The Sunday News
I WRITE this morning with a realisation that we are in the middle of 2015 as we start a new month, a new quarter as well as the last half of the year. We are moving closer to the end than the beginning. This is the fact of life in all respects and even globally we are moving closer to the end of the times than we have been to the beginning.
As if that is not enough globally there is a great shift of thought, a nation that calls itself Christian decides through its Supreme Court that it is perfectly alright for a man to marry another man and make a family or for a woman to marry another woman and also make a family.
On the other extreme another nation not known or previously heard of making religious statements declares through its Head of State that Christian traditions should be upheld. Then quickly came into my mind the story of Balaam’s donkey that saw an angel and spoke!
Maybe that is the witness that the world is coming to an end.
Be that as it may be, the coincidences are rather too much. The same nation that legalises what animals of lesser intellect cannot even fathom to think let alone do is seen as the bastion of nationhood by some but goes on to fulfil old time prophecy with the development of the chip and mark that is on the hand to operate digitally. The mark of the beast! You call it advancement I call it otherwise. This is the writing of the end of the ages.
There is a silent lot that is looking at those that upheld the old tradition of Christianity now letting it go through the window to the dogs as it were. Islam at the same time stands firm on the way of the Noble Qur’an as they celebrate its coming to mankind in this holy month of Ramadan. Islam goes beyond mere disapproval of homosexuality. Sharia teaches that homosexuality is a vile form of fornication, punishable by death.
Is homosexuality an acceptable alternative lifestyle? The Church cannot duck this question. Christians who reject the legitimacy of the homosexual lifestyle are routinely denounced a homophobic, intolerant, even hateful. There is thus tremendous intimidation concerning this issue. Some churches have even endorsed the homosexual lifestyle and welcome those who practise it to be their ministers.
This is not just happening in liberal churches. One homosexual group called Evangelicals Concerned is a group of people who are to all appearances born-again, Bible-believing Christians, but are also practising homosexuals. They claim that the Bible does not forbid homosexual activity or that its commands are not valid for today, but were just a reflection of the culture in which it was written. These people are conventional about Jesus and every other area of teaching; but they just think it is all right to be a practising homosexual.
Who are we to say that they are wrong?
Maybe we should ask ourselves differently; do right and wrong really exist? Before you can determine what is right and wrong, you have to know that there really is right and wrong.
What is the basis for saying that right and wrong exist? Moral values are based in God. God is by His very nature perfectly holy and good. He is just, loving, patient, merciful, and generous — all that is good comes from Him and is a reflection of His character. Now God’s perfectly good nature issues forth in commandments to us, which become our moral duties, for example, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength,” “You shall love your neighbour as yourself,” “You shall not murder, steal or commit adultery.” These things are right or wrong based on God’s commandments, and God’s commandments are not arbitrary but flow necessarily out of His perfect nature.
This is the Christian understanding of right and wrong.
There really is such a being as God who created the world and made us to know Him. He really has commanded certain things. We really are morally obligated to do certain things (and not to do others). Morality is therefore not just in your mind. It is real. When we fail to keep God’s commandments, we really are morally guilty before Him and need His forgiveness. The problem is not just that we feel guilty; we really are guilty, regardless of how we feel. I might not feel guilty because I have an insensitive conscience, one that has been dulled by sin; but if I have broken God’s law, I am guilty, regardless of how I feel.
So, for example, if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everyone who disagreed with them, so that everybody would think the Holocaust had been good, it would still have been wrong, because God says it is wrong, regardless of human opinion. Morality is based in God, and so real right and wrong exist and are unaffected by human opinions. So even if the Supreme Court of some State says wrong is right and right is wrong go back to God and find his position!
Today so many people think of right and wrong, not as matters of fact, but as matters of taste. For example, there is no objective fact that amacimbi or imbeba taste good. They taste good to some people, but taste bad to others. People think it is the same with moral values. Something may seem wrong to you, but right to me. There is nothing really right or wrong. It is just a matter of opinion.
Now if there is no God, then I think these people are absolutely correct. In the absence of God everything becomes relative. Without God who is to say that one culture’s values are better than another’s? Who’s to say who is right and who is wrong? Where do right and wrong come from? Richard Taylor, a prominent non-Christian American philosopher makes this point very forcefully.
He says: “The idea of . . . moral obligation is clear enough, provided that reference to some lawmaker higher . . . than those of the State is understood. In other words, our moral obligations can . . . be understood as those that are imposed by God.”
Even this non-Christian philosopher is saying if there is no God, no divine lawgiver, then there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, then there is no real right and wrong. Right and wrong are just human customs and laws that vary from society to society. Even if they all agree, they are still just human inventions.
So if God does not exist, right and wrong do not exist either. Anything goes, including homosexuality. So one of the best ways to defend the legitimacy of the homosexual lifestyle is to become an atheist. But the problem is that many defenders of homosexuality do not want to become atheists. In particular, they do want to affirm that right and wrong exist. So you hear them making moral judgements all the time, for example: “It is wrong to discriminate against homosexuals.”
These kinds of value judgements cannot be meaningfully made unless God exists. If God does not exist, anything goes, including discrimination and persecution of homosexuals. Further; murder, rape, torture, child abuse — none of these things would be wrong, because without God right and wrong do not exist. Everything is permitted.
To be able to make moral judgements about what is right or wrong, we have got to affirm that God exists. The question, “Who are you to say that homosexuality is wrong?” can be put back to homosexual activists: “Who are you to say that homosexuality is right?” If God exists, then we cannot ignore what He has to say about the subject. The correct answer to the “Who are you . . .?” question is to say, “Me? I’m nobody! God determines what’s right and wrong, and I’m just interested in learning and obeying what He says.” Till next week, Shalom!
