Posted on by Abe Austin

A Shared Premise

Nothing can be accomplished by arguing for moral imperatives from a premise that the other side does not agree with. People spend so much time pushing for what we need to change in a society, and what a moral future looks like; only to become increasingly frustrated that the other side can’t agree on any of these plans. People feel that their solutions are obvious, and that anyone with common sense would have to agree. But these solutions are only obvious if you assume all of premises that they came from. And in an increasingly divided world, that is not an assumption that should ever be made.

Many times, I find myself in conversations where someone asks me a yes-or-no question on a moral matter, but I find myself unable to speak, because either answer first assumes things that I don’t agree with. For example, trying to identify whether men or women have been historically more oppressed and which side needs special treatment to achieve equality first assumes that men and women should be viewed as two opposed entities, something that I don’t agree with.

The inability to speak due to drastically different premises is a concerning phenomenon. In such cases it is better to take the disagreement down to a deeper level, to try and find an even more fundamental premise that is agreed on, and then work forward from there. But what happens when we cannot find that fundamental shared premise? We will lose all ability to reason with one another. And where reason fails, people fall back on force.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Force Follows

Without a shared moral core
We have nothing from which to reason together
And when reasoning fails
Force follows

Posted on by Abe Austin

A Loving Relationship with Christ- False Comforts

Twisting the Love of Christ)

There are a number of false doctrines relating to our relationship with God that are taught in the world today. There are those that say God does not exist and there is no absolute moral truth, so we may do whatever society will allow. There are those that say God does exist, and we must obsess over every shortcoming, trying to attain perfection on our own. But it is not as though unbelief is always paired with moral depravity, and belief with moral legalism. There are also those that mix the two in strange ways.

One example that I have seen repeatedly are so-called Christians who live in or support direct violations of God’s commands, and when challenged on that incongruity say something along the lines of, “Jesus loves us, no matter what we do.” Because they know Jesus loves everyone, they are sure that he accepts everyone, and to suggest otherwise is a hateful suggestion that he really doesn’t love anybody.

In short, they conflate love with acceptance and twist the gospel message. It is a difficult issue to disentangle, because they actually do have a correct understanding of the nature of Christ, but a terrible misunderstanding of what that actually means in regard to our salvation.

Roadmap)

In the course of this study, I am going to try and correct this confusion. I am going to start by acknowledging the points that the morally liberal Christian gets right but then show where they go astray. I will use scriptures to establish what the correct conception of our relationship with Christ is, and the signs by which we can gauge how aligned we are with those truths.

My purpose in doing this is not to be cruel to those who invoke the love of Christ incorrectly. To be frank, I do believe that they need to be awoken to the pain and guilt of wrong actions, but not because I desire ill for them, but because for all of us this is the first step to true healing and joy. I seek to dispel the palliative lies, only so that we can live in the healing truth.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Grit vs Surrender- The Common Struggle

Moral Grit)

It is the common struggle of man to strive to be better, and to fall short more often than not. We have certain aspirations of personal character, some of them come from our religious upbringing, some from societal norms, and some that we have chosen just for ourselves. And though we might be truly convinced of the merit of these goals, our convictions still run into opposition in the form of laziness and sensuous pleasure.

There are those that see these struggles and wonder why anyone should even bother. They are disciples of hedonism and self-idolatry, who feel that the only reason needed to not change a behavior is to find personal pleasure in it. If it feels “good” then it is good, and any attempt to cease it is oppressive and restricting.

There are also those of a spiritual frame of mind who approach their moral struggles with a surprisingly similar view. Their main distinction is that they say keeping the commandments is worth it, that the rewards are greater than the personal pleasure surrendered, but they still see the entire enterprise as an exercise in self-oppression. They believe that they must flagellate themselves into obedience, psychologically if not physically.

Thus, there are many atheists and theists alike who see the developing of moral character as taking real grit and determination, forcing oneself to be better in spite of all contrary desires and temptations.

Another Way)

I would like to suggest that this isn’t the correct way for moral change to occur. It isn’t the way that God ever had in mind for us. I believe that Jesus was sincere when he said, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28, 30). Jesus isn’t saying his way is easy because we won’t require change, as the hedonist would have, but neither is he saying that that change will come through struggle and punishment, as the ascetic would have. Counter-intuitive as it sounds, Jesus is promising a life of absolutely radical transformation, and that it will occur easily and lightly.

Well, eventually easily and lightly. As we will discuss in this study, there is an initial moment that is, in fact, very hard. Following Jesus begins with a little death, a moment of deep, difficult, surrender. For both the hedonist and the ascetic, the reason that they have not found the easiness of Jesus’s path is that they have not gone through that surrender. Whether because they are an outsider who rejects the Lord outright, or because they are an insider who is still trying to achieve sainthood with pride intact. Either way, they haven’t gone through that little death and so change still looks hard and oppressive.

