 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > Loveless Ethics? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 6/4/2003 10:02 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
True love and true ethics cannot exist without one another, because true ethics will want the highest good for both the individual and the whole, which is the same goal of love.
Describe for me the criterion for true ethics.
Describe for me then the criterion for love.
How do the differ? If they do not, why do we have two words? What do you expect from a good judge? True love or true ethics?
In order for me to understand your objections, I'd need coherent responses to these questions.
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 6/4/2003 10:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I would add that true love involves four, not three. You, God, your neighbor and the community a person exists in, both in the world and in the kingdom. One cannot truly love without taking all these into account.
"The community" is an abstraction that we use when we are dealing with more than a certain number of individuals. God does not need a abridgment. God relates to each individual directly. This is the meaning of the preisthood of all beleivers. No mediator between us and God. When we relate to God in this way, as individuals submissive before God, and then self-sacrificially loving our neighbor, we are loving in the Christian sense. A community could ask the question, "what is the most loving thing to do," but if it is not just or fair, then what should happen the next time the community comes into a similar situation? Should it then be able to resort to "justice" later when it showed preference previously? Who gets to decide this?
I am still trying to sort through some of the sticky points of thinking through love and justice, but so far, it seems necessary to me to keep them distinct. My last question above I am not sure how to answer. I am not sure what to say about your four, that seems right, but it also seems to complicate the structure I am trying to lay out...
Still processing...
Thanks for the interaction.
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 6/4/2003 11:08 AM (GMT -6) | | I do not believe community is an abstraction as you put it. If one consistantly reads both Old and New Testament one sees that God worked through the community of Israel in the Old and now works through the community of the church in the New. As such, we have a responsibility to love the fourth, the community as well. I would say the priesthood of believers points to such a thing, for God works collectively through us as a body and expects us to love the body and work through it as well.
I think the idea that the individual and the rights of individual is always foremost in God's mind is, by and large, a western concept, which is not always in keeping with scriptural truths.
I would also add that, in answer to your question about community and who would be right and who would decide, that the same question could be asked for the individual as well. Are you expecting that somehow communities are more evil than individuals? All are prone to making mistakes...
Edited by - honorman on 06/04/2003 4:11:52 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 6/4/2003 11:09 AM (GMT -6) | | To be honest as I said, I am not sure you can have true love without true ethics or visa versa. But I am still working on that one...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 6/4/2003 11:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Like I said, still processing on the three or four thing, but would you agree at least this far:
That if you asked a judge whether ethics had to do with self-sacrifically obeying God or whether it had to do with the good of the whole and justice generally, he would choose the latter?
And if you asked a priest or pastor whether Christian love had more to do with self-sacrificially obeying God or encouraging the percieved good of the whole he would say the former?
To me, the difference is as distinct as the kingom of God is distinct from the kingdom of this world.
If what this world thinks is good is the same as what God thinks is good, then what is distinctive about Christian love?
What I am after here is simply whether love and ethics are distinct, that is, whether they have differing criteria.
What do you think?
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/4/2003 11:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Maybe too simplistic - but ethics are the rules of "right" conduct - your moral obligation and duty to follow these rules for the good of society. I've heard ethicists say that if you were the only one living (say a hermit)- and you are not in a community, then there is no such thing as ethics, bc you have to be talking about the duty to treat others rightly.
You can have great ethical behavior and absolutely not have any love. Kind of like what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13 - if you do all the right things but have not love, it is not enough for God.
GOd calls you to acting not only ethically, but more than ethically - in my opinion. It's your attitude towards others, not merely 'following" the rules. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 6/4/2003 1:41 PM (GMT -6) | | We seem to agree on this RD.
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 6/4/2003 2:00 PM (GMT -6) | | John Earp
It seems to me that:
1. God is loving and righteous and merciful all at the same time. His actions and intentions are the very definition of ethics.
Therefore,
2. It is not unethical to bestow mercy (unless we are willing to say that God is being unloving and unrighteous in giving mercy).
