|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
It
is a curious thing that children never need to be told how to be disobedient.
No parent instructs their child this way : "Now my son (or daughter), I
want you to oppose me, and do everything you can to destroy my good and orderly
instructions . . .". What usually happens is a slow and painstaking process
of training, correction, discipline and warning, for up to 17 or so years, when
the child is able to leave home - and having left home, the child may marry and
begin the same process with the next generation which it has to raise.
The
whole progress of Mankind therefore consists of an endless training of new
humans to divert them from full-blown disobedience. Obviously, if disobedience
was allowed to go on unchecked, a child's behaviour would become so antisocial
it would eventually destroy its own life and the society in which it lived.
Most
parents allow a certain amount of rebellion. They realise that the perfect child
is unattainable, and they also may notice that the very rebellions which they
try to suppress in their children are actually inherent in their own hearts. So
a compromise is reached, where the parent works within a range of obedience and
disobedience which it considers reasonable. Too much correction and the parent
is in danger of trying to make the child better than itself - which amounts to
hypocrisy. Too little correction and the child becomes unbearably destructive.
So a tolerable level is found, and the child soon works out how much rebellion
it can 'get away with' before it passes the line.
This
is not to say that all rebellion in a child is deliberate. Sometimes its
behaviour is the result of ignorance, curiosity or forgetfulness, but there are
always times when things are done out of defiance. If children are told not to
do something, they go ahead and do it, regardless of consequences, and
regardless of any warnings, or clear reasons why their course of action may harm
them. The unbelievable child is always submissive to its parents,
or any authority. Such children do not exist.
Having
established that in every normal human is a sort of instinct to go
against the rules, we can now look at the other curious instinct (for
want of a better word) which works against rebellion - the conscience.
Strangely enough, while the conscience is quite often seen as a nuisance and
impediment to 'freedom' it is in fact every parent's ally, and the child's best
guide.
But
before we go any further, we must say that the conscience is by no means infallible.
In many areas, what one person's conscience allows, another person's conscience
will not allow. But despite this general wavering, the conscience has one clear,
distinct property : it gives a person an instinct about morals. Morals
and the conscience go together as inseparable friends.
There
is a universal standard, in all cultures, and at all times in Man's history,
which dictates what we call "right" and what we call
"wrong", and these views of right and wrong are called moral views.
The conscience helps us understand what is right and what is wrong, and the fact
that we are human determines that we have a sense of morals. Animals show no
sign of morals or conscience in the way humans do - although there are reports
of animals which appear to show moral consciousness. In these cases the
explanation is found in the training of the animal. For example, a dog may
appear to be sorry for biting a sheep, but this appearance is our human way of
interpreting things to suit our own view of things. Another dog watching would
have no idea what the other dog's response meant.
Now
morals are very interesting things. They are, in a way, like colours. We
can't see colours until we look at them, but they are there even when we aren't
looking too. Morals pervade every area of our lives. They govern the way we
interact with each other, our businesses, or child-raising, or sports, and our
travelling.
Many
of our morals have been codified into civil law. The road rules, for example,
are a sensible set of rules which govern the way we drive, but they also help us
to show courtesy and thoughtfulness to other people whether we want to or not.
Without the road rules, and the obedience which must follow, the roads would be
a chaotic mess, and very dangerous.
It
is morally wrong to trespass or destroy other people's property. This moral rule
has been codified into laws governing private property, trespass, vandalism, and
littering of public areas, to name but a few.
It
is morally wrong for people to ignore possible dangers to other people. This
moral rule has been codified into laws governing the setting up of Road Works
signs, fences around holes, safe scaffolding beside buildings, walkways and
guard rails, and all manner of building specifications to make sure the public
are protected from accidents.
It
is morally wrong to injure another person. This moral rule has been codified
into laws governing assault, threats, slander and so on.
Society
has built up a vast network of laws all based on the simple moral rules inherent
in the human makeup. Every one of these laws can be boiled down to the simple
formula of showing love to others, but because people have an instinct to rebel
against the conscience, the moral rule has had to be codified into law - and
enforced by fines, other punishments, and prison.
The
word "conscience"
comes from two words. "con" = with, and "science" = to know
(from the Latin "scio".) So by definition, a person with a conscience
knows something. It is not a matter of feeling, or having some vague idea. We
have definite, clear knowledge about something, and we develop a conviction
which feeds on that knowledge.
Society
always tries to modify the conscience. Sometimes it does this because it
prefers to follow its instinct for rebellion. The conscience is perceived as an
enemy, so it is suppressed. Many people resent the conscience,
because, to them, it is an enemy to their freedom to live the way they want to.
Other people treat their conscience in much the same way as a very defiant child
treats authority, so the conscience is opposed and contradicted.
One
of the ways in which modern Man has rebelled against the conscience is through
intellectual reasoning. Situation Ethics was invented as a means of
destroying the universal set of rules inherent in all humans, and whether people
are familiar with this expression or not, the effects of its teaching have
rolled on into most areas of our culture.
One
of the offshoots has been a thing called cultural relativity. The teachers of
relativism think that because every culture has a slightly different range of
moral norms, therefore no moral norm can be taken as an absolute. For
example, if some remote Icelandic tribe considers it morally acceptable to lie,
then lying must be an artificially imposed rule on other cultures. The next step
is to say, let us forget about our own cultural norms and adopt the norms of
other cultures as equally valid. The end result of this reasoning is utter
chaos, with every person choosing any or no morals as they see fit.
Another
attack on morals came through Charles Darwin (see my other essays for details).
Darwin and others like him argued that Man was a branch of the primate family
tree, and therefore just an evolved ape. As an ape therefore, Man cannot claim
any external source for his moral conscience. All morals must be, according to
evolution, simply the result of inter-social pressures, or part of Man's slowly
developing awareness, or mutually agreed rules to help our species progress and
work in harmony. (Judging by the endless wars this planet has experience, these
'apes' have a long way to go!)
In
all the above, every attempt by humans to explain the conscience and morals runs
out of steam, because none of the theories can point to an external
source for them. As long as we remain in a closed system, where
everything is relative, and where all comes from the theory of evolution, we
have several enormous problems.
First
of all, if we insist that morals are only relative to the culture we live
in, we might as well live in whatever way we want - lying, cheating, stealing,
destroying and so on. Unfortunately, if we do this too much we will be caught,
sentenced, and imprisoned, but, still in the closed system, all we can say is
"society" is protecting itself. As long as all moral values are seen
as part of a closed system, there is no need for any person to feel guilty, or
to beg forgiveness. A 'reformed' offender is simply one who has modified his or
her behaviour to suit the rules of the closed system. For this person the
expressions "right" and "wrong" simply mean "socially
acceptable" and "socially unacceptable".
Second,
the evolutionist sees no reason for morals other than some sort of
mutually beneficial set of rules which helps to keep the species viable. In the
animal kingdom no such system can be found. All animals are governed by
instincts (not morals) over which they have no control. All animals are but
highly sophisticated robots, governed absolutely by pre-programmed routines and
subroutines. Animals have no moral consciousness, and show no remorse when they
(in human terms) 'offend'. Rabbits eat their young, birds push their young from
their nests, insects lay their eggs inside other insects, etc.
When
it comes to humans, say the evolutionists, there is no difference, although it
may appear that there is. We are just animals, they say, and our
instincts have become more complex, and we have self-awareness, but this is only
because our brains are larger and more complex. We think about morals, but these
(they say) are just artificial rules which we impose on our species. Our
conscience is an extension of animal instincts. And so on.
The
main problem with the relativistic view
is the fact that any and all forms of behaviour may become totally
acceptable, provided enough people practise them. A culture, therefore, may
'normalise' anything - murder for example, or war, or compulsive injury, or
vandalism.
The
main problem with the evolutionary view
is the fact that if Man is an animal, and therefore just the product of
random forces, then all talk of cultures, of conscience, of morals, of thoughts,
of understanding, of self-awareness . . . in fact of EVERYTHING is futile,
because Man is part of the same closed system in which he thinks, and in which
even free will is an illusion. The absolute 'unknowableness' of existence is the
point to which very few evolutionists will travel, but it is the only logical
conclusion they can ever reach. (It is like the cog inside a clock trying to
explain the whole clock. The problem is, because the cog is part of the clock,
it is not separate enough from it to see the clock as some other individual
object. As long as evolutionists claim to be a small part of the same universe,
they will never be able to say anything true about the universe.)
