You really don't want moral relativism to be true

In last day's post I was suggesting that only in a Judeo Christian culture would you even dream of pushing the idea of moral relativism (wrong for you but right for me). Today I want to ask the question why anyone would want it in the first place. I think the answer is clear from those who advocate it. Let me quote from Faye Wattleton's articulate defense of the position. Wattleton, a former President of Planned Parenthood, says “We must resist any attempt by others to sell, push, or otherwise force their own pet values on the rest of us,” and “teaching morality doesn't mean imposing my moral values on others. It means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do--and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves.” I want you to trust me to judge for myself, but (and here is the biggie) do you want to trust me to make up my mind for myself? What if I am a member of the pedophile organization NAMBLA (North American man love boy association). If this were me (it's not) would you want to trust me to be alone with your 8 year old son?

Do you want to trust all politicians to do what they think is right? Should we live and let live, refuse to “interfere” and not “push our values” on those in power who are corrupt, or who are wanting to push through legislation that is not to our liking. Should we resist or not resist those who are less well off than we are if they justify taking what belongs to us because in their eyes that is only fair? What I am suggesting is that we may well be for moral relativism when it works to our advantage, but if were adopted wholesale by our culture it would not do that. Moral relativism gives us no rational basis for law and order. Make no mistake about it we are heading more and more in the direction of lawlessness as perpetrators of crime increasingly receive more consideration than their victims.

We can't have it both ways. We cannot demand the freedom to do exactly what we want without giving others the right to do exactly what they want. And this would be alright if we were all trustworthy, but we are not! So do you want moral relativity to be true? Moral relativity if practiced consistently has to lead to anarchy. You do not want to live in a lawless society (as ours is increasingly becoming)! Trust me, you do not really want moral relativism to be true!

Moral relativism? Only in a Judeo Christian culture

I want to suggest that it is only in a culture heavily influenced in the long haul by Judeo Christian (i.e. Biblical) values, where the basic tenants of its morality were firmly established, that would one even dream of spouting the nonsense of moral relativism. I am referring not only to the Judeo Christian basis of law and order (no murder, no stealing etc.), but also to the the strong teaching to love your neighbour (anyone in need), and to exhibit the Christian virtues of kindness, sensitivity and tolerance, as well as its emphasis on the value and equality of all humankind. It seems to me that those who do advocate moral relativism have either forgotten, taken for granted, or never realized in the first place the foundational positive influence of Christianity on our Western values.

There are three components of a culture that I believe would need to be in place, and to essentially be taken for granted (and thus hidden), before moral relativism would not be laughed out of court. The first is that there would need to be strongly enforced (if not always successful) laws that prohibited the sort of morality enshrined for example in the 10 commandments. The second component is that there would have to have been a widely held strong rational basis for the kind of morality described above. Thirdly because in the real world even such a basis is fragile, not only would it need to have been held by a large percentage of the population, this would have to have been held over an extended period of time.

With regard to the first condition there would need to be in place strongly enforced laws that prohibit murder, rape, assault and the like. In making the case for moral relativism I quoted Faye Wattleton as saying “teaching morality … means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do--and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves,” and of course this also means giving them the freedom to do what we may not want them to do. But you would want to give me the right to “judge for myself” if murder or theft was right or wrong for me, especially if my actions were likely to affected you personally. Nobody in their right mind is going to do this with issues such as murder or rape or theft. No certain laws would have to be firmly in place and essentially unchallengeable. The moral relativist might answer “well we are not referring to things like that!” But you can't have it both ways, either there is such a thing as right and wrong or there is not. Moral relativism says “not” and needs the type of law I am referring to to be firmly in place and taken for granted (so the contradictions are not so obvious!) before you would even dream of advocating it.

Secondly there would have to have been a widely held, strong rational basis for the values of charity justice and the essential worth, dignity and equality of all human existence. I am not just saying these values would need to be held, I am saying there would need to be a strong basis for these things. These values stand or fall together, for a rational basis for equality without a strong motivation to charity would not give the necessary impetus to do something about the plight of others. It is surly undeniable that we humans can too easily hold in theory that the practice of virtue is a good thing, while at the same time being unwilling to do anything about it. Talk is cheap, and there can be much opposition to putting these values into practice, especially if it costs to do so. One of the strongest and most enduring arguments against the abolition of slavery in Wilberforce's Britain, was the economic argument. It was argued that the economy would collapse if Wilberforce had his way. It is surly only when there is a strong basis for these values that there would be any possibility of moving from mere talk to action.

Moral relativism in and of itself does not have such a basis. If that is not apparent, we only need to ask why moral relativism finds itself unable to live up to its own moral imperative “we must not impose our values on others ….” If moral relativists were consistent in applying their own imperative, they would not impose the values of moral relativity on those of us who do not (fully) agree. In fact if moral relativists were consistent, moral relativity would self destruct. The point is that in order not to impose its own values on others, moral relativity would need to refrain from criticizing anything and everything. It would need to remain forever silent, even in the face of things it saw as hateful. Should moral relativists be allowed to say “We must live and let live, and strenuously resist any attempt by others to sell, push, or otherwise force their own pet values on the rest of us,” and then turn round and “sell, push, and otherwise force” the own pet values of moral relativism on the rest of us? To do so would surely be hypocritical!

It get's worse actually, because moral relativists do not even have a rational basis for saying that all human beings are of equal value, and therefore to be treated as such. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not saying that moral relativists are wrong to believe that. I hope it is obvious that that is my position too. What I am saying is that they don't have a rational basis for believing what all truly moral beings believe, and that is in the equality of humankind. It is however only within Judeo -Christian morality that we find the necessary powerful motivation and basis to do more than just talk.

