| Becoming Caring Christian solutions to life's tough problems Programs of Family Life, Personal & Spiritual Growth, Study Skills, & Educational Enrichment 600 North 7th Street Crockett, TX 75835 |
| Dealing with Moral Law |
In our day of relativity, some Christians react by dogmatically asserting that moral law exists and that moral law is the remedy to the ills of humankind. I use the term moral law to define the assumption that absolute laws of conduct (absolute standards of right and wrong) exist; moreover, such standards should be incorporated into the laws of a nation and applied to all members of the nation (or every nation). I am aware that current thought rarely uses the word moral or the idea of moral principle, and I am aware that ethic is the preferred word. However, in the context of a discussion that limits itself to Christian presuppositions, moral law seems the best term. In the light of the gospel, how law/Law can be construed to be the answer to the human problem is beyond me. Let me define some terms early on in this part of our discussion. The term law (no capitalization) refers to the laws of the state or of an institution. The term civil law has too many conflicting meanings to be clear in all contexts, so I use the word secular law to refer to laws of the state (as over against religious law). However, the point of much of the discussion is that, in effect, laws passed by the state are considered moral law by some (i.e., having an absolute, intrinsic value). The other point is that some religious individuals and/or groups desire to enact into secular law matters of faith, assuming that the statements of faith (held to be either self-evident or revealed by God) are universal moral laws that are applicable universally and uniformly. The epistemological problems discussed earlier make that approach nonsense. In essence, we can never escape the epistemological question. When I use the word Law (capitalized) in this section, I intend to designate the Mosaic law deemed given by God to Moses, contained in the Bible, and thus outlining absolute standards applicable to all humankind in all places and at all times. Also, Law (capitalized) is expanded within this context to indicate the concept of universal, absolute moral law whether related to God or not. The term natural law has its own history of meanings and is deliberately not used as a term in this discussion. Definitions aside, consider why law/Law cannot be the answer to human existence. Have we not read the New Testament seriously? Were not the Pharisees dedicated to the Law that was (in their society) the Law of God? Did not Paul dedicate himself to the Law, find it wanting, and discover that Abraham’s faith preceded and led to Abraham’s works? Did not Paul see grace (God’s unmerited love and favor) as the only remedy to human existence because sin (missing the mark) was a part of human existence?[32] A part of the problem, it seems to me, is to confuse laws of nature with moral law (assumed to be either revealed or self-evident, absolute, and universal), or to assume that moral law operates precisely as do laws of nature (i.e., gravity).[33] If moral law operates in the same manner as a law of nature, a violator of the Law (liar, murderer)[34] would instantly experience the effect of the violation in the same way a person walking off a tall building would instantly experience the effect of gravity. Let us return to Appleville and assume that I lie to my customer and sell him/her an inferior product at an inflated price. My lie produces no instant effect (as would gravity), but my relationship with the customer will be damaged over time. Once the customer realizes what I have done, he/she will trust me less, will be less likely to buy from me, and will probably damage my career by spreading the word of my deceit. The law (secular and religious) is about relationships in a way that a law of nature (i.e., gravity) is not. The law involves persons while laws of nature involve objects. Note the previous discussion on Martin Buber's distinction between I/Thou, person/thing. In the present discussion, object seems a better word than thing; however, the point is that although we are capable of treating a person as a thing (object), nature invariably does so. That is to say, laws of nature always fail to distinguish between a person and an object (a person and an apple are both equally affected by the law of gravity). A further point to be considered is that a law cannot exist outside a community, nor does punishment occur outside of community. I have no problem (given my presuppositions) of seeing moral law as existing in the Mind of God and thus being an absolute principle for human relationships (God's creation). However, the Law given Moses (an individual) was given for a community, was interpreted within a community, and was applied within a community. Although I personally accept the existence of God as revealed in Jesus Christ, one does not have to share my presuppositions to accept the current point: Law is about relationships, and the locus of law is community. Punishment, allegedly correlated with justice, often amounts to little more than vengeance, even when dignified by law and applied by the state. Psychologically, the concept of punishment is often