The
Christian point of view is radically different. It says that evolution is a
false theory of origins, and that relativistic views of morals are flawed. The
Christian believes that our conscience was given to us by our Creator, and that
all the basic moral laws in our culture spring from the Ten Commandments, which
came from the Creator. Hand in hand, the Commandments and the conscience work
together to govern our lives, while at the same time allowing us the freedom to
choose to either obey them or not.
An
evolutionist may talk about free will, but, if he is true to his theory, all
free will is just an illusion. The relativist may talk about morals being
different depending on the culture, but without some absolute standard of morals
to measure all morals by, such talk becomes nonsense. Right may, to the
relativist, be just as valid as wrong, making a nonsense of their own point of
view. How can anyone argue constructively about morals when one has no solid
definition of the subject? All such debate comes to is a mere playing with
words.
The
Christian however, is on rock solid ground. According to the Bible, morals come
from an external source - the God who created the universe and Man. God
Himself is governed by morals. He is absolutely good. His love is perfect. He is
the source of all rightness (or righteousness, as most Bibles say). God's
standard of right is the measure by which Man may compare his own rightness, and
also by which Man may see what wrongness is.
As
most person know, it is impossible to say anything about size, or brightness or
weight (etc) without having something bigger, or smaller, brighter or duller,
heavier or lighter, to compare whatever it is with. In the same way, without
God's external standard of absolute right to compare things against, Man can
never know any absolutely true values. For example, how can we know what 'truth'
is without an 'untruth' to compare it against? How can we know what 'hate' is
without 'love'? 'Diligence' without 'laziness'?
(If
we have internal standards, we can argue for ever about something, and never
really know what it is - for example, how could we ever know what 'heavy' meant
without something like a feather, or an elephant to compare 'heavy' with? And
having done that, 'heavy' might seem like nothing compared to a planet? Perhaps
our standard maximum weight, our standard, might be the whole universe, but how
do we measure weight - by its mass as related to gravity. Now we have two more
variables against which we have nothing outside the universe to compare
them with, so we can only speak of weight in relative terms.)
John
3:16 becomes a nonsense when we apply relative values to it. "For God so
loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him
should not perish but have everlasting life". All the value statements in
the verse come to us from God, not Man, so the values mean far more than Man
would apply to them. "Loved" and "gave" and
"perish" and "life" are not relative to Man's view of these
things. When God loves, His love is absolute, not relative, infinite and
eternal, not limited or conditional. When God gives, it is unreservedly,
and in a way which no human can ever do. When God says "perish"
He means far more than simple rust away, or crumble. And "life"
means far more than good health, money, holidays, friends, food and mental
alertness until you reach 80!
The
context of the conscience is important. It is but one part of a whole human. As
with everything God created, each unit of creation consists of many multifaceted
pieces. The human body is an excellent example. The eye, the brain, the heart,
the blood, the arms, legs, head, skin . . . all these parts are complete in
themselves, but they all need the other parts to function properly.
Built
in to Man is : a body with its animal-level desires, instincts, free will,
self-awareness, a conscience, a sinful nature (inherited) and the Law written on
his heart.
All the parts work together, and ought to produce a happy human, but in most
people (including Christians) there is more use of one or some than the others.
All
these parts in Man have their uses, and in most cases, none of them are to be
ashamed of. For example Our animal-level desires include hunger, thirst,
tiredness, and so on. Our instincts include fear of heights, reaction pain, fear
or injury, what is called the 'survival instinct' . . . Our free will is
a gift and a blessing from God too, giving us the ability to choose several
different paths through life. Our self-awareness helps us see ourselves
as in but not off the world around us. Our sinful nature provides the
contrast, the dark side, the rebellion against God, which we can give in to or
resist as we choose. Our hearts contain the Law, written there by God,
making us moral creatures, which is what we would expect since we are made in
God's image. And the conscience - it is there as God's voice, reminding
us that He is present. Regardless of whether we are Christians or not, God
speaks to us through our conscience, and if we are sensitive to it, we can go
through life avoiding sin. Why should we avoid sin? Because, primarily, it
causes chaos, misery and death. Ultimately it causes judgement and hell.