Addendum:
I must add here that #2 brings out the absolute necessity of a proper atonement in order for mercy to be righteously bestowed.
Iconoclast
Why does #2 imply your addendum?
If the the very definition of ethics is God’s actions and intentions then why does this “ethic” require some “sacrifice” in order to bestow mercy?
If God’s “justice” is simply an aspect or a modification of His love then why does God’s “justice” require this propitiation of sin – this sacrifice?
Didn’t God say that He desires mercy and NOT sacrifice?
I can understand how worldly ethics requires some propitiation in order to satisfy its requirement of fairness and justice. But I don’t see why God’s justice which is simply an aspect or a modification of His love requires any such thing.
Do you mean this epistemologically? That because we are stuck in the legal view and we believe that justice MUST be satisfied (eye for an eye sort of stuff) that therefore it was necessary for God to make a proper atonement to satisfy our needs? Sort of like accomodating us by making us clothing because our being stuck in the legal view causes us to feel shame before others?
I can see how what you are saying makes a ton of sense epistemologically. I have a hard time seeing how this is true ontologically.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 06/04/2003 8:44:33 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 6/4/2003 2:21 PM (GMT -6) | | honorman
No, Icon, I want it because, foremost, justice is served. That is the first reason. You commit a crime, you should be punished. One of the essenses of the gospel is that punishment must be done for the crime. God paid that punishment. But on a smaller level, we must be punished for crimes commited within a society because that is what is just. Wanting a safer society and other things should be secondary to this prime consideration.
Iconoclast
Are you saying that the principle of justice (eye for an eye sort of stuff) is what is primary for all of us to uphold in each other? That we should care more about upholding the law of justice than we care about actually helping other people?
Also, how is this consistent with the example God set for us? Are you saying that even though God sacrificed Himself so that we no longer have to enforce the principle of justice on ourselves that we should not follow this example? That we should instead enforce the principle of justice on others to the full extent that the law of justice requires?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/4/2003 7:10 PM (GMT -6) | | John Earp
It seems to me that:
1. God is loving and righteous and merciful all at the same time. His actions and intentions are the very definition of ethics.
Therefore,
2. It is not unethical to bestow mercy (unless we are willing to say that God is being unloving and unrighteous in giving mercy).
Addendum:
I must add here that #2 brings out the absolute necessity of a proper atonement in order for mercy to be righteously bestowed.
Iconoclast
Why does #2 imply your addendum?
John
Perhaps a secular example will suffice. If a king pardons (grants mercy) unconditionally to all offenders, his very authority as king (the law) is undermined. Likewise, our Heavenly King could not grant a general pardon to all unconditionally without an atonement. (For the sake of discussion I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you are not a universalist).
Icon:
If the the very definition of ethics is God’s actions and intentions then why does this “ethic” require some “sacrifice” in order to bestow mercy?
John:
The Governmental Theory of the Atonement (Grotius) makes a strong case for the necessity of atonement as a factor in divine government. Simply put it would be unethical to forgive without an atonement. In the middle-eastern culture of biblical times, King Darius could not just let Daniel off because he wanted to, Daniel had to be placed in the lions' den. It was the unalterable law of the Medes and the Persians, and even the king could not revoke it. Expanding this to the Bible in general, we find that in all cases, God's own Law did not simply allow Him to let rebels against his righteous rule go free. What was necessary was an atonement.
This is also a theme of the Old Testament in the sacrificial offerings for purposes of atonement. In fact, I find that the idea of a blood atonement (not punishment or penal substitution per se) is one of the themes that coheres the two Testaments.
Icon
Do you mean this epistemologically? That because we are stuck in the legal view and we believe that justice MUST be satisfied (eye for an eye sort of stuff) that therefore it was necessary for God to make a proper atonement to satisfy our needs? Sort of like accomodating us by making us clothing because our being stuck in the legal view causes us to feel shame before others?
John
I do not see it as "justice must be satisfied" in the sense of an eye for an eye, not at all. Jesus did not suffer even a rough equivalent to eternity in hell. With classical Arminians, I find the concept of "public justice" as opposed to "retributive justice" (a la Calvinism) to make more sense.
