Have you ever heard a Christian say they have decided to do something or not do something and that they “have a peace about it?” “Peace” is one of those Christianese terms that is sometimes used in the context of decision-making as a test for God’s will. Often when a Christian says, “I have peace about this or that,” they mean that they take that particular thing to be God’s will for them. Every Christian I’ve gotten to know over a length of time, no matter what country or culture they are from seems to have this universal catch-phrase in common. “Peace” is used as a barometer to determine the right thing to do in a given situation. Many go so far as to say, “God has given me a real peace about it.” (As opposed to him giving a false peace?)

In my Christian experience I’ve sometimes taken to using the peace barometer to aid decision-making. Rather, I should say that I used to do that. I don’t do it anymore because, uh, well, because…

I don’t have a peace about it.

In all seriousness, as a Christian when you say you “have peace” about something it means nothing more than you “feel good” about it or there is an absence of emotional conflict. Some Christians refer to a “supernatural peace” taking their cue from Philippians 4:7, “The peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” This is a comforting passage, but one that is often mistakenly called upon when trying to determine God’s will. This is a mistake because the scripture never gives us instruction to use “peace” as a barometer for determining God’s will—rather, the scripture uses conviction. Peace can be a byproduct of an already-made choice, but not always.

“Peace” from a biblical view is first “peace with God” (Romans 5:1), meaning that our enmity with God has been erased by the atoning working of the Lord Jesus on the cross. Because of Jesus, God is no longer in conflict with those who have received him. We are “at peace” with him.

Second, biblical “peace” is a lack of internal conflict, or perhaps we shall also call this internal enmity, with ourselves about something. In both cases this kind of peace does not proceed or coincide with a decision to do something, rather it is a byproduct of an already-made decision—sometimes. I’ll explain that qualifying “sometimes” in a moment.

Take a close look at the book of Philippians for the context in which Paul was speaking when he briefly, almost in passing made his reference to the “peace of God which surpasses all understanding.” First look at when Paul said what he said, as it will aid our understanding of Paul’s context. Paul wrote this epistle while imprisoned by Rome awaiting judgment by Caesar for his evangelism activities (1:7). This was equivalent to a charge of political treason, punishable by death. Paul had peace about what he was doing and about what he would suffer because he had already made a decision—in advance—that it was right for him to set his face toward imprisonment and suffering.

How many of us would have peace with that kind of decision?

Paul’s imprisonment is fascinating since he deliberately set out on a mission that he knew beforehand would get him arrested. Let that sink in. I think I’ll go to jail and be executed. Yes. Ah, yes, I have peace about that. Paul’s imprisonment was no accident. He intentionally worked in such a way as to keep himself in Roman custody after he was arrested.

During Paul’s time in Ephesus he set his face to go to Jerusalem knowing full well that if he preached Jesus while there (and being Paul he could not avoid it) he would be confronted and arrested. Look carefully at Paul’s words to his Ephesian brothers. “I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me. But I do not count my life of any value nor as precious to myself…” (Acts 20:22-24). Did you notice that phrase, “constrained by the Spirit?” This is Paul’s way of saying, “I’m not really sure I like this idea, but God is moving me in this direction so I must do it regardless of my personal feelings.” Now, does this sound like Paul used “peace” to make his decision about God’s will? Not at all. Paul didn’t need supernatural peace for the decision-making process, he used conviction provided by, as he said, the Holy Spirit. Upon his arrival in Jerusalem Paul attempted to appease an angry mob of Jews that God had given the same blessing of salvation to Gentiles (Acts 22:21-22). At every step making his defense over a period of years Paul upped the ante saying things to his prosecutors and accusers that were all but assured to get him into further trouble. It was as if Paul was orchestrating things so that he could get to Rome, under Roman guard, to force a hearing for Christianity before the Roman emperor himself (Acts 25:11-12, 26:31-32, 28:18-20). In fact that is exactly what one late professor of theology taught Paul was doing. “[Paul’s] appeal to Caesar brought Christianity directly to the attention of the Roman government and compelled the civil authorities to pass judgment on its legality. If it was to be allowed as religio licita, a permitted cult, the persecution of it would be illegal, and its security would be assured. If, on the other hand, it was adjudged to be religio illicita, a forbidden cult, then the ensuing persecution would only advertise it and offer an opportunity for a demonstration of its power” (New Testament Survey, Merrill C. Tenney, “Results of the Pauline Imprisonment,” page 329).

