The Moral Dilemma

The following is a prayer recorded by a once Wycliffe Bible translator several years prior to his eventual renouncement of Christianity. Where I thought it helpful, I have supplemented the original text with the relevant scripture references.

“Father God, God of all creation, the one who made me, the one who loves me more than anyone else, the one who desires my well-being, I come to you today with a very heavy heart. Or more precisely, a knot in my stomach. Once again, it appears to me that all I have been taught about the inspiration of the Bible is false. Deep down inside me, I have a very, very strong suspicion that the Bible is human and not divine through and through. You know the passages I struggle with. I can't seem to reconcile my conception of your nature with the way your character is portrayed in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament. Where do I get this sense of moral injustice when I read about how a master is not to be punished for beating his slave as long as the slave doesn't die, because the slave is his property [Ex. 21:20-21]? There seems to be within me a moral law that stands in judgment of the Bible. Is this internal moral law a product of my culture that is to be submitted to the higher moral law of the Bible, or vice versa? Why does the Old Testament incessantly violate my idea of right and wrong? Why does it regard women in such a poor light? Why are the people of Yahweh supposed to wipe out men, women and children but are allowed to take the virgins for themselves [1 Sam. 15:3, 22:19; Num. 31*]? Why are the sacrifices offered in the tabernacle called food for Yahweh [Lev. 21:6, 8, ]? Why does Yahweh need sacrifices anyway? Can't he simply forgive those who ask for his forgiveness, just as we humans forgive each other? Why do some people get zapped instantly for touching the ark inadvertently while Aaron [2 Sam. 6:1-8], Moses' brother, gets off scot-free after making a golden calf for the people to worship [Ex. 32; Deut. 9:7-29], and then he becomes the leader of the priesthood and the recipient of the best of all the offerings of the people? Why do women suspected of adultery have to go through some bizarre ordeal of drinking bitter water and seeing their womb swell and thigh waste away, while no provision is made for women to test their husbands for the same offense [Num. 5:11-31]? God, the weight of all these troublesome passages, and many more, add up in my mind to foolishness. Or at least an attribution of ancient cultural ideas on the God of all creation. The list goes on: the Bible's endorsement of polygamy [2 Sam. 12:8], the magic of the striped sticks causing sheep's offspring to be striped [Gen. 30:25-43], the assertion that camels don't have split hoofs [Lev. 11:4; see also Lev. 13-23], the mixed use of round numbers and exact numbers in Numbers to justify paying redemption money to Aaron's family, Yahweh's command to hamstring the horses [Josh. 11:6], the barbaric brutality of the Israelites in their holy war [e.g., Judges 1:6-7; Judges 8:1-21; Josh. 10:16-28], the contradictory teachings on divorce [e.g., Deut. 24:1-4; Mal. 2:10-16; Matt. 19:3-9], the many little historical contradictions, the attempt to explain language diversification through a "how-the-leopard-got-its-spots" Tower of Babel story [Gen. 11:1-9], the conception of a young earth which is clearly unattested to by the facts [Gen. 1], the fact that Christians have been unable to agree on so many doctrines while reading the same Bible that seems to say one thing in one place and another in another place, the long process of canonizing the Bible, the vengeful attitudes ascribed to Yahweh when his wayward people are attacked by their enemies [e.g., Is. 13; Hos. 13:16], the sacrifices in Ezekiel's temple that has yet to be built [Ezek. 40; 43:7, 13-27; Heb. 10:14; Rev. 21:22], the vengeance Samson took on his betrayers under the influence of the Spirit of the Yahweh [Judges 14-15:1-8, 16:23-30], the exclusively physical punishments and rewards promised for the Israelites with no mention of heaven until late in the writing of the Old Testament [e.g., Deut. 8:6-18], and on and on and on.
How much of this am I expected to absorb and put into the filing cabinet labeled "troublesome, contradictory or unjust but accept it by faith anyway"? How much tension can a soul take? Why does it seem like I'm just about the only one in my circle of friends that struggles with these issues as deeply as I do? Am I warped, proud, or rebellious? Are you blinding my eyes because I haven't spent enough time with you in prayer lately? Or are the things I'm beginning to suspect--that the Bible is not divinely inspired--true after all? This is not just an academic exercise. The direction of the rest of my life, if not eternity, depends on it. I know that even if the Bible is true, you don't mind my bringing these questions before you, since the Psalms record similarly piercing doubts that David experienced. Father God, take me in your arms just as I would take David or Philip or Corinne [our children] in my arms in a time of trouble, and comfort me with words of assurance and love and healing. I know you are my creator. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you made me and love me. I ask you to have compassion on me and lead me to the truth. I ask you to search me heart and reveal to me anything that displeases you and that stands in the way of my finding the truth about the Bible. Open up my eyes so I can see my sin as you see it, and give me the courage and strength to put it away. I confess that I have been detached from you and my family and friends. I have been living in a world of my own mind, excluding those who are dearest to me. I have been objecting to the inequality of men and women expressed in the Bible, yet I've effectively been reinforcing it in my own marriage by leaving Charlene to do all the household work. Forgive me, I pray, and help me to get back on the right footing. Father, if I could only sit before you and talk with you as a man talks with another man, if only I could ask you what you had in mind when you made humanity and allowed so many different religions to take root and lead to so many confusing, contradictory and sometimes harmful paths. Why are people so gullible to believe so many contradictory things? Muslims believe what they do because they've been exposed to Islamic teachings and social influences, and it seems no different from why Christians are Christians. If no one major religion is the truth, then what is? Do I have to make up a minor religion to get at the truth? Heaven forbid! In my opinion there are already too many religions. Oh, Father, I don't want to be impertinent. I don't want to reject Jesus as the Son of God if he really is the Son of God or equivalent to God. But if he isn't the Son of God, then I don't want to spend my life in Africa proclaiming he is. What do I do, Lord, what do I do? Comfort my soul, Father. Thank you. Thank you for coming over me with your presence and that indescribable peace that assures me of your care for me. You have answered my prayer to take me in your arms and comfort me.
…I love, you Father, even though I'm confused. If my unbelief is unsubstantiated, help me in my unbelief, and may I be convinced that the Bible is indeed your word. If my unbelief is merited, I pray you'll help me know how to proceed from here. In either case, I pray you'll take away the blinders from my eyes that stem from myself, my sin, my culture, my religion or Satan, whatever the case may be. It seems that there are very few who manage to rise above the beliefs of their own culture. It's usually the intellectuals. I have a hard time believing that you would set things up in such a way that only intellectuals find the truth. But I see how grotesque the fruits of anti-intellectualism have been in so many societies, and I don't want to have part in that either. How do I find truth, Father? I pray as I come to you in prayer during this special time of seeking that you will reveal yourself to me in such a way that I can be assured of the truth. I certainly can't find it out on my own or exclusively through intellectual evaluation. I want to seek truth in the way that you want me to go about it, whether it means accepting the Bible by faith, reading philosophy, praying until you reveal yourself to me, going to seminary, meditating, reflecting, talking with others, or any combination of the above. My problem is that I really don't know how to go about it. I need your hand to guide me" (Daniels, Ken. From Missionary Bible Translator to Agnostic, 2003).*1