Icon
I can see how what you are saying makes a ton of sense epistemologically. I have a hard time seeing how this is true ontologically.
John
Okay, let me make sure I'm understanding you. (Philosophy was never one of my better subjects). Epistemology has to do with the nature of knowledge, correct? Ontology has to do with "the nature of existence/being." I must confess I never really have been able to grasp what the real difference is in questions like this. Could you clarify why you think ontologically speaking something may not be true which is in fact true epistemologically?
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 06/05/2003 12:14:50 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/4/2003 7:55 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Like I said, still processing on the three or four thing, but would you agree at least this far:
That if you asked a judge whether ethics had to do with self-sacrifically obeying God or whether it had to do with the good of the whole and justice generally, he would choose the latter?
And if you asked a priest or pastor whether Christian love had more to do with self-sacrificially obeying God or encouraging the percieved good of the whole he would say the former?
To me, the difference is as distinct as the kingom of God is distinct from the kingdom of this world.
If what this world thinks is good is the same as what God thinks is good, then what is distinctive about Christian love?
What I am after here is simply whether love and ethics are distinct, that is, whether they have differing criteria.
What do you think?
Hi Modes,
I think you are perhaps overlooking the fact that as Christians we are talking about Christian ethics, not secular ethics. As Icon and I finally came to a basic agreement about, for the Christian to be loving and to act in loving manner is the definition of Christian ethics.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 06/05/2003 12:56:23 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 6/5/2003 9:31 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
Let me try to clarify my use of terms:
I am trying to keep things that are relative relative and that which is absolute, absolute.
When I speak of ethics, I mean what RD said above, agreed upon socially relavent rules that must be followed and obeyed. Consequences rightly follow for unethical behavior.
Only an "ethic" which refers directly to God for its criterion is absolute. All other referants are relative. Now, I mean GOD not the idea of justice or the idea of God as just, etc. I mean, the concrete expression of God in Jesus Christ. This would then be a Christian "ethic" but it would not agree with what the world describes as ethical at many important points. This is why I resist the term Christian ethic. I think it is fundamentally confusing.
However, Love, which Christ expresses, manifests and commands, this is an absolute. Problem is, it is not "verifiable" like other ethical commands/requirements. Love is a spiritual requirement. Ethics is a more basic social construct that we can more easily grasp. Now I can see why Christians would like to convert love into ethics, it would be enforceable, predictable, measureable, etc, and that would give us a greater sense of security and enable us to compare our selves with one another, but this not what Love (God) wants. Rather, we are to compare ourselves only to Christ. Do you love like Christ loves? No? Well, get going then. At least confess that you don't and that you won't and then accept the humility that comes from that honesty with yourself and God.
Ethics doesn't relate to an absolute like this, rather it swims in the relativity of life. Judges deem this person more or less guilty, that person more or less innocent, punishing this one and not that one, etc. Justice is served to a certain degree, but then, not fully.
Ethics deals with interhuman interaction and has an ideal like justice as its telos or criterion. Love ALWAYS relates to God and has Christ as its cirterion.
So, I do not accept what most people mean by "Christian Ethics." The easiest way to describe "why" is for you to give me some examples of what a Christian ethic includes. We would then consider how it relates to Christ (since it claims to be "Christian," right?) or not. By this we can see whether it is absolute or not. So, give me some examples of things you would include in a "Christian ethic."
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/5/2003 1:15 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
So, give me some examples of things you would include in a "Christian ethic."
Jesus summed up the Law and Prophets in two commands. All the other NT writers reiterated this point--"He that loves his brother has fulfilled the law," and "The whole law is contained in one word--thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." John said "he that does not love does not know God," "this is the commandment he has given us, that we should love one another," and "this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments, and his commandments are not burdensome."
The Sermon on the Mount gives more detail. (Please note that the Anabaptist tradition views the SOtM as normative for Christians. I would agree).
Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments." (Note the progression).
and,
"This is my commandment that you love one another."
Of course, this doesn't give us a set of principles so much as a guide (the Spirit of love) as to how to live. This is the prime example of what it means to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work within you, both to do and to will according to his good pleasure.
Whether or not I measure up to how you think I should love by no means does away with the command.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 06/06/2003 12:53:57 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 6/5/2003 1:38 PM (GMT -6) | | John, I completely agree with all that you just posted, but how is that an "ethic"? those texts show what love requires. But they are matters of the heart of the imitator of Christ.
Everything you are describing so far sounds like love, not like ethics.
How would you describe ethics? What is the criterion?
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/5/2003 3:26 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
How would you describe ethics? What is the criterion?
As I understand it, ethics refers to right and wrong. As a Christian right and wrong is determined according to what is loving. It's not only an emotion, it's a decision.
To love as God loves, as I understand it, is to desire and act towards the highest good of the universe of moral creatures without selfish motives. (No strings attached).
Because Paul and Jesus both refer to being loving as "fulfilling the law"--ethics for the servant/child of God), to my mind it does not follow how for a Christian we can truly separate ethics from godly love. If one's words, thoughts, and deeds are not motivated by godly love, they are by definition not righteous. They are like the Pharisees' actions, outwardly appearing righteous, but inwardly full of dead men's bones. It is a grave mistake to think a Christian can act ethically without acting lovingly. Please note I do not see agape to be properly defined as mere sentiment.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 6/5/2003 7:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Not participating in the current thrust of the argument, but just wanted to throw out a couple of definitions.
Moralality (or theology) lays out rules: Murder is wrong. Love is the highest commandment. And so forth.
Ethics is the practical application of morality. "In this instance of self defense is it more loving to kill someone or let them kill me?"
So a loveless ethic would, it seems to me, be possible, as would an ethicless love.
For the former, you don't have to deny the value of love, you simply build on the idea that Love isn't a Moral or a Rule to be applied, therefore it makes no sense to try to place it in situations. Rather love is the motivation behind other morals "It is good to be patient. It is good to be kind." etc.
For the latter, you apply the Bonhoefferian idea that you can't have particular rules that unfailingly get you through situations. Instead, the Spirit in you guides your behavior in any situation. An action that's loving in one situation may not be in another, at another time, or given a context that only God is aware of.
I agree with John that a truly loveless ethic (in the sense of not making love an ethical consideration) is un-Biblical, but I'm not sure if anyone is arguing for that.
At the same time, I understand why the Bonhoefferites want an ethicless love, but it seems impractical, unweildy, and prone to abuse. I also think there were specific psychological and social reasons why B. posited the idea 50 years ago, but that's another thread. In practice, though, from an outsider's perspective, being led by the Wind of the Spirit wouldn't look much different than the typically abused ethical systems (Casuistry, Utilitarianism, and so on). Just like smart folks can justify anything by bending the rules of the ethical system, they can rationalize behavior through "the Spirit made me do it" excuses.
Enough from me.
Terry
Edited by - Terry_Baxter on 06/06/2003 12:14:35 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 6/6/2003 4:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Terry, that's helpful. I am actually not very interested in Bonhoeffer, but rather I am playing out what I hear Kierkegaard saying.
I agree that morality (though I would never include Theology here) lays out rules.
I also agree that ethics attempts to apply these rules.
I also agree that a truly loveless ethic would be unbiblical.
What I am saying is that love both fulfills the law and intensifies it. The sermon on the mount is all about this. The intensification drives the issue back into your own lap, your own heart. You have heard...don't kill... but I say, don't even be angry with your neighbor, etc.... This intensification is much more than obeying the law. However, it also means that a new standard is needed. We can no longer be satisfied with merely the objectively stated rules of morality, as Terry stated.
Rather, we must now obey God as the Absolute cirtierion for love. How we do this hasn't even entered the conversation, which I think is unfortunate. That is really were the difficulty lies. Not in what we are to do, but how.
