#STRask - Isn’t It Better to Do Good for Goodness’ Sake?

Episode Date: September 2, 2024

Questions about it being better to do good for goodness’ sake rather than to earn approval and avoid punishment and a good initial approach to take with someone who rejects God based on his “violent” and “oppressive” character in the Old Testament.   I want my children to do good for goodness’ sake. Doing it to earn my approval and avoid my punishment is the absolute worst outcome I can imagine, as is requiring them to relentlessly thank me for helping them find it—and I’m just a human! What's a good initial approach to take with someone who rejects God based on his “violent” and “oppressive” character in the Old Testament, regardless of good arguments about his being objectively moral?

All right, everyone. I hope you're here for the Hashtag Estirask podcast because that's where you are. And we're going to start with a question from Cliff. All right. the question from Cliff. All right. I want my children to do good for goodness sake. Doing it to earn my approval and avoid my punishment is the absolute worst outcome I can imagine, as is requiring them to relentlessly thank me for helping them find it. And I'm just a human. Thoughts? Good question about moral development. And, you know, it's interesting that Aristotle actually did a lot of thinking about this. His book is called The Nicomachean Ethics. I don't expect people to read it, but he did a lot of, I think, useful thinking about the nature of morality.

His focus was on virtue, morality. In other words, morality really is not just a bunch of do's and don'ts. It's the person that you become. And that's what we ought to be thinking about. What kind of person should we be? Not whether we're striking off all the obligations or not. And, of course, I think that's a biblical perspective, you know, virtue ethics, the person that we are becoming. And like Jesus says, it's not what goes into a man, but what comes out of a person that defiles him. And I think that's related to the notion of virtue ethics.

But as that issue touches the question of moral development, the way Aristotle put it, of moral development, the way Aristotle put it, and I'm just using this as an example because he's a secular source, a respected secular source that actually had a tremendous amount of insight and offered an understanding that is completely consistent with the biblical model, in my view. And that is, he said, that sometimes you do, when you start out, so to speak, you are doing the things that are required because they're required, okay? But as time goes on, you end up, in a certain sense, enjoying the life of virtue or the virtuous things you do, sense, enjoying the life of virtue or the virtuous things you do, and you end up doing them for their own sake, okay? You build a habit, a habit of virtuous living, and then that becomes a part of your character. And I think that actually not just parallels or matches what the biblical ethic involves,

but it also is just like, in a sense, a good psychology or an accurate characterization about how humans develop. Okay, so application here. You teach your children through artificial rewards and punishments to do the right thing. And as they learn to do the right thing consistently in their training, it becomes habitual. It becomes a habit. It becomes a virtuous habit. And as it becomes a virtuous habit, there is more fulfillment and satisfaction and enjoyment out of being virtuous. And that

leads to the stage, ideally at least, that the virtuous person is doing the virtuous things for the virtue itself, not because of external rewards or punishments, but because it's the good thing to do, and it's the desirable thing for the virtuous person to do. But that's further down the line of moral development. You have to start with do's and don'ts. You have to start with describing that there are boundaries in the world, and here I'm providing some boundaries, and I'm going to enforce them. Because, by the way, that's the way the world works. The world works with boundaries. And I remember a long time ago, there was a neighbor in my community,

the grandson, I think, of a friend of mine who lived down the street, who was, you know, getting into a lot of trouble. And, you know, he's on the wrong path. And so I had to talk with him. And I said, there will never be a time in your life when you will not be under authority. Everybody is under authority. And if you're bucking authority now, you know, instead of learning to live within authority, this is a bad start kind of conversation, but it's true. We're always under authority, and children need to learn that.

They're under the authority of their parents first, and then they want to transfer that properly to God. But it's part of the training. When, you know, I played tournament tennis for many years, and one of the things you learn, and this is true of any sport, is muscle memory. You get out and you groom your strokes. So you hit 50 backhands, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then forehands, then cross court, then down the line, and volleys, and overheads, and you just keep doing these same things over and over and over as you're grooming the strokes. The idea is they become automatic. You don't have to think about doing them. And when you do them automatic and well, it's actually pretty satisfying because you're

executing some elegant motion effectively in a sport. And anybody who does any sports with any level of expertise understands exactly what I mean. You play the piano. You're grooming. You're building muscle memory. And then when you're playing a tune, you're not thinking about what your fingers are doing. You're enjoying the process of playing the music. Okay. And so those, I think, are fair parallels. Same thing with children. I remember reading one of the trips with Double P, the fellows who write a lot about family, and they're really good. One of the things they said is the very first thing that your children need to learn, your first five years, the chief thing they need to learn is that they're under authority, that they're under authority. And how do they learn that? Because there are

