This is the expanded version of a homily I recently gave at a service at my local Church. I had to edit it down quite a lot to fit into the timeslot (and even then I still overran considerably), so this goes into far more detail than the actual text of the talk (although still perhaps not as much detail as the topic deserves; I was trying to cover too much ground in too little time). But I thought I would present the full version of what I wanted to say here, before I cut it down. I have lightly edited the full text to make it more suitable for this medium. Biblical quotations are from the NIV (as that is what is used in the Church where I was speaking) unless stated otherwise.

I should also add (as an aside, albeit a relevant one) that I was sorry to hear of the death of Alisdair MacIntyre this past week. Obviously I only knew him through his works, but even so it is a sad occasion for anyone with an interest in Christian philosophy, especially moral philosophy. He was one of the greats. Anyone who has read After Virtue would recognise it as one of the inspirations for the first part of this talk, although obviously he explained the underlying point far better than I ever could. Not that they would know of me, but his family, friends, colleagues and students have my condolences.

And, before anyone complains, I am very much against torturing kittens. And using bats (flying mammals) in sporting events.

Introduction

Today, I’m going to talk about ethics. The word ethics comes from the Greek word for character, nature, or disposition, describing how someone has a tendency to act. It was used by Aristotle to title his works on how people’s character ought to be, and since then the word has generally been used to discuss the study of what is right and wrong.

I’m not going to discuss practical ethics, i.e. particular rules or commandments. I want to focus on general principles. So the questions I’m asking are:

• What makes something a good action?
• What makes someone a good person?
• What do we mean by this word good in the first place?

I’m going to look at this from three angles:

• From a secular perspective.
• From what I call a semi-secular perspective.
• Then, at the end, from a Biblical perspective.

But first let’s say a few words of prayer:

Lord, you are our light and our salvation, of whom should we be afraid? You have said that we should seek your face, and our hearts reply that we seek your face. Teach us your ways, O Lord, and lead us on a level path, that we may look on the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living. And may we dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of our life, to delight in your goodness and beauty. And, Lord, I pray that what I say today might be to your honour and glory. Amen.

Why study ethics?

Two questions to start us off:

• Why would people be interested in this subject?
• Why should we as Christians look at secular ethical theories? Isn’t the Bible Enough?

We all have a moral sense and a desire to be good. Some people want to be vindicated. Some more religiously minded people -- I’m not thinking specifically of Christians here -- think that it might be a way to reach God or please God. Others just want to be nice people. Others like the academic challenge. Of course many people aren’t interested in the subject, but just happy to go with intuition and conscience.

For a Christian, there are several reasons why we should study goodness.

1. It is important for civil society. One of the fruits of good people is they form a harmonious and well ordered community. Most societal problems have at their root somebody’s evil. We are not of the world, but we still live in it, and it is in our interest that it is well ordered.
2. It helps us to become aware of our sin, and drives people to turn to Christ for salvation (Romans 3:20, Romans 7).
3. It helps instruct us to be obedient to God. If we love God, then we would obey His commandments (1 John 5:3). These commandments are for our own benefit (Deuteronomy 5:29). God is seeking to build a people with a pure hearts and strong moral character.
4. Evangelism. There are several places in the Bible where it states that good conduct among the Christians, and the close community that we build together as Christians, should be appealing to those outside the Church. For example, in Deuteronomy we read,

   See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the Lord my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today? (Deuteronomy 4:5)

   And in 1 Peter,

   Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us. (1 Peter 2:11)

   Even if they accuse us of being evil, there should still be something in how we live which draws them in. On the other hand, if we are found doing evil, perhaps abusing children and then playing down the seriousness of the crime, that can really drive people away from the Church. And, of course, given the vast damage done to the survivors of this abuse by both the perpetuators and those covering it up, you can’t say such judgement is undeserved. Any evil we do reflects not just on us, but unfairly damages the reputation of Christ.

5. To counter bad ethical theories. There is a lot of bad thinking about ethics in secular society. The only way to combat bad ethics is with good ethics. We need to understand the principles that underlie opposing moral visions, and understand what’s wrong with them, and how a better approach addresses the issue. This is important when we discuss with others. It is also important for ourselves. If the world is screaming at us that a certain action is right, while the Biblical text says something else, many people are caught in a dilemma. They might not know who to believe. But if you can understand the reasons why the people around us think as they do, and why those reasons are mistaken, and have better grounds for accepting the Biblical position it can give confidence to do the right thing.

As Christians, our main knowledge of goodness comes from the Bible. But understanding secular ethics can also be useful. Not everyone accepts the Bible. But they should still be able to work out enough to realise that they are under judgement. The argument in Romans begins by saying that the people outside the Church have no excuse, because there is enough evidence just by considering creation to know of the existence of God and many of God’s moral commandments. We see this directly in these verses:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. ... 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:18,28)

Many of these people outside the Church will try to suppress this truth, or even celebrate those who break the law. We don’t just know it from reading the New Testament; it is something we directly observe today. When people start adopting a bad ethical theory, it is used to justify and defend their bad moral decisions. Or sometimes it might be the other way round: they want to make bad decisions, and then find an ethical theory that seems to justify them. But either way, those who follow evil are often uncomfortable when faced with the truth.

Paul’s referring to the Gentiles in Roman’s 1. They don’t know the Old Testament. But Paul is saying that they should still know and recognise both God and God’s moral decree, based on those things which have been made. They don’t know this from the Bible, but the can know it from secular ethics.

If we are going to evangelise, we maybe start with the resurrection, and then we will move onto the crucifixion and atonement, and that Jesus died for our sins and that we need to repent of our sins. But what are these sins? We can point to the Bible, but these people don’t accept the Bible yet. But if we have done the groundwork and can convince them of their need for God through non-Biblical sources, it’s much easier to get them past this point.

The Naturalistic Fallacy

So how do we define goodness? Secular philosophy has a major problem with this question. It was first expressed by David Hume, who noted that people often discuss what something is, and then jump to discussing what it ought to be, without giving reason for that jump. This is called the Is/Ought fallacy, or the Fact/Value dichotomy. People continue to make this mistake to this day.

In 1903, the philosopher George Edward Moore wrote a short booklet entitled Principia Ethica. This introduced what he called the Naturalistic fallacy. When people discuss goodness, they define it in two different ways.

1. Goodness is that which we ought to aim at. This is all very well, but it doesn’t tell us anything practically useful. It doesn’t tell us what precisely we should be aiming at. So people supplement it with a second definition. That definition differs from one philosopher to another.
2. So some people say that Goodness is to ...
   • Maximise happiness
   • Others say it is to minimise suffering
   • Or to promote freedom
   • Or to torture kittens
   • And so on.

You can substitute a whole load of things in that second definition. You might say “Torture kittens” is a bit ridiculous, but that’s why I put it in. There is just as much a jump from arbitrarily declaring maximising happiness are the standard for goodness to that we ought to aim at maximising happiness, as there is from arbitrarily declaring that torturing kittens is good to that we ought to torture kittens. Most people like happiness and freedom and dislike suffering, but why make something the moral target just because we like it? Some people like torturing kittens. Without a reason to say that we ought to be aiming at this thing, it is just personal preference what goes in there. Just because you use the same word in that second definition doesn’t mean it is something we ought to aim at.

