Moral reformers typically judge society from the inside. They challenge their culture’s standard of behavior and then campaign for change. If morality is defined as the present society’s standard, though, then challenging that standard would be an act of immorality by definition. Social reformers would not be moral after all, but rather moral outcasts precisely because they oppose the status quo.

To celebrate Stand to Reason’s 30th anniversary, we’re republishing classic issues of Solid Ground that represent some of the foundational ideas characterizing our work over the decades—ideas that continue to be vital to apologetics and evangelism today. 
For many in the world, the moral legitimacy of a U.S. military incursion into Iraq hinged on one issue: United Nations support. For them it was clear that, all other things being equal, armed invasion would be indefensible unless a single detail changed: U.N. approval.
At the heart of this view is the conviction that morality is a result of community consensus—in this case, the international community. There can be no “majority of one.” The guiding ethical principle is simple: Don’t buck the system. This is the same approach implicit in both “social contract” and postmodern views of ethics.
Many of us have seen this moral calculus before—on TV.
Star Trek Morality
“Trekkers” will recall the Prime Directive of the Federation prohibiting the crew of the Enterprise in Star Trek from interfering with alien civilizations. Moral standards are set internally, by one’s culture. What’s right for one society isn’t necessarily right for another. Since morality is relative—all competing values are equally legitimate—the crew of the Enterprise was forbidden to intrude.
On this view, morality is determined by the group. Generally, the relevant group is the larger cultural unit: the tribe, the linguistic community, the nation-state. In some cases, the ruling social unit can be expanded to a consortium of cultures, like the United Nations, but the basic principle is still the same: The majority rules.
Morality as Social Contract
Classical thinkers saw the apparently innate tendency of all human beings to think and act according to moral categories (what Francis Schaeffer called “moral motions”) as evidence for God.
Others disagreed. To them, morality represented nothing more than a social contract. As 17th-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes famously put it, life in an unregulated state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In order to avoid such a fate, humans consent to live by a set of rules called morality.
This “Star Trek morality,” otherwise known as conventionalism, teaches that each society survives because of consensual moral arrangements each individual is obliged to honor. Morality is relative to culture, determined by popular consensus, expressed through laws and customs. Each person (or each country in the case of an international “community” like the U.N.) fulfills his end of the contract by keeping the code of the group.
No Immoral “Aliens”
Star Trek morality has serious problems in any of its applications. First of all, since each society is “alien” to another, no society could be judged immoral by another’s standards, no matter how bizarre or morally repugnant they may seem.
The torture of prisoners by military regimes, the injustice of totalitarian governments, and the apartheid of racist administrations would all be outside the reach of moral assessment on this view. One might counter that these policies, in many cases, are not the will of the people, but only of those in power. This rebuttal, though, fails twice.
First, why should one accept that the population at large is the relevant “society” determining morality instead of those who have the power to rule? If one has an obligation to obey society, then which society does one obey? This ambiguity is a weakness of conventionalism.
Culture is complex, with many overlapping internal “societies” making claims on us. Behavior acceptable at the gym in the morning is considered gauche at a dinner party later that evening. The moral convictions of one’s religious community may be at odds with the demands of his business community. Which group is primary? Culture is not homogeneous, making it impossible for it to define a common standard of behavior.
Second, the rejoinder also misses the point. Maybe such injustices don’t always represent the will of the people, but what if they did? The kangaroo courts of the French Revolution had popular support. So did the Third Reich, to a great degree. Do we grant French anarchists and German Nazis moral justification on this basis?
Nazis at Nuremburg
Indeed, the Nazis essentially used the Star Trek defense at Nuremberg. Advancing a notion called legal positivism, the German leadership claimed that the International Military Tribunal had no moral legitimacy to preside over the trials.
In The Law above the Law, John Warwick Montgomery describes their argument:
The most telling defense offered by the accused was that they had simply followed orders or made decisions within the framework of their own legal system, in complete consistency with it, and that they therefore could not rightly be condemned because they deviated from the alien value system of their conquerors. [Emphasis added.][1]
The Tribunal didn’t accept this justification. In the words of Robert H. Jackson, chief counsel for the United States at the trials, the issue was not one of power—the victor judging the vanquished—but one of higher moral law. “[The Tribunal] rises above the provincial and transient,” he said, “and seeks guidance not only from International Law but also from the basic principles of jurisprudence which are assumptions of civilization….”[2]
The first serious problem with the social contract view is that it violates our deepest moral intuitions, the foundational “assumptions of civilization.” Some things seem wrong regardless of what “society” says, including plundering innocent Jews, pressing them into forced labor, and exterminating them. If the Star Trek view is sound, then governmentally sponsored genocide can only be silently observed. If there is no law above society, then society cannot be judged.
Read More
Related Posts:

Hebrews 13:7 says, “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith” If he is a man of faith who you want to be your pastor, then honor him by living for the Lord and imitating his faith. Make it a joy for him to shepherd you, not a burden. Keeping a pastor requires work on the part of a church. 
I have just celebrated my sixteenth anniversary as the pastor of Malvern Hill Baptist Church. Often, as I reflect on my time at Malvern Hill, I offer advice or suggestions to pastors who desire a long tenure. Today, however, I am writing to churches who might desire to keep a good pastor.
For a man to remain at a church for long tenure, he must have a strong sense of calling, work ethic, an occasional thick skin, and a short memory of offenses.
But, there are things a church can (and must) do if it desires to keep a pastor. I know from experience that a church can make it a joy for a pastor to lead. If you are a church member reading this, you can bless your pastor.
Church, outside of God and his Word, your pastor is your greatest resource–especially if you have a good one.
If you like your pastor, here are several things you can and should be doing to care well for him and to make sure you are not looking for a new pastor in the near future.

Pray for your pastor. Seriously. Pray for him, he is in an odd job. It is not the hardest job in the world, but it is challenging and it is unlike any other job in the world. He carries the burdens of many people and tries to balance that out with the burdens of his own family. Pray for him and tell him how you have prayed for him.
Care for his family. When you call a pastor (or hire him if you prefer that term), you did not also hire his wife as a counselor or pianist or floor sweeper. Allow the pastor’s family to be church members. Do not place expectations on them you wouldn’t place on other Christians. Care for the pastor’s family so that they desire to be in the church. For example, when I took a sabbatical several years ago, my kids protested, “You can go somewhere else, but we want to go to our church.” And they did. Every Sunday for several weeks I attended another church, but Angela and the kids went to Malvern Hill. Malvern Hill is family and it is home.
Protect him. Don’t talk behind his back and don’t allow others to either. Ephesians 4:29 commands us, “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.”
Talk to him, not about him. His job is different than yours. He spends a lot of time alone, praying, writing, staring out his window, visiting. If you have questions about how his time is being spent or whether or not he is doing his job, go ask him. But, rest assured, he works more than “one hour per week.”

Read More
Related Posts:

For nine months Zechariah was mute. And on the eighth day they took their son to be circumcised, and, as was the custom, they gave him a name at his circumcision. “Will he be called Zechariah?” they asked. “No,” Elizabeth responded. “He shall be called John.”[vii] Zechariah scribbled his agreement on a tablet and, as he did, speech returned. And not merely speech, but song. A prophet’s song emerged from the mouth of the man for whom speech had been dormant nine months, each word speaking to the rescue of a God who came for his people, even when they had stopped hoping for him, even when belief that he could come seemed impossible. 

It is a joy to see young people who love Jesus. But there is something particularly special about the righteousness that comes with age. Like wine, there is a flavor that holiness develops that can only come with years.
There once was a husband, Zechariah, and a wife, Elizabeth, who loved God deeply. They had this kind of beautifully aged righteousness. Zechariah had given his life in God’s service as a priest. Luke says that “they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.”[i] Few in scripture receive such a high commendation.
“But,” Luke tells us, “they had no child.” Their barrenness was no small thing and certainly not a personal choice. They had yearned for a child and prayed for a child. But no child had come. Any childless couple, any mother who has lost her pre-born child, knows the mark of pain, the empty place that can’t be covered up in the heart. Everyone who has walked through this loss knows the temptation to sin against God in the face of disappointment and shame.
But Zechariah and Elizabeth had walked righteously in the face of grief.
Then, one day, Zechariah had the incredible blessing of being chosen to enter the Holy Place in the temple to burn incense. He never could have anticipated what awaited him.
The angel Gabriel met him face to face. The elderly man fell in fear. “Do not be afraid, Zechariah,” Gabriel consoled him, “for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John.”[ii] Zechariah couldn’t believe what he was hearing. But the news just kept getting better: “And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he will be great before the Lord.”[iii]
And he would not just be righteous, but he would have an incredible vocation: “And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.”[iv]
This broke the limits of Zechariah’s belief. Even in front of this otherworldly creature of unfathomable glory, his decades of disappointment smothered the wick of hope. In words that strangely echoed the words of the unbelief of Abraham, the grandfather of his people, he replied, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.”[v]
Read More
Related Posts: