For most of the last two centuries, there was a general consensus in the United States among both believers and unbelievers that Christianity and the teachings of Jesus were positive moral influences in society. Even people who never went to church and who didn’t see much use for religion in their own life often had a respect for the Bible and the ethical teachings of Jesus. But in the last twenty years, the skeptical charge that Christianity is a negative moral influence and that the Bible is an immoral book depicting a God who engages in evil acts has become widespread. Christopher Hitchens’s God Is Not Great and Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion popularized this argument, and it is now one of the most common skeptical objections against Christianity.
The popularity of this argument is an indication of how far contemporary ethical standards have shifted from biblical morality. In order to address this objection, therefore, we cannot assume a common standard of morality, but instead, we have to make an effort to understand and engage with the ethical premises from which the skeptics are arguing.
What are the differences between biblical morality and contemporary secular morality?
The two ethical principles that undergird secular moral reasoning in the contemporary United States are individual autonomy (personal freedom) and equality. In fact, these ethical principles are so widespread that both of our nation’s major political parties endorse them, and most American Christians have been influenced by them to a greater degree than they might realize. But while both principles might be based on a grain of truth, neither one is very biblical. Thus, when assessing biblical morality, the skeptic will almost certainly be trying to apply his or her own standard of autonomy and equality-based moral reasoning to a biblical ethical system that is based on very different premises.
Biblical morality is based not on the principle of individual autonomy, but on the principle of human dignity, which is derived from the fact that people are made in the image of God. Because human beings are made in the image of God, they have the right to be treated with the dignity that befits a divine image-bearer, but those rights are not absolute rights – they are subsidiary to God’s right of ownership over each person that he has created. And because of the fall, humans are also rebels against God, deserving God’s judgment. That might mean that what is just and fair will look very different from what the skeptic might imagine.
Skeptical objections to biblical morality often arise when skeptics attempt to use their own moral standard (that is, a moral standard that focuses on individual autonomy and equality) to judge the Bible’s moral standard, which is based on different assumptions. When addressing the skeptic, then, we must first identify the presuppositions that shape their own moral reasoning, and then we can point out some of the reasons why the biblical code of morality differs.
With this principle in mind, we can examine the charges that atheists or skeptics usually make against biblical or Christian morality:
- The Bible portrays God engaging in unjust behavior (e.g., jealousy, Canaanite slaughter, ordering the execution of people or striking them down).
- The Bible sanctioned evil activities (e.g., slavery, forced marriage for women, stoning people), and although most Christians don’t agree with these practices today, the Bible itself condones them.
- Christianity has led to wars, imperialism, intolerance, and human rights abuses.
- The Bible / Christianity encourages behavior and attitudes that make people more intolerant and less fair-minded (e.g., gender, sexuality, intolerance toward other religions).
How should we deal with the charge that the God of the Bible is immoral?
As with all of these objections, we should begin by asking the skeptic what makes an action good or evil, and we should use that question to identify the skeptic’s moral presuppositions. Once the skeptic puts his or her own moral presuppositions on the table, we can explain the reasons why the biblical perspective might differ.
In particular, we probably need to explain the idea that God is a cosmic judge. Most people would concede that governing authorities have the right to take some actions in the course of judging offenders of the law that would not be right for an individual to take. Governing authorities, for instance, can levy fines and impose jail sentences, while individual citizens cannot. As judge, God has the right to act against transgressors. This explains, for example, why God caused the deaths of a number of people who violated his law; he was acting as a cosmic judge.
Perhaps for many people, one of the most difficult Old Testament narratives to accept, when it comes to descriptions of God’s judgments, is the story of the killing of the Canaanites. Atheists routinely describe this killing as “genocide,” and deplore the alleged brutality of killing women and children, as well as enemy combatants. To them, it looks like a blatant land grab and a mass extermination of several people groups.
How should we respond to these charges? By appealing to the concept of God as the cosmic judge, I think that we can make sense of the conquest narratives of the Old Testament and demonstrate that the actions of God and the Israelites were not equivalent to modern genocide. Instead, they were a picture in microcosm of God’s judgment of the earth and his creation of a holy land, with a holy people for his own possession.
