What makes one thing right and another thing wrong? What is right and wrong? Is there a right and a wrong? What is meant by the moral? First, let it be understood that the words moral and ethic are synonyms. Throughout this piece these terms will be used interchangeably with the same inherent meaning intended. The word moral is rooted in the Latin mores, having to do with manners or behavior. The word ethic comes from the Greek ethikos which itself derives from the Greek ethos. Ethikos means moral, ethical, while ethos means character, disposition. Ethics or morality has to do with rules of conduct, principles, a sense of right and wrong.

We cannot speak of the moral without considering the immoral. Immoral is an antonym of moral and means unethical, unprincipled, corrupt, evil, wrong. It is the exact opposite of the moral. Morality and immorality are analogous to the colors black and white. Black is the absence of color, while white is composed of the whole spectrum of colors. There is a vast difference between the two. Black is black, while white is white. The moral is moral, and the immoral is immoral. It is not uncommon for the color black to represent that which is wrong or evil. Also, the color white often symbolizes purity, that which is right and good.

In philosophy there is an ethical concept which does legitimately allow for the amoral--that which is neither moral nor immoral. The nature of the amoral is such that it defies either a moral or immoral categorization. It is simply neither; much like the color grey it is neither black nor white. However, acknowledging the amoral does not diminish the distinct difference between human behavior that is moral and human behavior which is immoral. One simply cannot take what is distinctly immoral and cast it in a grey area of amorality. Nor can one call that which is immoral, moral, such as Hitler and the Nazis attempted to do with their Final Solution, and as the human heart often does to rationalize some pet sin. Or as the homosexuals desire to do in our present time regarding their lifestyle.

The Parameters of Morality

How one determines what is right and what is wrong will depend on that person's point of reference. Who or what, for that person, constitutes final authority? To whom or to what does that person appeal as the final word on ethical matters? Who or what serves as the focus of deciding what is right and what is wrong?

For the evangelical Christian the matter is settled. God is our final authority and His word, recorded for all time in the Holy Scriptures, serves as our guide and rule of faith and establishes for us the parameters of morality. Western civilization has been founded upon these Judeo-Christian moral bases and has until recent times derived its sense of moral consciousness from this source.

The present decay in American society is rooted in the departure from Judeo-Christian mores. However, for the evangelical Christian this remains the source for the resolution of all moral questions: What has God said? Without being too elementary, let us remember that both the Old and New Testaments constitute covenants embodying the established codes of conduct which God intends mankind to live by. For those who accept these covenants as being what they announce themselves to be, there is no problem with the question of the moral.

Morality is the conduct of one's life in accordance with the demands placed upon humanity, accepting what God has established as true and right. This conduct is what the bible calls righteousness. Righteousness is right behavior which springs from holiness. Holiness is the holy nature of God deposited by grace in the believer which enables the believer to live in the right way. Without the implantation of this holy nature the believer cannot live righteously.

John, in his epistles, insists that the person born of God has this holy nature and therefore lives in the right way that God has demanded. Living by the divine ethic, the laws of the Kingdom of God, comes naturally, so to speak, for the true child of God. It is the "nature" of the Holy Spirit to be holy and since it is by the Holy Spirit that we are made partakers of the divine nature we can expect that He will reproduce in us His holy nature which will allow us to live right before God and the world.

We need a clear understanding of the meaning of the moral. For some, the meaning of morality is focused too narrowly, causing a "tunnel vision" approach to moral matters. For these persons, morality usually defines human behavior as it relates to sexual conduct. The immoral person is the one without inhibitions regarding sexual conduct. One who feels free to have sex with whomever they wish, regardless of biblical injunctions against such behavior. The moral person is the opposite. They control sexual behavior and limit its expression to the confines of marriage, as God has proscribed. Though it is true that sexual promiscuity or infidelity are certainly acts of an immoral nature, it would be grossly in error to limit our understanding of what is moral or immoral to sexual conduct.