to repay pain for pain or damage for damage and amounts to little more than "an eye for an eye" or merely "getting even." In supposedly advanced societies, a fine or imprisonment is the imposed pain rather than a beating, but the psychological underpinning is still "getting even." The notion of rehabilitation moves beyond vengeance and is at least a step in the right direction. However, a community must set up the effect of the violation of law whereas the effect of the violation of laws of nature (i.e., gravity) is universal, consistent, and inevitable. Laws of nature (i.e., gravity) give a consistent structure to existence (you always fall if you walk off a building, objects fall), whereas laws of a state applied with blind consistency lead to absurdity and injustice. The purpose of law is not only to allow a community to function (contracts are to be honored) but to give structure to the developing individual. See John 8:3-11 as an illustration of the point. The woman taken in adultery was brought to Jesus (without the man with whom she was caught in the act). The blind application of law was demanded (for the woman). When Jesus indicated that the one without sin was to cast the first stone at the woman, the crowd (of men) drifted away. Law was tempered by mercy to produce a better woman who was not punished (killed) but admonished to sin no more. Attempts to apply law within a community with the same consistency as the laws of nature lead to absurdity, will not work over time, and lead to ruthless injustice by those in power. A man living alone in the desert has no neighbor to lie to (has no direct, primary relationship), but that does not remove the individual from the broader human community. Besides, the land the hermit sits on is undoubtedly claimed by some political entity and the laws of that entity thus apply. Only a community writes, interprets, and enforces law. In addition, the law deals only with behavior. While it is true that one may commit murder in the heart, no one is imprisoned or put to death for the thought of murder.[35] If one murders a stranger in the desert, it may be argued that a moral law has been violated, but some community considered murder wrong and adopted a code prohibiting it. Therefore, law (religious or secular) is a way to control behavior, and all communities need to regulate behavior to some extent. For example, murder is forbidden, and steps are taken to protect others by imprisoning or rehabilitating the murderer. However, the application of law often becomes either absurd or unjust. Justice, like law, applies to persons, not things (objects). Whenever law is applied as though a person is a thing, injustice occurs. A law (secular or religious) is a law about persons rather than a law about things (i.e., a law of nature). Furthermore, law is applied by institutions, and institutions control behavior in order to benefit those in control of the institutions. Religious institutions apply law as policy or in some cases (canon law in the Roman Catholic Church, for example) more formally. In addition, many religious institutions attempt to write the views of those in control of the institution into secular law in order to control everyone's behavior. We must always remember that those in power attempt to write laws to secure their power. Nevertheless, if we remove all institutions, other institutions will inevitably rise from the ashes. In spite of the fact that institutions are inevitable, we should not be naïve about institutions taking on a life of their own and developing a survival instinct, guided by those in power. The institution may be a government, a business, or a religion. All institutions attempt to control behavior through the application of law, often disguised as policies, rules, or regulations. The point is that to declare that all law is moral law (as in a theocracy) and to apply any law as though it were a law of nature produces injustice, rebellion, and finally anarchy. Simply put, it will not work.[36] Repression is necessary to keep the lid on the boiling rebellion. Fear destroys creative solutions while resentment seethes and revolution bubbles beneath the surface. In repressive societies, an underground society exists with the authorities as participants. The underground society allows the society to function while those in power publicly give lip service to the dominant ideology. The underground society is prosecuted only when the corrupt authorities are refused a bigger cut of the profits, and the prosecution lasts only until those officially in power receive a bigger slice of the action. One might refer in general to the Soviet Union before the collapse. The top down imposition of a planned economy did not work, and an underground society grew up where people could buy products on the black market. The authorities often looked the other way, for even they could not buy blue jeans except on the black market. Some have come to believe that after the fall of the Soviet Union, organized crime was the only institution left that functioned. The point of comparison is that any society (even a theocracy) that attempts to impose its ideals from the top down will be forced to use extreme measures in law to impose the ideals and will suffer the same problem. An underground society