Morality or Jesus?

The church needs to get away from the ¹morality drill. Morality should not be our focus. Why? Because without God's enabling, none of us can truly be moral.

It's not that morality doesn't matter. It absolutely does. However, none of us can produce a truly moral life ²simply and merely by willpower. It is the fruit of something far deeper; something missing. 

Morality -- i.e. choosing to live according to God's commandments -- is not the cause of God's acceptance of us but the fruit of it. So why should we ask or expect the world to do what none of us can do on our own, Christian or otherwise? Morality is the RESULT of being loved by God first and then loving and honoring God in response - which also involves loving others as we wish to be loved.

Christ said, "if you LOVE me, you WILL keep my commandments" but instead, we somehow hear "I must keep God's commandments so He will love me." Sorry, but this is not his message. Read it again slowly and in its context. Morality shouldn't be our focus, the greatness, the goodness, and the love of God for us, and our response of love should be.

When we see God as he truly is -- all-loving, all-wise, and all-powerful -- for and to those who trust Him and that He is always present with us, this causes us to ²want to seek to honor him in our words and deeds i.e. to want to live morally Isa 6:1-8. We don't seek moral living as our primary aim. When we see him as he is, "high and lifted up," -- i.e. of tremendous value, beauty, majesty, wisdom, etc., loving God with all we are and have will be our primary desire and aim. In fact, this statement itself; that he should be our primary desire and aim, is a ¹moral statement and the true essence of morality.

We are not to focus on how poorly we or others are behaving but on how infinitely loving God is and with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves in response. Focusing only on morals causes us to take our eyes off of God. It is the cart before the horse.

People are tired of moralistic preaching and its condescending hypocritical message of do what I say, not what I do; of us expecting and demanding of nonbelievers something even we Christians cannot -- and do not -- do ourselves unless moved by God. The truth is NO ONE is or can ever be moral enough to be approved by God. Christian or otherwise.

So why are we trying to get or expecting the world to be moral? This is indication of our lack of understanding how morally bankrupt we all are. ³Morality is not what they need. They need Jesus first. When they fall in love with Jesus everything else follows. Then and only then will they want to honor him with their words and deeds.

All the "Christians" that are always preaching or demanding morality from an unbelieving world needs to please stop.

Instead, we are all called to fall passionately in love with God. To love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength is the greatest commandment for good reason. Don't we think this is convicting enough or a pursuit worthy enough of everything we are and have? Yet no one does this unaided by God's - Spirit, not even the most devoted among us. 

There is a reason Christ said on these two do all the other commandments hang. In fact, it's entirely dishonoring to God to focus on moral behavior because it brings attention to us, not him i.e. "look at how moral I am. You should be moral too"

Why? Will morality save us? NO!!! It's precisely because we are not moral and never can be moral enough to ever be approved by God, that God sent his Son to do what we could never do for ourselves; to provide and then offer to GIVE us a perfect moral status. Yes, give it! This is why it's called "good news." It is not something we do but something declared, if we'll accept it. 

We don't have to be moral in order to be totally accepted and fully loved by God because Christ did that for us. He was moral on our behalf and he bore the complete and total consequences for our immorality. We certainly need to recognize we dishonor God by our words and deeds but that is totally different from being moral in order to gain/win/earn God's approval. 

The truth is we must be 100% perfectly moral for God to ever accept us 100%. Well, guess what? That's never going to happen and that is precisely why Christ came and died. To provide morality for us and offer it to us as a gift.

For several posts on the legitimate role the law plays in a believer's life click here. 

________________________________

¹For a further discussion on the grounds or basis for morality click here.

²I am not saying we should abandon morality itself, but we should not expect morality from a person who does not know God and is not empowered by God's love to live morally. For the significance and meaning of morality click here.

Php 2:12  Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13  for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. 

³I am not saying morality isn't important, or there is no right or wrong. There is wrongdoing that causes real harm and should be corrected. But this is more a societal issue i.e. it addresses our horizontal relationships with our fellow man, not our vertical relationship with God as far as His acceptance of us.  

I am speaking of our personal relationship with God. I am saying the morality we all need to be good enough to be restored to God we can never produce. We are simply too morally bankrupt to ever be perfectly moral. True morality is the fruit of godliness not the cause of it. Godliness is the fruit of loving God. Loving God is the fruit of him loving us first. 

Perfect morality has to be provided for us and given to us as a gift. And since it does, this is the message we must bring others; the good news, not "stop being bad...and start acting good..." Rather we must declare we are all bad and can never be good enough. None of us. The heart of where we all drop the ball is we don't love and honor God according to his true majesty, beauty, and honor. All other immoral behavior is simply the fruit of not loving God as we ought and He deserves.

Power...from within or without?

There is much talk these days that we must look within ourselves to find the strength needed to "do life" well. We can't count on anyone else but ourselves. 

Is this true? Does the power to live life well come only from within or also from without? 

It is both, and it is neither. How?