Whether Paul would be executed or set free it was a win/win situation for Paul and a lose/lose for Rome. If Rome had simply ignored Paul and sent him on his way, Christianity would have remained in further obscurity. Paul’s strategy would either bring greater freedom to Christians to advance their faith, or cause greater suffering for the church at large. Some might have asked, who was Paul to make such a decision for the whole church?

It was in this environment of difficult, sacrificial, painful choices and imprisonment that Paul wrote to his Philippian brothers, urging them to sacrifice themselves for one another, writing that his own life was nothing apart from Christ, even noting his suffering and many sacrifices to get to where he was. Isn’t that an interesting notion? I’ve sacrificed a lot to get to prison where I can suffer and be mistreated for the sake of Jesus, and possibly cause you more suffering.

In the midst of all of this, when Paul knew that great suffering awaited him still, then and only then does Paul refer to the “peace that surpasses understanding.” In fact, Paul went on in the same chapter to describe how to attain that peace: “What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things and the God of peace shall be with you” (4:9). What example did Paul set for his Philippian brothers? He was an example of a man who lived godly as he embraced suffering and imprisonment with both arms for the sake of the Church and the sake of Christ. It was in that context that Paul wrote about peace – a context where Paul intentionally chose to intentionally suffer though he could have if he wanted, intentionally avoided it. By chance, do you see a pattern here?

In this context what do we learn from Paul’s admonition of peace? It is that “peace that passes understanding” isn’t something that is given to make decisions. Where will I live, where will I go to school, what will be my job, who will I marry, etc? Paul didn’t even use the peace barometer to make decisions about the persecution of the church. He used conviction.

Feeling good or bad about decisions is not abnormal, and does not require Paul’s “peace that passes understanding.” The peace that Paul refers to is supernatural because extreme circumstance require extreme conviction, and sometimes extreme encouragement. Feeling good or non-conflicted is not peace in the biblical sense. Peace in the biblical sense is that jaw-dropping, “how does he do that” sense of security and firm conviction in the face of absolutely overwhelming odds and opposition where no sense of sense makes sense to accept it. It is what the Apostle Peter had when he walked calmly to his own execution and begged to be crucified upside down because he felt unworthy of his Lord. It is what the early martyrs experienced when they smiled at the flames alight under their feat as the kindling began searing their flesh. It is what Paul experienced after he resolutely, firmly, and purposefully with deep conviction set his face to go toward imprisonment and suffering and embraced it at every step of his journey until the butcher’s axe severed his head from his neck. It is not to stand when the world demands you sit. It is the conviction to stand when the world cuts off your legs and greases the floor—and your conviction persuades others to stand with you. THAT is the kind of peace the Bible promises.

Sometimes. Sometimes it’s a bit delayed.

The night before the Lord Jesus was lead away to be crucified he prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane asking the Father to, “remove this cup from me” (Luke 22:42). Yet at the same time his resolution was set, “not my will, but yours be done.” Did Jesus have “peace” at this momentous moment of decision – the decision to embrace the cross? Not in the slightest. Look at the following passages: “And there appeared to him an angel from Heaven, strengthening him (22:43). Rhetorical question: Why would Jesus need strengthening? Answer: Duh! Look at the following verse, even more revealing: “And being in agony he prayed even more earnestly” (22:44). Jesus’ stress was so great that it brought about hematohidrosis, causing blood vessels around sweat glands to burst so that he “sweat drops of blood” (22:44). Was this a Jesus “at peace” or was this a Jesus resolute in his decision regardless of his feelings? Clearly, the latter.

He was suffering great mental and emotional stress knowing what was to come. Yet remarkably he embraced the cross anyway. In stark, almost violent contrast Hebrews 12:2 paints the picture of Jesus’ kind of peace this way: “Who for the joy set before him endured the cross, despising its shame…” Jesus didn’t embrace the suffering of the cross because he “had peace about it.” He embraced the suffering of the cross for the peace it would bring us later.

