A rock and a hard place

In Philosophical circles it is largely accepted that there have developed two primary ways that individuals approach building a moral framework by which they then live. Either they choose a system of rules which they dutifully adhere to (Sharia law, the ten commandments, legal contracts etc) or they choose to “follow their heart” as a means of “finding out who they really are”, making sense of right and wrong according to truth as revealed by personal experience.

It is agreed that most of us relay between these two approaches for much of our lives. Although the former is certainly more classically associated with Christianity the later is not alien in modern Christian teaching.

The trouble with "rules" is we get legitimately concerned about who dictates them and why. Also rules can become clumsy and end up serving themselves rather than the reason they were created (see Luke 14:5 or the parliamentary expenses scandal).

Following your heart isn't without it's flaws. What about the person who's heart tells them to molest or destroy or deceive or abandon? These are extreme examples perhaps but are not all our hearts potentially open to the tinkering of selfish desire?

Are we left then to navigate between the unyielding rules on the one hand or the tricky business of discerning whether our hearts can be trusted on the other? Are we destined to bounce infinitely between a rock and a hard place?

We'll be exploring some of the alternatives at Feig in coming weeks. I'll let you know how we get on.

dp