There is another point I need to make about the “strong rational basis” for this morality. Many question the rationality of the Judeo Christian position? I showed earlier that all World views (including atheistic views) can only be held by faith. With this understanding you can choose to say either (parts of) atheism and Christianity are both rational or that they are both irrational. Though this is not well understood, it is not logical to say for example that the Christian faith is irrational but that atheism is not (see specifically 'the faith of the atheist'). What we need to do is to examine the underlying assumptions in the face of observed reality, and that is (part of) what this blog and my coming book is all about.

So then what I am saying in this second point is that the culture would have to have been a strong rational basis based on a prevailing world view for the position that all humans are of equal value and thus to be treated as such. The view that we are all Darwinian primates and nothing more does not, for example give such a rational position, and could not have created the atmosphere I am claiming is necessary for moral relativity to be even begin to be heard. The point is that without such a strong rational basis there is not sufficient motivation for society to engage in the tremendous sacrifice necessary to defend the rights of those whose emancipation has no evolutionary benefit. On the other hand a strongly held belief that there is a God; that God has proclaimed that there is no difference between male and female or slave and freeman or between Jew and Gentile (Galatians 3:28); that we must all stand before Him one day to receive rewards or punishment for what we have done in this life (Romans 14:12). And such a belief if strongly held does indeed furnish a strong rational basis for such a sacrifice. Again, I am not saying that these values do not exist outside of Christendom, I am saying (a) that there is no strong rational basis of them, and (b) that only in a Judeo Christian culture is it (has it been) widely held and practiced.

I want to make clear what I am not saying here. I am not saying that atheists cannot be moral, or that atheists cannot display outstanding compassion, charity and humanity. Of course atheists can have these qualities, and have at time even shamed those of us who name the name of Christ who have not followed His teaching. What I am saying is that when they do such things, they do them in spite of not having a strong rational basis to do so. It also seems to me likely that such views are stimulated by the Judeo Christian influence on the culture in which such atheists often live. In my view, even when we deny God, we still need Him, and our hearts inherently know goodness when we see it, even if there is a disconnect with our mind! If this is true we would expect more charity from the religious than the nonreligious in the North American context. Arthur Brooks in his book “Who really cares,” lays out evidence for that this is indeed the case. The results of his research surprised Brooks who says “the evidence leaves no room to doubt: Religious people are far more charitable than nonreligious people” (p 34). He is of course talking about the North American context. In a quote from Harvey Mansfield on the back cover of the book we read “He (Brooks) has stern words, based on quantitative proof, for liberals who boast of compassion for others but never actually give to them.” The strong basis of which I speak would need to have done more than produce mere talk!

So I am saying that the rational basis has to be strongly held, strong enough to have found its way into the practical behaviour of the culture, and to be held by sufficient numbers, so that it characterized the culture itself. In particular the rational basis has to be strong enough and broad enough so that individuals could successfully change the culture, even if it meant they needed to spend their lives working towards change. I am thinking again of the campaign in (then) Christian England to abolition of slavery. You do not go to war to establish the rights of the underprivileged (thinking for example of the American Civil war) unless you have a very strong reason to do so! America had such a strong rational basis in it's widespread belief in the God of the Bible. Look and see, you do not find these things in cultures that have not been strongly influenced in the long haul by Judeo Christian morality. And this brings me to the third point that “because in the real world even such a basis is fragile, not only would it need to have been held by a large percentage of the population, this would have to have been held over an extended period of time.”

The history of mankind is not encouraging. It is not hard to see that the virtues we are discussing here are not the default. We also see this in our nature, in that good habits are hard to get into and easy to get out of, while bad habits are easy to get into and hard to get out of! Cultures that once had the above mentioned virtues seem to be able to loose them at the drop of a hat (or at the instigation of powerful forces determined on their overthrow). Russia and Germany in the last Century are prime examples of this. It seems to me that Western society is likewise in grave danger of this too, but I digress (again)! My point is that Judeo Christian cultures are fragile. If further evidence is needed, one only needs to read the history of ancient Israel as revealed in the Bible!

So why do I say it needs to have been there in the long haul? There are three things here. The first is that the basis of law and order would need to have been in place long enough be essentially taken for granted, so that it was no longer an issue. The second is that in the absence of the desperate need to establish the basis for such laws (as opposed to the implementation of them) it would take time for the all the grievances that the law was not addressing to come to the surface. The rights of women to vote is not (and would not be) the most pressing issue where the law was not even attempting to deal with widespread murder or rape. The third thing is that it seems to be the nature of mankind that he (she) does not seem to easily want to accept reform of that will end up costing him dearly, so that only when these values are held in the long term will thy likely be put into practice.

Jesus teaching is significant here. He taught that the nature of the kingdom was like leaven that slowly makes its way through the whole lump. His teaching and example about women and slavery illustrate what I am wanting to say here. Jesus attitude towards and treatment of women, non Jews, and non-Jewish women in particular was revolutionary, but His “revolution” was non-violent. Only in an atmosphere where law and order could be taken for granted, could attention then be given to the issues these “less urgent issues” His attitude and example strongly advocate. I think you will find there this is no strong basis for this sort of thing in any system not strongly influenced by New Testament teachings. The word “Christian” means little Christ, and the Christian was impelled to follow his master, even in the way he dealt with the underprivileged, the marginalized and the oppressed in society. The Judeo Christian God is a God of Justice, and His people are commanded to be people of justice too.

