So, then, who's to say?

Part 2-of-3
(Scroll down for Part 1)

Though the prevailing secular worldview elevates no moral code as superior over another, it’s downright trendy to single out and then castigate traditional morality for applying a “spurious moral compass.” This, of course, begs the question: How then is any moral distinction right or wrong if all are deemed spurious?

Consider Michael Galster. He threatened to expose a Health Management Association within the Arkansas penal system for harvesting from inmates blood that was tainted with hepatitis C and the HIV virus. Allegedly with full knowledge of prison authorities, the blood was shipped to several foreign countries, Canada included.

It is no accident, observes Dr. Rossiter, “that the greatest political system in human history was founded by devout Christians on the assumption that its citizens would live by Judeo-Christian ideals”—i.e., the Golden Rule—but there appears to be a new sheriff in town whose mandate is to leave no good deed unpunished!

For recipients of the contaminated blood and their loved ones, Galster’s moral distinction was far from spurious. What he wouldn’t want done to himself or his loved ones, he refused to do to others. For Galster’s truthfulness, however, he received no kudos, no pats on the back. Instead, he was fired and denied renewal of his orthopedic contract in the Cummins State Prison.

Pardonable Deception

Given the Lord’s very essence as “the Truth,” He hates “a lying tongue.” Even so, to protect their child from a murderous king, the loving parents of Moses engaged in a clear act of deception when, for three months, they hid him. In the end, an entire nation escaped bondage because of it!

Yet another deceiver, Rahab hid spies sent by Joshua prior to the siege of Jericho, thus earning her a spot in the biblical Hall-of-Fame. In both cases, morality is rightly relative to the situation and even opportunistic, though not in unscrupulous or unprincipled ways.

The ancient Greek tragedian, Sophocles, conceded that lying is not honorable; but “speaking dishonorably is pardonable when the truth entails tremendous ruin.” For example, if a knife-toting rapist-pedophile crashed into my home demanding access to my 12-year-old daughter, I would suffer no guilt for deliberately misdirecting him with a lie. Nor should a soldier suffer shame for withholding military intelligence from enemy interrogators whose intent is to inflict widespread harm.

On a lighter level, should a wife ask if her pants make her look fat, the husband does well to think twice before he answers! Most agree that a creative response is in order—e.g., “Honey, you look great to me no matter what you wear.” While arguably situational, relative and opportunistic, the response is true enough; and no one gets hurt by it.

A Nation of Liars

A leading public educator and founding father, Noah Webster recognized Christian faith as foundation for our nation’s public life—this, for good reason. Alongside divine enablement, “human instincts can be controlled only where the constraints of individual conscience are adequate, cultural morality supports their control and society’s laws deter their criminal expression” (Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D., The Liberal Mind).

As a former first-grade teacher, later an administrator, I read this to mean that love of truth can and should be nurtured by carefully designed and well-communicated rules. When reasonable rules are enforced with kindness and consistency, classmates enjoy the good fruit of an emotionally safe and stable setting. Consequently, students naturally are drawn to truth, the love for which is nourished by experience and nurtured by good example.

For some, this description conjures up the unpleasant visual of a stern, spinster schoolmarm whose weapon in hand is a solid, stiff ruler poised to crack knuckles. This, of course, is far from the ideal, as is the permissive model that indulges carelessness. After all, when carelessness is given full reign, a culture rots from within. Samuel Johnson reminds us that “it is more from carelessness about truth than from intentionally lying that there is so much falsehood in the world.”

Next: Postmodern Morality