Also, Terry, I agree that love is a very dangerous thing. Electra has been arguing this quite persuasively. But should we expect it not to be? It got God killed, why should we think that we will be spared? No, if we are spared, we are also prevented from being witnesses, that is, martyrs for the faith. The church growth strategy of the early church was always radical witness to the Love of God in Christ to the self-sacrifical point of dying to oneself and the world, literally if thats the way it goes...
What do you think, Terry? Do you and I agree as much as it seems?
Thanks.
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/6/2003 5:07 AM (GMT -6) | | The more posts I read on this topic the more confused I get. I recently attended an ethics Continuing Legal Education course devoted to criminal law issues - both for criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors. It is clear to me from this (and many other classes) that the ethics that criminal defense lawyers are bound to are NOT the ethics that the typical citizen might believe are "right." For example, the most important value is zealous defense of client - that is more important than the potential or real ramifications on the victim. Whereas, the "right" thing to do under most people's sense of ethics would be to prevent harm to the victim, under the ethics the lawyers are REQUIRED to follow is to do the best thing for the defendant. These often are conflicting.
Ethics, or rules, must be situational, in my opinion. Even under our own Constitution, the protections for criminal defendants are great and are based on the idea that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be imprisoned. Now, is that necessarily what everyone believes in their own personal life?
So, ethics are the prevailing rules of whatever society, profession, situation, you may find yourself in. You may not agree with them, and if you do'nt, then you do not stay in that profession, society, etc.
Love - while much more difficult to define since it is NOT based on rules, per se - seems to be much broader. Saying to live by the Golden Rule doesn't really help practically - do unto others as you would have them do unto you - how does that work in the area of criminal law, for example?
I guess I am confused. I don't see what "CHristian ethics" are - I believe as Christians you can uphold whatever set of ethics are necessary as long as they are not in violation of God's laws. This is a very difficult topic , IMHO...
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 6/6/2003 6:02 AM (GMT -6) | | RD!!!
You may think you are confused, but what you said made perfect sense to me. The only thing I disagree with you on is whether it is difficult to understand what love requires. It is not. The difficulty does not lie in understanding love, it lies it doing it. Love is easy to understand, sacrifice yourself for the sake of Christ. Worship God alone, obey God in all things.
"Only, live your life in a manner that is worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that, whether I come and see you or am absent and here about you, I will know that you are standing firm in one spirit, striving side by side with one mind for the faith of the gospel, and in no way are you intimidated by your opponents. For them this is evidence of their destruction, but of your salvation. And this is God's doing. For he has graciously granted you the privilege not only of believing in Christ, but of suffering for him as well--since you are having the same struggle that you saw I had and now hear that I still have (Paul is in prison, among other things). If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy, make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to you own interests, but to the interests of others."
Phil. 1:27-2:4
The easy way of understanding it becomes clear when you pay attention to unconditional requirements such as: you cannot serve two masters...okay, serve God only (not God on sundays and IBM Monday-Friday). Seek FIRST the kingdom of God (not first secure your livelihood and THEN seek God...)...etc.
We take these to be guides. They are not. There is nothing conditional about these commands. I need to be clear here, I do not claim to succeed at doing these things. But I do understand these to be the task of the Christian life. For clear examples of what this looks like, see what Jesus did, and what he required of his disciples. Can we do this? Not likely. Is it the task of the Christian life to do these things? Absolutely. What does this mean? Honesty and humility before God, God's commands, and our neighbor are all very much in order. This all presupposes we can be honest with ourselves about the truth of the situation. I see people trying to rework the categories to make ourselves out to be successful in relation to a scaled down version of God's requirements. Yes, there are clear Christian requirements.
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
Edited by - ModesofThought on 06/06/2003 11:06:19 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 6/7/2003 9:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Hiya Modes. I always enjoy reading your words.
quote:
I am actually not very interested in Bonhoeffer, but rather I am playing out what I hear Kierkegaard saying.
Ah, much more interesting then!
quote:
Rather, we must now obey God as the Absolute cirtierion for love. How we do this hasn't even entered the conversation, which I think is unfortunate. That is really were the difficulty lies. Not in what we are to do, but how.
