Back to Biblical Holiness

If we want to teach our children anything important, we repeat it over and over until it becomes ingrained in their impressionable minds and in their lives. If something recurs numerous times in scripture, this may indicate an important matter God expects us to take to heart. In multiple forms, wording related to “holiness” appears well over a thousand times in the Bible, variously rendered “holy,” “holiness,” “sanctify,” “sanctification,” and “saints.” These expressions in the Greek NT, from the hágios word family, basically convey the sense of being “set apart” and “different” from anything contrary to God and his perfect will. 

God himself is holy (Isa. 6:3) and through his holy word calls upon his people to be holy (Lev. 11:44; 19:2; 20:7; 1 Pet. 1:14-16). The triune Godhead makes our sanctification/holiness possible. The God of peace sanctifies (1 Thess. 5:23), Jesus sanctifies (Heb. 13:12), the Holy Spirit sanctifies (Rom. 15:16), the Spirit-inspired word sanctifies (John 17:17, 19; Eph. 5:26). 

The Importance of Holiness

The primary focus of passages like 1 Thess. 3:13–4:8 is holiness. In view of the coming judgment, the stated goal for the reading audience is “to strengthen your hearts, blameless in holiness …” (1 Thess. 3:13).¹ Our duty or obligation is to “walk” (live, conduct ourselves) accordingly, and the ultimate aim is “to please God” (1 Thess. 4:1; cf. 2:4, 15; Rom. 8:8; 1 Cor. 7:32; 2 Cor. 5:9; Gal. 1:10).  

“For this is the will of God …” (1 Thess. 4:3a). The divine will has been revealed and is therefore knowable (cf. 1 Cor. 2:9-13; Eph. 3:3-5; 5:17). Here God’s revealed will is “your sanctification,” i.e., to be different (holy) and set apart from the sinful world. The admonition is directed to “each of you” (1 Thess. 4:4). There is an individual responsibility for everyone to “possess his own vessel,” i.e., continually and habitually control one’s own physical body² “in holiness and honor.” This is God’s purpose for his people.

To reject a life of holiness is to reject the will of God (1 Thess. 4:5-8) and the very reason Jesus suffered and died for us (Heb. 10:10). To accept anything less than a life of holiness is to reject, despise, and dishonor the sacrifice of Jesus (Heb. 10:29). The cross is proof that a holy God cannot simply ignore sin. God’s holiness has demanded that the debt be paid. “Mercy and justice meet at Calvary; love and holiness join hands at the cross” (Rex Banks). Without holiness, one cannot spend eternity with the Lord (Heb. 12:14). One cannot be a Christian, go to heaven, or be with God unless one submits to the biblical pattern of holy living.

The Process of Holiness

Sanctification begins with our initial obedience to the gospel (1 Cor. 6:11) but must be maintained (Rom. 6:19, 22). As we present ourselves as slaves of righteousness for holiness/sanctification (Rom. 6:1-19), this must continue for the rest of our lives (Rom. 12:1-2). Holiness does not mean we will ever be sinlessly perfect, but with God’s help we are striving toward that goal. The opposite would be resigning ourselves to a life of complacency, not even trying to be holy, thus taking God’s grace for granted, abusing it, and conforming to the mold of this sinful world (2 Tim. 2:21). Saints (sanctified ones) are not holy by mere verbal profession but are to be holy in real life. The world doesn’t need a church that looks like the world!

The Pursuit of Holiness

“Pursue … holiness, without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). This is not something that occurs automatically or easily or by accident (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 12:10). In an absolute sense only God is holy (Rev. 15:4), but it is his will for us that we do our imperfect best to pursue it. 

Practical application involves moral purity (1 Thess. 4:3). The only way to engage in sexual activity without being immoral is for each man to have his own wife and each woman her own husband (1 Cor. 7:2).³ While fleeing sexual immorality (1 Cor. 6:18), Christians should avoid compromising situations, like being alone with someone outside marriage where there is mutual attraction, open displays of seductive materials, online pornography, and places where people tend to dress immodestly. Make the commitment that Joseph made, so when faced with temptation the automatic response is: “How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” (Gen. 39:9). The Christian is different from others in a world where abstinence and restraint are rarely taken seriously. We are called to a life of holiness.

