The title of this post, "Christ as Ethical Model" is in some sense deceiving. The reason for this is what Stanley Hauerwas argued many years ago, "The ethical significance of Jesus" suggests that it is possible to know Jesus apart from that significance (Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom, p. 74). It's as if we can know Jesus and then speak about the moral implications of knowing Jesus. But, if I may state the matter again in Hauerwasian fashion, Jesus is not a proponent of an ethic; Jesus is an ethic. Seen in this way, it is impossible to separate the person and work of Jesus Christ from Christian ethics. Thus accounts of Christian ethics that are formed on abstract rules and principles fall short of the adjective "Christian." It is indeed the case that one may indeed promote principles such as "love one another," but what that means in Christian context can only be understood incarnationally. In other words, it is Christology that gives "flesh and bones" to what it means to love one another.Christology is thus intrinsically central to Christian ethics. The church is a community of people who form their lives around their Christian convictions about Jesus, which means that Christology and ecclesiology are essentially related as well. Thus there should be no distinction between Christian ethics and Christian social ethics Every ethical issue is a social issue. Christian family practices in daily life and the pursuit of personal holiness fall under the category of Christian social ethics in the same way as poverty, ecology, and abortion are social concerns. The distinction between Christian personal ethics and Christian social ethics distorts the very nature of Christian convictions. While "personal" (I even hesitate to use the term in this way) morality may present a different mode of concern in some ways to the Christian church, it is no less a community concern than questions of justice. Indeed, such personal issues are also justice issues. Just because a particular matter is "personal" does not make it less social.
15 comments:
There is a distinct difference when one approaches their ethics from a universalization of "social concern" or "morality", and when one approaches ethics from personal values.
Yes, there should and will be social concern for personal values, as we all live within the world and must "co-operate". But, that will look different as to "commitment" in one's vocation and life choices, as we will value different aspects of the social realm (which is to benefit man).
The individual has to count, as human rights is about choice, individuality, and personhood. And individuality leaves room for "difference". This is why we do not agree to Shairia law, because we value a woman's right to choose her mate (unlike scriptures). We value life such as it is not taken when there is adultry, or just "talking to a boyfriend" or going out alone as a woman.
Our government gives choice and it must and should. And the debate of what constitutes life, liberty and one's pursuit of happiness is as old as the world, but the issues become more complex as we grow more intertwined in globalism and more informed as to science and its understandings...
As to "peacable kingdom" ethics, that is hogwash as it is the ideal, but impractical!!!!!Naions have rights to protect themselves from subversive influences. And individual also have a right to protect themselves from intrusion into their personal lives...
And when I say that individuals have a right to privacy, that means that the person has to choose for themselves to be accountable. No self-righteous judge is to do this for another! As to Jesus as moral model, in this sense, he accepted the unclean, self-righteous people do not.
And as it pertains to the social realm, there is nothing so opressive as a religious regime in government! History is filled with atrocious acts of death penalities that subvert justice for some "pure" and "holy" standard or "right doctrine"!
Angie:
You're doing it again.
Great post Allan!
Your blog is defiantely one of my favs.
Keep up the great work you do with your writtings.
Sorry, I have a very difficult time wanting anything to do with "tradition", as it "smells" to me. And that is because of many years of various encounters with different religious traditions and people...
The Founders of our Constitution knew that religious oppression would transpire if government determined a "religion". This is why Congress cannot establish a religion.
The Puritans, on the other hand, thought that they were purifying the church of England in their "rebellion" against Henry's divorce. Did they understand that they, too, would face, division because of differences concerning relgiious conviction and the sacraments?
Luther also tried to question religious authorities concerning the immorality of moneying the indulgences, and the religious establishment kicked him out, just as they did Hans Kung. So, tradition has its drawbacks. I'm trying to see the value...
Angie, if you were trying to see the value of tradition, Christianity, or even the intent of the blog, then you would not argue examples supportive of your personal bias. You are arguing against the value of Christainity in general in every post without considering the blog. I am glad you are arguing your belief and encourage you to do so. However your arguments are superficial, biased and flawed. I have yet to read anything you have written against Christianity that does not apply to humanity in general. If you want critical observations about Christianity continue to read this and other blogs. Atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and extreme left wing thinkers do not criticize themselves, are blind to thier bias, and are quite superficial in thought and logic. See how easy sweeping generalizations are.
I have never said that "I have all the answers" (if they can be found universally)...
What I have said is that what I have encountered in Christian circles for the most part has been horrendously offensive. And those who try to rectify the situation by "moral determination" do nothing except exasperate the problem.
I believe that human beings are unique, and should be treated as such. But, I also believe that we are "made" to be prejuidiced if we continue to encounter "abuses of power" (which means an ignoring of "voice", because of presuppositions of another "voice"). Perhaps, prejuidie is a bias to proect oneself from further "damage". I don't know, but prejidice does limit one to "open up" toward another, if that label is attached.
