Relative Conscience

Last night we watched the premiere of "Community" in it, the main character says, "I discovered at a very early age that if I talk long enough I can make anything right or wrong. So, either I'm god or truth is relative. In either case, booyah."

Another character replies, "Interesting, its just the average person has a much harder time saying 'booyah' to moral relativism."

(You can watch it here at about the 8:40 mark.)

While the scene was simply meant to be clever banter to push the plot forward and give us a small glimpse into the personalities of the characters, it really touches on much more.

We live in a world where millions of people decide right or wrong only by what they can defend or reason or rationalize. If they can explain why what they did was right for them, it was right. If their actions weren't as bad as an alternative, it was right. If they can do it without their conscience getting in the way, it was right. If they can do it and then smooth things over with their conscience, it was right. All of these things focus only on the individual, not those around them or anyone else. What's right for me is right. Is this right?

The other character's response is simply wrong. We live in a world where the average person never considers the implications of moral relativism enough to consider even whether or not it deserves a "booyah". People don't consider what kind of moral system supports their actions or what type of system they should conform their actions to. Instead, they simply act on what feels right for them (see above).

The truth is, our conscience is a flimsy guide, one that can be bent and twisted by our wants and desires. Over time, we can train our conscience to ignore grave evils. We don't even have to do so the training. Our consciences are constantly being trained by the things we see around us, the people we interact with and the experiences we go through. It is our consciences that are relative, not morality.

"My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent." - 1 Cor 4:4

4 simple rules

"You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things."

This is James' decision as to what the gentile converts should follow from the Law of Moses.

There are three that deal with food.

No food sacrificed to idols (although Paul later says this isn't a sin)

No Blood (this just seems gross)

No meat from strangled animals (???)

And the last one:

No sexual immorality.

As I look through the commandments, these probably aren't the ones I would choose. Granted, food sacrificed to idols would be very hard to come by today. But, I think that lying and stealing were just as prominent then as now. Why didn't they make the cut?

Were these four laws just highlights? Were they the laws that were toughest to follow? Were these the ones that were the major differences between standard gentile life and Jewish life? Were these the laws that the average gentile would assume were okay, but really were not?

If we wrote 4 rules (maybe not simply rules, maybe ideals) today that the average non-believer would think are okay, but that are contrary to God's will what would they be?

My quick list (I reserve the right to change this at any time):

No sexual immorality (physical or otherwise)

No me-first (or me-only)

No apathy

No withholding grace

Luke 16 - Topic and Context

In verses 16 and 17 Jesus talks about the Law and the Prophets, concluding that, "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear that for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the law." From here, at face value, he seems to make a radical shift in topics to marital infidelity. He says, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Is he talking about husbands and ex-wives and wives and new husbands and messed up relationships or is he still talking about people separating the law and joining new things to it?

On the one hand, the divorce and remarriage teaching is echoed by Jesus at other places in scripture. (Matthew 5 & 19, Mark 10) On the other hand, this is a radical departure from his topic. It doesn't seem like something he would just throw in there because it popped into his head.

So, if this wasn't an accident, what can it teach us about the relationship between us and the law in comparison to a husband and wife?