In my last two blogs, I have tried to take a serious look at right and wrong. Is there really any absolute source of authority from which we can learn what is right and what is wrong? Is there any such thing as absolute truth, from which we can be taught clearly what is ethically and morally right?

Last week’s blog focused on religion and religious sources of authority. There are as many different sources of authority as there are different religions. Each religion has its own sources which teach its adherents what is right and what is wrong according to its traditions. We tried to decide if any one source is absolutely true, to the exclusion of all others. It was my personal assessment that the Bible of the Christian faith is the only source of absolute truth and authority. Therefore, all other religious sources of authority must of necessity be subjugated to the teachings of Scripture.

This week I would like to turn my attention to two other sources of authority which are viewed by some as sources of absolute authority: culture, and government. First, let’s focus our attention on government. Civil authority is a reality in every form of government: democracy, monarchy, dictatorship, socialism, communism, oligarchy, aristocracy, colonialism, theocracy, and totalitarianism. Right and wrong are determined by the authority of each governing philosophy. However, right and wrong are not necessarily absolute. For example, during different periods of a nation’s history, its view of correct behavior may change based upon the beliefs of those in power. We are seeing this in the United States, as conservative politicians and liberal politicians clash over what is right and wrong on many ethical and moral issues.

So, the question is this: if the government decides to change the law pertaining to ethical or moral issues, does the new law mean that we are to obey? We have a clear lesson in Scripture that answers this question. It is found in the book of Acts. Read slowly and carefully the following passage:

“So they (the religious leaders) called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.’

Acts 4:18-20

This is an example of governmental authority demanding that the apostles obey them rather than God, and the response is clear: if the law of man contradicts the law of God then we must obey God rather than man.

Now, having said that, please understand that as long as the government’s enacting of law is not contradictory to the law of God, then we are certainly to be law-abiding citizens. As a matter of fact, Christians should be the most upstanding law-abiding citizens there are. However, if man’s law contradicts God’s law then we much follow the teachings of God.

It is crucial to remember the teachings of Paul in Romans 13. It is there that we are taught to obey the governing authorities. And what was Paul’s reasoning behind this? He states it clearly in the following words:

“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.”

Romans 13:1-2

Governmental authority comes from God, and as long as the laws enacted by the government are in alignment with God’s Word, then we are to obey. But if and when the government enacts any law that contradicts God’s Word, then we must not follow, but rather be true to God’s authoritative Word.

Let’s turn our attention briefly now to the changing tides of culture. In every society there is what we might refer to as the ebb and flow of culture. Cultural practices differ from one people group to another. Beliefs and behaviors based on contemporary culture are different than they were a few decades ago. Cultural relativism is the concept that right and wrong, beliefs and behaviors, are relative to the culture of a society at any given time. Therefore, what was viewed as wrong two decades ago, may now be viewed as perfectly acceptable today. Does the change in cultural practices have the authority to change a behavior from being wrong to being right? If so, culture becomes the authority, and when that happens there can be no right or wrong at all: it is all subjected to the practices of any culture at any given time.

So let’s try to wrap up this discussion. If there is in existence any source of absolute truth, then there must of necessity be only one source. If there are two sources of absolute truth, but they contain contradictory teachings concerning moral and ethical belief and behavior, then that means there can be no source of absolute truth.

But if there is one source of absolute truth, then all other sources of purported truth – whether it be from religious sources, political sources, governmental sources, or cultural sources – must be subjugated to that one true source. If a law enacted by the government contradicts the truth in that one source of absolute truth, then it must be deemed false, and therefore rejected. If a religious source contains material that contradicts the source of absolute truth, then it must be rejected. If a cultural practice contradicts the truth contained in the one true source of absolute truth, then it must be rejected.

The Bible claims for itself that it is absolute truth. It does not simply contain truth: it is in and of itself truth. Those who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, therefore, are called upon to obey the commands, and enjoy the promises and blessings, of this source of absolute truth.

Politics, governments, religions, philosophies, cultures, must all be subjected to the teachings of God’s Holy Word. Then, and only then, will we see a movement toward civility in a world filled with animosity toward one another.

Next week, I will give my attention to the movement referred to as ‘cancel culture’ and see how it relates the discussion of the past two weeks.