Chapter 6

‘Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, ......and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?’ (Matt. 12:3)

Christianity is not a religion of laws, rules and regulations, but love and the responsibility to do good and avoid evil.

Morality is fundamentally about decision making and choice. As such, it is inseparable from freedom and responsibility, power, the concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, love, conscience, guilt and judgement.

Freedom and Responsibility

Freedom is the measure of power in our lives: the power to do, the power to avoid and the ability to choose how we use it. It is accompanied by an unavoidable moral responsibility. The power we have is determined by our personal abilities and the resources over which we have control. We are morally responsible for all the effects that can reasonably be connected with the way we use this power or fail to do so. At the same time, we can never be held morally accountable for anything that is beyond our ability to influence. The words of Christ, ‘From him to whom much is given, much is expected’ (Luke 12:48), carry both implications.

Responsibility is also defined or limited by other factors:

Responsibility is part of love. Above the expected basic level, it is essentially voluntary, and we have the right to choose for whom we care with the power we have.

Right and Wrong

The second major area related to morality is values. As Christ said, ‘Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also’ (Matt. 6:21). Our values are determined by our perception of what is good for us, or what we think will make us happy. They are tied to what we believe in and hope for. Christ and other great religious leaders gave us their advice, but we retain the freedom to choose and must face the outcomes of our choices. The values that dominate our lives find their expression in the more tangible objectives we pursue.

Any action we take is, logically, right or wrong only in relation to a specific objective. For example, taking tranquillisers may be right for the purpose of calming ourselves, but is wrong in relation to any side effects we wish to avoid. A desperate person might steal in order to feed his starving family. His action may be seen as right for survival but wrong for social order. Any attempt to label a certain behaviour as wrong in an absolute or ‘moral’ sense, presupposes that one objective takes priority over another, or that it is possible for anyone to dictate the values and objectives of another person. However, the notion that ‘the end justifies the means’ is equally false, because in this context, ‘justifying’ implies that we consider the means used to be completely right, regardless of any unwelcome side effects. It is based on the mistaken belief that the only outcome of importance is the one that is directly being sought.

No action is universally right or wrong, but both right and wrong for different purposes. When correctly interpreted, this is more conducive to a clear understanding of Christian morality than any legalistic or dogmatic formula. It demands a higher level of moral development, and encourages the kind of obedience which is intelligent, willing and constructive:

Christ, on careful examination, made very few rules but set many high standards, and put much emphasis on the connection between action and consequence. His teaching on morality was pragmatic and expedient in the extreme, but with an eternal view: He gave us the most essential criteria for important life decisions, namely, if anything becomes an obstacle to achieving eternal life, avoid it or remove it, and if it is effective in making progress towards the kingdom of God, then do it!

Morality and Law

Right and wrong are often seen simplistically in terms of compliance with rules. This is lazy, dogmatic, irresponsible, and most of all, ineffective. We will not achieve eternal life, or anything of great value, through inflexible, blindfolded obedience. From the moral perspective, no law is above its purpose. It is not to be obeyed simply ‘because it is the law’.

Under such conditions, a person is not acting immorally by disregarding part of the law, but may even be morally obliged to do so. As many war crimes illustrate, a person who obeys a law that does evil is just as deserving of condemnation as the one who breaks a law that was made for the good of everyone. Either way, no person can escape moral responsibility. While the ‘rule of law’ is vastly preferable to anarchy or the unlimited arbitrary use of power, it is neither sufficient nor absolute in all cases.

Most governments would welcome people to equate legality and morality, for that makes the task of law enforcement considerably easier. However, it is patently obvious that the two are not identical, and concerned citizens are constantly fighting to change laws in order to make society better. There is much that is legal and very immoral, such as business practices that exploit the disadvantaged, and there are things that are illegal but not immoral, such as failing to comply with minor regulations that have no relevance to anyone’s well-being. In the latter case, one may still have to face the consequences, but these will not come from God!

Sometimes there are insufficient means to comply with all the applicable laws, and occasionally requirements are even in conflict with one another. For this reason, any system of rules, including those which are of religious origin, must be seen in some order of importance. Here common sense and some basic legal awareness are very useful. Generally a person should try to obey the law wherever possible, except where he finds it morally imperative to do otherwise.

Good

It is naturally appropriate for the practising Christian to tie his concepts of right and wrong to good and evil. It could be said that an action was right if its outcome is good, and wrong if it leads to evil. These associations are very useful, but they sometimes overlook the subtleties involved in more difficult and complex moral situations which can lead to genuine disagreements, particularly where good and evil are mixed and not easily measurable.

A basic definition of ‘good’ is ‘whatever leads to happiness.’ Although essentially valid, this requires considerable qualification to be morally useful. The concept of good is not a simple one. Like right and wrong, it has an element of relativity, but in a different way. Right and wrong are concerned with actions in relation to objectives, whereas good and evil are concerned with outcomes or situations in relation to those who are affected.

The concept of good always begs the questions, ‘For whom?’, ‘In what way?’ and ‘For how long?’ Anything I do can have an outcome that is good for me yet make another person unhappy; good for one part of my life, such as my career, yet detrimental to another part; good for the moment, but not in terms of the eventual consequences.

Consider a person who lights a cigarette in a crowded room. The act of smoking probably relaxes him and makes him a little happier for the moment. To this extent, it is good for him now in a superficial way. The moral problem is that his smoking also affects him at a deeper level in the long-term, and risks injuring the health of those around him. In contrast, eating an orange is unlikely to have such far-reaching consequences, and a more limited view is quite adequate. Whenever the issue of ‘good’ is considered, it is essential that we take a perspective that is at least as far reaching as the foreseeable consequences of our actions.

Clearly, no human being is sufficiently knowledgeable and farsighted to guarantee that all of his actions will be good in every important respect. Nevertheless, that is the ideal to which we are directed to aspire. Once again, our condition of ignorance and human weakness places severe limitations on us, and we have an ongoing need for more enlightened advice.

Good intentions are the essential starting point, but by themselves they do not guarantee that the outcomes will be good. Without adequate knowledge and responsibility, they are lame, unreliable and potentially self defeating. We are all familiar with ‘do-gooders’ who meddle in the affairs of others without invitation, unequipped to repair the damage they do through their ignorance of the relevant circumstances. The process of doing good starts with intentions and awareness, follows through with actions and must be confirmed by the results. Love requires careful attention throughout the whole process, and is an ongoing learning experience that is often in need of guidance.

Perfection

For most people, perfection has connotations of boring saintliness and impossible aspirations. However, Christ made an interesting reference to the perfection of God. ‘He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust’. (Matt 5:45-48) The message conveyed is that God treats people well, not because of who they are, but because of who He is. He is focused on His universal values and objectives. He is not diverted by people’s offensive behaviour and does not act on the basis of irrelevant criteria. The teachings of Christ that surround this observation suggest that perfection is not a matter of unattainable extremes, but consistently appropriate orientation. The standards are high, but the principles are practical and ultimately much more effective than our short-sighted ways.

If we define personal perfection as ‘being good enough to enter the Kingdom of God’, then we can never achieve it without His support. That is hardly surprising, for despite our quest for independence, nobody has ever made significant progress in any area totally alone and unassisted. What God wants, is for us to cooperate with Him by adopting His ideals and working towards them. Some pursuit of ideals is essential to a meaningful life, and healthy societies have always encouraged people to strive for excellence.

Many people associate perfection with satisfying everything on a wish list. A woman might imagine the perfect man as having money, good looks, honesty, charm and a lot of other characteristics all combined in the same person. Unfortunately, such a list can be entirely arbitrary, and may contain several desires that are incompatible. The laws of nature cannot support inconsistencies or contradictions, and clearly many of our notions of perfection are merely figments of human imagination that have nothing to do with God’s standards.