There are other ways in which human beings can behave that are moral or immoral. If morality or ethical behavior has to do with that which is right or wrong it should become clear that the full spectrum of human behavior falls under the categories of the moral, the immoral, and the amoral. Whatever is right is moral. That which is wrong is immoral. Therefore, it must be understood that there are, indeed, other ways in which one can act morally or immorally. Much of the teaching in Scripture addresses the conduct of human lives, either explicitly or implicitly, instructing us how we should live. The heart and core of biblical instruction revolves around human relationships--how one person treats or relates to another, how groups of people treat other groups of people.

The epistle of James must be understood in this light. Martin Luther called this letter "an epistle of straw." We understand why he did this; he was combating the Roman Catholic idea of salvation through good works. However, James' entire thesis is valid: the person who is born of God will live his or her life in accordance with the instructions given by God in His covenant. That behavior will be evident, not merely by what is said, but by what the person does in their daily relationships. Show me your faith, without this demonstration of righteousness, says James, and I will prove my faith to you by the manner in which I live.

"In the Bible," observes Klaus Bockmuehl, "it is clear that faith does not begin and end in thought. It must result in action."1

Faith, James insists, will prove itself in the concreteness of daily living. Faith is extremely practical, it will produce right living in a real world. This righteousness will affect the way one endures trials and temptations. It will influence one's attitudes toward people, rich or poor. It will effect one's speech; they will control their tongue. The majority of James' concerns, in this letter, has to do with validating the reality of one's relationship to God by exhibiting proofs of that relationship through concrete actions in the way one treats their fellow man. Treating one's fellows in the right way constitutes morality. Treating them in the wrong way is immoral.

Using James' analogy of the rich man/poor man, let's consider human behavior. James is addressing an actual problem. There were some in the church who were showing preference to the rich. When a rich man came into the church meeting these people fawned over them and made sure that the rich had the best seat in the house. On the other hand, he indicates that when the poor arrived these same persons invited the poor to stand or sit on the floor. What sort of behavior is this? Are these people, who are treating the rich kindly, even giving them preferred treatment, while treating the poor with indifference, acting morally or immorally? James insists that this kind of behavior is wrong--it is immoral! This situation can serve as an analogy to instruct us in the correct way to treat our fellow man. James has shown that it is immoral to discriminate between persons on the basis of financial status.

This idea can be extended to include not only financial status, but any category which diminishes the worth and human dignity of any person; discrimination because of race, sex, creed, age, appearance, and so forth is equally to be condemned. On the basis of the whole of biblical teaching, for James is not alone in condemning these attitudes, it is immoral to discriminate against people, on any basis. If God is not a respecter of persons, how can finite man be so?

Another biblical example of morality and immorality is found in the story of Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5:1-11. These people acted both morally and immorally. Many of their fellow-believers had sold possessions and given the proceeds to the apostles to provide for those who were in need. Ananias and Sapphira wanted the church to think that they were just as generous and together conspired to represent to the church that they too had made a great sacrifice in giving to the need of others. The right thing to do was the selling of their property and helping the needy with the money gained from the sale. That was moral. Immorality raises its head when Ananias and Sapphira misrepresent what they had done. They were being dishonest with the church and with God, for they kept back part of the proceeds for themselves. It is true that the land was theirs to dispose of as they wished. Also, they had a right to give only part of the monies realized from the sale to the apostles to help the poor. The immorality of their actions was representing to the church that they were contributing all the money from the sale of the property, when they had not. Peter put it this way: "You have not lied to men, but to God," vs. 4b. Their morality was in giving from their abundance to the need of the Christian community. Their immorality was in the misrepresentation, the lie.

A Precis

Many more examples could be drawn from the Scriptures to illustrate the moral and the immoral. We will, however, let these examples suffice. These serve to exemplify that the moral touches upon all human deportment and cannot be limited to matters of sexual conduct. The manner in which we treat other people can be either moral or immoral. The way we conduct our business affairs can be moral or immoral. Our speech can be ethical or unethical. Our recreation, hobbies, investments, and so forth, can be either right or wrong. Every facet of human behavior can fall under either category and is judged by the commandments of God, and the law of Christ.

For the sake of understanding, let us group human behavior into four categories; relational, financial, sexual, and spiritual. Other categories may apply, but for the sake of simplicity let these groupings suffice. The sexual category has been separated from the relational because of its particular relevance for our day. It could be included in the relational category, but due to the overemphasis on sex in our culture and the manner in which this emphasis has impacted the Christian community I believe that it should be treated separately.

