ABC just opened a series on Nightline on whether the 10 Commandments are relevant in today's world.
The first show was on adultery (No 7). The show was very well done in terms of covering the spectrum of views. Ed Young of Dallas was the key pastor. Another participant in the panel headed up a sexual addiction ministry having come out of the addiction himself. He was very articulate. On the other side (the nature of such shows), a woman in an open marriage with her husband and another women (as well as a 10 year old child whim she seemed to have shielded from her arrangement) and a man who runs a cite that helps people cheat on their marriage. The conversation also included, significantly, children of broken homes who discussed the pain of what a broken marriage does to them. Next up: The Sabbath and Chick-Fil-A.
If the first show is any indication, these shows will be a good look at the way in which people view the commandments and reflect (or do not reflect) on them today. I will be keeping an eye on this series as it looks to be worth the time. Credit should go to ABC for making people ponder the question of whether should moral standards are relevant for us today.
I thought Ed young did well but missed a couple of opportunities which were delivered on a silver platter for sharing a better Biblical worldview. For instance the question of why doesn't God want us to improve from the adult website guy, Noel.
I actually thought that Jonathon was a better communicator than Pastor Ed in the debate when he had opportunity to speak.
I thought the debate was well done and that the church did GREAT at representing Christianity.
The Sabbath/Chic-Fil-A story was little better than a good advertisement IMO.
Blessings,
Randy
Randy:
I missed the Sabbath show last night. I agree on your response to the panelists on the night before. My own take, however, is that in a discussion like this you want to alternate between presenting a biblical worldview and also showing that the reason God has a commandment like this is because of the destruction it brings to relationships (Just ask the children, which they did). I thought Ed Young introduced that argument too late-- it is a powerful one to most people (i.e., any who have experienced the pain divorce brings and that is most people today who know someone who has gone through that experience)
dlb
Dr. Bock,
I agree with you.
I have found that the series started with a bang but is merely fizzling after such a promising beginning.
As I said, the sabbath show was merely a "Chik-Fil-A" commercial. Last night was a story on a man who stopped a robbery by killing 2 of the 4 suspects. So allusion was made to the 6th commandment while really referencing the 8th commandment and announcing that hardly anyone really pays attention to it. It was nothing more than a news story without really digging in as they did with the debate.
I'll watch the rest but my expectations have lowered dramatically.
Randy
Dr. Bock,
You wrote: "Credit should go to ABC for making people ponder the question of whether moral standards are relevant for us today."
I have not seen this show but hope to catch the next episodes. Thanks for alerting us to this. My question deals with your final comment. Is this show really discussing whether or not moral standards are relevant today??? In my wildest imagination I can not even conceive of a world in which moral standards are not intuitively known. Can you help me understand how such a topic (assuming I'm understanding you correctly) could be taken seriously in today's world. In a sense, this show could not have aired the day after 9-11 or any school shooting, right?
Second, what do you think of the Argument that there can be no moral absolutes without a God? (Most notably argued by Wm Lane Craig, as far as I know)
That is the topic they say they are treating and to the extent it discusses how people deal with these commandments it does raise the topic. It is not an academic discussion nor a technical one, but one that works through personal stories and conversation. Still, not the normal TV stuff.
My position is that it is hard to have a sense of moral absolutes without God. One can construct such a position without God. But it is harder to hold in that in the end our construct becomes ours and it only holds to the extent we value the idea of a common moral good.
Would it be relevenat to say that the Genesis story is a telling of the origin of human civilazation, and that the Ten Commandments are guidelines by which man was civilized, that they were common to Fertile Crescentians and further distilled by a people who called by a higher divine source of truth took these truths, which were certainly altruistic, and applied them to themselves in a completely new way, reflecting their special relationship with haShem?
Dr. Bock,
In a sense, the question of morality seems to be somewhat subjective in nature. The idea of what you refer to as "moral absolutes" seems to me to be something that can only be understood in the sense of the "golden rule" that Jesus spoke about, that we are not to do unto others what we would not want done to us. This may be the only "intuitive" sense of morality that all people will be accountable to before God, or at least the starting place that will apply to all people in the human race. Things do get a bit complicated, in terms of the concept of absolute right and wrong across the board. People who have the privilege of having God's Word, are not even in full agreement on some of the questions of right and wrong.
There seems to be a consensus amongst a majority in the Christian church, that they are in agreement on the concept of moral absolutes. The belief also possesses a sense of absolute "correctness" in their sentiments on the issues of humanity, rather than a balance and openness to people who hold other views. We see this in the political pursuits of what many would consider "mainstream" Christianity.
The Ten Commandments are morally relevant, some of which only speak to believers, nearly all of which are written on the heart, and were also referred to by Jesus. Strict Sabbath laws are obsolete for Christians today, in favor of a personal faith towards God. "Religion" decides through popular consensus how to interpret the statements in the Bible--a "relationship" with God functions in a more independent way in regards to the Scriptures. Independent of human approval that is.
