Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

67 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 6/1/2003 7:42 PM (GMT -6)

It is often asserted in this forum that "there is no Christian ethic," (a la Bonhoeffer) and that Christian love and ethics are somehow not compatible. (At least this is how the argument appears to me).

My question is, "Do we really want a LOVELESS ethic?"

It seems to me that as a Christian all our ethics should flow from a heart/spirit/attitude/ultimate intention of love. For the Christian, can something be truly ethical (righteous) and NOT loving? If so, HOW? Honest and sincere questions.

"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 06/02/2003 02:05:38 AM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 6/1/2003 7:46 PM (GMT -6)

(From one of my posts in the "Right and Wrong Apart From God" thread) :

As I understand the biblical concept, God's moral attributes (holiness, righteousness, justice, compassion, etc.) are all modifications of love. That is, they all flow from His heart of love. If one does not love, one is not really righteous, holy, just, or compassionate, at all. The modifications of love are the fruit of the Spirit; that is, they flow from the Holy Spirit in one's life, and include all the moral attributes that God calls us to.

One who does not possess this agapao love may in fact have emotional responses which may seem loving, righteous, holy, and even compassionate, but unless these things come from a pure, loving heart, they are "filthy rags," and "dead men's bones in a whitewashed tomb."

As in:

Matt 12:33 ¶ "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit.
34 "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.
35 "The good man brings out of {his} good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of {his} evil treasure what is evil.
36 "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.
37 "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." (NASB)

"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 06/02/2003 12:47:31 AM

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 6/2/2003 5:34 AM (GMT -6)

I am glad to see this question emerge with focus. Thanks John.

My understanding currently is that ethics and love are distinct by criteria. The criterion for ethics is the good of the whole. The criterion for love is self-sacrifice for the sake of the neighbor. The first is required of all people by law at basic levels. Concepts like justice and peace fit with the idea of "the ethical good". Love is not interested in its own well being (in terms of this world) but recognizes that this world is opposed to the kingdom of God (where love is truly in its element). And far from being required by human law, love is required instead by God (You shall love the Lord...and your neighbor...) [see Lev. 19:18,34; Deut. 6:5,11:1; Matt. 5:43, 19:19, 22:37-39; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; Gal. 5:14; James 2:8, etc.]. It is entered into voluntarily (meaning one can disobey) but is understood to be a command of God.

With ethics, the good of the whole is inevitably mixed in with the good of "the world" which opposes the Kingdom of God. For this reason, our loyalty cannot be strictly to ethics. Rather, self-sacrificial love for the sake of the neighbor is the higher way of life. God demonstrates this in Christ as prototype. Love chooses to suffer for the sake of the gospel so that the world can see the stark contrast. Self-interestedness in the world must be contrasted with self-sacrificial love in imitation of Christ as a form of serving one master and seeking first the kingdom of God.

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.

The idea that ethics and love are coextensive is simply confused. Ethics never requires true self-sacrifice (though it may require disipline or "self-restraint", but this is different), nor does it include the idea of suffering for the sake of the Gospel. The Christian understanding of love does include these things. If we are not talking about the biblical/Christian concept of love, then we can say much more about possible parallels with ethics, but we will have diluted our ideal of Christ as our prototype. This is surely something to be avoided.

"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 06/02/2003 1:10:13 PM

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 6/2/2003 9:00 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

But if a person is a Christian, would not their ethics be centered towards Christ and not the world?

Yes, and then I think that we would speak of love here, not simply ethics.

quote:

I would disagree that ethics never involve self sacrifice because ethics are simply the standards by which a person lives their life and their ethics could indeed be self sacrificing.
Finally, I would say that the criterion for love also involves the good of the whole, because the love and sacrifing for a person's enemy must be weighed in tandom with those God has given to love us.

When I say "self-sacrifice" I have in mind the Christian understanding of dying to oneself for the sake of Christ. This is not required by ethics. Rather, one might accept responsibility and thereby suffer consquences for something, but I am saying that there is a specific sort of Christian suffering that stands as witness to the truth of the gospel.