To say it again "Only in a culture heavily influenced in the long haul by Judeo Christian values, where the basic tenants of its morality were firmly established, that would one even dream of spouting the nonsense of moral relativism."

Trash, treasure and Western culture

Nobody is right all the time, and probably nobody is wrong all the time either. But you wouldn't know it by the way people talk. The subtitle of a book by Christopher Hitchens “How religion poisons everything” illustrates my point. I mean “everything”? I could (and do) buy “Religion poisons some things,” even “many things,” but “everything”? Similarly with haters of all that is Western (many of whom seem to live in our midst), there seems to be this need to trash the whole kit and caboodle. Please don't misunderstand me, there are many things that do need to be trashed. Cooperate greed is one of them, capitalism has been confused with Christianity, as has the mix of politics and Christianity. This seems to poison both of them. So I am not by any means saying that Hitchens does not have a point in some of the things that he is saying, but is absolutely everything wrong? Do we not rather need to learn to “separate the precious from the vile,” the trash from the treasure? In the end we may not be able to agree about what is trash and what is treasure, but we do need to see the good as well as the bad. Do we not need to think and consider and to debate these things, and do we not we need to listen to each other?

It seems to be a quirk of human nature that we do not seem to really appreciate what we have until we no longer have it. Since we are all a mixture of truth and error, right and wrong, we can be pretty sure that any view that completely trashes a culture or people group, or religion is not balanced. To be sure when we have been deeply hurt it is hard to see the good, we can't see the treasure for seeing the trash. But when we operate out of bitterness, we are not always seeing things clearly, and tolerance surly dictates that we should try. Last day we were discussing the total nonintervention that some anthropologists advocate. Let me reiterate that cultural anthropology does have a point about our need for humility. But surely we should not willingly turn a blind eye to oppression wherever it occurs. What to do about such things is another question.

I realize that it is not politically correct to compare cultures, and we do indeed need to display humility cultural sensitivity and appropriate tolerance, but surely we go too far! Taken to the extreme we would have to condemn all war. Is there is no such thing as a just war, have there never been megalomaniacs who some how or other manged to finish up in power? Moral relativism, if it were consistent would exclude not only war, but reform of any kind. This is because we would not be able to say anything was wrong. But not one of us can live consistently with this. We all want to affirm that murder and a lot of other things are wrong (especially when they are close to home!).

The other thing that happens when under the pressure of political correctness we refuse to discern right and wrong, is that we fail to see what is good both outside and closer to home. So then in order to more fully appreciate the treasure (among the trash) that we have been handed down in Western culture, I want us to look, see and understand what is missing from cultures that have not been heavily influenced (or have turned their back on) Judeo Christian values. In this post I will not be able to do anything more than scratch the surface of what I want to say, and in any case most of what I say will be anecdotal. In fact in order to fully see the point I am wanting to make you probably would need to have been born and raised in one of those cultures. What I am saying is that looking at other cultures from inside our own, we may be better able to see the good other cultures have to offer. And this is why the omission of the perspective of indigenous leaders from the Nightline report, mentioned in my August 24th post was so very very wrong! But I digress (slightly).

This point about the positive opinions of our culture from those born outside is important, and if you are willing to have your eyes opened, I can thoroughly recommend a book by Vishal Mangalwadi entitled “The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization.” Mangalwadi's hails originally from India, and his book is eyeopening for me, even after spending 10 months in Africa with my family in the early 90's. That experience was eye opening in and of itself! I was arrested three times during that period. Each time the point was to persuade me to bribe the police. One of those times the whole police station was involved in the attempt. As I said to my wife at the time, we would be shocked and disappointed if this had happened in Canada, but having lived in Africa for that ten months we would almost have been surprised if it had not happened.

There is a phrase that is used frequently over there, it is T.I.A. “this is Africa.” It is spoken as though nothing more need to be said by way of explanation. Nothing should surprise you T.I.A. Uganda had earlier been devastated under the terror of Idi Amin. At the time of our visit (relative) law and order had been restored under Museveni. In any case I had been assured that this was so (or we would not have gone). I was spending most of my sabbatical year at the University in Kampala in Uganda. I went in one morning parked my car, and went to the administration building. The place was deserted and I felt a tension in the air. I learned later that 10 minutes before I had arrived, the police had gone in and shot three students to death, then carted them off. Well I mean they were striking against the government, so what did they expect? T.I.A!

I immediately contacted friends and relatives back home because I “knew” that they would be worried. But nobody had even heard of the incident. Imagine the reaction to this sort of thing happening in North America (or recall the Kent State massacre)! I learned later that this way of dealing with student unrest was standard practice in neighbouring Kenya. You know Kenya, the African country that was held up as a model for how successful the post colonization of Africa could be, that Kenya. What I am saying is that this sort of thing was widely ignored by the Western media. It's not really news, not in Africa (T.I.A!).

I came back home realizing that democracy would not work in Africa, in particular it would not work in Uganda. I am convinced that what would happen is that the majority tribe there would gain power and then simply wipe out the other tribes. If you think I am exaggerating, witness what happened later in neighbouring Rwanda! It's all part of the culture. For hundred's perhaps thousands of years, one of the northern Ugandan tribes had the tradition of raiding other tribes. They would steal a cow or two from each other, and the raids would go on back and forth. It was “relatively harmless,” not too many people lost their lives! Now introduce AK 47's into the game! Not that anybody would do that, right? We would have heard about it right? What can I say? T.I.A!

