"ABSOLUTELY"

One of the comments to an earlier posting indicated that 'relative truth' is the perceived enemy of many holding to a high view of Scripture. This has been a major point of discussion for the July 5th entry, and because of this I want to take a moment or two and unpack the 'moral relativism' discussion. This issue really centers around two questions. First, what is the source of my moral conviction (from what authority do I derive my ethic?). Second, there's the question of how I digest that authority and apply it to my life.

What is the source of my moral conviction?

A moral relativist is so called because there is no aboslute transcendent authority outside of him/herself. I may alternately make pleasure, economic expediency, a sense of justice, and the desires of the masses my 'highest authority' in any given moment. But in such a paradigm I, the one affirming or rejecting the authority source, become the authority. (This, incidentally, is part of the larger discussion in Romans 1. Paul is pointing out that when we reject the authority revealed to us in God the Father and in Christ, we are left to a self-derived ethic and authority).

Ultimately, it is unacceptable for anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ to also claim any authority other than Christ. We are under His Lordship. He and His Word are the absolute authorities in our lives.

How do I digest that authority and apply it to my life?

The difficulty that we face: all who claim this absolute authority don't agree on how we both interpret and apply it. And I think right here is where there is a real divide between modernity and post-modernity. The modernist is tempted to quickly come to fixed and conclusive interpretations/applications of God's revelation and fight for the protection of that interpretation.

The post-modernist resists such quick conclusions and dogmatic defenses, having seen the church be forced to change it's position too often (on matters ranging from service in the military, to whether Christians can act in plays, to slavery, to dietary laws, to whether an organ is an acceptable instrument for Christians to listen too, as it isn't listed in the Bible anywhere {and don't even think about getting that group started on the matter of drums!}). But the danger for the post-modernist is, I believe, a tendency towards holding convictions so loosely that they fail to act.

I would offer, as I stated on Sunday, a middle path. We need to consider our convictions carefully and hold them actively, being willing to both articulate and act on them, believing that Christ is teaching and shaping us and calling us not only to belief, but to action. Without action, we have no real beliefs. But we need to hold these convictions, particularly in divisive ethical matters, in the context of both love and humility, recognizing that while we are committed to the absolute authority of Christ, we are not omniscient, and therefore cannot claim to know with aboslute certainty, the mind of Christ on all matters. This will create an environment and community where there can be the safety of ongoing dialogue without the 'epistimological nihilism', or 'ethical squishiness' (choose your favorite term), that characterize deeper strands of post-modernism. And hopefully the arrogant certitude of modernity will also be lacking.

This will be, I believe and pray, the best environment for both truth and healthy conviction/certitude to rise to the surface, as was the case throughout the book of Acts where people wrestled with how to live out convictions as a community submitted to the Lordship of Christ.