We don't see how these "biblical principles" just form ANOTHER LAYER of superego-istic compulsive valuation that LEADS to condemnation of all types (including SELF-condemnation)

God wants to FREE us from this!

This, I believe, is the CENTRAL ISSUE that God has been trying to say through Greg's "Myth of a Christian Nation" and "Repenting of Religion" books.  It's to help reveal how utterly IDOLATROUS our propensity to living by our OWN CREATED PRINCIPLES can really be!

Meph Man:  Fallen society NEEDS ethics.

Brandon:  Hmmm...are Christians not fallen?  Do they not participate in fallen society?  Agonized participants remember?

Ok.  This again is where I think you guys have always been screwed up on this (and I mean that nicely Meph Man).  It's like you are confusing the two categories.

Let's look at two PRINCIPLES.  Both are CONCERNED with HUMAN FLOURISHING (and I KNOW that's your thing Meph Man and in a very theological way I might add [NOT in a secularistic way]).

First there is justice for equitable treatment and love for their (human) good (which is to say their HIGHEST GOOD, not necessarily their success and enjoyment in life).

Justice

Ps 103:6 "The LORD works righteousness and justice for all the oppressed."  So, even if you don't believe that Christians should be involved in politics in which they have to have "power over" others, I'm sure you would agree, speaking from without, that Christians should be concerned about just laws, just government, a just economy with fair prices and fair wages and equitable relationships between a faithful husband and wife.  We should be concerned about peaceful and equitable relationships in amongst the nations of the world (by they way, this should be a reminder to all you Americans getting ready to vote this year that one of the motivating principles of voting in the 21st century are politicians who are concerned with GLOBAL politics and not only LOCAL ones).  We could say that justice is the "distributive principle" which treats all persons equitably.

Love

Now, love, as agape is not what the Greeks called "eros"--desiring something for oneself, but is rather a self-giving, sacrificial attitude.  It is not like a friendship in which it must be reciprocated if it is to survive.  It isn't a nice warm feeling.  It is an overall moral principle, all inclusive and exceptionless that should govern all of our actions.  It would be a selfless devotion to God that issues in sacrifical service to others.  Prime example?  Mother Teresa.

Now, justice and love DON'T CONFLICT but rather CONTRIBUTE to each other.  Love would be obligated in justice to distribute its benefits equitably rather than playing favorites or practicing discrimination and unfairness, so justice is motivated by love to keep its relentless quest tirelessly alive (I spoke with Modes about this when I visited him and his lovely wife).  Justice is more the OUTWARD ORDERING of life while love is more the INNER personalized concern.  Love without justice would be amorphous and lack direction.  Justice without love is uncaring and detached.  Now, together both of these sum up the Hebrew term "shalom."  Peace.  But it is peace of a certain kind (each man sitting under his own fig tree says Micah), a liberating peace (the children dancing in the streets [I know you prefer to think of hip-hop]).  Ultimately?  It's to find our highest end in satisfaction with God.  To glorify God and enjoy him forever.

Rules

Now, what moral principles require in SPECIFIED areas of life or kinds of activities is indicated by moral rules.  And it is THIS area in which we are to be lead by the Spirit.  Now, we have, "You shall not kill" Ex 20:13 which calls for the regard of human life that one would expect in a just and equitable society.  A society that is motivated by love and that is not self-serving.  But guess what?  THIS is very general and needs more DETAILED APPLICATION and it is here where the Mosaic law goes on to treat accidental manslaughter, killing in self-defense and capital punishment as exceptional cases which must be safeguarded against unjust abuses.

Well, what happens is that some theorists reject a "rule-ethic" because what they do is move from the principle to the cases in which we act.  Thus, they adopt an "act-ethic."  Rules are at best, "rules of thumb" (which I'm pretty sure is where Greg is coming from.  At least he has adopted some of this into his ethical thinking).  That is, behavior patterns based on past experiences.  Hence, we are NOT OBLIGATED to follow them.  Thus, you may have an "act-utilitarian."  That is, one is prepared to treat EACH particular killing or sexual liason in terms of it's utility.

Well, the problem here is that this puts considerable strain on our ability to predict and calculate consequences.  Plus, it also leans strongly toward ethical relativism.

Situation ethics is an act-theory in that it treates each situation on it's own merits and shuns moral rules as a form of legalism (again, something I think where you guys are coming from as well).

However, an act-ethic presupposes that there are no universal and lasting structures to human life that exist.  That there are no distinguishable areas of UNCHANGING RESPONSIBILITY.  No "action spheres" we all have in common.  But if there are creation orders, law spheres and creation mandates.  Humans are generically alike and share a common world.  We all have common needs and common activities--physical, economic, familial and so on.  Life is not sooo different for most of us as the situationist might suppose nor do acts differ so widely as the act-ethicist assumes.  Moral rules are not only common for the common experiences of life but are extremely valuable for guiding life wisely and well (though we should not misunderstand this to mean that there are no areas in which the rules don't apply).

And this is where I think you guys have the most problems with ethics.  There seems to be this fear of legalism.  Because legalism binds the conscience to manmade rules for EVERY POSSIBLE situation, imposing a rule for EVERY case such that it hides the "weighteier matters of the law"--the underlying principles of love and justice beneath a load of particular behavioral requirements.  An elevation of rules to exceptionless principles.  Personally, I think this is a wrong reading of those who believe in universals or principlists (if you will).

There have been ways that ethicists have dealt with these dilemmas but all I'm saying is that there is a confusion between these two and understandably so.  Nonetheless...

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 10/2/2006 12:34:04 PM (GMT-5)

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith. But you ought to have done these, and not to have left the other undone."

How does this differ from an Islamic terrorist? 

Oh, BBBCanada now, eh?  No mo "Brandon???" 

Meph Man:  Perhaps this is part of the lie that we've bought into, Brandon. That God HELPS US work for him...rather than it truly being God who works through us because of our WILLED SUBMISSION to God's will in the world.

Brandon or BBBCanada:  And that's a big perhaps.  I am not suggesting that we have heard God's voice in a particular moral dilemma as being what we should follow.  That's where we run into problems. Thinking our agendas are God's.  But given all that I've said (of which you have agreed with) I don't see that we there is a real issue with principles here.  I mean, let's look here.  When we start being concerned about justice for the environment, or for women or black people or Asian people, or child slavery, etc, (within their given sociological contexts)?  Personally begin to see God at work.  However, I do "suspend" my ethic judgment on this or that social cause beliving that I may be wrong about it as being something God is doing in the earth.

Meph Man:  I hope that you are NOT hearing me as minimizing the emotional drive for theodicy. I understand WHY it's here. What I am trying to articulate is that this very understandable drive MUST be relativized according to the TRUE TELOS God has for human beings.

Brandon (now):  I've not had a problem that things such as the family or almost any other issue should be relative to the Gospel.  But it is a box within a box.  And we are faced with moral dilemmas.  We make moral decisions.  We make them personally.  We make them corporately.  The more we do so on a corporate level?  The moral difficult it is because of the number of free-agents involved.  I would never be so presumptous as to say this or that is God's working.  But I wonder if when Paul said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" that this did not only have implications sociologically but the ethical "trajectory" of scripture was directional in terms of greater freedom for females, slaves and Greeks (though I will not give an affirmative "Yes" on something because it is, after all, a trajectory and thus is still in motion).