will of necessity parallel the official society; rebellion will boil; the belief system will crumble; the society will cease to function; and finally anarchy will result until a new government is formed. If repression is successful, the society will stagnate and cease to work except for those at the top of the power structure who will accumulate more and more power, wealth, and privilege. Even then, in the long run, the society will cease to function. Another path to the imposition of law as the answer to the human problem is to extend behaviorism (stimulus/response) into the criminal justice system. B.F. Skinner is, of course, the dominating figure in behaviorist theory, an approach with merit if limited by common sense. However, some attempts to impose law with automatic penalties (no tolerance, judges cannot use judgment but must impose mandatory sentences) amount to behaviorism devoid of common sense. Justice may be the motive (i.e., even the rich kid with an ounce of illegal drugs automatically goes to prison), but the approach does not work. The wealthy can always afford better legal advice, hire more experts, or tie up the system with paperwork until underpaid and understaffed prosecutors drop the charges. Judges should be able to take into consider the circumstances. I realize I am overdrawing and oversimplifying, but the problem does exist with mandatory sentences, and judges have been known to resign because judicial discretion has been preempted. Mandatory sentences are seen to be the answer, and we are creating a society in which changing behavior through applying pain (fines, prison sentences) is seen to be an answer to the human condition.[37] The problem is not the harshness of pain but certainty of pain that works in behaviorism. In other words, if a rat runs a maze and is rewarded one hundred times and receives an electric shock only once, the rat will continue to run the maze. On the other hand, if the rat receives the electric shock every time (to keep it simple) he punches the reward button, he will learn to avoid the pain. Normally, drivers do not exceed the speed limit if they are certain that a police officer sits over the next hill with radar. However, a percentage of people who are uncertain that a police officer waits over the next hill will ignore the speed limit readily. The only way in which behaviorism will work is to create a society so repressive that no human freedom exists.[38] To point to certain theocracies in the world and the harsh enforcement of law (cutting the hands off for stealing) belies the actual situations in those repressive societies. A second look will reveal that such societies are closed and close-knit communities, often dominated by enforcer mobs and repressive police. Some such societies will say outright that individual freedom is a bad thing. Beneath the calm and orderly surface of such a society (the streets are clean; the trains run on time), the privileged do as they please. Victorian England, for example, was not the Christian society that many suppose. As someone observed, people could do about anything if they did not scare the horses. World War I revealed the truth and sounded the death knell for Christian civilization. Before the war, colonialism abounded; the law of Christ was to become the law of the world. Then the Christian nations went to war with one another in a blood bath that altered the intellectual landscape of the world. As we enter the twenty-first century, we are facing a resurgence of the heresy that the kingdom of God can be imposed on the world by military and/or political power. Such a view leads to disaster, as Augustine discovered. He wrote The City of God to correct the shattered view that the kingdom of God equaled the boundaries of the Roman Empire after the Christian Visigoths sacked Rome. I do believe law is necessary because some behaviors do undermine the functioning of a society. My approach to law is pragmatic: The law, in my opinion, relates to a functioning society. Pragmatism, it seems to me, always is guided by some ideals (visions, goals, assumptions, presuppositions) which may dangerously operate in the shadowy subconscious of a society. Thus, whether or not a law "works" relates to the ideals of a particular society, but all functioning societies must have laws. Although only suggested within the scope of this work, I believe a case might be made for good (i.e., workable) laws along the lines that certain behaviors interfere with a functioning society, especially if the behaviors are seen on a continuum of one, majority, all. One liar is a minor problem for society, but a society of liars will cause a society to cease functioning. A certain amount of faith/belief/trust is necessary for a society to function. An exploration of this hypothesis would try to identify behaviors that lead to a fully functioning society. However, I will maintain that any law (secular or religious) must be applied using the moral law principle of love (i.e., the Golden Rule) or absurd injustice will result, leading to revolution or anarchy. However, for the society to cease to function, the behaviors must cross a certain threshold along a continuum that ranges from one, to majority, to all. For example, if a businessperson lies, it may hurt his/her