Married couples must honor marriage vows, respecting and submitting to God’s teaching on marriage. Matt. 19:9 will be in our Bible until Jesus returns. One can ignore it, reject it, twist it, water it down, and explain it away, but it will continue to say the same thing: “whoever has divorced his wife, except for sexual infidelity, and has married another, is committing adultery …” Christian marriages must be different, because of holiness, in a world where divorce and remarriage are commonplace.

Holiness must characterize every aspect of our lives. The Bible does not specifically prescribe exact measurements and rules about how short, low, sheer, or tight one’s clothing can be. Nevertheless, in addition to the principle of modesty (1 Tim. 2:9-10), the Bible does call us to a life of holiness, and this in itself ought to govern the way we dress.

The Bible does not contain the explicit statement, “You shall not drink alcoholic beverages.” But being called to a life of holiness leads us away from anything that will damage our influence, lower our inhibitions, impair our judgment, or is associated with and responsible for so much evil in the world. Holiness is a way of life. It must govern our every decision, our every word, and our every action. 

Conclusion 

Holiness is possible. God does not expect what we are incapable of doing or being. The Bible sets forth these basic principles regarding holiness. (1) The biblical importance of holiness indicates the priority it must take in our thinking and our lives. (2) The process of holiness involves our cooperation with God; while we cannot do this alone, we must be proactive and do our part. (3) The pursuit of holiness implies intentionality and effort. Because sanctification is the revealed will of God for every Christian, like Jesus we ought to prioritize the divine will above our own (Matt. 6:10; 26:39; John 8:29). The pursuit of holiness must therefore be a primary focus for every child of God.

--Kevin Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See K. L. Moore, “Looking in the Wrong Direction,” Moore Perspective (17 Jan. 2018), <Link>. Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation, with emphasis added.

     ² See K. L. Moore, “How to Possess Your Own Vessel,” Moore Perspective (7 March 2018), <Link>.

     ³ Holiness involves abstaining (present tense – ongoing, continual, habitual) from porneia (1 Thess. 4:3b), i.e., any kind of sexual intercourse that is not within a divinely approved marriage (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2; Heb. 13:4). Such a cautionary prohibition was particularly relevant to the mid-first-century Greco-Roman environment, although nearly twenty centuries later its applicability is still very relevant. Sexual permissiveness, perversion, and promiscuity were the norm in Paul’s day, not unlike the environment in which we currently live.

Related Posts:

 

Image credit: https://mountainrefugeministries.com/articles-data/perfecting-holiness-in-the-sanctuary

Does the Bible condone sexual assault and rape?

With eager attempts to discredit the Bible’s integrity, critics have included in their attacks the outrageous claim that the scriptures endorse and even promote immoral behaviors like sexual assault and rape. Katie Edwards and Emma Nagouse have written: “Rape is endemic in the Bible (both literally and metaphorically) and, more often than not, functions as a conduit for male competition and a tool to uphold patriarchy.”¹ Michael Martin states further, “To be sure, one can find rape condemned in the Bible. However, one can also find passages where God seems to be tacitly approving of rape and other passages where rape is condemned but without regard for the victim's welfare.”²

Before we address specific charges, let’s note some basic interpretive guidelines. 

1. To determine the true state of affairs, key contextual and translational matters cannot be avoided. It is a fundamental error to limit one’s investigation of the Bible to a particular English translation, scrutinized from a present-day westernized perspective and postmodern agenda. Failure to take into account the original historical, linguistic, literary, and sociocultural contexts invariably results in misconstruing just about anything the Bible says. 

2. Objectivity and fairness demand gathering all relevant information that would help explain or qualify any given issue, rather than isolating a single text or a select handful of texts to reinforce predetermined conclusions. On any question, we ought to determine the Bible’s overall message and interpret seemingly anomalous passages accordingly.

3. Scriptures that are misused because of contextual disregard should be eliminated from the trumped-up indictment. For example, Judges 5:30 is not a divine endorsement but descriptive of Canaanite pillaging. The account in Judges 21:10-24 was not a scheme devised by God but by wayward Israelites, as “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (v. 25, NKJV).

4. The historical-cultural settings of biblical stories and directives must be understood in light of and in contrast to the pagan surroundings, particularly with regard to the pervasive maltreatment of women. Critics are quick to ridicule and condemn just about anything in the Bible that does not conform to modern-day sensibilities, while hardly noticing the brutality, repression, and immorality of contemporaneous cultures.

5. As human wickedness is exposed in the biblical narratives, sexual harassment and assault are not restricted to female victims (Gen. 19:4-9, 32-35; 39:7-16; Judg. 19:22-23). 

What the Bible Says About Sexual Abuse

Accounts of rape are reported in Genesis 34:1-7; Judges 19:22–20:5; and 2 Samuel 13:1-22, each depicted as a heinous crime. The absence of God is something all these stories share in common, occasioned by the persistent abandonment of his moral code. Conversely, scripture reveals that God’s desire for his people is sanctification, to abstain from sexual immorality, to control our bodies in holiness and honor rather than passion of lust like those who do not know God (1 Thess. 4:1-7; cf. 1 Cor. 6:18-20; Eph. 5:1-5).

What About Captives of War?

In Numbers 31, after defeating the Midianites in war, Moses allowed the Israelite men to keep for themselves 32,000 Midianite virgins (vv. 18, 35). When critics describe these women as “sex slaves” and cite this passage as an alleged sanction of “rape,” they are demonstrating prejudicial ignorance. In a cultural environment where marriages were formed as socioeconomic arrangements (like most nonwestern cultures throughout history), to expect the modern concept of fairy-tale romance is incredibly naïve. Detractors seem oblivious to the moral depravity of the Midianites (Num. 25:1-3, 18; 31:16; cf. Judg. 6:1-7) and know nothing of the condition or the plight of these women before Israelite intervention. Compared to typical ravages of war, and in contrast to the ruthless societies surrounding them, the Jews had strict laws for how captives were to be treated, particularly a marriageable woman (Deut. 21:10-14): “you shall not mistreat her” (v. 14, NASB).

The Golden Proof-Text

The 22nd chapter of Deuteronomy lists various laws concerning sexual misconduct, including consensual relations and rape. When both parties consent to an adulterous affair or show no restraint in a sordid rendezvous involving a betrothed woman, neither is free of guilt and both are punished accordingly (vv. 22-24). On the other hand, when a woman resists a sexual aggressor and gives no consent, only the rapist is held accountable (vv. 25-27). 

The main point of contention concerns the next two verses. A straightforward translation of vv. 28-29 reads as follows: “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found, then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days” (ASV). However, the passage reads much differently when English translators submit more interpretive renderings, like “seizes her” (ESV, ISV, NASB, N/RSV), “forces her to have sex with him” (CEV), “rapes her” (CSB, GW, ISV, NIV), “overpowers her and rapes her” (NET). Of course Bible critics exploit these versions to bolster their claim that the Bible endorses the victimization of women. But let us not forget that the Bible was not originally written in English, and the original texts could readily assume the targeted reading audience was already familiar with the cases described therein.

The Hebrew verb שָׁכַב [shakab] simply means to “lie down” (Ezek. 4:4, 6), while most often used idiomatically with varying nuances, including to “sleep” (Gen. 19:4; 28:11; Lev. 14:27), to “die” (Gen. 47:30; Judg. 5:27; Lam. 2:21), and to “have sexual relations” (Lev. 15:18, 24). In the latter case, the context must determine whether the intercourse is consensual (e.g. Gen. 30:15-16; Deut. 22:22; 2 Sam. 11:11) or not (e.g. Gen. 34:2-7; 39:14; Deut. 22:25; 28:30; 2 Sam. 13:14).

In the immediate context of Deuteronomy 22, a rapist is to be put to death (v. 25). Yet a few verses later, a man “takes hold of” [תָּפַשׂ taphas, cf. 9:17; 21:19] a young woman who is not betrothed and “lies with” [שָׁכַב shakab, cf. 22:22] her, and then they are “found out” [מָצָא matsa, cf. 22:22]. Mutual consent is implied as no death penalty is enjoined, and the man is obligated to pay the dowry or bride-price (cf. Ex. 22:16-17).

Conclusion

If the Bible does in fact condone, endorse, and promote sexual assault, you would think Bible-believers would be condoning, endorsing, and promoting sexual assault! Apparently those of us who take the Bible seriously and study it diligently know more about its message than those who harbor a predisposition against it. Selectively reading the Bible to expose what appears to be its worst parts, while ignoring qualifying information that would expose the fallacy of this approach, is negligent at best and deceitful at worst.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Katie Edwards and Emma Nagouse, “How the Bible shapes contemporary attitudes to rape and sexual assault,” The Conversation (2 May 2017), <Link>.

     ² Michael Martin, “Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape,” The Secular Web (1997), <Link>.

*See Sandra L. Richter, "Rape in Israel's World ... And Ours: A Study of Deuteronomy 22:23-29," JETS 64.1 (2021):59-76. Richter concludes, "within its societal context, the laws of Deuteronomy did indeed protect women, often more effectively than surrounding law codes, and perhaps more effectively than modern legal systems."

Related Posts: The Bible's Radical View on Women, Was Polygamy Acceptable?

Image credit: https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1278&bih=689&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=hgfJXJnODaac0gK3r7PICQ&q=shocked&oq=shocked&gs_l=img.12..35i39l2j0i67j0l4j0i67l3.116924.119849..122015...0.0..0.168.1132.0j7......1....1..gws-wiz-img.aXDH54fHEVo#imgrc=HkHUQWzt2zx80M:

Have No Fellowship With the Unfruitful Works of Darkness: a Closer Look at Ephesians 5:11

The Immediate Context (Eph. 5:1-7)

     In v. 3 of Ephesians 5 the apostle has written, “but illicit sex and all impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as also is proper for those sanctified.”¹ Such lifestyles are antithetical to walking in love as imitators of God (vv. 1-2), and Paul goes on to list other ungodly acts, such as vulgarity, foolish talk, and crude jesting, which ought to be replaced with thanksgiving (v. 4). The nouns paralleling the verbal forms noted above are then employed, with the added “idolater” (v. 5). Those engaged in such misconduct are excluded from the promised inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

     To avoid deception and the resulting divine wrath, “do not be partakers with” the sons of disobedience (vv. 6-7). Paul uses the plural form of summétochos, found only twice in the NT, here and earlier in 3:6 in the positive sense of Gentiles, as joint-heirs in one body, being co-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Any alliances involving conduct that would jeopardize this new partnership in Christ Jesus must be avoided (see further on v. 11).

Walk in the Light (Eph. 5:8-10)

     As a reminder of “then” as compared to “now” (cf. 2:1-22), Paul writes, “for you were once darkness, but now light in [the] Lord; walk as children of light” (v. 8). Life prior to receiving God’s grace was characterized by spiritual “darkness” [skótos, cf. v. 11; 6:12] but now “light in [the] Lord” (cf. 4:18-24; Acts 26:18; Rom. 13:12; 2 Cor. 6:14; Col. 1:13; 1 Thess. 5:5; 1 Pet. 2:9). The term “light” [phōs] occurs five times in this section (vv. 8[x2], 9, 13[x2]). God is light (1 John 1:5), a symbol of his glory and majesty (1 Tim. 6:16) and the truth he reveals (Psa. 119:105; Prov. 6:23). Therefore, Paul says, “walk” [peripatéō]  accordingly – the sixth time this idiom is employed in the letter alluding to lifestyle or manner of life. Having previously walked “in trespasses and sins” (2:2) but now in “good works” (2:10), “in a manner worthy of the calling” (4:1), no longer “as the Gentiles walk” (4:17), and in “love” (5:2), readers are here directed to walk as children of light (see also 1 John 1:5-7).  

     Further explanation is given: “for the fruit of the light² [is] in all goodness and righteousness and truth, discerning what is pleasing to the Lord” (vv. 9-10). The “fruit” [karpós, cf. Gal. 5:22-24] that is produced by or is found in this “light” (cf. Matt. 5:14), as opposed to “the unfruitful works of darkness” (v. 11), is “all” [pásē] “goodness” [agathōsúnē] (a term found nowhere else in Ephesians; cf. Rom. 15:14; Gal. 5:22; 2 Thess. 1:11), and “righteousness” [dikaiosúnē] (cf. Eph. 4:24; 6:14; cp. 6:1), and “truth” [alētheia] (cf. Eph. 1:13; 4:21, 24, 25; 6:14).

     The verb dokimázō (“discern,” ESV; “finding out,” NKJV; “trying to learn,” NASB; “proving,” ASV, KJV) means to “test,” “examine,” or “prove.”³ Since God’s will has been revealed (Eph. 1:9, 17),⁴ what pleases him can therefore be known and understood (Eph. 5:17)⁵ as we obey what he has revealed (Eph. 6:6).⁶ The primary aim of pleasing God was embraced and taught by Jesus (Matt. 5:16; John 8:29), Paul and his companions (2 Cor. 5:9; Gal. 1:10; Col. 1:9-10; 3:20; 1 Thess. 2:4, 6; 4:1; 2 Tim. 2:15), the inspired writer of Hebrews (Heb. 13:16), and the apostle John (1 John 3:22).

The Christian Example (Eph. 5:11)

     Now Paul instructs his readers, “and have no participation with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather also expose [them]” (v. 11). Reaffirming the sentiment of v. 7, the present [continual] imperative “have no participation with” employs the verbal sugkoinōnéō, meaning to “participate with someone or be connected with something” (cf. Phil. 4:14; Rev. 18:4). The corresponding noun sugkoinōnos means “joint-partaker, co-sharer” (Rom. 11:17; 1 Cor. 9:23; Phil. 1:7; Rev. 1:9), with similar ideas conveyed (minus the sun- [“with”] prefix) by the verbal koinōneō (to “share”), and the noun koinōnos (“partner, sharer”). 

     Another cognate is koinōnia (often rendered “fellowship”), involving a relationship that has agreement, commonality, unity of mind and purpose, along with spiritual, mental, and participatory alliance (cf. Col. 3:2; 1 John 2:15; cp. 2 Cor. 6:14-16).⁷ Biblical “fellowship” is not merely social activity but entails a spiritual bond. It is something we either have or do not have based upon our relationship with the Lord.

     The exhortation here is to “Take no part in” (ESV), “have no fellowship with” (ASV, KJV),  “Do not participate in” (NASB), “Have nothing to do with” (NIV) “the unfruitful works of darkness,” i.e., the illicit conduct of vv. 3-5 (N.B. v. 7), the opposite of “the fruit of light” (v. 9). Paul is not telling his readers to dissociate from immoral people (“since then you would need to go out of the world,” 1 Cor. 5:9-13; cf. 7:12-13; 10:27); rather, do not participate in their immoral activities.

     Simply avoiding involvement in these sinful works is not all that is expected; “but rather also expose [them].” The verb elégchō could mean either “rebuke” or “reprove” (ASV, KJV) or “expose” (CSB, ESV, ISV, NASB, NET, NIV, NKJV, N/RSV). W. R. Nicoll argues for “oral reproof,” commenting, “these Christians were not at liberty to deal lightly with such sins, or connive at them, or be silent about them, but had to speak out against them and hold them up to rebuke, with the view of bringing their heathen neighbours to apprehend their turpitude and forsake them” (Expositors Greek Testament 357). On the other hand, J. A. Robinson, based on what immediately follows in the text, believes “it is best to interpret the word in the sense of ‘to expose’ [cf. John 3:20] …. With this interpretation we give unity to the whole passage” (Ephesians [2nd ed.] 200). While the importance of verbal rebuke cannot be discounted (cf. 1 Tim. 5:20; Tit. 2:15), in view of the darkness-light antithesis, the expression here would communicate the thought of “bringing to light.”

     Considering the inappropriateness of even talking about certain offenses (v. 12), H. C. G. Moule suggests the Christian response “was to come more through a holy life, and less through condemnatory words” (Ephesians 132). M. R. Weed observes further, “The exposure suggested is that brought about by the penetrating redemptive effect of the Christian life which reveals or illumines evil practices just as light silently penetrates the darkness” (Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon LWC 11:176). A related nuance harmonizing both meanings would be to “enlighten” those engaged in sinful behavior.⁸

Conclusion

     Although Ephesians 5:11 is often used as a blanket proof-text to oppose a wide range of perceived misbehavior in the 21st-century church (see previous post), contextually Paul is encouraging his mid-first-century Ephesian readers not to participate in the sinful behaviors of the pagan world in which they live. The modern-day application would be the same.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation. The rendering “sexual immorality” in many versions is somewhat vague and does not fully convey the sense of the more precise expression porneía. The noun pórnos (lit. a male prostitute) is employed in the NT of anyone engaging in illicit sex, i.e., a fornicator. The noun porneía applies to any type of illicit sexual intercourse, i.e., fornication. Porneía is any kind of sexual intercourse that is not within the context of a divinely approved marriage (cf. Heb. 13:4).

     ² Instead of the phrase tou phōtòs (“of the light”), the Byzantine Majority Text reads tou pneúmatos (“of the spirit”); cp. Gal. 5:22. The latter reading is found in the majority of manuscripts, including the oldest (P46), whereas the NA²⁸/UBS⁵ reading is supported by the immediate context and most ancient versions.

     ³ Luke 12:56; 14:19; Rom. 1:28; 2:18; 12:2; 14:22; 1 Cor. 3:13; 11:28; 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:8, 22; 13:5; Gal. 6:4; Eph. 5:10; Phil. 1:10; 1 Thess. 2:4; 5:21; 1 Tim. 3:10; 1 Pet. 1:7; 1 John 4:1.

     ⁴ See also John 6:39-40; Col. 4:12; 1 Thess. 4:3; 5:18; 1 Pet. 2:15; 1 John 5:14.

     ⁵ See also Acts 22:14; Rom. 2:18; 12:2; Col. 1:9; cf. Luke 12:47. Note further the will of God is to be sought (John 5:30).

     ⁶ See also Matt. 7:21; 12:50; Mark 3:35; John 4:34; 6:38; 7:17; 9:31; Acts 13:22; 2 Cor. 8:5; Heb. 10:7, 36; 13:21; 1 Pet. 2:15; 4:2; 1 John 2:17; cf. Matt. 12:31; Luke 12:47.

     ⁷ The noun koinōnia is used in the sense of generosity or selfless giving (2 Cor. 9:13; Heb. 13:16; cf. Eph. 3:9), or a gift or contribution (Rom. 15:26), or participation or sharing in something (2 Cor. 8:4; Phil. 1:5; 3:10; Philem. 6; cf. Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 10:16), but mostly descriptive of the common type or bond of life that unites certain people together (BAGD 438). In this latter sense koinōnia is used in the NT to describe the close relationship Christians have with God (1 John 1:3, 6; cf. 1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Cor. 13:14; Phil. 2:1) and consequently with one another (1 John 1:3, 7; cf. Gal. 2:9). Only the former makes the latter possible.
     ⁸ Thanks to Jody Apple, in comments made during the Open Forum at the 2018 FHU Lectureship, for this insightful perspective.

Related Posts: “What Does Koinōnia [‘Fellowship’] Really Mean?” <Link>, “The Walking Dead” <Link>, “When a Biblical Text is Misapplied” <Link>.

Related articles: Allen Webster's Why People Don't Understand the Bible

Image credit: https://godsloveneverfails.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Rejecting-God.jpg

Relativism Vs. Objective/Absolute Truth

     It has been estimated that about 70% of Americans do not believe in absolute truth, and as few as 38% of those who attend what is perceived to be conservative Christian churches believe in absolute truth.¹ Only 9% of American adults hold a biblical worldview, whereas less than one half of one percent of those aged 18 to 23 do.² The majority seems to favor an open, tolerant, pluralistic society, where individual choice is more important than absolute standards. Relativism currently reigns as the non-standard standard: “What I consider right and wrong is true for me, and what you consider right and wrong is true for you.”

     The “politically correct” agenda, as advocated by media outlets, politicians, the entertainment industry, and other secular entities, has consistently indoctrinated impressionable minds with ideas such as: (1) the supremacy of individual choice as the ultimate criterion; (2) personal feelings and opinions as the primary basis of morality; (3) truth is subjective and relative to circumstances; (4) diverse viewpoints are equally valid; (5) unconditional acceptance, inclusiveness, and tolerance; and (6) the demonization of making negative judgments about others.³

Relativism in Religion

     Postmodernism is a popular model of thinking that affirms there is no real knowledge or facts or truth in the objective sense (only subjective interpretations); no uniform or universal reality.⁴ And postmodernistic relativism is not limited to atheists, agnostics, humanists, and skeptics. Universalism is the belief that all people will ultimately be reconciled to God. Syncretism is the combining of different religious beliefs, asserting unity and the inclusion of diverse faiths. Pluralism is accepting all religious paths as equally valid and promoting coexistence. It is all too common to hear the adage, “One religion is as good as another.”

     For professing Christians who at least pay lip service to the exclusiveness of the Christian faith (see John 14:6), alternative slogans include, “One church is as good as another,” “Join the church of your choice,” and “It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you’re sincere.” Now that Christianized Relativism is so commonplace in our society, who can be surprised by messages like that of Victoria Olsteen? She announces to the world: “just do good for your own self. Do good because God wants you to be happy. When you come to church, when you worship him, you’re not doing it for God, really, you’re doing it for yourself ...”⁵

Relativism in Churches of Christ⁶

     With the inroads of relativism and the denial of absolute truth, we are witnessing among churches of Christ a rejection or compromise of fundamental tenets such as biblical authority, the restoration plea, the distinctiveness of the church, worship guidelines, doctrinal integrity, and a strict moral code. Teachings regarded as harsh or unpleasant or inconvenient are diluted or changed. Grace and unconditional acceptance take precedence over repentance, accountability, and obedience. Rather than appealing to Bible authority and what we know pleases the Lord, greater emphasis is placed on what interests members (felt needs) and/or what attracts people in the community. Doctrinal and procedural change is hailed as essential to salvaging or transforming what is perceived to be an antiquated and dying church.⁷ Then there are the catchphrases that prematurely end dialogue: “Everyone’s entitled to his/her own opinion.” “That’s just you’re interpretation.” “We’ll just have to agree to disagree.” “Who are you to judge?!”

The Biblical Perspective

     The Bible addresses two types of human judging; one is condemned, while the other is enjoined. (1) Wrongful judgment (Matt. 7:1-5; Rom. 2:1-3; 1 Cor. 4:3-5) involves hypocritical assessments, or trying to discern another’s intentions and motives, or drawing conclusions without having all the facts, or making judgments based on misinformation, or using oneself as the standard. (2) Righteous judgment (John 7:24; 1 Cor. 2:15; 5:3, 12; 6:2-5) relies on God’s word as the standard, evaluates observable actions and substantiated facts, and sincerely has the person’s best interests at heart.⁸

     If the Bible is to be taken seriously, the following affirmations must be conceded:

·      There is an objective body of spiritual truth (John 4:24; 8:32; 17:17; Rom. 1:25; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; 2 Cor. 6:7; Gal. 2:5; Eph. 4:21; Col. 1:5; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Tim. 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:15; Heb. 4:12; 11:6; Jas. 1:18).

·      Truth is attainable (Mark 12:32; John 4:23-24; 16:13; 17:20-21; Eph. 5:17; 2 Pet. 3:9).

·      Truth is knowable (John 1:14, 17; 8:32; 14:6; Rom. 2:2; Col. 1:6; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Tim. 3:7; Heb. 10:26; 1 Jn 2:21; 2 Jn 1).

·      Truth is mutually understandable (Matt. 13:10-16, 23; Mark 7:14; Eph. 3:3-4; 5:17; Col. 1:9-10; 2 Tim. 2:7).

·      One may err from the truth (John 8:44; Rom. 1:25; Gal. 2:14; 3:1; 5:7; 1 Tim. 6:5; 2 Tim. 2:18; 3:8; 4:1-5; Titus 1:14; Jas. 3:14; 5:19; 2 Pet. 2:2; 1 John 1:8; 2:4; cf. Rom. 1:18).

·      Truth is to be believed (John 8:45-46; Eph. 1:13; 2 Thess. 2:10-13; 1 Tim. 4:3; 2 Tim. 2:25).

·      Truth is to be obeyed (John 3:21; 8:47; 18:37; Rom. 2:8-9; 6:17-18; Gal. 5:7; 1 Pet. 1:22; 1 John 1:6; 2:4-5; 2 John 4; 3 John 3-4).

·      Truth is to be defended (Gal. 4:16; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 3; cf. Acts 9:22; 18:28).

·      Truth is to be proclaimed (John 5:33; 8:40, 45-46; 18:37; Acts 26:25; Rom. 9:1; 2 Cor. 5:10-20; 7:14; Eph. 4:15; 1 Tim. 2:7).

Conclusion:

     Moral relativism is the necessary consequence of rejecting God and his word in favor of individual preference (cf. Rom. 1:18-31). But history has proven many times over that fallible human beings are an inadequate standard (cf. Prov. 14:12; Jer. 10:23). Without divine guidelines, there is no such thing as absolute truth, absolute evil, or absolute good, and everyone does “what is right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 21:25). One of the best arguments against relativism is the sad state of our society and world and the turmoil and disunity in religion, including the Lord’s church. An objective standard of truth that is mutually accepted, understood, and obeyed is a logical necessity. “Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue” (2 Peter 1:2-3 NKJV).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ “Religious Beliefs of Americans: Does Absolute Truth Exist?,” Religious-Tolerance.org, <Link>.

     ² “Barna Survey Examines Changes,” The Barna Group, <Link>. Alvin Kernan observes that modern education has taken “uncertainty to its nihilistic extremes in the humanities and social sciences, 'demystifying' traditional knowledge, replacing positivism with relativism, substituting interpretation for facts, and discrediting objectivity in the name of subjectivity” (In Plato’s Cave xvi).
     ³ In reality, it would appear that all are exempt from criticism except those who espouse conservative Christian values.

     ⁴ See Postmodernism and the Homosexual Christian Part 1.

     ⁵ “Bill Cosby's response to Victoria Olsteen,” YouTube, <Link>. Conversely, see K. L. Moore's “What Are You Getting Out of Worship?” <Link>.

     ⁶ See Phil Sanders, Adrift: Postmodernism in the Church. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 2000; and the sequel, A Faith Built on Sand: the Foolishness of Popular Religion in a Postmodern Age. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 2011.

     ⁷ See James Norad’s “Why are Churches of Christ Shrinking?” <Link>; and K. L. Moore’s response, “Musicals, American Football, and Folks Leaving the Church,” <Link>.
     ⁸ “The truth of the gospel is uncomfortable precisely because it is true. The truth of the gospel shows us the strength of self-denial rather than the indulgence of self-affirmation. Clearly stating the truth of the gospel, we have a message with substance and relevance for all of life. It is the way of salvation” (Gregory Alan Tidwell, “The Splendor of Truth,” <Link>).

Related Posts: The Inconsistency of Relativism

Related articles: Dave Miller's “Political Correctness and 'Bashing',” <Link>; Steve Higginbotham's “Religious Tolerance,“ <Link>; Eric Metaxas, “The new normless: the toll of relativism on our kids,” <Link>. For an interesting comparison to the history of art, watch this video from Prager University.

Image credit: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNZE6EobrvxFCRbr4nhzIvz-Wi8OyBG0TFLyq5pcdhXC6lYURBSFvgAvp_ikdABeCaRNsVOoDhE4aghODKKKTG25s1iQcjhqhVvdsEOx-RfNCE5Py3Yx3i6kvaFe6OysDDMmuEQu85WtfE/s1600/question_clipart.gif