No doubt some will explain away what I am saying as exaggeration, or at the very least not widespread. Sitting home in relatively safe environments (yes I know many part of the States are far from being safe) it is hard to imagine that such things exist or things that are as bad or worse being widespread and continuing to exist in our modern world. But we need to open our eyes. As I said even knowing what I knew, I found Mangalwadi's book eye opening. As bad as things are at times in the West, we still have very little idea what it would be like not to be able to take all sorts of positive traditional Western values for granted. I am thinking of such things as right of appeal, right to due process of Law, the possibility of blowing the whistle on corruption, basic human rights, freedom of speech etc. etc. All these things are in place as a direct result of our Judeo Christian heritage. So what is being used here is an integral part of the very things that are being trashed. On top of this, when moral relativists say things like “We must not impose our values on others, because to do so is to be repressive, insensitive and intolerant,” they are calling upon the virtues of sensitivity, tolerance and freedom which are in fact unique to the very Judeo Christian teachings the are seeking to dismiss!

I am not saying Western culture is perfect, it is not, and it is less and less so as time goes on. As I said above there are many places that are not safe as gangs run more and more amok in our cities, and prison populations grow and grow. But is this not a direct result of our having turned, and continuing to turn, our backs on the high value our ancestors placed on integrity, faithfulness, marriage and the family? As I blogged in July in “Harmless, wholesome and healthy?” there are traceable relationships between relaxing the divorce laws and fatherlessness, and between fatherlessness and crime, in other words between our increasing malaise and our increasing acceptance of moral relativism.

These things should be telling us something, but the big question is “are we listening?” The story of the camel and the Sheik is well known. Starting with the tip of it's nose, the camel inch by inch got it's whole body into the tent, then kicked out the Sheik. In the same way the well documented, militant, in your face, highly organized, well funded liberal agenda is content with nothing less than the total demise of traditional values. But as Mangalwadi argues very eloquently in his book, to do this is to undermine the very things that made Western Civilization great. Indeed, the ideas and the behaviours that flow from this militant liberalism are lemming like. Author James Burnham put this well even in the title of his book “Suicide of the West.” In other words by all of this we are slowly but surely heading towards our own demise, as we increasingly choose to trash everything, including our treasure!

It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere

This is another of the very common sayings associated with moral relativity that I hear floating around. But it really does not bear up under scrutiny. Suppose I believe that cyanide is harmless, does it matter? Well if I believe that, I might try to see if it tastes good or give it to someone else to try. Does that matter? It could be objected that we are talking here about religious beliefs and morality, about opinions not about facts. So the question morphs into “does it matter what we believe in terms of religious beliefs or morality?”

Perhaps the biggest problem with all of this, is our uncanny ability to rationalize what we want to do. I was not sure if I was being hit on, but some time ago now, I had this young woman tell me “I don't think adultery is wrong.” I looked her in the eye and told her gently “That is because you want to do it.” Her hand came up not quite quick enough to hide her “guilty as charged” smile. I believe she was sincere, that she sincerely wanted to commit adultery (if she was not already doing it). Did it matter? I am sure of this, it would matter very much to the wife of her (actual or perspective) lover.

Or what about the organization that exists to promote what is euphemistically called the North American man love boy association which is dedicated to “end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships.” One of their slogans by the way is “eight is too late.” There is a reason statuary rape is called rape, it is because it is well understood that underage children are far too vulnerable to persistent smiling and gentle persuasion to commit acts that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Children are too young to make such life changing decisions. But if you believe theses advocates of “man boy love” (and I believe at least some of them) they are sincere. So yes with our (my) ability to fool ourselves (myself) I do believe that some of them are sincere, sincerely wrong, but wrong nevertheless! Does it matter? Would you leave such a man alone with your eight year old?

I argued earlier that all World views are in the end opinions, and that all such opinions can only be held by faith. So does it matter if you believe that there is no such thing as truth, or right and wrong, or that good and evil are illusions, and that atheists are right in their faith position that God does not exist? Well what if as Christians say it is, it is true that our main task here on earth is to choose our eternal destiny, and that that is determined by whether or not we accept God's forgiveness by turning to Him in repentance? Would it matter then? If what Christians says is wrong, and you can consistently live out your life in atheistic faith positions, and if such views reflects reality, and if there are no consequences to throwing out traditional morality, then perhaps it does not matter. In fact if orthodox Christian teachings are wrong, it probably doesn't matter even if you are not sincere.

If this life is all there is, and if you can get away with it, why not rape and murder pillage and get and stay drunk, and take and steal and kill off all your enemies? What does it matter if you can get away with it? If you die and that's it, what does it matter indeed? But if you are wrong, and you have fallen for lies, and you do have to stand before God and give an account of every idle word, then it does matter. As I say I believe that we can be sincerely wrong, but sincerely wrong is still wrong. In the world that I live in, there is such a thing as reality, and the reality is that choices have consequences, and wrong choices have unwanted consequences! Even if I did not believe what I believe about God, I do not think I would have enough faith to believe that it does not matter! To me it sounds far too much like a rationalization to do what I want to do and to heck with the consequences. But these things are surely too important not to thoroughly check them out!

Some will ask “Are you trying to scare me into heaven.” And if this is you, I understand that this can feel like a huge guilt trip is being laid on you. Unfortunately I don't doubt that some of it is, as not everything that calls itself Christian is Christian. But for those of us who have found a tangible reality and peace and joy and hope in our relationship with God through Christ, is it a passion to share what is too good to keep to ourselves even in the here and now, let alone what is promised in eternity (pleasures for evermore!).