I like that thought quite a lot and would love to read more from you on the topic.
quote:
Also, Terry, I agree that love is a very dangerous thing. Electra has been arguing this quite persuasively.
I guess I didn’t follow the thread where that occurred, so I’m not sure the sense in which you mean love is dangerous. You mean it leads us to self-sacrificial and self-abnegating paths in life? I agree with that, but, as Paul Harvey would say, that isn’t the whole story.
quote:
What do you think, Terry? Do you and I agree as much as it seems?
Honestly haven’t read this entire thread, but I’ll try to do it soon. I don’t disagree with anything you wrote in your response except for the “got God killed” part. I know it’s hyperbole, but the phrasing makes God sound like a passive recepient of Jesus death, rather than a planned resoltion to the God/Human divide.
I’ll play closer attention to the thread from here on out, as time allows.
Terry
"As a disclaimer to everything I've ever said or everything I ever will say, when it's all said and done we'll only have two things left to say: One is `Forgive me' and the other is `Thank you."' --Rich Mullins
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/9/2003 3:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Does this mean that ethics and love are opposed? No. But there may well be times where seeking first the Kingdom of God or serving God as your one master will require behavior that others may deem unethical. For instance, all the apostles were required to abandon their families and follow Christ. This is clearly unethical behaviour that violates the good of the whole as understood in the world. But it is still obedience to God, so the lower criterion is passed by in order to serve one master, that is Christ. This is one clear example of what "seeking first the Kingdom of God" looks like.
I have been following the thread and there are some things that I hope to put down soon enough. For now, I want to ask you about this Modes. What are you exactly say here? Especially the highlighted part. Are you saying that Christ is being unethical in the sense of breaking his own law? Is he being sinful? It seems to me that what you are saying is that it was what the world deems wrong, sinful and unethical that Jesus was commanding the apostles to do. I also noticed that you said:quote:
”…so the lower criterion is passed by in order to serve one master, that is Christ.
Is this not the same as grade absolutism?
See here’s my thing. In reality? There was nothing unethical about what Jesus commanded of the disiciples. Did Jesus temporalize the family by such callings? Yes. But I hardly see this as unethical. As a matter of fact, ultimately what I see happening are far reaching implications of an ethic for the family of God. First I see metamorphosis. That is, in the Old Testament the emphasis is upon, family, clan, tribe, nation. In the New, the continuity is still there but it has changed. Family solidarity ought no longer follow the Old Testament pattern of viewing the physical family as the closest human bond, but that participation in the divine family of God is to be taken with the utmost seriousness.
The implication here is that there is no “suspension of the ethical” as it were. And if that is the case, there may not even be any “graded absolutism” for that matter either.
Brandon
Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me.--Isa 49:15-16
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 6/10/2003 6:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Sorry, I have been busier than usual lately. I will be back later today to respond to Terry's kind words and request as well as Brandon's...
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 6/12/2003 6:03 PM (GMT -6) | | My apologies for the delay. Like others here, I prepared a response while in a hurry and foolishly thought I could do it quickly in the text box provided. I lost the text in a typing error somehow.
Anyway, here goes...
Terry wanted me to elaborate on this statement that I made earlier:
quote:
Rather, we must now obey God as the Absolute criterion for love. How we do this hasn't even entered the conversation, which I think is unfortunate. That is really were the difficulty lies. Not in what we are to do, but how.
SK points out very effectively that we like to deceive ourselves. We confuse what is difficult and what is easy so as to avoid complicity. For instance, rather than simply attempt to seek first the Kingdom of God, or obey one Master, we ignore these texts and move on to more obscure ones. We spend all our time wrestling with the more obscure ones and never get back around to actually obeying the ones we did understand. The thesis is that if we did try to do what we did understand, we would have enough to do to fill more than a lifetime. What this does is make the pursuit of knowledge in and of itself a purely esthetic activity. Like going to the art gallery.
