|
|
|
||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Paradoxial Point II
Christianity Reborn: A New Christian Ethic
A New Christian Ethic
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WWJD?
In a pluralistic society and uncertain times, we as Christians can be certain of our salvation in Jesus Christ, but claiming certain knowledge of God's will, manifest in moral precepts, undermines our obligation to emulate Jesus. This is not to say that questions of right and wrong are strictly relative, but rather that our understanding of what is just is never complete. There is one Truth, but it may difficult to know it in its entirety. The assertion of righteousness is always hypocritical at least in part. In our ignorance, we can and must seek divine guidance when it comes to ethical questions, but must be wary: history is filled with those faithfull who truly believe they have been "inspired" to commit the worst atrocities.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jesus washing the disciples' feet
--- Giotto
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As followers of Christ, we can be certian that there is a state of being or way of life which is universally and eternally moral, and it is to be found in the model of Jesus. He embodies the spirit of the Law which alters all those rules which preceded Him. His example urges us to be compassionate and seek to understand all men, since we are all children of the Father, and to turn away from violence, money, and power. This compassion cannot be tainted by judgment, since it is clear that we are in no position to judge, and to avoid this we must view sin as sickness, as a defect or deficiency which separates us from the love of God. Jesus was a healer, and sin is an illness we are commanded to heal.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tolerance, Complicity, and Welcoming
Intolerance is seeking to control the behavior of others who differ from you, and it has historically been codified into law and enforced by physical or econmic violence. Empathy implies respect, and respect implies tolerance. To judge any act as right or wrong, one must first try as much as is possible to see things from the standpoint of the actor. This is empathy, and true empathy disallows any generalizations or labels with respect to the individual. The Christian must try with all his power to discern the face of Jesus in each person, for God's light is there, no matter how distorted or obscured by "the glass." This is how one loves and from this tolerance follows, all claims to to power are renounced.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The rule which can be used to judge all acts is: does this act show love towards others by fulfilling their wants and needs (which may differ from the actor's)? The application of this rule may be difficult however. Not all wants can be respected, and sometimes we must even intervene to thrwart the gratification of another's wants. The wants of a serial killer who murders and maims for his own pleasure go beyond the acceptable even when we try to see it from his point of view, but what of the unemployed man who steals bread to feed his starving children (perhaps a poor example in this country, but you get the point)? Can we judge him? What about the woman who aborts her fetus knowing that she will likely die in childbirth? Or, a even more poignant example, what of the fourteen year old who carries the product of her stepfather's abuse and whose disbelieving mother has disowned her? The poor man steals, and both women kill (if we consider a fetus a to be a human being); but this simple judgment of these acts, removed from context, is not compassionate.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Christian must intercede to prevent those acts which effect the well-being of others (the murder victim, the robbed, the unborn). Not to intercede is to fail in our love for the victims. The killer can be imprisoned, not as an act of personal judgment, which is God's prerorgative, but to protect the innocent. The thief can be jailed, or we can feed his children. We can outlaw abortion in all situations, in effect killing the first woman, or we can forgo forcing her to sacrifice her life for the unborn. And the teenager? We can call her a baby killer, murder the abortionist, change the law, but none of these are acts of compassion toward her. Instead, we can take her into our home, pay her doctor bills, adopt her child. Only if we have given her a choice, and done so personally, which takes into account her wants and needs can we consider rendering judgment on her act. If we cannot understand the circumstance of the actor, if we cannot truly place ourselves in their shoes, we are in no position to judge their acts. What we cannot understand empathetically, we must tolerate.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If we choose to tolerate an act we consider sinful, a transgression against God, at what point does our tolerance become complicity? Does our tolerating an act, particularly one in which there is no clear victim, make us participants in the sinfulact? the most obvious and current example would be the acceptance of homosexuals. Should we accept those who refuse to "repent" of their homosexuality (assuming we consider it a sin and they do not)? Jesus accepted the Samaritan woman at the well and the convicted aduleress prior to any acts of contrition. We are likewise obliged to accept the homosexual and to defend his rights, to stand in the way of hateful stones. But, is our acceptance of the actor an approval of the act? Clearly, we are complicit and transgress when our acceptance involves harm and offense to others. Here the question becomes: what aspects of the homosexual's actions are intended solely to offend others? It becomes an issue of public versus private morality. Since private morality by definition effects no one beyond those involved by consent, we are bound as Christians to tolerate those behaviors found within its sphere. When the sin become public, i.e. inflicts others, we become an accessory.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jesus at the well with the Samaritan woman
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We know we are obliged to accept all men, but does acceptance require welcoming them into the community of believers? If we believe homosexuality is sinful, must we allow a homosexual to be a member of our church, an elder, a minister? Historically, the answer is no if we rely on the letters of Paul; the early church made a point of excluding those who failed to adhere to the moral code of each congregation (and sins varied between churches). This might be seen as conflicting with Jesus' universal invitation, but in a struggling young church whose members were actively persecuted, it was necessary to separate out those who were not truly committed. The church is no longer struggling (except perhaps due to its exclusiveness) nor persecuted, and it is time to re-examine the ethical codes used as a litmus test at that time. We are commended to meet each person on an individual and personal basis as a child of God and welcome them in a spirit of Christian love. Since Jesus allows us to shun no man, perhaps we should leave questions of membership open. The structured church with its rules and dogma was not implicit in Jesus' teachings, he spoke rather to an open fellowship of the faithful.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Charity and Virtues
As members of Western civilization and in contrast to the humanitarianism of many other world religions, we are called on to preemptively act, commended to use our abilities to improve the lot of our fellow men. Most, though not all, of the traditional virtues of our culture support this striving, and the scientific and industrial revolutions enable it. This was, in fact, according to one of its founders, Francis Bacon, the express purpose of the scientific method: charity. Today we are able for the first time in history to be truly charitable due to the fruits of our science. Despite their many problems, Western virtues, science, and capitalism have greatly benefited mankind.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is a difficulty inherent in any virtue based ethic however. When critically examined, many virtues and aspects of our culture are simply self-serving and not ultimately in keeping with the Golden Rule. Virtues such as generosity, faithfulness, hope, patience, and charity are unquestionably consistent with loving one's neighbor, whle others, such as courage, hard work, and perseverance are more ambiguous.
The pagan religions which preceded Christianity did not have a moral code associated with them, but there were definitely lists of virtues in the secular culture. Most of these were linked to decidedly un-Christian values: courage and strength were prerequisite to being a good warrior who could conquer other lands and bring home spoils and slaves; intelligence, skill, and ambition were needed to gain the valued prizes: power and wealth. Talent and knowledge were worthy of honor, but had more to do with personal gain than helping others. While these virtues have done much to shape Western culture, they are not Christian. This is not to say that they are of no worth, since all may be tools to fulfill the needs of others, but rather that they are not laudable in and of themselves. Moreover, the lack of these characteristics in a person is not a defect or justification for disrespect. We are to respect others in their weakness as well as in their sin. As made clear in the Beatitudes, are values are not the world's values. All this makes a virtue ethic problematic unless virtues are firmly tied to and judged by their motives and ends.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(whoops!)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Comments? please
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| page created with Easy Designer |