Case in point: The statement of Christ in Matthew 5:32, regarding remarriage after divorce, is not the tradition or practice of mainstream Christianity, though the common denominator of "adultery" is addressed in the T.C.--while the interpretation of the addresses of same-sex relations--which many would agree was not addressed in an inherent sense, but was context-related--is a "moral absolute" to this segment of the body of Christ. Hmmm.
Only God knows if this belief of many in the church is based solely on a biblical commitment, with integrity and consistency, or more of a personal bias. It is an important comparison for those who view the issues of Christianity honestly and objectively. In regards to "moral absolutes," it is clear that there is a cause for question on the issue of remarriage after divorce outside of biblical parameters, and a consideration to what God would want for people in life. It is an issue of the spirit vs. the letter of the law in my view. With remarriage after divorce not sanctioned in the Bible, this is, by necessity, something that is embraced based on one's conscience and personal relationship with God, much like the issue that touches the lives of gay people. The commandment of Jesus Christ: Love God above all else, and love your neighbor as yourself.
Thanks for your reply Dr. Bock. One of your commenters seemed to feel that the question of morality is completely intuitive, and that it is somewhat absurd to even discuss the relevancy of the Ten Commandments. That is why I mentioned the Golden Rule, to which all people will be accountable before God. I presume this is the "intuition" that he/she was referring to. God stated that He has written His law on the hearts of people. (Hebrews 8:10; Romans 2:14-16) The Bible states that where there was no law, there was no imputing of sin. His law is on the heart, intuitively in the minds of people, and we will be accountable to God for all that we have done or not done, with or without exposure to the T.C., even for those who do not have the gospel. The discussion is about morality, but the Bible is also clear that people will be accountable to God in terms of recognizing His existence, and our inadequacy without Him.
So all that I am saying is that some things are quite absolute, even without a reading of the laws of Scripture. Everyone knows intuitively that it is wrong to steal, murder, slander someone, be unfaithful to one's spouse, dishonor parents, wreak havoc on society, etc. The Bible is clear that it is possible to sear the conscience, by ignoring it and lying to oneself, in which case the conscience doesn't function anymore. Obviously, accountability to God will still be there.
What we have in the Bible, is an invitation to know God personally. We have the truth of His gospel of salvation and eternal life, through the forgiveness of sins, and through a relationship with His Son Jesus Christ. Believers bear witness to Him to those who do not know Him. The Holy Spirit bears witness to this truth, for whoever opens their heart to Him.
What we also have in Scripture, is the illumination of all that is right and all that is wrong. It is a gift to have this light, not a curse because is raises our accountability to His will. His standards are high for His people, possibly in a way that is not written on the hearts of unbelievers, such as regarding fornication. Believers know that Jesus condemned fornication, when He stated that foods do not defile the man (which was contrary to the Law, and part of the new covenant), but what proceeds from the heart is what defiles the man, e.g. fornication. He also explicitly condemned looking upon a woman with lust, and our porn-filled society is ridden with this sin, which is corrupting to the soul. I think many Christians have fallen prey to this also. We are blessed to have His laws and His words, because the faithful will inherit His kingdom.
In regards to moral absolutes, without the Scriptures are unbelievers accountable to divorce and remarriage laws? It is to believers that these statements of Jesus have been given. I don't think you would disagree with this. There is some disagreement in the family of believers about what He desires for the person whose marriage has failed hopelessly, but I think it is clear that remarriage is seen to be approved by God, and is the norm.
All in all, I merely wanted to make the point that there seems to be some kind of conspiracy in regards to just how simple it is to have a lock on the truths of God. There are some gray areas, and we are accountable as individuals in regards to what is written on the heart. I'm sure that all facts and evidence will be taken into consideration in God's judgment. I believe there will be no basis, for example, for anyone to claim that a commandment against fornication is legalistic, considering that it is serving the flesh, it bears bad fruits, and considering that Jesus condemned this.
As a gay believer, I am convinced that "fornication" is to be looked upon with regard to the spirit v.s. the letter of the law. A life-partnership is not fornication, simply because the law of the land does not recognize this as marriage. God is a God of the heart. He does not judge based on appearance. It is a certain type of godless spirit, including a hatred for God, that was addressed in the Bible. This is a biological reality, not a rebellious lifestyle, such as lustfulness.
I wanted to highlight the fact that so many Christians want to have it both ways. Remarriage is approved by God and is not immorality, despite the words of Christ, while it is very easy to require that the gay person live with a rigid take on the Scriptures, and either engage in what they do not desire, because they are not heterosexual, or be alone for life. I think many Christians have adopted an understanding and accepting attitude, and many are engaging in hypocrisy, because they have the approval of the larger church in doing so. The Bible has its complexities in regards to law, as seen in the words regarding remarriage, but I believe God will be looking for consistency and integrity in His people, regardless of their ultimate belief.
I know some people will want to scroll through anything that I have written, but it is only God's Word that I am speaking about, the Christian faith, and a reality of nature. I'm not trying to renew this debate, but I felt that I wanted to address the concept of moral absolutes, biblical correctness, double standards in the church, and the heart of a kind and giving God, who sees the heart and knows His own.
I went ahead and included the link, not to promote my book on your blog, but because it speaks a little further for anyone who wants to read my website.
Post new comment