What about a mix of all three. I think morality and the defining of right and wrong has emerged out of an extremely complex interaction between what we feel and wrestle with within, what we are learning as we interact with our external world around us, and what we are learning from interacting with each other in the form of families, communities and institutions. For example, take the Jewish people. Many have argued that the Jewish movement was a revolt against the Cannanite religions of the day. The narrative certainly suggests this - a people called to be holy, a people with a holy God. They felt strongly that their God and culture offered a better way of life. An alterantive to the pevailing systems of religion and thought. Why? Disillusionment, frustration, doubt, confusion, boredom etc…Well first it did not happen in isolation, it was ‘social-relational’. There was likely a process of agreement and disagreement, a sifting out of sorts, the development of frameworks. Second, there is an experiential knowledge, how the world works, making sense, what the bible calls wisdom maybe, a knowledge of how to get the good things out of life and what things seem to squeeze goodness out of life and introduce death. Obviosuly this aspect is often subdued by the systems of belief and action in which we are located. This is all fed back into the social-relational interactions almost like a feedback mechanism. Then there is our own personalities and making sense of the first two as well as coming to grasp with our finiteness and fragility in a big universe as well as our contradictory sense (or need) of being powerful and significant. If you look at the biblical narrative and limited historical constructions, there seems to be a gradual evolution of Jewish thought, a continual learning and re-learning process in community as different experiences come and go. Obviously, all this can get co-opted by powerful people to be used for their own ends, and the biblical narrative is not immune from this. But all the way from the prophets through to Jesus, there is this ideal, a holy alternative, a new creation, not finite, always developing but keeping its utopian ideals and desires for peace, harmony, fulfilment, purpose, responsibility and happiness. So what about God? The ‘supernatural’. Well this whole process does not eliminate God. Not if God is the one calling us to learn, to develop, to be inspired. Not if God is the one waiting for us to learn, to see, to be, using our biology and our sociology as well as our internal worlds (self-reflection and awareness are present in the Psalms). God may be calling us like the narrative presupposes to be different, to be the new creation in an old one that is clearly struggling.

One thing i have realised today is that we need to know why we do what we do, why we follow and interact with God in light of God’s interaction with Abraham through to Jesus. Why is something bad, why is something good. We cant just default to ‘the bible says so’. Im sure the people that wrote the stories wrestled with right and wrong for reasons that were beneficial to them. Obviously, the influence of political and alterior motives within the biblical narrative needs to sifted out. But there is no denying the power of the narrative to inspire. People have gone before us, wrestled before us, learnt before us, we need to learn from them. Like them we need to know why we do what we do (I assume this). Why is sex before marriage wrong? Why is the obsessive objectification of women worng? We wont be able to answer these if we cant see why they are destructive to youself, and possibly God allows us to taste these things, almost like spiritual nerves that sense heat and send messages to our brains to pull away.

The other day a collegue of mine mentioned that he had just legalised an adult gift store in a residential suburb. So I said that he must of had some angry opposition from local residents who feel this is wrong. He responded to me rather defensively and angrily stating that I shouldnt push my morals on others and that he has a right to earn a legal living. In response, i explained why exactly i though this might be a problem, not from an ‘its God’s law’ standpoint but from a consequences standpoint and why the objectification of women, sexual addictions and related pathologies are inevitable but undesirable aspects of society. I basically explained what i had learnt over time from my own limited experiences with addictions and the emotions, desires, cravings that i have experienced in consuming these products, over time learning about myself and understanding their destructive influences. Who says they are destructive some might say, thats your oppresive religion again restraining your freedom. Well then we back to Abraham again.

‘They will know us by our fruit…’

So i think by emphasizing one of three aspects over the other we might distort what is really going on.

Cheers
 Ryan