It is also a mistake to confuse perfection with perfectionism. The latter is more of a neurosis than a virtue. It is an attempt to satisfy a multitude of self-imposed requirements in every unimportant detail, rather than to optimise the whole with the means available. Perfectionism tends to be counter-productive, often causing more vital needs to be neglected. It is said that Christ lived the perfect human life, but he was certainly not a perfectionist. He kept all the commandments and generally respected civil authority, but he did not observe every trivial custom. Christ’s perfection lay in his total dedication to his mission.

If we think of perfection on the scale of right or good, then the principles of relativity must also apply here. Being ‘perfect’ is essentially meaningless unless we specify the objectives and the criteria. It seems that even God makes choices and optimises for a purpose. There are perfect birds in the air and perfect fishes in the water, but neither is perfectly suited to live in the other environment. The pursuit of true perfection starts with knowing or choosing our primary objective and having an awareness of the present realities including our abilities, resources and limitations. We need to think in terms of effectiveness with consistent proper standards in all necessary areas, and operate with an enlightened order of priorities.

The Priorities of Love

The central importance of love in Christianity has already been highlighted in the first chapter. One may also regard it as the active ingredient in morality. Love is meaningless without freedom, and this presents the individual with decisions as to where his efforts should be focused most fruitfully and how his love should be put into practice.

The order of the greatest two Commandments makes it clear that the Christian must love God first, and then his neighbour as himself. Rather than diminishing his ability to care for himself or his fellow human beings, this order of importance generally increases his power in both areas. There are many parallels in ordinary life where placing certain values ahead of one's immediate objectives actually increases one's power to achieve those objectives, as well as adding to everyone's benefit in the longer term: An engineer must first abide by the principles of good engineering, otherwise he will rapidly cease to serve his client. For the same reason, a teacher must first know his subject, and a lawyer might have neither clients nor income if his licence is suspended for malpractice. A doctor who does not give priority to good medical practices will probably contribute more to sickness than to health. A member of an orchestra who wants to create beautiful music must first master his instrument and be obedient to the requirements of harmony. The list of analogies is endless. In almost all professional fields, a higher loyalty to the sound practice of one's vocation actually increases one's ability to serve himself and other people. So it is with loving God above all else.

Responsibility and Love of Our Neighbours

The concept of neighbour is considered more deeply in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37), where Christ indicated that being a true neighbour involves awareness and empathy. The reality is that we cannot be ‘neighbour’ in every respect to all the people we encounter. We must first be conscious of their needs before we can love any of them effectively. The parable implies that we ought to become neighbour, that is, develop compassion and take an interest in others particularly where it is obviously appropriate or we are invited to do so. We should extend our ‘selves’ to include them and love them as part of us. In areas where we recognise a need but we do not have the essential knowledge, skill or resources, we should make available what we can afford to those who are in a better position to help.

Being neighbour is a matter of degree. As people become closer and knowledge deepens, love becomes even more essential, responsibility increases and so do the potential rewards. Closeness places a person in a privileged position where any of his words, actions and omissions, as well as his accepting or judgemental attitudes, could have a greater impact on the well-being of the other person. Whilst all human beings have much in common, marriage and family are more intimate relationships, and friendship is the closest and deepest form of being neighbour. It was for good reasons that Christ said, ‘Greater love has no man than that he lays down his life for his friends’ (John 15:13).

We must remember that apart from those whose care is entrusted to us, we are not responsible for other people, but for our own actions and the consequences we can reasonably anticipate. Therefore, in loving them, we must respect their freedom to make their own decisions and determine what is in their own best interests. Thus, if a person in need asks for financial help, it is generally for him to decide what he does with it. However, where there is good reason to believe that the person will only do more harm, as is likely when we give money to an alcoholic or compulsive gambler, then we are at least partly responsible for the outcome.

Conscience

Having discussed the issues of power, freedom and responsibility, right and wrong, law as distinct from good, and the role of love, ultimately morality is about decision making. An effective moral decision is based on conscience which is unified knowledge that comes about through a process of continuous learning and on-the-spot investigation. In other words, it must be developed and continually informed. Of course, the decision should feel right at the time, but that is not enough. Conscience is not that feeling. Some of the more important aspects are:

Conscience is the internal guide that makes effective moral action possible.

Evil and Judgement

‘For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come

to the light lest his deeds should be exposed.’ (John 3:20)

Some people aspire to no ideals at all, and pursue what they see is in their own foreseeable interests, above and at the expense of everyone else. They regard it as acceptable for them to kill, steal, lie, corrupt and pervert when it serves their objectives. Others try to justify their evil doing with excuses such as:

Immorality, or ‘committing sin’, does not consist of transgressing rules, but of acting in a way that is conducive to unhappiness. It is not the breaking of the law but the doing of evil. As we pointed out earlier, a person can knowingly cause a lot of harm without contravening civil laws or breaking any of the Ten Commandments.

Committing sin encourages disunity between a person and the one whom he offends. Seen from the victim's point of view, sooner or later we learn which people are good for us, and in what relationships. Given enough time, we usually come to recognise those whose actions do us harm or injustice. Although we ought to bring it to their attention and give them unlimited opportunity to change, while they persist with that behaviour we are inclined to want some form of separation and distance. The essence of ‘judgement’, whenever the word is used negatively, is the desire to increase the ‘distance’ between ourselves and whatever offends us. This usually implies the rejection (or at least the lessening) of a certain relationship, and in extreme cases it could necessitate total separation. For example, a person whose criminal behaviour makes him unfit for normal interaction, is usually removed from society and imprisoned. A child thrown out of home by his parents, a member of a religious sect shunned by his community and a company that is ‘blacklisted’ are all, in a similar way, being ‘judged’. In practical terms, ‘judgement’ is without impact unless it diminishes or changes our interaction in some way.

The relationships we welcome, are those which we perceive from promise or experience to be good for us, namely consistent with our values and objectives. Others we tend to reject. Seen in an eternal context, the same principles apply in our relationships with the Almighty. What is good for Him will be accepted, and what is evil for Him will be separated from Him and kept at an appropriate ‘distance’. God does not judge people according to the rules they have technically kept or broken, but the good and evil for which they are responsible.

In the Gospel, the word ‘judge’ sometimes refers to labelling or drawing conclusions about a person instead of a particular action or relationship. It was possibly also in this context that Christ warned us when he said, ‘Judge not, and you shall not be judged.’ (Matt. 7:1) For example, it is reasonable to refuse to dine with a person because we find his eating habits disgusting, but that is entirely different from avoiding him altogether because we regard him as a ‘pig’. In the first instance, we judge the specific relationship or behaviour, which we have a right to do for our own well-being, whereas in the other, we are evaluating the person himself. Because of our limited knowledge, the latter can never be justified.

It is also worth pointing out here, that the rules of conduct which were handed down to us are to be seen as a source of guidance for our own benefit, and were not given to us for the purpose of passing this kind of personal judgement on others whose actions do not affect us. Civil laws must, of course, be enforced in the interests of preserving order, however, the unlawful behaviour of another does not call for us to dissociate ourselves from the person but only from his actions. In this respect, Christ, who was often criticised for associating with sinners, set an outstanding example.

Justice, Compensation, Mercy and Forgiveness

Whenever people fail in their responsibilities to us, they do us an injustice for which we are entitled to demand adequate redress. The situation will also usually result in some practical form of ‘distancing’ between us and the other person, at least until we are satisfied. However, he may find it difficult or impossible to make full restoration. Mercy is restraint in our demands for justice, and a readiness to forgive without insisting on full compensation. Indeed, we might even be content with nothing more than a sign of regret and an assurance that the offender will try to behave better in the future. Very often Christ would only say to a person, ‘Your sins are forgiven’, or ‘Go and sin no more’ (John 8:11).

If judgement (of the negative kind) entails changing a relationship so as to increase one's ‘distance’, then forgiveness does the opposite. Forgiveness is an expression of faith and hope that unity can replace division, what is damaged can be repaired, people can change, and that balance can be restored without demanding unnecessary or unaffordable compensation. Such confidence is vital if one is to maintain an environment in which learning and development can coexist with the present realities of human weakness. To put forgiveness into perspective, it is essential to distinguish between the personal relationship and the appropriate degree of trust in a specific area. This may be illustrated with an example: Suppose that a friend borrows one of your possessions and damages it by misuse. If you see that he is regretful, but cannot afford to have the item repaired, then you might not insist that he does so and still hold no bad feelings towards him. You have forgiven him personally and will continue to treat him as a friend, but you might be reluctant to entrust him with such things again until he demonstrates the capacity to use them responsibly. On the other hand, if he totally disregards the damage he has done, that attitude is very likely to sour the relationship and some personal distancing may result. Assuming that ‘separation’ was based on a well founded perception that the person had a tendency to act in a way that is harmful to our interests, forgiveness should depend on equally reasonable criteria. To forgive others to the extent of fully restoring trust without requiring that they show at least a willingness to try to change their behaviour, would be inconsistent even with the ideals of Christianity. Christ did make it clear, however, that because God's generosity in forgiving us is boundless, there ought to be no limit to the number of times we are willing to forgive other people.

Guilt and Reconciliation

Feelings of guilt have a useful and appropriate role in human life where a person behaves contrary to his informed conscience, or neglects to inform it as adequately as the circumstances warrant or permit.

Unfortunately, whenever guilt feelings are dominated by things such as

then these feelings are more conducive to psychological problems than to a good Christian life.

It must also be emphasised that while we are expected to work towards ensuring a just system for everyone in the present, guilt for other people’s mistakes and crimes is not transferable. The concept of ‘collective guilt’ is a fallacy where it attempts to assign responsibility to those who had no real power in the situation.

To the committed Christian, the avoidance of guilt lies in acting on his conscience with the best information and resources available to him at the time. While this does not absolve him of the responsibility to rectify adverse consequences, it ensures that his decisions were entirely moral and he need never reproach himself.

When there is a genuine reason to feel guilt, he should seek to be reconciled with the person against whom the transgression took place, whether it is God, another human being or himself. He must do whatever he can to repair the damage done and then put the matter behind him, making a fresh start with the added knowledge and wisdom gained from the experience. As well as being forgiven by others, he must also learn to forgive himself.

The Morality of Risk

Very few decisions are made in an environment of complete certainty, and risk-taking is not inherently immoral even when it is unnecessary. In fact, the failure to take appropriate risks can sometimes be immoral in itself. All acts of faith and trust are done in the face of some perceived uncertainty and even the most responsible loving actions can occasionally result in unfavourable outcomes. Risk-taking is an essential part of learning, development, exploration and discovery, and a vital part of life.

The moral side of voluntary exposure to risk is subject to the same principles of love and responsibility through to conscience. A few more specific guidelines may be useful:

When facing uncertainty, a person will never be condemned for a choice that has an unfortunate outcome, but only for approaching the decision in an irresponsible way or failing to take a necessary and appropriate risk.

Decisions involving even serious risks may be comparatively simple when the picture is understood; but at times we are confronted with situations that are not well defined, the options are unclear and the possible consequences and their likelihood unknown. These are the ‘grey areas’ where we do not know how to decide, and even the best available information and criteria are not discerning enough. We have no idea what Christ would do if he were in our position, and we cannot even err on the safer side, for we have no clue as to which side that is! Ideally our level of moral development should always be high enough to handle the kinds of decisions we face in our normal roles, and we have an obligation to work towards that; but if we are not ready and a decision must be made, then all we can do is pray for the right instinct and take a courageous chance.

"Journey of Insight: an Invitation to Christianity"
©Carl Jacob

Web design by Ieva Bergman