boundaries that are placed there, and there are rewards and punishments that are associated with keeping those boundaries, okay? Once they learn they're under authority, then it's easier the next further steps there. But it's all part of their moral development. So I would not, you know, kind of, you know, strain at the bit here about this idea of rewards and punishments. I think they are a necessary first step to what Cliff is interested in seeing in his children, doing the things for the good itself. So, Greg, I actually read this question. I'm really glad you answered the question that way. I'm actually reading it different, but I think it's really helpful that you laid that foundation

and also that you didn't hear it the way I hear it, because I think that will speak to my answer also. Okay. Because what I think, I hear it, because I think that will speak to my answer also. Okay. Because what I think, I think Cliff is actually objecting to God here. So what he's saying is he wants his children to do good for goodness sake. Doing it to earn my approval and avoid my punishment is the absolute worst outcome I can imagine, as is requiring them to relentlessly thank me for helping them find it. And I'm just a human. Oh, I see.

So what I think he's saying is— He's describing God. His understanding of Christian morality is that we are doing it to earn God's approval and avoid his punishment. And the fact that you didn't even hear it that way is just proof that this is a very foolish understanding of what Christianity is about. If indeed that's what Cliff was trying to say here. The carrot and stick kind of approach that the atheist played on me a number of years ago here on the show. So obviously, and so he's interpreting it as because there are these rules, therefore, it's not good for goodness sake.

Whereas now you're explaining you have to start with the rules. That's how you train. That's how you learn. But your goal is for them to love the good. That's the goal in Christianity, too. And in fact, it is a complete misunderstanding of Christianity to say that our view is that we're doing good to earn God's approval and avoid his punishment. So he says, I'm just a human. Well, that's the problem.

You're just a human. You're not able to change your children's hearts. But guess what? That's what we think about God. Not only has he adopted us by his grace, but now, and this is what Romans 8 is all about, He's given us the Spirit so that we have the ability. We're not just trapped by laws that we continually break because we want to do something else. We want to go our own way. Now we actually have the Spirit who puts our sin to death so that

we love the good. That's the whole point. Read Romans 8. The idea is God is giving life to our mortal bodies so that we actually love the good. But he couches all of this in our adoption as sons, saying, you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear. Oh, interesting. Yeah. So this isn't about slavery. This isn't about earning God's approval. This is about being an adopted child. That's what this is about. I will say it's so interesting, this conversation, because, and I'm not trying to, you know, grandstand or anything like that, but just candidly, the issue of rewards and punishments never enters my mind

as a Christian as I live my daily life, okay? For one, I know the punishment, there's no wrath for me. God has not appointed us to wrath, but for the obtaining of salvation. Okay, Jesus took the punishment. Now, there could be discipline. Okay, Hebrews 12, and sometimes that feels like wrath, but that's a whole different matter. All right? So, I'm not worried about punishment. And I mean, genuinely, I do not care about rewards. You know, I think just being, you know, bereft of the flesh and in my resurrected body and being with Christ and with all the rest of the saints, if you will, that's fine with me. I'm okay with that. I don't have to be singled out for anything special. It's just not a motivator for me. It does nothing for me. So that's one thing. The second thing is, Cliff is talking about his kids. So Cliff presumably is married. When Cliff got married,

he made a series of vows. Here are the rules that I'll keep. All right. I don't think for a minute that Cliff thinks he's going to keep his vows or his wife is going to keep his vows towards him because he has to, but because they love each other. They are committed to do these things because of the relationship. I want to be faithful. I want to be... Now, of course, obviously, there are seasons where that's a struggle to do. I get it. But nevertheless, it isn't just about rewards and punishments. All right, if I do these good things to my wife, then I'm going to get some goodies, too. You know, that's really what—it's not just an exchange like that or a transaction like that.

