The Law of the West
by Matt Limber, a friend and former HSC student

It has been said by various astute observers that Western Civilization long ago abandoned its profession of and commitment to being Christian but that it has survived and has been so successful (materially, at least) through the use of some baggage still remaining from its heritage, namely Christian morality. But the law of trickle-down ethics has kicked in. Slowly but surely, the culture has begun to become more consistent in its thinking and doing. No more are we bound by the values and principles of our fuddy-duddy grandparents, and rightly so, for we are also free from the belief in an oppressive God who has handed down tyrannical judgments and statutes for us to keep. Each man is free once again to do what is right in his own eyes, and that's just what he does.

The law of the land is no longer some distilled version of Christian ethics, but a self-centered relativism in which truth is a myth and our neighbor is the least of our concerns - you've got to look out for number one, after all. The only value left is a distorted tolerance in which no one has the right to force his beliefs on anyone else - excepting, of course, the belief in relativism, which the culture endeavors to enforce on all. We are told that even diametrically opposed points of view have equal merit and validity; what one man believes can be true for him but false for another. God, whomever she may be, can be approached in any number of ways, and in fact everyone must find his own path. Sin, of course, is inconceivable, for its existence requires an absolute standard of thought and conduct, which does not exist.

Every man, in this scheme, is a law unto himself, and his autonomy is his most prized possession and the one thing which he cannot allow another to infringe upon or wrest away from him. Hence, irrefutable logic so often fails to register with those who have swallowed whole this worldly view. One might note, as alluded to above, that the relativist tries to do just what he insists others mustn't do, viz., push a single world view as correct and to be accepted by all. Or one might launch into a reductio ad absurdum, citing, say, Hitler as one who did what was "right for him," though, the relativist will likely (and inconsistently) agree, not quite so right for a large number of others. The worldview's self-defeating nature has led many a relativist into a corner, where usually they prefer to sit and pout. Such stubborn rebellion is characteristic of sinful men and is to be expected. Jesus Himself not infrequently backed the Pharisees into a corner which they so obstinately refused to leave, and when He testified against them and their deeds, they responded with hatred and malice, but not repentance.

Ultimately, a world view like this one is more than just self-defeating - it is self-destructive. The relativist, without an absolute standard by which to live, is condemned to fit his own personal "standard" to his present condition and to be found righteous by it. Thus there is, for him, no deed that is truly wrong, and all his efforts naturally aim to fulfill his various lusts by whatever means necessary. In short, he seeks his own pleasure, and that most zealously; but while the pursuit of pleasure is a good thing, he is aiming too low and is, as C.S. Lewis put it, content with the mud pies of the world and ignorant of the true joy found in God alone. The relativist with his eyes on the earth and on himself is turned inward and can, in the end, hold no real commitment to anyone beyond himself. He is self-centered and, if circumstances demand it, he can change what is right to suit his whims at the next turn. Therein his destruction and isolation lie.

Perhaps here it would be prudent to mention a point at which the church is particularly vulnerable to the influences of relativism. We, the people God has called forth unto His law, take care not to fall prey to or submit to the foolishness of relativism, and yet the danger remains because of, for instance, the righteous desire to be tolerant of others. Numerous examples might be cited from Christian history of great intolerance and persecution by the church or in the name of the church, and we certainly don't want to contribute to more of the same, for it mars the bride and her Husband. The temptation, in reaction to mistakes of the past, however, is to allow the heathen to live with his idols as if nothing is amiss. But, a church who so relativizes, calls her Spouse a liar and a bigot. Tolerance must be a virtue bound by truth, not one that does injury to it.

After all God has given a law, holy, righteous, and good, which is the true standard. By it all will be judged, and those found perfect, through the work of Christ reckoned to them, will receive the reward. This law is a reflection of God's character and, as we see in Jesus, the epitome of what man ought to be. It binds us together in Christ and is not a law based on individuality and seeking to fulfill one's whims, but is founded on love for God and therefore love for one another. The commandments of the law show us how we ought to treat one another and how we ought to live, but more than that they show us who God is and who we ought to be. They, like God, are absolute. To live for Christ, working out one's own salvation with fear and trembling, is not the means by which the Christian attains life, but it is the path by which, with his eyes and heart fixed on heaven wherein his citizenship lies, he pursues true joy - a foretaste of glory divine.