Within

* If by "within" we mean we must find the strength to act solely from within ourselves, independent of God, this is inadequate. It works only short term and eventually leads to burnout and ultimately death. In this sense, it is not inward. 

* If by "within" we mean we must act from the heart, out of love for God and a desire to bring honor to him, then yes, in this sense it is inward. 

Without

* If by "without" we mean, we must look to creation and created things to gain, harness, and use these to derive our sense of value, meaning, and purpose for ourselves, then no, it is not outward.

* If by "without" we mean, we must look outside of ourselves and beyond our resources to God alone for true love, meaning, and purpose, in this sense it is outward. 

More than ever, we must define our terms to be sure we are saying the same thing. Using the same words is no guarantee. We could be saying exactly the opposite of what we are trying to convey with the very same words. 

This appears to be increasingly true the further we get away from an absolute and objective standard of truth, meaning, and morality. This is a by-product - "side effect" - of a postmodern view of the world where the reality of absolute or objective truth is rejected and morality is something we make up. The expression "my truth" is often used to convey this. 

Is there an objective and absolute standard for truth? If so, where do we go to find this standard? 

We can't be the standard ourself because we are not all-knowing, or all-powerful, i.e. we are not the absolute and just enforcer of morality, but we are finite i.e. limited. Therefore, we must go outside of ourselves to find the standard for right and wrong, i.e. morality. 

For a more extensive discussion of the power within Click here

For a discussion on the basis of morality click here. 

For a discussion on how we are designed and the dilemma it causes click here.  

For more on why we all operate by faith click here.

____________________________

Values, culture and racism

Can certain elements within a culture be wrong? 

What drives and shapes a culture? 

Are racism and culture somehow connected?

Culture in great part is the fruit of a given groups values. What we value shapes the way we conduct our lives. For example if a people group values art, art will be a major part of their culture and history, or music, or colorful attire and so on. 

Over time a people ¹group with similar values will repeat certain conduct driven by those values which eventually becomes a pattern or part of that groups *culture. 

You may have heard of a sports team talking about how a new coach or players changed the culture of the team. In essence, they are saying there was a change in values i.e. what is most important.

Is there such a thing as ²right or wrong, good or bad culture? It depends. Many aspects of a culture are likely neutral and based on the unique talents, skills, environment, and resources distributed throughout a people group. However, the degree to which our values are aligned with God's values is the degree to which our culture will honor God. 

*NOTE: 

• A "group" can be identified by ethnicity, region, religion, the objective or goal of the group as a whole, vocation, world view or any other common yet distinguishing feature of that group. 
• Also in discussing "culture" I am including behavior patterns that can be moral, immoral or amoral.  

²I am also assuming there is real objective morality. Many today reject the notion of an absolute right and wrong i.e. there is no objective moral standard. This will not be a topic of this paper, but if you wish to explore this issue more click here and here.

Certain aspects of any culture are more God-honoring than others. Likewise, a culture that is less in line with God's values overall will be less honoring to God than one that is. Not because we say so, but because God does. 

God says, for example, loving others as we would have them love us is better - a good or higher value - than coveting or stealing our neighbor's property or taking our neighbor's life. 

A culture built on the former (on love) honors God and is therefore superior to one built on the latter (envy, revenge, disrespect, or destruction), not only morally but practically or functionally. Cultures that ignore these absolutes never reach the potential of the strengths or abilities of its people and can - and usually do - ultimately self destruct or languish over time. The reasons? It simply goes contrary to our individual as well the world's design. 

In a word, a culture built on God's value system aligns with how we are designed to function and generally flourishes long term over and against one that isn't. Good - i.e. God honoring - values cause a culture to flourish, bad - God dishonoring - one's cause it to languish. 

Culture in itself is not sacred. Only God and his standard of love is. To the degree a culture embraces God's standard, it becomes sacred. To the degree it doesn't, it is not.

A classic illustration is when a spiritual awakening occurs within a particular people group or community. Before such an event, a group might display certain cultural characteristics that are destructive and harmful such as a high murder or theft rate or a high level of substance-abuse, familial abuse or infidelity, etc. After such an event many of these kinds of behaviors either diminish considerably or may disappear altogether  -- while those qualities which are amoral usually remain. That group or community becomes kinder, more diligent in good deeds, often more stable and productive economically, and frequently experiences a significant reduction in crime. Such events have occurred to all kinds of people groups historically ³regardless of race or ethnicity of the group. For some examples click here.

³Race (ethnicity) is irrelevant to God as far as our being in a relationship with Him and aligned with His design. He has no racial preference. He neither regards nor discards ones race over other races. To use a biblical description God is "no respecter of persons" i.e. He has no regard for those distinguishing characteristics man values above and apart from Him, genetic or otherwise.

Culture and race are not one and the same

Though culture, values, and race are often very closely connected, they are distinct. One does not automatically or necessarily follow the other. 

To say it another way, we must identify and isolate bad behavior and distinguish it over against a supposed "bad group." There are no bad groups per se. A particular behavior, on the other hand, can be right or wrong within any given group. 