Prejuidice is about presuppositons of another, but if there is no "open mind", meaning an open attitude toward "truth", then there is a "closed minded" assertion of absoluteness that limits education.
I recognize that my own bias limits my ability to "hear". But, restoration and healing does not happen when a continuing exclusion happens through no fault of one's own. It only adds to prejuidice. And when that happens, then I usually choose to "exclude myself", as a defense against further rejection and "on principle" of libertarian values...(sorry to be so personal, but I beleive that understanding does not happen except on personal terms, because of personal histories)...
And I must say that in my thinking this is the case with national identities and histories as well...this is why our American experiement of "freedom and justice for all" of utmost importance....
Freedom and justice for all exists only when you choose to understand someone else from thier point of view. You limited exposure to Christianity leads you to general statements that are simply not true. Where is the freedom for me to be Christian without your misguided criticism? Where is the justice in your misunderstanding of Christianity and your harsh rejection. If you cannot see past your skin you cannot possibly be just in your views and you cannot possibly allow others to be free.
Liberty and justice also means that one cannot be coerced for even "good reasons" to be involved in a realtionship. Coercion by its very nature, is a breach of relationship. This is why I am so opposed to determinism.
On another blog I follow, it was stated that there is a difference between natural law and natural rights. Government cannot be determined under natural law, but can be on natural rights. This is an important distinction, as it allows a choice and gives room for difference and whether there will be a relationship with another...reconcilliation cannot be coerced, as that itself is a devaluing of personhood and relationship...
I fail to see how coercion fits in a discussion about Christ and ethics. If a person freely chooses to follow Christ and freely be part of a church, how is that coercive? Not all relationships are coercive in nature? I am sorry that your experience teaches you otherwise. The relationship between Christ and myself is one characterized by God's love, grace, peace, joy, freedom and justice. The relationship between the church and myself is one of mutual respect. Freedom and justice are a natural consequence of these relationships. Are there limits? Of course. Can you drive a car any where you want, any time you want any way you want? No, you cannot. You must be able to afford a car and insurance. Then you must learn how to drive to get a license. Then you must obey all the rules of the road. If you did not chaos would ensue. So you are free to drive provided you follow all the rules of the road. You must give up the freedom to drive any old way you want so that all may drive safely. Justice requires that all obey the same limitations on driving so that chaos death and destruction is avoided. Freedom that is defined as the individual doing whatever she wants without regard to those around her is anarchy, destruction and without reason.
I do not know why others hear antinomianism, when I suggest liberty for individuals. Liberty is about freedom of conscience, which was a value of our country, even in giving others right to worship as they chose.
So, when you say that individuals do not have any rights, then you undermine what we now know as civil liberties, and you undermine the individuals who decided to rebel against the Church establishment, and the country's revolution as a whole. Our nation was not founded as a theocracy, but a limited democracy or Republic.
So, I am not at all suggesting that law has no "force", but the force in our government allows there to be difference of opinion and voice. Some think that disicipleship, church discipline, is about bringing judgment upon others, in the name of Christ. These are the sectarian sorts that desire purity. I, on the other hand, desire the freedom of choice in regards to personal matters of faith...and I think my thinking is in line with the Founding Fathers (but that is debateable according to some that are better informed than I...as they don't know what was in the heads of the Founding Fathers...and Christians think that they know what was in the heads of the writers is Scripture!)
Angie you seem to misunderstand purposely in order to have an excuse for your thoughts. At no point did I say that individuals have no rights. What I said is that absolute freedom for every individual is anarchy. Those who think that discipleship is about judging others in the name of Christ are simply wrong. This is a case of judging the church in an unjust manner. Comparing the Founding Fathers of this nation and the writers of scripture is more than a stretch. Time frame, purpose, language and culture, to name a few differences, seperates the two endeavors. Superficial reasoning and understanding lead to superficial thoughts, words and deed. It would be refreshing to see you respond to what is actually written in this blog or what I have actually written to you rather than the unending loop running in your mind.
Bruce,
I have been processing my faith and because of that, I do have a particular "frame", but that 'frame" has many perspectives, as I have tried to come at my faith from many angles, or sides. I have started a blog site, that gives me a place to address my thinking.
When I have read and responded to a particular blog, unfortunately, I do try to "connect" the things I am thinking about and what I read. This does not lend itself to "hearing" the issue "clearly". But, it does give me more information to "think on", which usually appears somehow connected in my blog writing.
Tradition has its limitations, this is why individuals have limitations, as usually academic freedom (progressive thought) is not acclaimed or applauded in traditional places. I choose to be "free from limitations". That does not mean "free to do as I want", as in commiting a crime, but freedom to choose my values, life commitments, and ultimate priorities.
There is a difference between lawlessness, and civil liberties. And I think that civil liberities are universal as they protect individual convictions and commitments...based on reason's assessment of the individual as ultmate value and government as protective of that value.
Civil liberties are non-discriminatory in battling for many causes of the individual, as this is freedom and justice for all. And the basis of civil liberties is our Constitutional "rights".
Post a Comment