It's a relationship that is governed by rules. It's a relationship that is governed by rules. And as grownups, with a healthy attitude about marriage, it isn't just raw obligations. They are things that we want to fulfill in virtue of the nature of the relationship. One thing that can help you understand, Cliff, you are a father, okay? So the problem here is that there are two ways to look at God, and it sounds to me like you're seeing Him as a judge instead of a father. Now, before you're adopted, that is your relationship to God. He is your judge. And at that point, just like we would think of any judge, we are trying to avoid punishment. I mean, I have no covenant with a

judge, and I'm not in a familial relationship with a judge. But what happens with Christians is that we are adopted. And when we're adopted, when we die with Christ, we're raised with Christ, we have a new relationship to sin. We no longer want to sin because we are joined to Christ. We love Christ just as you want your child. And this is exactly what you said, just as you want your child to do things out of their love for you and their trust in you and your wisdom and all that sort of thing. That is our new relationship to our Father. So we are, as Christians, are seeing God as our Father, not as our judge within that new relationship. And we're no longer slaves to sin because we have the Holy Spirit. So there's an

entirely different way of looking at sin and rules for a Christian than there would be for somebody who's still feeling the guilt and condemnation from a just and perfect judge. But you can't imagine that Christians are viewing God as a judge now. We're viewing him as a father. All right, so hopefully that's helpful. And maybe I'm completely off, but I suspect that's what was going on with that question. And if not with Cliff, I'm sure other people have had that question. Both sides of the issue we covered. So we're going to go on to a question from Fire Sheba.

And I just want to point out before I answer or say this question, this is a question from a couple of years ago. I actually save all of the questions. So if you've ever sent me a question, I still have it. And it's still under consideration. Even if I haven't answered it, I will still go back and find one that fits into whatever conversation we're going to have that day. So don't despair. And it's always worth sending in your question because I do save them all. And we do go back occasionally.

And this is one example. Fire Sheba. Fire Sheba. Okay. What's a good initial approach to someone who rejects God based on his Old Testament character? I've known people who simply won't accept a God who's violent and oppressive regardless of good arguments about God being objectively moral. Well, I guess my – here's my first impulse. Given that Fire Shiva has specified, I've already given my good arguments about God

being moral, but they still don't like the violent God of the Old Testament. I don't know if they like the violent God of the Old Testament. I don't know if they like the violent God of the New Testament any better, because the God of the New Testament is violent as well. All you have to do is look at Jesus' statements in Matthew 25, for example, the separation of the sheep from the goats, and other statements that he makes, from which—which sometimes implies God's judgment and sometimes speaks of it openly, okay? You brood of—well, this is John the Baptist. You brood of vipers who warned you of the wrath that is to come, you know.

But that's New Testament. You also have the book of Revelation. So it isn't like you've got this nasty God of the Old Testament and you've got this nice, sweet, easygoing, avuncular God of the New Testament, you know, oh, boys will be boys kind of thing. Now, this may not be good news to Fire Shiva's friends who are raising the objection. They might say, well, I don't like the God of the New Testament either. And the fact is that this is part of God's character, and it's a good part of his character. But what she said is they haven't responded to those kinds of arguments.

And this is where – and maybe you have something more productive to say. But this is where I get to the point where I realize there is no silver bullet. There is no perfect answer in the sense that if you just get it right, people will go, oh, now I see it. Oh, yeah, well, I was confused about that. You gave me a good answer. I guess you're right, okay? Now, Jesus actually spoke to this indirectly, and what he said was—and incidentally, there are going to be people who say that. Every once in a while, you do have somebody where the objection is the problem. You clear up the objection, you clear up the problem. But much of the time, there's something else going on here. And Jesus says in John chapter 3, the light has come into the world. And so, when you give an answer that's a good answer about the good character of God to an objector. That's light.

All right. But Jesus said, but they love darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. They love darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. Even when you give a good answer, you give them light. They don't want that because it's the darkness. Now, I understand this particular objection sounds, in a certain sense, kind of sanitized. I can't accept such a ferocious, evil God, you know. And, oh, that sounds like, okay, you're showing your love and you're showing your sympathy towards these people who got hurt or punished or

traumatized by God in the Old Testament. And you can never believe in a God like that. But I think something else is going on underneath the surface, and that is a rejection of the justice of God, which is appropriate to His goodness. And I was thinking about this yesterday because I was in Iowa yesterday and I spoke to a youth group during Q&A and this kind of came up. And I didn't actually say this. I wish I had. It was one of the things I thought of afterwards, but I have said it before. What would you think of a government that never punished criminals? Would you think well of that government?

Would you say, oh, we have such a loving government. Man, our government is so cool. They are so nice. They never punish anybody. They don't wreak wrath on people that do unrighteousness. No, they're nice to everybody. Well, nobody would put up with that for a second. In fact, people don't.

