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.
the exact WAY in which the evil person loses in the end in the stories in the bible is sometimes a bit hard to follow, or follows a rather indirect route. Starting with Satan in Eden, Cain and Abel and so on, and it keeps on like that throughout.
Don,
I got lost in the comments and just went back to your post about Narrative Law. These are delightful ideas and, being a storyteller, they sound similar to my own ideas about the value and importance of story. You’ve stated them differently, but I do believe there’s a connection between good story and storytellers that live amazing lives. (Creating story requires a lot of work and amazing lives take a lot of time and energy!) The issue is (to me) what stories are presented to the public in books and movies are to entertain according to the objective of the writer/director/publisher as to – what sells. So much of our literature is decided by the marketing department.
On the other hand, I am currently attempting to craft marketable stories, that uphold my personal morality codes of compassion, courage and creating the family network that enhances individual lives – without religion in the story – but characters that have “life philosophies”.
I also am completing rewrites on a real life love story, a memoir of ‘Being Raised by Saints’. The real kind. It’s made my views on morality and narrative, slightly unique. I’d be honored if you checked out my website.
Keep up the amazing energy! And I’d enjoy a personal discourse with you on the this concept of narrative law.
Don,
Ok, from one Don to another. I have read all of your books (love Million Miles) and consider myself a fan of your meanderings. In general, I’d like to think I get what you are saying…but on this one you may have completely lost me.
Traditionally legal theory is divided into two camps: those who believe in natural law and those who believe only in positive law.
Naturalist believe there is a set of principles outside of ourselves that defines what is right and wrong. They would argue that this inherent set of principles should be used to measure and gauge the validity of all laws affecting a society. Who owns the definition of the terms “morals” and “ethics”….I dunno, but in this schema that set of inherent principles would most likely be defined as morals or ethics.
The secondary question for naturalist is, “where do these inherent principles come from?” Some would argue nature…things like, “species preservation is a natural occurrence therefore we shouldn’t kill each other.” Others would argue God…things like, “God said we shouldn’t murder therefore we shouldn’t kill each other.”
Positivists believe that there is no inherent set of principles governing life and that laws are only made as a result of what a society or collected group decides. There is no real right and wrong, only what we decide. In this schema, morals and ethics do not drive our conscience but are merely the result of our collective conscience at a particular point in time.
Like you said, it seems pretty clear to me that the founders of our country were naturalists. The Declaration of Independence saying things like “we consider these truths to be self evident” and “if any government violates these laws it is the right of the people to abolish it” (I am paraphrasing as I am too lazy to look up right now) It also seems pretty clear that they were at least Deist, if not Christians, as it has language referring to the “laws of nature and the laws of natures creator.”(paraphrase) There may have been dissenters, but the final language of the Declaration and the Constitution seem very naturalistic and Deistic.
On your points about sacred texts and self-righteousness I think I agree and disagree. On the one hand, the Bible does very explicitly point to a moral code, “Love God and love your neighbor” (paraphrased). But on the other hand, God chastises the Pharisees for departing from this, and other principles, to create laws which were indicative of self-righteousness. Think healing on the Sabbath, rescuing animals, heavy and light yokes etc. Is the Bible (counted among the sacred texts) a moral code in the sense that it gives us a list of 1000s of laws that we must follow….no. Is the Bible a moral code in that it gives us the set of principles that should govern our lives and the laws we create….yes. Is it well written to do the latter….in my opinion yes. It even tells us to not argue over disputable matters like what we eat or drink.
This is where you may have lost me. Story does need a common set of morality. I think that is part of the beauty. Story itself testifies to the fact there is something outside of ourselves that allows us to relate. It tells us what was good about a character’s actions, it tells us what is bad about the things the character is facing, and it tells us what the character should do in the face or their trials. The” it” is some kind of natural, shared knowledge that binds us together as a people. I believe the positivist problem comes in losing sight of that thing that is outside of ourselves. Once you take that out, we have nothing in common unless by chance or circumstance. Once you take that out, you certainly lose story that can span the gap of time and culture. Once you take that out, you lose the ability to relate and there is no story.
So, if by this notion of narrative law you mean to say something like…..
1. Let’s all agree that in this human experience, regardless of where it comes from, there really is this common recognition of inherent, essential morality revealed by our relation to narrative and story (a naturalist perspective)
2. Even though we may disagree where it comes from, we can all recognize it
3. Let’s measure our characters and laws by what is recognizable and essential
4. But don’t extend it to every nook and cranny so as to measure our characters and laws by what is frivolous and self aggrandizing (drinking or not)
….then I am with you. But, I fear I have completely missed your point. I hope all is well.
Don
Terri,
I agree with you, and Don, that story points toward a universal morality. No arguments there. I guess got hung up on the notion that bad stories cloud what that universal morality is also.
In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis rifted on Paul’s assertion in Romans that there’s a universal law in everyone’s heart. Lewis pointed to the commonality of legal codes across cultures: Murder is bad, etc. Critics of Lewis pointed out cultural differences moral code. Some cultures point legitimize certain killings. Some cultures ritualize rape.
