Is the Bible or Your Conscience the Source of Moral Authority? An Application to California’s Proposition 8

Summary

Paul’s statement that all scripture is God-breathed (II Tim. 3:16) bolsters the Bible’s moral authority to shape Bible-believing people’s consciences. However, most believers have determined that a few Biblical passages are immoral, including those that call for children who curse their parents to be put to death, forbid women from having authority over a man or from speaking in Church, permit fathers to sell their daughters into slavery, and permit the severe beatings of slaves. Although these immoral passages only represent a tiny fraction of the 31,000 verses in the Bible, most of which are moral, the tiny fraction musters a fortress against the claim that only the Bible defines moral versus immoral behavior. In these cases, believers’ consciences, not the Bible, have defined moral versus immoral behavior. The remainder of this memorandum argues for the claims above, and then applies the claims to California's Proposition 8, which would eliminate the right for same-sex couples to marry.

Of the believers who think the passages involving children, women, and slaves are immoral, most are uneasy stating they are immoral because of II Tim. 3:16. However, they will act as if the passages are immoral because they do not yearn to obey them and because they use incredulous interpretative methods to change their meanings that result in the passages becoming moral or obsolete. Believers’ consciences clearly drive this process because for passages that are inherently moral, such as love your neighbor as yourself, they yearn to obey them and do not use incredulous methods to interpret them. Hence, most believers do not blindly accept the moral authority of the Bible, but instead employ their consciences to evaluate the morality of Biblical passages before deciding whether to attempt to earnestly obey them. This does not mean that believers’ consciences are infallible, but for these passages involving children, women, and slaves, most believers have determined the fallibility lies with the Biblical text.

Therefore, when you are deciding how to vote on Proposition 8, as you have used your conscience (or the Holy Spirit) to evaluate the passages involving children, women, and slaves, I ask you to use your conscience to evaluate the morality of the Biblical passages that define marriage to be between a man and a woman and also condemn same-sex sexual relations.

After using your conscience, you may determine that the Biblical passages that define marriage and condemn same-sex sexual relations are moral. If so, vote your conscience and vote for Proposition 8. But if your conscience decides they are immoral, vote against Proposition 8 because many interpretations—in the same vein as the incredulous interpretations used on the passages involving the children, women, and slaves above—could used to change the meaning of these passages so they would become moral or obsolete (see full memorandum).

When evaluating the morality of these passages, consider that the vast majority of us do not choose our sexual orientation. Therefore, employ John Rawl’s veil of ignorance, which when applied here, would require you to decide whether same-sex marriage is moral before you know whether you are heterosexual or homosexual, that is, vote with a veil of ignorance with respect to your sexual orientation.

Given that intimate relationships are so fundamental and healthy for the human experience, and applying the veil of ignorance, I assume you would prefer your relationship to be recognized whether you were born heterosexual or homosexual. This recognition is the essence of Proposition 8. Are we going to recognize a fundamental aspect of a person, that is, the partner he or she chooses to share his or her life with? The Bible states that humans are dual natured, one with the potential for good and the other for evil; when two people commit to a life-long relationship grounded in love, which nature do you believe is at work?

I doubt I will change many minds in such a short timeframe before the election; our consciences are quite viscous. But if so, “Vote No on Prop 8, Equality for All” is the lead organization against Proposition 8. You can donate to them at the following Web site: http://noonprop8.com/.
__________________________________________________________________________________

What is the Source of Moral Authority: The Bible or Your Conscience?

Paul’s statement that all scripture is God-breathed (II Tim. 3:16) bolsters the Bible’s moral authority to shape Bible-believing people’s consciences. He also states that the law is written on your hearts and your conscience bears witness (Rom. 2:15). If you allow the Holy Spirit to inform your conscience, then Paul implies that your conscience will always agree with the Bible because Paul states that he speaks “in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words” (I Cor. 2:13). However, believers’ consciences sometimes oppose Biblical directives. I am not going to determine whether Rom. 2:15 versus I Cor. 2:13 carries more weight theologically, but I am going to argue that Rom. 2:15 carries more weight with believers’ thoughts and actions.

But first, it is important to put this conflict in perspective. For the vast majority of the Bible, believers’ consciences agree with the Biblical directives, that is, a sentiment of approbation arises when they obey the passages, and a sentiment of uneasiness arises when they disobey the passages. List 1 includes passages of this kind.

List 1: The Word of God
1. Love the Lord your God (Mt. 22:37).
2. Love your neighbor as yourself (Mt. 22:39).
3. What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not? (I Cor. 4:7). Note: C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, states that pride is the great sin.
4. The fear of the God is the beginning of knowledge (Prov. 1:7).
5. Faith, hope, and love, and the greatest is love (I Cor. 13:13).
6. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23).
7. Love your enemies (Mt. 5:44).
8. Honor your parents (Ex. 20:12).
9. You shall not murder (Ex. 20:13).
10. You shall not commit adultery (Ex. 20:14).
11. You shall not steal (Ex. 20:15).
12. You shall not lie (Ex. 20:16).
13. You shall not covet (Ex. 20:17).

On the other hand, most Bible-believing people do not obey a few particular Biblical passages, not for a lack of will, but for the lack of a moral conviction that the directives within the passages are morally right. That is, a sentiment of uneasiness arises if they contemplate obeying the passages, and a sentiment of approbation arises if they contemplate disobeying the passages. List 2 includes passages of this kind that impact children, women, and slaves, respectively.

List 2: The Word of Whom?
A1. Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death (Ex. 21:17, Lev. 20:9, Mt. 15:4).
A2. If a son is rebellious and will not obey his father and mother, then they shall take him to the town elders and all the men of his town shall stone him to death (Dt. 21:18-21).
B1. A woman should neither teach nor have authority over a man; for Adam was formed first, then Eve (I Tim. 2:12-13)
B2. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in churches (I Cor. 14:33-34).
B3. Wives should submit to their husbands in everything (Eph. 5:24).
B4. If the wife comes to rescue her husband fighting another man, and she seizes the other man by his private parts, “you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity” (Dt. 25:11-12).
B5. If a man rapes a virgin who is not pledged to be married, the man shall pay her father and marry her because he violated her (Dt. 22:28).
C1. A father is permitted to sell his daughter into slavery (Ex. 21:7).
C2. A man may beat his slave and is not to be punished if his slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property (Ex. 21:20).
C3. Slavery is permitted and slaves should be obedient (Eph. 6:5-8, Col. 3:22-24, I Tim. 6:1-2, Tit. 2:9-10).

When believers initially read the passages in List 2, they typically do not believe they are a part of the Bible. When they verify that the passages exist, then most believe that the prima facie interpretation of the passage must be erroneous. This is the opposite reaction they have to the passages in List 1: Few initially believe that these passages are not part of the Bible and few think the prima facie interpretations of the passages are erroneous. Why are the reactions so different, given that both sets of passage are arguably from God (II Tim. 3:16)?

I argue that your conscience (or the Holy Spirit) is the mechanism that informs you whether a passage is moral versus immoral. Hence, most believers use their conscience, not the Bible, to ultimately define moral versus immoral behavior.

When believers’ think a passage is immoral, they have three options: (i) obey the immoral passages, (ii) excise the passage from the Bible, or (iii) re-interpret the passage to make it morally palatable or obsolete. Overwhelmingly, believers choose option (iii), and some believers choose (i) for the passages involving women because they believe the passages are moral. However, for (iii), the interpretative techniques strain credulity and intellectual honesty. If those techniques were applied to other parts of the Bible, including passages in List 1, the text would become meaningless.

The main interpretative arguments include the following: (a) the directive was local in nature, that is, it only applied to the specific location and point in time that the Bible author was addressing (e.g., forbiding women from speaking in church only applied to churches in Corinth during the first century); (b) the directive was superseded by another directive (e.g., the new covenant brought about by Jesus caused the Old Testament Law to become obsolete [Heb. 8:13]; or a ransom could be paid in lieu of a death sentence [Num. 35:31]); (c) the directive fell short of an ideal moral directive, but it still improved upon the morality of the current situation (e.g., treatment of slaves); or (d) the directive, particularly ones dealing punishment, was only meant to convey the seriousness of the wrongful act, but the punishment was not expected to be implemented in all cases (e.g., God does not desire that cursing children be put to death, but wanted to stress the importance of a well-functioning family). These interpretive arguments could be valid; however, as discussed below, they are not a reasonable interpretation for the passages above. These are some of the arguments put forth by Biblical scholars, including Walter C. Kaiser, Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch in Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996). These authors, hereafter KDBB, believe that God inspired the Bible, and they attempt to provide a morally palatable interpretation for these types of passages.

I analyze the interpretive techniques used on the passages involving children, women, and slaves, respectively.

Children
For the passages calling for cursing children and rebellious/disobedient sons to be put to death, KDBB first state that these laws show that the sanctity of the family is very important to God. They also state that the death penalty punishment may have been a way to communicate the seriousness of misbehaving children, but God did not intend for its actual implementation in every case. They stress that Num. 35:31 allows for a ransom to be paid in lieu of a death sentence for non-murderers, and note this is how Jewish and Christian communities’ traditional wisdom interpreted Num. 35:31.

In response, first, it is important to emphasize that these directives were not promulgated as God’s guidance or preferences, but were God’s commandments spoken through Moses. In Exodus and Deuteronomy, the list of commands directly follows Moses’ delivering the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:1-17; Dt. 5:6-21). For example, Exodus 21 begins with “These are the laws you are to set before them,” and Deuteronomy 6 begins with “These are the commands, decrees and laws the Lord your God directed me [Moses] to teach you.” And throughout the remainder of Deuteronomy, Moses emphasizes the importance of obeying the commands set forth (e.g., if you obey the commands, you will be blessed, otherwise cursed 11:26).

Given God’s emphasis on the importance of obeying the commands, then in order for an interpretation that would make these commands obsolete to be credible, one would need overwhelming evidence. This evidence does not exist (or at least, it has not been presented in e.g., KDBB). For example, if God wanted to emphasize the seriousness of a cursing child using a hypothetical punishment, He could have just said the following: Anyone who curses his father or mother is committing an act that is comparable to acts that deserve death because cursing disrupts the sanctity of the family; however, do not put your cursing child to death. Moreover, Num. 35:31 states “Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.” But the context of Num. 35:31 is solely about murderers and those accused of murder. And although it condemns the practice of accepting a ransom for the life of a murderer, it does not logically follow that ransoms are acceptable for all non-murderer death sentences. For example, if God says do not do X (accept a ransom) in situation Y (for the life of a murderer), then it does not necessarily imply that X (accepting a ransom) is allowed in all non-Y situations (e.g., for the life a non-murderer), particularly when God clearly stated what to do in the non-Y situation above: put the child to death. I think most believers, including traditional Jewish and Christian wisdom, have allowed their consciences to overrule the clear meaning of these directives.

Finally, because of the new covenant effected by Jesus, many believers argue that these and other Old Testament directives are obsolete. For example, Heb. 8:13 states that the old covenant (Old Testament Law) is now obsolete. However, Jesus stated that he came to fulfill, not abolish the Law (Mt. 5:17), and emphasizes the importance of following the Law: “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5:18-19). Hence, based on these two passages, it is clearly ambiguous whether God prefers that the Old Testament Law be obeyed. Regardless, prior to Jesus’ coming, I have not found evidence that children were put to death based on parents obeying these passages. (Note to reader, if you have evidence to the contrary, please advise.) Last, this argument does not apply to putting cursing children to death because Jesus repeats this command in the New Testament (Mt. 15:4).

Women
For the passages that forbid women from having authority over men and forbid women from speaking in Church, KDBB argue that these passages applied to local contexts to deal with local problems. However, the passages strongly imply the opposite. Paul’s directive that a woman should not have authority over a man is justified by the relationship between Adam and Eve as well as Eve’s sin: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner” (I Tim. 2:13-14). Because his justification invokes Adam’s and Eve’s relationship, it applies to men and women universally; therefore, it is more plausible that his command applied to men and women universally versus locally in Ephesus. If he wanted his command to only apply to Ephesus, it is more plausible that his justification for the command would have only involved men and women in Ephesus. Additionally, it should be noted that Paul refers to women praying and women leaders (I Cor. 11:5, Phil. 4:2, and Phile. 2); however, these passages do not have the weight to supersede his directive in I Tim.

As for Paul’s prohibition on women from speaking in the Church, there is no ambiguity as to whether he intended it to apply universally or locally in Corinth. I Cor. 14:33-34 begins with: “As with all congregations [or churches] of the saints.”

Slaves
For the passages involving slavery, KDBB stated that the institution of slavery during Biblical times did not include the capture and sale of human life. Instead, the institution included the Hebrew who sold himself to raise capital and the foreign prisoner of war. The passages regarding slavery also establish strict rules governing the appropriate treatment of slaves (e.g., Col. 4:1; Eph. 6:9) and do not permit slave trading (I Tim. 1:10). However, even if limiting a slave’s beating so he can get up after a day or two was an improvement for the times, Bible believers often talk about the objective truth of morality. In Exodus, Moses is declaring God’s law, not how to improve upon current practices. So I ask: Is it moral to beat a slave so harshly, just as long as he gets up within two days, or is this type of beating immoral, particularly within the institution of slavery? And is it moral for a father to sell his daughter into slavery? Does she not have a say in the matter (or should the State have a say for her)?

(As a side note, I am concerned that the Bible never condemns the institution of slavery. I am not an expert on the institution during Biblical times, so I take KDBB’s word that it did not typically involve the capture and sale of human life. However, I could imagine an unjust war started by a tribe to capture slaves as foreign prisoners of war. How is that different from the capture of human life for slavery? If you are an expert of the institution(s) of slavery during this period, and whether a moral person would condemn those institution(s), I would appreciate your comments so I can update this memorandum.)


