Morality and Religion - Part III

Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial (1 Cor. 10:23). Do you believe this? Do you really? Most Christians are confused by this statement of Paul. If everything is permissible then what about the injunctions in the Bible which do not permit us to break? How can it be permissible to be gay when the Bible says we can't be gay? I think most Christians conclude that the second part of this verse answers the problems that arise in the first. It's permissible to disobey the Bible, but it is not beneficial.... why? I think the general assumption is that if you disobey the Bible then God will punish you in one way or another. Either in the after-life, or in this life through trials.

This is a wrong interpretation, because it is a wrong view of God. God is not a God who is sitting waiting for us to do wrong so he can punish us. He is not a God who all the sudden "feels" His holiness being impugned and must, for the sake of justice, destroy the evildoer. Paul is the last of anyone who would depict God in such a manner. For Paul God is a God of grace who can even forgive him! Paul had to have had an extraordinary view of God's grace. Paul killed Christians. He was an enemy of the cross. If there was anyone who God would not forgive. It would be Paul.

But!!! You may exclaim. The benefits and punishments of God are not based on grace, but on God's holiness. God will punish Christians even though they are still under grace. After all, in the verse mentioned above Paul already assumes grace, because it is to Christians he says that everything is permissible. So even if some one is under grace God must still act justly according to his holiness.

Now, I would not in any way seek to malign the holiness of God, but I have to wonder why holiness always equates to justice for most Christians today. Holiness is not a specific virtue. It does not denote anything specific. Holiness does not describe a quantity of virtue, but rather a quality of virtue. It adds to an overall virtue structure. There can be a holy love, a holy desire, a holy anger, and so forth. The word "holy" is more directed to describe the intensity of a virtue rather than what specific virtue is holy. For instance, when I say that "God is holy." I am not saying, "God is just." Though I am not denying it either. Since this word is most characteristic of God the intensity is generates is God-like intensity. It can either be thought of an exemplary or infinite, whereas a holy love would be an exemplary love, and so on. So the description that "God is holy" does not, nor should it, automatically point to any virtue, but rather direct us toward an understanding that only God is the source of exemplary virtue.

Thus, an appeal to God's holiness becomes meaningless at this point. For all of God's characteristics are holy. His grace as well as his justice. It is faith in all things that allows us to accept God's works in our lives no matter what they may be, and we have no reason to think that they must be self-exclusionary. If we are inclined to think that God punishes us during hard times we have no basis to assume that God's grace is not as equally active in such affairs as his justice. We have no reason to ever think that God is "against" us, withholding his benefits from us, because at all times He is holy! His holiness demands that we always recieve the most from our Father. So in my view, an appeal to God's holiness actually turns on its head. If we follow the intended path we will come to the conclusion that it is exactly because of God's holiness that moral independence exists.

If we abandon the notion that the phrase "not everything is beneficial" somehow alludes to the crude idea that God is waiting to punish us should we step out of line then we can accept this message exactly for what Paul intends it to mean, and that is that we as Christian are free to live as we want, but are not free of the consequences. This freedom is not simply an oversight by God, or an indifference. God is concerned about how we live our lives. Moral independence does not mean that God does not care about how we live. Just the opposite is true. As a father, I raise my children to make their own choices. I do this because I love them. My love for them holds them in the highest respect and forbids me to ever think of my children as malformed or incapable of making up their own mind. Because I love my children I must see them as capable and excellent in independence. My willingness to let them lead their own lives is not a sign of my neglect, but a demonstration of my love for them.

Now at this point what I want to suggest is that the weight of Biblical evidence supports the idea that man and Christians are morally independent creations of God. This will be seen in the conclusion. We have no obligations except those we choose for ourselves and the only "cost" we have to face are the consequences of choosing wrong. Punishment in this sense does not come from above, but from the events that our choices set in motion. This idea is confirmed by Paul, it is realized at the Jerusalem Council, and it is established by the character of a holy God.

So what then do we say of the parts of the NT which clearly establish a moral norm for us to live by!!! It sounds like I am saying what is true for you is true for you and what is true for me is true for me. If it is all relative what is the point? If God does not have a moral standard for us then what is sin? What cause does God have to be separate from us? These are all valid points, and I can at the very least accept that at the current moment moral independence should at least exist on equal ground of moral submission. At that if we can come to an accounting of the moral norms described in the Bible then I would have effectively won my case. But this will have to remain to be seen.

I do want to highlight briefly that which I will expound on later. God giving us freedom is not a declaration that there is no moral standard. In fact it is a call to the highest moral possibility. If we realize the alternative that God could place on us any moral norm he desires and then we would have to unbendingly submit to it regardless of the personal and spiritual damage it would have on us then we accept this freedom in joy and gratitude, not because it means we can now do as we please, but because we realize that God trusts us! God is on our side. He is a friend of man, and a savior. Also, moral independence should not ever be seen to mean that we are now allowed to live hedonistic lives. The Biblical witness is clear that we must face our own consequences. Now I trust in the sensibilities of reason to ensure that when combined with a moral responsibility we can and must come to a moderate moral system. This is all part of God's plan and his holy love and grace for us to experience daily as Christians!