I guess even though I agree that story points to a universal code of morality, and that most people inituitively recognize a good story without needed to be trained how– that story is not above being tainted by what we Christians call the Fall.
I’m also gaining a keen understanding of why I don’t get invited to parties much.
Any faith tradition, from fundamentalist to Athiest, seems to start with a cover and lend to an inviting story. One supposedly initiated, or authored, by God, and the other by a collision of atoms. The fundamental meaning of both, however, seems to fall in discovering one’s relationship with the story. If one knows he/she has a role, one knows he/she has meaning, and thus reason to rise today. If one does not know he/she has a role, one does not know his/her meaning though, life’s story is none but the chapter titled “tragedy,” lending despair at best and perpetual boredom at worst. I think your thoughts on narrative make a lot of sense, Don. Thanks for writing. Cheers
Hold-up…I have an addendum. I think one’s knowledge of his/her role, and thus meaning, is only meaningful, to the degree that it is intrinsically satisfying, if he/she knows love in that role. In other words, to be without love (or existentially alone) in any story, even one authored by “God,” will never sufficiently satisfy. One must also know that he/she is inescapably loved.
Don-
Reading this blog touched on something in me. Part of the process of growing up for me has been reevaluating what I was taught as truth. I came from a pretty fundamentalist background and have had to, in essence, throw away all that I knew and start from scratch. I was taught that truth, life, morality was ALL black and white, but something about the “truth” I learned never sat right with me. There was a place in my “knower” that just wasn’t satisfied with the prescribed set of beliefs I was fed.
So I began to test everything. I could no longer trust the wise leaders who had fed me untruths. Who then could I trust? My problem is, I did have to start from scratch. Now I find there are vestiges of that old way of thinking that hang out unbeknown to me. Every once in a while, I’ll run across one like an old sweater tossed in the back of the closet. I take it out, dust it off, and try it on to see if it still works with who I am now. Sometimes I find myself operating out of old “truths” that I don’t really believe but keep around out of sheer habit, and perhaps a bit of a vacuum. I want to know what to trust, but have been so burned that I am reluctant to believe anyone’s assessment of truth but my own. It begins to feel like the Wild wild West.
In my quest to discover a morality that is more reflective of the Divine, I leave the security of a defined set of principles set out in a pre-approved book. Maybe I am in the baby steps portion of this question, but I am interested in exploring (even if its crawling on my knees through a dark tunnel) where it is that morality springs from.
Right now, I base my sense of right and wrong on a mix of what I have learned (and am still able to believe) and what I sense is right. Is it naive to wish for something more concrete than my own perception but less proscriptive than what I was brought up with? How does narrative morality fit into that? Could you break it down for us beginners?
Larry,
I think you have a great point. We do live in a fallen world and our stories ofen don’t line up with the universal code of morality. I think that is part of the rub we all feel in life. But, I think we recognize that from afar. What I mean is that when you read a story about someone else you often recognize how they have confused their sense of morality and you know nothing good will come of it. In our own lives and our own stories we are often blind to it. All the characters in a particual story can be blinded…Nazi Germany, Slavery,etc. In the end, though, true north triumphs. Good wins. Evil is defeated and order is restored; with or without all of the characters surviving. Unless, of course, there is going to be a sequal.
Ahh Larry I liked your comments – made me think. And I would invite you to a party – if I ever had any.
i take it you mean that the question “narrative morality” will ask is: will this make for a good story? so you can judge right and wrong based on what will make the story of your life good.
part of me (the excited english teacher) is excited at this idea. OK class of bored high school students, let’s figure out how we can make the story of your senior year the kind that someone would put in a movie.
my problem with this approach (and i speak from personal experience) is that this is basically a carpe diem mentality – it equates exciting with good and boring with evil. sloth is the new deadliest sin. depressed is the new fat. red bull is the new steroids (what’s the guaranteed way to have a crazy day good enough to write about? enthusiasm!!!) and the person who lives under this law will feel an irrepressible burden to give her life meaning.
i can see that this is a healthy question for a writer to ask (“i need to have meaningful experiences so that i can write about them”). but i think that it is an incredibly lonely, impossibly heavy weight to impress upon people.
Don: Love your work. Seriously…relate to it in ways that are a little spooky at times.
On the “narrative law” bit and the decline of story, I tend to agree with your take on the decline of story and I think it has to do with one of the core points in “Blue Like Jazz”… Self absorbtion versus living a life focused on giving to and receiving from others. (Quoting you, to you–how cool is that?) . The bulk of stories of today don’t center around any type of christ-like sacrifice, they don’t glorify helping/loving others–they focus on themes of individual masculinity, dominance of an enemy, or take even seemingly selfless acts and turn the focus to the more depraved/conflicted parts of the “hero’s” character.
But it’s also a chicken and egg question…it may well be that the change in stories, the change in what we watch and hear, is what moves our collective moral center rather than the other way around. I’m not so sure it’s a moral shift that has caused a loss of meaningful “story”, but a change in stories that has moved our collective morality. Cultures that glorify violence, that condone rape, that foster what we deem aberrant generally do so because of the stories on which they were reared, whether in the form of a religion, a myth, a book, or a law. Change the stories, and we change their views.
On the whole, I believe the stories became relativistic first… especially so in our American, market-centered culture; an evolution motivated in part by a few with excessive resources and power who sought to attain more of both by marketing to our baser intincts despite existing social restrictions. Before I get too anti-capitalistic, however, I think a shift in story has also been partly motivated by the very tolerance a Christ-like existence would pull us towards–attempting to understand rather than judge; stories that give insights into the motivations of what we would otherwise harshly reject have the effect of making cut/dried, good/evil conflict more difficult. We now see stories that give perspectives from those our culture would previously have harshly rejected–which makes it more difficult to “judge” in general without thinking it through.
To support your thoughts, a few thoughts from Oswald Chambers today to note WHY Biblical texts alone are not a source for morality: Purpose.
“Redemption means that Jesus Christ can put into any man the hereditary disposition that was in Himself, and all the standards He gives are based on that disposition: His teaching is for the life He puts in….The moral miracle of Redemption is that God can put into me a new disposition whereby I can live a totally new life.When I reach the frontier of need and know my limitations, Jesus says – “Blessed are you.” But I have to get there. God cannot put into me, a responsible moral being, the disposition that was in Jesus Christ unless I am conscious I need it.” http://www.myutmost.org/10/1006.html
Back to the story…He IS the story – not to make me a better person, to make me a new person. Totally different perspective – with each chapter of His being…and mine.
Thanks as always.
Madison–I fully agree with your comment regarding being burdend by the requirement to live an exciting life. I am currently struggling with this juxtaposition of living the life I’m in to provide for my wife/do the work for the church I’m at, etc. (which are all good things, but certainly not exciting things). I struggle with my ambitions to do more “exciting” things like writing music, but never seem to have time to do them, becuase I’m consumed by the things I’m required to do.
But then, I’m beginning to wonder if we’re making the story to be about “me” – we all want to be the central important hero in our stories. I think of Don’s uncle that he mentions in A Million Miles – much like my father-in-law who recently passed away, neither lived a movie worthy life, but certainly lived a good life and touched a great many people for the better.
Are we all to be main characters? I’ve heard people say that the story that’s told through the bible (and continues to be told to this day) is God’s story – God is the central Hero/character, and we all have supporting roles. I wonder if that is being forgotten, or ignored? But then, I struggle to find my place in “God’s” story, and determine what is my ambition (beyond the fluffy “I want to serve God”), or is personal ambition even appropriate? Are we all to sacrifice of ourselves for other people? What would that even look like?
Don, were you suggesting that we try to redifine morality through narative structures? Tell stories to attempt to show morality, as opposed to define it by “thou shalt, thou shalt not”? Much like Jesus did through parables?
If you are, I think that’s a fascinating idea worthy of further exploring. As you said, it opens up a lot more discussion rather than debate.
I decided I would check back in and see what other people had written. There have been a lot of thoughtful points made.
Madison and Jim, I really liked your comments. I too feel that the definition of a good story can be very relative…
“I’m beginning to wonder if we’re making the story to be about “me” – we all want to be the central important hero in our stories. I think of Don’s uncle that he mentions in A Million Miles – much like my father-in-law who recently passed away, neither lived a movie worthy life, but certainly lived a good life and touched a great many people for the better.
Are we all to be main characters?” (Jim)
I have experienced people “checking out” when life gets difficult; when it becomes “ho-hum”, stressful, or challenging. There are those that prefer to go for the excitement instead of sticking with the difficult. Sticking with the difficult and the unglorified job is the hardest thing to do in life sometimes…just ask the stay at home mom. Their life isn’t too “movie worthy” but it is incredibly valuable and highly difficult to keep doing day in and day out.
I believe it comes down to…
what makes a good life, makes a great story.
And I personally believe the Bible gives all sorts of insight to what makes for a good life…even one that is abundantly good.
My mom died a year ago. The world would say her life was “normal” and fine, but certainly not movie worthy…BUT I can guarantee you that when Jesus grabbed her hand to take her into heaven, He told her well done, good and faithful servant.
Really, it all comes down to who the movie critic is.
Is it someone who wants to be entertained constantly by action and lots of bombs going off or someone who is interested in a character driven story who gave their all even when life wasn’t very exciting.
I’m reminded of the demon possessed man who begged Jesus to let him follow Him after he had been healed. Jesus declined and told the man to go back and tell his family what the Lord had done for him. The guy wanted to go off and travel with Jesus. Can you imagine the excitement that would entail?! But Jesus said no. He told him to return home…God had plans for him there. (turned out to be some great plans if you follow the history)
That may make zero sense to you guys, but I just kept thinking of it…sometimes what we think would be great and exciting is quite different from what God would like for us.
