Category Archives: Response

The Myth of the Moral Compass

The Myth of the Moral Compass - Book Cover Pic

I love to listen to books when I drive long distances, heck even short distances.  I especially love action and thinker and detective novels by the likes of Clive Cussler, John Grisham, Lee Child, and David Baldacci just to name a few.  They are excellent writers telling fun stories.  Within these books are included snippets of the author’s worldview and how life should be.  Sometimes I agree with these snippets and sometimes I just shake my head.

***Semi-spoiler alert, I am on disc 4 of 10

In his most recent book The Hit, David Baldacci has Will Robie at it again.  This time he is hunting down a rogue CIA agent, Jessica Reel.  She had a stellar career in the CIA and why she has gone rogue is a mystery to all.  She declared her rogue status by killing a CIA man.  There are hints that she is on a just mission but that has not been clarified yet.  I haven’t finished the book yet.  But I was intrigued by a section where Reel is reflecting on her quest and why she has gone rogue.  She came to the realization that “the best arbiter of what was good and what was evil was her own moral compass.”

To hear someone say the best arbiter of what is good and evil is their own moral compass is troublesome at best.  First, the compass analogy denotes a northern pole that guides the compass.  When that pole is the holder of the compass, then the compass is useless.  Second, I hope Reel lets everyone else know what is good and evil because apparently she is the only one that knows.  Third, if she is the final arbiter then because she is flawed she will make flawed judgments. 

This thinking by Reel is very commonplace in the culture today.  Many people use the language of “I think it is right.”  In my experience this thinking is used by most people to justify previously prohibited behaviors.  This ultimately leads to anarchy and chaos because who can stop someone from obeying their own moral compass.  It becomes impossible to judge someone as evil if one subscribes to this way of thinking. 

Whether Reel is on a just quest or not is irrelevant by her own thinking.  If she turns out to be killing the most patriotic and philanthropic people, an evil quest to be sure, simply because she wants to, this must be ok because she is “the best arbiter of what was good and what was evil.”  However, if she does turn out to be on an evil quest and the main characters forgive her and give her medals for it then there would be outrage by readers.  Also people would quit reading Baldacci not only out of anger but because those values would not align with what most people find to be true of the world. 

If Reel turns out to be on a just mission then it is self-evident that she is not the “the best arbiter of what was good and what was evil.”  This is because others, based on outside criteria, would agree with her and would then award her medals.  What is good and what is evil would not be defined by her.  It would come from an outside source.  At a minimum we could argue for the law as this source.  However, the law is guided itself by an outside source.  More on this in a moment.

After she pondered her wonderful moral compass, not even a disc later, Reel had a conversation with a longtime friend about the people she was hunting.  He asked if they deserved her killing them.  She said they did.  She said she must finish the quest because otherwise she would not be able to look herself in the mirror.  That is to say that she would not be able to live with herself if she did not kill them and thus stop them from what they were doing.  To her this mirror looking is a test that if everyone did it then they wouldn’t do “three-quarters of the crap they end up doing.”

Unless her moral compass shows up in all mirrors, then she is suggesting there is something people know or can consult in order to do good instead of evil.  She, the pot, is calling them, the kettle, black.  She is passing judgment on them for following their own moral compass. 

Jessica Reel instinctively knows there is some outside source that people should follow.  What she might not know is that this source is God’s law.  It gives us His take on what is good and what is evil.  Fortunately, He has written it on the hearts of humanity.  Unless this is the best arbiter of what is good and what is evil then people will continue doing “three-quarters of the crap they end up doing.”

It is unclear whether Baldacci thinks as Jessica Reel thinks or put this conflicting view of morality in the book in order to make people think.  He is an excellent writer and I do love his stories.  Novels are great places to show how the world is and how it should be.  Where else can you control the ending?  Again, authors write from a worldview and include snippets of their worldview in every book.  This is especially true of fiction novels.  I mean who reads books where Darth Vader, Voldemort, or Javert come out victorious and are lauded as being good?

The Myth of the Moral Compass - moral compass I have aimed to show that the common mantra that everyone is their own moral compass is hogwash.    Instead we all answer to God’s Word.  This is the only alternative.  Otherwise people will still do “three-quarters of the crap they end up doing” and we will end up lamenting with the writer of the book of Judges, “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”

Feel free to share:

Can We Just Pick and Choose?: A Response to Clay Travis

Travis PicWhen Chris Broussard, an NBA analyst, said on ESPN that he thought homosexuality was a sin you just knew a firestorm would erupt over his comments.  Broussard said he got his view from the Bible.  This only adds fuel to the fire.

So Clay Travis, a radio host out of Nashville and the proprietor of the website, took to his website to voice his opinion of the matter.  In the process he takes shots at the Bible, heaven, Pat Robertson, baptism, pastors, churches, Southern Baptists, and God.

In the article Travis asserts that when he was twelve he read the entire Bible.  He also says he grew up going to church.  All of this has left him with questions and concerns.  I can appreciate this.  Most people who criticize the Bible have not read it all the way through.  Also he raises honest questions about God and how these questions left him insecure with God.  While his article touches on various issues, my main aim in answering him is to deal with the interpretive issues he presents when he dismisses the Biblical prohibition of homosexuality outright.

This is especially important because his rationale for dismissing the claims of the Bible is a common one today.  I mainly hear this argument used when discussing homosexuality.  This is presumably because the biblical prohibition against homosexuality is so clear you can’t say that the Bible doesn’t prohibit it.  So another line of reasoning is needed.  The argument goes something like this:  “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it also says some crazy thing is wrong.  We do that crazy thing without bother so that must mean homosexuality is ok.”

A Case Study

The “some crazy thing” that is prohibited in the Bible is usually a verse found in the Old Testament.  Let’s use one I have heard often – the prohibition of shellfish.  This prohibition is found in the Old Testament in Deuteronomy 14:10.

This law comes just after Israel was rescued from being slaves in Egypt.  God gives them laws to constitute them as a people and to show them how to live now that they are a redeemed people.  The laws were meant to teach Israel about God and who He was.  Two things must be remembered: 1. These laws were for the nation of Israel 2. These laws were for the working out all facets of life, the moral, civil, and religious functions.  Israel was not only a civil entity but also a religious entity.  In America today, we do not have religious laws.  We have only civil laws.  Therefore, many of Israel’s laws seem out of place.  But they were designed for Israel to live out their lives before God and before men in holiness.  God gave them these laws for their good.

So when Jesus instituted the Church He did not also institute a civil entity.  That portion of life was gone.  Also gone were the religious portions of the law, namely concerned with sacrifice and the temple.  All that was left was the moral aspect.  So when Jesus tells Peter to eat foods previously forbidden Peter reacts with surprise.  The message is clear.  This portion of the law has served its purpose to lead to Christ.  It has no more direct force.  The principles of holiness are still there.  But the direct prohibition of eating shellfish has been done away.

Christ did away with the dietary laws in Acts.  The church since then has known that most of the laws in the OT are not directly applicable to the church.  Rather they were for a specific time and place, namely the people of Israel before the time of Christ.  We may find some of these laws intriguing, confusing, or maybe even wrong for application today.  However, they are not racist, sexist, or wrong for Israel in their day as Travis claims.

So what do we do with these Old Testament laws?  We follow them as they are intended to be followed.  The moral commands are in force just as they were for Israel.  However, the other laws serve as case law and to be used to guide us or give principles.  They are not meant to be followed in a literalistic fashion today.

So what of the commands against homosexuality?  They fall in the moral category and are still in force today.  Besides that, the prohibition against homosexuality is repeated in the New Testament.  So it is still wrong to practice homosexuality.  God means this for our good.

Other Claims of Travis

In Travis’ case, the “some crazy thing” is slavery.  He says the Bible was used to say slavery was ok.  However, this is patently false.  1 Timothy 1:9-10 clearly prohibits enslaving other human beings.  While it is true that some used the Bible to make the claim that slavery was ok.  This is utterly regrettable.  In fact Travis mentions the Southern Baptists who repented of this practice.  This does not show that they now disregard this portion of the Bible.  Rather they repent of misinterpreting the Bible.

Travis says, “The Bible says tens of thousands of things that are. . . impossible to follow in today’s modern society” and “Let’s be clear, the Bible says all sorts of crazy things that every Christian has agreed not to follow.” We both come to this conclusion for different reasons.  He thinks we just know better now.  I don’t dismiss the Bible just because I don’t like what it says.  Rather I follow sound hermeneutical logic to come to my conclusion.  Here is another instance of someone using Travis’ unbiblical logic to unfruitful outcomes.  So Travis can say they are impossible to follow today but most of the things he is talking about are not to be followed today as I have described above.

Something that Travis says about his five year old self breaks my heart, “Why did he [God] also need me to constantly acknowledge his superiority over me?”  He sees God’s laws as arbitrary and that God has low self-esteem and needs others to worship Him.  This is tragic because it precludes Travis from seeing how awesome and wonderful God is.  He has the issue backwards.  He thinks God needs us.  In reality we need God.  It is for our benefit that He has spoken through His Word.  It is for our benefit that He has given us laws.  It is for our benefit that He offers Himself for worship.

Travis’ fascination with Ezekiel 23:20 shows that God is concerned with justice and holy living of His people.  Also, his description of the Southern Baptists officially apologizing for slavery shows that Bible is concerned with real people in real life.  They realized they had gotten it wrong and are now doing what they know they should do – repent. This is the beauty of the gospel message found in the Bible.  It offers real people, who do real sinful stuff, forgiveness.  It offers them hope and a new life.  It can do this because of the death and resurrection of Christ.  Those sins were heinous enough for Christ to die so that they could be forgiven.  So when we think ourselves guilty or shamed we should not seek to dismiss the action as being ok.  Rather we should repent and trust Christ for forgiveness.  God has meant this for our good.


This is how Travis ultimately sees the issue:  “Using a single Bible verse to justify an opinion that dehumanizes another individual is.”  This is unfortunate especially because this is how the culture at large thinks.  However, the issue is not that the Bible or Christianity or Broussard dehumanizes homosexuals.  This is evident from Broussard’s own friendship with a homosexual as he described it in the article.  No one says the Bible dehumanizes adulterers or murders when it prohibits these actions.  On the contrary the Bible humanizes every person by saying they were made in the image of God that we should love every person.  Saying you think an action is wrong does not dehumanize the person who might practice that action.  Wherever the church has dehumanized homosexuals or anyone else for that matter, and unfortunately it is guilty in some respects, it should repent.  But the fact remains that this dehumanization is not the result of saying that an action is sinful.  I hope he does not think I am dehumanizing him by disagreeing with him.

The church will not look back on this time and regret saying that homosexuality is wrong.  There will be much repentance over the treatment of homosexuals and how the matter was handled.  I myself have repented of how I have handled this issue.  More love is certainly needed in the matter.  However, more love does not mean less truth.  The Bible makes plain that homosexuality is wrong and the true church will stand by that for the rest of its history.  More people will spring up and use the logic Travis is using.  I pray they see that God loves them and offers His Word for their good.  Only when we repent of our rebellion against God and trust Christ will we find the real humanization we all long for.

Feel free to share: