There are several problems with Eusebius McKaiser’s attempt to put Christian ethics on the “backfoot”, writes Ryan Peter.
After reading Eusebius McKaiser’s article (“Why God’s not a moral imperative”) and having attended the debate he had with Christian apologist John Lennox and engaged with him on my blog, I felt – in the interests of fairness – to present some thoughts from “the other side”.
For those who didn’t read McKaiser’s article or don’t know about the debate, McKaiser, as an agnostic, asserts that we don’t need God to know what is right and wrong.
Of course I cannot speak for all Christians, but there are several problems with McKaiser’s attempt to put Christian ethics on the “backfoot” in an “800-word article” that are at least worth thinking about.
The main problem is this: I think he may be barking up the wrong tree.
McKaiser’s sentiments appear well-founded, but I think he is ignorant of Christian theology and philosophy which have addressed the problem in many ways.
So much so, that in many respects, Christian theology agrees with his analysis.
Really?
Yes.
McKaiser says he was “shocked that Lennox’s main response” to him “was that he partly agrees” that God is not needed for morality.
I did not find it shocking but consistent.
Christian theology forces Lennox to do so.
The book of Genesis says God didn’t want Adam and Eve to eat from the “tree of knowledge of good and evil”.
Many people don’t think about that. It wasn’t a tree of sin, pleasure or even of just knowledge, but knowledge of good and evil.
This is why Christian theology asserts an interesting philosophical point: our knowledge of good and evil is core to our problem.
We know what’s right, but we repeatedly fail to do what’s right.
We constantly judge others by standards we believe in, but can’t live up to. We live under guilt and try to justify our actions to get rid of it.
We’re an inherently self-righteous and prideful bunch to be honest, and Christian theology teaches that God didn’t want us to live by good and evil, but in a trust-filled relationship with Him.
Many miss the relational aspect of the Christian God, which is why they are confused about what Christians really mean by faith.
McKaiser says he can “communicate” sensible rules to children: “Don’t hit your sister, Johnny!
It’s wrong to go around just hitting people for no reason my boy!”.
He is right and Christian theology agrees with him.
But atheists and agnostics hardly ever address why Johnny needs to have this communicated to him if he inherently knows it.
Most of us know that even though children know right from wrong, they still often choose the wrong.
We do it too. All the time.
But why?
According to Christianity it’s because we ultimately have a heart or even and ability problem, not a knowledge problem.
The heart problem limits our ability and distorts our knowledge, but these are just symptoms of the real problem.
Agnostics and atheists don’t like this kind of language because it comes close to speaking about a soul or acknowledging a spiritual problem.
But that doesn’t mean that we can be accused of thinking what McKaiser and others accuse us of thinking.
For the Christian, the issue of whether or not we need God to tell us if something is right or wrong isn’t the issue.
The issue is whether we need God so that we will do what is right.
Can anyone be moral without God?
As far as the Christian is concerned, the answer is yes on the one hand, but no on the other.
“Yes” because we can all be moral to a certain degree, “no” because even when we do what is right our motives, pride and self-righteousness still come into play.
Many an outwardly righteous person is inwardly hateful and full of themselves. We call them hypocrites.
And we’re all one.
Jesus was all about this in Matthew 5-7. And this is where Christian theology differs from other religions in that it states that we are saved from our propensity to evil (we are saved from sin) by faith (trust in God) because of grace (God’s love for us) instead of works (doing what’s right).
If a society continues down the path of self-righteousness, it eventually ends up not being very righteous at all.
All religion faces this problem and this is also my problem with modern liberalism.
Left to our own, morality goes one of two ways: either to horrific licentiousness or to oppressive legalism.
And so the question isn’t whether or not we need God to know right from wrong, it’s whether we need God to live it out consistently.
* Ryan Peter is a writer, ghostwriter, author, columnist and blogger. Visit www.ryanpeterwrites.com.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Newspapers.
Pretoria News