Posted on by Abe Austin

False Moral Dilemmas- Conclusion

Summary)

In this series I explored the world’s strange fascination with moral dilemmas, noted how many of them are unbelievable and contrived, and how even the ones with a historical precedent always had a moral option, even if you have to look outside the box to find it. Another key point that I mentioned was the importance of recognizing disengagement as an option. If you are presented options A and B, and both would compromise your conscience, you could always just do nothing at all.

I also pointed out how both outside-the-box thinking and moral inaction are demonstrated in the life of Jesus. It is from him that we see that the perfect path, with no moral compromise, is actually possible.

At least, it is possible in theory. I also acknowledged that each of us will, of course, compromise ourselves at some point, but that we need to accept and confess that failure, not try to sweep it under the rug by saying we had no choice but to do wrong. We can both have grace for our poor choices while admitting that they were, indeed, poor choices.

The Uncomfortable Truth)

Accepting these truths can be uncomfortable as they leave us no way to hide from the reality of difficult moral choices. Believing that there is no good choice is the easier option, as it justifies us in shrinking from painful consequences. Once we accept that there is always a good path, then we can no longer betray God in ignorance. Then, any time that we do something to get what we want or to avoid pain, we do it with eyes wide open, and we know that we will have to account for it someday.

It is, therefore, both a blessing and a burden to know that choosing good is always an option. That knowledge might condemn us to dissatisfaction or pain in the short term, but it is also the path to ultimate redemption.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Ascend, Decline, or Plateau- The Beginning of the Fall

Common, but Deadly)

Yesterday I mentioned how sometimes I experience times of gradual moral deterioration. These are not the deeper descents into evil that I experienced previously, but they are gradual compromises on my quality of character. I acknowledged the fact that such struggles are common, one of the problems that everyone faces who tries to walk a godly path.

So, I don’t mean to over overemphasize these common foibles, but I don’t want to downplay them either. The fact is, that while these times of slow decline may not be gravely compromising on their own, they truly are the beginning of the path to losing one’s soul. Slowly testing one’s boundaries, pushing them further and further, is oriented towards eventually taking a step you never meant to, one that really does rack your conscience with guilt.

Times of slow decline must be recognized for what they are. They are the first teasing tastes of ruin. They are the opening chapter in every great tragedy. Yes, they are common and expected, but it is also essential to arrest before they come to full fruition.

Inverse of Progression)

In my personal experience, the pattern of moral decline often happens in the inverse of moral ascension. From what I have seen, moral ascension tends to begin with a dramatic moment of redemption, with periodic additional surges when correcting core beliefs, and then maintained with ongoing ritual. Moral decline, however, has typically looked more like ongoing periods of deterioration, followed by periodic concessions away from conscience, resulting in a dramatic moment of intense guilt.

Surely there are exceptions to this pattern, but it is the pattern I see most frequently both in myself and others. Having both perspectives is valuable for having a plan to improve, and also a warning system for know how to avoid regression.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Ascend, Decline, or Plateau- Different Ways of Being

Ways of Being)

In my experience, we tend to be in one of three states in our moral development. The first is ascending, which means that we are progressively becoming better and better people. We are overcoming our bad habits, extending roots of determination and commitment, and moving forward to the sort of man or woman that we want to be.

The second is to be descending, where our bad habits are becoming more pronounced, and new ones are starting. We are willing to go to greater and greater lengths of immorality in pursuit of self-satisfaction. We either have no intention to improve or are declining in spite of our wishes to be better.

The third is to be on a plateau, where we are maintaining a certain level of morality. We may have some virtues, but we are not increasing in them. We may have some vices, but we are not increasing in those either. Perhaps we want to be better but aren’t able to make the change, or perhaps we’re just fine with where we’re at.

Of course, just because a person is in one of these modes of being on a particular day does not mean that they will always be so. There are many who have sought moral improvement, made some changes, then stagnated, then reverted back to previous failures. There are many who have started out a sinner, then paused when the toll on their soul became too much, then committed to a life of improvement. Thus, we can move up and down through these phases, and many of us do so many times throughout our lives.

How to Be)

With this study I want to consider how we find ourselves in each of these phases, why we move from one to the next, why we fail to improve when we really want to, and why we find success when we aren’t even looking for it.

These are no small questions. Psychologists have long noted the great divide between how people mean to be, and how they actually are, which is a very conflicting puzzle. Hopefully this study will be able to shed some light on the matter.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Discussing Spiritual Differences- John 18:37-38, Matthew 5:14

Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

COMMENTARY

Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice
Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?
It is in our nature when we hear something untrue to correct it. Even small children cannot help but call out when a known fact is misstated. Point at something and call it the wrong color, mess up on a simple mathematical operation, attribute a quote to the incorrect historical figure, lie about where you were yesterday…someone will call you out on it. There is something in each of us that just wants for the truth to be spoken.
And certainly this applies to moral truth as well. When we have awoken to the balance of right and wrong we become unsettled to hear any declaration that is morally askew. When others speak a morally untrue message we feel compelled to correct it.