The relational category of human behavior identifies that area of life concerned with social intercourse, interpersonal relationships. How should one person relate to another? Many Christians are careful to guard their behavior to keep themselves pure from sexual defilement, yet fail to maintain a purity in their relationships with fellow believers, family, friends or co-workers, and in so doing imagine themselves to be free from immorality. Sexual purity is to be encouraged, but it is just as wrong for a person to harbor ill will toward another, it is just as immoral as infidelity in marriage. Fidelity in relationships cannot be confined to the monogamy of holy matrimony. People can be unfaithful in a relationship such as friend to friend. Betraying a confidence or misrepresenting commitment in a friendship is as much an act of infidelity as are the actions of the person who cheats sexually on his or her marriage partner. It is just as immoral! Somehow, in this modern age, we have neatly compartmentalized behavior, limiting the idea of infidelity to adultery.

Infidelity can occur in many different ways in a relationship. Failure to keep a promise is an act of infidelity, it is immoral. Yet, how flippant some people are these days regarding the soundness of their word. Agreeing to participate in an event and then not showing is immoral. Promising to help someone with a project and then reneging at the last moment is immoral. A willingness to be less than honest with someone, simply because that person will not be seen again, and therefore be unable to call one to accountability, is immoral. Leading someone on in a relationship, allowing that person to think the relationship is growing toward a lifetime commitment, and then dropping them abruptly, just to remove one's self from a situation which has become too complex for further manipulation, is immoral. Playing around with any person's mind, will, or emotions is an act of immorality. In other words, all forms of manipulation in human relationships are acts of immorality. Gossip and back-biting, envy, jealousy, and a contentious spirit all form breaches in relationships and must be condemned as immoral.

The apostle Paul notes, in Galatians 5:19, some of the forms of immorality mankind are given to. In the relational category he lists hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, and envy. He calls these the works of the flesh and out of hand condemns them, stating that people who indulge in this type of behavior have no part in the Kingdom of God.

Morality in interpersonal relationships is every bit as important and necessary to the Christian life as is sexual purity and the violation of relationships by any act of infidelity is serious business in the eyes of God. The Scriptures instruct us that we are to be open and honest in our relationships. There is no place for deception or dishonesty of any form. Our yes should mean yes and our no should mean no. Integrity in interpersonal relationships is a must for the person who follows Jesus Christ. In the transparency of his pure life he set the example and showed the way to wholesome and meaningful relationships which lead to peace and fulfillment.

The financial category of human behavior is self-explanatory. We are dealing here with business matters involving the exchange of goods or services for things of value, usually money. We are also concerned with personal finances.

In the climate of our present culture morality in commerce has gone begging. Morality in business is defined by one question, Will it turn a profit? If profit can be made then let us not bother ourselves with the archaic notions of right or wrong. If money can be made the thing is right! Questions of integrity, fairness, and value are out of date.

Being a Christian who is also a businessperson is increasingly difficult in this climate. Cutting corners, not divulging all the information, using inferior products, gouging the unsuspecting, under-the-table deals, kickbacks, these are the ensnarements today's businessperson must maneuver to avoid. All of these actions are immoral. They have no place in the life of the Christian.

Some years back I had occasion to be involved with a group of Christians in a business venture, not as a partner, but as an employee. When questioned about the ethics of a certain transaction, in the light of the fact that we were Christians, we were informed by the partners that though they were individually Christians, the business was not. It was just business. And in business that sort of thing had to happen. These men had neatly separated their personal lives, values and beliefs from their professional lives and business practices. What would never be proper for them in their personal lives, hopefully, was considered a necessity to survival in the world of business. This Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde mentality is not uncommon among Christians in business. Nor is it necessarily the rule. But it ought not to be. This schizophrenic dichotomization of life into convenient compartments, isolating the everyday life from the private life, is devastating to the person, the church, and society. Every time I see the sign of the fish on a business card or sign, I shudder, and hope that it is there as a true witness to a life of integrity and morality and not being used as a device to lure business. I do not mean to imply that all who display this sign use it manipulatively, but this abuse does occur and that is immoral.

