A phrase often heard at funerals is that the deceased was a "good person." What does that exactly mean? We all have ideas of what constitutes a good person. I could say that low-conflict, relaxed, apathetic people are "good". In contrast, another could say that a loud, boisterous party-goer was "good". Some people mean that people are "good" if they attend church, don't swear, or maybe haven't committed a crime.
The main difference between being good and not good is definitely stealing a Snickers bar from a convenience store.
I think a bigger question is, why do we care so much if someone that comes across our path in life is "good", or our definition of good, anyway? We do not need to approve of their actions, nor do we need to enjoy the company of every stranger that graces us with their presence.
A final observation must be made that, as well, society and culture have a unique interest in forcing Christians into their morals. Still, at the end of the day, they do not understand that God really does not care about their perceived moral superiority in the first place.
Morality varies across cultures
Every culture creates its own categories of right and wrong. For example, eating beef in India is incredibly taboo and immoral, while eating beef in the United States is considered a part of daily life. Even something as disturbing as pedophilia is legal in some parts of the world, while we in the West are appalled.
Why is it that, then, when we define what a "good Christian" is, it is solely based on our outward lens of what makes us feel comfortable? It's the same thing across the world: the Indians can't stand that we eat beef, we can't stand that some countries oppress women, and on and on the list goes. Our whole worth as human beings seems to come down to how we can impress upon others our own sense of morality. If they agree with us, we can form an alliance; if not, they are marked as bad and discarded.
In Romans [1], the Apostle Paul writes to explain that even if we pass judgment on someone else, we're still guilty of the same things. Does he mean the same exact things? I can't say he does, but what he means is that while we can pass judgment on someone, someone else can pass the same type of judgment on us, just like the example given above.
Later on in the passage, Paul condemns the act of using our own idea of morality as a basis to judge others, and makes it clear that God will judge by the same standard that was used to judge.
At the end of his thought [2], Paul makes an interesting case that everyone will be judged: the evil will be considered with evil, and the good will be judged with good. This makes sense to the human mind, but there is a slight catch.
Jesus rejects morality as a way of life.
Twenty to thirty years earlier, Jesus encountered a wealthy aristocrat, most likely one entrenched in studies of philosophy, who asked a simple question, "What good must I do to inherit eternal life?"[3]
Jesus asked him back, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good."
Here is the catch that I spoke of: no one is good, and therefore, no matter what morals we have in this life, we cannot ever hope to be "good". Jesus tells us that only one is good, and that would be God.
So why would we ever say someone is "good" or a "good Christian" based on our perception of outward performative morality? God sees the heart.[4] So if our morals aren't to be measured by the standard society has set, or at least we feel we should interfere as we might stick out, what then is a Christian?
A lot of people will argue that a good Christian is one who goes to Church, reads his Bible, and prays, but how often? What is the frequency? Does he skip attending for better social plans? John later informs us [5] that giving up our "independence" and moral agency to another, especially one that a majority of the world has never seen, is the definition of love. See, being a Christian isn't about "being your best self", it's about giving up your best self so God can make you into His image.
When Christians frame the faith as "being good", they end up following the culture instead of God.
Righteousness is defined by the Righteous
Or, in other words, the rules are defined by the designer.
In our passage in Matthew, Jesus replies that none are good except God. And there is only one way to be good, and that is to follow all the commandments. As we know from Paul, as stated above, this is impossible. And the only one who can judge is the one who keeps all the commandments. This would be the one who designed the commands and lives by them, because that is His nature.
He cannot do anything apart from His own nature, since He himself is perfection. Augustine wrote similarly, "He does what He wills, not because He can will what is against His nature."[6]
A morally agreeable person, while right with a majority of men, can be in staunch rebellion against God. This person can be considered a good Christian all day long, but their judge isn't man, it's God himself.
See, God doesn't care about good morals; He doesn't care if you're super friendly to everyone. He cares that one submits to His will. This may mean that the "nice" Christian image isn't exactly correct. That may mean you are showing cowardice, or tolerating evil, which is sin. This puts you at enmity with God.
Jesus makes it very clear in Matthew [7] that no one can serve two masters. And Paul makes it abundantly clear in Romans [8] that we are all slaves to Christ through salvation. Therefore, our Master dictates our beliefs, our actions, our morals, not what everyone else thinks.
Ethics, not Morals
To finish this up, we need to realize where the how we do what we do, and why we do what we do, comes from. Ethics and morals tend to be misconstrued as the same; ethics come from an external source, and morals from an internal one. Internally, we are not good (as stated above), but externally, we have an only good Creator.
First, our identity is in Christ and the kingdom of God. We no longer should identify with the creation, but with the Creator. He is the reasoning for our actions, and if we do something contrary to the kingdom in the support of our fellow man, we have shamed our King and blasphemed His Glory.
Second, Jesus tells His followers [9] that they will be known for their fruit. A faithful servant produces outcomes that match his Master. That fruit benefits those around him, but it is not rooted in the house of the other master, the one we were bought from. A Christian should not identify with the values of the surrounding culture. The World will recognize the fruit, but that recognition is irrelevant. The fruit reflects the imprint of the One who owns the tree, not the approval of the ones enjoying the fruit. Moral behavior still follows, but it follows as fruit and God cares about the root.
Finally, we have an unchanging Master. The whims of society change across eons, geographies, cultures, and languages. We should recognize the fruit of other servants across this creation, and the world should recognize us. Not because we are labelled "Good" but because our ethics come from our identity, not our humanity.
What do we say then? Do we go to perform for our fellow creations that they may call us good? If that is our goal, our reward will be given on this Earth. What difference would we have from the legalists during the first century? After all, the motive is the same.
Our identity is in Christ. Our ethics follow from that. They rest on two commands. Love the Lord your God with all you are, and love His creation as yourself [10]. Above everything, direct every action toward the glory of God alone.[11] Submission to God defines the Christian, ethical obedience will follow and societal approval is irrelevant.
Romans 2:1-3 ↩︎ ↩︎
Romans 2:3-6 ↩︎ ↩︎
Matthew 19:17 ↩︎ ↩︎
1 Samuel 16:7 ↩︎ ↩︎
1 John 5:3 ↩︎ ↩︎
Augustine. The City of God. Book 5, Chapter 10. Translated by Henry Bettenson. London Oxford University Press, 1972 ↩︎ ↩︎
Matthew 6:24 ↩︎ ↩︎
Romans 6:22 ↩︎ ↩︎
Matthew 7:16-20 ↩︎ ↩︎
Matthew 22:37-39 ↩︎ ↩︎
1 Corinthians 10:31 ↩︎ ↩︎
