There must never be lost in Christian theology that all persons must resolve the imperfection in the human self that creates a barrier between the individual person and God. That imperfection is identified as depravity and found in human nature that creates separation between the person and God. Depravity does not mean the person will certainly be bad, but that a condition exists between every individual and God that must be addressed if he or she is to gain personal spiritual relationship with God that gains acceptance into the family of God. Depravity creates a drive in the individual that may be so severe that he or she will think and/or act in ways that are offensive to greater or lesser degree even to that individual. Catering to self we ultimately rationalize our conduct and thoughts driven in part by our dark side, and part by our good side so to continue along the way of life. Most persons adapt early in their adult years as to a preference.
God is first concerned with the nature of the individual, even without consideration of thought and conduct that may lead to sinful acts. Many persons are good in the course of their cultures, but never good enough. Something more needs to be done. In explaining the point the church differentiated between the nature of Jesus Christ: not able to sin (non posse pecare), but for humanity the statement: not able not to sin (non posse non pecare). Most persons do fairly well in the world of nature, and meet social standards that even if imperfect get them through life. There is a general decency given to us by the creator. There is an underlying problem that can be readily addressed, and is life changing both for nature and God’s Kingdom. The spiritual standard is set by God, for a perfect context. The human context dilutes the reality of the holiness of God, even making God’s standard appearing excessively demanding and unfair. The simplest answer to the controversy is that it is the height of arrogance to tell God what to do for the environment of his kingdom and the moral nature of his children. Understanding the nature of God answers our questions and drives us to humility in repentance and the acceptance of God’s redemptive act on our human nature.
One of the few articles appearing in the secular press dealing with the matter of depravity was a column by David Brooks entitled: Can one be good (enough) without god? In summary, Brooks, in The New York Times, asserted that atheism is growing with 20% of all adults as atheists, but more than 30% of young adults affirm atheism. He fairly well outlines the humanism that is growing as something of a religion that is supportive of even some Christian values like keeping the Golden Rule. In reviewing values, he quotes from Phil Zuckerman’s, Living the Secular Life: Secular morality hinges upon little else than not harming others and helping those in need. Brooks then proceeds to show how difficult it is to build a secular position. He writes: . . . [In] the conclusion that the secular writers are so eager to make, the case for their creed, they are minimizing the struggle to live by it. He then outlines what secularists will need to do to achieve their goal: Secularists will have to build their own moral philosophies; -will have to build their own communities; [and will] have to fashion their own moral motivation. On this last point he writes: It’s not enough to want to be a decent person. You have to be powerfully motivated to behave well. Religious people are motivated by their love for God and their fervent desire to please Him. Secularists will have to come with their own powerful drive that will compel sacrifice and service. The matter begins as Brooks understands it with: You either believe in God or you don’t. The point is not whether religious people live better than non-religious, but in the introduction of faith in God, and discovery of a source for whatever follows. The striking text from the Apostle John noted in Revelation 22:11 appears to be the point of Brooks in the conclusion of his article. He appears also to follow the main line of Sociologist, Zuckerman. Brooks believes that: . . . . if secularism is going to be a positive creed, it can’t just speak to the rational aspects of our nature. Secularism has to do for nonbelievers what religion does for believers. He suggests how that might be achieved. Secularism goes up a box canyon with nothing to offer at the closed end. For the Christian faith, nothing is lost in life and society and much is added that relates to love, joy, peace, idealism, discovery of meaning, and much in hope. Hope in Scripture is immortality. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020