Without some form of morality, it is difficult to tell a good story. In any meaningful story, and therefore in any meaningful life, a character must have a sense of right and wrong, and that sense of right and wrong has to be universal. If his sense of right and wrong isn’t universal, he is a psychopath, and if he has no morality, his story is not going to be meaningful.
Many people are moral for religious reasons, stating their morality comes from the Bible or a sacred text (which, while these books can influence morality, are not written with the intention of defining a moral code. If they are, they are terribly written and the authors couldn’t land their point.) Natural Law, then, becomes a kind of catch all conglomerate of sacred texts, an attempt to arrive at a universal code for meaningful morality in a civilized society. As a culture, America subscribes to natural law even more than Constitutional law. The foundation for constitutional law is natural law and without it, the constitution makes no sense. In some ways, I think, the constitution is a defense of natural law. But each time a debate takes place regarding a Supreme court justice, the old debate of natural law and constitutional law rises again. It’s an important debate, but lately I’ve been wondering about another, perhaps more universal and less debatable form of law. I’m wondering about a law that, while more prophetic, is perhaps somewhat more verifiable in terms of its ability to create meaningful experiences for members of a society.
I’ve been wondering lately about the possibility of a new perspective on law. I’ve been wondering about our need for what I’ll call narrative law. Lately I’ve been thinking of the importance of morality more in story terms than in black and white notions of right and wrong. Nothing against black and white notions of right and wrong, only my sense is that those who subscribe to those notions do so with a self-righteous motive, which is in itself immoral (in story construction) and no better than kicking dogs. Such notions, mostly coming from a sacred text, are also difficult to verify in terms of their ability to create meaning. People will always push back when you try to put boundaries on their pleasure.
In religious communities, morality matters because it is offered in submission to God. But this is not enough for a post-religious culture. (Not that we as Americans are post-religious, but much of the rest of the west is and we certainly have our post-religious quadrants, including the media.) Is morality important to me because there exists a God? Yes. Do I practice morality because there exists a God? I’m not sure. Perhaps. But such a perspective leads to fear/guilt/shame and so forth, and those emotions create binary reactions to their controlling characteristics. (Ever wonder why Christians in the Bible Belt have so much trouble drinking in moderation, and therefore think of drinking as sin? The criminal may be the black-and-white mentality, not the wine.)
Morality, in the last couple years, has felt more important to me because of it’s demand in narrative structure. Robert McKee, perhaps the leading scholar on story structure, believes that stories are not as good as they used to be. And though McKee is not a religious man, he imagines the principle issue in the decline of story is this erosion of morality. In his book Story, he says it this way:
“The final cause of the decline of story runs very deep. Values, the positive/negative charges of life, are at the soul of our art. The writer shapes story around a perception of what’s worth living for and what’s worth dying for, what is foolish to pursue, the meaning of justice, truth-the essential values. In decades past, writer and society more or less agreed on these questions, but more and more ours has become an age of moral and ethcical cynicism, relativism, and subjectivism – a great confusion of values. As the family disintegrates and sexual antagonisms rise, who, for example, feels he understands the nature of love? And how, if you do have a conviction, do you express it to an ever-more skeptical audience? This erosion of values has brought with it a corresponding erosion of story.”
If story is a litmus test through which we can determine what is meaningful in life, than morality certainly has meaning. Without morality, a character cannot tell a good story, and once the credits roll in his life, he will realize he journeyed without a compass, and took himself precisely nowhere in all his travels.
I’m aware that a number of readers of this blog are not people of faith. Narrative law, however, does not require faith, except a faith in narrative structure, that is. In an age when males procure their inner-need for masculine affirmation through sexual conquest rather than the care and protection of the female heart, and the family has indeed disintegrated, a sober case for a universal morality is a demand in short supply. When our consumption of goods demands bond-servants in textile mills in Asia, we are in need of a universal morality. And when media methodology reduces truth to polarizing perspectives in order to ratchet up perceived tensions only to report on the tensions they’ve caused, we are in need of a moral center.
What encourages me most about the potential for narrative law is it’s broad appeal to religious and non-religious communities. Perhaps narrative law is a form of morality we can find more common ground in, and less debate, than that of natural law.
In short, I’m wondering if narrative structure can help us define universal morality. Some who read this blog will respond by demanding that everybody kneel to the moral structure posited by their sacred text, but this is irrational. Again, their sacred text does not contain a complete moral code, and regardless, not everybody in a free society should be forced to adhere to it. But perhaps more of us can adhere to a moral structure having been created through the study of effective narrative.
I was thinking about your idea to apply story to life. And then thinking about our current storytellers – mainly in Hollywood. It seems if narrative law existed, those who make their living telling stories should live amazing lives. They should be almost the philosophers of our age. But a movie or TV show, or even a good novel, rarely makes me want to change my life. Or think deep thoughts. It all seems like time-fillers to fill gaps in life that sometimes happen to be there. Maybe if they were better at telling stories that inspired, we would all stop watching TV and movies, and in return stop making the storytellers extremely rich.
Again, though, aren’t we left with the basic question of what (or wh0) determines right and wrong? Are you saying that workers in textile mills in Asia shouldn’t be oppressed because it makes for a bad story?
I find this really intriguing, can’t wait to read what others have to say. (Ok, not the HOW DARE YOU DON, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH comments, but the rest of them).
I’m so pleased you’ve started this discussion Don – and so thoughtfully. But I don’t believe morality starts with faith or religion. Even the Bible says this: What God created is “good.” Inherently. Faith can help us understand our struggle with the moral pull when we make decisions about our actions. It can help us make better decisions. C.S. Lewis talks about this in Mere Christianity. Some people’s faith may be in environmentalism or social justice and their actions will be good, even if they want nothing to do with spirituality or religion.
The best stories attempt to unravel this mysterious pull, this goodness within us, when we are presented with the most tantalizing alternatives. They remind us we have choice, responsibility and that our actions matter.
Kat,
not because it makes a bad story, but because narrative has the ability to qualify meaning. again, the Bible does not propose a moral code, so we need something. that said, sacred text, just as natural law, defends narrative law. but narrative law offers the qualifier. and that qualifier seems more universal, even cross-cultural.
If I understand correctly you are talking about a universal morality that would make the world a “better place”?
This made me think that maybe we, as Christians, or some of us anyway, like myself – actually don’t want the earth to be healed because it shows that everyone is a sinner and only God can save us. The world’s decay shows it up for what it is, and we as bringers of God’s love get to bring light to that darkness.
Maybe that’s the real story, obvious decay all around put up against God’s love, through us. I mean for there to be good there must be a parallel evil right.. and not a “universal morality”?
