GRACE
As noted in the September issue, this is the second of three sub-issues
dealing with how presumption influences grace in the life of the believer.
Presumption is an abuse of the freedom found in grace.
Legality and morality are similar to liberty and self-denial in that it
is necessary to understand both in order to avoid presuming on God’s grace. A
failure to understand and apply legality and morality in the Christian life
results in the misuse of liberty, which in turn leads to presuming on the grace
of God.
Our forefathers, from the conception of this great nation, knew that the
experiment of democracy would work only if there was corporate commitment to a
fundamental, transcendent set of absolutes, which form the basis of morality.
If legality and morality are confused, this Republic cannot long endure.
Morality, which forms the basis of all society, is commonly agreed upon
because of man’s conscience. All men, everywhere, have, as it were, a moral
gyroscope that guides and directs them. That this standard, shaped by the
conscience, is in harmony with the Scriptures, is the thesis of the Apostle
Paul in Romans 2:14-15:
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do
by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, they are
a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts,
their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while
accusing or else excusing one another.
The Standards of God, which form the gist of morality, are few in number.
They have to be in order for people to absorb and act on them. As we shall see
with legality, if they are too numerous, they collapse under their own weight.
Nevertheless, this Standard forms the foundation for all behavior.
Government is charged with the task of building upon this commonly agreed
upon morality with a set of laws that govern the particulars of society. For
example, in the United States we have a set of traffic laws that govern
behavior on the road. Such laws would have been unnecessary five hundred years
ago. Let us note a couple of things regarding these laws:
First, although they may include morality, they are not the same as
morality. For example, if I drive 30 mph in a 25-mph zone, I am breaking the
law, but I am not immoral. The law says that I cannot murder my fellow citizen.
If I do so, I am not only breaking the law, but I ant also immoral. The law may
not prohibit pre-marital sex, but God’s Standards do, and such action is
immoral. In this we see that although morality and legality overlap, they are
not the same.
I remember watching a movie on television entitled
“Criminal Law.” A wise, old attorney, during the last days of life, counseled a
younger lawyer regarding the difference between justice and the law. He likened
justice to a large statue casting a shadow, which was analogous to the law. The
shadow is not the statue. They are entirely different. And yet they are
connected. So also justice and law. So also morality and legality.
Second, the laws of government, like the Standards of
morality, ought to be few in number. Laws that are too inclusive become
counter-productive. For example, the rules and regulations of OSHA require so
much red tape and consume so much time and energy that the good they seek to
achieve is frequently offset by the hurt which is inflicted through such things
as arbitrary enforcement and the added cost of production. Too many laws, like
too high taxes, discourage people and breed rebellion.
In light of this, note an exceedingly important but
little understood truth expounded by Jesus in His rebuke of the Pharisees:
Then the Pharisees and scribes
asked him, “Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the
elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?” He answered and said unto them,
“Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people
honoureth me with their lips, but their heart it far front me. Howbeit in vain
do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying
aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of
pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.” And He said unto them, “Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep
your own tradition.” (Mark 7:5-9)
The Pharisees were bothered by the fact that Jesus and
His disciples failed to keep “the tradition of the elders.” These “traditions,”
which were extra-Biblical rules and regulations, are similar to, but not
the same as, legality. Let’s explore
this further.
At Mount Sinai God established the theocratic kingdom,
outlining through the hand of Moses the salient ingredients of Israel’s
society. For all practical purposes, the distinction between legality and
morality was blurred. It was God who gave the Law, and the commandments of God,
by definition, are moral in nature.
Theologians, not God, made the distinction between the
moral, civil, ceremonial and dietary aspects of the law. Although this fourfold
delineation of the law is helpful, to say that it is three parts legal and one
part moral and that to break the legal commandments isn’t as serious as
breaking the moral commandments can prove disastrous, as seen in the Old
Testament. We all remember that God had a man stoned for gathering wood on the
Sabbath (Numbers 15:35), and Uzzah died at the Hand of God when he
touched the Ark of the Covenant (II Samuel 6:6).
