The destruction of the Canaanites is horrific. But as I explained last month, it is not immoral. Within the framework provided by the Bible, what happened to the Canaanites was not an act of aggression but a righteous act of justice. The Bible has a coherent explanation, but is it plausible? However logical the argument, it will be hard to convince someone that the slaughter of a whole nation — men, women, children and animals can be morally right.
How do we overcome this plausibility barrier? Firstly, we need to point out that what we are ready to accept as ‘obviously true’ is very subjective. It is dependent on what the culture around us assumes as obviously true and what we ourselves want to hear. E.g. ten years ago that lasting growth could be built on debt seemed very plausible.
Secondly, we need to tease out the unspoken, and often unthought, assumptions that determine what people find plausible by asking the question, ‘Why?’ To ask the question, ‘Why do you think the destruction of the Canaanites is morally wrong?’ stops us being on the defensive and reminds an unbeliever that they need to justify their position just as much as a Christian.
