Morality - Jesus calls it out.

Why is it that when the topic of morality or morals or even more so, Biblical morals, are brought up that our heads look to the ground, there is discomfort,  and unease, yet when we talk of "values" or better still, of "ethics" or to be more academic, we might say "an ethical framework", then the atmosphere lifts and we feel free to voice our opinion.  Words like "integrity", "trust", "transparency", "honesty" and "sustainability" are usually somewhere interwoven in those opinions.  

One only needs to look at the renaissance of corporate and government agencies in the last decade to see their missions statements, their "people, culture and branding" departments using these words to describe their ethics.  The GFC highlighted this even more so and the Financial industry is desperately trying to reclaim the "high moral ground" by re-instating these words to describe their corporate character and culture. 

The CEO of Goldman Sachs was brought before a standing senate committee in Washington during the GFC and questioned about the nature of their services, and he didn't blink an eyelid in debunking the "morality" of how they allowed immoral lending practices and selling against products they were offloading to clients ("that is one shitty deal"), to quote: “In the context of market making that is not a conflict,”  and in another statement he says words to the effect "it's what we do and the market expects it".   Hang on, I thought businesses had value statements, ethics, compliance and ethical training as per legislation?  As we'll see they have "values", which may be maintained by the company/individual, but they are useless without Biblical moral absolutes. 

Here's another example: Journalism. But before I give some examples, have a read of this observation by the Professor of Ethics Robert Fitch:  

 "Ours is an age where ethics has become obsolete, superseded by science, deleted by psychology, dismissed as emotive by philosophy, it is drowned in compassion, evaporates in aesthetics, and retreats before relativism, the usual moral distinction between good and bad is drowned in a muddle of emotion in which we feel more sympathy for the murderer than for the murdered, for the adulterer than for the betrayed,  and in which we have begun to believe that the real guilty party, the one who somehow caused it all, is the victim and not the perpetrator of the crime."

I used to be an investigative documentary/current affairs junky, 4 Corners, Dateline, 7:30 Report, 60 Minutes (I was desperate on Sunday nights okay!), Insight...... I would scourer abc iview to watch other documentaries. I still do, but have toned it down massively for reasons I won't explain here. 

For those that watch these programs, by very well researched, respected journalists, and even by run of the mill documentarians that morality, morality of the individual, self accountability and responsibility is vacant. Instead, the ouness is on the Government, the police, DOCS, the Feds, Centrelink, policy makers, the compliance and regulatory departments, the sports administration, the board of directors.... it goes on and on and on. 

" The police should have better systems in place to cope with domestic violence concerns"

"DOCS" need to better respond to children in at risk scenarios"

"The AFL and ARL need to implement more female protection programs and training"

"ASIC is under funded and needs to have better rigour in catching rogue traders "

"The company needs better processes for training staff on being ethical"

"The Australian Hotel and Clubs lobby need to implement stricter drinking controls and tighter gambling restrictions"

"If only the Processed Food lobby could see the damage their industry is doing to our kids and the government introduce banned advertising for fast food between the hours of 3-7pm weeknights"

"The government needs to do this, the government needs to do that, the government needs to protect that minority or that underprivileged or marginalised community section...."

and on it goes. 

I generally don't hear the following statements, say in response to fatherless homes or domestic violence or anything related to men: 

"Well, if the Australian men of today collectively "manned up" and took control of their anger, their addiction to pornography, their indulgence on alcohol and taking drugs, stopped gambling away their savings, grew up and stopped indulging in "grand auto theft video game parties at the tender age of 35" and did what men are morally obliged to do, then the streets would be safer, police would have more time to do positive activities than lock up drunk and violent men on Friday and Saturday nights, hospital departments would be able to do much more elective surgery than deal with consequences of amoral behaviour, DOCS and Centerlink would actually be able to administer help to more people, women and children might actually grow up with their actual father and husband without sexual, psychological, physical abuse." 

But you generally don't hear that or a subset of that statement do we? 