When you make decisions about what course your life will take remember that “peace” is not designed to help us make decisions. If that were the case then all of our decisions would be designed to run from suffering like children. Rather, peace is the byproduct of decisions that are pleasing to God, regardless of suffering or joy. Yet also remember the suffering of the Lord Jesus who did not experience peace in the immediate aftermath of his decision. Instead he set himself resolutely to go to the cross because of his conviction and love for us. “Peace” had nothing to do with it except for the peace he was making between God and men.

Whom do you admire in the scriptures or in history the most? Chances are, like Jesus they are people who endured great suffering or turmoil, and either because of it and/or through it transformed the world around them.

And they didn’t always feel good about it.

In contrast to the worldview that runs from suffering, that makes it decisions through escapism, the scripture encourages times when we must embrace suffering, for out of it and through it great deeds are done, lives are transformed, and yes, even heroes are made. For there is nothing admirable about the man who embraces his personal peace at the expense of doing the right thing.

Here’s an interesting excerpt from an article pulled from LiveScience.com on the effects of religion on children, and by intimation, the home (all emphasis mine).

Kids with religious parents are better behaved and adjusted than other children, according to a new study that is the first to look at the effects of religion on young child development.The conflict that arises when parents regularly argue over their faith at home, however, has the opposite effect.

John Bartkowski, a Mississippi State University sociologist and his colleagues asked the parents and teachers of more than 16,000 kids, most of them first-graders, to rate how much self control they believed the kids had, how often they exhibited poor or unhappy behavior and how well they respected and worked with their peers.

The researchers compared these scores to how frequently the children’s parents said they attended worship services, talked about religion with their child and argued abut religion in the home.

The kids whose parents regularly attended religious services—especially when both parents did so frequently—and talked with their kids about religion were rated by both parents and teachers as having better self-control, social skills and approaches to learning than kids with non-religious parents.

But when parents argued frequently about religion, the children were more likely to have problems. “Religion can hurt if faith is a source of conflict or tension in the family,” Bartkowski noted.

Why so good?

Bartkowski thinks religion can be good for kids for three reasons. First, religious networks provide social support to parents, he said, and this can improve their parenting skills. Children who are brought into such networks and hear parental messages reinforced by other adults may also “take more to heart the messages that they get in the home,” he said.

Secondly, the types of values and norms that circulate in religious congregations tend to be self-sacrificing and pro-family, Bartkowski told LiveScience. These “could be very, very important in shaping how parents relate to their kids, and then how children develop in response,” he said.

Finally, religious organizations imbue parenting with sacred meaning and significance, he said.

Following the command to “Love the your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might,” comes this command in Deuteronomy 6:7, “You shall teach them (God’s commands) diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.” In fact the whole picture in Deuteronomy 6 is one where expressing the love of and for God and his Word is paramount in every aspect of life. Look at the whole chapter carefully and you will find elements of expressing love for God to him directly, within the home (and especially to children), in the neighborhood, and workplace/community. Even expressing love for God through heritage and history is presented in the latter part of the chapter. When God’s love permeates every area of our lives, our lives are transformed.

Reinforcing at home the messages that kids hear outside the home is critical to understanding the mess that arisen in much of Western culture. When kids are bombarded with negative, sexual, criminal, and immoral messages through media and popular entertainment, when the values in 6-8 hours of daily schooling are “value-neutral” or worse, then what is to be expected when the parents of those same children leave their kids to their own devices to “find their own way” rather then intentionally instructing and encouraging them in a love for God and his Word?

Is it any wonder that when a love for God is absent, and the expression of God’s love is absent from the most important areas of life, that complications arise? This is not to say that people who know Christ don’t have problems – indeed they do. But a strong foundation in God’s love, expressed through and for Jesus Christ, is a strong foundation that remains even when the rafters sometimes shake loose.

“There’s a sucker reborn every minute.”

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). This verse has been dancing around my head recently because of a conversation my daughter and I had after a faith preacher came to town to offer healing to whomever wanted to come forward for their miracle.

The Word of Faith brand of Christianity is quite popular in Mongolia. If you are a preacher who claims to heal or do miracles you’ll find an easy audience here. Word of Faith theology is a form of heresy, that is, it is predicated upon ideas foreign to the Bible so that the biblical text is reinterpreted apart from its historical intent to bring meaning to the scriptures that detract from its central themes. Word of Faith theology is part of the Charismatic wing of evangelicalism. Not all charismatics are Word of Faith oriented, though Word of Faith ideas do have a significant influence on the charismatic movement today. Some have described Word of Faith theology as charismatic Christianity turned into charismania.

I got to thinking about these things again because of the predilection by Word of Faith preachers (I scarce call them teachers) to claim that miracles and healing can come to you “if you only believe.” I have dealt with this issue more than once in these previous articles:

• A Step of Faith in the Wrong Direction
• Nobody Likes a Dead Jesus
• The Necessity of Sin and Guilt
• The Will of God
• A Context for Christ, and my most recent observations on
• Animism and Christianity

I bring this up to preface my main subject this week: Faith. You may have heard the old saying that “Faith doesn’t require evidence.” Some well-meaning Christians have said this taking Hebrews 11:1 to heart, from older, less accurate translations that read: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (1769 KJV). That little phrase, “Evidence of things not seen,” is problematic for two reasons.

1. The translation is not accurate to the original text, and
2. “Faith” is not “evidence.”

That last point is simple common sense. Faith, as Hebrews 11:1 says in the ESV is, “conviction.” We can take a liberty with the KJV translator’s words and phrase things like this: “If faith is assurance, and faith is evidence, then all faith is evidence of assurance.” The writer of Hebrews was not saying that faith is substantively the same as evidence (conviction), or that faith is some mystical belief in that which has no evidence. He is simply saying that faith is the action borne out of assurance and conviction of a previously evidenced truth. This means that a person is convinced or convicted that something is true and then takes action based upon that belief. Thus, “faith is evidence,” or as in the preferred ESV and NASB translations, “faith is conviction.”

Unlike most of religious systems, Christianity does not teach a philosophy per say. Christianity is the expression of personal faith in and obedience to the historical living person of Jesus Christ. “Faith in Christ” as we say, is predicated first upon various evidences that claims Jesus made about himself are accurate and completely truthful. Those “evidences” convince (or convict) us that Jesus is whom he claimed. In other words, “evidence” precedes “faith.” In fact in every story in the scripture whether a small exercise of faith, or risky exercise of faith is required by a person, evidence that that faith is well placed is ALWAYS provided before the exercise of faith is required. As one example: Abraham was told by God to sacrifice his son, Isaac as a burnt offering. Abraham obeyed God, trusting God’s intentions because he already had a past track record to indicate that God was also trustable in this new, and yes, extreme command. Even when God approached Abraham for the first time and told him to move to the Promised Land (Genesis 12:1-4), Abraham was able to trust God because God had already revealed himself to him as a real and living God, unlike the so-called gods of the cultures around him. The “evidence” of God’s existence was revealed first, then Abraham put his faith in God and obeyed his command.

Hebrews 11 is that famous “faith chapter” of the Bible that recounts the exploits and suffering of great men of God who put their faith and trust in God not because they were to simply believe without evidence for belief, but because God had already provided evidence which lead these men to believe and trust God – even in the midst of great suffering.

The deaths of the Apostles and early disciples who witnessed the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus also offers strong circumstantial evidence. Nearly every one of these men died horrible, painful, and in some cases prolonged deaths of great suffering – yet not a one recanted that what or who they were dying for was a fraud or mistake. Men don’t die for that which they are convinced is a lie. Those men died for something they believed was true, because they witnessed the risen Jesus first hand.

The idea of what faith really is, is important for the Christian to understand. Nowhere in the Bible does God ever instruct us to trust him or have faith without evidence that he is trustworthy. Evidence always precedes faith. Compare this with other religious systems where the adherent is required to believe something without any evidence in the real world that what they are enjoined to believe is factual, accurate, or even real. A perfect example of this is rebirth (reincarnation).

There has never been any real world evidence to support the idea that people experience multiple lives. Some adherents cling to philosophical teachings, claims by so-called masters, and even dreams or visions to try to give their belief some measure of personal substance. But none of these are evidences for the rebirth position. They are only unsubstantiated claims. A claim for a philosophical or religious belief is not evidence. Though available cumulative evidence (cumulative emptiness?) leads to an inescapable conclusion that rebirth is a fiction, yet millions of people cling to the belief. They “have faith” without solid, verifiable, real world historical evidence that rebirth is a reality. In their case the principles of Hebrews 11:1 also apply. They have “assurance,” and “conviction” of things they “hope for” that are “unseen.” Yet tragically their assurance, conviction, and hope are placed in an unseen that is unseen because it also happens to be unreal.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is remarkably different. The resurrection was written about by eyewitnesses who personally saw the risen Christ and who accepted the testimony of up to 500 who saw the Lord Jesus at the same time. Remarkably, the resurrection of Jesus was attested to by him for three years in advance, and written about more than 600 years in advance by the prophet Isaiah, and about 1,000 years prior by King David.

Back to my original issue regarding Word of Faith ideas…

Central to the concept of faith in the scriptures is that when we place our faith in what God will do, our faith is to be placed with the understanding that God will only act on our faith to do that which is in agreement with his character. Jesus and the Apostles performed many miracles, and many people were healed, but virtually every example is used as a testimony about the identity of the Lord Jesus and/or the authority of the Apostles. Healing and miracles for the sake of healing and miracles are not in God’s character because it is not in God’s character to flaunt his power or use it without creative or redemptive purpose.

I had an interesting discussion with a pastor friend of mine last year and asked him, “When you heal people, what percentage of those people end up putting their faith in Christ?” His answer was revealing.

“If you’re speaking of non-believers, some do and some don’t. The greater percentage of them don’t. It’s just like the ten lepers who came to Jesus for healing, but only one returned to follow him” (great point, by the way).

“So you wouldn’t say that a healing or miracle ministry is a great way to do evangelism?” I asked. He agreed, but added, “Jesus did more miracles than were able to be recorded, and He did them because He loved the people He healed. But, He knew, and I know, there is no guarantee they will love God in return.” Interestingly my friend is a charismatic preacher, but is NOT a Word of Faith guy. He in fact is a hardened opponent AGAINST the Word of Faith heresy.

Lots of people make a big show out of proclaiming God’s power while claiming they have it, or claiming that you have it (funny how you only have it when you attend their services). But their claims are not backed up with evidence that the faith they demand is wisely affixed in reality, or in the long track record of God’s already established character. They want you to exercise faith in faith all the while calling it faith in God. The object of faith becomes our own faith (thus, ourselves) instead of God, and therefore genuine miracles rarely, very rarely happen. In this sense they are no better than the one who encourages a belief in reincarnation (that never happens) which denies not only the reality of the Lord Jesus, but of reality in general. How interesting that so many adherents of one form of unreality (reincarnation) eagerly flock to embrace the animistic expressions of another unreality (the Barnum and Bailey Miracle and Healing Circus).

As P.T. Barnum once said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Yes. Just not reborn. Or miraculously restored. And certainly not every minute.

Whatever your particular brand of faith, examine it and ask yourself, “Is my faith supported by real world evidence and God’s previously revealed character?” If you can’t find real world evidence for what you are putting your faith in, or by faith hoping for, then perhaps you’ve put your faith in something that doesn’t or cannot exist. A turn to reality would be in order, and you can make that turn here.

This week’s offering is an excerpt the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions from its chapter on Buddhism. I’ve had this resource in my library for several years, but frankly forgot about it until a couple of weeks ago. Its third chapter is a lengthy look at Eastern Buddhism and some of the forms of Western Buddhism that have become popular in the U.S. in recent years.

Recently I’ve been developing a new series of Bible studies on Basic Christian Ethics for use with our Steppe-by-Steppe project and Ministry Production department. The studies I’m developing now will be used as the framework to create a 10-episode TV series that will begin airing in the fall season.

As I’ve been studying through a list of ten ethics, I’ve approached the series from what some might consider a rather unusual point of view (my usually unusual points of view notwithstanding). I have a number of titles in my library on ethical studies at various levels: Do the Right Thing, Francis J. Beckwith, Moral Choices, Scott B. Rae, How Now Shall We Live, Charles Colson, Ethics, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. There are others sitting on my shelves that touch on the subject on ethics, but for most there is a problem.

Most books and articles that touch on ethics as a subject for study deal with the theory of ethics, dividing ethics into various disciplines: Normative, Metaethics, Relativism, Objectivism, Minimalism, and the list goes on. There is actually a lot of good material written about ethics (to which I’m about to add, though not as eloquently as others). Though I confess to not seeing a lot of ethical behavior, even from my own countrymen. Such is the problem of human evil. “Be not hearers of the word only, but be doers of the word” (James 1:22).

The problem with most books on ethics is that they either don’t explore the source of ethics, or they assume ethics is something created by man for the purpose of managing his character or community. Here’s a good example:

“The concept of the normal is properly a variant of the concept of the good. It is that which society has approved. A normal action is one which falls well within the limits of expected behavior for a particular society. Its variability among different peoples is essentially a function of the variability of the behavior patterns that different societies have created for themselves, and can never be wholly divorced from a consideration of culturally institutionalized types of behavior.” – Journal of General Psychology 10, Ruth Beedict, “A Defense of Moral Relativism,” 1934).

That’s a whole lot of psychobabble that means nothing more than, “Societies create ethics through consensus.” Duh. Nothing really profound there, though I’m sure a lot of people pay thousands in tuition to have someone of educational authority lecture them on the obvious. It’s easy to say that ethical systems are formed by societal consensus. It’s also easy to say that the Bible teaches us about right and wrong. But what none of that does is inform us about the first source of ethics.

When I began working on the study guides for the ethics series I didn’t want to produce the usual diatribe about right and wrong, following a set of rules, or even the Mosaic Law – important though that is (and as much as I love diatribe). I wanted to go to the source of all ethics, and that meant going directly to God.

One of the greatest statements I’ve ever read about ethics was in the book, Answering Islam. Granted, the book is not about ethics, but it was what the authors said about the character of God that first got my attention about the source of ethics. In the book the authors discuss the Islamic concept of God’s will and that because God is “supreme will” he can will himself to do anything he wants. They note that in Islam…

“[Allah] does not do things because they are right; rather, they are right because he does them. In short, [Allah] is arbitrary about what is right and wrong. He does not have to do good. For example, God does not have to be merciful; he could be mean if he wanted to be. He does not have to be loving at all; he could be hate, if he chose to do so” (Emphasis mine. Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross, Normal L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Chapter 7: “An Evaluation of Islamic Monotheism,” pages 136-137).

Maybe you don’t think that’s particularly insightful, but I think it’s brilliant. What these men have essentially said is that the Bible reveals that God is good because he can’t be anything else but good. God can’t be bad because he is unable to be bad. God can’t sin because he doesn’t have the capacity to sin; God is limited by his own character. While Islamic theology is actually correct in saying that what is right is right because God does it, that same theology misses the mark by insisting that because God can do anything he wants he could make right wrong and wrong right. In the words of that esteemed theologian, Sherman T. Potter: “Horse hockey!” Or to twist the words of J.B. Phillips, “Your god is too big!”

The Bible’s idea is that God cannot change right and wrong because he cannot change himself – he is eternal. Therefore, the right that God does is always right and he cannot will wrong to be right, and he cannot will himself to do wrong.

This truth really transformed my thinking many years ago about my relationship with God. Like many Christians I used to wonder what might happen if I “sinned too much.” Though like many Christians I didn’t have a measurement for it until I came to God’s definition of too much sin: 1. It then occurred to me that God’s thoughts, feelings, and actions toward me would never change; his character won’t allow it. “God is not a man that he should lie, not a son of man that he should change his mind” (Numbers 23:19). “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).