The difficulty is not in understanding the meaning of these:
seek first the Kingdom
serve one master
sacrifice yourself for the neighbor
obey God
do not be angry with your neighbor
The difficulty is in the doing of them. Striving for these things takes effort, intentionality, self-sacrifice, dependence on God, etc. Thinking about them is actually fun. But suffering to accomplish them is the only way to true joy.
Why is it more difficult to do these than think about them (which is easy)? Beyond the natural fact that doing is physically more demanding than thinking, these commands above are functions of seeking first the Kingdom of God, but not in a vacuum. No, in another kingdom. That of this world. We often fail to take this language seriously enough. We say in the world but not of the world. But think about it. What does this mean? Concider a marble. Place it in an automotive engine cylinder. That is a case of true "in but not of." The marble is surely in the world but not of the world. Or for those who don't get engines, put the marble in the blender and turn it on. The marble is in the blender but not of the blender. It means we don't belong and we should expect to feel the reality of this. This is why it is a promise of the NT that Christians can expect to suffer for the sake of Christ so long as they exist in the world. It is when we do this, that is, the difficult part of the command, the actual obeying of it, that we are able to be witnesses to Christ in the world. The easy part is the understanding, if this is not the case, then the gospel is not for all people. The difficulty is in the doing, and for the very same reason.
I wrote previously: quote:
Also, Terry, I agree that love is a very dangerous thing. Electra has been arguing this quite persuasively.
Terry responded:quote:
I guess I didn’t follow the thread where that occurred, so I’m not sure the sense in which you mean love is dangerous. You mean it leads us to self-sacrificial and self-abnegating paths in life? I agree with that, but, as Paul Harvey would say, that isn’t the whole story.
We agree here as well, it seems. There is also peace and rest for the souls of those who take upon them the burden of Christ’s forgiveness. Our duty is to imitate Christ, our burden is to remember our being forgiven and all the implications therein.
I asked:quote:
What do you think, Terry? Do you and I agree as much as it seems?
Terry responded:
Honestly haven’t read this entire thread, but I’ll try to do it soon. I don’t disagree with anything you wrote in your response except for the “got God killed” part. I know it’s hyperbole, but the phrasing makes God sound like a passive recepient of Jesus death, rather than a planned resoltion to the God/Human divide.
Modes responds: Yes, hyperbole. God was anything but passive and surprised by this.
BTW: I love your signature.
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 6/12/2003 6:15 PM (GMT -6) | |
Modes said:quote:
Does this mean that ethics and love are opposed? No. But there may well be times where seeking first the Kingdom of God or serving God as your one master will require behavior that others may deem unethical. For instance, all the apostles were required to abandon their families and follow Christ. This is clearly unethical behaviour that violates the good of the whole as understood in the world. But it is still obedience to God, so the lower criterion is passed by in order to serve one master, that is Christ. This is one clear example of what "seeking first the Kingdom of God" looks like.
Brandon replied:
quote:
I have been following the thread and there are some things that I hope to put down soon enough. For now, I want to ask you about this Modes. What are you exactly say here? Especially the highlighted part. Are you saying that Christ is being unethical in the sense of breaking his own law? Is he being sinful? It seems to me that what you are saying is that it was what the world deems wrong, sinful and unethical that Jesus was commanding the apostles to do. I also noticed that you said:quote:
”…so the lower criterion is passed by in order to serve one master, that is Christ.
Is this not the same as grade absolutism?
I am not familiar with the term “grade absolutism” so I can’t really comment on that. WhatI am saying is that there is only one Absolute and God is that Absolute. We can serve only on master, and that is God. This means that all otherthings, regardless of how relatively important theyare, are still only that. Relative. I will clarify further if you give me an idea of what “grade absolutism” is. I could then distinguish what I am saying from it, if indeed there is a difference. By the way, sin pertains to an individual’s relation to God, so if God tells you to do something, it is not sin. And yes, God is free to surprise you in the request.
