quote:

---

“though it is basically centered on the theme of ethics as formation of Christ in us.”

“This person is "not fettered by principles, but bound by love for God."

“The wise person, fixed on God, "is aware of the limited receptiveness of reality for principles; for he knows that reality is not built upon principles but that it rests upon the living and creating God."

“Principles are only tools in God’s hand, soon to be thrown away as unserviceable."

“Hence, ethics is not an abstract set of principles that can be universally applied at all times in all places.”

“Christ teaches no abstract ethics such as must at all costs be put into practice. Christ was not essentially a teacher and legislator, but a man, a real man, like ourselves.”

“He was not, like a philosopher, interested in the "universally valid," but rather in that which is of help to the real and concrete human being."

“What can and must be said is not what is good once and for all, but the way in which Christ takes form among us here and now."

“Hence, to speak of Christ’s formation in the world today is to speak "in a manner which is neither abstract nor casuistic, neither programmatic nor purely speculative. Concrete judgment and decisions will have to be ventured here.”

“Far from seeing itself as the beacon of righteousness to an unrighteous world – the place where people can learn how to better avoid the "occasional lapses of error" and not "transgress…abstract law" --…”

Questions

“Do you agree with him that each of these approaches – and any approach that operates out of "the purity of abstract principles" will fail to grasp reality and will fail to be effective in confronting it?”

“4) B. denies that Christian ethics operates out of "universally valid" abstract ethical rules. Ethical principles are tools, but are not absolute. We rather should operate in simplicity and wisdom, with our eyes always fixed on God. Consequently, B. has sometimes been accused of being a precursor to "Situation Ethics." This ethical school argues that in any given situation, one can only ask "What is the loving thing to do." Do you think this criticism is justified? If not, how might B. avoid it?”

“B. argues that as we attend to the concreteness of our situation, "Decision and action can here no longer be delegated to the personal conscience of the individual. Here there are concrete commands and instructions for which obedience is demanded" (89). Where do these "concrete commands" and "instructions for which obedience is demanded" come from? They obviously aren’t "universally valid ethical principles." So, is he talking about "walking in the Spirit"? Is it God who communicates these commands to us? If so, if we disagreed about what God was commanding, would there be anyway to work toward agreement? Could this not be accused of being subjective, as well as situationally relative?”

“6) Consider the areas B. believes the Church has failed the world. Some of these clearly presuppose that the Church should "take a stand" on various issues – e.g. the erosion of sexual morality in the culture. How does this square with his contention that the Christian should not operate out of a set of "abstract laws" that are deemed to be universally valid?”

---

Greg, snookems, honey pie, dear, (that was for you Semeia). I knew it. There I go again, not being clear enough. Actually, I thought I was pretty clear by posting what Longenecker had to say.

It seems to me that on the one hand Bon is denying that there are “ethical principles” or “absolutes” or “universally valid abstract ethical rules,” hence the reason for the quotes. As a matter of fact, this in fact, is what you state he is doing as you say in question 4. Yet question 4 and 5 is precisely the point that Longenecker is responding to.

In question 4 you say that Bon totally denies some form of outward external authority. So seeing as this is the case, the question (statement) is then raised,

“We rather should operate in simplicity and wisdom, with our eyes always fixed on God.”

Now what does this mean? It can’t mean “abstract principles” or some type of outward external authority. Hence you ask,

“Here there are concrete commands and instructions for which obedience is demanded" (89). Where do these "concrete commands" and "instructions for which obedience is demanded" come from? They obviously aren’t "universally valid ethical principles." So, is he talking about "walking in the Spirit"?”

Longenecker’s point is that modern theology has placed too much emphasis (making it one-sided) on the pneumatic guidance, “Walking in the Spirit”. But for Longenecker, pneumatic guidance is, “nebulous without some instruction to know the right and to actualize freedom in the particular situation.” So where do we find these “concrete commands” or "instructions for which obedience is demanded?"

These commands, as Longenecker states are found in the “New Torah.” In other words, we are not left in the dark as to there being “universally valid ethical principles” from how to know what the right thing is to do in a particular situation. By this, Longenecker (and I would definitely agree with him) doesn’t mean that we have a “detailed-code of conduct.” However, we do have enough instruction as to how we might be able to live out particular situations knowing the right thing to do. “Walking in the Spirit” Longenecker says, makes those principles applicationable, which means that that is the only way those “principles” become attainable and not remote (that is tangible) in a particular situation. If someone takes another course of action we need to remember that they are judged by the Lord and not ourselves.

Admittedly, there are some issues that are pretty straight forward and in my opinion they’re a no brainer. Other issues are far more complex and may require much more contemplation. For i.e. abortion is a no brainer. That is still in keeping with, “Thou shalt not murder,” the “law of Christ” the “moral absolute” or “principle.” There is no liberty there. It is not a matter of "operating in simplicity and wisdom, with our eyes always fixed on God." Again, one may disagree whether abortion is murder or not, based on their view of the person, but for the sake of argument, lets say it is, whether in its degreed forms, 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, etc, the point is that no matter what one may say, “the most loving thing to do” is not murder or deliberately taking an innocent life. Murder is not some culturally relative standard or norm.

Now, we need to see if, “Thou shalt not murder” applies to another set of moral questions. Take the case of infanticide. Inuit peoples use to practice infanticide where they would leave their children out in the cold to freeze to death. We would abhor such a practice today. We’d lock people up in for a long time. But there is the three fold criteria that I mentioned above. The act, the intention and the situation. We need to understand why these people did what they did. Difference in moral practice may not always be because of a difference in moral values or principles held by people. Differences in practice may be due to a difference in a group’s circumstances or conditions in life. That’s the situation. It is possible for a group to have the same moral values as we have and yet perform different actions from what we do. And that is hard for us to understand at times. For us it may sound like these Inuits do not love their children or that they have no respect for life. In other words, they seem to have a radically different set of moral values than what we have or that espoused by Christ. But in reality, though their moral practices were different, their moral values, principles or what have you were the same. Until we answer the question of why, we can’t say that their moral values were different than ours. And that is the question of intent. Upon closer examination we find no reason to believe that the Inuit did not protect their children to the extent that the conditions would permit, just like us. Again, the situation. They lived in a harsh environment. Food was in short supply. Mothers breast feed their babies up to four years, so that meant that the number of infants a family could raise was limited. In addition, Inuits were a nomadic people, unable to farm which meant that they were always on the move in search of food. Infants had to be carried and a mother could only carry one in her parka. Basically, these people lived on the margin of existence, part of the reason why we find it so hard to “put ourselves in their shoes.” Now let’s ask ourselves some questions.

What if I had more children than I could support? What if I knew one was going to die because there simply was no way to keep that child alive. What if neither I nor my society had the means to care for my children? What would we do in that situation—we who love our children so much and have a high regard for life?

Would we not seek out the most painless humane way to bring a child’s death precisely because we love our children and because we do have a high regard for life? That is what the Inuit did. Freezing to death is a relatively painless way to die. The child falls into sleep and then dies in its sleep.

Now, let me say that this “infanticide” is not the same as Herod killing children two years and younger. Totally different. It is also not the same as a young woman in our society who is pregnant and cannot imagine how she will take care of her baby so she decides to abort it or put it in a garbage bag to die after it is born. There are resources in our society that she could draw on if she chooses. But she is unwilling to do that. She is choosing to abort or kill her child after it is born when she wouldn’t actually have to. Again, the Inuit had none of this. And because of their high respect for human life they looked for the most humane painless way to bring about that which they knew was inevitable anyway.

So Greg, when you ask,

quote:

---

“How is telling a Nazi you don't have Jews hiding when in fact you DO have Jews hiding in your house NOT a lie?”

---

I see this in the same manner as that above. In the instance above you have deliberate killing of children, but not all killing of children is murder. And though these people have different practices, they are working with the same values or principles that coincide with Christian ones. When you put together the situation, the intention, and the act, one can then make the judgement of whether they were acting in a Christian fashion or in keeping with the “New Torah” or ethical principles that Christ taught or not.

Lastly, when Longenecker speaks about how one can act differently in a situation from how their brother or sister might act in the same situation, and he says, that God will judge them, again, this does not entail some sort of nebulous free for all where a person can do whatever they want. They have to act within the parameters of the “law of Christ” the “new Torah.”

For i.e. when Paul tells us to “bear one another’s burdens” in Galatians, this does not mean that providing abortions for needy women. For this clearly goes against the injunction of Christ’s ethical absolute, “Thou shalt not murder.” In a case like this, it is really worldliness or secularism that is the impetus for such “bearing one another’s burdens.” It looks Christian, but it isn’t. In such a situation, neither the “law of Christ” nor the “mind of Christ” is operative.

I think what Longenecker has in view here for i.e. is my stand against abortion may take different measures than my brothers or sister’s. My brother or sister may believe it is ok to put up pictures of mangle babies for shock to convince people of the wrongness of abortion. I may take a different route and write letters to the editor or less shocking ways. Another i.e could be attempts to bring systemic freedom to economically oppressed people in other countries. Some brothers or sisters may protest governments by sanctions or persuading other countries to do the same measures. In fact, politically speaking, some countries don’t want to give China most favored nation status (MFS). Others economists feel that we should give them MFS and bring in western companies so that people can work within a capitalist system where they can work, buy and sell goods which is a means of freedom. Once this happens people (governments and people) will pick up the winds of freedom and the same change can occur using differing measures than sanctions. Anyways, got to fly.


Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden

quote:

---

Have you ever wondered what it is about our sin that hurts God? I mean, he is the creator, the only way we could possibly hurt God is if he gave us the power to hurt him. The only people we give the power to hurt us are the ones we truly care about. I think there are two kinds of hurt we can have. The kind where another’s approval fills a need in us and the kind where we hurt because they hurt. I don’t think God has a need for our approval. Therefore our sin must hurt him because it hurts us. Or, in other words, God doesn’t really care about our sin he only really cares about us. The sin he cares about is that sin which is hurting us. Which is, I think, simply to say that he really loves us.

So…if an atheist ‘repents of their sin’ this must mean that they have found a way to overcome something that was hurting them. They have less hurt. They have more joy. God has less hurt. God has more joy.

It seems to me that ‘to have less hurt’ can only mean that one is closer to their origin. Closer to their center. Closer to their true Being and therefore closer to God.

Since God is the “ground of all being” isn’t this by definition then reducing the “strain” (the pulling apart) of our relationship with God?

If an atheist continues to detect and correct the ‘sin’ in their life (that which hurts them – as measured by it hurting God) don’t they by definition draw closer to God? And isn’t that what God wants?

---

The goal of the Church “taking a stand” then is to help even the atheist detect and correct the ‘sin’ in their life so that they hurt less – that is what love does and it is what the Church ought to be known for.

In doing this, if the Church operates strictly out of a set of “abstract laws” that the Church thinks is universally valid then it will fail in its mission to be helpful. Why? Because a set of “abstract laws” must take as it referent NOT the person in front of us needing to be helped but rather some other source. It does not ask, “am I fulfilling my mission because I see that I am being helpful?” Rather, it only asks, “am I true to the standard that I am based upon?” But this begs the question, What standard, what referent, is an abstract set of laws based upon? Ultimately, the answer must be either God or myself. If it is myself the failure to be helpful is obvious. If it is based on God then it must be based on the living God which means it can then no longer be a set of “abstract laws” but must indeed become the living word of God. And what is that word? It is Jesus Christ. And what is his command? It is that we must love one another. Which means that we now take as our referent for whether we are fulfilling that command, not ourselves, not some set of abstract laws but rather, the actual concrete person in front of us. Are we being helpful or not? What is the impact of our behavior? What fruit are we bearing?

More specifically, for the Church to successfully accomplish its mission to “feed my sheep” it must indeed take a stand. But it is no good simply to proclaim that “sexual immorality is a sin” – this comes across as judgement (which it is) – and even worse – it is unimplementable advice – it is altogether worthless. Rather, the Church must seek to actually be effective and measure itself on how effective it is. First, do people hear the stand we take as a loving, compassionate stand or do they only hear it as self-serving judgement? Second, are people able to grasp the facts, the data, the logic we bring to the table? Is it in their language, in their ‘model’ of the world? Can they see for themselves that “A” leads to “B” which leads to “C” which hurts themselves and others? Third, are people actually able to implement the advice in their lives and does it work? IS IT HELPFUL? What fruit does it bear? Is the knowledge we bring to the table useful for taking helpful action or is it only useful for judging others? Is it knowledge for action or knowledge for judgement?

Doc:

the behavioral expectations of the New Testament (e.g. avoid fornication, gossip, slandering, stealing, adultery, homosexuality, retaliating evil with evil, etc…) ?

Iconoclast:

Ok, lets gets even more specific.

Fornication:

We all pretty much know that being a sexual predator is a big problem. It is not hard to see how it hurts both the perpetrator and the victim. Now, perhaps the Church could do some research on this one and come up with a 12 step program (like AA did for alcoholics) for sexual predators.

What about sex outside of marriage? What about living together?

Well, we would all pretty much guess that these aren’t ideal – no surprise. But what are the underlying issues? And what are the best tactics and strategies to deal with these underlying issues? What should a partner say to another partner who is terribly afraid that getting married will ruin the love that they currently share? When should a partner walk from a relationship because it is not really authentic versus sticking with it and allowing the other partner to heal from their “marriage will ruin our love” confusion? What is the data on this, what are the facts, what are people’s experiences and what are the results?

I would argue that the Church to a large extent actually has very little data on this. Why? Because the only way to get data is to actually work with these situations and people in an open, non-judgemental fashion. This is how learning is done. If you already “know” the answer you will never learn. I would argue that the Church in simply judging these things, saying they are sin, and therefore driving it underground or excommunicating these folks creates a situation where the Church is now incapable of learning what tactics and strategies are actually helpful. Why did it take AA to come up with a 12 step program for alcoholics rather than, say, the Catholic Church?

And if you hear me saying that there is never a time to “disfellowship” someone then I am saying it wrong. Shoot – AA uses this tactic – and, in fact, I would say that AA is the world’s leading expert on how to use the “disfellowship” tactic with the most loving results. Why is that?!?!

Homosexuality:

Here the Church REALLY needs to roll up its sleeves, quit judging, and do some actual homework. (side note: isn’t judging convenient? You don’t really have to do any work – and for a moment – it feels like you actually accomplish something) Nobody is confused that the ‘bath houses’ of the 70’s resulted in excruciating, horrendous pain for a lot of folks. Nobody is confused that homosexual pedophilia is a major problem – huge enormous pain for all involved. What everyone is confused about is what is the most helpful situation for someone who is born gay? Is it possible for those desires to change? What is the data? What are the facts? Is it ever helpful for a gay person to use the “go for it” strategy of marrying someone of the opposite sex hoping that that will change their desires? Does it ever work? What is the probability? What is the cost? What are the success rates of gay marriages? What are the results when gay couples raise children? Are the children more likely to be gay? Or is there no material difference in any category of health and well-being? If gay marriages end in divorce more than heterosexual marriages is that because society does not support them? If so, would changing societal norms, while improving gay divorce rates, cause more people to choose that lifestyle? Is it even possible for a heterosexual person to choose that lifestyle? Or does it have nothing to do with a choice at all? What is the data? What are the facts? What are people’s real experiences? How do we help the real people in front of us?

Gossip:

I don’t feel like thinking any more so let me just say that this is clearly evil in all of its forms and should be stamped out entirely with no quarter given. Especially all those folks who gossip about me – they are clearly the worst of the whole bunch.

When are we tearing down, when are we building up? When is it loving to “hide the multiplicity of sins” and when is it loving to engage in a “stop action”? What is the data, what are the facts?

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

quote:

---

In doing this, if the Church operates strictly out of a set of abstract laws?that the Church thinks is universally valid then it will fail in its mission to be helpful. Why? Because a set of abstract laws must take as it referent NOT the person in front of us needing to be helped but rather some other source. It does not ask, Am I fulfilling my mission because I see that I am being helpful? Rather, it only asks, Am I true to the standard that I am based upon?? But this begs the question, What standard, what referent, is an abstract set of laws based upon? Ultimately, the answer must be either God or myself. If it is myself the failure to be helpful is obvious. If it is based on God then it must be based on the living God which means it can then no longer be a set of “abstract laws” but must indeed become the living word of God. And what is that word? It is Jesus Christ. And what is his command? It is that we must love one another. Which means that we now take as our referent for whether we are fulfilling that command, not ourselves, not some set of abstract laws but rather, the actual concrete person in front of us. Are we being helpful or not? What is the impact of our behavior? What fruit are we bearing?

---

quote:

---

David Jones: Our sexuality is part of the way we are made; God made us for each other, male and female. We run up against something that is very structural in that relationship, which means that no other relation outside of the marital relation can live up to how we are designed as human beings.

---

quote:

---

Can’t you conceive of ANY circumstances where abortion may be the "loving" option? And I wonder, BBB, if you REALLY believe it is murder. Substitute unborn children for 5 year old children in the statistics on abortion: would you be doing exactly what you’re doing now to stop it? If abortion is murder, isn’t blowing up abortion clinics and assassinating abortion doctors justified? (Believe me, I am happy you and others DON’T do this. But I’m wondering if the lack of this behavior betrays the fact that those who claim abortion is murder really don’t believe this.)

---

quote:

---

You are so lenient and compassonate when dealing with Inuit infanticide, yet on abortion everything is black and white. Can’t you conceive of ANY circumstances where abortion may be the "loving" option?

---

What are you appealing to here? Fairness? Are you saying that I am wrong or evil for not being fair to the abortionist or the woman having the abortion?

Sidebar: Though remember, one can be wrong without necessarily being evil, not all wrongs are evil, i.e. 2+2=5 is wrong, but it is not evil, you can be wrong in mathematics without being evil, but you can’t be wrong in morality without being evil.

How can you say that I am being wrong or evil in this situation when you don’t even believe there is a right and wrong or good or evil? All you can say is that you don’t like it, like you don’t like spinach or lobster or what have you. It’s taste. It’s preference. All you are doing is telling me about yourself (ain’t that pride ). Your likes and dislikes. Ok, maybe you can say that I am not “doing the most loving thing.” But tell me.

Is it wrong not to do the most loving thing?

So the wrong thing or the evil thing is not doing the most loving thing. Huh. Am I missing something here? So when I am not doing the most loving thing, I am wrong. I am evil. In the memory of Chris Farley? Okeeey, dokeeey.

So all of a sudden, out of one side of a person’s mouth one can appeal to what is right or wrong, yet out of the other side of their mouth they can tell others that they cannot do such a thing. That doing such a thing is wrong . Huh??? I don’t get it. Now one can say that I am using ad hominine and they would be precisely right. This is ad hominine, because it points out the hypocrisy of the person who holds the position of contradicting themselves.

No. I don’t take it personally. But sometimes it just bugs the crap out of me when I see this kinda stuff going on. Like over on the “Tearing down the walls” thread. The thinking there is, “Look, we have Christians going around committing continual adultery by divorcing and remarrying. And these same people are saying that homosexuality is wrong. Their hypocrites (or at least they are being hypocritical, unintentionally even, like their position is hypocritical and they just don’t know it. Their wrong.”

Their wrong because they are hypocrites or they are wrong because they are not doing the most loving thing. Either way there is an appeal to something outside of oneself, some appeal to a “real wrongness” in order to make such a statement.

But if such a person doesn’t believe in absolutes one cannot say that they are wrong. That they are hypocrites. All one can say is that such people are “not being the most loving.” Yet even here they appeal to some thing as being truly wrong and that is not being the most loving! Yet they appeal to some standard of right and wrong anyway. Hey why should we call those who believe in continual adultery on the “Tearing down the walls” thread wrong for holding to such a position? We don’t believe in right and wrong remember? I’m really trying to figure out why Semeia can claim such divine status above everyone else.

Do you want to know what is wrong with the Pharisees? It is not their hypocrisy. That can be fixed. It’s that they don’t know their hypocrites. Their blind, in need of the light of the Holy Spirit to shake them to wake them as a Christian singer put it in the 80’s.


Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden



Edited by - BBBCanada on 06/26/2002 09:56:36 AM

quote:

---

What would we do if we really had a log in our eye? I think we would be entirely focused on taking it out. I have a hard time seeing how we would have much time or energy for anything else.

---