Helping CHristian School Students Embrace Biblical Absolutes
We have all had the experience of seeing students do well on tests and seemingly learn the material in our Bible classes—maybe memorize whole books of the Bible—and then go out and do unbelievably wrong things and make terribly wrong choices that affect the course of their lives for the worse.
Why do they do that? One reason, of course, is that we are all depraved (Romans 3:10), so we continue to bear our sinful nature even after we come to Christ (I John 1:8–10). But there are other reasons as well. One of the most subtle is that students can learn a great many things without really believing any of them. They know what answer you expect, and they give it to you; but they have very different beliefs themselves.
In 2001 evangelical researcher George Barna surveyed a cross section of Americans on their use of moral absolutes to make decisions. When asked how they decide what to do when faced with a moral or an ethical choice, born-again survey participants responded as shown in the chart.
| Response | Adults | Teens | Difference | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Follow specific principles: | 53% |
35% |
-18% |
.660 |
| The law | 1 |
0 |
-1 |
.000 |
| The Bible | 26 |
12 |
-14 |
.462 |
| Parents' values | 13 |
10 |
-3 |
.769 |
| Other religious | 8 |
2 |
-6 |
.250 |
| Experience | 5 |
1 |
-4 |
.200 |
| Create most happiness | 4 |
12 |
+8 |
3.000 |
| What's expected | 4 |
6 |
+2 |
1.500 |
| Majority behavior | 2 |
2 |
0 |
1.000 |
| Feels right or comfortable | 24 |
34 |
+10 |
1.417 |
| Positive outcome for me | 9 |
13 |
+4 |
1.444 |
These numbers show a remarkable divide between born-again adults and born-again teens on their view of absolutes; in short, the adults believe in them, and the teens do not. Teens are only two-thirds as likely to base their decisions on principles; they are three times as likely to choose based on what will create the most happiness or the least conflict (this is called utilitarianism), and they are most likely to choose based on what feels right or comfortable in the specific situation (this is called situational ethics). Nearly 60 percent of born-again teens choose based on situation, selfishness, or happiness while only 12 percent—that is 1 out of 8—choose based on the teaching of the Bible.
What is the source of this divide? Secular teaching in public schools? Popular culture? Too much TV? Certainly these factors all play some role. But another Barna survey, conducted in late 2004, revealed another surprising fact: the views of born-again parents do not significantly differ from those of other parents on the outcomes they look for in their children. Only 30 percent of born-again parents view their children’s salvation as a critical emphasis in their parenting. And fewer than 60 percent teach their children that there are moral absolutes.1
So here we are. We are teaching students who, for the most part, claim to be Christians, and we are teaching them what is in the Bible. But it is possible that most of them do not believe—for now—that the Bible—or any other source of absolutes—is important to follow. Maybe we need to start by teaching things that we are taking for granted that they already know or believe.
The mantra of the postmodern age is that there are no absolutes; things are only "true for me" or "true for you." It is "intolerant" to believe that something is absolutely true. So before we can even begin teaching truth, we need to convince our charges that there is such a thing. I would suggest using one or more of the following approaches.
- The statement that "there are no absolutes" is an oxymoron, a self-contradicting statement. It is an absolute statement, and as such it falsifies itself, like a person who says, without the trace of an accent, "I can’t speak English." Most young people who parrot the line have simply not thought very carefully about the implications of what they are saying—but then, how many young people think very carefully about the implications of anything they say?
- Even a person who claims to believe that "there are no absolutes" denies his belief by his behavior. What if someone were to give him insufficient change when he buys something? What if someone were to burn down his house or to suggest that since no one really needs air, he might just restrict his windpipe? Of course our friend believes in absolutes. But he does not want to believe in moral absolutes because then he would have to obey them. It is bad enough to be bound by the laws of physics (who wouldn’t like to be free from gravity?), but ignoring them is not something we can choose to do.
- The philosophy that "there are no absolutes" is unworkable.2 Let’s suppose we agree, for the moment, that everyone can make up his own mind about what is right. He can do whatever he likes. Well, Jeffrey Dahmer liked to kill people and eat them. My relativist friend would say that he should not do that—especially when Jeffrey arrives at his door, bib around his neck and knife in his hand. Why not? Well, that would interfere with my friend’s happiness and his right to make his own determination about what is right for him. Aha! So there is an absolute for my relativist friend: I must do nothing that interferes with the ability of others to determine what is right for them. Again, the philosophy is self-defeating.
At this point most students can see the illogic in a belief that by now they have simply parroted. Of course, we have not yet arrived at Christianity; the next logical question is, "If absolute moral standards exist, where shall we find them?" That is a central question of philosophy: "What is truth?" "What is good?"
Some might argue that good is whatever makes the most people happy (utilitarianism); others, that it is what makes me happy (egoism); others, that it is whatever works best (pragmatism). Each of these views has its own problems. What if it makes everybody happy to kill all the infants? After all, the little ones do cry a lot. That would lead, of course, to the extermination of the species (as well as to the coarsening of the final generation before extinction). What if the survival of the species depends on making a lot of people unhappy? And so it goes.
In the final analysis, no one is going to come to believe that the Scripture is the source of truth merely by rational argument. Faith is first of all a work of God in drawing us to Himself (John 6:44; Ephesians 2:8; Romans 12:3). But since God is Truth (John 14:6), then His enemies must of necessity lapse into illogic, and there can be no harm in pointing out examples when they arise.
In addition, the Scripture has power in itself (Hebrews 4:12). It is a conduit of the grace of God (Acts 20:32). To the student who comes to it with an open mind (and, frankly, to many who come without an open mind), it will often become persuasive on its own. So once the teacher has established that there are absolutes, the Scripture, accurately studied, can be powerfully persuasive.
Education is sometimes described as meeting the student where he is and taking him to where he ought to be. Perhaps many of us are making our jobs unnecessarily difficult by not going far enough toward our students before we get started.
1See the full report at http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=183. This survey, too, was limited to 48 states.
2Technically this argument is based on the philosophy of pragmatism, which is decidedly unbiblical. I would not accept this argument if it were the only one available; sometimes the right thing is difficult to put into practice, but we must do it anyway. But the observation here can play a limited role in an argument with someone who is inclined to pragmatism as a personal guideline as well as with others.
About Dan Olinger
Dan Olinger is Chairman of the Division of Bible at Bob Jones University.