I may be misunderstanding you. Will you offer an example of what you have in mind? That way I can describe how I am using the categories with your concrete example.

Thanks,
Modes

"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

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 6/2/2003 12:14 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

I am curious: how can love not be concerned with its own well being when Jesus commands us to love our neighbor as ourself?

The self that has died or the one that has heaven as its reference point? It makes a difference I think. If we love our neighbor as ourselves and the "self" we have in mind here is the old self, we will encourage some good, but worldly things for our neighbors. I do this all the time, hoping that a friend of mine gets time to golf, when perhaps I should hope that he gets time to pray....

If the self we love our neighbor as is our new self, then we now have our highest hope in their coming to love God more. To love another human being is to help that person love God more.

I am still curious about your thoughts on the example I ask for above...

"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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 6/2/2003 1:27 PM (GMT -6)

John Earp

My question is, "Do we really want a LOVELESS ethic?"

Iconoclast

Of course not. And since all ethics are LOVELESS we don't really want ethics at all. We don't want justice; we want mercy.

And as Christians we no longer live under the law (ethics) we live under grace (love). What a deal!

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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 6/2/2003 2:43 PM (GMT -6)

John Earp

It seems to me that as a Christian all our ethics should flow from a heart/spirit/attitude/ultimate intention of love. For the Christian, can something be truly ethical (righteous) and NOT loving?

Iconoclast

I would like to suggest that IF our behavior truly flowed from a heart/spirit/attitude/ultimate intention of love then it would NOT always be "ethical". I define "ethical" as "according to the law" and "according to principles of fairness and justice".

The law said that an adulteress must be stoned. If a woman is caught in adultery but then NOT stoned isn't that unethical according to the law? Isn't that playing favorites or something since other people caught in adultery ARE stoned. So isn't that unfair and unjust according to the ethical standard of the law? Shouldn't ALL people be the same before the law? Isn't this what "ethics" demands?

The Pharisees constantly set Jesus up to fail an "ethical" test so that they could condemn him. When the Pharisees brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus they were testing Him to see if He would do what the law required which was to stone her. Jesus refused to condemn the woman. This is what love does differently than what "ethics" does.

Perhaps the problem here is just semantics. John, you use the phrase, "truly ethical (righteous)". Do you mean, "the truly loving thing to do?" Would you agree that love sometimes does NOT do what is strictly ethical but seeks to do what is best for the other person even at a cost to oneself?

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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 6/2/2003 3:17 PM (GMT -6)

John Earp

As I understand the biblical concept, God's moral attributes (holiness, righteousness, justice, compassion, etc.) are all modifications of love. That is, they all flow from His heart of love. If one does not love, one is not really righteous, holy, just, or compassionate, at all.

Iconoclast

I totally agree with this statement John.

Let’s look at the implication of this related to God’s justice. God’s justice comes from His love. It is a modification or an aspect of His love. It is not an independent quantity based on some objective legal standard or moral law. This is quite different from our notion of justice:

Justice from www.dictionary.com:

The quality of being just; fairness.
The principle of moral rightness; equity.
Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
The administration and procedure of law.

This is why the parable of the vineyard owner who paid the folks who worked for 1 hour a denarius and who paid the folks who worked all day the exact same wage was so radical. This is patently unfair and therefore unjust according to any objective legal standard - it is even against the law in the US to do this. It is only “fair” and “just” IF the one deciding to do this has given the folks EVERYTHING else they have and so gets the “right” to choose to give more to one than another. Which just means that this “one” gets to define what “justice” is in his system. But then this only shows that there is NO objective legal standard for what “just” or “fair” means. And this is exactly what we have already seen when we say that God’s justice is an aspect or a modification of His love.

This shows that God will not judge according to some objective ethical standard that we all have access to. It shows that God will let “horrible sinners” who repent at the last moment into heaven just the same as those who worked extremely hard all of their lives to do the right thing. Why? Because God's justice is an aspect or a modification of His love.

Thus “Christian ethics” is really not about “ethics” at all. It is about a new kind of relationship between God and other people that is not based on ethical or juridical concepts at all but based only on love for one another - which means to seek the benefit of the other at a cost to oneself.

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 06/02/2003 8:21:26 PM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 6/2/2003 4:16 PM (GMT -6)

From www.dictionary.com:

Ethics: A set of principles of right conduct.

Love is not a set of principles. A set of principles is dead. Love is a living thing. God's will is not a set of principles. God's will is His living will. Jesus always sought NOT to abide by a set of principles of right conduct but to DO God's will. God's will is that we love one another just as He has loved us. It is a living thing and it brings us to Life.

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 06/02/2003 9:19:08 PM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 6/2/2003 8:14 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

John Earp

My question is, "Do we really want a LOVELESS ethic?"

Iconoclast

Of course not. And since all ethics are LOVELESS we don't really want ethics at all. We don't want justice; we want mercy.

And as Christians we no longer live under the law (ethics) we live under grace (love). What a deal!

Hi Ike,

Can a thought, word, or deed truly be righteous and not be loving? I do not see how it can. "He that loveth not knoweth not God..."

"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

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 6/2/2003 8:23 PM (GMT -6)

Ike

The law said that an adulteress must be stoned. If a woman is caught in adultery but then NOT stoned isn't that unethical according to the law? Isn't that playing favorites or something since other people caught in adultery ARE stoned. So isn't that unfair and unjust according to the ethical standard of the law? Shouldn't ALL people be the same before the law? Isn't this what "ethics" demands?

John:

Actually, the Mosaic Law even made provision for mercy. And the example of the woman caught in the act has some clearly unethical aspects involved on the part of the accusers. Such as, where as the male adulterer? Also, Jesus says to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more." He obviously did not condone what she had done any more than he condoned what her accusers were trying to do.

Ike:

The Pharisees constantly set Jesus up to fail an "ethical" test so that they could condemn him. When the Pharisees brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus they were testing Him to see if He would do what the law required which was to stone her. Jesus refused to condemn the woman. This is what love does differently than what "ethics" does.

John

As we have seen already, the Pharisees categorically were NOT ethical. Jesus makes it clear that their motives were impure, and thus were their deeds.

Ike

Perhaps the problem here is just semantics. John, you use the phrase, "truly ethical (righteous)". Do you mean, "the truly loving thing to do?"

John

Yes. I thought I had made that clear. My sincere apologies for apparently not communicating well.

Ike

Would you agree that love sometimes does NOT do what is strictly ethical but seeks to do what is best for the other person even at a cost to oneself?

John

I would say that what is not the highest good for God and the universe of moral creatures can never be truly loving, right, or ethical. This definition of course requires us to take more than a surface approach to morality, and to completely depend on the Spirit and the Word (message of the Bible) to testify to our hearts as to what is "the highest good" actually is.

"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 06/03/2003 01:42:06 AM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 6/2/2003 8:41 PM (GMT -6)

Icon

This is why the parable of the vineyard owner who paid the folks who worked for 1 hour a denarius and who paid the folks who worked all day the exact same wage was so radical. This is patently unfair and therefore unjust according to any objective legal standard - it is even against the law in the US to do this.

John

Well, then I guess Jesus did not tell the truth in the parable, then now did he? He said, "Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agreewith me for a penny?" and "Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

(In other words, Jesus apparently disagrees with your interpretation of this parable).

Icon

This shows that God will not judge according to some objective ethical standard that we all have access to.

John

This is patently false. Romans 1, 2, & 3 clearly show that all will be judged according to the degree of moral law they are aware of.

Icon

It shows that God will let “horrible sinners” who repent at the last moment into heaven just the same as those who worked extremely hard all of their lives to do the right thing. Why? Because God's justice is an aspect or a modification of His love.

John

I of course agree with the possibility of a "thief on the cross" kind of last-moment conversion. However, it seems to me that God's acceptance of repentant sinners is based upon the work of Christ on the cross. "...That he might be just, and the justifier of him that has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26), and "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. So I must disagree with your contention that now justice has somehow been totally removed. The thief on the cross or last-moment repenter is saved on the same basis as anyone--repentance and faith in the blood of Jesus. Had the thief on the cross more years to live than he did, he would have had to continue as a true disciple of Christ to reach the goal. In other words, he believed and obeyed to the extent possible given his situation.