Something bigger than us has to guide us, otherwise, our stories are limited to human boundaries. Our humanity is fallen, immoral, and mediocre at best.
What makes for a great story is relying on the One who can truly make it great!
The Bible is full of stories of people allowing God to do great things through them. Our lives are supposed to point to Him. And when the credits roll, I think only one name should be present…the One who made it all possible…Jesus.
I’ve written enough…I’ve really learned from many of you commenting. Great thoughts!
I was at your book tour in Portland. I bought your book there. I was going to stick around and say hi, and ask you to sign it, but we were tired so we went home instead.
I did enjoy reading your book. The other night , I spent some time with freinds and we talked about the value of ” story”.
Thanks for the mind food.
Jack
In response to Jim and Madison – This conversation about having an “exciting” life is very disturbing to me and hits on an issue I’ve been thinking about lately. I think our culture, (maybe including Donald Miller’s book? I haven’t read it yet….but plan to soon) sells us the idea that life is supposed to be exciting – “extreme” – “flavorful” – “never dull” “gratifying” at all times. We live in an American Idol, Twitter, Facebook, Reality show, everyone has at least fifteen minutes of fame – culture. As we watch all these celebrities and some everyday people, live out their lives through twitter and these increasingly weird reality shows, we buy into this idea that we should be having fun, and getting what we want and getting attention too. This atmosphere keeps us all hungry, buying, looking, searching, and seeking that fulfillment that you just know others are experiencing because you see it on their status updates every day.
It is a sad notion, and will make for some very unhappy, even depressed people – who at some point, wake up and realize that life is a series of tasks, many (maybe most) which involve hard decisions, hard work and loneliness. (I like to call it the buffet line of shit) Not a very fun “story” but it is reality. And if we accept this reality, that life is really a lot of hard work and dealing with losses, then it’s much easier to find true joy.
How this all fits in with morality and narrative – I’m not sure. I do know, we are largely the authors of our own stories – we walk the earth creating meaning in the events and people of our lives.
I am now finished with my deep thoughts for the day – ha -
I don’t think Don’s book is about having an exciting life. I think it is about not avoiding conflict – because conflict is in every great story. I also think it is about making our lives meaningful – not necessarily action-packed.
So if you wouldn’t watch a TV show of someone sitting on the couch watching TV – that is probably also not how you want to live your life.
I guess since so many of our books, movies, and TV shows are so action-packed nowadays we think of that as a great story. Maybe some of us would fit better in a more literary book instead of a thriller.
enjoyed this post.
skipped the comment… though i’m sure everyone had lovely opinions.
I have read searching for God Knows What several times and I still can’t remember if your are the one that spelled out law and obedience out so beautifully. The idea was that we obey God’s law out of love not submission, like staying faithful to a spouse. Not because we are required, but because we are desperately in love with the other person. It seems God’s wants for our lives are the same way, we do what He ask because we love Him so much that we delight in His ways.
Narrative law is a wonderful thought, and probably effective. But it lacks the beauty and purity of the love relationship between God and His beloved (us).
Hello all! I was directed here by a Christian friend. Although I consider myself a secular humanist, I was intrigued and confused by this entry.
Initially, the author suggests that meaningful narrative depends on universal morality. So any meaningful narrative will assume some form of morality. As far as consistency: So far, so good.
However, the author also expresses hope that narrative may provide us with a universal morality. He asks:
This is where my main confuses stems: Are we interested in narrative as a salve for morality? Or is morality a way to save narrative? The author seems to want it both ways, thus setting up an impossible, circular condition for either.
To illustrate the problem, imagine the following scenario: You’re lost and wanting directions to Rancho Cucamonga. When you ask me how to get there, I tell you to get on the I-5 freeway headed south. Now suppose you ask me how to get to the I-5 freeway — would it be helpful if I then told to get on the I-5, you must be in Rancho Cucamonga? I would guess not.
But this is what the author seems to have done with morality.
It seems that if universal morality requires narrative, then we cannot ask morality to help us agree on a helpful narrative (since we lack a common narrative). On the other hand, if narrative requires universal morality, then we cannot rely on narrative to arrive at a such a morality (since we lack a universal morality).
The confusion, I think, arises from two unnecessary assumptions the author makes in the beginning of the article: First, that morality must be somehow universal (whatever that means); and second, that morality therefore requires metaphysical foundation. These are both ancient fallacies apparently propogated by the Platonic school. In fact, no foundation is necessary for a meaningful morality, nor does need to be universal. I think the epistemic puzzle these assumptions create (as suggested above) is enough to raise our suspicions, but to demonstrate precisely why these assumptions are erronious requires that we closely examining the “is-ought” problem of ethics. Simply stated: even if there were a metaphysical base for some “objective” morality, such a moral system would not thereby become any easier to discern (come to know). Knowing (i.e., having justified, true beliefs about) right from wrong has nothing to do with whether there is a metaphysical base for those beliefs — it is sufficient that we merely imagine such a basis. (For example, objective truth in social contract theory depends on imagining oneself constructing a society from scratch without assuming anything about where one would end up in this society. This is Rawls’ “veil of ignorance.”)