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid
And this is a great source of friction to those that proselyte, for there are some who would rather they just kept their moral truths to themselves.
But exercising that restraint runs contrary to the very nature of truth. Truth is like a light: it shines forth. It is a city on a hill that cannot be hid, a candle that cannot be stowed beneath a bushel. When someone casts shades of untruth, whether it be “1 + 1 = 3” or “joy can be found in carnal living,” then truth is compelled to sweep forward to correct it. Truth, even undesired truth, yearns to fill every dark corner with light.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Doing Muscle- Prevention vs Cure

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Apparently Benjamin Franklin was referring to fire safety when he gave the above quote, but I find it is applicable to many situations, including that of self-improvement.

We have examined previously in this study how our moral resolve is like a muscle, with limited capacity, and a need to exercise and grow before it is strong. But it might be stronger than we realize, if we just started directing it more towards an ounce of prevention than towards a pound of cure.

In addiction recovery they teach that the best way to have a strong moral resolve is simply to not test it. The best way to overcome temptation is to be tempted as little as possible. Consider an alcoholic who goes to the bar with his friends for social reasons, but now must struggle the whole time to not get a drink. He will be quickly depleting his reserve of grit. Once every so often he might be able to pull off some moral heroics and keep himself sober, but most nights he will cave. Consider how much easier it is, then, for him to instead say “I’m just not going to the bar,” and never face its temptations to begin with. He is more sober by not testing his sobriety.

There is still some effort in that, of course. He must look his friends in the eye and say he can’t go when he used to go before, but it is an easier thing to do than see the beer and smell the beer, but not taste the beer.

In my own life I found that once I identified the unnecessary ways in which I was expending my moral fortitude, and circumvented those situations, that suddenly I had far more energy for actually making myself a better person. God works in miracles, it is true, but He expects us to work in prudence and reason.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Need for Law- Social Law vs Divine Law

Yesterday we looked at natural law, and what principles of law we can glean from it, which principles we would then expect to find in moral law as well. And yet we usually struggle to see moral law as being as “real” of a law as natural law. We see the forces of gravity and magnetism as universal and uncompromising, yet believe we can make bargains about moral rights and wrongs. Not only that, but we believe that if there are moral laws, we can transgress them, and yet avoid consequences through bargaining or concealment.

Why is this? A major reason is because we have human “laws” which defy all of the principles we found in natural law. Where the forces of nature never change, apply equally to all, and are cannot be petitioned for cancellation, both the laws of government and the trends of society do change, do not apply equally, and can be petitioned for cancellation.

Our first lesson in this likely occurred when growing in our childhood homes. Parents are forever inconsistent in how they respond to the same behaviors. Sometimes they let misdeeds slide and sometimes they don’t, they might punish incorrect behavior at a severe level one day and at a more measured level the next, sometimes they let one child get away with a certain action but never the other child. Parents can be persuaded and bargained with to let go of their principles. In short, parental law is extremely organic, based a great deal on their mood in the moment, and teaches a pattern that morals are flexible.

In school we learn about our governments, and the principles and laws upon which they are founded. We are told that those laws are meant to be administered universally and indiscriminately, but obviously they are not. Different officers and judges of the law act on different biases. What is more, their presence is not total enough to respond to all queries or misdeeds, making holes in the law’s coverage of the nation. Laws can be changed and even abolished, and the laws of one nation are different from the laws of its neighbors, an artificial boundary changing the legality of one’s behavior like the flipping of a switch. This starts to make us believe that moral law only applies so far as it can be seen. That it can be compartmentalized, hidden from, and vetoed by a strong enough consensus.

Social law, of course, is the most flimsy of all, the same behaviors being simultaneously applauded and condemned by different circles at the same time. There is absolutely no consensus whatsoever, a million different voices saying a million different things. This suggests to us that moral law is worse than organic, it is non-existent. All that we call morality is opinion, and has no universal binding whatsoever.

Our mistake is taking all these imperfect forms, and trying to extrapolate from them how Divine Law must work as well. We assume that certain commandments no longer apply, because society has come to a consensus to vote them out. We assume that if we hide our sins, then we need not pay the price of guilt. We assume that if we butter God up with love in other ways, then He might give us a pass on our misdeeds. We use the strategies that work with our fellow man, and try to apply them where they can never work. Divine Moral Law, to be Divine Moral Law, must be constant, universal, unchanging, non-negotiable, all-reaching, and all-encompassing. And even more than it needs to be all those things, we need it to be all those things. For with anything less than a totally sure foundation, nothing permanent can ever be built.