To confuse between two definitions of a word is a fallacy of equivocation. A bat is a small flying mammal. A bat is used to hit cricket balls. Therefore you use a small flying mammal to hit cricket balls. The naturalistic fallacy is a bit more subtle than this, but it is the same basic error of jumping between different definitions of the same word.

So people start by talking about what causes happiness, and then jump to say it is good to be happy, and then that we ought to aim at increasing happiness because we ought to aim at the good. I’m not saying there is anything wrong with being happy. But that doesn’t constitute a proof that there is anything right about it either. What makes us happy depends on our character and interests. Someone’s life could branch in two ways. On one path he finds happiness in torturing kittens, on the other he might find happiness in rescuing kittens from torture. If maximising happiness is the key to goodness, then it doesn’t help us decide between these two paths. The question isn’t about what makes us happy, but what ought to make us happy. Pretending that happiness is equated with goodness doesn’t answer that question. Maybe someone finds happiness in torturing kittens. But is it morally right that torturing kittens makes them happy? Perhaps not. The happiness principle doesn’t help us choose what we should and shouldn’t desire.

Can we evade the naturalistic fallacy? Yes. I’ll get to that in a few minutes. But it is very difficult to do so from secular ethics. Most secular theories, at least here in post Christian culture. just borrow their standard of goodness, usually from a corrupted form of Christian ethics. Just think of a few of the standards put in as the ultimate goal. “Love.” “Don’t hate.” “Equality.” “Liberty.” “Be nice to other groups.” It was the Christians and Jews who made “Love” the central pillar of ethics. What is meant by love has changed from Christian to post-Christian culture, but the only reason it is viewed as a standard for goodness is our Christian inheritance. It wasn’t valued in the same way before Christianity, or in cultures less influenced by Christianity.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)

The idea of equality comes from the idea that everyone shares the image of God. The secular principle is again a distortion of the Christian principle. But that some notion of equality is important is derived from Christianity. Ask a Roman if all men are equal and they would have laughed at you. Modern secular ethical theory cannot justify its standard of goodness. It is parasitic.

Secular Ethics

There are various different types of secular ethics. I’ll briefly discuss:

• Duty ethics -- focusses on the action.
• Consequentialist ethics -- focusses on the consequences of the action.
• Ethics from authority.
• Human rights.
• Moral relativism.
• Moral Nihilism.
• Virtue ethics -- concentrates on the character of the one doing the action.

Kant

One version of duty ethics was proposed by the German Philosopher Immanuel Kant. He framed it in terms of what he called the categorical imperative. A hypothetical imperative is a statement of the sort

If you want to avoid getting wet in the rain, you ought to bring an umbrella.

That’s clear enough. A categorical imperative just has the ought clause without the if clause. The problem is how to do this. Kant posed a few rules. The first is that a moral standard ought to be universal, so you can rationally apply it to everyone equally. This seems reasonable. Then he added more rules, such as people should be treated as ends rather than means. You should act for things which are ends in themselves. Only rational beings have intrinsic value, so only rational beings can be ends in themselves. There are various problems with this approach. You have to justify that only rational beings have intrinsic value, and before you can do that you need a notion of value that is not derived from this categorical imperative (to avoid circular reasoning). It is not specific enough to derive moral rules in many areas. You just can’t narrow things down to specific rules from principles such as this. And we are not interested in some general rules, but what is good specifically for a human being, and not for spiders or rocks. That will require inputting something about human nature alongside Kant’s imperatives. And then the problem resurfaces of how to get from observations of human nature to moral obligations. Kant doesn’t adequately address the question of goodness.

Consequentialist ethics.

Consequentialist ethics states that an action should be judged based on whether the consequences of that action are good. It’s best known form is Utilitarianism (based around maximising happiness), introduced by Bentham and Mill. Consequentialism thus doesn’t provide us with a definition of goodness, and you can slot many things in there (such as minimising suffering, promoting freedom, maximising the number of kittens tortured, and so on). But it needs to assume a definition of goodness (which ultimately has to arise from divine command or virtue ethics). Mill tried to justify the happiness principle in his work, but didn’t really succeed. There are numerous other problems with consequentialism:

• It can be very difficult calculating the consequences of an action, as they ripple down time forever. Many consequentialists “resolve” this by introducing rule-consequentialism, where various rules are introduced to make things easy. But then you have to ask where those rules come from, and whether this is still judging actions by their consequences.
• This approach provides no motivation for people to seek good consequences. What would motivate someone to maximise the sum total of human happiness (for example), instead of prioritising their own happiness? Yes, you can argue that if everyone else prospers you as an individual will gain from that; but we also know that people can gain more by causing others to lose. Ultimately someone’s character needs to be predisposed to seeking the common good. This requires the virtues of prudence (to know what’s good), love (to desire what’s good), courage (to have the strength to do what’s right), self-control, perseverance, temperance, justice, and so on. Without these virtues, people would either not follow the good, or follow the wrong thing thinking it is good. It doesn’t matter how great your ethical theory, if people have no reason or means to follow it, it’s not going to lead to good outcomes. Thus consequentialist ethicist needs to prioritise the nurturing of these virtues if it is to be successful. So it depends on virtue ethics to provide its standard of goodness, and collapses into virtue ethics if it is to have any positive effect on the world. So why not just stick to virtue ethics, and avoid any further complications which add nothing?
• You can have two identical people in two identical circumstances, as near as can be measured, perform two identical actions and have different consequences. Why should one of them be judged as good and the other evil? For example, radioactive decay is an entirely unpredictable process which can have large-scale effects. If the outcome depends on the decay of a radioactive particle as well as the actions of the people, then identical actions could lead to different results. It would clearly be unjust to judge those people based on the outcomes in part due to their actions. We could, alternatively, judge them based on the probability of their actions leading to good outcomes, but then this would no longer be consequentialism, but a form of virtue ethics. We would be judging them based on their ability to calculate, to weigh what is good, to desire the good, and so on.
• And why should we believe that consequences are important in the first place?

So this approach also can’t provide a working definition of goodness.

Ethics from authority

We can also ask some authority what they think is good. Maybe government, or some philosopher, or a bill of rights. Many people look to society. “Moral rules are what’s commonly accepted in society.” But society is just a collection of people. So when you appeal to society, you are just appealing to certain people who think they define what society should believe, and accepting the moral rules based on their opinion. So again you are appealing to authority.

In the 4th century BC, Plato wrote a dialogue called Euthyphrōn, which includes this statement:

"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious? Or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

Replace piety with good and the gods with whatever authority we are using, and this neatly presents the problem with arguments from authority. On one hand, the authority declares it good because it is good. But then, there must be an objective reason why it is good acknowledged by the authority. Then we shouldn’t be using the authority to define goodness, but this objective standard. On the other hand, is something good because the authority declares it good? But this choice is entirely arbitrary. Why does some random group of people declaring something good make it something we ought to aim at? Who says they are right and their opponents are wrong? Was it good that this authority declared it good? How do we judge that?