How do we know that the conquest of the Canaanites was not an act of genocide or a mere land grab? If we take the biblical narratives seriously, we’ll notice several features of the narrative that don’t fit with any other form of warfare, whether in the ancient Near East or in modern times. First, God issued a display of his power in Egypt that was known to the Canaanites, and he then gave them more than forty years to consider this display of power and repent (Josh. 2:10). Second, the Canaanites who did repent and join the Israelites (e.g., Rahab and the Gibeonites) were spared and commended. Third, the Israelites were instructed not to take any plunder from some of the conquests and were punished when they did (Josh. 7:1). In the ancient Near East, warfare was usually conducted partly for the purpose of taking slaves and plunder, as well as land. It was extremely unusual for a group of people to engage in offensive warfare without attempting to enjoy the spoils of war. Fourth, God did not authorize the Israelites to engage in continued conquests beyond the borders that he had assigned for them. The conquest of Canaan was a holy war that had a prescribed territorial limit, unlike the wars of imperial conquest that were more common in the ancient world. God did not authorize the Israelites to continue their conquest across the ancient Near East or to “slay the infidel” everywhere they might have wanted to go. Fifth, God held the Israelites to the same standard of holiness to which he held their enemies in the land, and he warned them that if they forsook the Lord and refused to turn back, they would be exiled from the land – which they were.
Skeptics are perhaps most often bothered by God’s actions against children – including striking down all the firstborn of Egypt in the tenth plague (Ex. 12:29) or commanding the slaughter of Canaanite children, along with the adults. How do we make sense of those passages? I think that if a skeptic brings up these issues, we need to point out that the Bible does not necessarily share our culture’s common presumption that children are entirely innocent. We don’t know anything definite about what happened to the souls of those children after their death, but we can say that a biblical theology does not assume that children are exempt from God’s judgment against a sinful humanity. This will be such a foreign idea to most skeptics that they may find it very difficult to accept, but if we focus the discussion on God’s holiness and God’s role as the righteous judge, we’ll probably more accurately communicate a biblical theology than if we attempt to explain these passages on any other grounds. Of course, we also know that in Christ, God has taken the wrath on himself that rightly should have fallen on us – just as it fell in part on the Canaanites, the Egyptians, and other nations that rebelled against God.
Does the Bible sanction evil activities (e.g., slavery)?
Atheists commonly charge that the Bible is at odds with ethical principles that are accepted by nearly all modern Americans, whether Christians or non-Christians. One of the most commonly cited examples of evils that the Bible allegedly accepts is slavery. It is true that slavery is mentioned throughout the Old and New Testaments, and that slavery was allowed under the Mosaic law code. Some of the early Christians owned slaves, and slaves in the New Testament were told to obey their masters. Furthermore, in the mid 19th-century South, a number of prominent pastors and theologians used these texts as support for the race-based slavery that existed in the United States. It would seem at first glance, therefore, that skeptics might be right in saying that the Bible approves of slavery. How should we deal with this charge?
I think that first, we need to recognize that there were some significant differences between ancient Israelite (and even ancient Roman) slavery and the slavery that was present in the United States during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Unlike later American slavery, the slavery of the ancient world was not race-based. Nor, in ancient Israel, was it either permanent or hereditary. Slaves in ancient Israel were freed at the end of seven years (Ex. 21 and Deut. 15). Perhaps it should more accurately be termed “indentured servitude” rather than “slavery,” since it functioned as a contractual way to work off a debt rather than as a state of perpetual forced labor. The Mosaic law also included commands against abuse of slaves. Slave owners might (temporarily) own a slave’s labor, but they did not own the slaves’ bodies or have a right to do whatever they wanted with their slaves. If a master gouged out the eye of his slave, for instance, the slave would automatically go free as compensation for the master’s cruelty (Ex. 21:26).
Thus, there were a number of critical distinctions between early American slavery and ancient Israelite slavery.
| Ancient Israelite Slavery | Early American Slavery |
| Temporary (7 years) | Permanent and hereditary |
| Entered into (voluntarily) through debt | Entered into through kidnapping or birth |
| Master owned only the slave’s labor | Master legally owned slaves’ bodies |
| Cruelty toward slave not permitted | Cruel punishments permitted |
| Forced breeding not a part of slavery | Forced breeding a common practice |
| Not race-based | Based on a racial caste system |
| Families (not merely slaves) freed in Jubilee | Families could be legally separated |
So, in dialoguing with the skeptic about this question, I would first want to make it clear that when we are considering ancient Israelite slavery, we are looking at an institution that was vastly different than early American slavery. But, one might ask, even if ancient Israelite slavery was more humane than early American slavery, why did God allow even this relatively benign form of servitude? After all, wouldn’t the society be better off if no one were enslaved?
I think that to answer this question, we need to remember the primacy that the Bible places on the value of human dignity, and the relatively low consideration that it gives to individual autonomy. If individual autonomy is our highest value, any form of forced servitude will seem objectionable, but if human dignity is our prime consideration, the Mosaic laws on slavery seem to do a remarkably good job of respecting the dignity of all people (including slaves) as God’s image-bearers. Does this mean that the laws on slavery would be a good idea for us to adopt as a civil code today? No. The Mosaic law code was a culturally specific application of God’s universal moral law – not the universal moral law itself. Just as the laws against charging interest on a loan had a culturally specific purpose in an ancient agricultural society and may not be directly applicable to our modern context, so the laws on debt-based slavery had a culturally specific application. I would not endorse adopting these laws today. But I do believe that they reflected God’s principles of human dignity for the specific cultural context for which they were given.
Another strategy for responding to questions about the Bible’s ethics
Skeptics often argue that the Bible’s ethical codes are outdated and inhumane, and their charges go far beyond the issue of slavery. In dealing with these charges, I think that the strategy of focusing on the purpose of the biblical mandates and highlighting the differences between modern assumptions about autonomy and biblical concerns about human dignity is generally a good approach. But in doing this, I would encourage you to avoid falling into the trap of simply defending the biblical commands against a skeptics’ attacks; I would also encourage you to turn the tables on the skeptic by asking what our modern world could profitably learn from some of the allegedly “outdated” biblical ethics. One of these areas is covenant-keeping.
The importance of honoring our word (and especially covenants) is repeated throughout the Old and New Testaments, because the way in which we treat our word is a reflection of our view of God’s covenants and promises to us. For much of Christian history, cultures with a Christian framework similarly emphasized the importance of oaths and covenant-keeping. Only in the last century has this framework broken down. But imagine what it would look like, we might ask, if we really could trust people to keep their word, honor their vows, and fulfill their commitments in marriage. We don’t emphasize this value in our society, because it is at odds with our view of personal autonomy. But at some level, many of us find the idea of an honest, covenant-keeping society appealing. Having this conversation with a skeptic who is raising doubts about biblical ethics might be a way to surprise the skeptic with the relevance and attractiveness of biblical teaching, and might be a way to indirectly show the skeptic that we might be far less ethical than we’d like to admit. It’s easy for a skeptic to feel morally superior when raising questions about biblical ethics, but if the skeptic is shown that perhaps in our own time, with our supposedly superior system of ethics, we’ve behaved less ethically than we’d like to admit, it can be an opening to a more gospel-centered conversation about sin and redemption.
Does Christianity make people intolerant?
Skeptics often charge that over the past millennium, Christianity has been responsible for the Crusades, witch-burnings, and numerous wars, and in our own time, it is responsible for producing intolerance and “hate speech.” How should we deal with this charge?
While one could argue about a lot of the specific details of the historical examples that the skeptic might cite, the best approach to this issue would probably be to point out that when religion is combined with power, it usually offers an excellent motivation for people to exercise domination (and even violence) against others. This has been a constant temptation for Christians. Christians are not unique in this, of course. The same has been true of other religions. But what the skeptic also needs to realize is that this is true of ideologies in general. The ideology of nationalism has led to numerous genocides and wars. The ideology of Marxism has similarly led to revolution, oppression, and war. Even the ideology of democracy has produced war; it was a principal justification for American actions during the Mexican War of the 1840s and the wars against Indians in the 19th century, along with America’s actions during World War I – a war, President Woodrow Wilson said, to “make the world safe for democracy.” Secular ideologies can produce wars and intolerance, just as religion can.
A biblical theology of sin gives us an explanation for this violence and intolerance. The reason that ideologies (including religious ones) so often breed violence or intolerance is because they give us justification for our feeling of moral superiority. The less we see of our own sin and the more we see of others’ faults, the more intolerant we’re likely to be. Secular advocates of “tolerance” can be guilty of this same level of intolerant moral zeal when defending some of their cherished principles.
The solution, of course, is to recognize the deep nature of our sin and our dependence on the grace of Christ. As Christians, we need to be extremely suspicious of any ideology that tries to connect Christianity to institutions of power – especially political institutions. We should confess to skeptics that Christians have indeed behaved in evil ways when they took their eyes off of the grace of Christ and tried to impose their moral convictions through the exercise of political power. But rather than discredit Christianity, this confirms a biblical worldview of sin and highlights our need of God’s grace.
Thoughtful Christian Apologetics 