The standard is entirely different. Morality is the standard, not group identity. The focus should not be a group but on appropriate or inappropriate (i.e. moral or immoral, loving or selfish) behavior. Certain behavior is inappropriate no matter which people group takes part -- e.g. virtually everyone recognizes things such as lying, stealing or murder is wrong. They undermine trust. A society can't function well without trust or an overall morality, i.e. the recognition and execution of right and wrong behavior. 

If we do not distinguish the difference between morality and race, we fall into the common mistake made today that all people within a given group are bad because a particular behavior is common to that group e.g. all cops are bad because there are some bad cops or all Latinos are gangsters because some are gangsters, or all liberals or conservatives are bad because some are bad, etc. 

Many wish to tie race (or ethnic group) and culture together as if they are the same. They are not. Because of this, if someone questions a certain aspect (behavior) of a groups culture -- regardless of which group is questioning or being questioned -- some will cry racism when it has nothing to do with race i.e. it's not genetic its spiritual, moral and/or philosophical i.e. determined by their beliefs and values. (Keep in mind I am assuming there are absolutes i.e. there are things that are always right or wrong regardless of what group we are a part of e.g. loving our neighbor versus desiring or stealing our neighbor's stuff etc.)

For example, if theft or murder or familial abuse -- or whatever deficiency or vice common to a group -- is more statistically common within a certain people group, to raise this fact is not racial, it's moral. We are addressing a specific behavior, not an emotionally charged racial matter. 

Values that are contrary to who God is and who we are -- as God's image-bearers -- corrupt any group regardless of its ethnicity-color-race etc.

The objective standard of loving and honoring God has absolutely nothing to do with one's race or the color of one's skin and everything to do with the beliefs and disposition of one's heart. All peoples are equally able to display or not display God's majesty and beauty because all of us -- regardless of race or background etc -- are created in God's image.

To say it another way, there is nothing innately valuable or odious about any culture simply by virtue of ethnicity or skin color. Again, determining what is good or bad within a culture is measured by a totally different standard than ethnicity. 

Anything within a culture that seeks to honor God should be embraced and anything that dishonors him should be abandoned, regardless of what group these qualities are or are not present in, be that western, eastern, middle eastern, African, Latin, Asian or any other people group.

Western Culture

What made western culture flourish morally, in work ethic and materially/economically, etc over other cultures had nothing to do with the skin color of those in that region and everything to do with the influence of Gods values/standards/laws expressed in and through God's people (the church universal). This was a major foundation for the development of the European culture during the Byzantine period and later on in the Reformation.

Of course along with strengths were also vices. Vices and strengths are a part of all cultures -- all cultures, after all, are made up of broken people -- depending on how closely a people group adheres to God's direction or not -- vices are due to our rebellion from God's prescribed directions; virtues are due to being aligned with those directions. The issue becomes which culture is more virtuous with less vices. Again we must look to an absolute standard outside ourselves to determine this i.e. to God and his law of loving him with all we are and have and our neighbors as ourselves. 

What we call "Western Culture" in turn spread to North America via the pilgrims and separatists who had high regard for God's laws/design. This is not to say the church -- made up of fallen people -- was (or is) perfect but simply recognizing the nature and extent of it's more positive than negative influence.

To say it another way, if the racial makeup of the group that settled in and developed the west were Latin, Asian or Negro (I use Negro technically, not derogatorily) versus Caucasian, and had the same value system, the outcome would have been *exactly the same.

*There may be slight genetic variations within a given people group possibly resulting in a minor difference in how those values would have been carried out e.g. as a people group, Asians tend to have higher IQ's and are smaller in stature than Caucasians. However, how much of this is environmental is uncertain. Some say 50/50, others suggest difference %'s. Asians growing up in the same western Europe region with the exact same environmental factors such as geography, diet, and climate etc may in fact turn out exactly the same in group characteristics similar to Caucasians  i.e. larger in stature with a slightly lower IQ. On the other hand, Caucasians living in the locations Asians lived, with the same diet, my turn out smaller in stature with a higher IQ. For an interesting discussion on this particular point click here. 

However, overall, to say one race is superior to another or preferred over another merely by virtue of race or skin color i.e. genetics, -- which was also the Aryan argument used by the Nazi's -- is the essence of racism no matter who holds such sentiments and what color one's skin is i.e. it's just as wrong and destructive for one race as it is for another.

The unfortunate reality is racism is generally a part of every people group and not unique to Caucasians, contrary to increasingly common assertions by the progressive side of the political spectrum.

All groups display different innate qualities genetically that are strengths or weaknesses compared to other groups -- again how many environmental factors come into play, if at all, is uncertain. All groups are each unique and bring something unique and of value to the human family, that others don't. This simply makes them different, not necessarily superior or inferior overall. In this sense, diversity is good because it expresses a facet of God's image that other groups or individuals do not. So in this way this expression of uniqueness would be superior to those who do not display it simply because something others don't display is experienced and shared.

This is also true among siblings within a given family -- who are obviously of the same ethnicity. Certainly, no one would argue one child is more or less worthy of the parent's love and honor within a given family. But they will all have their own unique strengths or lack of them and make unique contributions. They all have their place and play a significant role in the family unit.

There can be superior cultures. There are never superior races.

To give higher regard to certain values and behavior over others is good and right. To give higher regard or respect to one race over another is not -- which is not the same as having a fond affection for the neutral or best things in our own culture. This is normal and true of all cultures. Considering one race as superior to another however is the essence of racism, regardless of which people group displays this view. This means whites, blacks, Latinos, Jews, Asians, and so on can all have racist tendencies. It is the dilemma of being broken as a human race.

The biggest factor that overrides all of this is our commonality. We are all beings created in the image of God and are equally invited to be in a relationship with God and able to do so. All groups reflect his glory in our own unique way. Again, "God is no respecter of persons" i.e. He doesn't have a higher regard for your "station" in life over another's.

This was also recognized by the founders of America in our founding documents -- even though not consistently put into practice. It was because of this world view expressed within those documents and their writers that slavery was finally abolished -- even though abused by some in the beginning. It was followers of Christ who were the primary agents of its eventual abolition -- William Wilberforce, a committed Christian, was the key leader of the abolition movement in England, whose effects were eventually felt in America leading to the eventual abolition of slavery on both sides of the Atlantic. 

The constant focus on America's past mistakes out of the many good values it was built on is simply an attempt to divide us as a nation.

We must always pursue and embrace superior (i.e. God-honoring) values but reject racism in all its forms no matter what culture or sector of society it is found in, for all men and women are equally in God images and therefore have dignity; all are created to honor God. We must, therefore, embrace all fellow humans equally as God's image-bearers, no matter what their race or skin color.

But equally true, we must recognize and be aware there is behavior that is contrary to our design and destructive to our fellow man thereby dishonoring to God as well, no matter what race displays this behavior. Pointing out destructive behavior is not racial or racist, it's moral and deals with the flourishing and betterment of all men and women as well as honoring to God.

For a discussion on racial tension and keys to diffusing it click here. 

For a discussion on a personal experience of discrimination click here 

For a further discussion on identity politics click here

It's just who I am.

You may have heard the above slogan. It sounds good at first blush but are there any problems with it? 

Once we say our desires alone define who we are and what is or isn't legitimate behavior, then any desire goes. 

If I desire young children sexually or animals or even dead people (yes there are folks that are attracted to this. It's called necrophilia), then it is OK because that's just who I am and how I feel.

Of course, these are extreme examples to illustrate a point. It becomes apparent there must be something other than desires that determine right and wrong behavior.

If we say desire and consent alone is the determining factor for what is right and wrong, then it's OK for two people to consent to kill a third person simply because they want to. Majority rules, right? 

But if the third person doesn't agree or consent, do their feelings matter? They also have feelings don't they? 

That is the beauty of the US government system. Technically we are a republic, not a democracy, which means the majority doesn't rule, the law does. Even if someone is at odds with the majority, they still have rights because those rights are based on law given by the Creator. Our founders agreed that there is absolute and objective morality/law. Morality is not subjective - i.e. based solely on our feelings or desires - but on some objective standard outside of us. 

When we worship at the altar of self, eventually anything goes as long as self is fulfilled. This assumes that there is no fulfillment outside of self-gratification. But what if there is?

If we are broken and offered a solution but refuse it, that is a choice we are responsible for - and we all are broken in different ways. For some the manifestation of that brokenness is more obvious and less socially acceptable than others i.e. It's a matter of kind and extent of our brokenness, not whether we are or are not. 

If we are offered greater fulfillment outside of our preferred manner of fulfillment but refuse it, that does not make the offer inadequate, illegitimate or unreal, it simply means we refuse the offer.

What defines someone being whole versus being broken? The Creator and Designer of that someone.
_________________________________

For a discussion on the basis for morality click here.

For a definition of sin and the necessity of judgment click here.

The Basis for morality.

Below is an excerpt from my book, 

“HOW WELL DO I KNOW GOD? Knowing God: The only Foundation and Fountain of Lasting Fulfillment.”

To see the part of the first section of the book, go to:

http://thotsaboutgod.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-well-do-i-know-god.html

If you wish to know more about the book email me at thotsaboutGod@gmail.com 

Now to the excerpt:

===============================================

d. God loves and values himself: the basis and moral ground for this. 

It seems self-evident that God loves Himself. But this raises the question of how is it that this act of self-love by God is not selfish? The answer I believe gets into the “holy of holies” of the very being of God and why we must not only worship Him, (honor and ascribe worth and value to Him) above all things but can do nothing else once we fully grasp even a little of God's dynamic nature. And the more we comprehend His vast and glorious nature, the more we will respond in adoration, awe, and love.

First, it only makes sense that whoever is the greatest, most valuable, and most lovely of all beings or things deserves and should elicit the highest affection, admiration, and praise of all other beings.