Terri,
this is a valid point, and perplexing. but i would suggest that most story-tellers do not live good stories. they do not apply those principles to their lives. but it’s a very valid point, for sure. more food for thought.
I would have to argue that the mistake that history has made, due largely to the arrogance of Christians, is asserting that America was built upon moral law at all. Certainly the men who were framers were influenced by their faith and morality, because it was part of who they were, but based upon their own writings and the documents they pointed to as inspirations, they were trying to established a system that stood up in spite of any variance or lack or morality. The whole concept of social contract is not based on anyone agreeing about right and wrong, but simply agreeing to live within the terms of the contract in order to receive its protections.
Then, people came along and said we were a Christian nation and should somehow legislate morality, when, in truth, what the founders agreed upon was not Christianity, but belief in a divine and good (with differing applications) God.
So now, as a system of government and economics that was never meant to be “Christian” or have any say in morality outside of the structure of social contract fails to live up to religious and moral hype, we call it a failure. Of course it is. It is failing to be something it was never meant to be.
The other problem seem to be that we somehow started believing we live one distinct story. By that I mean, we starting trying to demand that our political story, moral story, social story, personal story, etc. all be the same. They simply aren’t. In a movie, or a book, there are maybe a couple of strings of story to follow, and that makes it easy to keep up and engage. In real life, there are hundreds and thousands, and the fact that they don’t all move in the same direction doesn’t absolve us from our responsibilities toward any of them the way that we seem to like to think. It’s as if we desperately try to twist the strands together, because it’s just easier if the laws of religion and gov’t and personal morality are all the same. Yet, in the process we nullify the potential good of all of them by trying to turn them into something they were never meant to be, and in doing so, we rob ourselves of the chance to live all of our stories.
Sounds like your next book will be on the philosophy of narrative and how it defines character. Only you could pull it off.
I agree with your statement about getting to the end of one’s life and not having a moral compass, which essentially he or she looks back and wonders; “Umm, does not look like I am living a legacy?”
Then your statement for those of us who grew up in the Bible belt were there is black and white to every issue in life, you have pointed out very brief and succinctly that there are grays in life and it is ok. Not sure if I would have realized this if I did not leave the Bible belt and come to Sin City, where I have found tons of grace.
OB,
I trust you are not saying that we should allow slavery and child prostitution to show the world that sin exists. I am not arguing for a utopia, only for an attempt at justice, no different than the creation of Law for the world employed by God himself in scripture. the perspective you hold i believe is perverted, and i trust you’ve miscommunicated.
Annie,
I agree with you but personally back off on the idea the founders did not have a moral code. I do not believe it was a Judeo-Christian moral code, but it would have been impossible not to have been influenced by it. But yes, they were pragmatists and would have employed any philosophy if it would have protected the people from themselves. Interestingly enough, the system works not because of freedom, but because of checks and balances, or the restriction on freedom, especially amongst its leaders.
I didn’t mean to say that they didn’t have a moral code. I meant to say that they did, but that they attempted to design a system that would be functional apart from moral code, as much as it could. I just think people tend to either talk about it as if they were all orthodox Christians or Godless hypocrites. I think that the truth is somewhere in between, and encompasses the fact that they were reasonable people whose agenda was bigger than codifying their own personal moralities. I think they were intensely interested in both personal freedom and personal responsibility (which relates heavily to human community), and people seem to pick one or the other and try throw balance to the wind.
narrative law would be nice but as you noted in the book… the characters do what they want to do. most people who say they are loving God and loving others are really defining that the way they want to define it. all behavior is generally about what is in it for me.
i am so cynical today.
What is Good? What is a Good story? Isn’t that the root of the issue? Narrative Law can help define the question, but not answer it. McKee has got it right when he points out that we can’t have a universally Good story unless we know what is Good.
It seems like there is a fundamental disconnect between those of us who think there is a definitive Good to be sought as opposed to those who think there are many types of “good” measured by their utility.
I’m curious as to what an expression of narrative law would be. I can’t stop myself thing about Aesop’s Fables….
I hope I have miscommunicated as well hehe.. that doesn’t sound right.
What I mean is this: should we be expecting the world to “improve and recover” from the current arc of destruction? Reverse global warming, stop the decay of the family unit etc.
Is our role, speaking as followers of God, to bring love, joy, peace etc. to a world that is doomed to destruction either way?
I think the issue is that of trying to “codify” morality. While I believe morality to be absolute, because it comes from God, the desire to codify it is a human desire so that we can have control over morality or at least know where we stand with regard to it. The Bible does both in that it codifies some elements (i.e. the 10 commandments) to appease humanity and leaves us to wrestle with other aspects of morality (i.e. the narratives of the parables). The problem is that as we drift away from relationship with God, our human nature desires codification of morality just like in 1 Samuel 8 when the Israelites demand a king (a bigger, more controlling government). The changes that we’re seeing in our government (more law) are a result (and are necessary) of our drifting away from God. Representing that in narrative won’t solve the problem or create freedom, because the “non-religious” will not be attracted to it (freedom is not natural). Freedom comes from God and originates in “religious” (Judeo-Christian) societies, which is why free societies are so rare. I look forward to seeing you tonight
don/annie
what books would you recommend about our founding fathers and their beliefs? i would love to believe that our nations constitutional builders had morals and i believe they did, but pragmatism in this day and age doesn’t seem to be effective in my view. how much did pragmatism differ in that time period (especially since charles pierce hadn’t been around)? how much does it influence our constitution now? those are the kinds of books i would like to read.
Mark,
I am not sure what you are trying to say. How does narrative law help define the question but not answer it? What does that mean? And why are there only two camps of people? Why do you believe that? Who taught you that?
Don
I grew up heathen, more or less, and didn’t find God until I was in my 30’s. I probably don’t know enough about global issues to make a good argument for any topic, but I do beleive that our personal stories (i.e. our lives) are better lived when we have some guidelines to follow.
I love the bible. It provides a structure for me that I lacked for many years, and it points me to forgiveness and grace when I miss the mark that it sets for me. Whether the world receives God’s word as truth remains to be seen. What I do know is this: I once was lost and now I’m found. And my story has improved greatly since putting someone other than me in charge
Great post, Don. I think this will get very interesting…
[...] If you haven’t read Don Miller’s post today, do so now by clicking here. Send to FacebookTwitter This Usuario: [...]
Don,
What I’m trying to communicate, probably not very well, is that a person either thinks there is a universal moral to be had, or they don’t. I can’t think of another camp of people? That’s not something I was taught, just my own attempt at logic. I think Christians are in the group of people who do think there is a universal morality.
I’m thinking that the root of the issue is not that people disagree on the actual moral values, although they sometimes do, but that they disagree on the nature of morality. It appears in our culture that we have divided into those who think that morality should be based primarily on utility, and those who think that morality should be based on seeking out a universal moral truth. The search for universal moral truth leads to common ground on moral issues. The search for utility based morality leads away from common ground (“It works for me”).
