What has become of the language of moral relativism, which has no consistent or reliable way of determining right and wrong. Right is what works for one, while it might not for another. Or it is based on how one feels about it. It depends on the circumstances. Situation ethics. But there is no relativism in the judgments against O.J.

  On what grounds are these judgments made? By what standard of morality are critics crying out such denunciations? Is this an admission that there is at least one absolute moral imperative that applies to all alike and in all circumstances – It is wrong to hurt innocent people.

  Most people, both in America and abroad, believe that Simpson murdered two innocent people in cold blood. Not only did he "get by with murder" in a court of law, but he would now profit from his evil deed by publishing a book and by TV appearances. And this to the further hurt of the children whose mother he murdered, and to the family of Ron Goldman, the other innocent victim. This is seen as incredibly obscene and insensitive.

  If this is the moral absolute by which even the pundits are judging O. J. – It is wrong to hurt innocent people – it is appropriate to ask from whence it comes. If we ascertain its source we may find that there are still other moral absolutes. This brings me back to the theme of this essay. I say its source is in our mutual Common Sense – Common Sense morality. There is a law written in our conscience – Romans 2:15 calls it "the law written on their hearts" – that tells us that it is wrong to hurt innocent people. It also gives us other moral imperatives.

  This Common Sense moral law is not readily recognized, especially when man’s fallen nature tends to obstruct it. This is what makes the moral outrage in the Simpson case phenomenal. O. J.’s conduct is so grossly outrageous that all obstructions break down, and the moral law within us emerges in dynamic reality. The moral sensitivities of the most permissive of our society are so offended that they cannot withhold their scathing denunciations of O.J. Those who usually criticize social reformers – particularly the "right wingers" – as "intolerant" find themselves "intolerant" toward O. J.

  Unfortunately, the moral compass within us does not usually fare so well. Some business men who may be outraged over O. J. never bother to scrutinize their own shady practices. O. J. may be denounced in the pulpit when the selfish pride of some of the members is not. At the same time the news broke over what O. J. was up to there was a news item about infectious water conditions in India. The report revealed that 2.2 million people die every year from infectious water-borne diseases. Half of them are children, who die of diarrhea. I have the figures right -- l,l00,000 children die each year in India because of unclean water!

  O.J. made the front page and millions were outraged. The 1.1 million children were somewhere on the inside pages, and probably not particularly noticed by those of us who can even afford to water our lawns with clean water.

  Where is the outrage over so much injustice and inequality in the world? While mariners on the high seas are not likely to ignore the reading of the ship’s compass that guides them on their treacherous voyage, we often ignore –even abuse – the moral compass within us that would direct us through life’s moral hazards. Perhaps Paul has the answer when he refers to those "whose mind the god of this world has blinded" (2 Corinthians 4:4).

  A classic example of Common Sense morality at work is a story out of early American history – the writing of the Mayflower Compact. Here were 102 Pilgrims seeking religious freedom in the New World. They would have had legal status had they landed in Virginia, their intended destination. But they were far north at Cape Cod and without legal portfolio. Once on land as a new community they would have had no statutory law.

  While still aboard the Mayflower they entered into a written covenant. They agreed that they would create "equal and just laws as shall be thought most meet for the general good of the Colony." This document became the basis of written laws in the early colonies.

  What was the basis of such a Compact except Common Sense? Notice the phrase about making equal and just laws: "as shall be thought most meet" for the general good. They were saying they would make laws that most conformed to Common Sense morality.

  It was the case with the Ten Commandments. The giving of those commandments did not make  adultery, stealing, lying, covetousness, and neglect of parents wrong. They were already wrong, written upon the heart of man. Cain had no written law against murder, but he knew he had done wrong when he murdered his brother.

  C. S. Lewis, who was a strong believer in natural moral law, concluded that all honest men share certain universal convictions. They may differ in detail but not in substance. They will all agree, for example, on what the ancient Greeks saw as the heart of moral turpitude – "nothing in excess," which they called the Golden Mean. Lewis was persuaded that "There is in the world a comprehensive and comprehensible truth that accommodates itself to every level of intelligence and is thus available to all men."

  This "truth" expresses itself in different ways. Take for example William James’ principle of "the moral equivalent of war." He meant by this that if nations would address problems of injustice and inequality – such as countless people dying because of impure water – with the same zeal and expense that they wage war, many world problems would be solved. In other words, wage peace with the zeal that we wage war.

  Any "honest" person, as Lewis puts it, or anyone with Common Sense, as I put it, will agree with James. We all say, "Yes, of course, let’s find the moral equivalent of war by loving mercy and doing justly."

  A Danish philosopher named Soren Kierkegaard put the "truth" Lewis referred to in still different terms. Compassion, he avowed, is the basic human virtue, and he believed that there is an urge within all of us to show compassion to suffering humanity. He also talked about "purity of heart." They go together – one with a pure heart will show compassion. It is like saying if our moral compass – Common Sense ethics – is unimpaired it will motivate compassion.

  These are moral principles enough to live by – to do no harm to the innocent, the Golden Mean, to work for justice with same zeal as we wage war, compassion. This is the "truth" that is innate in us all. It is the Common Sense morality that we all have, and which either excuses us or condemns us, as Paul puts it in Romans 2:15.

  And it is the basis for the prophetic call for repentance. Paul had the rejection of such truth in mind when he wrote in Romans 1:18: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

  We suppress the truth that is clearly revealed in our moral conscience. We ignore the readings of our moral compass. We are more cruel than compassionate. We do knowingly harm the innocent, including the unborn. The nations of the world are more adept at waging war than peace. And we are given to excesses, whether in diet, pleasures, money, work, power.

  And so God commands all men everywhere to repent, "because he has appointed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom he has ordained. He has given assurance of this by raising him from the dead" (Acts 17:30-31).

  And not just O. J. Simpson.

  I will address the Richardson East Church of Christ, 1054 E. Campbell Rd., Richardson, Texas, at 10:15 a.m. next Lord’s day, December 2. My subject will be "Life’s Greatest Adventure."

  All these 152 essays are available at leroygarrett.org

  New names will be added upon request.