By His Grace Alone

Tonight in our National Security Decisionmaking class we discussed the Profession of Arms and Ethics.  It was a fascinating discussion with lively give and take.  Somehow I knew that as the only chaplain in the class, I was going to get drawn into the exchange one way or another.  Please realize, these are loaded terms!  And when the juices get flowing, I have a hard time keeping my big trap shut.  Of course, my interjections probably raised more questions than they answered, so I’m jotting down these thoughts to help clarify any misunderstandings.  Please understand, I mean no offense to anybody.  My illustrations are tongue-in-cheek; exaggerated for the sake of effect.  Take it for what it’s worth.

Essentially, the question was: can we make people better through moral and ethical training?  Of course, my first thought was: “Sure!  You can put lipstick on a pig too, but it’s not going to change much.”  If you want real, true, lasting moral change, you need to take a different approach, because man’s problem is more than merely behavioral.  It’s spiritual.  All of us are inwardly morally corrupt from birth.  We’re desperately sick and need medicine far beyond what mere education and training can provide.  On the one hand, we can treat the symptom (immoral behavior) through training, but we cannot cure the disease (corrupt human nature) that way. 

FAQ’S

Why train people in ethics and morality then at all? 

Without a doubt, it’s far better for a corrupt person to do good deeds rather than bad.  Few people would dispute that.  But what we fail to realize is that those “good” deeds still are not truly good!

Now here is where I distinguish between relative good and absolute good.  Relative good is our definition of one man’s good in comparison to another.  Relatively speaking, George Washington was a good man in comparison with Charles Manson.  Absolute good is goodness as God defines it.  It’s that which is truly good and acceptable to God. 

Relatively speaking, we can train people to behave better.  And some people certainly do behave better than others.  There’s no question about that.  But the person who behaves best is not necessarily a good person in the truest sense of the word.  A relatively good deed is not necessarily a truly good deed. 

From the absolute perspective, a truly good deed is one where:

• the right thing is done (obedience to God’s revealed will)
• with the right motive (for the glory of God)

So when you have a corrupt person doing good deeds, you have someone who is acting contrary to their inward nature.  I gave the example of a monkey riding a bicycle.  Surely, we can train the animal to do so, but there’s a qualitative difference here.  Most often corrupt people do good because of a threat of punishment or a promise of reward, not because it’s truly in their nature to do so. 

Even so, I don’t deny that it’s possible for corrupt people to sometimes do good deeds out of a conviction that it’s the right thing to do.  This is evidence of God’s common grace at work, giving them the impulse to do such things.  But even then, while those good deeds may be commendable by human standards, they still fall short of God’s perfect standard.  The good deed must be also be done for the right reason: God’s glory (this is where they fall short). 

So to revisit the question: can we make people better through moral and ethical training?  Answer: Sure.  By training people in ethics, we can change their behavior (relative), but not their nature (absolute).  Regardless of all our education and training programs, they’re still morally broken, and we’re training them to act against their nature.

So apart from God people can only do bad?

Unfortunately, it’s true.  That doesn’t mean that non-Christians cannot do RELATIVELY good works.  Indeed they can (start an orphanage, give to the poor, lay down their life for a worthy cause, etc.)  But even those relatively good works are tainted by the person’s inward moral corruption and are therefore unacceptable to God.  (Isaiah 64:6 “…all our righteousness is as filthy rags”; Rev 3:17–18). 

The misunderstanding lies in the fact that we’re most often thinking solely in the category of that which is relatively good.  We’re thinking merely in behavioral terms, oblivious to the fact that our worldview is entirely inconsistent.  We think we can identify good when without God there can be no such thing as true good.  There can be no absolutes whatsoever!  Without God, who defines “good”?  What is “good”?  Who are we to say that something is “good” or not?  On what authority can we speak confidently about these things?  Without God, does might make right?  Or perhaps majority rules?  Conscience?  Reason is supreme?  Maybe the golden rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules!  Without God everything is relative: your good may not be my good.  My rationale may be different from yours, and who is to say who is right?  Apart from God, absolutes do not exist.  Everything is relative and changing.

When we take a broader view, the dilemma becomes more clear: man’s problem is more than merely behavioral, it’s spiritual.

How can we become TRULY (not relatively) moral and ethical people?

Unfortunately, you can’t.  No amount of training can undo the moral corruption in our nature.  And there IS something terribly wrong with human nature.  Is there any doubt about that?  Why do we struggle to teach morality and ethics to our people?  Why is there no need to teach immorality and unethical behavior?  The answer is because immorality comes natural.  You don’t have to work at it.  It’s the default setting for human nature.  When my son was born, I had no need to carefully train him in the fine art of lying.  That came to him automatically.  On the contrary, I had to teach him to be truthful.  Does this tendency that we have all had since birth not demonstrate clearly that there is something terribly wrong with us?  What is it?  Why are we like that?  The answer:  SIN.  Each and every one of us are born with it.  There is the root of our moral corruption (Psalm 143:2 “For no one living is righteous before you.”  Romans 3:23 “We’ve all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”  Romans 11:32 “For God has consigned all to disobedience, so that he might have mercy on them all.”)

What’s the solution?

Only inner transformation by the power of God’s Spirit can enable us to do TRULY good works.  This is that experience the Bible refers to as being “born again”.  It’s when God gives new spiritual life to a corrupt sinner and puts within him not only the power to do good deeds, but the right motive as well.  This is something only God can do.  You can’t do it yourself.  (Jeremiah 13:23, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin?  Or the leopard his spots?  Then also can you do good who are accustomed to evil.”)

So are you saying that only Christians can do TRULY good works?

While all can do relative good, only those empowered by God can do true good.  They are the ones who’ve had their nature changed.  Of course, the ability to do good works doesn’t mean that they always live up to their potential.  Unfortunately, Christians often do bad (1 John 1:8–10 “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.  If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.”)  The believer’s hope is in the day when the last remnant of his sin nature is finally done away with and he is complete in Christ’s image.  Then, and only then, will the Christian be confirmed in holiness and able to do only that which is truly good.

So how do you explain an irreligious person who acts morally?

There are 2 explanations:

• God’s common grace
• or they’re acting against their nature (sort of like a monkey on a bike!)