Narrative Law could help to illuminate the common moral values that groups of people happen to hold, much in the way that as Christians we refer to our common narrative of scripture to work through moral issues. What I think it can’t do is to answer the philosophical issue regarding the fundamental nature of morality.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that people would need to acknowledge that there is a universal morality to be found before narrative law could help define it.
I’d love to hear more on what you imagine a narrative law would actually look like in practice and how it would come about. You could argue that the media output is the narrative law that defines the societies moral values right now.
Mark
And by the way – thanks for writing the latest book. I love the idea of finding a good Story. It’s the ultimate non-prescriptive self-help book.
I have no problem with the idea of legislating morality, as some do. What’s puzzling to me is that many who do say they are against legislating morality do, in fact, applaud it when, for example, apartheid is made illegal, or slavery is abolished (abolished by legislation, I would add).
The fact is that there are some laws we (the human race) agree on, and we have laws against killing, stealing, etc., as a reflection of said laws. As you (Don) have said, these laws have a foundation in something very fundamental. It’s moral, and it’s a great basis for legislation.
Typo: I said “The fact is that there are some laws we (the human race) agree on, and we have laws against killing, stealing, etc., as a reflection of said laws.”
when I meant to say
“The fact is that there are some laws we (the human race) agree on, and we have laws against killing, stealing, etc., *is* a reflection of said laws.”
Don,
I’ve never heard anyone approach this subject, or anything remotely near it. I don’t know how you could get “narrative morality” across to lots of people. At present it seems to be too abstract to be picked up by masses of folks. But I think you’re on to something unique and very important. Please keep working on this one.
“There is a crack, a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in…”
- from the narrative gospel of Leonard Cohen
I think I understand what you are trying to say.
When we say that Natural Moral Laws are objective, we are saying that they apply to all human beings. This does not mean, however, that any such law or set of laws is universally shared or known by all human beings. We are all different people, who have grown up in different cultures and have lived through different life experiences; therefore we all have very different interpretations of which actions are morally permissible and which are morally reprehensible. And yet torturing innocent babies for fun is wrong for all people at all times—Natural Moral Laws are objective. But since there is no sure fire test for determining whether an individual’s moral perception is correct, we are left asking: how do we Know torturing innocent babies for fun is wrong? How do we tap into this Natural Moral Law?
Historically, especially within western culture, we have answered this question by attempting to compile lists of right and wrong acts. Murder, for example, is usually categorized as a morally wrong act. While helping an older lady across the street is as usually morally right. It is an extremely rationalized system. In some important sense our rationalized deductions of right acts and wrong acts have failed to capture the purpose of Natural Moral Law.
Narrative Law is a different way of answering this question. Natural Moral Law was created in response to human nature with the purpose of guiding us. There is going to be some debate about where Natural Moral Laws is guiding us, but I will say that I believe that it is guiding us toward a fuller understanding of reality and deeper relationship with God. In any case in order to guide us, Natural Moral Law must utilize some motivationally charged vehicle. Narrative Law says that this vehicle is Story. Story challenges us into action in a way mere analytical lists cannot. I Know that torturing innocent babies for fun is wrong because I understand the key components of Story.
Narrative Law, or the Arc of Story, is the mechanism through which we BEST understand what the Natural Moral Law is saying.
Yeah?
Came on looking for some reviews on your new book when I read this (or most of it, really). Though I have to admit I’m not too bright at times so not sure how well I followed you. With my limited “intelligence” and what I was able to grasp I wanted to give some feedback on what I saw.
I have to look at what God has done and most important be connected to his heart to be able to understand what is going on around me, and our clear vision is found in Jesus. He is the overall picture that every piece of the puzzle needs to be found in. And of course, I have yet to fully arrive to maturity (not that any of us will on our own) . So, being a gal of faith in Jesus and with much asking, ,knocking, and prayer to the Lord, this is where I am right now on the law, morality, and a greater way to travel. Sorry if I don’t quite understand the breakdown of law categories. Something like criminal law and civil law?
I consider the law similar to the police (who are the law’s authoritarians). The law helps to keep those indulging in the lust of the flesh and the fruits (hate, jealousy, etc) therein (rooted in self) in check. Just like a cop, it cannot change a man at heart but it can imprison him and the law can even sentence him to death. The law can show us ourselves apart from Jesus but cannot change us at heart. And yes, it can help us develop a conscious, or code of morality. It is called the law of sin and death for it shows us our sins and sentences us to death. Romans speak of the conscious and in that aspect and proceeds in talking about how we can cause more harm to others by our “right” not rooted in the Love of God. Good stuff.
We who are in Jesus (the King of hearts) have left the jurisdiction of the law, moving beyond it to our heart changer-Jesus. But freewill is never taken from us. We can still choose to follow our old crucified man calling to us from the cross and if we do and continue, we will eventually find ourselves meeting up with the law once again for we have entered into his jurisdiction (the old “selfish” carnal nature for whom the law was created for). But no one changes by the law where it counts , the heart of the matter being the matter of the heart and Jesus as our Lover and Best Friend rules from the throne of our hearts. From inside and extending to outside.
Does this make the law a bad thing? Of course not, the law doesn’t die, “we die”, or our old self-centered carnal nature, and we who are in Christ are crucified with Christ. The best the law can do is show us ourselves, imprison us, and sentence us to death. And some may disagree with me and that’s ok because I am still on a progressive journey in Him and don’t claim to know it all and have it all right yet I believe that the law even still serves believers, not in “being in the law” for we are not to be “in the law” but “in Jesus”. We have been given a new Spirit of Sonship by which we cry Abba Father. Not a spirit of fear for the law brings fear of repercussion. The law should serve us more as an exterior warning for the times we have wandered from our covering in Jesus and while we are being perfected in His Love. The law can warn us that we have wandered in its jurisdiction and need to “die to self” so that we can soar above it and continue on in following Christ via his Spirit.
Which reminds me, the law is in our service. This is what Jesus said when He said the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath…Just like a cop, to serve and protect. We were not created for the law and to serve it. We were created for Jesus, to be united to Him in marriage. All things through and for Him (Colossians).
The law was created for the old man, or our carnal nature, to serve it. Crucified with Jesus and resurrected with Him there is not need for the law for the person it was created for has died.
Freewill and grace are tools by which we enter into Jesus and become his willing captives, captivated by his love.
We can be rooted in Jesus where the sap of his Holy Spirit will birth through us his fruits (love, joy, peace, patience, faith, etc) or we can be rooted in self where the sap of the carnal life will birth forth fruits unto death (hatred, envy, idolatry, etc).