Brandon continued:
quote:
See here’s my thing. In reality? There was nothing unethical about what Jesus commanded of the disiciples. Did Jesus temporalize the family by such callings? Yes. But I hardly see this as unethical. As a matter of fact, ultimately what I see happening are far reaching implications of an ethic for the family of God. First I see metamorphosis. That is, in the Old Testament the emphasis is upon, family, clan, tribe, nation. In the New, the continuity is still there but it has changed. Family solidarity ought no longer follow the Old Testament pattern of viewing the physical family as the closest human bond, but that participation in the divine family of God is to be taken with the utmost seriousness.
The implication here is that there is no “suspension of the ethical” as it were. And if that is the case, there may not even be any “graded absolutism” for that matter either.
I think that this is a huge stretch. Recall:
Let the dead bury their own dead (spoken to a son regarding his father)
Who is my mother and brothers? (Jesus to his mother and brothers)
I have not come to bring peace but a sword…to separate father from son, mother from daughter, etc….
Leave your family behind and follow me…
These clearly go against the very strong language about covenant faithfulness to one’s family and respect of ones parents. I really don’t think many people would be interested in seeing family redefined along these lines….
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/13/2003 5:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes,
REALLY good stuff.
First, I think it is really interesting that it is Jesus commandment to love one's enemy which most of all sets his ethic of love apart from other "love ethics" of antiquity. As a matter of fact, this is thoroughly theological. God loves his enemies and it is this that sets the basis in which we are to love them as well.
I think that it is significant that the Gospels present Jesus as one who "commands" (something you and I discussed a bit while I was there) love and not one who "inspires" it. That is to say that the command to love does not involve simple sentimental affection.
Anyhoo, you wanted an example of "graded absolutism." I'm sure you are more than aware of it.
Graded absolutism is the theory that says when two or more absolute ethical norms come into unavoidable conflict, the right and nonculpable action is to follow the higher norm. For example, a norm would be to say that it is ALWAYS wrong to lie. Another norm would be to show mercy. Now the question is, what happens when these two norms come into conflict? Which one do you follow? Most people would say that mercy is higher (CRITERION) than telling the truth. In a more concrete example, Corrie ten Boom lied to the Nazis to save the Jews. That is to say, that she violated a NORM (she lied) in order that some Jews might live.
Now you may get some non-conflicting absolutists (which is what I was slightly proposing when I said that Jesus really didn't do anything unethical) who will say that in reality there is no conflict. They might even say that though there was a misrepresentation of the truth of the matter (read, disobeying a norm), it was still "good" and "right" in doing so. Therefore, there is no REAL conflict. It is almost as if lying is not REALLY lying. If I lie about my age to get into a bar? THAT is lying. If I lie to save anothers life? That is commendable, right and good.
Now, getting back to what you say:quote:
This is clearly unethical behaviour that violates the good of the whole as understood in the world.
What I was contending, is that there REALLY WAS NO "UNETHICAL" behavior on the part of Jesus in calling others to leave their families. You call this "passing by the lower criterion" (leaving ones family for the sake of the Gospel) RELATIVE. I call it "temporalize." If we use the word "relative" we tend to place some ethical "good" or "bad" on to it, when in fact there really was nothing "unethical" about it. What was really done, was a change of definition of the family. See what I'm saying?
In the end I don't see that this is that huge of a stretch (on the basis of which I'm arguing, which is basically deontological ethics) as you say, especially in light of other portions of scripture which recommend that "children obey their parents" (which can be poised against the backdrop of neighbourly love).
Lastly, I want to say that I'm part way through a writing a major speil on this discussion. Ultimately, I am leaning toward the "There is no Christian ethic" position of which Iconoclast states. I hope that I can clarify my thinking on this. I'm really coming to forsake the "universal principles" position (though they are still important for ethical reflection) towards, an ethic of love in a concrete situation position. Though I don't think this has to entail forsaking some positions formerly held, i.e. homosexuality.
Brandon
Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me.--Isa 49:15-16
Edited by - BBBCanada on 06/13/2003 10:44:37 AM | | Back to Top | | |
| 67 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:12 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|