT can pick up on the conflict which existed between Christian churches which existed in the Jewish diaspora and the Jerusalem church. Apparently, the Jerusalem church was a more conservative religious community and they were concerned about the possible moral libertinism which existed in the diaspora churches that Paul was responsible for (Acts 15:5). Paul taught that Christians did not have to follow the Law (Gal. 3:25). He taught that they were free from the Mosaic Law and that our faith in response to God's grace was the only sufficient indicator for religious devotion and salvific efficacy (Eph. 2:8). Paul even went further to suggest that all moral law was trumped by God's grace to suggest that Christians were entirely free to live their lives as they saw fit and it could not effect God's grace in the slightest (Col. 2). Paul's only appeal to Christian morality was one of responsibility and accountability (1 Cor. 10:23).

These conservative Christians believed that there was an implicit morality to their Christian belief. They were to follow the Mosaic Law and abide by its moral norms. Paul on the other hand actually represents liberal theology for the NT church. His strong conviction was that we are not saved by works. According to this line of thinking "works" would also have to include morality. In Pauline thinking salvation and Christian belief have nothing to do with moral praxis. It is commonly believed that James writes in response to Paul's liberalism and makes sure to teach that faith without works is dead (James 2:14).

James is believed to be a part of that Jerusalem church which had issues with Paul. One of the great moments in Acts is when we get to see these church fathers sit down and discuss their issues with one another. At the end of the day a bargain was struck. Paul could teach that we are not saved by works as long as he stipulated that Christians were not to drink blood or eat meat from animals sacrificed to idols. Basically, the Jerusalem church wanted to make sure that there was a clear distinction between pagans and Christians. This was, of course, Paul's desire as well. In the end they were able to agree on a fundamental principle. Which is a showcase of Christian unity.

I get the feeling that when we discuss the issue of a Biblical morality we are being transported two thousand years into the past standing in the same shoes as Paul and James. My hope is that there is an agreement between the two sides that can be seen as fundamentally Christian and allow God's grace to dominate the rest. In many ways I can't fight the feeling that when we look to passages in the NT which speak of homosexuality, abstinence, a woman's role, divorce, or finances we immediately go back to a mentality of legalism and works. And I wonder if there is a deeper issue which is being ignored.

Despite this criticism, I do believe that we can be  followers of the Bible and overwhelm humanity with Christian love. But this will have to be developed as we move through this topic. I
t is fair to say that what the Jerusalem council gives us is a negative example of what this means. Christians should not look like pagans, or the "world". We should be separate, distinct, and unique. And it seems that two groups usually dominate the scene in playing this out. The conservative and liberal side. Those who think they separate themselves from the world through strict obedience to the Bible and those who separate themselves from the world through sacrifice and unconditional love for everyone.

What I wish to convey is that both sides have it wrong. Both are morally ambiguous and lack ethical congruity. If a person recklessly give his life away, it has no meaning. It is the same for a person who follows the commands of the Bible without an overarching moral directive independent of the Bible. Love is meaningless without some direction or cause, and a cause is betrayed when we can have no moral integrity in following it. What I intend to show from this series is that not only does the Bible demonstrate an independent morality, but it is in fact our religious and spiritual duty to have an independent morality. An independent morality is the best of all possible circumstances in all scenarios. At the back of our minds we have to always have the nagging question of what would happen if indeed the Bible did give a clear systematic moral framework with absolute independent norms for us to follow? What if the Bible did in fact overcome all criticisms and did in fact give moral norms to serve as an example of our Christian faith? It is my intention to answer that all important question. And I will do it by being true to the Biblical witness and true to the faith that I have in God. Morality and religion do have a relationship with one another, it remains to be seen if this structure is authoritarian or collaborative, or maybe both.

What is important to realize at this point is that it is clear that we have a responsibility as Christians directed toward morality and an obligation to God toward our fellow man. We are supposed to be distinct and unique and we don't have to compromise religion or morality to be true to God and ourselves. The Jerusalem council found a way to do this, and I think we can too.