This Euthyphro dilemma is usually raised to dismiss divine authority. This is ironic, because God is the one authority to which it doesn’t apply. What do we mean by an objective standard of goodness? It must be derived from the principles of reason and human nature. But why is human nature what it is? Because of God’s sovereign choice in designing us. As God designed us, he also designed a moral law for us. Our biological and spiritual nature and our moral nature come together; they are part of the same thing. God can change the moral law only by changing the whole of human nature. So the moral law is both an objective standard, based on fundamental human nature, and something ultimately based on God’s arbitrary choices in designing us. God doesn’t change, so he won’t change the standard, and we can be confident in it. And since God is perfectly good and our creator, He certainly has the right to determine what goodness means for His creation. God is the only authority who escapes the dilemma in this way.

Human rights

Now a bit more controversial. The idea of human rights is prevalent in today’s West. To question it seems almost like heresy. But universal rights aren’t an intuitively obvious concept. It is a modern development that arose from Western philosophy, and would have seen weird to our ancestors from just a few hundred years ago (especially in other parts of the world). If the concept was intuitively obvious, you would expect that people to have come up with the idea earlier, and more widely. So the concept needs justification before we should accept it. To say that someone has a right means that, because of their nature as humans, they have an entitlement binding other people. Where does that entitlement come from? As a Christian, we might look to the image of God within us all, but there is a jump from that to saying that we have entitlements constraining those people. Does the divine image mean I have the right to speak freely (even when this impinges on others), or the right to constrain other people from speaking freely? An argument needs to be made to jump from the premise (of the divine image) to the conclusion of rights. Nor are rights necessary to have good effects. The right to free speech is, in its practical outcome, equivalent to people lacking the right to prevent others from speaking. So carries the fewer presumptions, that we possess something we can’t directly observe, or that we lack it? And saying that people lack the right to prevent others from speaking in general allows us to understand exceptions to the rule. These exceptions might come from contractual rights, such as the contract between a teacher and their students, or a chair of a meeting and the board members.

The idea of rights has been around for a long time. It is in the Bible. When you sign a contract, that gives you certain rights and certain responsibilities. The Bible talks about:

• the rights of the poor to justice and a fair trial,

  Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy. (Proverbs 31:9)

• the rights of Kings,

  Samuel explained to the people the rights and duties of kingship. He wrote them down on a scroll and deposited it before the Lord. Then Samuel dismissed the people to go to their own homes. (1 Samuel 10:25)

• the rights of a wife,

  If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. (Exodus 21:10)

• and the rights of apostles.

  Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living? (1 Corinthians 9:6)

Rights also emerge naturally in contract law or property law. But these are all in specific contexts, coming from a particular relationship (such as between husband and wife), or a legal contract (such is in submission to a ruler). The idea of universal rights is different from all this, and a modern concept.

The notion of rights arose in the middle ages. The virtue ethics of the time entailed various moral responsibilities, for example of a feudal Lord towards their serfs. Rights were introduced as the reverse of these responsibilities. This clearly doesn’t make rights fundamental. They are dependent on the theory that defined those responsibilities. We should turn to that theory to understand what is good.

Later, people discarded the Medieval ethics, but still hung onto the idea of human rights. They needed a new justification:

• Locke supposed that rights emerged from our self-ownership, extending from property law. The idea of self-ownership is a contradiction, because ownership is an asymmetrical relationship. Locke avoided this error. He said we are really owned by God, but are granted stewardship over ourselves. This reduces to a form of divine command ethics. Modern day followers of Locke remove God from the picture. So you just have people owning themselves, which is incoherent, and deciding for themselves those rights which affect them, which collapses into moral relativism. Locke’s philosophy was important in the United States, and its bill of rights.
• Hobbes proposed that human beings are naturally in a state of conflict. To avoid this, a social contract was drawn up, and rights emerged from this social contract. This idea of a social contract is just a fiction.
• Rousseau also thought of rights emerging from a social contract. He believed that people are naturally free and good, but that freedom is curtailed when people start interacting with each other, through the family, systems of moral duties, and so on. Nonetheless, there is a common will that yearns for that original freedom and equality. This common will then defines a social contract. Rights emerge from that social contract. People should be forced to comply with it to ensure their freedom. This construction is also a complete fiction, particularly with its notion of a common will. Only individual people have wills. Rousseau’s ideas were particularly important in the French Revolution, and in German philosophy.
• Turning to a declaration is just an argument from authority. What right did those who drew up the declaration have to grant rights to others?
• Others make up rights as they go along without justification.
• Others appeal to the good consequences of rights discussion. Yes, the notion of human rights has had good practical effects, for example in constraining the power of government. But you can get those effects from other means. And we don’t judge the effects as good because they follow from rights, but the argument is that rights are good because they lead to good effects. Clearly this supposes an objective standard of goodness prior to any notion of rights, so human rights (if we are to base them on this justification) cannot be used to define what is and isn’t good.

The reasons used to justify the notion of human rights are therefore all suspect. Rights are also incorporated into law. That’s OK, if you want to write express your nation’s laws in that way. But law cannot be used to define objective truth (although it ought to reflect objective and moral truth). It is just man-made. That a politician or lawyer claims that we have human rights doesn’t make it part of human nature. The question at hand is whether the concept is more fundamental than this, arising from human nature rather than human law created in effect through someone’s imagination. I am addressing the question of whether rights arise from human nature. Only if that were true would it be right to use the concept in moral arguments. But its use in ethics is problematic. As discussed above, depending on the precise formulation, it is either redundant (reducing to either Medieval virtue ethics or divine command ethics), or without any basis in fact, or is self-contradictory. And, of course, claiming the right to do something does not mean that you ought to do it. One argument might be that if we don’t have the right to do something that identifies it as evil; but otherwise to restrain us when we have a right would hinder the good of freedom. But then why should we think that this understanding of freedom is the highest good? We might be free to do something, but we can use that freedom to either help kittens or to torture them. It doesn’t tell us which one is the right thing to do. Freedom cannot be the principle that determines what is and isn’t good. As Paul wrote (in the context of eating food offered to idols),

“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. (1 Corinthians 10:23)

Claiming a right to do something does not show that we ought to do it, or that it is good that we do it. Even in the (unlikely) event that we actually have a reasonable argument to say that we do possess that right. We ought to be seeking to do what is good, and discussion of rights just distracts us from that more fundamental question.

Moral relativism

Moral relativism arose because of the difficulties defining an objective standard of goodness. If there can’t be an objective notion of goodness, can there be a subjective definition? Everyone should be free to draw up their own moral code, as long as they don’t interfere or impose it on others. The only moral rule is that people should be true to their own desires.

Ethics is intended to judge whether or not our desires are good or evil. If those desires define what is good or evil, then its all one big circle and meaningless. The moral relativist cannot declare anything as evil without breaking their principles and imposing an objective standard. Otherwise, moral relativism collapses into moral nihilism. If we are free to make up our own moral rules, then those rules are not binding. If we change our mind, then the rules change. There is no rational basis for saying something is good.

Moral Nihilism

Moral Nihilism is the belief that there are no moral values. There is no good. There is no evil. This is not a very appealing view, but it is a natural end-point of the purposeless and meaningless universe implied by atheism.