All of this is to say that in Old Testament Israel God
expected the people to keep all the law. It was moral in nature in that it came
from Him and influenced their relationship with Him. Legal was moral in the
sense that Jews in the theocratic kingdom were free to do whatever the law did
not proscribe. Thus, even today, when a person adds to the commands of God we
say that he is “pharisaical.”
Before we are too hard on the Pharisees, we should note
that they faced a daunting task. After the captivity Israel was obligated to
obey secular law, which in many respects conflicted with God’s law, much like
we have in the United States today. That is, they were permitted to break many
of God’s laws while being required to obey rules and regulations not required
by God. For them, the distinction between legal and moral was born.
The Pharisees sought to assist in this transition, first
by defining more objectively some of the positive commandments, and then by
adding other helpful rules and regulations. For example, Israel’s failure to
keep the Sabbath was one of the precipitating issues that brought about their
ruin. In captivity the Pharisees asked, “How can we keep the fourth
commandment?” This led to a set of rules on what people could and could not
do on the Sabbath. These, as Jesus pointed out in Mark 7, were the “traditions
of men,” i.e. they were neither legal nor moral laws in that they did not
have their origin in the state or in God. They may have been helpful, but they
were not obligatory.
The “traditions of men” came about, then, in an
endeavor to help people meet the expectations of God--a noble goal indeed! (Or,
as seen from the above analogy, the shadow tried to be an accurate replica of
the statue.) But as already noted, it resulted in the wrath of God. Why?
Morality, as revealed in Scripture and affirmed by
conscience, establishes a litmus by which all conduct is evaluated. When I
tamper with it, I do the following:
1) I call into question God’s ability to anticipate all
action that He considers wrong and so become co-equal with God in determining
what is right and wrong. This is presumption pure and simple. For example, the
Bible does not prohibit slavery. Irrespective of my own convictions, I dare not
say that it is morally wrong to either be a slave or have slaves. As Jesus says
in Mark 7, in so doing I am adding to the commandments of God.
2) I confuse morality, blurring the distinction between
it and legality. If I can say that slavery is morally reprehensible, you can
also say so of polygamy. Joe can then add gambling and Steve drinking to the
list of moral issues. From there it is a short step to pollution, animal
rights, nuclear power, etc. The state can rule that any of this is illegal,
which is its God-given right. But to say that it is a moral issue is another
thing entirely. These issues are no more immoral than going 30 mph in a 25-mph
zone.
3) When I confuse morality and legality, I open the door
to “laying aside the commandments of God” (Mark 7:8). I feel that it is
expedient for me, as a Christian, to divorce my wife and marry one more
compatible. The state does not prohibit it, so I feel at liberty to do it. Not
only so, but I allow legality to define morality in my business ethics. For
example, never mind the fact that I promised a man that I would pay my debt. It
was not legally binding under the laws of bankruptcy, and I am therefore not
obligated to keep my word. You can see how such an environment produces a
proliferation of lawyers.
4) When legality defines morality, I force the state to
multiply its rules and regulations (much like OSHA) in order to make up for my
lack of morality. The “Keating Five” and the “S & L Scandal are
illustrations. Exactly what laws were broken? Prosecutors are having difficulty
determining the answer to this. But there remains the notion, based on our
inner sense of right and wrong, that wrong was done. This results in Congress
writing more rules to insure that it doesn’t happen again.
5) This in turn, as already noted, adds to the destruction of democracy,
simply because the addition of so many rules, and the added personnel needed to
enforce them, makes the system unworkable. This is what prompted Lord Acton’s
statement that ‘Men will either be governed by God or ruled by tyrants.” Having
collapsed under its own weight, the democracy is taken over by a dictator. In a
free society it is impossible for government to write sufficient rules to fill
the void made by the absence of morality. The refusal to define morality by
legality is one of the safeguards of democracy.
Society’s rebuttal is that an issue is moral only when
it infringes on the rights of others. Discrimination is wrong because such
behavior is felt to be harmful to the object of the discrimination. (We are
assuming here that God’s Standards have not been broken.) The truth is, almost
everything we do infringes on the rights of others.
