Assessing Morality

Consider this method of determining the value of a piece of property:  Property A is worth $x because it is of the same dimensions and character as property B.  However, the value of property B is worth $x also because it is of the same dimensions and character as property A.  The value of B was set by comparison with A, the value of which was set by comparison with B.

Consider this method of determining the accuracy of a time:  Clock A has been set by way of its time-keeper listening for the noon whistle of the nearby factory.  The noon whistle is sounded by a fellow who sets his timepiece by comparison with clock A each morning.  The accuracy of A is maintained through reference to the noon whistle, the daily accuracy of which is dependent upon A.

Consider this method of determining the relative morality of a behavior:  Behavior A is considered to be acceptable because certain characteristics of it are similar to behavior B.  And behavior B is known to be acceptable because comparison with behavior A has shown it to be.  And because group Y practices behavior A, then group X should be allowed to practice behavior B.  If one group is allowed their lifestyle choices, then the other group should be allowed theirs also.

The real value of each piece of property cannot be determined by comparison with each other.  There must be a standard against which each can be compared.  They may be of equal value, but there must be a mean by which value can be assessed.

The accuracy of the timepieces cannot be established by dependence upon one another.  There must be a standard by which at least one of them can be set.  Whether they are both marking noon accurately will be determined by their being compared with a mean.

The validity of a lifestyle choice cannot be determined by comparison with other choice of lifestyle.  There must be a standard by which morality can be assessed.  If the styles contrast with one another, to any degree, then only that one which agrees with the standard can be considered to be valid (moral).

No person, no matter what is his/her choice of lifestyle, is the standard by which morality can be assessed.  The following words were set down in the context of boasting about works, yet they are relevant to the matter of dismissing man as his own standard for morality.  “When they measure themselves by themselves, and compare themselves among themselves, they are not wise (2 Corinthians 10:12)”.  Man is not his own standard for morality.

By recourse to 2 Corinthians 10:13, we find advice about how to live morally.  We must not (exceed) proper limits, but confine our (behavior) to the field God has assigned (emphasis mine).

God has assigned the limits … for the expression of sexuality … for the promotion of life … for the care of the weak … for the protection of rights … and for the ultimate destinations of the obedient and the rebellious.

  • Frank J Daniels, pulpit minister & teacher

P.S.  One group may contend that their claim to the same rights as those possessed by another group is valid.  However, if their behavior exceeds the limits of what God has assigned, no man-made legislation will protect them against ultimate condemnation.  On the other hand, if they were to repent and obey …

2020 Kendall-Balls Autumn Report

Beloved partners & friends,

Here is our latest news, on the heels of a second targeted lockdown in the UK. This lockdown is hitting a lot of people harder than the first one, but we are more at peace with being more isolated.  We really miss getting together with other Christians and technology has been a big boon.  One thing that is becoming increasingly obvious for us here in Falkirk area, is that ‘church’ is going to be radically different for a long while to come.