They say, that guy got away with murder. How could that happen? This is a corrupt legal system that allows people like that to get away with the things they got away with. So there's an internal sense. This is the inside-out tactic coming in play again. They know this. They understand this. So nobody would like that. And maybe that's

the question you could ask. And you say, wait a minute, would it be better? Well, I think I just go right to this, the question. Do you favor a government that never punished evil people? Do you favor that? Do you think that's a good thing? See what they say. Because that's basically what they're asking about here. I suspect, maybe it's not all punishment they object to, but some punishment they object to in the Old Testament that they might look at and say, that's a bit extreme, you know, that's bizarre. But I don't know about the details there, but there does seem to be this sense that it's just unbecoming of God to punish evil. And a lot of people raise this. How could a loving God do that kind of thing? What about a loving government? So I'm going to make this into a one-two punch here, Greg,

because I do think that is the foundational thing to know that God's justice is good. In fact, you reminded me of a quote from a Croatian theologian named Miroslav Volf. I just looked it up again because I wrote about this a long time ago. And he used to think, he says, I used to think that wrath was unworthy of God. Isn't God love? Shouldn't divine love be beyond wrath? And so then he goes on to say that then he saw the war in Yugoslavia, and he says, according to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed and over 3 million were displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed.

My people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalized beyond imagination. And I could not imagine God not being angry. And then he says at the end, I came to think that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn't wrathful at the side of the world's evil. God isn't wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love. So if you can start by communicating the idea of justice, I think that's a great place to start. But I think you also need a little bit more explanation of who God is. And I think it's just a little bit too abstract to say God is objectively moral, God is the moral standard, because that's just hard for people to grasp what that actually means. So you need to give them something objective about who God is. And of course, now we go to the cross. The cross is an objective place where God

revealed who he is. He revealed his justice. He cares about justice. He revealed his grace for his enemies. He revealed his willingness to suffer and die out of love for people who didn't deserve it and didn't even ask for it and were willing to go in rebellion against him forever. So he upheld perfect justice while also providing a way for mercy. And that, if you can describe what we learn about him there, say, look, we can look right at this. We know Jesus is a perfect representation of the Father. So knowing that objective truth about God, and you can argue about the truth of that too, and I'm sure that will come up. But let's just take this on. Let's just talk about God's character now. Let's just

leave aside the question right now of whether Christianity is true, but let's talk about what Christianity is before you reject it on the basis of Christianity, on the basis of how it describes God. Let's look at the God that Christianity describes. So we have this awareness of who God is through the cross. Now you can look back at the justice and know, well, would a God who sends his son to die for his enemies be someone who would be unjust? If he's evil and unjust, he wouldn't have sacrificed. And if he's indulgent and unjust, he wouldn't have done that. Because why would you do

that if you didn't need to uphold justice? So it rules out both mistaken applications of justice. So you have to look at it, I think, in light of both. Yeah, yeah. So you have to look at it, I think, in light of both of those two things. This reminds me of Tom Gilson's book, Too Good to Be False. And that is where he looks at Jesus' life and he says, this is a character, an individual that you would never make up. would never make up. And even people who, in fictitious stories, make these individuals up with this great power and capability and everything, they don't use it the way Jesus used it. So, and this is, and I think what you're saying here is a characterization of that. Who'd have thought, who'd have thought this system up, you know? It's just too good to be false, the title of his book. Funny enough, Greg, I actually just read that book. And what struck me is, you know,

he is making the point like nobody could make up this character because he's so far beyond us. And when we make up characters, they always have some kind of flaw unless they're specifically modeled after him like Superman or somebody like that. But most superheroes have flaws. And it occurred to me, even in the case of The Chosen, where they're attempting to represent Jesus and they're trying their best to make it like Jesus, they're still messing up in certain ways that Tom notes in his book, not about The Chosen, but about things about Jesus that he never did. Like he never asked for the opinions of others. He never had to practice certain things. He never had to, you know, which they show in the chosen. And they're not doing that on purpose. But even

when you're trying to portray Jesus and you're making things up with no intention of degrading him or anything, you still fail to create Jesus. Right. Very interesting. Yeah. He is objective. He's outside of us. He actually came and people actually witnessed him and wrote about him and have given us this unified view of him throughout the Gospels of a character that doesn't match any other character in literary history at all. All right. Well, we're out of time. Good thoughts, Amy. And thank you, Fire Sheba, for your patience. And if you have a question out there, hey, don't give up. If I still have a way of contacting you, I will contact you if we ever answer your question. All right. Thank you, Cliff, and thank you, Fireshiva.

If you want to send us your question, send it on Twitter with the hashtag STRask or go through our website at str.org. This is Amy Hall and Greg Kokel for Stand to Reason.