Excellent Post.
I liked the action steps: “1. Admit we are not God., 2. Get the real issues straight., 3. Be more humble about ethical issues., 4. Connect “absolute” to character more than to actions”. We could build a powerful witnessing community of believers with these 4 actions alone.
A similar conversation has been happening on my video blog were I posted a moral dilemma regarding those that are Seeking Wealth, yet wanting to help the poor – http://jlzoeckler.com/post/243162392/seeking-wealth-and-or-solving-poverty

Just as the authors argue that Christial legalists created moral relativists, I wonder if the theory of classical Reformed determinism created atheism and more recently open theism?

I think, in some ways, Tim Keller’s book “The Reason for God” does a good job of tackling some of the hidden presuppositions in moral relativism. Of course being Reformed he brings some presuppositions of his own (his argument on suffering left me wanting more from him) but the work he does to deconstruct relativism was pretty good. Looking forward to getting this book too. Thanks Scot.

Great post. I agree that Keller’s book is great here.
One of the richest contributions of the Christian faith is that we believe truth is first and foremost a person and so is our moral standard. “I am the way, the truth and the life.” -Jesus
What if Christians actually moved away from Law and towards Christ? The way forward in this postmodern, anti-absolutist culture is to continue to point others toward the person of Jesus Christ and the strikingly moral and grace-filled life he lived. Kimball’s book is true, “They like Jesus but not the church.”
Jesus got at least 3 out of these 4 right.
1. Admit we are not God.
2. Get the real issues straight.
3. Be more humble about ethical issues.
4. Connect “absolute” to character more than to actions.
The last one is crucial to what I’m talking about. Hauerwas’s “A Community of Character” is a good starting point.

I have found that moral relativism is motivated by the desire to be kind by former Christians (or children of Christians) in particular. I do see this as a reaction to legalism or lack of relational love in their home. In the end, the argument is strengthened by their own flesh. They will swing from libertine behavior to authoritarian behavior especially when they are in some kind of authority (like parenting). The rule that guides them is their own feelings and so there is no anchor (hence, moral relativism) to constrain them to make principle-based choices (which, in fact, are the kindest choices there are).

Consider chess. There are certain fundamental ‘rules of the game’ that define it. An 8×8 board, 8 pawns per side that move in certain ways, two rooks per side that move in other ways, castling, the initial configuration of the pieces, etc. Now, there is no rule that you can’t sacrifice your queen in the first few moves of the game. It’s illegal to move your king to a threatened square, but it’s perfectly acceptable by the rules to stick your queen in front of a pawn at the start of the game.
However, if you want to win the game, you shouldn’t do that. There are almost no situations (at least, assuming evenly-matched opponents) where giving up your queen at the start will lead to your victory. Similarly, it’s rarely a good idea to move your king out to the center of the board. It’s usually a bad move.
Note words like “shouldn’t” and “bad”. They are value judgements. They prescribe ‘oughts’. They are not part of the ‘rules’ of chess. From where do they come? From the combinations of two things – first, the rules and structure of chess, and second, from the player’s desire to win the game. They are strategic rules.
We have physical laws, and we have human desires. It seems to me that “oughts” – strategic rules – morals – arise from those two things. Some basic game theory, and voila – cooperation, etc. If you want to see a long discussion on this, take a look here: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/12/universal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe/
I contend that I am ethical and moral, that people in general are ethical and moral, because the alternative is running naked in the woods fighting over scraps of food. That’s not the Christian conception of morals handed down from a God on high (which runs into the Euthyphro Dilemma, btw) but it’s not “moral relativism” either.