As you were reading this prayer, did you find yourself sympathizing with many of the sentiments it expressed, particularly as regards the seemingly deviant standard of morality in the Old Testament? How big of a problem is it if you find that the kind of morality ascribed to God in such passages as those cited above conflicts with your internal sense of right and wrong? What kinds of explanations could potentially reconcile the disparity for you? Are there any?

The moral dilemma in Christianity, which we are here encountering, is in my mind one of the most difficult, and most personally significant dilemmas we must work out as would-be Christians. At stake is the integrity of our own modern moral sentiments in the face of an exotic, divine-brand morality: one which seems to allow for, even at times prescribes, such morally deviant acts as murder, rape, and the general mistreatment of fellow human beings.*2 More alarming still, perhaps, is the implication that, as the revelation of God’s moral sensibilities, there is some degree to which we are accountable to its demands. In other words, for every instance in which human morality runs into conflict with divine morality, it is the exotic divine-type that provides the absolute standard. And when the differences among types run as deep as the difference between condemning and condoning rape, discerning which elements of one’s own moral sensibilities are appropriate candidates for reform is no simple matter.

The author of the above prayer at one point notes that “there seems to be within me a moral law that stands in judgment of the Bible.” Later, however, he entertains the possibility of yielding this internal moral law to accommodate the many exotic features of, as he calls it, “the higher moral law of the Bible.” What are your feelings on this prospective resolution? Is it possible that being a Christian might entail the setting aside of our moral sentiments in humble submission to divine-brand morality; and if so, how far should we allow ourselves to stray from our ‘moral home ground’ to conciliate with this higher law? Finally, what practical consequences might we incur by adopting such a policy of moral deference?

In order to answer such questions as these, I propose the following set of considerations (which themselves are merely constituent elements of the larger question in view) to serve us as guides throughout our discussion:

1. Is divine-type morality (as indicated by Old Testament events) equivalent to the best human-type morality?;

2. What is the foundation of divine-type morality?;

3. What is the foundation of human-type morality?; and finally,

4. Can distinct moral-types engage in loving relationship?

Each of these topics which we in turn consider will illumine some new and unique feature of the dilemma which besets us, allowing us to assess our problem piecemeal. Adopting such an approach should safeguard us against the common failings of our rational faculties to guide us steadily through particularly convoluted subject matter.