This certainly makes sense for us, but what about God? Wouldn't this be true also for God Himself? For God to value, love, and adore anything above Himself would be wrong, since He is the highest and most Supreme Being. It would also be hypocritical and insincere for God to honor/value/glorify another above Himself since He knows all things and all things come by, in, and through Him. There is no one greater than Him.

On the other hand, for us to value/honor ourselves above God is wrong simply because we are not the greatest, most valuable, and highest being. He is, if only because our very existence, as well as all creation, is dependent on God's existence and sustenance. Simply stated, God is supreme because the existence and well-being of everything else depends on Him. 

God loving and valuing Himself above all others is not only morally right, but necessary for everything else to function properly or exist at all. Therefore, God's loving Himself is the most loving thing He can do for all the rest of creation. His calling us to do the same is the most loving thing He can call us to. 

The New England theologian, Jonathan Edwards, says that God's recognition of His infinite worth as the Supreme being is not only good but is also rightfully due Him and therefore the very ground for all morality. To not give Him proper recognition of His worth is, therefore, also the basis for all immorality. 

The following excerpt from Jonathan Edwards’ book, *The End for Which God Created the World, addresses this very point. Edwards’ thoughts regarding this are quoted below without comment, so as not to influence your understanding and help you get the overall sense. 

I repeat the quote again with highlights and comments immediately after analyzing specific points. If you prefer not to read it twice, you can just read the edited version a little further down.

“God’s moral rectitude consists in his valuing the most valuable, namely, himself

That if God himself be, in any respect, properly capable of being his own end in the creation of the world, then it is reasonable to suppose that he had respect to himself, as his last and highest end, in this work; because he is worthy in himself to be so, being infinitely the greatest and best of beings. All things else with regard to worthiness, importance, and excellence, are perfectly as nothing in comparison of him. And therefore, if God has respect to things according to their nature and proportions, he must necessarily have the greatest respect to himself. It would be against the perfection of his nature, his wisdom, holiness, and perfect rectitude, whereby he is disposed to do everything that is fit to be done, to suppose otherwise.

At least, a great part of the moral rectitude of God, whereby he is disposed to everything that is fit, suitable, and amiable [i.e., pleasant, admirable] in itself, consists in his having the highest regard to that which is in itself highest and best. The moral rectitude of God must consist in a due respect to things that are objects of moral respect; that is, to intelligent beings capable of moral actions and relations. And therefore it must chiefly consist in giving due respect to that Being to whom most is due; for God is infinitely the most worthy of regard. The worthiness of others is as nothing to his; so that to him belongs all possible respect. To him belongs the whole of the respect that any intelligent being is capable of. To him belongs ALL the heart. Therefore, if moral rectitude of heart consist in paying the respect of the heart which is due, or which fitness and suitableness requires, fitness requires infinitely the greatest regard to be paid to God; and the denying of supreme regard here would be a conduct infinitely the most unfit. Hence it will follow, that the moral rectitude of the disposition, inclination, or affection of God CHIEFLY consists in a regard to HIMSELF, infinitely above his regard to all other beings; in other words, his holiness consists in this.”

There is far more that can be said about this excerpt than I have addressed below since I am focusing primarily on the moral aspect addressed by it, so I encourage you to meditate on it long and hard. It is rich with many truths on many levels that I will not be commenting on.

Now for a closer look at Edward's words.

The heading for this excerpt is as follows...

"God’s moral rectitude consists in his valuing the most valuable, namely, Himself."

If what this above section heading says is true, it stands to reason how much more this would be true of us as well as God. In short, for us to not give proper recognition of God's value is equally immoral. Though we often think of immoral actions primarily as those of a perverse sexual nature and though certain instances of sexual behavior are in fact immoral, immorality is far more extensive and in-depth than normally considered and is also not determined solely by external behavior. 

The above and following consideration of immorality explains why certain activities are immoral (sexual or otherwise), i.e. to place such high regard or value on anything over and above regard for God, no matter what form the action takes, is wrong and in fact a form of idolatry. If one values and worships the pleasure of sexual intimacy, making it the ultimate pursuit in life over and above intimacy with and pursuit of God, then it becomes an act of immorality as idolatry.

(Though this is far less likely within the marriage commitment, we can still pursue sex within marriage for the wrong reasons as well. If we see sex as a gift from God to celebrate the union and fidelity of a committed relationship, it reflects the union within God and the union we are to have with God and therefore brings joy to God and to us when celebrated in this fashion. The fact is, sex is designed to reflect something of the fidelity and intimacy between Christ and his bride, i.e. you and I, the church. That’s why adultery is repulsive to God and why throughout the Old and New Testaments, he calls his children who wander from Him, spiritual adulterers. They are breaking trust and the covenant relationship they made).