The law apart from Jesus is in a way the epidemy (hope I used the correct word, that bright thing remember?) of the knowledge of good and evil. We were never created to live in that life rooted in self, but to be joined to Jesus by which we become inheriters into his glory. Eye hath not seen nor ear heard…but we have been given the mind of Christ. Woo hoo, how glorious.
The law was never made to govern the fruits of the Spirit. This is why Jesus could move aBEYOND the literal interpretation of the law and not break it for the law was never created to govern his life. Moving beyond the minor character and the minor story into our Leading man and his greater Love story. For the believer, the minor characters and minor story has had its roles cut. We of ourselves can choose to go back into that though. Sad but true, and much grace as we progress in Him.
And now moving on from the micro / smaller view into the macro / larger view. There are two journeys we all are on, the individual journey and the corporate journey. We won’t reach Jesus full stature alone but corporately, Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free, black and while, those gone before and those finishing the race, etc. This framework of “the law” will continue on in society as a whole until the believers reach the full stature of Christ and his Kingdom is fully established on Earth as it is in Heaven. At that time, there won’t be a need for a framework. We should never build on the framework but on our solid foundation established in Jesus. But the framework can serve a purpose for the times we have wandered. Wood and hay will dimish in fire but his fruits of his Spirit are those unseen essentials that will stand the test of his consuming fire. Our God is a jealous God and his Love is a consuming fire. I don’t know about you but I look forward to being consumed by his Love. I can’t think of a better destiny.
And of the the law’s authoritarians. A knowledgable cop and society understands he has no power beyond his jurisdiction. But crooked cops, civilians, and just plain ignorance do exist.
Anyway, some things that may help for your prayerful consideration that may help. From a Jesus Freak in the making and proud of it. May I always boast in Him alone.
And thank you for your contributions to the body of Christ and the world as a whole. May He continue to grow you up in Him so that you can be like that bright morning star pointing the way to Jesus.
Can I just say…Up top JP! Wow…you came to play with the big boys and I am quite impressed with your “limited intelligence.” Seriously, you covered many bases I hadn’t even thought of yet.
I have had to sit and ponder this piece a while before I’ve had the courage to respond. (My intelligence is WAY more limited than yours.) After pondering the blog and reading your piece, I thought of Acts 4…YES, a scriptural text which seems to be slighted a bit in the blog, but I can’t not use it.
“When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say. 15So they ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin and then conferred together. 16″What are we going to do with these men?” they asked. “Everybody living in Jerusalem knows they have done an outstanding miracle, and we cannot deny it. 17But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn these men to speak no longer to anyone in this name.”
18Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. 20For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Acts 4:13-18
JP, I can tell you’ve been with Jesus, and I like how you can’t not speak of what you have seen and heard.
This blog led me to ask a couple of questions…
First, as I understand it from your piece Don, narrative law is based on whether a “good” story is being told by one’s life. If narrative law becomes the universal law, then my question is, who is defining whether a story is good or not? Don’t we have to share a definition of good?
Second, who defines what is worth living and dying for?
Which leads to my final question, and the most important one in my “book”, what is the motivation to finding a universal law?
Isn’t the attempt to define it, our attempt to put human boundaries on it? Are we not trying to define truth and good and worthwhile? Are we not putting human limits on something that is and was before we even entered the arena?
Maybe I am missing the point to this piece, but I just seem to sit here and think that it all comes down to what you believe is truth. I personally believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.
When it comes down to it my heart and my moral compass lie with Jesus. My story exists because God breathed life into me and continues to do so each and every day. He is my story, and it has a really great ending! (Some of the chapters might suck, but the ending is incredible!!)
Don, I’m a big fan, but I just got lost a bit in this one. More explanation is needed for me to get it and maybe I won’t ever. I just thought I would pose those questions.
My own view is that our crazy “right/wrong” focus has distracted us away from the bigger question of good/evil. Simply doing what’s right won’t achieve good. Simply avoiding wrong-doing isn’t going to do it either.
To achieve goodness, excellence and the like (all vastly more helpful, superior concepts to mere “right”ness or righteousness) you need to collaborate with God. In a story, a guy can’t just be doing what’s right. He has to be trying to achieve, understand, attain, appreciate and/or participate in something good, something unique, transcendent and excellent. The sort of thing which is not merely right (unable to be condemned) but also which God will want to keep, because of the virtue in it, and the fact that it represents collaboration with Him.
Several people in the bible attained a “zero mistakes/errors/trespasses/wrong-doings” record, and then needed to ask “What else do I need to do?” and the answer was always relational. They had to follow Jesus and work with him and detach from the concerns in which they were successfully and flawlessly working and putting 100% of themselves into.
(we don’t ask if a singer sang “right.” But if he sings excellently, surpassingly well, transcendently, passionately, livingly filled with virtue, we notice. And he can’t achieve the latter simply by not making mistakes, or correctly following a method)
Thank you for this Don. I am expecting Million Miles to rear it’s face in my mailbox any minute now. Stoked.
As you may mention in your book, and possibly on this blog, I can’t help but think about the film, Adaption. Charlie Kaufman – one of my faves – uses McKee in a very funny and poignant way in the telling of a story about himself struggling to tell a story (“don’t use voice-overs!” – ha!). In the movie, Chris Cooper plays a character that strives for meaning in his life through a continuation of passions, ranging from fish to orchids. What I got out of it was that, in his own narrative, he keeps looking for something to fulfill his life through a passionate interest in flavors of the month, until “F- fish”.
That film rings a bell to me as one example of your point ringing a bell in my own life. The struggle to tell a story becomes benign to its audience when others cannot relate. We listen to others experience religion, or even a surface level morality, but are unable to understand or empathize until we can relate (Meryl Streep vicariously living Cooper’s passion for orchids). The only way one can relate is by bringing in a “universal morality” through a narrative that brings the audience into the story itself.
Perhaps this is your aim, but I could likely be way off. But this is one of my favorite take-aways from Blue Like Jazz. We are so much more able to join in on the story itself when we can relate, as in the same coin as never appreciating jazz music until I saw someone else love jazz music.
I could be off, so whatever. But this is the beauty of effective story telling. If you are able to engage your audience through something that can somehow be related to them, such learning and tolerance for new ideas can be truly experienced.
Thanks again, Don.
I wonder if narrative law would be useful in separating cultural moral laws from actual (almost) universal moral laws.
I lived in Germany for awhile and I had to giggle sometimes at the contradictions in sermons when I would come home to the US for visits, compared to sermons at my German church. It was not uncommon for a German pastor to preach Against a moral wrong that an American pastor would preach as a Requirement for a good Christian. And vice versa. It would be a different way of thinking to remove this “advice” and consider it against the principles of story. It feels almost scandalous to do this. Hmm.
I appreciate the aim in this I think? To reach a “new” moral standard that people around the world can embrace, by stepping away from those things that divide (sacred texts) and instead focusing on the things that bring us all together (the human story).
Its a great goal. In a fallen world, one waiting breathlessly to be redeemed, there should be efforts to bring light and love and good behavior to all the dark places.
Still I struggle because I feel there is some need for an “absolute truth”. All of this relativism drives me nuts at times. Yet I see Don’s point about the implimentation.
My problem with Narrative Law (as I struggle to understand it) is that it seems so nebulous as to be helpful at all. Do you really want to trust your societal moral guidance to a set of standards that are constantly changing based on the the ebb and flow of a “great” story line?
I do not expect everyone in a free society to accept the laws of my “sacred text”. I have come full circle there.
When I was a young, white, male Republican at a Christian college I read the Law of the Bible in very black and white terms. And I believed that in general one could and should legistate those terms into the larger society. I think I believed it served the greater good to do so. I see now that my use of the Bible was often centered on my own insecurity and need to make everything make sense in order to feel validated and in control.
My heart changed dramatically over the next two decades as I struggled internally to jibe what I was experiencing in my story with what I thought I believed that Biblical Law to say. Fear and guilt were only good at leading to very short term change.
I also saw the very public efforts of a few Christian leaders and politicians to change the moral code of America fall very short. I think perhaps we have beaten people into submission over the morality issues WE pick and choose in the Bible, and we now should understand why there was no long-term impact. Maybe we never really touched many hearts.
And so now we have reached this sad point where quite a few people will hear the name “Jesus” and think something horrible. Clearly, Christians and the Church have done a whole lot of wonderful things in this country. But implementation of Biblical principles into the greater framework of society may not be one of them?
In one of your blog entries many months ago, someone wrote that they felt that living the Christian life looked a whole lot more like “dying” than anything else. And I think I understand what he meant.
Your greatest gift to me was your writing the book Searching For God Knows What. It was there that I began to see the Bible as a relational book, a love story, and not as a list of rules. That book and a few other people and things changed everything for me. I found great freedom in this and it has freed me up to actually live a more moral life.
I have gotten away from reading the Bible in the sin-guilt-repent-sin again terms of my youth. I do find great joy in the goal of obedience to show love to my Creator. And the older I get and the older my children get, I see the GUIDANCE (formerly known to me as “rules” and law) written in the Bible as part of that great love story.
Truth is, I have NO IDEA how to advance what I understand Biblical guidance and morality to be apart from an authentic and deeply personal relationship with Christ. So there is the hitch.
I guess I will leave that up to you really smart folks with influence.
I am glad you keep asking important questions.
[...] On Morality and Narrative Law | Donald Miller [...]
I wonder too if narrative law would be useful in separating generational norms from timeless moral truths.
That old Clark Gable movie “It Happened One Night” is so great in showing the connection between two people who fall in love (and of a man protecting a woman who desperately needed it). They made a big deal in the movie that the couple did not sleep together until legally wed.
Then in the TV show Friends a few years back – before the first commercial break of the pilot episode, Monica sleeps with a guy on a first date. Her friends then console her and help her to deal.
I suppose the generational moral law would be whether or not sex before marriage is ok.
But the timeless moral law is that we are suppose to be there for the people we care about. In neither story did the friends or lovers (ultimately) leave without helping their loved one through an ordeal. Because that would have been wrong. And a very crappy ending to both stories.
I guess the danger in narrative law is when society changes the moral compass without regards to how God feels. And the challenge in all this is discussing narrative law with people of and without faith.
And one last thing – I wonder if Mr McKee is just nostalgic for his younger years and movies like “It Happened One Night” when he said “this erosion of values has brought with it a corresponding erosion of story.” Nostalgic like many people get later on in their lifetimes….
So much to consider – thank you Don.
Oh hey, yay for you I’m at work and have plenty of time to dive into this (humility is becoming). Truly, I’ve attained nothing of my own, wasn’t the lust for knowledge what got us in trouble in the first place?
If we are seeking to be united to Him and his knowledge we must be prepared for Him to connect us to his heart, and those of others as He sees fit. Sometimes that road is painful but a tiny, tiny labor pain that is soon forgotten in the glorious joy of new birth (speaking of natural and Spiritual birthings). What we thought would kill us is soon forgotten in the joy of new life. Apart from God, knowledge of Him and his ways can be used inappropriately and cause more harm than good. But let us know no man by the flesh. Some of us may be more right at heart and just need a Damascus Road experience. There is an appointed time for all those deeper things to be revealed.
Sometimes the words are right but the frangrance from within leaves an unpleasant stench. Going deeper. Who of us has attained anything of our own? There is only one that can open the eyes of the blind and the ears of the deaf at heart. It is all a gift from God, we simply ask according to his will. And if we really want to know for the right reason, be prepared for Him to use whatever means He chooses to connect us closer to His heart. If He hasn’t revealed, trust that He knows best.
So I printed and reviewed again what you wrote (all of it this time, really). Unfortunately, I’m still not sure I get your drift, or question (did I mention my limited intelligence?). So, with my limited understanding I want to add this element that I feel is very important. I’ll try and keep it short (as hard as that can be for me being the detailed gal that I am).
Maybe the question may be more “what is the standard?” Jesus showed us that although He did not come to destroy the law, the law was never the standard. The standard (or God’s glorious holiness) is Jesus-God’s heart personified, who sits way above the law. The heart of the matter is the matter of the heart. “If thou lookest and lust in thine heart, thou has committed adultery”. Who of us has not transgressed God’s glorious standard at heart?
Then by all means, cast the first stone. If not, put down your stone and take a seat while learning at His feet.
Jesus showed us that of ourselves there is no way we can reach that standard. He didn’t come to make it easier by removing the law. No, He came to show us that the standard sat way above the law (that minor, temporary character) into the heart of Father God found in Him (0ur Leading Man). That standard is impossible to reach on our own, we need a Savior. When you think of it the law is a piece of cake in comparison to the heart. We sometimes make a big deal about the law when the actual standard is way higher, gloriously higher.
But even though the law of its own sits way below Jesus , the law does sit above society. I tend to see black and white but I don’t think how you described it. I don’t believe there is a grey when it comes to God’s heart. There is Light and darkness, Good and evil, Love and lust, etc, but those things can only be properly seen as we are connected to the Lord’s heart. This goes beyond the law, way above it into his Heart. I think what we may see as grey sometimes is actually grace.
I also don’t believe that knowledge is the real problem. That other tree was the knowledge of good and evil and we can attain some knowledge there according to the standard set by whatever source. The real problem lies in the root. Are we rooted in our Tree of Life-Jesus, or the knowledge of good and evil rooted in self? We will bear his fruits to life or self’s fruits unto death. There is no “in between” ground. There is though libery and grace for the progressive journey.
