Norman Geisler and Moral Relativism

“Ethics deals with what is morally right and wrong. Christian Ethics deals with what is morally right and wrong for a Christian.” Norman Geisler. Christian Ethics: Options and Issues. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Academic, 1989. Pg. 17. (All quotations and paraphrases in this post are from this source.)

Let’s step carefully through Dr. Geisler’s statements.

“Ethics deals with what is morally right and wrong.”

To state that ethics deals with what is morally right and wrong is rather straightforward. If any objections to Geisler’s statements are to be raised they must be raised with respect to the latter of the two sentences quoted or with respect to the latter of the two sentences quoted understood in light of the preceding sentence.

“Christian Ethics deals with what is morally right and wrong…”

To state that Christian ethics deals with what is morally right and wrong likewise appears to be unproblematic.

“…for a Christian.”

Briefly, if only one Christian is meant by the use of “a” then there is at least one problem at this point. Assuming that the use of “a” is closer to the use of “any” allows us to move on. Christian ethics deals with what is morally right and wrong not just for “a” Christian, but for “any” Christian or “all Christians;” the assumption here is that the use of “a” is not intended to exclude other Christians.

To state that Christian ethics deals with what is morally right and wrong for a Christian is also problem free since the statement does not necessarily exclude that Christian ethics also deals with what is morally right and wrong for a non-Christian.

There is still a problem with Geisler’s statements to be found in the latter part of the second sentence. If the first portion of the second sentence is affirmed along with the first sentence then ethics and Christian ethics may be understood to be the same thing since they both deal with what is morally right and wrong. However, it is clear from his adjectival use of “Christian” that Geisler wishes to differentiate one from the other.

Geisler distinguishes ethics from Christian ethics; this much is plain. While this is cause for concern in and of itself, the way in which Dr. Geisler distinguishes ethics from Christian ethics is even more worrisome. He does so by relativizing Christian ethics. Christian ethics – according to Geisler – deals with what is right and wrong for a Christian while ethics just deals with what is right and wrong for…apparently everyone else.

Now all of this seems rather odd coming from a Christian ethicist who generally rails against relativism and subjectivism, but if Geisler’s statements are not to be understood in this fashion then how are they to be understood?

Geisler goes on to explain that his book is about Christian ethics and that Christians “base their beliefs on God’s revelation in Scripture.” Of course he notes that God reveals Himself both in Scripture and in nature and that there are “similarities and overlaps between God’s natural and supernatural revelations.” Frankly, this is worded in such a way that one is left thinking that – coincidentally – God’s revelation matches God’s revelation to some extent. The implication of the use of “similarities” is that the revelation of God is similar to but not the same as the revelation of God, which is false. The implication of the use of “overlaps” is that while the revelation of God overlaps the revelation of God there are nevertheless differences between the revelation of God and the revelation of God. These implications are quite clear in light of Geisler’s aforementioned statements concerning the allegedly relative morality of Christianity.

The reason Geisler provides for the “similarities and overlaps” just discussed is that “God’s moral character does not change.” Indeed, he provides this truth as a reason to expect that there will be “similarities and overlaps.”  Note that the observation concerning the unchanging moral character of God – while significant and true – has little to do with alleged “similarities and overlaps between God’s natural and supernatural revelations.” What Geisler needs to appeal to here is not the immutability of God, but the rationality, internal consistency, coherence, goodness, etc. of God as our standard. Unfortunately he is in the precarious position of having to justify his statements by appealing to the very attributes of God precluded by the would-be truth of the statements he seeks to justify.

Geisler explains that, “the focus of this book is not God’s natural law for all men, but his divine law for believers.” Again, note the implied presence of dissimilarities between the “natural law” and the “divine law”. More to the point note the distinction between ethics and Christian ethics. According to Geisler, what is right and wrong for a non-Christian and what is right and wrong for a Christian are not necessarily the same. There is apparently no need to bring the law of God as revealed in Scripture to bear upon the sins of that unbeliever you are witnessing to. Norm Geisler is endorsing a form of moral relativism.