Program / Course 19: Modern Challenges / Lesson 4.4
What you will learn
- Summarize the main Christian arguments for objective moral truth.
- Describe how Christians have used postmodern insights without accepting relativism.
- Explain the role of narrative, community and virtue in a Christian answer.
- Note how Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant answers differ in emphasis.
The big idea
Christian replies to relativism and postmodern thought fall into three kinds. Some argue that moral truth is real and can be known, by natural law or by God’s commands. Some argue that postmodern criticism of arrogant reason is partly right and should be used to purify the church’s witness. Some argue that the answer lies less in argument than in a community whose life shows what the truth looks like. A good response combines all three, with humility about what a person can claim to know.
Key terms
- Natural law
- The teaching that there is a moral order built into human nature that reason can know. It is strongest in Catholic thought.
- Divine command theory
- The view that moral duties come from God’s commands. Versions of it are found among Protestants and others.
- Narrative theology
- An approach that stresses that Christian faith is first a story, of creation, fall, Israel, Christ and the church, and not only a set of propositions.
- Virtue ethics
- An approach to morality that centers on the character of a person and the habits that form it, more than on rules or results.
- Euthyphro question
- The question from Plato: is something good because the gods command it, or do they command it because it is good? It is a challenge to divine command theories.
- Common grace
- In Reformed theology, God’s favor to all people, by which they can know and do good even outside faith.
- Apophatic theology
- Speech about God that says what God is not, recognizing that he exceeds human concepts.
Background
The Christian church began in a world of many moral and religious claims and answered them by teaching, example and argument. Paul spoke to Athenians in terms they knew (Acts 17). Augustine argued with skeptics in the Academy, and Aquinas set out a theory of law that he believed any rational person could grasp. In the modern period, Pascal and Kierkegaard saw limits to reason but did not give up truth.
In the late twentieth century, Christian thinkers responded to relativism with arguments (Lewis, Budziszewski), with a history of ideas (Alasdair MacIntyre, who was Catholic, in After Virtue), and with accounts of Christian practice (Stanley Hauerwas, a Protestant, and John Milbank, an Anglican). They disagree about method, but agree that mere denunciation is not a reply.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Arguments for moral truth
C. S. Lewis argued that people everywhere share a sense that some things are right and wrong, and that even relativists quarrel as though a standard applied. He called this the law of nature, and listed in an appendix to The Abolition of Man parallels from many cultures. Critics reply that the parallels are partial and that actual codes differ. Lewis answered that disagreement is often about application and not principle.
The moral argument goes further and asks what could ground such truth. Some Christians argue that objective moral truth is hard to explain if nature is only matter in motion, and that God is the best ground. Others, including some non-theists, argue that moral realism is defensible without God. The Euthyphro question presses divine command theories: if God’s will makes things good, goodness seems arbitrary, and if it does not, goodness stands apart from God. Christian answers say that God’s commands flow from his unchanging good nature.
Step 2: What to learn from postmodern critique
Christian writers have accepted several postmodern points. The first is that human reason is limited and interested. This agrees with the doctrine of sin. The second is that those who hold power often present their view as neutral. The prophets say this repeatedly (Amos 5, Isaiah 10). The third is that people live inside stories, and the Christian story is not a neutral deduction but a testimony.
James K. A. Smith has argued that Christians should accept that all knowing begins in faith commitments, and that the Christian metanarrative differs from modern ones because it centers on a crucified Lord who does not dominate. Others warn that this goes too far if it makes the faith merely one story among many.
Step 3: Narrative, community and virtue
Hauerwas, MacIntyre and others argue that argument alone will not answer relativism, because morality is learned in communities that form character. The church makes truth visible by forming people who tell the truth, keep promises, forgive and care for the weak. Jesus said that people would know his disciples by their love (John 13:35).
This view recognizes that a Christian answer fails if Christians do not live as they teach. It faces a difficulty in the other direction: if the argument is only about community, a critic may say that it gives no reason for those outside the community. Defenders say that a form of life can be shown to be good by living it.
Step 4: Humility and boldness together
Paul speaks of speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), and Peter says to give an answer with meekness and respect (1 Peter 3:15). These verses ask for both conviction and gentleness. A Christian can hold that truth exists and that the gospel is true, while recognizing that he sees in part and can be corrected, and that he must hear the neighbor’s story.
A practical rule follows. When a person says that something is true for him, ask what he means. He may mean that it matters to him, which is easy to grant. He may mean that no one can be mistaken about it, which is harder. A calm question often reveals the difference.
- Is the reply aimed at the strongest form of relativism or a weak form?
- Does the reply depend on a shared premise with the critic?
- What does it concede?
- Does it offer reasons, a way of life, or both?
