HAS GOD REVEALED HIMSELF IN THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF HUMAN BEINGS?
John and Susan’s Dilemma
John was driving home from work, tired and irritable. It had been a long and difficult day, especially the altercation with his colleague Bill. As he went up the rise to the turnoff to his home, he saw an elderly man in rags struggling up the incline with some sort of crutch. The man momentarily looked up, haggard, and their eyes briefly met. There was space to stop, but John drove on.
When he got home, Susan welcomed him. She said supper would soon be ready. He sank into the sofa and studied a news report on his mobile.
Over supper, they were not talking much, but Susan started a conversation by saying she had had an unnerving experience that afternoon. There had been a ring on their intercom, and on the monitor she saw a woman with what looked like a heavy bag next to her. It was not clear, but the woman may have had a child with her. Susan answered and the woman started explaining that she was selling some wares. As Susan was busy with her book club report, she dismissed the woman. Before going back to her report, she had a drink from the refrigerator. Susan noticed what a warm day it was, and then the thought struck her that the woman was probably thirsty too. She wanted to take something out to the woman, but of course she had moved on. The episode had bothered Susan so she wanted to share it with John.
He responded that the least she could have done was to give the woman something to drink, and perhaps her child something to eat. This did not help make Susan feel any better.
Then John remembered the hobo on the road to the turnoff. Now, he did not feel too comfortable, but after some thought he told Susan about his experience.
Before she could stop herself, Susan said “Why didn’t you offer him a lift?” In turn, she felt bad for saying that, knowing that John was tired after a long day at work.
What is going on here? Why are John and Susan feeling the way they do? Why are they feeing bad?
Human Conscience
Human conscience has been the subject of enquiry since ancient times. The Greek term for conscience, suneidesis, began to appear in works of Greek playwrights in the fifth century BC, meaning “sharing knowledge with oneself”. Such knowledge would be a defect, almost always being a moral one of being in the wrong. {35}
Many terms and phrases have been used for the concept of conscience. Some examples are: moral self-awareness; morality’s inner voice; the capacity of a person to act in a way that the person knows is right; the store of moral convictions that determine right conduct; a warden that determines whether actions conform to, or are contrary to, a standard of right and wrong; the voice of God.
In an ancient text, the Apostle Paul wrote the following in his letter to the Romans in the Bible:
“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves even if they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.”
Romans 2:14-15 NIV
This passage takes us into the realm of God’s moral law.
One thing that has puzzled anthropologists is that all cultures over all times have adopted similar ethical standards for people, based on the intuitive understanding of right and wrong. Murder, rape, theft and many other evils are and have been universally understood to be wrong. But at the same time no society has followed those standards consistently. Purely on the basis of the study of anthropology, no adequate explanation for this phenomenon has been found.
Yet, there is an explanation. In the passage above the writer says that “the requirements of the law are written on their hearts”. This means no less than that God has made his law evident to all mankind. Importantly, this is not external law, as governments impose. Rather God’s law is drawn within every person.
The passage says that those who did not have the law (the written Mosaic law) had that which is equivalent to it. They “did by nature things required by the law”. They knew the difference between good and evil, they had a sense of justice, love and charity. “Their conscience also bearing witness”. They had that within them which was a witness, acting to approve what was done right, and to reproach what was done wrong. Everyone has a conscience, regardless of their race, creed, nationality or economic or social condition. Is it moral law? Yes, they are either being accused of what is wrong, or being defended for what is right.
So, dear reader, where does this leave us?
Surely, if moral law is written in our conscience, there must be a moral lawgiver. This moral law must be absolute and universal, if it is to be valid. Absolute in its standing, and universal as applying to all humanity. If it is a moral law, it must be unchanging, for morality does not shift like shifting sands.
But who says conscience comes from God?
Speaking generally, who else could give it? Who else but a transcendent, holy, infinitely wise God, who created the universe and who created us? How else could we receive an unchanging moral law within us to last throughout human history?
More technically, it would perhaps be best to read the whole chapter in the Bible from which the extract above is taken. The writer is speaking about the law that was given by God to the ancient nation of Israel. In another ancient text, the book of Exodus, a writer gives an eye witness account of how this law was given by God. That account stands unchallenged through thousands of years. In the text above, the writer refers to the law given by God, and then says that the same law, the law of God, is written on the hearts of those who do not have it.
Although cultures throughout the ages have adopted similar ethical standards as noted above, it must also be conceded that some societies have sought to regard their standards as better than others. The acclaimed author C S Lewis said that the moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard better than the other.{36} In this way you are acknowledging the higher standard, for you cannot be the judge of your own standard.
Developed Morality?
Some might suggest that morality has developed under the influence of human experience based on human conduct over eons of time, all by itself. If that is true, it has developed very badly. One does not have to go to world wars, massacres, unspeakable evil deeds, and indeed, man’s inhumanity to man, to realize that mankind by itself is quite incapable of setting or obeying any level of morality. A morality that does not recognize the moral lawgiver is no morality at all.
Should we deny the existence of absolute and universal moral law, we would do well not to pass judgment on anything. If we do, we would we relying on our self-made morality and ethics, and what is the value of that? Our self-made morality could change from season to season or even from day to day. There simply would be no reliable, unchanging standard to live by.
The heading of this short chapter enquires if God has revealed himself in the hearts and minds of human beings. Here we have an answer:
Why did John and Susan at the start of this chapter feel the way they did?
It’s a very common thing to experience any of thousands of instances when our conscience calls us to order. In their case it’s not difficult to say that both failed to have regard to someone in need.
The lawgiver placed that imperative in John’s and Susan’s hearts and minds. In this way God has revealed himself to human beings.
And of course, our conscience is not something we can escape. We can try to ignore it. We can try to rationalize our conduct or explain it, but our conscience will simply not go away.
It’s a quiet voice, but it’s always there.