Summary

So these are the major schools of secular ethics. All of them are problematic. They bypass the question of what is good, or just presume something (usually just a distortion of what the previous generation believed) without providing any good reason to accept it. Kant tried but failed. So they might propose moral rules, implying a definition of goodness, but can’t satisfactorily answer the question of why people ought to accept them.

Natural Law Ethics

Virtue ethics concentrates on the character of the person performing the action. It starts with the question “What makes a good man or woman?” and sees this as the primary question of ethics. Questions about what is a good action are secondary, and are judged by what a good man would do in those circumstances.

Natural Law Ethics is a development of Aristotle’s ethics, bringing Aristotle’s version of virtue ethics to its logical conclusion. It was largely developed by Christians, and today primarily followed by Christians. Its a philosophical ethics. It does not depend on the Bible, but is consistent with Biblical ethics. The underlying assumptions behind it naturally lead to philosophical theism.

So the fundamental question is what is meant by good. So lets ask a few questions:

• What makes a good teacher?
• What makes a good footballer?
• What makes a good accountant?
• What makes a good apple?
• What do all these have in common?

In each of these examples, we see that there is a clear purpose in the definition of the thing we are considering. The purpose of a teacher is to teach. To impart skills, knowledge and character to their students. A good teacher is one with the character, knowledge and skill to do that effectively. The purpose of a footballer is to win games of football. A good footballer is one who, given his particular role in the team, has the skills and talent to allow that to happen despite the best efforts of his opponents to stop him (or her). A good character doesn’t always translate into results. It usually will, but not always. A good teacher with bad students might have worse results than a mediocre teacher with really good students. So goodness refers to the nature and character of the thing in question.

So to be good means to be fit for purpose. We avoid the naturalistic fallacy if that purpose is inherent to the nature of the thing. The purpose defines both what the being is and what it ought to be. So if it violates that standard it contradicts its own nature. If a teacher becomes so bad at teaching that they no longer actually teach, then you can’t really call them a teacher any longer.

• The purpose might be entailed in the definition of the thing (think of a good teacher). This leads to natural law ethics.
• The purpose might be given to it by the will of an intelligent agent; either its creator or its user. But then we have to ask if that agent’s will is good. If we follow this approach, we look to the creator of that will, which ultimately leads us to God’s will. This is divine command ethics.

A virtue is an individual element of a good character, one small piece in the overall picture of the good character. If you combine all the virtues in the right way, you get a good person.

What about good men or women in general? Is there a purpose intrinsic to humanity?

We are defined as rational social animals. Each of those terms is defined by a tendency. Our animal nature is defined by our tendency towards metastatis, to reproduce, to grow, to move, to react to stimuli, and so on. These defining tendencies lead to inherent purposes, which can be used to define a moral standard. It is good for someone to be able to fulfil these purposes, an evil if you hinder these purposes. So, for example, to deliberately kill someone is evil. They are no longer able to fulfil any of their purposes. Our rational nature is also defined by tendencies, to learn new information, correctly reason about it, come to a knowledge of the truth, communicate it and so on. From these we ask what character traits advance these purposes, construct various virtues, such as honesty, curiosity, the ability to think logically, and so on, which help define a good moral character. Similarly our social nature is defined by various tendencies which imply purposes which lead to aspects of a moral character. Since I need to be brief, and my goal is to focus on general principles, I won’t describe how you derive various virtues from this framework. But it evades the naturalistic fallacy. The purpose is essential to the definition of the being in question. A different set of purposes would define a different type of being. To deny that purpose, by desiring the being does not fulfil it and thereby fulfils some other purpose, is to desire that the being is something which it isn’t -- a logical contradiction.

A purpose can be hindered in several ways. Perhaps bad luck or lack of opportunity. There might be some physical barrier put in the way, or disease or damage. Or it could be through our own deliberate choice or a character failing. Only the last of these is a moral evil, and ought to be condemned. For example, if someone is unable to walk, due to disability or old age, that’s an evil. They can’t fulfil the tendency towards movement. But its not a moral evil, because its not their choice. So we should help them overcome this as best as we can. On the other hand, if someone is perfectly capable of walking, but chooses not to, asking other people to accommodate his desire to stand still all the time, then that is a moral evil, and should be condemned. They want to be something they aren’t, a being without the defining tendency of motion.

If good is being fit from purpose, then evil is not being fit for purpose. Evil doesn’t exist in the same sense that good exists, but is an absence or lack of goodness. “Evil” refers to anything preventing someone from achieving their maximum good. Some evils are due to human choice; others are not. People can only be judged for those evils that arose from their own choice. Although we should do what we can to overcome any sort of evil.

Why do people choose to pursue evil? Not intentionally. People don’t say, “I know, I’ll be evil for today and see how that feels.” Evil choices can arise through ignorance or bad reasoning, but mostly they arise from people prioritising one good over others. We have numerous natural purposes, leading to numerous different virtues and therefore different ways of being evil. The wholly good character will have all these virtues in harmony, and working together. Evil frequently arises when people focus on fulfilling one good thing they see as good to such an extent that it blinds them to other vices and problems.

A vice is the opposite of a virtue -- an element of a bad character. Most vices reflect an excess or deficit of a virtue. For example, suppose courage is a virtue. There is a good in self-preservation. There is no point in throwing away your life or reputation for no reason. But there is also good in putting yourself in danger if that’s the only way to prevent some evil. The virtue of courage lies somewhere between the two extremes. Focusing too much on self-preservation leads to the vice of cowardice. Focussing too much on preventing evil leads to the vice of recklessness. The virtue of courage is about finding the right balance.

I won’t discuss how you develop specific virtues from natural law ethics. This is done in any full treatment of virtue ethics, and you can look up the details (I have found Alisdair MacIntyre, David Oderberg, and Thomas Aquinas’ writings on ethics helpful, but there are many other writers who do a good job -- and of course everyone should read Aristotle’s classic works Nicomachean Ethics and Eudemian Ethics). But it goes beyond the scope of this talk (otherwise we would be here all night). A good deed is what a perfectly virtuous person would do in those circumstances. But people are not judged by their deeds, but by their character and intentions.

I’ll offer three questions for discussion:

• Why doesn’t the secular world accept this account of ethics?
• • Why might this account be useful to a Christian?
• What is missing from it for the Christian?

The secular world rejects it largely because it rejects the underlying philosophy. That philosophy states that things have intrinsic purposes. Atheism states that we are ultimately just clumps of particles moving around blindly obeying fixed laws. There is no meaning or purpose to the universe, but just pitiless indifference. If you accept that, you can’t accept moral principles that depend on things having intrinsic purposes. You desperately need something else, which is why we get all these other theories.

It is useful for the Christian because 1) it allows us to engage in the secular world and gives a set of powerful arguments to both attack bad morality, and to give us confidence in our own. It shows that Biblical morality is rational. It’s not faith against reason as some people would like to claim, its faith and reason together against various bad ideas. 2) It allows us to extend Biblical morality into circumstances not covered by the Bible.