It may seem like I’ve rabbit-trailed, but follow me up from the hole for a minute into the garden. In the words of Professor Wayne Grudem, “God is the final standard of good, and that all that God is and does is worthy of approval…if God himself is good and therefore the ultimate standard of good, then we have a definition of the meaning of ‘good,’ that will greatly help us in the study of ethics and aesthetics” (Systematic Theology, Chapter 12: “The Communicable Attributes of God,” page 197).

Bullseye.

The source of ethics, that is, the standard of ethical behavior is God himself. We can talk about concepts of right and wrong and conscience, but every system amounts to nothing more than a consensus of men. When it comes to the consensus of men two things are always unreliable and changing: consensus and men. God is unchanging. By looking to God and his character-driven acts as the standard for all that is ethical we are released from the bondage of systems and philosophies into the wonderful freedom that comes with a relation-driven ethic founded upon the character of the good, eternal, and unchangeable God. So it’s not about the Ten Commandments, it’s about the God out of whom the Ten Commandments came. Dietrich Bonhoeffer hits the point:

“To be simple is to fix one’s eye solely on the simple truth of God at a time when all concepts are being confused, distorted and turned upside-down. It is to be single-hearted, and not a man of two souls (James 1:8). Because the simple man knows God, because God is his, he clings to the commandments, the judgments and the mercies which come from God’s mouth every day afresh. Not fettered by principles, but bound by love for God, he has been set free from the problems and conflicts of ethical decision. They no longer oppress him. He belongs simply and solely to God and to the will of God. It is precisely because he looks only to God, without any sidelong glance at the world, that he is able to look at the reality of the world freely and without prejudice” (Ethics, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 1949).

I’m looking forward to completing my new series on ethics because my greatest joy is not in studying the laws, rules, or principles of right and wrong (as much as I love them), but because I’m being lead into an even deeper understanding of the character of Christ himself. “He is the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15), “the exact representation of his nature” (Hebrews 1:3), and “There is none good but God alone” (Luke 18:19).

Recently I’ve been developing a new series of Bible studies on Basic Christian Ethics for use with our Steppe-by-Steppe project and Ministry Production department. The studies I’m developing now will be used as the framework to create a 10-episode TV series that will begin airing in the fall season.

As I’ve been studying through a list of ten ethics, I’ve approached the series from what some might consider a rather unusual point of view (my usually unusual points of view notwithstanding). I have a number of titles in my library on ethical studies at various levels: Do the Right Thing, Francis J. Beckwith, Moral Choices, Scott B. Rae, How Now Shall We Live, Charles Colson, Ethics, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. There are others sitting on my shelves that touch on the subject on ethics, but for most there is a problem.

Most books and articles that touch on ethics as a subject for study deal with the theory of ethics, dividing ethics into various disciplines: Normative, Metaethics, Relativism, Objectivism, Minimalism, and the list goes on. There is actually a lot of good material written about ethics (to which I’m about to add, though not as eloquently as others). Though I confess to not seeing a lot of ethical behavior, even from my own countrymen. Such is the problem of human evil. “Be not hearers of the word only, but be doers of the word” (James 1:22).

The problem with most books on ethics is that they either don’t explore the source of ethics, or they assume ethics is something created by man for the purpose of managing his character or community. Here’s a good example:

“The concept of the normal is properly a variant of the concept of the good. It is that which society has approved. A normal action is one which falls well within the limits of expected behavior for a particular society. Its variability among different peoples is essentially a function of the variability of the behavior patterns that different societies have created for themselves, and can never be wholly divorced from a consideration of culturally institutionalized types of behavior.” – Journal of General Psychology 10, Ruth Beedict, “A Defense of Moral Relativism,” 1934).

That’s a whole lot of psychobabble that means nothing more than, “Societies create ethics through consensus.” Duh. Nothing really profound there, though I’m sure a lot of people pay thousands in tuition to have someone of educational authority lecture them on the obvious. It’s easy to say that ethical systems are formed by societal consensus. It’s also easy to say that the Bible teaches us about right and wrong. But what none of that does is inform us about the first source of ethics.

When I began working on the study guides for the ethics series I didn’t want to produce the usual diatribe about right and wrong, following a set of rules, or even the Mosaic Law – important though that is (and as much as I love diatribe). I wanted to go to the source of all ethics, and that meant going directly to God.

One of the greatest statements I’ve ever read about ethics was in the book, Answering Islam. Granted, the book is not about ethics, but it was what the authors said about the character of God that first got my attention about the source of ethics. In the book the authors discuss the Islamic concept of God’s will and that because God is “supreme will” he can will himself to do anything he wants. They note that in Islam…

“[Allah] does not do things because they are right; rather, they are right because he does them. In short, [Allah] is arbitrary about what is right and wrong. He does not have to do good. For example, God does not have to be merciful; he could be mean if he wanted to be. He does not have to be loving at all; he could be hate, if he chose to do so” (Emphasis mine. Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross, Normal L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Chapter 7: “An Evaluation of Islamic Monotheism,” pages 136-137).

Maybe you don’t think that’s particularly insightful, but I think it’s brilliant. What these men have essentially said is that the Bible reveals that God is good because he can’t be anything else but good. God can’t be bad because he is unable to be bad. God can’t sin because he doesn’t have the capacity to sin; God is limited by his own character. While Islamic theology is actually correct in saying that what is right is right because God does it, that same theology misses the mark by insisting that because God can do anything he wants he could make right wrong and wrong right. In the words of that esteemed theologian, Sherman T. Potter: “Horse hockey!” Or to twist the words of J.B. Phillips, “Your god is too big!”

The Bible’s idea is that God cannot change right and wrong because he cannot change himself – he is eternal. Therefore, the right that God does is always right and he cannot will wrong to be right, and he cannot will himself to do wrong.

This truth really transformed my thinking many years ago about my relationship with God. Like many Christians I used to wonder what might happen if I “sinned too much.” Though like many Christians I didn’t have a measurement for it until I came to God’s definition of too much sin: 1. It then occurred to me that God’s thoughts, feelings, and actions toward me would never change; his character won’t allow it. “God is not a man that he should lie, not a son of man that he should change his mind” (Numbers 23:19). “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).

It may seem like I’ve rabbit-trailed, but follow me up from the hole for a minute into the garden. In the words of Professor Wayne Grudem, “God is the final standard of good, and that all that God is and does is worthy of approval…if God himself is good and therefore the ultimate standard of good, then we have a definition of the meaning of ‘good,’ that will greatly help us in the study of ethics and aesthetics” (Systematic Theology, Chapter 12: “The Communicable Attributes of God,” page 197).

Bullseye.

The source of ethics, that is, the standard of ethical behavior is God himself. We can talk about concepts of right and wrong and conscience, but every system amounts to nothing more than a consensus of men. When it comes to the consensus of men two things are always unreliable and changing: consensus and men. God is unchanging. By looking to God and his character-driven acts as the standard for all that is ethical we are released from the bondage of systems and philosophies into the wonderful freedom that comes with a relation-driven ethic founded upon the character of the good, eternal, and unchangeable God. So it’s not about the Ten Commandments, it’s about the God out of whom the Ten Commandments came. Dietrich Bonhoeffer hits the point:

“To be simple is to fix one’s eye solely on the simple truth of God at a time when all concepts are being confused, distorted and turned upside-down. It is to be single-hearted, and not a man of two souls (James 1:8). Because the simple man knows God, because God is his, he clings to the commandments, the judgments and the mercies which come from God’s mouth every day afresh. Not fettered by principles, but bound by love for God, he has been set free from the problems and conflicts of ethical decision. They no longer oppress him. He belongs simply and solely to God and to the will of God. It is precisely because he looks only to God, without any sidelong glance at the world, that he is able to look at the reality of the world freely and without prejudice” (Ethics, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 1949).

I’m looking forward to completing my new series on ethics because my greatest joy is not in studying the laws, rules, or principles of right and wrong (as much as I love them), but because I’m being lead into an even deeper understanding of the character of Christ himself. “He is the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15), “the exact representation of his nature” (Hebrews 1:3), and “There is none good but God alone” (Luke 18:19).