Either I am supposed to implicitly read into the report by the journo that the above statement is approved (highly unlikely) or the journo doesn't actually ascribe a personal morality to the perpetrator, instead he/she lays responsibility to another (usually a government department). 

As a clear example, watch 4 corners on the Drinking story several weeks ago, the journo tries to pinn responsibility on the Hotel Lobby group, we feel angry but also compassion for the perpetrator who destroyed another man's life, we are channeled to think that if only the police had more cops, then they could better manage the streets filled with drunks and the near death of a drunk man in St Vincents gives you reflection on how desperate it is for staff doing the weekend shift.  There is no mention that the drunk man, almost suffocating on his own vomit may need to be responsible for his own actions and that he is using up resources that could be spent towards giving someone a hip replacement so they can walk properly again. It sounds very harsh, of which it is not intended to, but to highlight the point about (a lack of) morality. 

Another one, Ross Kemp's "Extreme" world" documentary series, he goes to Karachi, Caracas and other dangerous places. In Karachi here are some stats he gives: 35,000 people are murdered each yr, there is only 1 policeman per 2,000 residents, 53 officers were killed last year. They are under paid and over stretched. Caracas (population 3-4M), he states, 17,000 murders each yr, in 1999 when Chavez came to power, there were only 4,000 murders. 

It's a horrible situation, yet his departing comments are about how the governments need to work together to bring about positive change, invest more into the law enforcement and hospital agencies.  He makes the comment that for the people living in the impoverished areas, there's "nothing" for them to do, hence they turn to drugs and violence and kidnappings. 

He could have been transplanted to Claymore in outer south western Sydney and made the exact same commentary. 

Funny though, morality was not mentioned, personal accountability was hauntingly left absent. To top it off, he visited a jail in Caracus, and shakes hands with a mid 20 year old British inmate. He was caught for drug trafficking and has a few years left on his 8 year sentence. You feel very sorry for the man, given the living conditions and being locked up in a foreign country.   It's as if "we have begun to believe that the real guilty party, the one who somehow caused it all, is the victim and not the perpetrator of the crime."

So where am I going with all this? Why the long "preamble". 

Because without morality grounded in an absolute, ethics and values are baseless. To hold to the value of "integrity" without adhering to "do not lie, do not steal, do not covet, love the Lord your God with ALL your heart soul, mind and strength" I would content is useless. 

For example, "Transperencey" by itself is pretty useless if it does not have the previous morals underpinning it. I could be incredibly transparent about my actions, and my actions and thoughts could be immoral - but at least I was transparent about it. 

"Openess" is another example you could use.

My ethics devoid of an absolute Biblical moral framework are about as useful as me saying that a pig has a higher right to life than a down syndrome baby because it's intelligence is almost on par with human beings (supposedly) - note Peter Singer - Ethicist at Princeton Uni. 

Men, you and I might find this uncomfortable, but morality and God's Morals are the defining absolute.  Your neighbour might say, "well which God?, who are you to say that? By what authority or right do you have to say that?", good question, but in reverse, when we exit God's moral code, the fruit is pretty self explanatory. 

You see Jesus comes to clean us from the inside out, new life, new heart, his moral code written on our hearts,. Jesus describes our problem with pinpoint accuracy: our heart is corrupted, subject to evil, full of hate, malice, jealously, adultery... and he comes to save the sick, by giving us a new heart, his moral ways infiltrating our hearts. "Out of the heart flow the issues of life". 

What I am not discussing here is being a high and righteous moral crusader, speaking holier than though judgemental statements. I am a sinner, through and through, as one song says "what would I have become, where would I be if you (Jesus) never lived in me?".  I am subjugated to hypocrisy, I readily admit that, so are you. But that does not excuse the need for morality, for absolute morals, 

"Let every man give an account for his life before God, who is the ultimate judge". 

Men let you and me not fall into the subtle thought that personal responsibility and accountability are tied to immovable morals are not part of our lives.