Non-Specific Specific Morality
Updated: Nov 16
“From our earliest days our conscience cries out to us the knowledge of our guilt, shortcomings, and misbehaviors. In other words, our conscience communicates our sinfulness.”
This is the essence Mr. Mohler gives human life, a sad sense of internal awareness of inferiority and shame. Leaving a tortured, imperfect, Stockholm syndrome, victim mentality behind I’ve made a few changes…
“From our earliest days our conscience cries out to us the knowledge of our love, intellect, and selfless behavior. In other words, our conscience communicates our empathy.”
The article in question… http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/04/08/moralism-is-not-the-gospel-but-many-christians-think-it-is/
I have always had a problem with the concept of morality derived from a god that needs an ultimate reprisal to, you know, make sure you don’t waiver… To me a truly loving god’s given morality would be reinforced by reward if at all, as I suspect rewards and punishments lead to a less sincere faith of subterfuge but I digress. From here on out I will be directly commenting on the article and my inability to find the “specific” or “comprehensive moral code” clearly spelled out but consistently alluded to like a phantom police officer holding a light but only shining it into my eyes.
To begin I draw attention to the parent-child relationship and its reductio ad absurdum, as asserted by the author, to a simple pro and con behavior automation leading to eternal hellfire and damnation as being a good moral person is simply not enough for salvation. This seems petty to me, a divine warrant for attention, and a cry that even if you sacrifice your life to love and the lives of others thou shalt naught be saved. Does it not echo the relationship between god and human? God the creator and parent decrees the behaviors to attain reward then details the punishments to stigmatize the unwanted?
Thus the next justification of the damnation, sinfulness, and its many forms permeating though the morals of parents, the laws of culture, and the rules of the church. Well, this is where I welcome the explanation, the clear concise descriptor of that sin, the things driving our bothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, friends and enemies into the eternal flames of mind destroying pain and torture… It gets a bit redundant doesn’t it? The constant reinforcement, the appeal to your fear… Thus I end my allusions to the mortally unknowable and unprecedentedly improbable phenomena that is hell. Moving on.
The specifics I referred to and did not find are very important here and are the basis for the grounds upon which I discredit the morality used as objective and true in this article. The following speaks of specific and comprehensive morality, the laws that justify the declaration of sin to moral and ethical people.
“Christ’s Church has no option but to teach the Word of God, and the Bible faithfully reveals the law of God and a comprehensive moral code. Christians understand that God has revealed Himself throughout creation in such a way that He has gifted all humanity with the restraining power of the law. Furthermore, He has spoken to us in His word with the gift of specific commands and comprehensive moral instruction. The faithful Church of the Lord Jesus Christ must contend for the righteousness of these commands and the grace given to us in the knowledge of what is good and what is evil. “
I wish to highlight “law of God and a comprehensive code” for quick clarification this is, as I assume the author means, the laws and codes of the gospels. But to be a true christian the whole biblical cannon is a necessary evil, much to the chagrin of the modern in comparison new testament literalists. This is a constant argument always put forth as the laws and mannerisms of the old testament are interpreted and contextualized to various meanings and levels of seriousness as well as the depictions of slavery, xenophobia, and outright homophobia in the new testament which are fair game for apologetics and denominational interpretation. This inconsistency from translation to translation paired with the disagreements by people of different seminary “doctorates” is why I fervently ask “Show me the specifics, the final draft, the uncompromising moral code implied throughout this article”.
The problem is it doesn’t exist, unless you are willing to concede the hellacious flaws in the biblical morality as well as decry the parental, cultural, and even modern church morality denounced directly in this article as insufficient in in the eyes of god. But what about empathy? The empathy innate in all of us from birth to death, the ability to place our sense of self within the reach of the very blows of our sword, at the edge of our tongue, and on the end of our pens as we imagine the feeling of a reversal of position, to which we are the subjects of our own prejudices.
This deep internal and common trait is where true morality springs forth, bringing community, family ethics, and responsibilities to a rational level. I am your equal and I can feel your pain, I can relate to your love, and I can relate to you loss. I swim in a river of sorrow for the people who die isolated by the following…
“Hell will be highly populated with those who were “raised right.” The citizens of heaven will be those who, by the sheer grace and mercy of God, are there solely because of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. “