For example, in the “SAN DIEGO UNION” there was a
feature article in the December 30 issue dealing with the problem of Medi-Cal
abusers. In part the article said:
Single and 25 years old, she was
working as a waitress in a fashionable bar and grill in downtown San Diego when
tragedy struck. After an affair, she became pregnant. The pregnancy did not go
well, though, and early this year the child was born prematurely with life
threatening complications. She had no health insurance, like tens of thousands
of working San Diego. So as medical bills skyrocketed while the child fought
for life at UCSD Medical Center in Hillcrest, she turned to the
taxpayer-supported Medi-Cal program to pay the tab. The bill to Medi-Cal now
tops $250000, sources say. Medi-Cal reportedly has paid more than $75000, the
hospital will write off the difference. But standing somewhere on the sidelines
while the taxpayers foot the bill is a father...
This young couple did not
ask the taxpayers if they could infringe on their rights when they were
promiscuous. They simply did it, and society pays for it. God has created us in
such a way that all that we do touches others, for good for bad. Paul says in
Romans 8:18-23:
For I reckon that the sufferings
of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall
be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the
manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity,
not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of
corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that
the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not
only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even
we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the
redemption of our body.
When Adam fell, the whole of the created order was
affected. It is the thesis of the Scriptures that immorality of every kind
has cosmic consequences!
“Tampering with morality” is what we have done in the U.S.
I have seen a convoluting of the moral order in less than a lifetime. When I
was a child, the movies that I watched usually had a theme or message, but it
was always an endeavor to uphold morality. Today the movies usually carry a
theme, but almost always in the direction of re-defining morality.
For example, in the delightful movie, “Driving Miss
Daisy,” the theme is anti-discrimination. The movie evolves from the beginning
when there are clear racial lines drawn between Miss Daisy and her black driver
to the end when she says to him, “You are my best friend.” Discrimination,
in and of itself, it not wrong. Everyone is discriminate. There are people you
and I like more than others, and that for a variety of reasons. It ONLY becomes
a matter of morality when the Standards of God are violated.
In many films unrighteousness is exalted. As Malcolm
Muggeridge noted, “Sex is materialism’s shabby substitute for religious
experience.” It is the fulfillment of Paul’s indictment that “they
exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature” (Romans
1:25). This is the product of failing to maintain a sharp distinction
between legality and morality. We can see its devastating effects on society,
but in a more subtle manner, it is often at work in its cancerous way in the
family unit.
For example, Dad knows that illicit sex is morally
wrong. He also knows that watching most modern films exalts sex and can easily
lead one into being promiscuous. Moreover, in his heart he knows that he is
easily tempted in this area. So he develops a conviction that he will not watch
these types of movies. The Bible encourages him to do this.
He is protective of his teenage children, desiring that
they remain pure in their relationship with Christ. So, in an endeavor to keep
his children from illicit sex, he forbids their watching these kinds of moves.
In the ‘government of the home” he is free to do this. But great care
must be exercised in avoiding the snare into which both the Pharisees and our
society has fallen. Watching an “R” rated movie may be ill-advised, but it is
neither a moral nor a legal issue.
When God created us in His image, He firmly placed in
each of us a conscience that guides behavior. Sin obscures the conscience; the
Bible sharpens it. Under the direction of the Scriptures the conscience is a
reliable guide. Personal convictions are developed, in part, to keep sin from
doing its work of confusion. But when these personal convictions are turned
into moral axioms and imposed on others, great harm results.
Legality plays an important role in society. It can
never be confused with or take the place of morality. When it does, great harm
results. If I can learn this simple but profound truth, I will be a better
servant of Jesus Christ and a better citizen.
For each person, there are three appellate courts in
determining right and wrong: the standards of God, the laws of the state and
personal convictions in areas not covered by the first two, e.g. deciding not
to watch “R” rated movies. Ranked by authority, they are God, the state and
personal convictions. God determines morality; the state legality; I the
standards of my conduct, and if I choose, those under my authority.
It is easy for the believer to feel secure in his
relationship with God and presume on His grace by reversing the order of
authority, thereby defining morality by legality and establishing personal
convictions as the Supreme Court. The life of grace must distinguish between
legal, moral and personal convictions, just as it must wrestle with what
self-denial ought to look like. Failure to do so, as pointed out by Jesus in
Mark 7, leads to pharisaism and immorality.
Grateful
for His grace,