Again, we were never created to live apart from our Creator. We weren’t suppose to partake of that other tree, in essence declaring our dependence from God. All that is good is created by Him and flows from Him. Not self-conscious and self-centered/seeking for self cannot attain what can only be found in Jesus. Our knowledge of good will take on a perversion for it is rooted in self. There is no good apart from the heart of God-Jesus.
The difference between the law and Jesus-the heart of God personified, may be seen in this example:
Let us say my neighbor has a sign posted on his property that reads, “Do not trespass”. Yet on passing by I see his daughter drowning in the pool. Do you think he would want me to ignore his sign and save his daughter? Unless he is seeking her death, of course he would. His sign was not put in place to prevent good but to keep people that are “self” and “lust” driven from causing him and his family harm.
Jesus put it this way to those looking to condemn Him for moving beyond the law, “Is it lawful to do good…? Yes.” Read yourself for accuracy.
I don’t know about you but I am grateful for the law that may prevent a self and lust driven neighbor from breaking in my home and causing me harm due to the fear of repercussion from it. And on the other side of the coin (that double-edged sword), it is sad if the law prevents someone from coming to help me if that neighbor does proceed forward.
Thank God we have Jesus who is sharper and quicker and goes right to the heart of the matter, the matter of the heart.
Anyway, so much for short. So if I am close to what you were exploring I would say that the problem doesn’t lie so much in the knowledge, but at the root for we were never meant to live with “self” in the driver’s seat of our lives. We were created to be married to Jesus, two-as-one in Him and from that union becoming carriers of his Light and Life. He’ll take care of self as it is found in Him.
Anyway, never got to the reviews but enjoyed sharing. Some other day perhaps.
Thank you from that Jesus Freak in the making.
Pretty much done now, really. And even if not, I must be on to other things but thanks again for allowing me to share. Hopefully I wasn’t too off topic. Think this is what Paul meant in those first chapters of 1 Corithians in regards to God’s foolishness being greater than man’s wisdom, but hey sometimes I ain’t too bright and always leave room for my understanding to be polished up as I know the only sure thing is “WHO HE IS” and what He has established in Christ (no other foundation).
God bless you all richly so that you all in turn can be a blessing to others (or as sis would say, “Blessed to be a blessing”).
Man, I really have to go as that last response went too long and must move on but I really wanted to correct an error. I said when we partook of that other tree we declared our dependence from God. I meant declared our “independence” from him. Please note the change as I feel it is too important to overlook. Thanks and goodbye.
Don,
Fascinating stuff. I think that’s what N.T. Wright offered us in his book on the authority of scripture. The Bible forces us to take a place within its narrative, in that gap between Acts and Revelation. We study scriptures to discover the story arc and what God is like. We look ahead to Revelation to get the vaguest of ideas of how the story resolves. Then we improv like heck find our place. This lifestyle of improv, is in part, what makes us moral.
This works if I limit myself to the Christian story. But what happens when we get Neitchzean and introduce the notion of power. The powerful hold the pen and get to write the narrative. So a powerful Hitler narratives an evil story and many suffer. But within the morality of his own story, he is self justified.
Ah, you say, but the neighboring countries rise up and tell a better, more moral story and defeat the Nazi’s. In the process industrialization and consumerism creep in and provide a new narrative subtext.
And other story tellers react to that story.
And on and on.
What keeps narrative morality from becoming a never-ending dialectic?
This idea of narrative law is good, but like everything else, it’s not incorruptible.
The idea of developing a narrative form of law is quite interesting. Your analysis of the loss of a common story in Western culture reminds me of a quote from the sixties or seventies that was attributed to Francis Schaeffer. It is, “We are living on the spiritual interest of our forefathers.” In other words, it is the remnants leftover from the hard won faith of earlier generations that make the world seem to still have meaning. So the world of Opie and Andy and Leave it to Beaver appeared solid and stable. Good was good and bad bad. But it was all as flimsy as a cardboard town in an old T.V. western. A little huffing and puffing from a few self-important blowhards and it all came tumbling down. And now the only good stories we can get are those of Tarrantino and the Cohen Brothers. But who can make a life worth living from those?
But as Christians, isn’t it for us to re-find the thread of God’s story to where we can begin to live it as a community of faith in ways that will challenge all those other stories?
I don’t know. Seems like that to me.
Oh man, see what happened. You hit a topic close and dear to my heart. You opened the door and I stepped in.
Ok, so I read what you wrote again and I think I’m getting your lingo now. So, looking to share what I feel I may see in regards to this third take on your statement (or question) above.
Take three, here we go…
I think by “natural law” you mean something more tangible, like the 10 Commandments, yes?
By “constitutional law” you may be speaking of the knowledge of good and evil.
So in biblical lingo you could have been saying that the foundation of the knowledge of good and evil is the Mosaic Law.
And yes, Mosaic Law is prophetic, a shadow of the heart of God revealed in Jesus.
It may be that what you are regarding as “narrative law” may be likened to “grace” for the journey.
We can judge right and wrong on the surface by the law and we can even change our exterior behavior by it but it is a ticking time bomb for there is another law at work within fallen man and society as a whole.
In criminal law one must prove intent (of heart). I used to work within Criminal Law so this lingo is a bit more comprehensive for me. And yes, the nature of “the beast” is toward the lusts of the flesh (or carnality that is plugged into the kingdom of darkness).
Paul put it something like this, “I know and love the law, but there is another power at work in me that keeps me enslaved to sin…but we overcome in Jesus.” My words, look up for accuracy.
And even without the law the seeds of sin entered man at the fall. The law just allowed it to surface by way of giving birth to its fruits unto death, but its been there lying below the surface. And before the fall, man really needed to partake of the tree of life, but what is love if it is not set free and given wings to choose? It’s slavery and God doesn’t want slaves, He wants children by union with his Son.
The natural life rooted in self and tainted by sin is a real force. It is stronger than our good intentions. The natural life was never meant to have a life of its own but be found in Jesus. The natural life and our efforts cannot attain the promises of God and needs to be sent in the desert. When we do, God will open up wells to quench its thirst and prosper it. We enter in by the promise of God, the law was a temporary measure alongside the promise that would lose its role in our lives when we entered into faith in Jesus, by grace through faith in Jesus. It was always about the promise and God doing it. Anyway, I can go on there so will just say that Galatians is an incredible book in regards to the natural (Ishmael-our efforts) and Spiritual (Isaac-God doing it).
But as I said this natural tained life is a force. Like the wind, you don’t see it but this natural element is felt. We can feel its force within and telling it to stop by our own power is futile against the wind. We need a stronger force. We need God’s wind of his Spirit for the best changes.
In layman’s terms, I’ll describe it like this:
I have this awful thing at laughing at the most inappropriate times. It can be horrific at times. Runs in my family, the giggly family. Love them. Anywayzzz, I can feel this force of nature welling up inside of me like a wave being swept away by the wind. As I sense how inappropriate (the moral standard / knowledge of good and evil) it is I immediately start to fight against this force of nature in my own strength but nature laughs at my puny efforts and my “knowledge” can work against me and be the fuel that empowers it further. If I want to stop this freak act of nature I need a deeper connection. I can like pinch myself or think of something unpleasant and hope the pain brings me down to reality. This is self-inflicted torture, but a small sacrifice to not unnecessarily offend.
But we have a better way, we can go deeper and connect at heart. The best place is to first be united to the heart of God, otherwise we got a tower of Babel and we all remember how that ended, and rightfully so as no good apart from God. But anyway, as we go deeper we can then find nature taking a different course.
Moving on, yes self-righteousness is stinky. I feel that is a bigger issue at God’s heart for self-righteousness put us in the superior position and really none of us can boast apart from God. Even fallen man has no idea what it is like to truly live apart from God for although his Light may not be in them, it is still shining for them and His Spirit is still at work until the appointed time. Now, the enemy knows…why you think he’s so bad?
Vertical-our relationship with God-loving God with all…
Horizonal-our relationship with our fellowman apart from God-and our neighbors as ourselves.
And nice how it makes a cross, or where we all meet.
God is not holding anyone’s sins against them. Why would He when He paid the price to set us free. We of our own choices and loving the darkness over the light find ourselves condemned. With that stated, I do feel pride is still a stench in his nostrils and in understanding the heart of the matter and where we all meet, we can easily see why and give a big and heartfelt, “Amen!”
Moving on again in your discussion to religious thinking. By what you said there I’m thinking you mean moving beyond the law into our relationship to God in Christ.
I feel fear, guilt, shame, and so forth are derived from the “self” life. And self, fear, and the law are interwoven.
Fear is self-preserving and says, “What’s going to happen to me?”
The love of God is self-sacrificing and says, “I would die for you.”
Which leads me to elaborate on God’s way rooted in Jesus and his life of self-sacrifice where we empower his Spirit to do the work. The enemy manipulates and controls people. God liberates then captivates us by his love. But I don’t like to carve his ways in stone. It is found in the life of Jesus and joined to Him. So, I speak in general terms when I speak of what method He may choose to take. I give Him room to change the surface landscape so that we can go deeper into his heart where the only stable Chief Cornerstone is found.
Anyway, so captivated by his love we “willingly” yield up our wills to his. His life is like that pearl of great price that we are willing to sell all for it.
And moving on…”Let Him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth for his love is sweeter than wine” Song of Solomon. Ah, to be kissed by God. It will spoil you for less. I willingly “want to” give up wine in favor of his kisses / love. Desire is birthed. Law demands, love captivates and creates willing love-slaves. But slave in this aspect is good as He has our best interest at heart.
We should take the invitation to taste and see that the Lord is good.
We have to go deeper to the heart of it. I feel safe to say that wine consumption is of itself not a sin. When it comes down to it, ANYTHING that sits on the throne of our hearts besides Him is sin. It is an idol. But those idols in our hearts can only truly be overthrown in favor of Him by his love personified in Jesus and the life of His Spirit. So it’s not the thing that is sin and wrong, but the condition of the heart. Yet thank God for faith in Jesus and his grace to see us through, for the progressive journey.
Wine I feel if not an idol is ok. When wine, or anything else that we love more and / or are relying and depending on more than trusting in Him, then it’s an idol and needs to be dethroned. But again, there is grace for the progressive journey.
I don’t know about what McKee said in regards to stories but I can see it in the decline in music. I mean at one time it was more about doing the boogie, woogie, oogie and go to the YMCA, YMCA..A. I loved the Village People. What a colorful bunch. I still got my “Saturday Night Fever” music and “KC and the Sunshine band”. Now the music is pretty graphic.
Though now I sing them love songs to Him. “If I can’t have you, I don’t want nobody baby, if I can’t have you…”
And moving onto your elaboration on morality and story telling. Yes, again the centrality of the Mosaic Law (or whatever society may have substituted there for their centrality). But if we build on that its a tower of Babel doomed to come down. And yes, fallen man and society as a whole is bent on its own interests at heart. Please, don’t even get me started on some of the media and their news reporting…
And yes, if my reference of “grace” in comparison to your “narrative law” is on the right track, it is appealing to both sides. As believers we cannot disregard grace for it is by grace through faith in Jesus that we are saved. Not of our own works so that no flesh can boast in their filthy rags of self-righteousness. Time to leave that coat behind and cloth ourselves in Christ’s robe of righteousness.
Can narrative law, or grace, be seen as a form of morality? Not sure, will have to pop that one in the oven and call on Him to see what pops up. In a broader sense, maybe, just real morality is found joined to Jesus-God’s heart personified. Grace, or narrative law if the comparison fits is a means to help us in our progressive journeys in maturity in Jesus. It is a tool, not the answer. Jesus is the answer and our goal.
Yes, not everyone should be forced to adhere to it. But some should be locked up and even sentenced to death (not to go on a bunny trail on capital punishment).
Ok, hopefully I didn’t put you to sleep but if it was of use, freely have I received and freely I give, please to the same with what has come from within me.
Now I am done, for real this time, unless the big man upstairs says to continue but I’m thinking He’s going to let me sleep. Exiting myself out with warm wishes for a bright and glorious future in Him.
And I have this disclaimer thingy of not claiming to know it all and have it all right so do ask the Lord for revelation there. I also am aware you may know a good deal of this already, just elaborating on some things I may see as I feel may help.
Don,
I love your new book, by the way. But re: the idea of narrative law: you might be interested in an existing legal theory called “critical race theory” that uses storytelling and narrative to analyze and challenge the ways that the current US legal system reinforces institutional racism. It also gives people who use it a way to offer a counter-story to narratives that contradict their actual experience (for example, stories that testify against the narrative that racism “ended” with the civil rights legislation of the 1960s).
Larry asked “What keeps narrative morality from becoming a never-ending dialectic? ”
I think the answer is nothing. And that nothing should keep it from becoming that.
For a living, I take pictures of small things using high powered microscopes. When I was in school learning how to do this, my teacher asked us how we know when a picture is in focus, when it is a good picture? He said we know by taking a bad, out-of-focus picture and comparing it to that. There are other tricks of the trade – but that one has come in the most handy when dealing with a difficult sample.
I think we know a good story versus a bad story because we have all seen and experienced both. Children have to be trained to know good from bad.
I wonder if we didn’t train children at all and just let them grow up wild and untamed, if the principles of story and narrative law would still apply. I wonder if we are actually passing these notions down through the generations and that is why they speak to us.
Oh man, I left out this whole area in regard to wine drinking that I wanted to mention but moved onto the rest and it being an area close to my heart I’m back to include it. I’m going to imagine you are applauding now and not going, “Oh no, she’s back.” Wonderful thing, the imagination.
Very close to my heart so please bear with me. Our liberty should never been seen beyond the love of God. If for me at heart I have bought into drinking being against the Lord and wrong, and you by your “knowledge” move beyond his love and ignore how that can negatively effect me, your off. God is looking at both our hearts.
People may be right in their own eyes, but God looks upon the heart.
For me in my heart it really doesn’t so much lie in the fact that drinking may be ok on the surface “in this respect” for I at heart believe it is sinning against God and that is what He is looking at. I may be in bondage due to some of my beliefs but I am accountable to Him for what is in my heart.
Understand? Not sure how clearly I stated that.
So, freely drink in your own time away from my fellowship and weak conscience. But around me, move in the love of God. Ok, I hope that is it now…Bye.
I have a love/hate relationship with this post. It made me think, which I love. But it frustrates me. I am wondering how serious you are. Is this philosophical rumination meant to get people thinking and talking, or do you actually think this is a concept that could be implemented in the world at large? What constitutes a good story is as subjective as what makes anything good. A moral code, in my opinion, would need to be rooted in something more solid than narrative structure to have the sort of consistency that seems to be your aim.
As I read more of Million Miles, I have an appreciation for the benefits of living life as a story. But I envision the driving force behind my story to be my faith. If we all have differing driving forces behind our stories, are we in a very different place under narrative law than we would be otherwise?
Thanks for getting the wheels in my noggin turning – I find this very intriguing and am sure my perspective will evolve as I give it further thought.
About 6 years ago I was speaking with a young lawyer who was lamenting about his lack of character. He was an ethical lawyer so it wasn’t about that. He just felt flat perhaps like the guy whose story isn’t going to be meaningful. Was there something missing? We talked about the older men we knew, the storms they weathered, the stories they had. We were inspired by them, by their gumption, by their laugh in spite of it all. They weren’t even in the room. I would trust my grandparents (if I had some) to talk to me about life – I’m pretty sure morality is inescapable in the story of life. We can learn it the easy way or the hard way. The hard way pretty much sucks, but it builds character? lol (Hopefully this is relevant to some degree.)
PS I have a book to give a second read slowly this time around.
Terry,
The dialectic CHANGES the definition of morality as stories live in tension with each other.
And I’m not sure that it’s accurate to deny that Scripture has a comprehensive moral code. I agree that its expansive and meandering and a bit of a mess to summarize. That’s why the teachers of the law debated over how to sum it up during Jesus’ life-time. They wanted to find one “master-commandment”, if kept, that would create obedience to the whole body of moral commandments. Schools of religious lawyers debated if Micah 6:8 or sum other passage summed up the Law and Prophets week.
Jesus , when asked, gave the Two Greatest Commandments. Love God with all your being and your neighbor and yourself. He didn’t conceded that the OT was a hopeless mess.
Larry, I hear ya.
As to story, a friend of mine pointed out that stories start people thinking and feeling, and asking questions, but that if you want to put a stop to that, simply slap a moral on the end. The bible is almost 100% consistent in not putting the morals we so crave onto the ends of the stories in it. We “help” by adding words to scripture and never presenting a piece of the bible to people and trusting them and the Holy Spirit to get it right. So we nail a clear, our-perspective-validating moral to the forehead of each and every bit of bible we present. Ow.
Goodness is, when compared to rightness (correctness) far LESS subjective. We claim to be able to see what’s good and what’s bad (we won and paid dearly for the knowledge of good and evil, after all, not of mere right and wrong) but really, despite goodness (worth, virtue, excellence, lasing value, transcendence) being what our lives are really supposed to be about, we feel more comfortable with right and wrong dialectic, because these ideas are more human-sized and we can grasp them and feel more like we’ve mastered them. Goodness, on the other hand, is God. There’s a person in there, not just a judgment. We can argue over which stories are good and which ones are bad, but it actually isn’t nearly so hard to make connections as to what stories stick with and appeal to the broadest number of people. That’s not so much about execution of the story-telling (what I think you’re talking about, Lauren) which is far more subjective as it is about what bits of God and Absolutely Everything are interacting in a way that is seen in the story.
Larry- I don’t know if the dialectic changes the definition of morality in a global sense. It is just one person’s story is more prevalent on the scene at any given time. Hilter was able to convince some people that his evil was actually good – but I would argue the majority went along out of fear or ignorance. The majority of the world at that time would probably say Hilter was bad. There are probably many Hilter-types in the world right now – convinced they are doing right when hurting their victims. But the majority of society would agree that their morality is false – that their good is actually bad.
Even in story – the antagonist sometimes has the upper hand and appears to be winning. But that doesn’t mean all the characters in the story suddenly think his evil ways are right. And I think we all agree that the good, meaningful story would be that the evil person loses in the end. (Although I would love to research Japanese storytelling one day – I heard once on TV that the Japanese culture loves a sad ending).
Good book Don. I just finished your latest one.
About morality: You either believe it or you don’t, just like you either believe God or you don’t, because they are one in the same.
God is the only Person to infuse moral standards into the conscious of a person. The appearance of morality, however, can be imitated by anyone.
The Bible is not a complete moral code… but the Person of Jesus Christ is.
The purpose of the Bible is to point to Jesus Christ.
Morality is essential for a great story… because it essentially is a great Person – it come from greatness.
Remember, it was God Himself that separated light from darkness, first recognizing the difference.
Know Jesus (in every way) and know and live a great story.
Don,
This is fully right on with a notion i’ve been feeling over the past 8 months… and in the fight of the feeling have felt lead to help start somewhat of an open-source story-telling movement where groups of people (churches) take the I out of social networking and get involved in meeting the needs of others. We are in the process of launching it through the student ministry in Orlando, FL I am a youth pastor at. Were trying to create a web platform to tell stories with a non-web call to action of being Christ’s hands and feet (being human) in the local area through kind of open sourcing the platform to tell what your doing and where the community serves. Were calling it Being Human Project and have starting making a bit of a website on beinghumanproject.org
I have also felt this odd tug of morality in the balance of story telling and have not seen it put into words this well. Just started following your blog and looking forward to reading more.
My friend and co-worker at Discovery Church got your pre-release at Relevant Offices here in Orlando… Stoked to read the new book!
Thanks for being a light.
Robbie