While business is the public side of the financial category, personal finances is the private side. Immorality has made its home here as well. Sad to say, among some businessmen, ministers are looked upon with derision and skepticism. Ministers have a poor track record in paying their bills. This is a national statistic. They are also known as persons expecting something for nothing or at a price far below what the average customer would have to pay. Christians, and ministers in particular should be known for promptness in paying bills, and integrity in business matters. That is what the Scriptures instruct us to do. It is immoral to overextend financially and then not be able to pay the bills. The use of credit is abused in our culture, often encouraged by greedy lenders, but this ought not to be true for the Christian. The glitter of Madison Avenue hype can create a want where a need does not exist. Christians must resist this ploy and tailor their lifestyles to live within their means and still be able to contribute to the need of others and support the spread of the gospel. Greed, dishonest gain, and failure to care for financial obligations are immoral and have no place in the life of a Christian.

The sexual category of human behavior covers more than simply sexual intercourse and its proper expression. All humans are sexual beings. Sex is not merely something we do, it is what we are. The categories of male and female are sexual identities. To say that John is a boy is a sexual identity. All of our living is colored by our particular sexual identity. Until recent times one's vocation or career was determined by sexual identity. Only men were truck drivers. Only women were office secretaries, and so forth. Those ideas have gone by the board in today's culture. There is a tremendous cross pollination of men and women in the various vocations and careers. Yet, whatever one does, that person takes a sexual identity into the work they do.

Morality in the sexual category touches upon sexual intercourse and its proper expression, but it involves more than the physical act of copulation. Immorality in this category can be found in attitudes toward the sexes. It is immoral to look down upon women as inferior to men. It is immoral to pay a woman less money than is paid to a man doing the exact, same job. It is immoral to hire a woman just to fill a quota when a male applicant is better qualified for the position and would be an asset to the company. As well, it would be just as immoral to hire a man who is less qualified than a female applicant, simply because a man, in what is perceived to be a man's world, is preferred. It would be wrong to limit a person's career because of sexual identity, promoting the less qualified male over a more qualified female or vice-a-versa. It would be equally wrong to assign work to a person for which they are not qualified or are not capable of performing due to physical limitations, simply to prove a point or to drive them out of the work place.

How, one might ask, can it be said that the attitudes and actions stated above are immoral? It can be said on the basis of the analogy found in James' epistle. Attitudes and actions which discriminate against people are immoral, and what has been done here is simply to focus some attitudes and practices which are common in our present society, identifying them for what they really are--immoral.

Sexual immorality, expressed in the physical union of a man and woman outside of the bonds of marriage needs no extensive treatment here. The Scriptures demand that sexual intercourse be confined to the marriage bed. Fornication and adultery are condemned outrightly in the Bible. There can be no rationalization or excuse for indulgence in pre-marital sex or extra-marital encounters. Both of these behaviors are called sin in the Word of God.

Neither do we need to argue the case for heterosexual relationships since homosexuality is condemned by Scripture and nature alike. The unnatural acts of the sodomite can never be considered as natural and proper--they are immoral. This judgement cannot be considered an act of discrimination for two reasons.

First, the behavior is outrightly condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. God has declared that homosexuality is sin and immoral, that is not a human judgement.

Second, branding this behavior as immoral does not diminish the worth or human dignity of the individual anymore than disapproval of the behavior of a murderer or thief diminishes the worth or value of the person. Worth or human dignity is not the question. What is being judged is behavior. Is it moral, immoral or amoral? On the basis of the Word of God, as Christians, it must be judged immoral--it is wrong! To condone or endorse aberrant behavior on the basis that to do otherwise is an act of discrimination only focuses the confusion of reasoning in that person's mind. God has never questioned the worth of a human being. He was so committed to the value of humanity that while mankind was still at enmity with Him He sent His only Son to redeem fallen humanity and restore the fellowship lost as a consequence. It is human behavior that is judged and declared moral or immoral and that has nothing to do with human dignity or worth. Our immoral behavior may be cause for a sense of low self-worth, but that is our conscience condemning us and not God. Morality or immorality in the sexual category, then, has several facets. Attitudes and actions will determine when our behavior is right or when it is wrong.

The final category is spiritual. "How," you may ask, "can there be a moral category of spiritual?" Although this is the last category we will deal with in this essay, it actually is primary. I have placed it at the conclusion because it is our anchor, our catalytic point of reference. It is the bedrock upon which all ethical concerns are built. Failure to understand that the primary theme of the scriptures is fidelity and love causes one to look at reality with a skewed vision.

The witness of scripture is a telling of the abysmal failure of individuals and groups of persons to comprehend the intent of God in the earth. James grasped the purpose of God and attempted to communicate it to the churches and was rewarded centuries later by having his letter labeled "an epistle of straw." James boldly asserted, "Show me your faith without works and I will show you my faith through my works." He understood that to be spiritual meant first and foremost to be ethical and that the ethical is revealed through loving, caring, sharing, committed relationships. First in being rightly related to God, then being rightly related to our spouses, parents, siblings, children, peers, employers, employees and so forth. We don't want to hear this. It is too broad, too inclusive, too demanding. The straw gets in our pants and brings an annoying discomfort. We are strongly tempted to dismiss James and his letter as marginal and unimportant. That would be a serious mistake, for this missive carries within it the kernel of true spirituality.

John, in his epistles, demonstrates his apprehension of the spiritual as being primarily ethical in nature. He insists that we cannot love God whom we have not seen if we do not love our brother whom we can see. Very succinctly put. He who loves is born of God. He who does not love is not born of God. Our flesh wants to argue with that. We want to somehow wriggle out from under the demand that this places upon us. John cannot be right in what he declares, we importune. But he is right. The person who is truly spiritual is the one who first tends to the ethical/moral dimension of life. They know that everything of true value and bedrock reality flows out of a life that has embraced the ethics of the Cross as well as its grace. In truth, the ethics of the Cross is but a facet of grace.

In the trinity of Golgotha we find a community. All are condemned criminals. They are bound together by their common humanity, by the agony of the slow, painful torture that summons their last breath. In the paradox of the Cross we find both righteousness and unrighteousness. The man on the center cross is both innocent and guilty. Innately innocent, vicariously condemned, he boldly reflects the enigmatic paradox. His innocence absorbs the guilt of the others and he who knew no sin became sin that we might become the righteousness of God.

Rounding out this triune of guilt and innocence are the two thieves. One, determined to take his rebellion to its natural conclusion, mocks the center cross. The other, stricken with conviction, pleads that Jesus not forget him. Jesus said, "Father, I think he's got it." The Father replies, "I think he has." And Jesus turns his head and looks the man deeply in the eye, communicating through his suffering and pain, the first enunciation of the new paradigm, "Today you will be with me...."

This man had no time for repentance. His time was up. Brief hours measured his remaining life, no time to turn around and go the other way. He had only metered time for practice, as his sagging body began to asphyxiate him. There wasn't time left for him to learn the propositions, or the formulas. He made no prayer of petition for forgiveness for his wasted life. He simply turned his head to Jesus, and in the fellowship of the cross made a terse request: remember me. Jesus told him, "I'll do you one better than that, I won't have to remember you for this day you'll be with me on the other side of death."

In this event we see both the ethics of the Cross and the mercy of the Cross at work. This is an intensely relational moment. The community of the cross diminishes as the rebellious thief seals his doom. Yet there remains a company of three on that hill. Jesus has not yet cried out his plea of abandonment. There is a microcosm of fellowship encapsulated in that moment. A new believer makes a request, remember me. Jesus, as always, checks with the Father, "He's got it," then turns to the thief and gives him to good news, "you're with me."

Viewing this event from the ethical side, the man should be condemned, for he had lived an unrighteous life. But, because of grace he is no longer standing in his righteousness, but in Jesus' righteousness. That's the paradox of the Cross and the basis for our hope, the bedrock of our morality. A righteous God has dealt justly with humanity and in this one act of love set forever the parameters of the moral. That is an absolute.

1. Klaus Bockmuel. The Challenge of Marxism, Colorado Springs: Helmers & Howard Publishers, 1986. p. 28.