Such complexities in our topics of discussion often undermine our pursuit of truth by engaging our rational faculties beyond their effectual limits. Often, the nature of these dilemmas is such that we are divided across both sides of the fence, trying our best to preserve certain essential elements of each position, yielding none. In this effort to accommodate large amounts of mutually incompatible data, these faculties accustom themselves to vacillating between several, inconsistent explanatory frameworks in order to preserve efficiency in their practical functions. Often this goes completely undetected on our part until one encounters just the right situation to precipitate the contradiction.*2

Detected or not, however, the contradictions which we harbor in our rational faculties have a significant impact on the resultant quality of our volitional lives. As the contemporary philosopher, Harry Frankfurt writes:

“The psychic integrity in which self-confidence consists can be ruptured by the pressure of unresolved discrepancies and conflicts among the various things that we love. Disorders of that sort undermine the unity of the will and put us at odds with ourselves. The opposition within the proper scope of what we love means that we are subject to requirements that are both unconditional and incompatible. That makes it impossible for us to plot a steady volitional course. If our love of one thing clashes unavoidably with our love of another, we may well find it is impossible to accept ourselves as we are" (The Reasons of Love, 49-50).

Let us apply this principle to our present context. As long as we are unable to fully endorse the one set of commitments (i.e., our own moral convictions) over the competing set (i.e., our felt responsibility to meet the moral demands of God), we are positioned in a sort of moral-practical deadlock. This deadlock will persist as long as we forbear on making a decision about which of the competing sets is most important, or necessary to us. But such a decision does not have to feel arbitrary; nor does it have to prove divisive to our sense of personal integrity. In allowing our best reason and intuitions to act separately upon the various features of this complex dilemma we should find ourselves able to effectively negotiate those inevitable obstacles along the way, and come away in possession of everything we need to construct a rationally coherent, and personally satisfying position - if not unanimously, at least individually.

Disclaimer:
As a last word before trudging all the way into what has the potential to become a long and increasingly tortuous discussion, I want to address those who, on the basis of the formidable prima fascia case against condoning Old Testament morality, are likely to weary of those arguments that seek to vindicate it, perhaps premature to the other side’s readiness to submit a verdict. I ask you to be mindful of what hinges on such a verdict for these individuals, and to be charitable toward the arguments which they present, understanding that, even for those of us who argue to vindicate Old Testament morality, we do not do so on the basis of condoning the atrocities which it appears to sanction (at least I believe this is the case). We are all alike starting down this road with the same motivating principles: firstly, an incorrigible affinity for our native moral sentiments, and an irresistible compulsion to defend them from exotic competitors; but also, and equally important, the need to accommodate ourselves toward what is ultimately true of reality, be that physical nature or a transcendent God. I appreciate everyone’s sustained effort to make this discussion a fruitful one.

Footnotes:
*1 - For full document, visit: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/daniels.html.

*2 - 'Murder' - Insofar as murder can be equated with the taking of someone else’s life on unjustified, or otherwise inappropriate grounds (that is, according to our modern moral sensibilities). Instances in scripture might include the law’s prescription of capital punishment to seemingly undeserving parties: homosexuals (Lev. 20:13), adulterers (Lev. 20:10), children who strike or curse their parents (Ex. 21:15; Lev. 20:9), etc.; acts which could be construed as war crimes: the excessive slaughter of entire races in a military campaign - men, women, and children (Josh. 10:16-28); and certain divine acts: killings perpetrated by God Himself on seemingly indefensible grounds (2 Sam. 6:3-7), or those committed by judges and prophets under divine influence (Judges 14-15:1-8, 16:23-30; 1 Kings 20:35-36; 2 Kings 2:23-24). For a more comprehensive survey of dubious killings, see http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm.

'Rape' - Insofar as rape can be defined generally as perpetrating sexual acts against a person who is not completely willing. e.g., Num. 31 records Moses’ distribution of the Midianite virgins as spoils for the fighting men of Israel. God later is recorded as having affirmed this decision in vs. 25-35. So far as we can assume that these captive Midianite women did not willfully become the wives of their Israelite captors, we seem to have a clear instance of grand-scale rape. See also Gen 16:2 and Deut. 21:10-13.

'Mistreatment of fellow human beings' - e.g., slaves, women, and children. See Gen. 21:10; Ex. 20:17, 21:20-21, 22-25; Lev. 12:1-5, 27:6; and Deut. 22:28-29.

*3 - The Socratic method, often proceeding by way of reductio ad absurdum, was especially adept at precipitating these internal contradictions, as is demonstrated in such dialogues as Meno (see Plato Complete Works, 883-884).

Also, William James writes along these lines: “Just as we feel no particular pleasure when we breathe freely, but a very intense feeling of distress when the respiratory motions are prevented, - so any unobstructed tendency to action discharges itself without the production of much cogitative accompaniment, and any perfectly fluent course of thought awakens but little feeling; but when the movement is inhibited, or when the thought meets with difficulties, we experience distress” (The Will to Believe, 64).