What we do know is that legislation is not the same thing as morality. There are many immoral things that are legal. And many illegal things that are amoral… and legally enforced things that may be immoral, and enforcements that may be immoral because they are unjust… have you ever seen the punishments for tax evasion? It’s far greater than prostitution (yet the former is not a moral category in the strict moral sense than the latter). But the primary condition is the morality of a thing… which should drive the legislation of a thing at some level. Should all lying be illegal? I hope not. Many 8 year olds would end up in prison. But let us at least make it illegal under oath. Is abortion immoral? The majority of americans do think there’s a problem with abortion. But should it be illegal and to what extent? The legislation doesn’t change the morality of it. And some legilation is strategic, though imperfect, like the person who wants to legislate the illegality of abortions after the first trimester. It would still be legal but immoral to abort during the first trimester, but it is still moral and wise to protect the unborn who are more than 12 weeks of age…

This is good stuff. I think you and I would agree that God’s commandment to ‘not murder’ is a moral absolute. And since abortion is murder it is absolutely wrong. Of course people have lots of different opinions about abortion, but they can’t all be right. Our goal, as Christians, is to see the issue the way God does, and so we ought to revise our current beliefs so that they are true and good.

Here’s the thing: you can get a group of Christians together who all have true beliefs about abortion—they all absolutely agree that life absolutely begins at conception, and that abortion is an absolutely egregious thing. But they might have different ‘personal convictions’ about HOW the government ought to go about minimizing the number of abortions. Of course their convictions can’t all lead to equally efficacious political action, which is why they should talk about it, and invite Jesus to show them how their personal convictions can be deeply informed by Christian beliefs.

Does that clarify the distinction I was trying to make?

I agree, Jonalyn’s talk was fantastic! Like you, I’m thankful I could listen in.

Sarah

I am unsure what a better set of categories would be at this point.

In the back of my mind was the example of a discussion regarding abortion I had a few years ago.

Someone claimed to have the ‘personal conviction’ that abortion is wrong because murder is absolutely wrong but they do not believe we should force our convictions on others and that each woman has the ‘right to chose’.
Another person claims that abortion is not wrong at all and it is not murder.

Both agree in an absolute standard of murder being morally wrong, and share that basic ethic.

However, one believes that standard applies to the unborn and another does not.
In both cases abortion goes unchallenged.

However, a third person believes that murder is absolutely wrong, an unborn child is absolutely human, and abortion is absolutely morally murder, and nobody has the moral right to destroy another human being’s life without a just cause.

All three people claim to be Christians.
All three claim ethics exist and absolute morality can exist moored to those ethical pillars.

Yet the categories break down.

Maybe I am missing something?

PS: Jonalyn’s two lectures talk at BIOLA were very good. and beneficial.

Thanks for contributing to this discussion.

The meaning of ‘should’ varies a bit throughout the article, depending on context, but generally I mean ‘ought to, because it is desirable, and, in some cases, expected.’

Is there a specific usage in particular you were wondering about?

Sarah

Thanks for sharing, Arlin. You mentioned another approach to broadening the common vocabulary is necessary here. Do you mind sharing your alternative approach?

Sarah