Ray Ciervo Ministries

“I am reality: There is the way it ought to be, there is the way it is.”  - SSgt Bob Barnes, -Platoon

Our culture has forgotten how to make moral judgments. You may remember Dr. Berlinski from the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Berlinski, who is not a Christian philosopher, is convinced if the Church doesn’t make moral judgements others will make immoral judgments for us. We’ve seen this over and over again.   

When it comes to this I am both pessimistic and optimistic. I am pessimistic knowing that we’re not just way behind in this game. We don’t know which game is being played. It’s as if we’re showing up to the ball diamond in shoulder pads and helmets. We have no idea what is going on. Issues of abortion, same sex marriage, euthanasia, infanticide, all the way to prayer in schools is fought on the wrong grounds, if you follow the analogy, the wrong field.

Christians engage in heated debates about a variety of subjects, but don’t truly understand the grounds to argue on. Most resort to the Scripture and call offenders to pay heed to warnings. Christians have also, at times, delivered the “judgment clause.” Wrong field, wrong game.

Although the Scripture is the most historically reliable ancient document and therefor can be fully trusted, most Christians don’t know that fact nor the supporting evidence. If the Church doesn’t know the evidence the world certainly doesn’t either. It becomes a non-usable point. Another point that should be made is that most of the time the person we’re speaking to doesn’t understand the argument either. This can be used to our advantage.

The path the Church ought to use is the “moral argument.” This argument calls on people to consult with their conscience and ask the question, “What ought to be?” No one should have to explain why it is wrong to torture babies. We “ought” to know that that is wrong. No one wants to be robbed or  murdered. We ought to know it is wrong to steal another’s possessions or take the life of an innocent human being. These are “oughts” we should understand. 

What social scientists recognize is that these “oughts” are universal. They are found in both developed and primitive societies. From the most developed to primitive tribes the “ought” is present. Although some tribes may prescribe robbing their enemies, they know it is wrong to rob your friends. They know stealing is wrong in general, but may have specific exceptions.

The moral argument can be made from Scripture, but until Scripture is accepted as a bona fide authority it should be laid aside. Although there are several paths to take to establish the moral argument the one accepted is that of conscience. This is where I'm optimistic. 

C.S. Lewis reflected on his sense of “fairness” and followed it to a transcendent law of right and wrong. Lewis questioned why he could judge something as right or wrong, why something was unfair. It led him to a transcendent God who stood behind His transcendent standard - the moral law. Lewis eventually saw his need for a savior and found Jesus Christ. Although millions today love Lewis’ writings few know his foundation for truth. Lewis understood. 

Thomas Aquinas was a major proponent of the moral law argument. However, for most non-catholics Aquinas is not viewed correctly. In fact, some major theologians and philosophers in the Protestant camp dismiss Aquinas’ contributions. This is a major problem in the Church today. Aquinas has had a significant influence on Western culture beyond any other. Aquinas’ promotion of natural law was used by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The foundation of the US Constitution also rests on Aquinas’ view of natural law. His view of transcendency, law apart from experience, human ideas, and feelings stabilized the practice of law for the first hundred years. 

In essence, this is the issue over which culture wars are fought. On the one side you have people who support the notion of natural law. On the other side you have the progressives who believe there is no transcendent objective standard. The root of this argument goes even deeper than moral standard to the concept of essences, natures. For our purposes we’ll leave this for now. Metaphysics is the subject this leads to, but our culture is too far away from that topic to begin to address it here. Natural law is enough to  tackle.

For the general public and the church to be educated on this issue is a huge task. However, it is one that is doable. The one reason it is  doable is that people still know what ought to be. Although this is in contrast to what is - people still know what ought to be. What has happened in our culture is we have accepted the propensity to go against what ought to be and conform to what is.

This issue is so pervasive it is found in politics, law, government, social issues and water cooler conversations. However, most people don’t know the issue they’re talking about.  This is the issue of Romans 1 & 2 concerning the Gentiles with the law written on their hearts. What happens most of the time, if not all the time, is that people settle for what is experience and propensity instead of looking to the transcendental standard.

This affects us most is in our political system and the Supreme Court. In the Court, we have justices who say they believe in “constitutional law.” By this I am referring to a strict interpretation of the Constitution as it was meant by its writers. Opposition to the appointment of these justices has been telling. Robert Bork was opposed because he believed in Natural Law, so was Clarence Thomas. The treatment of these justices is telling. Bork suffered so much at the hands of investigators he has gained the “honor” of having his name used when appointees are “borked.” Any jurist who is a “natural law” theorist is confronted and their appointment is usually stalled.

We are living in the suppression of truth where that which is known about God is evident, but the truth is suppressed in unrighteousness. This goes beyond “constitutionalists.” The reality is that natural law theorists are the target of much oppression. This is the area the church must learn to argue for.

Simply put - we have natural law because there are such things as “natures.” The fact that we can speak about God’s nature is contingent on this. If there are no such thing as a “nature” then God has no nature. There is no intrinsic good, just, mercy, grace. These then become “choices” that God simply chooses. The fact that God is good, just, and merciful. The fact that natural law is written on our hearts we know instinctively right and wrong. The fact that few people recognize its existence is not proof it doesn’t exist. It has been eclipsed by sensuality, feelings and licentious environment. When pushed, people confess what lays beneath the sensuality. They know right and wrong and have to justify actions that offend what’s written.

This is the first argument the church must “bone up” on. It is the most relevant argument the church can employ for the existence of God. It is the one that leads directly to the need for a savior. This is done by seeing what “ought” to be and what is. 

Although this writing is not exhaustive, it is enough to get us started. In the coming weeks I’m going to address the other apologetic arguments. I’ll also establish a page on the site to refer to all the apologetic arguments for Jesus. I’ll also attempt to show how these arguments apply.