New Terminology Quietly Making Inroads
Redirecting Responsibility for Sin Away from You

Moral injury is quietly making its way into popular culture after percolating in the scientism wings for twenty years or so. I actually heard this term used on Facebook equating burnoutwith moral injury. Curious, I did a quick study to grasp the basic concept only to discover this was not new after all. It was just a repackaging of an ancient concept: responsibility for sin belongs to whom?

The Preacher said, "...there is nothing new under the sun" (Ec 1:9). From the very beginning of sin, individuals have sought ways to deflect responsibility from themselves onto others, even God (Ge 3:12-13). The 20th century embraced the scientism of psychology which first explained away God and then explained via many changing explanations, masquerading as diagnoses, of sin. The effects of sin are not the fault of the individual. It may be one's environment, education, parenting errors and on and on and on were to blame for one's maladjustment. Thus, any harmful behaviors stemming from these influences were not the responsibility of the person as these were beyond one's control. But, let us adhere to the Law of Identity and define the term, moral injury.

The above graphic contains the latest definition; however, it also violates the Law of Identity as it does not identify its terms. Thus, its definition is not a definition but an unknowable, and therefore, unverifiable, statement; in other words, an opinion. What is meant by right, confidence, high stakes, just, ethicaland manner? Syracuse University's Moral Injury Project, has an article entitled, What is Moral Injury?Guess what? They do not define these terms either. Instead, the article contains such vague statements as: "Moral injury must be acknowledged..."; "Moral injury is damage done to the soul...."; and "Raising awareness is prerequisite to creating change.". Michael D. Matthews Ph.D. linked moral injury to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (Psychology Today. Moral Injury Toxic Leadership, Maleficent Organizations, and Psychological Distress.) rather than define the term. In both articles, moral injury is linked to military to explain the emotional toll the troops undergo after combat. How is PTSD different from moral injury? PTSD is linked to changes in the amygdala and hippocampus while moral injury requiresa healthy prefrontal cortex where empathy and moral thinking occur (See Below).

Statements given as factscannot be facts
Science cannot identify howthe brain thinks

This is the perennial problem with psychology. It makes statements of fact that are not verifiable. There may be changes in the amygdala and hippocampus but there is no scientific methodology that can measure the non-empirical and thinking is non-empirical. How does the brain generate thoughts? How are thoughts stored? How can simple chemical processes accomplish these tasks? Instead, these problems are ignored, and factualstatements substitute for facts. This is scientism, not science. Science can only provide facts. The researcher puts the factsinto a conceptual framework {theory} to explain the facts. The theory may or may not be correct and depends on further experimentation. Thus, science can neverdeduce truth {absolutes}; at best it admits to being man's conjectural understanding at that time. Scientism consistently uses terms that cannot be defined. The use of soul (What is Moral Injury?) cannot be defined. In fact, knowledge that the soul exists only comes from the Bible; and the Bible does not define the term (1Co 15:45). As usual, violation of logic yields terms that can mean whatever one needs for whatever is required at any moment.

Linking moral injury to combat troops commits the logical fallacy of appeal to authority and emotion. Americans nearly worship their military troops, though they send them into combat nearly continuously since the Spanish American War often for the frivolous of goals. Combat requires people to horrible things to each other. Of course, those involved will struggle to reconcile their moral conscience with their actions. Leadership is comprised of people. Some people are better at leadership than the majority of others, no question. This is true of every occupation. By linking moral injury to military troops, any effort to reject the term is viewed as a blow against the righteous soldiers who suffer from combat. One is condemned almost from the beginning. It also makes moral injury appear as a righteous cause, ensconcing it in scientism's ever-expanding lexicon of excuses for sin until it can be applied to nearly anything. PTSD began the same, an explanation for post combat stress. Today, college children claim PTSD when they hear frighteningwords, as they define the words!

The Bible defines moral injury as sin (Ro 1:18-32). Man knew the truth of God. Man rejected the truth of God. Man substituted his own thoughts for God's truth. Man redefined truth as pertaining to empirical observations, then expanded them into non-empirical philosophies. This resulted in God allowing man to live by his own imaginations. This resulted in degradation and violence which increased as man moved further from God's truth. This affected every aspect of man's soul: from being disobedient to parents to murder, and everything else in between. Everyone is conceived in sin (Ps 51:5). Everyone ever born is morally injured. Everyone ever born inflicts moral injury on others. No one is guiltless of this. However, scientism, filled with false teachers, seeks to keep its adherents from the truth (2Pe 2:1-3, 15, 18-19, 22). Just as PTSD became inanely trivialized, moral injury is already becoming trivialized. Burnout is quickly being morphed into a moral injury. But, using the term injurymoves responsibility for workplace performance from the individual to the leadership and if they fail, however that may be defined, I am sure they will be legally liable.

Sin Always Results in Moral Injury
Hiding the Cause Hides the Cure