Applying Interpretative Methods to List 1
My primary goal is not to have you agree with my analyses above (which require additional research), but is to have you agree that the analyses were necessary because (1) you could not blindly obey these passages, but first had to use your conscience to evaluate their morality, and (2) you determined the prima facie interpretation of these passages directed you to commit immoral acts. For the passages in List 1, which are considered moral, there are few believers that argue that those passages only apply locally, that the passages have been superseded by other passages, that the passages only improved morality, or that the passages were only meant to convey seriousness. For example, one could argue that the adultery prohibition was only a local issue; or that the penalty for not believing that Jesus was the Son of God is not really eternal damnation, but the penalty only shows the seriousness of needing to believe that Jesus was the Son of God. This does not mean that some passages might have been local, could be superseded, offered a moral improvement, or were a parable, but evidence needs to be presented in order for these types of interpretations to be credible.

Proposition 8
On November 4, 2008 Californians will vote on Proposition 8 “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry,” which would amend the California Constitution to state: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” As of June 17, 2008, same-sex marriages became legal in California because on May 15 the California Supreme Court ruled 4-to-3 on In re Marriage Cases by stating that California laws that limit marriage to opposite-sex couples are unconstitutional for two reasons: same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, and second, these laws violate a same-sex couple’s right to marry under the equal protection clause.


The Bible and Proposition 8
Polls show that a majority of the Bible-believing people support Proposition 8, partially because the Bible shapes their consciences. The Bible defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman (Gen. 2:24) and condemns same-sex sexual relations (e.g., see Gen. 19:4-7, Lev. 18:22, Lev. 20:13, Jud. 19:22-23, Rom. 1:26-27, and I Cor. 6:9-10).

However, the Genesis definition of marriage is called into question by four passages that give implied or direct permission for polygamy (Ex. 21:10-11, Lev. 18:18, Dt. 21:15-17, and II Sam. 12:7-8). For example, Ex. 21:10-11 states that: “If he [a man] marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.” Although these passages neither support same-sex marriages nor necessarily condone polygamous relationships, they make it more difficult for believers to discern God’s desire for the institution of marriage.

If your conscience opposes the passages that define marriage and condemn same-sex sexual relations, you could use one of the incredulous interpretative techniques applied to passages in List 2. For example, you could argue that the passages were local in nature, that is, same-sex sexual relations were condemned because population growth was important, but now that the earth has more than 6 billion humans, these directives and the marriage definition no longer apply. This interpretation is somewhat incredulous, but is no more incredulous than the ones applied to passages in List 2. However, the point is not to argue about the incredulousness of an interpretation, but to argue that most believers use their consciences to first decide whether a passage is moral, and then will create an incredulous interpretation to cause immoral passages to become obsolete.


Conclusion
Paul’s statement that all scripture is God-breathed (II Tim. 3:16) bolsters the Bible’s moral authority to shape Bible-believing people’s consciences. However, most believers have determined that a few Biblical passages are immoral, including those that call for children who curse their parents to be put to death, forbid women from having authority over a man or from speaking in Church, permit fathers to sell their daughters into slavery, and permit the severe beatings of slaves. Although these immoral passages only represent a tiny fraction of the 31,000 verses in the Bible, most of which are moral, the tiny fraction musters a fortress against the claim that only the Bible defines moral versus immoral behavior. In these cases, believers’ consciences, not the Bible, have defined moral versus immoral behavior.

Therefore, when you are deciding how to vote on Proposition 8, as you have used your conscience (or the Holy Spirit) to evaluate the passages involving children, women, and slaves, I ask you to use your conscience to evaluate the morality of the Biblical passages that define marriage to be between a man and a woman and also condemn same-sex sexual relations.

After using your conscience, you may determine that the Biblical passages that define marriage and condemn same-sex sexual relations are moral. If so, vote your conscience and vote for Proposition 8. But if your conscience decides they are immoral, vote against Proposition 8 because many interpretations—in the same vein as the incredulous interpretations used on the passages involving the children, women, and slaves above—could used to change the meaning of these passages so they would become moral or obsolete (see full memorandum).

When evaluating the morality of these passages, consider that the vast majority of us do not choose our sexual orientation. Therefore, employ John Rawl’s veil of ignorance, which when applied here, would require you to decide whether same-sex marriage is moral before you know whether you are heterosexual or homosexual, that is, vote with a veil of ignorance with respect to your sexual orientation.

Given that intimate relationships are so fundamental and healthy for the human experience, and applying the veil of ignorance, I assume you would prefer your relationship to be recognized whether you were born heterosexual or homosexual. This recognition is the essence of Proposition 8. Are we going to recognize a fundamental aspect of a person, that is, the partner he or she chooses to share his or her life with? The Bible states that humans are dual natured, one with the potential for good and the other for evil; when two people commit to a life-long relationship grounded in love, which nature do you believe is at work?

How You Can Help Defeat Proposition 8
“Vote No on Prop 8, Equality for All” is the lead organization against Proposition 8. You can donate to them at the following site http://noonprop8.com/. Note that the author of this memorandum is not affiliated with this organization, and the organization has not approved or disapproved of this memorandum.