We have to be careful. We are sure of the Bible. Human reason is also good, but people make mistakes, so it is less certain than the Biblical text. So if we start reasoning beyond the Bible we can always go wrong. And obviously if we let our philosophical ethics contradict the Bible, then there is a mistake in the philosophy. So philosophical ethics can be helpful, but we have to be cautious.

This account makes no mention of God. We were created by God and for God’s glory. That gives us further purposes invisible to philosophy. Natural law ethics can be a useful supplement to Biblical ethics. It is not a replacement for it.

Moral argument for God

So lets consider the following argument:

1. There is an objective standard of goodness.
2. Goodness means being fit for purpose.
3. That purpose is either intrinsic to our nature or extrinsic to it.
4. If it is extrinsic to human nature, then it comes from an external will.
   • If this is God, then God exists.
   • If it is not God, then that being must have a purpose, either internal or external (from the Euthyphro dilemma). We cannot continue this forever with non-divine wills, so a sequence of external purposes must either terminate with God, or an intrinsic purpose.
5. If it is intrinsic, then that purpose would have to arise from our matter or the arrangement of that matter.
   • Inanimate particles can’t have a purpose unless it is supplied to them by something external to them. An arrow needs an archer to direct it to the target.
   • If the arrangement of matter has a purpose, that has to arise either from the matter or whatever caused the arrangement. We are still looking at an external source.

   So this still needs an external agent to provide the purpose. Ultimately we are led to God.

6. So if there is an objective standard of goodness, then God exists.

This needs to be fleshed out in more detail. It incorporates Aquinas’ fifth way, which is defended at a popular level in Edward Feser’s book on Aquinas and elsewhere (including my own work). Note that the fifth way is not the argument from design, even though atheists often confuse the two, but an argument based on the notion of final causality, or intrinsic tendencies towards one or more ends. The various arguments from design are based on very different premises, and belong to a different class of arguments. I can’t cross every t in a minute. But this is the outline of a moral argument for God. Now the moral argument is not a watertight proof of God’s existence. You can deny that there is an objective moral standard (the first premise), and accept moral nihilism. But, if the argument is successful, your options are moral nihilism, God, or incoherence.

This is not saying that atheists are any more immoral than anyone else. Certainly not. It’s just saying that there is an inconsistency between whatever moral standard they adopt and their atheism. People are often inconsistent. Most atheists, at least in this country, are post-Christian. So they still hold onto certain principles derived from Christianity or the Christian world-view. These principles are embedded in how they were raised, so they either take them to be intuitively obvious, and don’t question them at all, or, they do try to find a grounding those principles, but that grounding still begs the question at some point. Ultimately what they choose as a moral principle is either just an arbitrary preference, which is no better than anyone else’s arbitrary preference and collapses into moral nihilism, or it is taken from something which contradicts their atheism. But because there is nothing solid grounding atheist morality, we can expect it to drift further and further from the truth.

Biblical Ethics

So what does the Bible tell us about goodness?

Firstly, is this topic important? There are many verses I could use to defend that it is, but I will use Matthew 28.

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18)

We concentrate on make disciples of all nations, but I will emphasise teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. Before teaching we need to understand. To understand, we need to study God’s commands and what God wants. So to fulfil the great commission presupposes that we know and understand the notion of goodness. There is no point in making disciples if we misunderstand what God wants of us, and, in effect, make disciples of some rival god constructed from our own imagination.

Goodness of God

I’ll start with Mark 10:17

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.”

This verse is sometimes used to deny the incarnation, but it actually states the opposite, and is part of the puzzle Mark presents where we are gradually meant to deduce Jesus' identity. Premise 1 is that Jesus is good. Premise 2 is that only God is good. The conclusion is that Jesus is God.

From this passage, we see that God is good, and that, only God is good, which means that we aren’t good. Not perfectly, we have flaws, and every flaw is a departure from goodness. These two statements (God’s goodness and our lack of goodness) are the starting point for Biblical ethics. We see from Ephesians that we are called to imitate God,

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. (Ephesians 5:1 ESV)

and from Romans that we are to be conformed to His nature.

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. (Romans 8:29)

Why? By doing so we are conformed to the source of Goodness. The more we become like God, the more we become like the good. As the Psalmist said,

Those who render me evil for good accuse me because I follow after good. (Psalm 38:20)

What makes us as Christians distinctive, and hateful to the world, is that we follow the source of goodness.

We can also have confidence in God’s goodness because of his unchangeable nature. This is confirmed in several passages, but I will cite it from James

Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. (James 1:17)

We can change change from good to evil or back again, so putting your confidence in man’s goodness is always risky, as the Psalmist explains clearly.

Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save. When their spirit departs, they return to the ground; on that very day their plans come to nothing. Blessed are those whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord their God. He is the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them — he remains faithful forever. (Psalm 146:3)

But within God there is no variation or shadow of change. This means that God isn’t suddenly going to change His mind about our purposes, and we can be confident in His continued goodness.

But what do we mean when we say that God is good?

• Goodness is related to a goal that created beings aim at when they are true to their nature. Everything apart from God was created by God and for God. So every good finds its fulfilment in God. So when we say that God is good we don’t mean it in the same sense that a teacher is good or an apple is good, defined in terms of a purpose that ultimately arises from outside the being. We mean that God is the source of all goodness. God’s desires and purposes define goodness for everything God creates. All perfections flow from God as their ultimate cause. We mean that God constantly fulfils and is true his nature. For example God creates and moment-by-moment sustains the universe. There isn’t any force that can prevent Him from doing that; there is nothing that can hinder His purpose, so there is no evil preventing Him from being perfectly good.
• If something goes from good to bad, or bad to good, then it has to change in some way. But God does not change, as is confirmed in Malachi.

  “I the Lord do not change.” (Malachi 3:6)

  So God cannot change from good to evil, and so always perfectly fulfils His nature.

• We also describe God as good because He constantly works to promote good in His creation. We see this in the following verses.

For it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfil his good purpose. (Philippians 2:13)

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28)

Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights (James 1:17)

Only God’s activity can make a changeable being good and keep it good. And so we look to God as the source, provider and inspiration of every good thing that we possess.

Human nature and sin

If only God is good, that means that we are not good. This is the ultimate reason why we need ethics. If we were naturally good, then we wouldn’t need to train ourselves in virtue. It would all come by instinct. It is precisely because we can’t trust human instincts that we shouldn’t put our trust in human beings, including, and perhaps most especially, ourselves.

We read in Genesis 1 and 2 that when God created the world, he saw that it was good, and when complete it was very good. This means that God created the world, and it turned out as he had planned. That our species was created good, but then fell short of that, shows that we have the potential for goodness. So there is hope that we can become good. But we know that the original goodness was spoiled in Genesis 3. Things are no longer good, and in particular we are not good. That is the root cause of all our problems. The Bible tells the story of God’s actions in overcoming that evil and restoring creation to its original goodness. We also see that the corruption that entered the world then has passed down through the generations and prevented anyone from achieving goodness by their efforts. This is outlined in Romans chapter 5.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned. (Romans 5:12)

We can’t hope to meet God’s standard by trying to follow the moral law, as pointed out in Romans 3.

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. (Romans 3:20)

Today we call this fundamental corruption in our nature original sin. Although the name “original sin” isn’t biblical, it is used to denote a summary Biblical teaching. I define the term following the definition in the Anglican Church’s 39 articles, which (to my mind) expresses the point very well.

ORIGINAL Sin ... is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. (Article IX)

We don’t need the Biblical text to teach us of this. We just need to examine ourselves and those around us to know that we frequently fall short of the moral standard.

Original sin, and the belief that we cannot achieve righteousness by human efforts but only through the grace of God, is the opposite to the attitude taken by the secular world, inspired by Rousseau. This view regards us as intrinsically good, with corruption coming from bad structures in society. According to this view, fix the structures, and you not only fix society but humankind. But we see that attempts to fix the structures in society have inevitably failed. The reason for this failure is that the diagnosis of the problem is wrong. The problem is not society, but a deep failing in the human beings that make up society. Original sin, or the fundamental corruption of our nature following the fall, is a major stumbling block for those outside the Church, and even those within the church influenced by secular principles. The heresy of denying original sin, and thinking that we can achieve righteousness through our own efforts alone, is known as Pelagianism. And many people find it appealing. It is far more comforting to think of yourself as basically good rather than intrinsically corrupt. But to think in this way denies the work of Christ or the need for Christ. It also denies our observations of human society. When people think they are better than they really are, it makes them far more prone to be morally complacent. And complacency leads to overlooking and excusing one’s flaws. We can see the increasing social problems. Poverty, crime, drug use, sexual immorality and broken relationships, dishonouring of parents, loneliness, abuse, purposelessness, greed, materialism, and so on. Not everyone suffers from all of these, but so many people suffer from some of them. Would we expect to see such evil multiply in the world if we have a fundamentally good nature? I think not. But it is what we expect if we are fundamentally corrupt and yet also have the potential for goodness and fulfilment in goodness.

Goodness as conformity to God’s purposes for us

So what defines what is and isn’t good?

“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.” (Revelation 4:11)

We see from this passage that we were created by God. And God is not some mindless lump of matter. We were created by His will, which implies that He has His purposes for us. And He designed our nature so that we can, in principle, fulfil that purpose. Some of these purposes are general to all mankind. Others are specific to particular people. We see examples of specific purposes in God’s address to Jeremiah.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5)

“For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” (Jeremiah 29:11)

I believe that we each have our own calling and role to play, and no matter how small or big it seems in human eyes, it is equally important for God. But in addition to this specific calling, which differs from one person to another, God also has some purposes which apply to everyone. It is those more general principles we are concerned with when considering ethics. God cannot contradict Himself. The specific calling will not override the general principles.

Consider Deuteronomy 6:18.

Do what is right and good in the Lord’s sight, so that it may go well with you and you may go in and take over the good land the Lord promised on oath to your ancestors, (Deuteronomy 6:18)

We are commanded to do what is right and good, but specifically what is right and good in the Lord’s sight. This is opposed to what is right and good in someone else’s sight. We should not rely on our own judgements when they contradict a clear word of God. So God’s will and purpose for us defines what it is right for us to do. And following this purpose allows us to prosper: so it may go well with you. This is not surprising. We cannot prosper if we are fighting against the design of nature, i.e. God’s purposes and commandments.

We see this again in the New Testament.

Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. (Romans 12:1)

We are called to be transformed so that we are able to approve of God’s will. And God’s will is good. So the target we ought to aim at is to have our wills conform with that of God, which means that God’s will defines what is good for us.

So God created us for a reason, and that reason implies a purpose. Some of these purposes are specific roles that specific people are called to. But others are common to everyone, and it is here that we find a moral standard for humanity. And because God created us with these purposes in mind, our nature is designed so that we find our fulfilment when we follow them. To reject these purposes is to say that we know better than God what we are designed for, which is absurd. So to be good is to be in conformity with God’s will and purposes for our life. In part this means following the various commandments He gave to guide us.

What are God’s purposes for us?

So what was God’s purpose in creating us? While I can’t cover everything, I do want to highlight four purposes which are expressed in the Biblical text.

• We are created for God’s glory
• We are created to give God praise
• We are created to perform God’s approved works.
• We are created for God’s kingdom.

1. That we are created for God’s glory is shown in various passages, including these:

   Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth — everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.” (Isaiah 43:6)

   So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. (1 Corinthians 10:31)

   What does it mean that we are created for God’s glory? It means that God’s intention is that when people look at us, they will react by giving honour and worship to God. There are two ways in which our actions might not give honour and worship to God. Our acts might provoke shame rather than glory. Secondly that honour might not be directed to God. So we fail this purpose both when we do evil acts, and when we direct attention away from God.

   What does this mean practically? We need to have our characters transformed to be more Christ-like. We need to take off our old attitudes, and put on a new self which is being renewed to have the image of God restored, and the work of the fall in marring that image undone.

   Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. (Colossians 3:5)

   We need to be able to discern and understand what it means to be blameless. This leads to a character set right with God and gives God glory.

   And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God. (Philipians 1:9)

   Our actions must also be in conformity with God’s purposes. So that in our service to each other, and to those outside the Church, using the gifts and strength and God supplies, God is glorified.

   As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 4:10 ESV)

   And as each one of us does our work, the whole of God’s people is built up to grow Christ-like.

   Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. (Ephesians 4:15)

   So character, our actions and the consequencies of those actions are all important. We shouldn’t just focus on one aspect of ethics. But, a transformed character is, in my view at least, the most important. Good actions flow from a good character, and good results follow from good actions.

2. We see that we were created for God’s praise in this passage here:

   I provide water in the wilderness and streams in the wasteland, to give drink to my people, my chosen, the people I formed for myself that they may proclaim my praise. (Isaiah 43:21)

   Why should we praise God? Not for God’s benefit. But because it fulfils what we are. Worship is the inevitable response when we truly understand the nature of God and what He has given us despite that we by nature deserve nothing from Him, not even existence.

3. This passage states that we were created for good works:

   For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:10)

   These are works which God has prepared for us to bring about His overall goals.

4. We also know that God desires to build a Kingdom. This is seen in Jesus’ first words:

   From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” (Matthew 4:17)

   Alongside many other passages. We know that the Kingdom of God is going to be fully in line with God’s will. It is going to be perfect. But how can it be perfect if it is made from imperfect people? It can’t. Consider this passage from Zephaniah:

   “Then I will purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him shoulder to shoulder. From beyond the rivers of Cush my worshippers, my scattered people, will bring me offerings. On that day you, Jerusalem, will not be put to shame for all the wrongs you have done to me, because I will remove from you your arrogant boasters. Never again will you be haughty on my holy hill. But I will leave within you the meek and humble. The remnant of Israel will trust in the name of the Lord. They will do no wrong; they will tell no lies. A deceitful tongue will not be found in their mouths. They will eat and lie down and no one will make them afraid.” (Zephaniah 3:9)

   We see in this passage that God will remove the proud and unrighteous from the Kingdom, leaving behind the humble and the honest. We see also that the people in the Kingdom will not be made afraid. God is seeking a people who will naturally live in harmony with each other, so there is no reason for anyone to be afraid. The society will be in harmony with God. A society which does give glory to God.

   There are many places in the Bible which teach that the people in God’s Kingdom will be morally perfect. There is no place for evil in the presence of God, or in God’s Kingdom. This is clearly illustrated by these passages in the Psalms:

   Lord, who may dwell in your sacred tent? Who may live on your holy mountain? The one whose walk is blameless, who does what is righteous, who speaks the truth from their heart. (Psalm 15:1)

   Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord? Who may stand in his holy place? The one who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not trust in an idol or swear by a false god. (Psalm 24:3)

   For you are not a God who is pleased with wickedness; with you, evil people are not welcome. The arrogant cannot stand in your presence. You hate all who do wrong; you destroy those who tell lies. The bloodthirsty and deceitful you, Lord, detest. (Psalm 5:4)

   So to enter God’s kingdom we need to be blameless, speak the truth, and have a pure heart. On the other hand, those who do wrong, the liars and arrogant, cannot stand with God and therefore have no place in God’s Kingdom. That is why Jesus called us to be perfect.

   Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48)

   The target is moral perfection. That gives glory back to God as the creator of that perfection.

What does it mean to be pure?

So to enter God’s presence we need a pure heart. This is what God wants from us. But what does it mean in practice? Let’s look at Titus 2:11-14.

For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. (Titus 2:11)

We see in verse 14 that Jesus is purifying us for himself. Jesus is the one doing the purifying. Secondly, the reason Jesus purifies is to make us His own. Purification was always needed in the Old Testament to prepare altars, utensils and people for temple service, to enter into the presence of God, and something similar is at work here. We need purification to belong to Jesus. There are two results of this purification. Purification makes us reject ungodliness, wickedness and worldly passions. At the end of this passage, we see that it makes us eager to do what is good. It doesn’t say merely a people who do good but are half-hearted about it. The purified heart is eager to do good. It yearns and longs to do good. This is a transformation in character that leads to results. In other words, a pure heart is filled us with the virtues that God treasures and which is absent of any vice. What are these virtues and vices? We can turn to the New and Old Testaments to tell us. We see some of the virtues in this passage: self-control, and hope. Eager to do what is good implies knowing what is good, the virtue of prudence. There are various lists of vices and virtues in the New Testament. For example, the works of the flesh and fruits of the spirit in Galatians 5. But a pure heart is a heart that is desiring of God, waits for God, belongs to God, eager to do good, filled with every virtue, and redeemed from every wickedness.

Is virtue something we strive for or which is done to us?

Obviously we are not good and perfect. We all know we do things which are wrong, and those wrong fruits expose our fundamental bad characters. As Jesus said,

By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. (Matthew 7:16)

So we recognise bad characters (in part) from the bad actions that result from those characters. God, of course, does not need to look at our actions, but judges the heart (1 Samuel 16:7, John 2:25). But we don’t have that ability, so have to judge people based on their actions. And, if we are honest with ourselves, we can see from our own actions that we fall well short of perfection (1 John 1:8-10).

So how do we become perfect so that we can become part of God’s kingdom? Is it something done to us, or is it something we do ourselves? Let’s consider Romans 12:2 again.

Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. (Romans 12:1)

It doesn’t say transform yourselves. It says be transformed. Ultimately our perfection is something done to us. And that should give us confidence, because we are not relying on our own weakness, but on God’s strength. We cannot become good enough for God’s Kingdom by our own efforts. It is only God working within us which can transform us into goodness. A similar point is made in 1 Thessalonians:

It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honourable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister. The Lord will punish all those who commit such sins, as we told you and warned you before. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. (1 Thessalonians 4:3).

We see in this passage that God wills that we should be sanctified, and to live a holy life. Sanctified means being made holy, or acceptable to God, or good. The agent for this work is the Holy Spirit within us, as seen in this passage

But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. (2 Thessalonians 2:13)

Sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit, and consequently God acting in the life of the Christian. Again we should be sanctified, not sanctify ourselves through our own works. It is something done to us.

This passage from 2 Thessalonians also says that we are saved through sanctification. The word saved is used throughout Paul’s writings, and the rest of the New Testament. But what does it mean? And why are we saved though being made good? When you are saved, you are always rescued from some danger. So what are we rescued from? I want to focus on two New Testament passages (and as far as I am aware the only two which refer explicitly to God’s act of saving -- James 5:20 is in a slightly different context) which specify this. Firstly, we see in Matthew’s gospel, that Jesus saves us from our sins.

She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins. (Matthew 1:21)

Secondly, Paul states that we are saved from the wrath of God.

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! (Romans 5:9)

But he also states that the wrath of God is directed against godlessness and wickedness,

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness. (Romans 1:18)

So, once again, we are directed back to being saved from our sin, expressed in different words.

When many people think of salvation, they think in terms of getting into heaven and avoiding hell. And there is that element to it. But we shouldn’t forget the moral element to Christian salvation. We are saved first of all from the power of sin, from everything that tempts us towards evil and vice. And it is because of that we can enter into God’s presence in his Kingdom. Obviously sanctification is a gradual process. Even Paul had not reached perfection, as he stated in Philipians,

Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. (Philipians 3:12 ESV)

None of us are yet perfect, but we still press on to the goal, which will be completed with our resurrection at the final judgement.

Does this mean that we can relax and leave it all to God? Not entirely. God is still searching for people who desire goodness, meaning that they desire Him. And that desire is shown through our own work and efforts. Consider this passage from Peter’s second letter:

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. (2 Peter 1:3 ESV)

There is a lot to unpack in this passage. Our goal is to become partakers of the divine nature, and to escape from corruption, as I have just been arguing from other Biblical passages. Once again we see that our call is to glorify God. And we see that God’s divine power has granted us these things. This just confirms what I have been discussing so far. So thanks to God’s work, we have a changed character and goal. And because of this changed goal, we are to make every effort to supplement our faith with virtue, virtue with knowledge, self-control, steadfastness, godliness, affection and love. It says make every effort, and this is something we do ourselves. Effort implies that it is hard work. Being half-hearted at pursing virtue is not good enough, because it shows that we have not completely escaped from our sinful desire. So we have no excuse to be lazy. Does this take away from God’s work? No. It is only God’s divine power in us that gives our efforts a chance to succeed. God can either act directly, or through secondary causes. Those secondary causes include our own work. So we shouldn’t contrast our efforts with the work of God. Our efforts are one of the means by which God brings about this change in us.

A genuine faith is a change in mindset, away from being slaves of sin to become slaves of righteousness.

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. (Romans 6:15)

When many people think about the Kingdom of God, they concentrate on various aspects of it such as no more pain, or a sense of joy, seeing our loved ones again, or being permamently in the direct presence of God. And all of those are Biblical and part of what it will entail. But there is also a moral aspect to it which is, I think, sometimes overlooked. We are saved by grace and faith and not by good works. But just as important as having faith is who we have faith in and what promises we trust in. God is seeking people who desire Him, not just in platitudes but in fact. That means desiring goodness, and repenting from evil. There is no point in calling God Lord, and thinking that’s enough, if our hearts are set on doing evil. To truly call God Lord means submitting in obedience to His commands. That’s what Lord means. As Jesus pointed out, many people will call Him Lord, but not truly mean it because they don’t follow the will of God.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (Matthew 7:21)

So if still have a heart bent on evil, its not really God we call Lord, but someone else of our own imagination. We can’t live up to the required standard, and thankfully Christ’s sacrifice pays the price for our failures. But God won’t save you from a sin that you have made into part of how you identify yourself. We should not be deceived by notions of cheap grace, and think that we can serve both God and sin.

I’m not saying that we should desire to become good because we want to get into heaven and avoid hell. The desire to become good should flow from our love of God. Any other motivation would be an idol we desire alongside God. Goodness in itself should be our target, regardless of any pleasant or unpleasant consequences that arise from it.

Love

So why does God want us to become good? The primary aspect of God’s character, and how he relates to us is love.

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:7)

The English word love has numerous different meanings, and we shouldn’t confuse between them. The sense used here and in the various commandments is expressed in Romans 12:9

Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. (Romans 12:9)

The Greek word the NIV translates as sincere literally means “not a hypocrite,” or not fake. A genuine love then hates evil and clings to goodness. So love is closely related to a delight in what is good. But can we be more specific than this? I’ll present two definitions from outside the Bible. One from the ancient Greek philosophers, and the other more modern by Descartes.

• Love is the desire for goodness. (Aristotle)
• Love is a passion that incites the soul to join in volition to the objects that appear to be suitable to it. (Descartes)

These two definitions are similar, but there are differences.

In Descartes’ definition, we cling to those things which appear to be suitable to us, so things that seem good to us. So it relies on a subjective notion of goodness. Secondly, we cling to things because they are good. So what makes something eligible for love is the goodness that resides in it. So, for those who follow Descartes, to love something means to affirm and delight in the goodness that exists in it. It is impossible to love something which isn’t good.

In Aristotle’s definition, the notion of goodness is objective. And it is not good objects which are the object of love, but goodness itself. So it is the potential for goodness, whether it is realised or not, which makes something eligible for love. So in this definition you show love for something that isn’t good by desiring that it become good. And you show love for something that is good by delighting in that goodness.

So which of these definitions is more consistent with the Biblical text? I could call on a host of passages to make the same point, but I have selected these two:

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent. (Revelation 3:19)

God acts for those who are sinners and thus separated from God. God’s love seeks to elevate sinners to become good. God’s love leads to discipline and the call to repent. You don’t need to be rebuked or to repent if you are already good. Descartes’ definition implies a union with those things that appear to be suitable. But while we are sinners, as I have stated, we are not suitable for God or His Kingdom. First of all we need to be transformed. So it is not realised goodness that God loves, but the potential for goodness, and God’s love aims to make that potential realised. So we can certainly rule out Descartes’ definition. All of us have the potential for goodness, so we are all loved by God. But many of us refuse that love, usually unconsciously, because those people don’t want to be made good; at least not when it means giving up their favourite little sins. God’s love is inspired by the potential for goodness, and the desire that potential should be realised, not an affirmation of goodness that is already present. So Love in the Biblical sense is the desire for goodness and that things should become good, and does not seek to affirm goodness when something isn’t good.

When we love God, we delight in God’s goodness and perfection. And therefore loving God means delighting in His will and purposes, and obeying His commandments.

“If you love me, keep my commands.” (John 14:15)

When we love our neighbour, this means that we desire that they become good, and their character is transformed to become virtuous. Goodness is defined by the will and purposes of God, which are summarised for us in God’s commandments. So to love our neighbour is, in part, to desire that they follow God’s commandments. To encourage someone to persist in sin is the very opposite of love. Aquinas expressed this well when He wrote, discussing the goodness of God,

For all existing things, in so far as they exist, are good, since the existence of a thing is itself a good; and likewise, whatever perfection it possesses. Now it has been shown above that God's will is the cause of all things. It must needs be, therefore, that a thing has existence, or any kind of good, only inasmuch as it is willed by God. To every existing thing, then, God wills some good. Hence, since to love anything is nothing else than to will good to that thing, it is manifest that God loves everything that exists. Yet not as we love. Because since our will is not the cause of the goodness of things, but is moved by it as by its object, our love, whereby we will good to anything, is not the cause of its goodness; but conversely its goodness, whether real or imaginary, calls forth our love, by which we will that it should preserve the good it has, and receive besides the good it has not, and to this end we direct our actions: whereas the love of God infuses and creates goodness. (Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1.20.2)

But much of secular society has, whether consciously or unconsciously, followed something evolved from Descartes’ definition. So to the outside culture, to love everyone means to affirm goodness within them. If you don’t affirm them as good, or approve their desires, or you try to rebuke or discipline them, that is interpreted as hatred. So although our secular post-Christian neighbours do highly revere love, they mean something different by the term, which in its application is almost the opposite of what we see in the Bible. So when we as Christians say “love the sinner, hate the sin,” that follows directly from the definition of love. You can’t love the sinner without hating the barriers preventing them from achieving goodness, namely the sin. But to the post-Christian secularist it seems contradictory, because by recognising and hating the sin you are not affirming the sinner as good. We see this in many contemporary discussions. For example, in the discussions around same sex sexual relationships, those who advocate a change in the Church’s teaching in order to bless those relationships (in certain circumstances) accuse those who accept the traditional view of violating the commandment to love their neighbour (Matthew 22:34-40). The supporters of the traditional doctrine are accused of “straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.” But is this accusation true? It depends on how we define love. If we define love as affirmation, then you can see how not affirming the desires can be seen as unloving. On the other hand, if we define love as the desire for goodness, and we conclude (from either natural law ethics or the various Biblical passages which discuss the topic either directly or indirectly) that same sex sexual activity is an evil, then the loving action is to persuade those with same sex attraction not turn that into an identity or a relationship, and to attempt to bless such relationships or claim that they are approved by the Church and God is the most unloving thing we can do. Those upholding the traditional doctrine would thus argue that it is precisely by opposing blessings of these relationships that they are showing their love for their neighbour, especially those neighbours with same-sex sexual attraction. The question is not whether or not we should obey the two great commandments, but how to understand the word love in those commandments. I would suggest that those who accuse apostolic Christians of violating the commandment, themselves misunderstand the commandment and thus (unintentionally, but still inexcusably) violate both of the great commandments by teaching and encouraging behaviour which, if unrepented, will leave those who practice it outside the Kingdom of God.

This issue concerning the precise definition of love and goodness is at the heart of the division in the Church. Yet it is rarely mentioned or acknowledged in the debate.

Conclusion

But how do we persuade people of the reality of sin, especially their own sin? How do we prevent ourselves from falling into complacency? It is only by understanding the nature of goodness, and being able to teach it. I have only scraped the surface of the subject tonight, but I hope that I have encouraged you to think and study the issue more.

I’ll leave you with a prayer from Colossians.

For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you. We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives, so that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God. (Colossians 1:9)

Our prayer should be that God can fill us with knowledge of His will, or a knowledge of the source of goodness, and that we can use that knowledge to live a life worthy of God and bearing fruit in every good work. This is what we should be aiming for as Christians, and I pray that we can all do this better each day.