Rom.
2:13-16. " . . .Gentiles . . .show the work of the law written in their
hearts, their conscience also bearing witness . . . their thought accusing or
else excusing them . . ."
Suppose
a very clever inventor wanted to make the Ultimate Robot. I suppose (and
I could be wrong) that an Ultimate Robot would be something like the inventor,
yet unable to control or kill the inventor. This Robot would need a place to
live, and the inventor might like to set it in an interesting and challenging
situation, for its own enjoyment and instruction.
*
The Robot would probably be reasonably mobile, agile, even athletic, and able to
negotiate obstacles, or swim, or even fly.
*
The Robot would probably be able to think for itself, because I'm sure the
inventor wouldn't want to be on the job 24 hours a day, making every decision
the Robot needed to make. If this happened, the Robot would be just an extension
of the inventor, like the hammer in the builder's hand. The Robot could never
take any credit for what it did.
*
The Robot would need to be able to decide whether its behaviour was helpful or
harmful. The inventor wouldn't want a Robot which destroyed itself or its
environment.
*
The Robot would probably need a built-in set of basic instructions on how to
behave. This code might read something like : Care for yourself. Care for the
environment. Care for other Robots. Care for the inventor.
*
The Robot might even have some emotions. I suspect that the inventor would be
overjoyed if the Robot suddenly sensed his presence and turned to him in love,
or thanks.
Now
what Man has done is shut off, as much as possible, all awareness of God. (The
Robot has tried to eliminate some of its programming, obliterating the memory of
its inventor). Man has also invented for himself many substitute gods. (The
Robot has devised programs which bypass the inventor). In both cases, Man and
the Robot have removed all need to be accountable for their actions.
This
is why the conscience is essential. On judgement day, the conscience will be
called to the stand, and it will accuse or excuse the prisoner.
But
like all gifts of God, if there is an imbalance, chaos can follow.
For
example :
Too
much emphasis on the body (the Bible calls it "the flesh") and
humans become like animals. Remove self-control and humans will kill,
cannibalise, torture, torment, each other or other living things. The media is
constantly reporting humans displaying animal behaviour.
Too
much emphasis on instincts and man becomes dangerously antisocial. We all
have instincts to do things which would be harmful to ourselves and others, so
we use reason and self-control to restrain ourselves.
Too
much emphasis on free will and social structures break down, because
people do what they want regardless of the trouble it causes others.
(Self-centredness, inflated ego) "Its my life, so I'll do what I want with
it!", "No rules!", "No-one tells me what to do!"
Too
much emphasis on self-awareness and Man can become forgetful of others,
of God, and of the needs of the world. "I am the most important person on
the planet". "I, me, mine".
Too
much emphasis on the sinful nature and Man becomes depraved, subhuman,
more like Satan, always seeking self-gratification, anti-authority, proud,
arrogant.
Too
much emphasis on the conscience and Man can become bound by uncertainty,
afraid to even think in case the conscience is violated.
Too
much emphasis on the Law written within and Man can become legalistic or
militant, cruel, religious, or formal in a deadly sort of way.
The
ideal human
has all these parts in balance, with the best working most and the worst
working least. It is a complicated thing to be a human.
Unfortunately,
there is not a human on earth who has perfect control over all the parts, or who
has everything always in harmony. This is because of the sinful nature.
Our
present life is not 'normal', compared to the original plan. God began Mankind
with two supremely perfect creatures, whose communion with God, Earth, Self and
Each Other was perfect. But when sin came, the communion was broken. Humans fell
out of fellowship with their Creator, and with the planet they were meant
to have dominion over, and with each other, and with themselves.