business as customers stop trusting. However, if all business people lie, conducting business becomes impossible. Trust is more important than we realize, from the repairperson actually keeping an appointment to the banking system being solvent. If every person with whom we do business consistently lies, doing business will be impossible. Such a crippled society will finally cease to function economically and anarchy will result. In America the Enron scandal was a violation of trust for the employees who lost their pensions. In the recent past, Russia experienced a banking crisis, made more acute because the banks had defaulted previously. Trust is necessary for a banking system to function. We can also use murder as an example. Murder, while always wrong, can occur often enough to undermine the functioning of society. We must understand that empathy is the basis of all morality. The Golden Rule in some form has appeared in major civilizations. Jesus' positive statement of the principle extends the scope to taking the initiative.[39] Applying the Golden Rule (treating another as I would wish to be treated) requires empathy: I must project myself inside the skin of the other and imagine how I would want to be treated. While an error in judgment may occur, such empathy is the basis of loving another as much as we love ourselves. Love (i.e., the Golden Rule) is essential to a functioning society. Without empathy, law becomes another form of injustice that will lead to oppression and finally revolution. Again, the historic changes occurring in Russia supply us with an example. An American journalist was recently gunned down and drew attention to the reality that Russia is a dangerous country for a journalist. The fact that writing a story can get one killed undermines any free press, the fundamental ingredient of a democratic society. Columbia is another country where judges and other government officials are regularly murdered by drug lords and/or reactionary paramilitaries who take justice into their own hands. Also, in Iraq (as I write) the campaign to undermine democracy is being carried out not only against Americans but against any member of the new government or anyone helping the new government. One Iraqi official, captured in the early days of the war, reported that Saddam Hussein spent much time reading the philosophy of the guerrilla warfare that led to the French defeat in Vietnam and to the later fall of South Vietnam. If so, and if he trained others, the current struggle in Iraq will continue indefinitely. The first step will be to undermine the present government by brutally murdering all cooperating with a new Iraqi government (and/or their families). All law (religious and secular) should be applied by putting oneself in the place of the other. The judge should ask, “If I were this person, how would I want to be treated?”[40] The purpose of law is not only to formalize behavior but also to encourage people to adopt the behavior.[41] At times, the judge may frame the question this way: If I were this person and given to murder, and if I were in my right mind, would I want someone to place me where I cannot hurt others? One could argue that an alcoholic is often not aware of the pain he/she is causing others; therefore, the judge would be right to assume that such a person is not in his/her right mind. A psychopath (i.e., a person with no conscience) is assumed in our society to be mentally ill. While murdering another may not trouble the psychopath, the psychopath generally does not want to be murdered. In other words, what we consider normal human behavior lies on the same foundation as the Golden Rule. If we see a person practicing self-mutilation, we see that as abnormal behavior because we would not so act. Adopting the Golden Rule as a working principle would lead to changes. Such an attitude toward confining an individual would remove the useless notion of punishment and would focus on doing the thing necessary to rehabilitate or heal the individual while protecting society. Judges who have some discretion in sentencing can make a difference, especially since in America one only gets the justice one can afford. Punishment is about inflicting pain; rehabilitation is about teaching or healing. A deeper question has to do with how personality changes. I am aware that in some circles personality is defined as behaviors. However, I maintain that a person is composed of a personal history, a measure of freedom, values, and at least a minimal ability to function. The issue is not the conscious mind over against the subconscious mind, but the totality of the learning that creates the core personality plus the adaptive personality. The conscious inner life (composed of thoughts and related feelings) is not precisely the same as behavior, however useful it may be scientifically to define personality in behavioral terms in order to conduct observable and thus measurable studies. Law can only deal with controlling behavior. While the thought of murder precedes murder and the thought of adultery precedes adultery, the law can only deal with the act of murder or the act of adultery. In some Christian circles, care is given to the inner life. The insight that the heart (thoughts, feelings, will) is the precursor of behavior has a long tradition.