Creation
and Morality
By Stephen
Terry
Commentary
for the February 2, 2013 Sabbath School Lesson
“So
be careful to do what the Lord your God has commanded you; do not turn aside to
the right or to the left. Walk in obedience to all that the Lord your God has
commanded you, so that you may live and prosper and prolong your days in the
land that you will possess.” Deuteronomy 5:32-33, NIV
While some may consider whether or not the Genesis
creation account is to be taken literally, the issue of mankind’s morality is
perhaps a far more important consideration. The entire Bible might be
considered from beginning to end to be a morality play with Jesus as its
central character with a whole host of supporting actors and actresses. The
events of creation week are little more than the work of the stage hands
setting the stage for the drama to begin. The curtain rises in chapter two and
man steps forth surrounded by the beauty of that set. Man receives all the
blessings that creation might provide, even a woman to share the beauty with
but it is all one dimensional.
There is no morality play up to this point, because
there is no choice to be made. Maybe we should understand what morality is
before we go further. Per Wikipedia, “Morality (from the Latin moralitas
"manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of
intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or
right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong).” One might deduce from
this definition that morality is not possible without the ability to choose the
moral as opposed to the immoral. In other words, one cannot have a moral robot.
Free will must exist in order to make a moral choice. Thus one might question
whether mankind was imbued with morality from the beginning or discovered
morality after creation.
Since no opportunity to choose between good and evil is
present in the Creation Story until the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
is discovered in chapter two, the environment prior to that moment was not
conducive to free will morality. Like a behavioral laboratory, God then
constructs a special garden called “Eden,” which simply means “delight.” Into
that experiment, He introduces the two humans called “Adam,” and “Eve.” So that
they will have a choice between moral and immoral behavior, He also plants the aforementioned
tree. Here a paradox exists because if one must know that alternative choices
exist in order to make a choice, and one does not learn about good and evil
until partaking of the tree, how can a free moral choice exist prior to
tasting? Nonetheless, popular theology asserts this is the case.
Perhaps the idea is that God gives them a very little
knowledge of good and evil in order to make a controlled determination of right
and wrong in order to provide the opportunity to avoid the greater knowledge
that might come from an incorrect choice. In any event, they chose in favor of having
free access to the knowledge of good and evil. The fact that their choice
caused them to realize that they were naked, whereas before they in their
innocence did not, also demonstrates that their ante-Eden ability to understand
and make a rational choice for good or evil was greatly restricted or even
impaired. The entire story seems to be a moral awakening of sorts. Then as now,
mankind’s choice demonstrates he apparently desired unrestricted freedom of
will in his conduct and affairs.
Once mankind went down the road of free will morality,
he made a profound statement about his relationship to moral choice. Prior to
his choice, he was faced with an absolute moral code given to him by God. He
chose to replace that absolute value with a relative one. He chose to base his
morality on what he determines is in his best interest. To a large degree, this
is the theme of the biblical morality play. It is the contrast between the idea
of absolute moral values as in the commandments of the Decalogue or those of
Jesus in the New Testament, as opposed to the moral relativism which often
manifests itself in the gray and murky area of the “No Man’s Land” between the
extremes of absolute good and absolute evil.
Of course since absolute values are not intrinsic even
to enlightened self-interest, they are imposed from without. In this case, God
imposes the values concerning the tree in Genesis, chapter two. Later they are
imposed through the Ten Commandments and other statutory requirements of
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Further commands such as Jesus’ “turn
the other cheek” are often refinements of earlier absolutes. However, in the
final chapters of the final book of Revelation, we again see absolute values
imposed from without.
The conflict between the absolute morality and the
relativistic morality based on self-interest provides the dynamic tension that
makes the biblical story become multi-dimensional. This adds another layer to
the original moral dilemma, as we see that the choice that mankind is faced
with is not simply a choice between good or evil, but is actually a choice
between two different moral codes: absolutism or relativism. The Jews of Jesus’
day understood this very well and saw absolutism as the only possible choice.
When Jesus seemed to be endorsing some form of relativism through his teaching
and actions, their heresy antennae began twitching.
Perhaps the most fundamental difference between these
two moralities is in how free will is understood. In relativistic morality, free
will is always active as each moral choice is independently and freely determined.
In the absolutist system, once free will is exercised to choose that morality,
it is no longer needed as every moral choice is spelled out beforehand. From
that point on, the entire focus is on surrendering free will to absolutism. This
leads one to conclude that possibly man was never intended to be more than a
very limited free moral agent. Some rebel at this thought, but others find a
measure of peace instead. Just as a cow or a horse may become unnerved if they
somehow manage to escape their fenced pasture and express joy and relief once
returned to the same, humans can also find that the strictures of absolutism
provide comfort by placing the responsibility for the results of moral
dilemmas on God. In absolutism something is always right or always wrong
without regard to special circumstances.
There are dilemmas that occur for the absolutist when
every moral situation is not codified. For instance, if a doctor must choose
between saving a mother or the baby she is giving birth to, the simple “Thou
shalt not kill,” is not very helpful as the choice to save the one means the
death of the other. However, the absolutist can choose to save either one and find
absolution by blaming the code that did not provide an answer. Effectively,
then, the death becomes God’s responsibility rather than his since God imposed
the code in the first place.
The relativist cannot abrogate such a responsibility and
will attempt to make the best choice. However, no matter what choice the relativist
makes they will always agonize about the “what if?” since almost never is the
information available to them complete. For instance, if the doctor could know
that the mother would go on to win the Nobel Prize, but the child would fail at
everything, be a miserable wretch living a life of crime causing pain and
suffering to others and ultimately dying in a back alley of a drug overdose,
the choice might be easier to make. But man’s limited ability to even come
anywhere near accurately guessing these things makes relative morality a slough
of eddies and currents that can be impossible to navigate effectively.
We then seem to be faced with a choice between an
absolute code that falls short in dealing with every situation we may encounter
or a relativistic one that may attempt to relate to each possible situation but
often does not have enough information to do so consistently and effectively.
And the difference may be further clarified if we ask whether we want to bear
the misgivings and even guilt of the relativist, or pass them on to God as the
absolutist is inclined to do. The Bible’s answer is to choose the latter. “Surely
he took up our pain and bore our suffering…”[i] and “Come unto me, all ye
that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon
you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest
unto your souls.”[ii]
Both options require the exercise of free will. The
relative option requires the use of free will for every moral decision. The
absolute choice requires the use of free will only once to decide to surrender
that free will to the absolute will of God and not to pick it up again. When we
do, we re-awaken that ante-Eden experience complete with the temptation to once
again choose free will and relativism. If we give in to the temptation, until
the story is complete, we have the option of laying our will down again. The
only problem is that we do not know when the story ends.[iii] We can go round and
round as in a spiritual game of musical chairs, not knowing when the music will
stop and leave us forsaken. The sooner we can decide and remain decided, the
better the chance for our part in the morality play to have a positive outcome.
