Joe Carter at The Evangelical Outpost has initiated a symposium on “Judeo-Christian Values in an Ethically Pluralistic Society.” What follows is my entry into the discussion.
The first task is definitions. Dennis Prager recently did a ten-part series on Judeo-Christian values, which are worthwhile reads. I will borrow from his defining of terms to propose that these values are that which is found in the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) and is of concern to both Christians and Jewish peoples (and often Roman Catholics, Mormons, and some others). For more on that, read Prager.
An ethically pluralistic society can be taken two ways. On one hand, pluralism is evident. There are a plurality of ethical standards around the world today, and the Judeo-Christian standards are just one set of many. The Bible assumes this will be the case for believers when it gives guidelines for interacting with culture (in both the O.T. and N.T.). The other way pluralism can be taken is to mean that everyone’s moral values are equally true. In other words, it is moral relativism. Though we have many differing values that are often contradictory, all values are equally right.
It is this second definition of pluralism that is the mindset of most people in American culture, especially in the university. What I’m concerned with here is why contradictory values are generally held to be true. This mindset is evidenced when we hear statements such as “you can’t judge me”, “that’s just true for you”, “you shouldn’t try to impose (or force) your views on me.”
The fundamental problem is that our culture does not believe that ethical values constitute an area of knowledge. A chasm has been dug between those things that are “facts” and those things that are “values,” such that facts are universally binding and values are relevant only to individual choice. Facts are the insulin. If you have diabetes, you must have insulin. If you want to fly, you need propulsion. Values are the ice cream. I like Cookies ‘N Cream, Greg Koukl likes Butter Pecan, and there are no consequences to either preference.
Francis Schaeffer characterized this as the divide between the “Lower Story” and the “Upper Story.” In the Lower Story we have placed only those things that are scientifically verifiable. In most cases, this means only materialistic explanations can constitute knowledge that is true for all people. We have thrown everything else into the Upper Story- ethics (Kant), religion (romanticism), the mind (Descartes), literature (Derrida), etc. No matter how strongly we hold to a belief in any of these areas, we can never claim that our belief constitutes something knowable, something true beyond the confines of our individual existence.
Judeo-Christian values are meaningless in such a culture, as are any other values. We have no basis for telling someone it is wrong to kill their baby, and likewise, they have no basis for telling us we’re wrong in our assessment. It is no wonder why so many people believe we can’t legislate morality; if morality were a matter of personal choice then it would make no sense to legislate it. Of course, if this were the case we would have nothing to legislate. Those things that are universally true in this framework have already been legislated- like the laws of thermodynamics.
This dichotomy of facts and values is necessarily self-contradictory. More technically, it is self-referentially absurd. When this framework is applied to itself it falls flat on its face. It’s not scientifically verifiable. I can’t engage it with my five senses. It has no rational argumentation. In the end it explains nothing; nothing except what G.K. Chesterton told us, “When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything."
The Biblical worldview has always stood up against such nonsense, arguing that ethics, theology, etc. constitute knowledge. That claims of this nature correspond to the real world we encounter on a regular basic. C.S. Lewis made this argument in Mere Christianity by appealing to our intuitions. “Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people kindest to him… [Men] have always agreed that you ought not put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired… But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining ‘It’s not fair’ before you can say Jackie Robinson.”
The foolishness of moral relativism isn’t new. Since the fall of man people have sought to do what is right in their own eyes. And history has shown the consequences of such efforts. We have experienced this problem in our own lives. Almost every time we feel hurt it is because someone decided to do what felt right for them instead of what is right for all.
If we desire to fulfill the Cultural Mandate, that is, develop and harness the social and natural world, then we must start by shifting “values” back down to the Lower Story. We must show that certain “values” aren’t simply ice cream in the freezer, but are really medicine in the cabinet. As Nancy Pearcey puts it, “to recover a place at the table of public debate, Christians must find a way to overcome the dichotomy between public and private, fact and value, secular and sacred. We need to liberate the gospel from its cultural captivity, restoring it to the status of public truth.” (Total Truth, 22)