Why Are Christians So Afraid Of Subjective Moral Reasoning?

There are no moral absolutes, it’s all relative, and whatever “works for you is fine for you but what works for me is something completely different” may be as close as contemporary culture gets to what it regards as a “truth” that always and everywhere applies.

Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias was asked the question posed in the headline above and it’s one of particular relevance to men and women working on Capitol Hill. Do not miss Zacharias’ opening response to his questioner.

The belief that all truth is relative may be the most tragic misconception in all of human history. As Zacharias points out, it certainly was at the heart of the genocidal ideologies — Soviet and Chinese Marxism, Germany’s Nazism, Italian Fascism — that made the 20th century the bloodiest 100 years ever.

That should tell us something — truth is not found in ideologies, regardless whether they come from either end of the political spectrum.

(STOP! Did this post make you think? Make you mad? Make you want to know more? That’s what HillFaith does pretty much every day, so why don’t you go to that upper right corner on the homepage and check the box to follow this blog? Never a dull moment around this place!)

Author: Mark Tapscott

Follower of Christ, devoted husband of Claudia, doting father and grandfather, conservative lover of liberty, journalist and First Amendment fanatic, former Hill and Reagan aide, vintage Formula Ford racer, Okie by birth/Texan by blood/proud of both, resident of Maryland. Go here: https://hillfaith.blog/about-hillfaith-2/

4 thoughts on “Why Are Christians So Afraid Of Subjective Moral Reasoning?”

  1. The political spectrum consist of the tyranny of control on the extreme left and anarchy on the extreme right. Put another way, it’s 100% control by govt. (dictator, oligarchy, monarchy) on the extreme left versus 0% govt. control on the extreme right, All isms are leftists in nature. Freedom of the individual, as laid out in the Constitution, is somewhere on the center right .


  2. Who says that personal autonomy, self-reliant defense of home-and-family, modest (if not humble) awareness of one’s intellectual, moral, spiritual limitations, is in any wise “subjective”?

    Who says that Grand Theft of anyone’s legitimate earnings, for any purpose than to commensurately benefit that individual through a peaceable and prosperous, secure societal milieu, is anything but rank, self-serving despotism on behalf of Statist sociopaths?

    Above all, who denies that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness” (Jefferson)?

    For some three decades now, if not before, all citizens –by no means just ecumenical Christians– devoted to socio-political First Principles have seen Deconstructed Relativism’s locomotive steaming open-throttle down its one-way track to Armageddon. The real question is, “How can anyone of sense-and-sensibility not see that, flag-waving at the crossroads, he will be this Death Train’s first onrushing casualty”?


  3. In this comment, i do not intend to address the issue of moral relativism one way or the other: all what i want to say is that the Tapscott/Zacharias argument against moral relativism is very weak. (Saying that an argument against X is weak, does not imply that X is correct.)

    Why is the Tapscott/Zacharias argument* weak?
    Because it is hard to believe that Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao** were moral relativists! In reality, they were the most fanatical and dogmatic leaders of their times.
    As Chesterton said: When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.

    * which actually goes back a long way.
    ** and Mussolini, if he counts, though he looks insignificant by comparison.


Comments are closed.