The Greek saying "Know thyself" is impossible in this age, and so is
the sincere but misguided desire by many people to be in "harmony with
Nature". Shakespeare's (indirect) advice "To thine own self be
true" is impossible, because no human knows themselves well enough to do
this. Many religions seek earnestly for "oneness with the cosmos" but
that too will fail. Every attempt by Man to regain the glorious perfection which
God established before sin, is doomed to failure.
Despite
this, Christianity goes the furthest towards restoring the harmony and
perfection which God intended Man to enjoy. For a start, God has given us His
written Word, the Bible. This externally received code shows us how we may make
the most out of our present lives. God has also given us an internal code, the
Moral Law, written on our hearts, and He has given us the Holy Spirit, who helps
us read that internal Law. Our conscience is God's voice, guiding and correcting
us as we make each free will decision. Our self-awareness helps us realise that
every word we speak and every action we do has repercussions. We see how
children are accountable to their parents, and we understand that we too are
accountable to our Heavenly Parent.
Our
body's animal desires can be brought under control, never perfectly, but
reasonably well - by the use of our conscience, the internal moral Law, and the
Bible's instructions. We recognise that our body needs food, water, sleep, sex,
and other basic things, but these natural drives of the flesh are not allowed
free reign. And all this happens as we exercise our free will. In this way we
honour God.
But
there is one Man (after Adam failed) who has brought all the separate parts into
perfect harmony - the Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus
had a body,
which he gained through his mother. This body had all the instincts which your
body has. It hungered, it thirsted, it grew tired, it needed sleep, it bled, it
bruised, it felt pain, it sweated. The body of Jesus had all the natural desires
of any normal human body, yet Jesus never allowed those desires to gain
ascendancy.
Jesus
also had free will.
He came to do the Father's will. He gave his time, and effort to working for his
parents, helping his family, and doing good works. When he faced the cross he
prayed so hard the blood came through his skin, but he chose to die. The Father
was not forcing him to give his life.
Jesus
was self-aware.
Right from the earliest moment (there are always mysteries) Jesus knew he was
the Messiah. He knew who he was right up to the cross, and even when he hung
there he had no doubts about his work or position in relation to the father.
Jesus
had a conscience,
although in his case it was not there to help, because he was the Son of God,
and needed to time to consider his actions. It was impossible for him to sin, so
even a moment's hesitation over which course of action to take would have been
an absurdity. His conscience was perfectly in tune with the Law.
Jesus
had no sinful nature,
so there was no inner conflict to rebel against his Father.
Jesus
had the law written on his heart,
in fact he was the living embodiment of the Law.
What
Christians try to do is emulate Jesus. It hardly needs to be pointed out that
Christians always fail, but that is the aim. Some are better at it than others,
but no Christian ever gets it right all the time. Christians who really try to
follow God fight for mastery over their body's desires, and the temptations of
sin (which is rebellion against the Law) and their own sinful nature, which has
a bias against godliness. It is a war on three fronts. The enemy is without and
within! Satan, the flesh and the godless world all press against the Christian,
trying to turn him or her away from obedience. (See 'Drawing the Line') It is a
royal battle, and the stakes are incredibly high - eternal life or eternal
death.
In
the midst of all this blood and guts of spiritual warfare is the conscience,
God's voice to our heart, whispering, speaking, and sometimes shouting. By it we
'know' some things are right and some things are wrong. By it we 'know' what to
do morally. By it we judge other people's behaviour. By it we guide our
children. By it we shape our nation's laws. By it we make international treaties
and covenants. By it we decide our justice system. By it we make up codes of
ethics and our millions of rules which hold together our communities. If people
will not be ruled by their conscience, then they must be ruled by constitutions
and civil laws. Democracy depends on healthy, working consciences.
And
while we may overlook the conscience, it is profoundly important to every part
of human existence, and, finally, it will one day bear witness to us on the Day
of Judgement. On that day our conscience will either be a friend to defend us,
or an enemy, to accuse us.
This is why we must run to Jesus, who died to take our sins, who paid the full price for our violation of the Moral Law (the 10 commandments). If we do not trust in Jesus, on the Day of Judgement we will have no excuse, because our conscience will convict us of breaking every one of those commandments, in thought if not in deed. We will be guilty as charged, and God will, as an indifferent Judge, pass sentence according to our crimes.