If I end up in hell, it will only be what I truly have earned--the wages of sin.

If I end up in heaven, it will only be because of God's gracious mercy towards me in Christ.

As Christ's death has provided a way for God to be both just (ethically righteous) and the justifier of those who have faith in Jesus (mercifully disposed towards mankind), it does not seem necessary to me that we think of justice as done away with with regard to how people are ultimately judged. The multitudinous NT passages which speak of the Final Judgement, in which all will be judged according to their works, do not persuade me to think of God's judgment as utterly removed from the world.

Acts 17:30 While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

How does the above fit into your view of God's justice?

"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 06/03/2003 01:57:10 AM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 6/2/2003 8:57 PM (GMT -6)

Another sincere question:

"Do we really want an unethical love?"

"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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 6/3/2003 2:29 PM (GMT -6)

John Earp

"Do we really want an unethical love?"

Iconoclast

Sure. I want to be loved by someone who is totally free to give me mercy and all other good gifts. I don't want to be loved by someone who is FOR some set of principles of right conduct more than they are FOR me.

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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 6/3/2003 2:39 PM (GMT -6)

honorman

So you don't want justice for the abused wife, or the starving child, or the rape victim, or the abused child?

Iconoclast

Well sure, I would like justice for them. But that is mostly because I want to feel like this world is a somewhat safe place.

What do you think is actually best for them? Vengeance or mercy? Putting the perp in jail or showering them with loving concern and help as they work through their traumatic loss?

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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 6/3/2003 3:02 PM (GMT -6)

John Earp

It seems to me that as a Christian all our ethics should flow from a heart/spirit/attitude/ultimate intention of love. For the Christian, can something be truly ethical (righteous) and NOT loving?

Ike:
Perhaps the problem here is just semantics. John, you use the phrase, "truly ethical (righteous)". Do you mean, "the truly loving thing to do?"

John:
Yes. I thought I had made that clear.

Iconoclast

I totally agree then.

Now, since “truly ethical (righteous)” = “the truly loving thing to do”, then

“For the Christian, can something be the truly loving thing to do and NOT loving.”

We agree that the answer to this is no.

Sounds to me like when you say “ethics” you mean “the loving thing to do”. So being “righteous” is doing the truly loving thing to do for another person. Being “just” is doing the truly loving thing to do for another person.

Would you agree that doing “the truly loving thing to do” for another person is the same as being FOR the other person? That whenever we are FOR someone we, to the best of our ability and at a cost to ourself, seek to do the truly loving thing for them?

I am thinking of Jesus saying that whoever is not FOR me is against me and whoever is not against me is FOR me. In other words can we boil down this “ethic” of love to be as simple as we are either FOR our neighbor or are we are against our neighbor? We are either FOR God or we are against God?

This could help explain why when Abraham believed God, God counted it as righteousness. It was essentially a decision by Abraham to truly believe that God was FOR him and thus also a decision by Abraham to be FOR God. To love God is to believe that God is FOR us and thus to be FOR Him. This is also called “righteousness”.

Thus, love is not a feeling. Love is a decision to be FOR others at a cost to oneself. Although to say “at a cost to oneself” is really redundant. To be FOR another entails “at a cost to oneself” else you are not really FOR the other you are really only FOR yourself.

What do you think?

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 06/03/2003 8:07:25 PM

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 6/3/2003 3:49 PM (GMT -6)

Sorry for the interruption. Iconoclast, check out my Important Announcement on the "Board Related Issues"

Holla back,

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 6/3/2003 6:15 PM (GMT -6)

John

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.

Edited by - John Earp on 06/04/2003 12:31:04 AM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 6/3/2003 6:19 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

John Earp

It seems to me that as a Christian all our ethics should flow from a heart/spirit/attitude/ultimate intention of love. For the Christian, can something be truly ethical (righteous) and NOT loving?

Ike:
Perhaps the problem here is just semantics. John, you use the phrase, "truly ethical (righteous)". Do you mean, "the truly loving thing to do?"

John:
Yes. I thought I had made that clear.

Iconoclast

I totally agree then.

Now, since “truly ethical (righteous)” = “the truly loving thing to do”, then

“For the Christian, can something be the truly loving thing to do and NOT loving.”

We agree that the answer to this is no.

Sounds to me like when you say “ethics” you mean “the loving thing to do”. So being “righteous” is doing the truly loving thing to do for another person. Being “just” is doing the truly loving thing to do for another person.

Would you agree that doing “the truly loving thing to do” for another person is the same as being FOR the other person? That whenever we are FOR someone we, to the best of our ability and at a cost to ourself, seek to do the truly loving thing for them?

I am thinking of Jesus saying that whoever is not FOR me is against me and whoever is not against me is FOR me. In other words can we boil down this “ethic” of love to be as simple as we are either FOR our neighbor or are we are against our neighbor? We are either FOR God or we are against God?

This could help explain why when Abraham believed God, God counted it as righteousness. It was essentially a decision by Abraham to truly believe that God was FOR him and thus also a decision by Abraham to be FOR God. To love God is to believe that God is FOR us and thus to be FOR Him. This is also called “righteousness”.

Thus, love is not a feeling. Love is a decision to be FOR others at a cost to oneself. Although to say “at a cost to oneself” is really redundant. To be FOR another entails “at a cost to oneself” else you are not really FOR the other you are really only FOR yourself.

What do you think?

thanks,
Iconoclast

Ike,

Be sure you are sitting down when you read this. (Of course you will probably be sitting down--how silly of me!)

I violently AGREE with everything you said in the above. I never thought I'd ever say that.

"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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 6/3/2003 7:03 PM (GMT -6)

John Earp

Ike,

Be sure you are sitting down when you read this. (Of course you will probably be sitting down--how silly of me!)

I violently AGREE with everything you said in the above. I never thought I'd ever say that.

Iconoclast

I was sitting down but I still fell over.

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).

Iconoclast

And I violently agree with this. I especially like, "His actions and intentions are the very definition of ethics." Semantically then I understand you to define "Christian ethics" as "God's actions and intentions" which is what I call (or rather Bonhoeffer called) "God's living will."

So, back to the beginning; Bonhoeffer said that the aim of "Christian ethics" was to first invalidate our very notion of "ethics". Why? Because the world defines "ethics" as "A set of principles of right conduct." But the aim of the Christian (the follower of Christ) is to do what Jesus did which was to only and always do God's will. Thus a true "Christian ethic" is not an "ethic" in the sense that the world understands it but is rather defined by what God's will is for us. And His will is His living will. It is not distant and abstract. It is accessible to us right here and right now as we are led by the Spirit dwelling within us.

Sorry to get all crossed up with you to begin with.

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

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 6/3/2003 7:14 PM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast

So, back to the beginning; Bonhoeffer said that the aim of "Christian ethics" was to first invalidate our very notion of "ethics". Why? Because the world defines "ethics" as "A set of principles of right conduct."

John

Of course I never meant that as a Christian one's ethics ought to be like the world's.

"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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 6/3/2003 7:21 PM (GMT -6)

honorman

Icon: do you honestly expect me to believe that you don't believe child abusers SHOULD be punished?

Iconoclast

Did I say that? I thought I was answering the question about whether I or anyone else would want mercy more or justice more for ourselves. Now, if you want to talk about how we should organize ourselves as a society to best prevent criminal behavior then that is a different issue. We absolutely need standards of conduct and consequences for violating those standards.

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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 6/3/2003 7:24 PM (GMT -6)

Okay, instead of:

quote:

Well sure, I would like justice for them. But that is mostly because I want to feel like this world is a somewhat safe place.

Maybe I should have said something like:

Well sure, we would like justice for them. But that is because we (and they) would like to live in an orderly society where criminal behavior is minimized.

Is that better?

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

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 6/4/2003 7:53 AM (GMT -6)

Since it seems no one is going to respond to my initial statement on its own terms I will try restating it:

Love and ethics are both criteria. They operate in different spheres. This is not really that hard to understand. I hope someone engages with this proposal this time.

In the sphere where human beings have to deal with each other en mass and govern one another, the very best we can hope for is justice and peace. We are not truly capable of "corporate love" while in this world that is at war with God. There is always dramatic corporate self-interestedness to deal with. Our very alliances (preference rather than unconditional affirmation of the infinite worth of the neighbor, regardless of who that is) with one another to the exclusion of others guarantees that true love cannot emerge. However, personal acts of loving self-sacrifice may be possible.

Politically and ethically, we should consider justice, peace, etc. as the highest good. We should be willing to work toward that and fight for that. To the degree we are willing to sacrifice for that, we can become ethical heroes, even martyrs of sorts. The point here would be to uphold the law and do so uncompromisingly. That is ethical behaviour. A king who is willing to sentence his own son to death for a crime the son commits (that warrants death according to the law of the land) will be applauded as a good and just king. Though there will also be profound sympathy for his personal loss. If this same king shows "mercy" he reveals that he is preferential and that justice does not exist in this land with regard to those the king prefers.

Love (I speak here specifically of Christian love, if you don't keep this in mind, then everything becomes confused) operates differently. Love always involves three. You, God, and the neighbor. You cannot love God and neglect the neighbor. That just demonstrates that you do not, in fact, love God. True love requires that you love yourself the way God intends you to, that you love God and serve God as your one master, and that you love your neighbor in the same way that you love your self. that is, you demonstrate imparial love toward your neighbor. "Works of Love" lays this out very clearly. This love is in no way opposed to ethics. But it does not stop with ethics. Rather than (merely!!) require justice (but certainly no less than this, because love is the higher way...not simply another way) on the part of another, the one who loves may choose to lay down her own life in that person's place. True love cannot be required of another person other than your self, rather true love willingly sacrifices itself for the sake of the other.

I John 3:16:
We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us--and we ought to lay down our lives for one another.

This self-sacrificial love is not commensurate with ethical mandates precisely because it must be SELF-sacrificial. One human being cannot ethically require another human being to sacrifice themselves. However, God can require a human being to do this. (On of the perks of being God, I guess.) Now, as Christians we have invited One into our lives through baptism that makes this command. Our lives are a process of working out this faith in fear and trembling as God continually transforms us through the new law of love that governs from within. It is easy to avoid self-sacrifice, just stay away from Christ and Christianity.

Phil. 2:12-13:
Therefore, my beloved, just as you ahve always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Whether the authority comes from the "good of the whole" or from God as absolute determines whether one is dealing with an ethical or a religious delimma. One is rooted in the finite, the other in the infinite. One is relating absolutely to a relative good (justice and peace are always only to a certain degree) and the other is to an Absolute good (God is always a matter of perfection and holiness, the absolute standard, not merely to a certain degree).

For these reasons, the idea that the US is doing a "loving" thing when it declares war on Iraq is simply a confused statement that misuderstands both love and ethics. What is necessary for justice and peace is that government/authority operates within its legitimate authority and it lacks preference so that true justice can prevail. Only this will acheive whatever relative peace is possible on earth.

"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 06/04/2003 1:09:31 PM

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 6/4/2003 9:59 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Since ethics are simply a standard of living by which a person lives their life then I would disagree Modes. I do not believe they exist in different spheres. And I would add, Modes, that from reading your words that you have shown what I have said. That ethics and love can exist in the same sphere. BTW, you are, of course, very wrong about Iraq (who knows why you felt you had to throw THAT in...another subject altogether), but that is another issue that has been dealt with and (your view) refuted in another post.

Let's be clear, I am not suggesting different worlds when I describe different spheres. I am only pointing out differing criteria by which we decide upon a course of action. What do you mean by "spheres"?

Sorry if the Iraq comment was too distracting to be useful in my explanation. The point was that we should not expect a government, which has responsibility for justice, to be self-sacrificial in the Christian loving sense. The exception to this would be Christicracy, which does not exist.

"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

67 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:45 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual