In this installment of Triquetra, we are drawing from an article published in our magazine in Fall 2005. It is written by one of our long-time thought leaders, Dr. Robert E. Wenger, who served many years as dean of the School of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Dr. Wenger holds multiple advanced degrees in both history and theology. The data cited may be dated, but it is still reflective of the current state of affairs in our culture. Dr. Wenger’s insights and commentary remain relevant because they are born of his wisdom and worldview, both of which are rooted in eternal biblical truth.
Josh McDowell, in a 1997 article in Moody, related how he asked his son, a high school senior, whether public school had taught him any absolute truth. “Sure,” he replied. When Josh asked what that truth was, he answered, “Tolerance.”
Tolerance traditionally has stressed fairness toward opinions and practices that differ from our own. It concedes to all the right to hold and promote their ideas as freely as we do ours. But the current popular definition goes farther; it asserts that we must consider everyone’s values, beliefs, and practices equally valid. Expressing convictions that criticize another’s ideas or way of life is considered intolerant, and intolerance is the current unpardonable sin.
In 1997 as well, two opinion articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education deplored college students’ reluctance to censure even barbaric practices. One teacher was appalled that her students would not condemn human sacrifice, while another observed with alarm that his students refused to denounce the Nazis for the Holocaust. The current atmosphere of multicultural “tolerance” had produced what he called “absolutophobia”—a fear of passing moral judgment on any group or culture lest one be labeled an absolutist or a bigot. Ironically, tolerance, which denied moral absolutes, had become the one absolute that must not be violated. A 1999 poster exemplified this inconsistency: “AMERICA CANNOT BE TOLERANT OF INTOLERANCE.”
But surely September 11, 2001, changed all that! Were not Americans outraged at an ideology that justified murdering thousands to attain terrorists’ ends? Were there not, after all, some absolutes that must govern the behavior of civilized peoples? Was there not some moral standard by which to judge right and wrong? One would think so.
Yet, after an initial outburst of righteous indignation, many Americans relapsed into relativism. Two polls taken by Barna Research Group demonstrate this point. The first, published one day before the terrorist attacks, surveyed adults on how they made moral choices. Only 24% claimed to make choices based on biblical or church teachings. (The figure was 40% among “born again” Christians.) The majority based their moral choices on whatever brought the most satisfying results or what would make others happy.
The second survey, published in February 2002, asked both adults and teenagers whether there are unchanging moral absolutes or whether moral truth is relative to the circumstances. Among those surveyed, only 22% of the adults and 6% of the teens said there are moral absolutes. Even among “born again” Christians the
results are appalling—only 32% of the adults and 9% of the teens believed in moral absolutes. Nothing had changed!
Many Americans thus believe that moral absolutes no longer exist. But this is simply not true. Even if we ignore the logical contradictions in moral relativism, it is evident that absolutes are essential to every society’s survival. If we tolerated everything, we could not establish laws against slavery, murder, child molestation, drug trafficking, spouse abuse, political corruption, or business fraud, and society would degenerate into anarchy.
Unfortunately, the present relativism has already produced signs of such degeneration. With only 43% of parents teaching their children moral absolutes (according to a 2005 Barna survey), we need not wonder at school violence or rampant cheating. And with only 25% of college seniors in a National Association of Scholars survey reporting that their professors had taught them there are uniform standards of right and wrong, we could have anticipated the recent rash of corporate scandals.
Charles Colson in 1991 lectured at Harvard Business School on “Why Harvard Can’t Teach Ethics.” He argued before a polite but uncomprehending audience that moral relativism provides no basis for business ethics. In 2002 he saw his argument vindicated when the Enron Corporation, many of whose executives were Harvard graduates, collapsed amid internal fraud.
As convictions based on internalized absolutes decline, the government must, for the sake of social stability, impose its own standards. This external coercion corrodes the liberties of citizens but can never provide the glue to unify them.
So, absolutes are not obsolete; honest thinkers will concede that they are essential to personal and societal well-being. But the crucial question today is whose absolutes to adopt. For even the most vocal critics of Christian morals have their own agendas of absolutes that must not be tampered with. And increasingly, these inconsistent critics are bringing pressure to silence their “intolerant” adversaries instead of engaging them in civilized discussion. They insist that religious and moral discourse be banished from public life and secluded within religious conclaves and private relationships.
How can we uphold moral absolutes in this hostile environment? First, we must establish convictions of our own based on God’s nature and revealed principles. If the Barna surveys are anywhere close to accurate, this is the most urgent need of all. It is no small task, requiring a discerning study of the Bible. We must examine carefully the context of every scriptural command to see if it was given to isolated individuals, the church, Israel, or all mankind. We must avoid the twin dangers of relativizing what God intended to be absolute and absolutizing what he intended to be relative, being especially careful not to read our own cultural standards back into Scripture.
Second, we must practice the convictions we profess. It does little good to insist that God has given moral absolutes if we ourselves do not obey them. For example, our case for heterosexual marriage against homosexual unions is weakened when evangelical Christians divorce at the same rate as unbelievers. How can we defend a divine institution that we ourselves take lightly?
Third, we must pass on God’s moral absolutes to the next generation. Our children face unbelievable pressure to conform to the thinking and practices of their peers. Parents must firmly, consistently, but lovingly build morals into the lives of their children. This task cannot be passed off to youth pastors or the faculty of Christian schools. Parents must be willing to discuss issues openly around the supper table, on a hike, or by a bedside. They must remember that saving faith in Christ must be the foundation for their children’s moral development. And they must constantly beseech the Lord for wisdom, patience, and humility.
Fourth, we must be a constructive influence in our society. This means tempering truth with love, conviction with compassion. Unfortunately, one writer’s description of Christians as “the pit bulls of the culture wars” is often accurate. Christians have become frustrated with the direction of their nation, and frustration erupts in venomous attacks matching those of their enemies. In a desperate attempt to regain Christian influence, many have adopted the unchristian tactic of “fighting fire with fire,” negating in action the very cause they promote.
Their neighbors see them as unloving fanatics, and Jesus weeps.
It will help us if we realize that Jesus never gave us the mission of “taking back America” for him. He appointed us
to be witnesses to wherever he has placed us, and if through our witness he does good for America, that is merely a by-product of our mission. Although we should never compromise our convictions or be silenced by threats, we should serve Christ as he exemplified and taught—as shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves
(see Matt. 10:16).
Jesus displayed the perfect balance in responding to the adulterous woman—“Neither do I condemn you” and “Go and sin no more” (John 8:11). If we listen to those who differ from us, ask them questions, and seek to understand them even while speaking our convictions unashamedly, we will glorify our Savior and remove all legitimate excuses for rejecting our message. Unbelievers may still call us fanatics, but that now becomes their problem, not ours. Paul’s advice to the Romans still applies: Avoid repaying evil for evil or taking our own revenge, take the initiative in living at peace with all, do good for enemies, and overcome evil with good (see Rom. 12:17–21). Christ’s example, as Peter taught, should guide Christians under pressure: He committed no sin, did not respond in kind, did not threaten, and committed himself to him who judges righteously (see 1 Pet. 2:21–23). Following these standards, we will exercise a more constructive influence than we can imagine.
Tolerance has a widespread appeal today and rightly understood it is a legitimate concept. But if it means recognizing every belief and behavior as equally valid, it violates the teachings of Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles. They endorsed transcendent truth and sought to raise mankind to its level through an attitude superior to tolerance—love. Love dictated God’s moral absolutes to begin with, as he sought to protect humans from behavior that would injure or ruin them. Love led Jesus to sacrifice himself for those whose sins he could not tolerate. And love enables us to communicate this message sensitively even to our detractors, knowing that truth, infused with love, sets free.
We need never apologize for biblical moral absolutes. They will never be out of date because the One who gave them is eternal.
