Thanks for the article and posts. I’ve often struggled with this same issue – not primarily in my own mind, but in how to explain it to other people. One example that I have frequently used and find helpful with regard to the ‘virtuous pagans’ is Mother Theresa.

If Mother Theresa lived in the slums of India, helped the poor, took in orphans, and fed the homeless because it was her heart felt response to what God had done for her in Jesus Christ then her actions were about as virtuous as it gets. If Mother Theresa lived in the slums of India, helped the poor, took in orphans, and fed the homeless because she was trying to earn her righteousness before God then her deeds were not virtuous because she was broadcasting the inadequacy of Jesus’ sacrifice and the ability for humans to earn their own righteousness (contrary to Isaiah 64:6, Phil 3:8).

Why you do something is essential for understanding if it is virtuous or not. That is one of the reasons sin is so deceptive, because so often we (believers) deceive ourselves into believing we are doing things for virtuous reasons when in fact it is to satisfy carnal, sinful desires.

Ultimately we don’t know why she did what she did. But, she does provide an interesting example showing how deeds could be good on one level and not good in the ultimate sense.

I appreciate the analogy of the father. Even separate from proving epistemologically why pagans should prefer the Christian God to Allah, I think demonstrating why Christians believe faith in God is essential for goodness is useful. Many pagans think things like “Even if the Christian God existed, it wouldn’t make sense for him to think it sinful to not believe in Him.” Proving why that idea is false and why it is *justly* false is one of the first steps in helping pagans understand and respect Christian ideas.

If these three scenarios were functioning as direct correlations of how secular virtue is not, in the end, all that impressive because of hidden yet blatant immorality, then I would agree with you that they are indeed straw men! There are many unbelievers who live consistently upright lives, from a limited perspective, one in which the God who makes himself known in Jesus is conveniently left to the side. However, my (poorely executed) intention was to set them forth as instances in which an initial “narrow” glance leaves us believing a person is good, but a wider perspective goes on to reveal to us that all of their goodness is actually tainted and ruined because of the overall framework in which the morality is embedded, and which they fail to live according to. Indeed, on my examples, each person could be absolutely blameless in outward standards of conduct, and STILL be immoral for neglecting the overall duty and obligation towards the most important relationship they are committed to (i.e. husband, king, symphony). Perhaps another way of saying this is that our motives are absolutely essential to take into consideration when we evaluate moral acts–not just what we do, but why we do them. Just as the adulterous wife’s acts all seem praiseworthy from the narrow view towards her husband, if she is not motivated and driven by love and faithfulness and delight in him, he will despise all she does regardless of her spotless record viewed apart from the affair.

In the same way, whether because of our cultural background or because of the effects of our universal spiritual deadness (or both!), none of us seems to be naturally wired in our intuitions to take God seriously as the most significant relationship we are obligated and bound to in our lives. We cannot ignore or reject him without twisting everything else we do and reach for within the narrow perspective of our lives, considered in isolation from Him.

As for Joseph’s last point, that JE (and I) have a problem in establishing WHY this should be considered objectively true for all people (not just Christians), I would just point you to the first half of JE’s “Two Dissertations”, called “The End For Which God Created The World.” Here Edwards labors to show that the purpose of our existence is to participate in God’s own triune life of knowledge and love and joy, and that we do this only through the Son and the Spirit–mere morality, or even religion in general, is not the goal. It’s been a monumental and formative work for my grasp of the bigger picture–I can’t commend it highly enough.

Regardless, whether JE is successful in demonstrating this reality or not, it is only then that he moves on to consider the question of what moral virtue looks like for God’s image bearers, given this prior divine design for human beings. Frequently we Christians move too quickly into ethical questions without first considering the goals of God in creating us, and thus reduce our virtue theory to mere rules (don’t steal, don’t murder, don’t committ adultery, etc.). Of course, all those things are true, but you can obey all of them rigidly and STILL not be a virtous person, IF Christianity is true and we are intended to relate to everything in this world through the lenses of our overarching relationship with God in Christ. Spiritual adultery, treason, and disharmony (to allude to my three examples) are all still on the table, even if from the narrower perspective we are “good” people.

So the point isn’t that your mom (or most “virtuous pagans”) is tantamount to an adulteress, but rather that what we have to say about the goodness of her conduct depends on our perspective. Our perspective, unfortunately, often fails to consider God as a person (which He is) to whom we are deeply obligated. Once we remember that, it becomes clear that a life that does not acknowledge God is lacking in a fundamental way.

Perhaps a better analogy would be a man who is a devoted husband and father to all but one of his children. His conduct towards his wife and most of his children is laudable, but that does not, in and of itself, excuse his conduct toward the one neglected child. In the same way, your mother’s genuine concern for the needy and her love for your father do not, in and of themselves, justify her lack of concern for God.

I think the larger problem for Nick’s (and Edwards’) point is demonstrating that epistemological vantage point of “virtuous pagans” is such that they should believe in (the Christian) God and act accordingly; without clarifying how that is the case, their neglect for Jesus seems no different from my neglect for Allah.

(My apologies for bringing your mom into this. )