Stop and consider how you or I might be deeply offended at not being given our proper and due respect, appreciation, or recognition for some significant deed or accomplishment by us. When we are not given our due respect, whether it is being ignored and not acknowledged for a good deed or maybe by another receiving recognition and credit for our deed, how do we feel? Offended, upset, put off, overlooked, disrespected, (dissed), or misused? When this happens, we may feel sadness, disappointment, anger, even rage, or several other negative emotions. The bottom line is we were not given our due and rightful recognition. As the saying goes, “credit should be given where credit is due.” To say it simply, we were wronged. The proper recognition for the value of one's being and their contributions is the foundation for all moral behavior.

So how much more is God rightfully offended when He is not given His due recognition or respect? If everything is created and sustained solely by God alone, is not all honor and gratitude due Him? 

Do we live our lives as if this is true? If not, we are not giving God the recognition, credit, and gratitude due Him i.e. what He rightfully deserves. And if not, we have wronged and offended God.

Now is God offended because He needs our recognition and is more sensitive or more easily hurt than we are? Or is it rather as the sole Creator, Provider, and Sustainer of all things, His actions are of infinitely greater significance and consequence than ours and to not acknowledge them as such is an infinitely greater offense because it results in infinitely greater harm to us and others, his creatures? 

The truth is God does not need us or our thanks, as I suggested in the first section of this book. Not doing so does not make God any less than he is in any way. He is independent and perfectly self-sufficient, as discussed earlier. In reality, we are the ones most affected and harmed by not giving God His proper respect, as well as those we interact with.

In light of these questions, let us go back to Edwards for a closer look, highlighting keywords to add to this discussion:

“That if God himself be, in any respect, properly capable of being his own end (the reason/goal of all His deeds is to point out His ultimate worth) in the creation of the world, than it is reasonable to suppose that he had respect to himself, as his last and highest end, in this work (i.e. His creation); because he is worthy (most deserving) in himself to be so, being infinitely the greatest and best of beings. All things else (any other created thing or being) with regard to worthiness, importance, and excellence, are perfectly as nothing in comparison of him. And therefore, if God has respect to things according to their nature and proportions, he must necessarily (it is the moral or the right thing to do i.e. to do otherwise would be immoral and also against his very nature [and reality] as he goes on to say a little later) have the greatest respect to himself. It would be against the perfection of his nature, his wisdom, holiness, and perfect rectitude, whereby he is disposed to do everything that is fit to be done, to suppose otherwise.

At least, a great part of the moral rectitude of God, whereby he is disposed (properly inclined or drawn) to every thing that is fit, suitable, and amiable [i.e., pleasant, admirable] in itself, consists in his having the highest regard to that which is in itself highest and best. (i.e. Himself) The moral rectitude of God must consist in a due respect to things that are objects of moral respect; that is, to intelligent beings capable of moral actions and relations. (this especially includes us) And therefore it must chiefly consist in giving due (rightly deserved. Something due is something owed) respect to that Being to whom most is due; for God is infinitely the most worthy of regard. The worthiness of others is as nothing to his; so that to him belongs (it is rightfully His and therefore rightfully due to Him. To not give Him due regard/recognition is wrong and the ground for all immorality) all possible respect. To him belongs the whole of the respect that any intelligent being is capable of. To him belongs ALL the heart. Therefore, if moral rectitude of heart consist in paying the respect of the heart which is due, or which fitness (that which is appropriate and therefore right) and suitableness requires, fitness requires infinitely the greatest regard to be paid to God; and the denying of supreme regard (i.e. not praising God and giving thanks to God for who is and what He has done would be the greatest indication of this denial. See Rom 1) here would be a conduct infinitely the most unfit. (inappropriate and therefore wrong; immoral) Hence it will follow, that the moral rectitude of the disposition, inclination, or affection of God CHIEFLY consists in a regard to HIMSELF, (The most right/righteous, moral and holy thing God can do is to value Himself above everything else and seek to draw others to do the same. In turn this is the most righteous thing we also can do. And when we do we are acting like God. “…be holy as I am holy”) infinitely above his regard to all other beings; in other words, his holiness consists in this.”

In summary, according to Edwards, holiness for God consists of God’s affection for, regard for, inclination toward, and recognition of His infinite worth above everything else.

Throughout this quote, Edwards uses words such as “due, fit, belongs, requires” etc; all words that have a moral quality, i.e. that which is right or wrong. What this suggests is the grounds for all right and wrong are rooted in the recognition or lack of recognition of the true worth of God. And, this is not only true for us but for God as well, i.e. not only must we recognize the reality of God's infinite worth, but God by His own nature and determination must as well. All morality is grounded in the very nature and being of God, i.e. his infinite worth/glory.

We may have heard that the definition of holiness or sanctification is to be “set apart” or refers to something that is “set apart.” I would suggest the reason for this is because that which is of greatest value is separate from all other things, i.e. the reason something is set apart is precisely because of its great value. It would be like going to an art gallery where all the paintings are available for viewing by the general public except one room that holds the rarest and most valuable paintings. These are secured in a separate area with high-level surveillance that can only be entered with special clearance and a security guard. These pieces are distinct and separate from all the others and are to be looked upon with distinct and separate regard over and above all the others because of their great value. (Does the “holy of holies” come to mind?) 

In John Piper's footnotes to the above excerpt, he adds these thoughts, “Edwards calls God's regard to himself his ‘holiness.’ It may be more proper to call it God's ‘righteousness.’ Thus, his ‘holiness’ would be the infinite worth that God has in his own estimation, and his righteousness would be his valuing and respecting that worth without wavering and upholding it in all that he does.” He goes on to state that in the writings of the apostle Paul, “the righteousness of God must be his unswerving commitment always to preserve the honor of his name and to display his glory.”¹

Piper distinguishes between righteousness and holiness in that God’s holiness is the grounds for all righteousness, and righteousness is all acts that seek to uphold or display His holiness. Holiness addresses how or who God is, and righteousness addresses what God does. Piper is saying any act that springs forth from a proper recognition of God’s infinite worth is a righteous act. And therefore, any act that does not spring forth from a proper recognition of God’s infinite worth would be an unrighteous act, i.e. an immoral, or wicked act. 

This certainly broadens the definition of morality compared to how it is often defined today. It also places the focus on holiness where it should be. Not on the outward actions alone, but the inward disposition that drives those actions.

With God, all actions on His part must spring forth from the recognition of His own worth, with the end being to show forth his infinite worth (glory) to others. This is the basis of holiness and righteousness. And, out of this, He tells us to be holy as He is holy. What God is saying is simply do all things for the glory of God just like I do or be holy like I am holy, i.e. do all things to show forth my great worth, a worth which is greater - separate and distinct - above the worth of all other things or persons. In this lies the foundation for all moral behavior, according to Edwards. This also puts a whole different light for many on what it means to be holy.

According to this definition, we are holy when we value God’s worth as it truly is and therefore, all efforts to uphold and display his worth are righteous acts. The more we conduct ourselves in this way, the more righteous we (our actions) become. With this understanding, what makes something righteous has more to do with the motive behind the action than with the action itself. It stands to reason then that the opposite would also be true. To not value God’s worth would be unholy, and to not uphold that worth or display it by our actions would be unrighteous (wicked) acts. The more we do not do things in this way, the more unrighteous we are. Or, to say it another way, to disregard or ignore the value of God and not seek to show it (Him) forth in our attitude/disposition is the basis for all immoral behavior.

This is exactly why God says we are to be thankful for all things. It is the primary disposition that springs from the core recognition that God is the Sovereign Sustainer and provider of all things. He is the all-worthy, almighty God; everything we are and have comes from Him and we should thank Him accordingly. Immorality is not merely murder, an illicit or deviant sexual act, or other such external actions only. It goes far deeper than this. It goes to the heart out of which all actions spring forth.

Even our legal system historically recognized that motive is key and that life taken in self-defense versus premeditated murder is totally different. The end result may be the same for the victim, but since the motive is totally different, the degree of morality or immorality of the action (and its punishment) is as well.

If we stop and think about this and peel back the layers, we will realize that all actions that spring forth from a disregard for God’s true worth are indeed immoral. Often we only consider something immoral or unrighteous simply at the external level when, in fact, all immoral acts have their root in an inadequate recognition of God’s worth. I will go so far as to say that the impression we are often given (usually by the organized church and religion in general) that an immoral act is primarily of an external nature such as murder or illicit sex is nothing more than a diversionary tactic by the enemy to keep us from seeing that immorality is rooted in something far deeper, far more basic, more encompassing, more significant, more extensive and foundational than we ever usually consider.

There is a great advantage for us in having a clear understanding of this. To hold the typical external and shallow view of immorality allows us to go about life with little or no recognition of God’s great worth, while at the same time conducting ourselves in a way society, especially the religious community (but certainly not God) applauds as moral. As a result, we may go about thinking we are quite “good” or “righteous” because we don’t lie, commit murder, adultery, or theft when the bible instead calls anything that is not done for the glory of God, out of a desire to show forth His infinite worth, is wickedness.

The Bible characterizes evil when it says,

“My people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns that can hold no water” (Jer. 2:13)

What Jeremiah was saying is Israel had gone after things other than God to sustain themselves, to quench their spiritual, emotional, and physical thirst and needs. In effect, saying there is something other than God that we value and seek after more than God. This action, forsaking God and seeking things other than God to sustain them, springs out of an inadequate and, therefore, a wrong view of God’s true worth.

Society, even more so the church itself, is so obsessed with external expressions of “sin” that they completely miss what determines that which makes something “wicked” or “sinful.” Because of this, they will say obvious things such as murder or rape are wrong, while they may believe prayer is right and always good. Or worse yet, congratulate themselves for avoiding such “unrighteous” behavior. But didn’t Christ warn us not to pray like the Pharisees prayed? Why would He say such a thing? To those with a shallow understanding of immorality, this makes no sense. That is because they either get hung up or justify an act strictly by external behavior. But we get a further hint of what the Bible means by sin in Proverbs when it says, “the plowing of the wicked is sinful.” We might wonder how the simple act of plowing can be immoral. But our very wondering only confirms how little we understand the true nature of sin. It is sinful because it is an action done solely for the benefit of the one plowing and not to bring honor and glory to God, who enables us to plow. How do we know this? This is an underlying theme of scripture for one and the passage says it is the wicked that are doing the plowing. The plowing in itself is not necessarily good or bad. The reason/motive for their plowing is the issue.

Let’s see how the bible defines wickedness to get a better understanding. We get a clue in Genesis where the LORD states why He was planning on destroying mankind by a flood when he says,

“The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.” Genesis 6:5

This passage gives us a clue that sin is far more than simple external behavior; but is also a matter of the heart - from the Old Testament, no less. The external act is simply the outward manifestation of a heart opposed to God. Christ confirmed this when he criticized the self-righteous behavior of the religious of his day in the Beatitudes. He pointed out that it is not just the action that is wrong but the heart motive that produces the action that is the real concern when he said “you say if a man does… but I say if a man in his heart does…” Matt 5:21-28

Is that your understanding of wickedness? Would you ever say there is a time when praying is wicked? The Bible certainly does. This is not what many within the church would consider wickedness and the core problem, but Christ did.

This deeper understanding of morality is encouraging and discouraging at the same time. It encourages us who have been freed from the condemnation of sin through Christ, and have our hearts awakened by His Spirit who indwells us because God has opened our eyes to see God's true worth and beauty. By our experiencing his love personally, He awoke a love for Him we did not have before. We now have some awareness of the infinite worth and beauty of Almighty God. As a result, we have a hunger for Him. The more clearly we see Him in all His beauty, the more we long for Him. Now our focus is to feed, nurture, and strengthen that hunger and develop an even clearer and fuller view of God. As we get this clearer view of Him, our desire for him grows and our pursuit of him increases. This produces an outward change in behavior. The point is our focus shouldn’t be on the wrong actions we are so inclined to commit (though we must see them clearly to know what to forsake) but on finding and increasing our vision of the awesome wonder and beauty of God demonstrated to us in His infinite mercy and grace through Christ. As we see Him more and more clearly, the more in love with Him, we grow.

On the other hand, for the unbeliever, this understanding of morality is devastating because he is able, without God’s help, to carry out certain actions that are considered moral by society or even the church at large, but not by God Himself. In short, we may say and do all the “right” things, such as being a hard worker, give to others sacrificially, treat one's neighbor with kindness, or be faithful to one’s spouse, etc. All good things in themselves, but now that we understand the importance of intent, we must ask from where do these actions spring? Are they carried out to bring honor and recognition to one’s self or to God? 

If these actions do not spring forth from a heart of true worship of God, they are worthless in God’s eyes and are as “filthy rags” to Him, i.e. they will not be recognized or credited to us as righteous. In the unbeliever's unregenerate state, he seeks to impress God or others by his “good works” but this is not the same as desiring God or desiring to truly honor Him out of worship and gratitude by our actions. 

In truth, the things of God are foolishness to the unbeliever. Therefore, he must humble himself and turn in conscious dependence on God for His mercy and grace instead of thinking he can somehow impress God through dependence on his “righteous” deeds. He must instead call out to God for mercy to turn his heart toward Him. May God’s grace enable us to do so if we have not.

This understanding helps us to answer the question many ask. Why do bad things happen to good people? This is actually the wrong question. With the above understanding, we may need to redefine what is good as well as what a good person is. A truly good or holy person does all things for the glory of God, as they were created to, and not for their own glory. The truth is pain has to do with our operating contrary to our design, not with God directly punishing us for "bad" behavior. 

In conclusion, what does all this have to do with God’s loving himself and the moral ground for this? The fact that God is a triune being makes God valuing Himself above all others even more awe-inspiring and hallowed (holy) and settles many things. Let us briefly review this and we will elaborate on this point more as we continue on in the following sections.

God loves His Son above all else and the Son loves his Father above all else. In essence, they recognize the great worth of the other and value each other above all others. To say it another way, they hold each other in highest regard and esteem. We get glimpses of this throughout the New Testament, particularly the gospels. John 17 for example. Because they are separate and distinct persons, their love is real and true love. It is a love that is other-focused yet because they are both persons of the Godhead. This addresses God's self-sufficiency at the same time. So there is a sense in which God is truly totally giving and other-oriented on the one hand because of the distinctness of the persons of the Trinity and yet totally self-sufficient - self-contained if you will - and independent at the same time because He is ONE God, not three.

Oh, the mystery and wonder of God! May He help us to grasp the height, depth, and width of His being and, therefore, the greatness of His love. Not only is this a wonderful mystery, but it is also vital to understanding God truly and clearly and ourselves as well, who are in His image.

______________________________________________

Additional book excerpts: 

• Anatomy of pain
• God "needs" us
• Opening pages

______________________________________________

*This excerpt by Edwards is also reprinted in John Piper’s book, God’s Passion for His Glory. You can download a pdf of the book for free at 

https://www.desiringgod.org/books/gods-passion-for-his-glory