- How does it deal with Christians who have been wrong in the past?
- Is the tone one that Paul and Peter would recognize as gentle and respectful?
Examples
A conversation at work
A coworker says that morals are just opinions. A Christian asks whether the coworker thinks cruelty to a child is merely a matter of taste. The coworker says no, and the two begin to talk about why. Neither wins, and both learn something. (A constructed example.)
A church that forms character
A congregation keeps a regular practice of confession, shared meals and care for the sick. A visitor who does not believe says that she cannot answer their arguments but cannot ignore the quality of their lives. (A constructed example.)
Different perspectives
Catholic
Catholic thought answers relativism with natural law, the claim that reason can know moral truths grounded in human nature, and with the teaching authority of the church to guard the moral law. John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor and Fides et Ratio defend objective truth. Catholic thinkers such as MacIntyre add the recovery of virtue and tradition.
Orthodox
Orthodox answers stress that truth is a person, Christ, known in the life of the church. They stress asceticism, prayer and the liturgy as ways of being formed in truth. They are cautious about systems of moral philosophy, preferring the example of saints, and they appeal to the conscience that God has put in every person.
Protestant
Protestants answer with the authority of Scripture and the law written on the heart. Reformed thinkers speak of common grace and the antithesis between belief and unbelief in Van Til’s tradition, Lutherans of law and gospel, and Anabaptists, such as John Howard Yoder, of the church as a counter-community. Evangelicals have also developed popular apologetics, which has been criticized for being too rationalist.
Secular and other views
Some non-Christian philosophers defend moral realism without God, such as Derek Parfit. Others, such as Mackie, argued that objective values would need an explanation that atheists cannot give and so doubted them. Both sides use the Christian debate as part of the larger discussion.
Why it matters
The way that Christians answer relativism may decide whether a skeptic hears them. A shrill answer proves the caricature. A weak one gives up what the faith claims. This lesson aims to give the student an answer that is firm, humble and aware of its own history.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Christians reject all postmodern ideas.
Correction: Many Christian thinkers accept the points about limits, power and narrative, and reject the denial of truth.
Misunderstanding: Christians say that no one can be moral without God.
Correction: Mainstream traditions teach that unbelievers can know and do good, by conscience and common grace. The disputed question is what grounds morality, not whether unbelievers can be moral.
Misunderstanding: A moral argument proves the Christian God.
Correction: It is an argument that some think points to God, and others resist. Even if it works, it does not by itself reach the specifically Christian claims.
Misunderstanding: Answering relativism means winning an argument.
Correction: The church’s own tradition stresses witness, charity and a form of life, as well as argument.
Knowledge check
What is the Euthyphro question, and how do Christians answer it?
It asks whether something is good because God commands it, or whether God commands it because it is good. The first seems to make goodness arbitrary, the second seems to place goodness above God. Many Christian thinkers answer that God’s commands flow from his own unchanging good nature, so goodness is neither arbitrary nor outside God.
What can a Christian learn from postmodern criticism?
That human reason is limited and shaped by interest, which agrees with the doctrine of sin. That people in power often present their views as neutral, a point the prophets made. That people live inside stories. A Christian can accept these without agreeing that there is no truth beyond interpretation.
Why do some theologians say argument alone is not enough?
They hold that morality is learned in communities that form character, so that the best evidence for Christian truth is a community that lives it. Jesus said that love would mark his disciples. Critics reply that this gives no reason to those outside the community, and defenders reply that a good life can be shown.
How should a Christian respond when someone says that something is true for them?
He should ask what is meant. If the person means that something matters to him or reflects his experience, that is easily granted. If he means that it cannot be mistaken or judged, that is a stronger claim and can be examined. The question should be asked with gentleness and respect, as 1 Peter 3:15 asks.
Think it through
- When have you answered a challenge with a slogan and not a reason?
- What is the strongest point in the postmodern critique of Christian claims?
- How does the life of your congregation support or undercut what it says?
- What would you ask a person who says that all truth is relative?
Independent assignment
A conversation outline
In your notebook, write an imagined conversation of about 500 words between a Christian and a friend who says that morals are personal opinion. Both speakers should be allowed their best points, and the Christian should concede at least two. Then list two questions that the conversation leaves open. Do not send it.
Further study
- C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity Read the opening chapters on the moral law.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics Read for the natural law tradition.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Virtue Ethics Read for the revival of virtue ethics.
- Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief Read selectively for the argument that all reasoning begins from basic commitments.
- Blaise Pascal, Pensées Read selectively for the combination of conviction and humility.
- Ephesians 4:15 Speaking the truth in love.
- John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples.
- 1 Peter 3:15 Give an answer with meekness and fear.