To examine these assumptions more closely, may I suggest that we instead consider — in concrete, practical terms — how two people of opposite opinions may arrive at an agreement regarding some moral disagreement (e.g., my favourite: should we eat meat?)? How would these two go about persuading one another? Would they have to immediately delve into the metaphysical bases of their opinions? If not, what is their common ground? If so, then how would they arrive at an agreement regarding metaphysics? Is this problem any easier than the initial quandry (regarding ethics alone)?
I don’t think these questions are easy to answer, but I don’t think religion is going to help. Suggesting religion as a base for our morality only begs the question of how to decide on a religion. This question, in turn, seems as difficult (and subjective) as the original question, if not more so.
I appreciated many of your comments on “narrative law,” and want to note that the legal tradition in the Hebrew Bible is one deeply rooted in narrative. This is made clear in a text like Deut 6:20-25 which shows that when one’s child asks them about the meaning of the laws God gave them (6:20), the answer is given in terms of a story (6:21-25). That story is a redemptive story that roots all legal tradition in what some people call grace.
But this little snippet from Deuteronomy is not unique, but rather indicative of the broader witness of the Torah. There are three key legal codes, one in Exodus called the “Covenant Code” (foreshadowed by the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20), one in Leviticus called the “Priestly/Holiness Code” and one in Deuteronomy called the “Deuteronomic Code” (in which one finds also a second rendition of the Ten Commandments). Each code, however, is embedded within a narrative context which provides a foundation for the expression of legal precedents in the particular code. Thus, the Covenant Code is founded upon the covenant making experience of YHWH with Israel at Sinai (Exodus 19-20, 24), the Priestly/Holiness Code upon YHWH’s descent from the mountain into the midst of the camp (Exodus 25-40), and the Deuteronomic Code upon the retelling of the story of Israel’s relationship with their God which introduces the book of Deuteronomy. The legal traditions in Israel were then not abstract law codes with universal coverage of illicit acts, but rather exemplary codes embedded within a story which was meaning-making.
Wow. I found your website because of a tweet, and you nailed it! I’ve been trying to say this for a long, long time. Of course, you said it more in depth and more eloquently than I’ve been able to, but every single point was fantastic. There’s a lot more there to explore, I think. Bravo.
The discussion of universal morality always proves problematic, not necessarily because we can’t agree, but because we often fail to address the underlying assumptions of our claims. Those underlying assumptions being:
1. Why do we need a shared code of morality?
2. Whose authority do we defer to? Ourselves? Another? A collective? An entity? A God?
Unless you’re an anarchist, most people would agree that some code of shared morality is essential for humans to coexist peaceably, or at the very least, be able to tolerate the other’s existence. Of course, this is taken from a utilitarian perspective (or egocentric if coexistence is merely the means to continue your own existence). The deontological perspective of morality ( i.e. what we often associate with universal morality, in that there is an ultimate right and wrong ) is completely contingent upon the answer to #2. Although both the utilitarian and egocentric perspectives require question #2 to be eventually answered as well, they fall along the lines of relative morality which I won’t discuss in this comment.
Getting back to the Don’s post, he writes:
“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.”
The word “meaningful” poses some issues, as it begs the questions, what is the measure of “meaningful”, why does a story and life have to be “meaningful”, and who is the authority determining the measure of “meaningful”? We again see the same underlying assumptions as noted above, not to say that Don’s claim is invalidated, however the question of authority becomes ever more critical.
Again, Don writes:
“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.”
“Narrative law, however, does not require faith, except a faith in narrative structure, that is.”
Despite the logic in circular, as the previous commenter mentioned, I believe the end goal Don was trying to achieve was that narrative structure (i.e. what would make a good story to read) is the ultimate authority in morality. [Someone correct me if I’m wrong on this assumption.] This again begs the question, who determines what is good narrative structure (i.e. who determines if a story is good)?
Don quotes Robert McKee, in stating:
“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 ethical cynicism, relativism, and subjectivism – a great confusion of values.”
In this, we see that narrative structure is the child of the values held by the community of writers and “more or less” society. So in short, narrative law defers to the authority of a belief agreed upon by a collective. And unless we believe that a collective, no matter how large, has the authority to determine absolute morality (or universal morality as Don has coined it), narrative law also becomes relative morality.
Not to say that said relative morality would be “wrong” per se; but merely that Don’s conclusion fails to live up to his initial statement, “…a character must have a sense of right and wrong, and that sense of right and wrong has to be universal.”
Unfortunately, the hard questions remain.
Does absolute/universal morality exist? And if so, who has the authority to decree it? And if not, who has the authority to say that one person’s sense of morality is more right or wrong than another? And if no one does, then is moral chaos the only acceptable standard of morality?
The idea of moral chaos makes you cringe, doesn’t it? Thus we’re back to square one, why do we need a shared code of morality and who decides it?
PS – Sorry for being long winded Don.
Donald,
I completely get what you are saying. And I see God, as he looks over his humanity, moving to the place where He will eventually end the story. Without truth, the confusion renders the ensuing story useless. He will close the book and begin a new story – for His people. And God will author the new story, with truth and without evil, that will swell throughout all time.
Bullets – I would read anything written by the men themselves, if you want to know what they believed, including national documents. You can also go with the philosophers they read, esp. Locke and Rousseau. Beyond that, the only person that influenced my thinking enough to recommend is M. Stanton Evans.
Back to the point…I’ve been pondering and after hearing you talk about it last night, I’ve decided that the word law (and maybe morality) is distracting. Not that they aren’t valid and accurate, they just carry a lot of colloquial baggage.
I think that there are two main reasons for self-awareness in most arenas of life, including narrative. The first is to correct or avoid. If we consistently find ourselves in a negative situation or repeating a destructive behavior, we want to learn to recognize our role in navigating there and work against that repetition. The second is to pursue or maintain positive elements. For instance, if I notice that the less I spout my moral opinions and the more I listen, the more people around me feel loved, I want to shut my big mouth more often.
When we apply that to our stories, it seems obvious that we cannot opt out of narrative structure (to do so would play a part in our stories, instead of take us out of them – resistance is futile). So then, the purpose of being so aware of the patterns of story that apply to our lives is to become more deliberate and conscious of how our choices and desires will play out within that structure. We start writing, for ourselves, a better plot and can spend far less time trying to figure out why the character description in our head doesn’t fit with the way that person’s scenes play out.
When we set that idea into a group (nation, religious group, cultural subset, etc.) it plays out similarly, I would think. Throughout history, there have been groups that were very aware of the story they wanted to live and the legacy they wanted to leave. China, Germany, Rome, Catholics, Muslims, Druids, etc. – clearly some aims were better than others, but we know them because they were so aware that they were the big players. Every other group and nation had a story, but they didn’t necessarily know it, and often this led to them bending to the will of those who did or simply fading into insignificance.
What I’m thinking is, and I’m not sure whether this is what you are talking about or not, is that America, with all it’s diversity, can come together over the awareness of our story. Our size and wealth and power have already made us big players. We are writing the story that will be remembered. Hardly any of us will be remembered individually. We will, in essence, be the villagers of Pompeii or the Holocaust victims, or the men who built the Great Wall and the Pyramids. Our most lasting legacy, whether we like it or not, is collective. Will generations far into the future dig up skeletons littered with plastic parts, old clips of reality TV shows, and lavishness to the point ridiculousness juxtaposed against clearly ignored poverty? Or, will they find evidence all over the country and world that America worked to make things better, was willing to put national pride second to the demands of humanity, and refused to spend more time fighting for wealth than fighting to end suffering? You don’t have to share religion or political affiliation or race to know which story is better.
Okay…… Sorry Don, but I don’t get what you’re saying here. I appreciate your desire for a narrative law that relates to all of humankind, but I’m really quite lost in all your words right now. You have a very good concept, but I feel like right now you’re throwing up various ideas around narrative law, but no clear definition of what narrative law is. A definition is needed before ideas and concepts can be linked to it because it creates the scope. Could you define narrative law please? I really would like to understand more about your idea because it appears prima facie very promising.
PS. Don, love your books! Did you know your books go halfway around the world to the tiny country of Singapore? Bet you can’t find that on a map. Hint: There’s a little red dot/star over my entire country.
Wow, this was a great post, probably the best of yours I’ve read. It’s a really great message that certainly needs to be expanded on and more universally heard. I say this primarily because I think you’ve done a great job of taking morality out of the solely religious motivation and posed a positive argument for morality without an angry (or even loving, I guess) deity.
I met you on Friday night when you spoke at Windsor Crossing. I found your blog and wanted to tell you how very much my husband and I enjoyed your lecture/presentation/ramblings (whatever you want to call it!) on Friday night. I had already read Blue Like Jazz and then just finished reading Million Miles on Thursday night and was so excited to hear you in person. My husband loved hearing your stories too, and he is starting your book now.
We also signed up for World Vision and The Mentoring Project. I had put “adopt a World Vision” child on my To Do List a while back, but hadn’t gotten around to it. When you spoke about it, I knew that was our shot. We are going to give up some luxuries in our lives so we can sponsor the kids, and so our kids can know about others in our country and around the world.
You have inspired me to write a new story for myself, my marriage, and my kids. (I’m going to blog about it soon!) Thank you for speaking so directly to me through your words, and I wish you lots of luck on the rest of your tour!
Huh?
Hi,
Just finished your book and of course it was amazing, I am on my second read through right now. With all this interesting talk of finding meaning, I was wondering if you have ever read any journal articles by the psychologist Michael Steger? He is interested in a lot of the same themes that you have been discussing lately. Here is a link to some of his articles and a general description of his research:
http://steger.socialpsychology.org/
and his blog:
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-meaning-in-life/
Enjoy!
I forgot to say that you should really look at the link under the title “Other Publications” on the bottom of his profile page. He mentions Victor Frankl and his research quite a bit in this article.
Oh hey, listen, I don’t know who I am talking to on the other end but I wanted to ask that my last post on God’s Holiness, can you please delete it from your files. All of your files if they haven’t been already.
I’m sorry, obviously something I am not getting and it is ok, I realize I’m not to swift there and I am not mad, just treasure it and want to protect it. Thought maybe I was too excited before but don’t think I was too excited this time so must just not be the place to share that. And I understand. Been part of groups before and get that.
If you could just totally delete it with no copies. I don’t mind it being discarded. I just don’t want it to be a thing of a joke for others, or if some value was seen in it, used for profit. Although I wouldn’t judge others there, I just personally haven’t made peace with that so do know that comment is IN NO WAY a reflection of you all. Truly. I don’t even know you all.
Again, so sorry and sorry for taking your time. This will be my last comment. Again, not mad or upset, just realize I may be out of my realm here. Not looking for any explanations, I would just like it discarded because it is something I treasure dearly with the Lord and would prefer to just cultivate it with Him and others He would put in my path to do so, as probably you all feel the same with the treasures He has bestowed upon you. I get it and again sorry.
And one other thing, if you please can pass on my email addy to Shelley. I would just like to share something with her that I think may be of benefit to her. You can just tell her to please contact me at jo@ambassadorsforJesus5.com, that JP would like to share something with her.
If not, I understand but if you could at least totally delete out of your files my elaboration on God’s Holiness. Thank you so much and I really appreciate it and hope the Lord continues to bless you all big time for His Glory.
See you all at the wedding feast.
Jo
Like you so much
I think that the typical American movie both represents and contributes to the problem described in this post. Drama involves a complex interplay of story and character. That’s present in many books, but is lost in most American movies, which are typically about spectacle.
When the emphasis is on spectacle, the often subtle nature of evil is lost.
A good example is the Lord of the Rings books versus the Lord of the Rings movie.
In the books, we see the subtle nature of evil. A ring is not an inherently bad thing. What matters is how we interact with that ring. Do we receive the gift of the ring in a manner that is true to Scripture? That’s all lost in the movie. The ring becomes evil, because the movie is primarily about spectacle rather than drama.
Hey Don,
Love to read the blog, you however mention something often that tends to go against most of the research done in the area of faith, existence and meaning. A great book that might accompany you on your journey through existence is James W. Fowler’s – Stages of Faith: the psychology of human development and the quest for meaning. Also, C.S. Lewis mentions more about morality and universal law in chapter 4 of The Problem of Pain.
OK bye
Don,
I love your work – and I love your love of social activism and the need for reform especially in American religious culture – but I have to call you out on something.
You’re right, drinking wine isn’t a sin. But I don’t think you should be so cavalier in _justifying_ it publicly and telling everyone its okay. In 1st Corinthians 8, Paul tells us that nothing we eat (or drink) is wrong in and of itself – and that includes wine. Here’s the thing though – Paul goes on to say (1st Corinthians 8:13), “Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.”
As a public figure, and a functioning _role model_ for Christians across the nation (and across the world), you absolutely have to be wary of what you condone. Even if you do believe that what you’re saying is true, there exists a real, serious chance that it could cause your brother to stumble. The sin belongs to your brother, don’t get me wrong, but you don’t want to lead someone to go and drink with full intention of being moderate and then have that person fail. Though it is his own fault, as a mature Christian you still have a responsibility to make no provision for the flesh (Romans 13:14) – and here’s the dealbreaker – even if those in the Bible Belt have a hard time with moderation. You still have that responsibility.
I’ve heard you talk about homosexuality before and the problems that are ingrained in our fallen DNA, and the addiction centers of the human brain are just as fallen, often unbeknownest to the drinker, smoker, etc. That’s not that person’s fault – its belongs to sin and the flesh. The person still makes decisions, but please exercise a little discretion before making a critique of those who struggle.
One of things, Don, that you are very careful that you do not appear to condone is legalism (rule-following, double-think obedience with scripture-scraps justifications). You are very good about this and I always hope you remain so. A good balance for the whole “I can’t do anything my brother has a sinful problem with (well, apart from legalism, of course!)” thing is the stuff about how we should not put ourselves under the power (not even for one hour) of people who want to “spy out the liberty we have in Christ to put us again under bondage.” The stakes, when it comes to being willing to put yourself under “Christian”, legalistic bondage? That “the work of Christ become of none effect.”
(the elders of the church which excommunicated me for satire, for instance, told me that, although it was a doctrinally sound idea that Christian were no longer under the Mosaic law, and that this meant they were not obligated to attempt to keep it for God, as Christ had fulfilled, rather than kept it, and that we, allowing Christ to live through us, are the fulfillment of it, that it was “irresponsible” to “tell young people things of this kind.” Of course, they also said that, when the scripture said to “reckon the old man dead” that we had to, once we’d reckoned him dead, “never forget that he is very much alive and active in our hearts on a moment-by-moment basis” and that the Christian life is about being dual like that, and about fighting the “old nature” (no doubt with our flesh. that should work).)
[...] Moral Narrative 2009 October 26 by jcupfuller Donald Miller, in his blog, wrote about changing the perspective of morality from a natural moral law or a moral law from a [...]
I was at the event last night in Waterloo…you kept mentioning a sort of shared moral compass at least amongst those in our immediate locations. I thought that this was pretty cool…in that it seems very similar to some of the stuff we’ve been doing in a class of mine that is looking at the relation of aesthetics and politics.
The connection arises from Kant’s “Critique of the Power of Judgment”, which is then developed by Hannah Arendt in her “Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy”. To get to the point, there is talk of the “sensus communis” in both of them. This sense that is common to all (Kant thinking cosmopolitanly (haha, not a word, but…) thought this was possible for everyone) is the basis for our judgments of things like beauty, meaning, value, etc. This isn’t morality per se, but given that the word morality contains in it a sense of “mores” it has some bearing.
There is also something quite interesting in that, for Kant, free speech and the freedom to publish are important in all of this (the previous paragraphs). Which means, you have to write it…and its all taking place amongst an eternal march towards progress…which is never really reached…we’re basically stuck in Act 2- remind you of anything?
Also, Aristotle mentions the need to speak the political to make it happen. You have to tell the story and live the story to make politics (that is, life) actual…I guess that’s my Millerian reading of Aristotle, haha.
Don,
I like that you use Bold in the first sentence of each paragraph. It looks important and helps the ADD kid in me to organize my thoughts (well, your thoughts as interpreted by my brain).
Nice work.
“Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king’s horses,
And all the king’s men,
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.”
Can propositional truth ever be put together again?
Should it be?
Can the narrative achieve this feat?
What if people just reject truth?
Will scrambling it or serving it poached make any different?
Joseph Campbell solution was the power of myth.
What distinguishes the narrative from myth? What wall will it rest on?
Or will the narrative be just a clever conveyance of the Old Dumpty? (Try new our ‘contemporary service’)
Whatever it is, I hope it can stare cancer in the face.
I hope it can give the promise of life to the abused.
To Paul, Those are good questions all. I am feeling disillusioned about organized religion. Miraculously, I still have a relationship with God, but I have such a knee-jerk aversion to anything overtly “christiany”, and I don’t feel like I can really trust much that comes from the church. I question EVERYTHING. So its helpful to hear someone else throwing out a barage of questions. Thanks.
Hi Mollye – For me, only those expressions of Christianity that are organic vs. organizational, authentic vs. autocratic, bring me hope. What I may find hard to grasp with ‘the church’, I find nobly endowed in the idea of Christ. I may question the historicity of scripture but feel only ‘the scriptures’ Jesus’ perfect for my soul-ish longings. It is amazing that I can affirm so great a God-need as needing Jesus and at the same time… question it all as being too good to be true or at least, true enough to be good. I guess GRACE is the permission I get to travel this journey of faith and doubt.
Hi Paul,
YES! That is exactly how I feel. I love and connect with God but I am not able to swallow wholesale the “package” being offered as “Christianity.” So, I find myself picking through the attic of dogmas, ideas, and pronouncements in an attempt to find authenticity. This may sound hooey, but I am measuring what I hear on how it hits me at a heart level. Part of my journey has been learning to trust that deep place in me where the divine resides (some would call it intuition, some call it the holly Spirit), to tell me what is honest and true and what is human invention. Not saying I’m always right, who could be, but I am learning to trust that self that I stymied and shut out for so long. Guess what that part of me responds most to…Grace, in all its forms. Brings me to tears every time. Thanks man. I appreciate you
I scrolled down and haven’t read all the comments, but I will say I agree that Don’s book is definitely not about living some life just filled with endless adrenaline rush, but just a life of meaning. He even mentions it not being about him- one of the trees in the forest, but it’s about the forest. Also, it is true that God does provide a moral code for believers, but not to be imposed on all who don’t believe- the Bible clearly says that it is not to be expected from believers, so I’m assuming that Don is referring to that- as far as society as a whole goes, that maybe his idea would be effective…
As for the comments above on Christianity, I do believe it’s true that when man gets his hands on something from God, he tends to take away from the beauty of it. When I fall into “Church-ianity”, it takes away from the whole point and the reality of Christ and how amazing it all is- I have to go back to God’s Word and try to read it as though I were reading something I had not heard so many times before. It has to be FRESH- and not filled with just what I’ve been taught about it before. When I am able to do this and to spend time alone under the stars listening for God, it is amazing again and REAL. Christ was always going off to a lonely place to be with the Father. One thing we need to trust is God’s Word, and to keep it real. I try to filter any teaching I hear and I really enjoy those teachers who I know are truly desiring God’s work in their lives to be real.
P.S.- CORRECTION: In my first comment above, I meant to say that the Bible clearly says that we are not to impose and expect to impose the believer’s moral code on NON-believers. God’s goal isn’t to have religious, morally correct people- His point is to have a personal loving relationship with them.