I though we weren’t supposed to judge!

The saying in the title to this post is a reference to the Scripture “Judge not, that you be not judged” spoken by Christ in the gospels. I have heard this often thrown back on us Christians, and sometimes the application is valid, and sometimes it is not. Properly understood and applied, this a good and appropriate principle for both those inside and those outside the faith. It is not, however, always properly applied. It is applicable in the context of our discussion last day of our interaction with other cultures in this sense: It is wrong to come down harshly and judgmentally on isolated indigenous cultures. Christians are also wrong when they come across as self righteous and judgmental. This is not Christ like. In fact it is the very opposite, for in John 3:17 we read “God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” Self righteous and judgmental attitudes are wrong, and Christ's teaching warns that those who exhibit such attitudes will be judged in the same way they judge others. If we want mercy, we need to show mercy. We can't expect to have mercy for ourselves and judgement for the other buddy. It doesn't work that way!

But we need to ask if Christ meant (as some people interpret this as saying) that we should never say that anything is wrong, that we should simply remain quiet “butting out” of everything? In saying “judge not that you be not judged” was Christ agreeing with the “who are we to say this or that is wrong” philosophy? Was He was saying we should turn a blind eye to ongoing injustice and oppression, to man's inhumanity to man? And as last day's post shows some do advocate this with their “no intervention” stand with regards to other cultures. I can hear them asking “Well, we're not supposed to judge, right?” as a justification for their stand.

In order to see that this is not what Christ was advocating, all we need to do is to look at what he did in the Temple to those who were cheating the common people. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves, and drove them from the Temple. They were cheating the people as Christ makes clear when He says “You have made it (the Temple) it into a den of thieves.” No, Christ was not unmoved in the presence of injustice. So then if this is not what He meant then what exactly did He mean?

In Biblical interpretation it is important not to single out only part of a teaching. We are in danger of doing this when we pick out just a single verse on a subject. We will not fully appreciate the wisdom of what the Scriptures teach if we do this. Often there are other verses that throw light on what a particular verse means. In this case it is important to consider another of Christ's sayings that has to do with judgement. I am thinking of another teaching of Christ in the passaage “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24). We need to look at both sayings. The context of this second verse is that the religious people in the Temple were criticizing Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. We are all fond of imposing rules on others, and Jesus was saying that we need to look past some of our rules at times and make a reflective evaluation of what is really going on.

In last day's post I was asking “whatever happened to wisdom, to sound judgement, to thoughtful consideration of the issues?” It would not be reflective wisdom to claim that murder is not wrong, even if a culture does not consider certain instances of it to be murder! “Ethnic cleansing” is not considered murder by those perpetrating it, but I still want to call that murder even if they don't! In his rationalization of the murder of six million Jews, Hitler referred to the Jews as “Untermenchen” (under people). He was saying Jews were not really human, so it is alright to kill them. We do need to say that these things are wrong. I am not saying we should be self righteous here, but sound and thoughtful consideration would surely lead us to say that certain things are simply wrong. If a murderer in a court of law told the judge “You're not supposed to judge, so but out” we would laugh at him. “Nice try buddy, but you can forget that!”

Part of the problem here is that words are so inadequate. In the English language the same word can have different meanings. We can usually determine the meaning from the context. For example right can be the opposite of wrong, or the opposite of left. I am fond of telling my English relatives that in Canada we drive on the right, and you English drive on the wrong side of the road :-). The word judge similarly has two meanings. In the sense that Jesus means it in the first of the two quotations He is talking about a judgmental, self righteous attitude and warning that if that is you, watch out because you will be judged the same way. In the second quotation He is talking about making sound, thoughtful and just evaluations as the situation warrants.

So the meaning of judge in the 'judge not' quotation is about not having a judgmental attitude that carries with it self righteous condemnation, and the command to judge justly has to do with having a humble gentle, thoughtful and insightful discernment that something may be right or wrong. An example of this latter attitude would be when we tell little Johnny that is it wrong to take a toy that does not belong to him. This attitude is needed both inside and outside the Church. Too often Christians (those who are, and those who only say they are) major only on rules and regulations and finish up condemning those who do not follow them. But this is to live under the law, not under grace. As always Jesus is the model here. In particular He does not condemn the woman caught in adultery, but He does tell her that she should go and sin no more (John 8:2-11). In other words He speaks the truth in love, and He judges (as in discerning right and wrong) righteously and deals with others with grace, mercy and truth. His example and teaching very much reflects that God prefers mercy to judgment, and that when we follow Him, mercy triumphs over judgment!

The instructions for us Christians to deal with moral issues within Christian community are very different from the way we are told to deal with the very same issues outside of our communities. The NIV of 1 Corinthians 5:12 reads “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?” The Scripture is specific about the type of “outside” issue that is being talked about here. In particular in verse 11 Paul lists sexually immorality, covetousness, extortion and idolatry. So here is an explicit instruction to Christians not to judge the World (judge - as in self righteous condemnation) on these issues. Unfortunately not all Christians are obedient on this one! On the other hand, I think that it is important to say that Paul is not taking here about (as in including) issues such as murder or rape or infanticide.

To answer the question “are we to judge those inside,” from the last Scripture, the answer is yes, and Galatians 6:1 tells us which of the two “judgements” we are talking about here. It reads “Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted.” So yes we are to judge within the community, but it is to be done gently and with humility. Please note "humility" here is not the false humility of thinking that we must not even say that something is wrong. If that were the case, we could not even discern that someone was caught in a sin.

To sum it up in just a few words then. Neither the Christian not the one who has no such profession should judge in the sense of being self righteous and judgmental. On the other hand this does not mean we should not discern right from wrong, nor that we should ignore human rights violations and the like (I am thinking of Christ in the Temple). Christians are called to a higher morality than we should expect the World to follow. The motivation for the Christian for not doing these things is that they damage our relationship with God, and cut us off from the life of the Spirit. On the other hand Christians are specifically told not to judge the World on these issues, that is not our job! Notwithstanding this, the Scriptures are very clear on how God feels about injustice, oppression and man's inhumanity to man. Christ did not turn a blind eye to these things and neither should we!

I believe that if we properly understand the Scriptures, we would run to them because not only are the things that Scriptures teach good and right and proper, they are smart! So let me invite you to judge (discern) the Scriptures discussed here with sound and just judgement (discernment).

Why won't Christians leave those happy people alone? Issues of cultural relativism

In September of 2008 ABC's Nightline reported a furor over the issue of infanticide that still exists among some of the remote, and not so remote, indigenous tribes in Brazil (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=5861778&page=1#.UC-KIUR35TV). This particular furor erupted in the aftermath of the rescue of a young girl Hakani by an older brother who carried her out of the jungle on his back. Hakani is a member of the Suruwaha Indian tribe, who looked normal when she was born, but when she was 2 she could not walk or talk. The tribe apparently thought she therefore had a monkey's soul, not a child's soul.

Hakani was subsequently adopted by the Suzukis, Christian linguists, who say that when they first saw Hakani she was 5 years old, but weighed only 15 pounds and had scars all over her body. They tell that her parents had committed suicide because they could not bring themselves to kill her. This meant that Hakani was not only alone, but also that she suffered all kinds of physical and emotional abuse for more than three years. It was at that time, the Suzukis recall, that they finally received permission to bring her out of the tribe. She got medical treatment, and learned not only how to walk and talk, but also how to read and write. They report that she is now a beautiful and happy girl, and a fine little artist.

Hakani’s name means smile, and smile shes does as can be seen in her picture http://voiceforlifewhoweare.blogspot.ca/ on the Suzukis' website. The following quotations from the Suzukis are taken directly from that site. “Hakani has inspired her own people to take a stand against their ancient tribal tradition of infanticide. In turn, the courage of these Indians has inspired my husband and me to launch a national movement in Brazil called ATINI which means 'voice for life,' dedicated to saving precious Indigenous children who are at risk of being killed for cultural reasons.”

“More than 20 years of working with the Suruwahara Indians in the Amazon Basin of Brazil have made an impact on our lives. We have not only learned their language and culture, but have come to a point where we are as much a part of their lives and history as they are of ours. We have eaten monkey brains with them, and they have painted our bodies with their beautiful paintings.”

“Over these years we have cried a lot. We have cried with the mothers that were forced by cultural tradition to abandon their children in the jungle. We have cried with the young single girls who got pregnant and had to watch their fathers kill the babies with bow an arrow. We mourned the death of a mother and father who preferred to commit suicide instead of killing their two sick children. We then learned that one of this couple’s children, a five year old boy, was buried alive by an older brother. He was killed because he was not able to walk or talk.”

Among other things, the remoteness of some of these tribes makes it hard to accurately determine the number of infanticides in Brazil. Official records do not exist, and the statistics are disputed, but ATINI reports that in one tribe alone (the Xingu tribe) close to 30 children are buried alive every year. Reporting on a case similar to that of Hakani, the São Paulo Newspaper Folha (April 06, 2008) informs us that infanticide is practiced in about 20 from more than 200 ethnic groups in Brazil, and that this means the death of twins, children of single mothers and children with mental or physical deficiencies. The same article (http://vozpelavida-midia.blogspot.ca/2008/04/so-paulo-folha-newspaper-tackles.html) chronicles the clash between the view of many Anthropologists who argue that infanticide is a part of the indigenous culture and should therefore not be interfered with, and others who maintain (in accordance with international law to which Brazil subscribes) that the rights of the child should be paramount.

The issue is highly controversial. Anthropologist Mércio Pereira Gomes, who was president of FUNAI (National Foundation of the Indian) during the first four years of Lula’s government, admits that he suffered "a very big dilemma” in the department, on the subject of infanticide. As a citizen, he is against the practice, but as an anthropologist and president of the department, he is against intervention. Another Anthropologist Ricardo Verdum, of INESC (Institute of Socioeconomic Studies), in responding to a draft law to deal with the issue, said that he finds the draft law to be interfering in the free will of the Indians, and that "To want to impose a law is aggressive, it is violence." The irony of his words clearly escapes him!

According to the Folha article Brazil, in 1990, had already constituted the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognizes "that every child is entitled to life," and that the signatory countries must adopt “all the effective and appropriate measures” to abolish practices that are harmful to a child's health and well-being. In the same article we read “In 2004, the Brazilian government declared, through presidential ordinance, Convention 169 of ILO (International Labor Association), that determines that indigenous and tribal people should be entitled to conserve their customs and own institutions, as long as they are not incompatible with the defined fundamental rights under the national judicial system nor with the internationally recognized human rights."

It seems to me that the intentions of this law and ordinance are balanced and honourable. However the Government has been slow to implement these things. No one should deny that Anthropologists have a point when they condemn the insensitivity of one culture in arbitrarily imposing it's norms, values and customs on another. What is clear to me is that in the past we Christians failed in terms of cultural sensitivity. We were wrong to do that. Dressing up natives in Africa in shirt and tie was not only insensitive to the culture, it was ridiculous. It was however part of the ignorance of the times, and missionaries were not, by a long shot, the only ones who were culturally insensitive during those earlier days (witness British colonialism in India). And I have to say that I hope I won't be judged by more refined future sensibilities of which I, in my ignorance, am currently unaware. C.S. Lewis put the label “chronological snobbery” on the attitude that acts as though we are so much better than our ancestors. I like the way that the English poet Alexander Pope put it, “We think our fathers fools, so wise we grow. Our wiser sons, no doubt, will think us so.” And labelling our fathers foolish is exactly what is happening as we re-interpret history in view of our modern sensibilities when, in the Words of Dinesh D’Souza, we “make passed pale patriarchs ('dead white males') into whipping boys as we condemn colonialism or favour multicultural curricula over a Western 'cultural canon' at our universities” (Dinesh D’Souza, Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (New York: Free Press, 1991).

So yes, Anthropologists are certainly right when they condemn the wholesale overriding of cultural norms and values. But Cultural Anthropology is surely wrong, when it allows it's doctrine of cultural sensitivity to dismiss out of hand human rights violations with their tremendous accompanying sufferings. As I have presented it, it should be clear that there is truth on both sides, unfortunately the two sides are not getting equal air time in the atmosphere that seems to be so heavily loaded in favour of political correctness.

According to the Nightline report the Brazilian government has tried to discourage infanticide, but the Department of Indian Affairs does not have a policy that requires action to stop it from happening. In an interview in the Brazilian capital, Antenor Vaz of the Department of Indian Affairs is quoted as saying "We are not defending death. Very much to the contrary, we are defending the cultural survival of a people." The report indicates that it is a view shared by some activists. In particular is it shared by Fiona Watson of Survival International, a group that defends the rights of native tribes all over the world. Watson is quoted as saying "I'm not going to defend infanticide. But I think you have to understand, that in the context of Indian culture, it's not considered murder.” She says "I have seen that, where a once proud people end up subdued, dependent upon people, because they have lost their beliefs."

It is undeniable that in the past and even now that “once proud people end up subdued, and dependent upon people,” and cultural Anthropology certainly has a role to play in trying to stop that happening. But whatever happened to wisdom, to sound judgement, to thoughtful consideration of the issues? The view of some Anthropologists seems to be “leave them alone,” in a 'one shoe fits all' approach to this issue. To be sure not everything in Western culture is good. But is it not the essence of community that we share what is good and learn from others what is not so good. Does it not make sense to seek to “separate the precious from the vile,” and in order to do that, should we not interact with sensitivity and respect for each other? Must we throw out the baby with the bath water? Are those who are so opposed to Western values opposed to those elements of it to which we surly all agree are good? I am thinking here, for example, of the teachings of Christ that we should love one another in the sacrificial way that He loved us? Are Christian teaching about love, respect and honour all wrong, and unworthy to be shared?

And do we really think in the ever diminishing size of our world, that these tribes will for ever remain untouched by outside influences? Are we so naive to be unaware that any contact at all (even so called “neutral” observation) influences these cultures. And the myth that we can ever be neutral raises its ugly head again here. The Suzukis “cried with the mothers that were forced by cultural tradition to abandon their children in the jungle.” What would Watson and those of like faith in the absolute virtue of non-intervention do? Would they weep but not be willing to help? Would they stoically keep their distance and refuse basic human kindness lest their beliefs influence these “happy” people? And would this really be neutral, or would it be better described as compassionless apathy. Or perhaps we would prefer the “first contact” to be by the exploitative greed of multinational companies, who do things like giving out free baby formula or the equivalent, until the natural milk dries up and then, having created a market where there none existed, turn round and sell their formula to them?

Certainly Western culture is not all good, and certainly we have made mistakes in the past, but can we not learn from our mistakes as part of our own separating the precious from the vile? And is not better for first contact to be made by the humble, respectful persistent loving gentleness displayed by the likes of the Suzukis, who feel strongly about preserving indigenous language, music, art, and traditional ways? Do we not need to consider what are the alternatives, and especially the above mentioned default? If imposing law is “violence,” why cannot Anthropologists and the Government come along side ATINI with its sensitivity to Indian culture, and which also works with the Indians themselves in the advocacy of indigenous children's rights. We need to ask why it is a non governmental organization such as ATINI that has spearheaded support for those, from within the indigenous communities, who want the kind of change ATINI was inspired by them to work for.

This “who are we (or you) to say that another culture is wrong” philosophy is right to be sensitive to innocent traditions and cultural norms. But it is not a virtuous neutrality, nor is it true humility when it refuses on principle to alleviate untold suffering and human rights abuses. Is it wrong to replace the belief that twins are in and of themselves somehow evil, with the belief that this is not the case, and that the rights of the child should be paramount? And what about the Indian perspective on all of this? In one eye opening and particularly disturbing part of the response to the accusations against them contained in the Nighline article, the Suzukis say “Although representatives from different organizations were able to share their perspectives, this story was ultimately about the tribes. Indigenous leaders came to Brasilia to meet with you -- some of them having traveled over 40 hours from their tribes -- but you excluded their statements from your story. The most important perspective -- of the Indians themselves -- was missed entirely” (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=6788207&page=1#.UC-JX0R35TU).

The Suzukis expected better of the media, so do I! We should in fact demand it!

Wrong for you right for me: The problems of moral relativity

Murder may be wrong for you my brother, but it's right for me. In fact I think it is a jolly good thing. I have found it to be a very effective way of dealing with all kinds of annoying people. The main thing is that I don't get caught :-). Yes I am joking, just in case you had doubts that I am.

Please do not misunderstand me here, there is absolutely no question in my mind that in matters of right and wrong, not everything is either black or white. For the recovering alcoholic just one drink is wrong. However (in spite of the stand of some Christians) neither I nor the Bible condemn the drinking of alcoholic beverages period. The Biblical admonition is not to be drunk with wine, it is not to abstain absolutely. Some Christians in trying to say that it does mean that, have translated “wine” as “grape juice,” but why we would need to be warned not to get drunk on grape juice escapes me! No, not everything is black and white, but on the other hand back and white do exist, murder, rape, child abuse and widow burning are all not only wrong, they are evil!

The existence of evil seems to me to be self evident, but it goes completely against the grain of our modern thinking where moral relativism rules. This philosophy can, I think, be summed up in the phrase “It's all relative,” or to put this another way there are no absolutes, or there is no such thing as right and wrong. It is the “all” part of 'it's all relative,' that that sticks in my craw. In fact the statement “All truth is relative” is self contradictory, since it is itself an absolute statement. This can be seen by asking “Is absolutely all truth relative?” No doubt some will answer “But we mustn’t judge right? We need to be fair and neutral right?” I will deal with “we must” not judge later. But concerning being fair, how fair is it to victims of rape or child abuse, to say that these things are not wrong?

In a 2002 column Fox News analyst Bill O'Reilly asked "Why is it wrong to be right?" In talking about American college professors who currently teach that there is no such thing as right and wrong he says “they treat the questions of good and evil as relative to 'individual values and cultural diversity'." The problem with this, according to O'Reilly, is that "they see the world not as it is, but as they want it to be. And annoying questions about moral absolutes and unacceptable behaviour are usually left unanswered." I too could wish that there was no such thing as evil in the World, but it seems to me to be wrong to close our eyes to the suffering that flows out of the reality of man's inhumanity to man.

So pervasive and successful is the doctrine of moral relativity that one Canadian professor tells of his inability to get his class to say that female genital mutilation of non-consenting girls is wrong. According to Wikipedia “Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision, is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as 'all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.' FGM is typically carried out on girls from a few days old to puberty. It may take place in a hospital, but is usually performed, without anesthesia, by a traditional circumciser using a knife, razor, or scissors. According to the WHO, it is practiced in 28 countries in western, eastern, and north-eastern Africa, in parts of the Middle East, and within some immigrant communities in Europe, North America, and Australasia."

Or what about the picture that still haunts me, of the 18 year old Afghan woman Aisha, whose mutilated face appeared on the front cover of a 2010 issue of Time magazine. It is reported that “With her clear skin and dark, flowing hair, 18-year-old Aisha would ordinarily have stood out from a crowd because of her beauty. But now, tragically, the young woman is eye-catching for a horrifically different reason. Aisha is a victim of Taliban brutality, her nose and ears barbarically hacked off by her own husband in a warped punishment for attempting to flee her cruel in-laws.” (Google "Taliban nose cut off").

Are we not willing to condemn such action? If we are not, I want to suggest that it is only because we are so far removed from such situations that it really does not affect us emotionally. This is rather like modern warfare, where we press buttons distantly removed from the front, and in so doing fail to see up close and personal, the carnage caused by our antiseptic button pushing. I want to suggest that those who refuse to condemn such actions as that cited above by the Taliban, because their philosophy teaches that “there is no such thing as right and wrong,” would jolly well change their minds if these things were happening to their daughter, or to their sister!

If what I have just said does not move you, I doubt that anything I say will make any sense to you. But though we will need to ask where it comes from, we humans do seem to have this built in “yuck factor,” which tells us clearly that these things are wrong. And we should not ignore such basic moral intuitions, even if we may need to debate and adjust or refine them. They are, as atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen calls them, “bedrock”: He says “It is more reasonable to believe such elemental things [as wife-beating and child abuse] to be evil than to believe any skeptical theory that tells us we cannot know or reasonably believe any of these things to be evil. …” (Kai Nielsen, Ethics Without God, rev. ed. (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1990), 10,11).

Certainly we will not be able to right every wrong. For the man and woman of compassion there are, and perhaps always will be, a myriad of causes deserving of our attention, energy and action, and we are all, all too finite. We do need a lot of wisdom to know when, where and how to use our limited resources. We also do not want to be starting wars left, right and centre. But to have followed moral relativity to its logical conclusion during the second World war, would have been to advocate, on principle, a “who are we to intervene” attitude in the face of the murder of six million Jews. To me this would not have been a virtuous neutrality, it would be a compassionless apathy displaying false humility! Unfortunately, as I will show in a later post, I am not just talking here about hypothetical possibilities.

To be sure cultural anthropology (which by and large has swallowed whole the philosophy of moral relativity) has a point about the need to exhibit a certain humility and sensitivity towards the culture and values of others. However I am much more inclined, with the Bible, to condemn as evil, what at times amounts to compassionless apathy. The Bible puts it this way “He who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin!” Is it not true that “all that need to happen for evil to flourish, is for good men (and women) to do nothing”? Do we really want to remain “neutral” in the face of man's inhumanity to man? Let's make no mistake about it, this is not only the logical, in some cases it is the actual, stance of those who hold to moral relativity!