[42] However, far too many Christian groups never understand the difference in grace and law: Grace changes personality and thus behavior while law merely controls behavior through external pressure. I have already mentioned how On Becoming a Person by Carl Rogers influenced my personal growth. His insights led me to think through the relationship of grace to therapeutic acceptance. Many of the conclusions presented here have come from forty years of experimenting with the working hypothesis that grace (God's unmerited love and favor) is best communicated in human relationships through Rogers's therapeutic acceptance. Acceptance of a person is not to be equated with approval of the person's behavior, but acceptance leads to personality change while a lack of acceptance does not (even if it leads to a change in behavior). Let us say an institutional church proclaims the gospel faithfully. A person listening to that proclamation discovers that in Christ he/she is forgiven. Let us further say that the person accepts the message of the gospel, formalizes the decision through baptism, and becomes a member of an institutional church. Up to this point in the process, the individual hears the message that he/she is accepted by God's grace. That brings great relief, for we are all caught up in human existence, our most strenuous efforts and purest motives still resulting in a sense of missing the mark (sin, i.e., hamartano, Greek) [43] However, far too often (perhaps indirectly), the Institutional Church gives another message: Now that you are a Christian, here is a list of behaviors to do and/or not do. Certainly, we may realize that certain behaviors better fit the law of love than others, but this list becomes a new Law that controls behavior by imposing outside pressure. Individual moral judgment is preempted by prescribed rules of behavior for certain areas of life deemed important by those in power. Not only is salvation by grace, but sanctification is also by grace. Sanctification, simply put, is becoming the person God created us to be. The objective model is Jesus as presented in the canonical Gospels. Growing in grace is another way to state the concept. The point is that every Christian group understands that growth occurs (however specifically defined by the group) after one enters the Christian life. Law cannot save, and Law cannot sanctify. My reading of the New Testament leaves me with the conviction that both salvation and sanctification are of grace. One may also argue that a list of behaviors circumvents the law of love. Love (as seen in the Golden Rule) requires judgment, but so does law require judgment. The Golden Rule, however, places the emphasis on empathy, on getting inside the other person, of treating that person as one would like to be treated. Thus, while judgment is involved, so is empathy. Law, on the other hand, stands outside the other person and applies (logically) a proposition to the situation. One might also argue that the official rule of behaviors is imposed because the Institutional Church fears losing control, fears trusting people to love, or fears what love would really produce. The Institutional Church (as opposed to the Body of Christ)[44] is conservative and fine-tuned to accommodate the power structures of society. All sorts of radical social changes would result if people actually started treating their neighbors as they wish to be treated. When a person feels accepted, a person begins to relax, talk about how he/she really feels, confess (as it were), discover thoughts and feelings, process thoughts and feelings, and become free to choose behaviors that are more rational. Spiritual growth (sanctification) involves the dynamic of acceptance that produces personality change. For example, when a client feels accepted, then he/she begins to be more honest, becomes more likely to talk about thoughts and feelings that have been repressed, and thus becomes more likely to consider the rationality or appropriateness of the feelings and thoughts. The result is that the irrational or unrealistic thought/feeling will be discarded. The approach to spiritual growth that I teach my clients involves three steps: confession (telling God how one really feels, often discovering oneself rather than informing God); identifying the automatic thoughts (words and pictures with attached feelings, recorded in the past or projected future); and after working through the thoughts, replacing the distorted thoughts with positive, realistic thoughts (often taken from great promises contained in scripture). Obviously, I have been influenced by cognitive and rational emotive therapy insights and have simply applied some of the basic insights to the concept of spiritual growth. Have we overlooked the fact that when the New Testament proclaims we are saved by grace (unmerited love and acceptance), we are being told the precise truth? Applying that insight to sanctification, we should realize that in an atmosphere of acceptance (grace), the new Christian continues to be more honest, continues to explore thoughts and feelings, and continues to consider behaviors honestly. In other words, real personality change (growth) takes place in God's grace, not by the reimposition of Law. Consider I John 1:9 where confession of sins is linked to forgiveness and cleansing. If in prayer, for example, a Christian honestly deals with thoughts and feelings in an atmosphere of grace, then the Christian will discover thoughts and feelings heretofore beneath the consciousness. However, the imposition of law leads to suppression (or even repression) of emotions. We lose touch with our hate, our lust, and our pettiness. God already knows the heart; the prayer of confession is for us. If we deal with the heart (inner thoughts and feelings), our behavior will be more realistic. Not all hypocrisy is conscious and deliberate. The most dangerous hypocrisy is "to wear a mask and play a part" while losing touch with our true feelings and thoughts. For example, we wear the righteous mask and burn people at the stake when the real issue is that we fear losing control or we hate those we cannot control (rooted in "what if" and existential anxiety). Sanctification is an extension of grace to daily life so that we become more able to love as we cleanse our thoughts and negative emotions. The concept of personality is a useful one because, inherent in the concept, is the idea that past learning must be updated in order to change behavior. I understand that the behaviorist will say that changing behavior over time will change the inner life. My argument is not that a person is beyond being programmed, but that human intelligence works on programming. If at the sound of a bell all in the room raised their hands, the second occurrence would result in questions. A person is more complicated than a mouse. In fact, once the idea of programming is introduced to an individual's consciousness, the ability to program that individual becomes more difficult. That, of course, is a simple example, but the simple is often more clear. If law were the answer to the human problem, we should have been made perfect long ago. The simple community can live by folkways, binding and controlling at an informal but effective level. A greater community lives in part by mores, the accepted behavior that is not formal law. The more complex societies need laws, but in a sense, law is needed only when the folkways and mores stop working. Of course, law is necessary in a complicated world, but the imposition of law will only regulate behavior. New tax laws are written, but the wealthy can hire an army of advisors to circumvent the law while the poor pay up. A few years ago, a drought caused water rationing in a small town. It was interesting to watch the wealthy continue to water their lawns, pay the fines, and keep their green grass. On the other hand, a local outrage occurred (properly) when an older man was fined for watering his garden, trying to grow something to eat. The problem is not merely the wealthy, however. Clever people, rich and poor, will always circumvent the law. While law is necessary, only love will transform the human condition. What would actually occur if in a board meeting of a multinational corporation the discussion ranged beyond the bottom line and included a simple question: If I were this person (worker, customer, producer, supplier), how would I want to be treated? Milton Friedman (the Nobel Prize winning economist and champion of the free market economy) exercises great influence and is often quoted as saying that the sole aim of a company should be to maximize profit. The scandals, of which Enron is only the tip of the iceberg, have somewhat altered the blatant proclamation of that idea. In reality, most corporations operate apart from the Golden Rule. Moral Man & Immoral Society by Reinhold Niebuhr gave me my first awareness of how the individual is absorbed into the Group Personality. Moral individuals, meeting as a board of directors, will often do the most immoral things in service of the institution, being swallowed up in the group personality, guided only by making a profit, justified by, "if we don't do it, they will fire us and bring in someone who will do it." Law is necessary, for some behaviors cripple a society and ultimately lead to anarchy. Love (i.e., the Golden Rule) is the only answer to human existence, and such love allows law to function positively within a society. ____________________ [32] Romans 3:23. [33] Obviously, I overuse gravity as an illustration of a law of nature. However, not being a professional scientist, I am loath to wander too far outside my limited sphere. Moreover, gravity is something anyone can understand as a self-evident illustration. While I am aware of oversimplification, gravity adequately illustrates my limited point in the discussion. [34] For the sake of this limited discussion, I am assuming a general Judeo- Christian ethic. [35] See Matthew 15:16-20. [36] More about pragmatism later. [37] See The Death of Common Sense by Philip K. Howard for a statement of the problem. [38] See B.F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom & Dignity, in which man as a free agent is denied categorically. Skinner would create a planned man conditioned to reach society's goals. Man is not free and should be controlled through behaviorist education, according to Skinner. [39] Matthew 7:12. [40] See Matthew 18:35. [41] See John 8:3-11. [42] See Matthew 15:15. [43] See Romans 3:32. [44] See I Corinthians 12. (C) 2004, Don Mize |